I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on 2 Samuel 23-24.

Today’s passage contains what appears to be accounts about King David which the writer wanted to include, but could not fit in anywhere else.  He lists here the Three and the Thirty, mighty warriors in David’s service.  We do not really know a lot about what it meant to be one of either of these groups.  My best guess is that the Thirty was a special forces type unit in David’s forces before he became king and perhaps after as well.  I suspect that there were legends regarding many of these men, and regarding them as a group as well.  I suspect that when this book was written, the Three and the Thirty were sort of like the Knights of the Round Table or Robin Hood’s Band.  I think the writer of this book lists them out here in order to tell people that these two groups actually existed and they were real people.

I do not really understand the point of the story about the plague which followed David’s census.  Once again, the story shows us more about the relationship between David and Joab.  Joab questions the value of taking the census, but carries it out anyway when David insists.  After the census is completed, David realizes it was a bad idea and a sin (although I am not sure what the sin was that David committed by taking the census).  Perhaps the key take away comes when David chooses to suffer his punishment at the hand of God rather than at the hand of humans.  This story also teaches us that others may suffer the consequences of our sins.  All too often we tell others to stay out of our business when they point out the wrong we are doing.  However, we are often not the only ones to suffer when we do wrong, which makes it not just our business.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on 2 Samuel 20-22.

At the end of yesterday’s passage there was an account of the argument between the men of the northern tribes and the men of Judah over the honor of escorting David back to be king.  We see here the geographic divide which was present when Joshua first led the Children of Israel into the land.  Also, during the time of the judges several men from the northern tribes tried to set themselves up as king over Israel but were unable to do so.  Even here, it is Sheba from the tribe of Benjamin who leads the revolt against King David.  King David notes that this revolt is actually a greater threat than Absalom’s was.  Sheba’s revolt is a greater threat because it divides the nation of Israel along family and tribal lines.  King David recognized that Israel would come apart and the Israelites would be overrun by other peoples if they started to identify more according to tribe than according to being Israelites.

Now we have more about the complex relationship between David and Joab.  Amasa was the commander of Absalom’s army, yet, as part of the agreement to get back the full support of the leaders of Judah, King David made him commander of his army in place of Joab.  King David orders Amasa to assemble the entire fighting force of Judah to go after Sheba and gives him a deadline of three days.  When Amasa fails to meet that deadline, King David tells Abishai, Joab’s brother, to take the troops David already had assembled and go after Sheba.  Notice that King David did not give this mission to Joab, but Abishai took him along anyway.  In fact, it appears that Joab was in command.  Then, when they meet up with Amasa finally returning Joab greets him as a family member and kills him.  We do not really know what Joab’s motivations were for killing Amasa.  Perhaps he did it to keep his position as commander of David’s army.  Or, something which occurred to me in light of David’s responses to Abishai’s repeated wish to kill Shimei (a response which was directed at both Abishai and Joab), perhaps Joab killed Amasa because he had betrayed King David by siding with Absalom. 

Today’s passage ends with te song of praise to the Lord which David sang when he was delivered from his enemies.  It is unclear if he sang this song shortly after King Saul’s death, or not until after the victory over Sheba.  Or, perhaps he composed it early on and sang it repeatedly throughout his life.  In any case, it is a song which contains powerful imagery.  David expresses how he was completely overwhelmed by the events of his life.  How things had gotten so bad that he could not go on living like that and there was nothing in his power to change them.  At that point, David cried out to the Lord for rescue.  He sings that God heard his cries and answered them.  God burst forth in a manner which made it clear that no obstacle would stand in His way and rescued David from his distress. 

I love all of the imagery, but I want to focus on what our behavior and characteristics will reveal about God.  If we are faithful, we will see God’s faithfulness.  If we act with integrity, we will witness God’s integrity.  But, if we are deceitful, we will learn that God is shrewd and that He will not be deceived.  No matter how clever you think that you are, you will not outsmart God.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on 2 Samuel 18-19.

This is probably relatively unique to me, but I always assumed that the battle between David’s and Absalom’s men took place in the vicinity of the city where David took refuge.  However, David had fled across the Jordan river and took refuge in a city east of the Jordan.  The battle, on the other hand, took place in the forests of Ephraim, which were west of the Jordan river.  We learn here what was suggested by Absalom’s rejection of Ahithophel’s advice, Absalom had a terrible understanding of strategy and tactics.  First, there was no strategic gain to be had for Absalom in fighting David’s army.  Absalom needed to kill David, his father, in order to secure the throne.  As long as David was alive Absalom’s hold on the throne was tenuous. David could always raise another army.  Second, Absalom had the larger army, so fighting in the difficult terrain of the forest favored David’s army, which was more experienced from top to bottom.

After Joab had killed Absalom Ahimaaz, the son of one of King David’s key allies, wanted to take the news to David. Joab, knowing what David had done to the men who brought him news of King Saul’s death and of Ishbosheth’s death, did not want to send him. Instead, Joab sent an Ethiopian. Joab chose a foreigner because he expected David to have the messenger who brought him word of Absalom’s death killed. Nevertheless, Ahimaaz persisted in wanting to take the nes to David, so that Joab finally let him go. Joab probably thought that the Ethiopian, having left first, would get there first. However, Ahimaaz knew the countryside better and took a less direct, but easier route and got there first. However, Ahimaaz understood that David would not take the news of Absalom’s death well, so only told David that victory had been won and feigned ignorance as to Absalom’s fate. And her is a point to be noted, David did not have the Ethiopian messenger killed because, unlike the previous bearers’ of unwelcome news, the Ethiopian did not claim responsibility for the death.

Now we come to the aftermath of the rebellion. First, we once again see the complex between King David and Joab (and his brother). David goes into mourning over the death of Absalom, depressing his followers who wanted to celebrate their victory. Joab has to confront David and warn him that he had better let his followers know that he appraciates what they have done for him. Then when King David crosses back over the Jordan he is met by Shimei, who begs forgiveness for cursing David. Joab’s brother once more wants to kill Sjimei. And once more King David forbids him from doing so. And once more, King David expresses anger at both Joab and his brother over this, even though Joab is not involved in this scene.

Related to this, Mephibosheth also met King David as he crossed the Jordan. Mephibosheth had essentially been in mourning since David fled Jerusalem, lending credence to his claim that he had tried to join David in his flight but was unable to do so because Ziba did not have someone saddle a donkey for him. Yet, despite Ziba lying to him about Mephibosheth, King David is willing to allow him to keep at least part of the property he gave him when they fled Jerusalem.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on 2 Samuel 16-17.

Also during David’s flight from Jerusalem he is met by Ziba, a servant of King Saul whom David had made manager of Mephibosheth’s estates.  Ziba brought supplies for David.  When David asks Ziba where Mephibosheth is Ziba replies that Mephibosheth thought he would gain his grandfather’s throne out of this rebellion.  This suggest ungratefulness on the part of Mephibosheth, but perhaps we should take what Ziba said with a grain of salt. 

Immediately following the scene with Ziba we have the incident where Shimei curses David as he flees.  Joab’s brother, Abishai, wanted to go and kill Shimei for doing so, but David forbade him.  In his response to Abishai, David lumped him with Joab.  So, here we get yet another view of the complex relationship between King David and Joab and discover that Joab’s brother was part of that complex relationship.  And perhaps this incident will shed a little more light on David’s conflict with Joab.  I am reaching a little bit here, but we do not have much to go on.  We learn later that Shimei is a man of some importance, such that even King Solomon, who needed to do less of a political balancing act than his father (as I will explain when we come to him), had to set a trap and wait for Shimei to fall into it before he could have him killed.  This suggests that perhaps David’s problem with Joab and his brother was that they were too direct in dealing with things, making King David’s political balancing act that much more difficult.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on 2 Samuel 14-15.

Yesterday, I commented on the role King David’s nephew Jonadab played in the events leading up to Absalom’s exile.  Today, I noticed that Joab, another one of King David’s nephews, played a significant role in Absalom’s return from exile and reconciliation with King David.  Once again we see the complex relationship between King David and Joab.  The passage tells us that Joab arranged for the woman from Tekoa to speak with King David because he knew how much David desired for Absalom to return.  Was that Joab’s real reason for this?  Or was he seeking to secure the return and rehabilitation of the person he perceived as the best candidate to be King David’s successor?  

Here Joab is presented as plotting to convince King David to do what he, David, desired to do.  The thing I am taking the most note of this year as I read these passages is the palace intrigue around King David.  Except it is not just palace intrigue.  As I read these passages, King David maintained a complex balance among the different power blocks within his kingdom.  We see that Joab made Absalom’s rebellion possible, but Joab did not support that rebellion.

Another thing struck me today.  As King David fled Jerusalem ahead of Absalom’s army, he went up the road to the Mount of Olives, the place where Jesus prayed the night before His Crucifixion.  The passage tells us that people worshiped God at the summit of the Mount of Olives.  And it was from the Mount of Olives that Jesus ascended into Heaven after His Resurrection.  While the primary reason that Jesus went to the Mount of Olives to pray the night before His Crucifixion was a matter of the geography of Jerusalem, I am also sure that the symbolism of Jesus mourning His betrayal by Judas the same place the Bible records King David mourning his betrayal is not just happenstance.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on 2 Samuel 12-13.

Today’s passage shows us how the consequences of our sins can be far reaching, even after we have confessed them and been forgiven. Generally, we look at the death of Bathsheba’s son and Absalom’s later rebellion as God’s punishment on David for his sins. However, even Amnon’s rape of Tamar was a consequence of David’s sin with Bathsheba. Or, more precisely, a consequence of King David’s attitudes about power and sexual gratification which led to his sin with Bathsheba. They may not have known that their father gave the orders which led to Uriah’s death, but David’s sons were surely aware of his affair with Bathsheba. They could do the math and would have realized that the young child for whom he grieved so deeply had to have been conceived while Uriah was alive and away at war. Amnon learned from his father’s example to take pleasure where and when he wished.

Amnon’s rape of Tamar led to Absalom’s eventual revolt against his father. Perhaps if King David had acted to hold Amnon in some way accountable for his actions things would have turned out differently. Certainly, Absalom was emboldened by the fact that all he suffered for murdering his brother Amnon was a temporary exile. However, the thing I want to focus on today is the role Jonadab, one of David’s nephews, played in this whole situation. First, Jonadab encouraged Amnon to rape Tamar. He could have encouraged Amnon to ask David to allow him to marry her, but instead he gave him advice on how Amnon could arrange to be alone with her. Then, after Absalom had killed Amnon, Jonadab was the first to bring news to King David that only Amnon had been killed. Was Jonadab merely a confidant of both brothers? Or, perhaps, he gave Amnon the advice he did in order to give Absalom an excuse to kill his brother, who stood between him and being King David’s heir? I am intrigued by the fact that David’s nephew, Jonadab was so intricately involved in court plotting. Combining this with David’s complex relationship with Joab and a few other references to King David’s family makes me think that Jesse, David’s father, was more of a mover and shaker in the tribe of Judah than we normally think of him as.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on 2 Samuel 8-11.

I never noticed before that when David brings Mephibosheth into his court, he initiates this by looking for any of Saul’s family who might still be alive. It is in response to this that Ziba, who was a servant of King Saul tells him about Mephibosheth, who is Jonathan’s son and crippled. We know from later passages that Mephibosheth was not the only remaining descendant of King Saul, but David’s search ends with him. King David gives Mephibosheth all of Saul’s personal lands and property and orders Ziba to manage it for him. We later have reason to think this may not have been the wisest decision on King David’s part.

When King David started his war with the Ammonites he sent the army out under Joab’s command and did not lead them himself. As I read this passage, the writer did not approve of King David failing to lead the army. All of what went wrong followed from this one, seemingly minor, mistake. If David had led the army himself, he would not have committed adultery with Bathsheba, and thus would not have arranged the death of her innocent husband (who we later learn had been one of David’s most loyal servants). This provides us with an example of an important life lesson: “small” sins can lead us to commit bigger ones, which can lead to even bigger ones. If you would have suggested to King David the day after he sent the army out that in a few weeks he would be ordering Joab to arrange Uriah’s death, he would have insisted that he would never do such a thing to an adversary, let alone to a man who had served him loyally for so long. Yet, King David found himself doing something which would have horrified him just a short time before.

As an aside I want to make note of the role Joab played in King David arranging the death of Uriah. This is just another element in the complicated relationship between King David and Joab. Perhaps it also played a role in King David’s difficulty with removing Joab from being the commander of the army.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on 2 Samuel 4-7.

I find it noteworthy that King David did not attempt to establish himself as king over all of Israel by military conquest.  It would have been fairly straightforward for him to do so.  Ishbosheth was not military commander and both David and Joab were excellent commanders.  In fact, even after the death of Ishbosheth David waited for the tribes to come to him asking him to be their king.  I bring this up because it puts King David’s reaction to the two brothers who killed Ishbosheth in context.  If we go back and think about what had been going on before Abner’s death it becomes clear that Ishbosheth had been resigned to turning the kingdom over to David.  Ishobosheth’s falling out with Abner was over Abner sleeping with one of King Saul’s concubines.  Abner was not angry because the accusation itself was false.  Rather, Abner got angry because the implication of Ishbosheth’s accusation was false.  Abner did not sleep with Saul’s concubine as a step towards claiming the throne.  However, since Ishbosheth thought that Abner slept with the concubine as a step towards claiming the throne, he clearly understood that returning his sister to David to be David’s wife was accepting David’s claim to the throne.  The two brothers who killed Ishbosheth further miscalculated in that David did not seek vengeance on Saul and his family.  Instead, he mourned their deaths.

Usually when I write about David moving the Ark to Jerusalem I write about what went wrong and what David did to get it right the second time.  However, today I want to focus on David’s willingness to make a fool of himself to worship the Lord.  I would say “willingness to embarrass himself”, except that he was not embarrassed.  Michal, David’s wife and one of King Saul’s daughters, was embarrassed by what David did, but David was not.  David was enthusiastic about his worship of the Lord and felt no need to maintain his dignity.  WE can take a lesson from King David’s response to his wife.  He was willing, even eager, to be even more foolish in praising and worshiping God, to the point where even he felt that he had humiliated himself.  Not only should we not be worried about what others think of us when we worship the Lord, we should be willing to humiliate ourselves in our own eyes in order to bring glory to God.   If it takes me being humiliated to bring someone to God, I want to be willing to be humiliated.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on 2 Samuel 1-3.

The account of King Saul’s death given here differs from the one given at the end of 1 Samuel which we read yesterday.  However, this account is that of the messenger who brought King Saul’s crown and armband to David.  It appears to me that the messenger expected to receive a reward from David for bringing him this news.  Instead David ordered his men to kill the messenger for killing King Saul (which the messenger claimed that he had done).  I feel bad for the messenger because he claimed that he killed King Saul at Saul’s request and because he was dying anyway.  On the other hand, if David had not killed the messenger there would have been those who believed that he had arranged for the man to kill King Saul. 

David composed a memorial song for King Saul and Jonathan.  I had always thought that David composed this song because of his deep love for his friend Jonathan and included King Saul because that was politically expedient (or maybe just because King Saul died in the same battle and was Jonathan’s father).  However, reading the passage today it struck me that David genuinely had affection for and admired King Saul.  David’s song here is just a continuation of his previous actions in refusing to kill King Saul when presented with the opportunity on two occasions.  It strikes me that David may have genuinely believed that King Saul’s animosity towards him was a result of others in King Saul’s court poisoning Saul’s mind against him.

After King Saul’s death, David has himself made king of Judah, clearly with the intention of becoming king over all of Israel.  After becoming king of Judah, David invites the men of Jabesh-Gilead to accept him as king.  Because the battle at jabesh-Gilead is what led Saul to truly become king over Israel, if the men of Jabesh-Gilead accepted David’s claim it would have made it hard for anyone to challenge him.  In the meantime, Abner, the commander of King Saul’s army, made King Saul’s son, Ishbosheth, king in Saul’s place.  Ishbosheth was still alive because he had not been with King Saul’s army, which suggests that he was not a military leader of any sort. Ishbosheth could not have claimed the throne without Abner’s support because he did not have the loyalty of a group of warriors.

All of this sets the stage for the first scene in the complex relationship between King David and the commander of his army, Joab, his nephew.  King David’s power-base was the tribe of Judah, to which he belonged and among whom he had been cultivating influence since he fled from King Saul.  Ishbosheth’s power-base was, for all intents and purposes, Abner.  Abner was King Saul’s cousin and thus of the tribe of Benjamin.  As commander of King Saul’s army Abner would have acquired some standing among the other tribes.  By bringing Abner over to his side, King David would have removed Ishbosheth’s support and extended his power-base beyond the tribe of Judah.  However, Abner had killed Joab’s brother in battle, which gave Joab an excuse to kill him.  I call it an excuse because later King David attempts to make another one of his nephews commander over his army and Joab kills that man as well.   What makes me say that the relationship between King David and Joab was complex is that, except for these two occasions and when Joab supported a different son of David to succeed David as king, every mention of Joab has him acting in David’s interests or at David’s commands.  Despite this King David twice attempted to replace him as commander of his army and expressed a deep-seated animosity towards Joab and his surviving brother.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on 1 Samuel 28-31.

The Philistines mustered their armies to attack King Saul in what appears to be greater numbers than on any previous occasion.  Or perhaps King Saul was unable to muster as large of an army as he had previously.  It seems likely that David was not the only war chief whom Saul had alienated.  In any case, the King of Gath ordered David and his men to join him as they went to war.  The King of Gath was convinced that David had alienated the Israelites to such a degree that he could never return to living among them.  However, the other Philistine kings remembered how their Hebrew auxiliaries had switched sides in their first battle with King Saul and insisted that David and his men not be part of their order of battle.  David appears to have sincerely wished to join the Philistines in battle, but he may have just been putting on appearances as he did with the stories he had told the King of Gath abut attacking Judean towns.

In any case, this worked out for the best for David and his men.  When they returned to the town out of which they were based they discovered that it had been attacked and burned to the ground.  All of their property and their wives and children had been taken by the raiders.  If they had joined the Philistines in battle, the trail would have been long cold by the time they got back.  I will also note that David’s men considered stoning him for what had happened.  This suggests that they were angry because he had left none of the men behind to protect the town (a thought to revisit in a few minutes).  However, David convinced them that they could still chase down the raiders and get their families back (or perhaps they were more concerned with their goods).  David did this by having Abiathar, the priest, use the ephod to ask God if they should chase after the raiders and if they would catch them.  One could interpret this as a cunning move on David’s part, and it was, but it was also consistent with David’s reliance on God going back to his confrontation with Goliath.  David’s appeal to God’s guidance worked with his men because he had demonstrated time and again that he had faith in God and sought God’s guidance before taking action.

Now I want to touch on the thought I said I would get back to in a few minutes.  While pursuing the raiders some of the men became too tired to continue.  Reading between the lines, we can conclude that the problem was transporting their supplies.  David left his supplies and 200 men behind so that the rest could be faster in pursuing the raiders.  After they defeated the raiders and rejoined the men left behind, those who had defeated the raiders did not want to share the plunder with the men left behind.  David pointed out that that was what got them into this problem in the first place.  All of the men had wanted to join the Philistines in battle because those who stayed behind to guard their town would not have shared in the plunder.  There is one final point I want to make.  David benefited in two ways from the Philistine kings rejecting him joining them in battle.  First, he did not have to fight against his fellow Israelites, with the bad feelings that would have generated. Second, he gained plunder from the raiders which he was able to distribute to various leaders of the tribe of Judah with whom he was friendly.  This further cemented their support for him when they learned of the death of King Saul and his sons.