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

I am not sure when relative to the other things which happened during David’s reign the things in today’s passage occurred.  It begins by recounting David’s last words.  I will state that I am unsure if we are meant to understand these to be the last words he spoke before he died, or a statement David desired to be repeated after his death about his life.  The passage goes on to recount some of the exploits of David’s mightiest warriors and then lists the name of those warriors.  Finally, the passage contains the account of David’s census and the plague which followed.  It tells us that this plague led to David building an altar where Solomon would later build the temple.  Interestingly, it contains what at first appear to be two different accounts about how the plague ended.  First, it says that as the angel delivering the plague was about to strike Jerusalem God commanded it to stop.  Second, it says that Gad told David to build an altar at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, the place where it first said the angel was when God commanded it to stop.  In the second part it tells us that God stopped the plague after David offered sacrifices there.  After giving it some thought, I think we are supposed to see these two things as being together.  David built the altar at the place he saw the angel and offered sacrifices which led God to stop it from continuing to spread the plague, and God stopped the plague at that place so that David would know where to build the altar.

I use 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.

Today’s passage contains a psalm of David which has some great imagery.  First David describes God as his rock, his fortress, and his deliverer.  He extends that description by saying that God is the one in whom he takes refuge.  The way David words this makes clear that each of these is intended to be an alternative description of the same characteristic, where each word is incomplete.  A rock is solid and impenetrable, but enemies can go around it and get at you from behind.  You can go inside a fortress, so your enemies cannot come at you from any direction, but a fortress has weak points which an enemy can exploit.  By combining the idea of rock and fortress, David communicates that God is an impenetrable fortress with no weaknesses for an enemy to exploit.  Then there is the word, deliverer.  Deliverer indicates that God comes to us when we are in danger and delivers us from our enemies, or whatever danger threatens us.  So, God is an impenetrable safe haven which will come to us and protect us from danger of any sort.  There is one final point to this word picture David draws.  He says that he takes refuge in God.  That means that he actively seeks God’s protection.  That indicates that sometimes we need to actively seek God’s protection.  While God will come to where we are in danger, we must seek his protection.  Just as we can choose to leave a physical fortress, we can choose to leave God’s protection.

I use 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.

The first thing which I thought about as I read today was where the passage tells us, after recounting Absalom’s death, that Absalom had built a monument for himself.  We are told that he built this because he thought that it would preserve his name even though he had no sons.  Yet back in chapter fourteen it says that Absalom had three sons and a daughter.  I have read several commentaries which suggest that even though Absalom’s monument was not mentioned until after his death it was probable built before the birth of his children.

After the death of Absalom the men of Israel debated whether or not they should call David back as king.  David reached out to the tribe of Judah, which called him back to be their king before the rest of Israel made up their minds what to do.  Along with the men of Judah, Shimei led the tribe of Benjamin to bring David back to be king.  The same Shimei who had cursed David as he fled from Absalom.  Ziba, who was the steward of Saul’s household and who had brought David supplies when he was fleeing Absalom, accompanied Shimei and the other men of Benjamin to greet David and escort him back to Jerusalem.  Then we learn that Mephibosheth also came to greet David at the Jordan as he returned.  What makes this interesting is that Ziba said that Mephibosheth had remained in Jerusalem as Absalom advanced because he hoped to be made king, yet here we are told that Mephibosheth had acted similar to a man in mourning since the moment David had left Jerusalem.  David who, when Ziba brought him supplies, had given Ziba all of the properties he had earlier given to Mephibosheth, with Ziba to manage them for Mephibosheth, now splits those properties between Mephibosheth and Ziba.  As best I can understand the situation when Ziba first came to David as he fled, David chose to reward Ziba for his support and punish Mephibosheth for his perceived betrayal.  Here, David retracted the punishment of Mephibosheth, but maintained the reward without acknowledging that Ziba had lied to him.

I use 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.

The first element of today’s passage is the account of Ziba, whom David had placed as manager over the property which had been Saul’s and which David had given to Mephibosheth, Jonathan’s son.  Ziba brought supplies for David and his men as they fled Jerusalem.  When David inquired after Mephibosheth, Ziba told him that Mephibosheth was staying in Jerusalem because he thought the Israelites would make him king.  From what we are told when Mephibosheth greeted David on David’s return to Jerusalem, we know that this was not true.  I am noting this in because I may go into more detail about that when we get to the passage about David’s return.  The next element is the account of Shimei cursing David as he left Jerusalem.  Joab’s brother, Abishai, requested David’s permission to kill Shimei for cursing David.  Abishai was probably, at least in part, seeking to take out his anger about being forced to flee from Absalom on Shimei.  David however told Abishai that, since his own son was seeking his life, perhaps God had told Shimei to curse him.  I have always wondered why David reacted so strongly to Abishai.  It occurred to me today that perhaps after needing to flee from his own son, and then the apparent betrayal by Mephibosheth, the son of his best friend, David felt like he deserved to be cursed.

I use 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.

Joab’s actions led to Absalom’s rebellion.  Joab thought he was acting in David’s interest when he convinced David to bring Absalom back from exile.  However, if he had not done so, Absalom would never have been able to set his rebellion in motion.  Even then, if Joab had not interceded with David to allow Absalom to come to his court, Absalom still would have been unable to gain traction for his rebellion.  So, while Joab thought he was doing what was best for David by reconciling him with Absalom, by doing so he allowed Absalom to set in motion his plot to usurp the throne.  One thing which is not clear to me is why Absalom attempted to usurp the throne.  If he had just waited for David to die, it seems likely he would have inherited the throne instead of Solomon.  Or, perhaps, he thought that David intended to choose Solomon.

In any case, Absalom’s actions in endearing himself to the people before he initiated his actual attempt to seize the throne gives us great warning against evil people who desire leadership roles.  Absalom put on a show and told people that he would have sided with them if he had the power to decide their case when they came to Jerusalem.  But, he never went to his father and offered his services to actually preside over such cases.  Rather than actually work to help people by taking on responsibilities, he told people that he would do what they wanted if he had the power.  If Absalom had asked David to give him authority to judge these cases, it seems likely that David would have done so.  This is a sign of a leader not to be trusted.  They are quick to tell everyone what is wrong with the current system, but make no effort to fix it.

I use 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.

When confronted by Nathan concerning his sin with Bathsheba and to Uriah, David immediately confessed his sin.  Unlike Saul, he made no attempt to justify his sin, rather he acknowledged his guilt and accepted God’s judgement.  On the two occasions where Samuel confronted Saul over his failure to follow God’s will, Saul made excuses.  I want to take note that we often view the sins which David committed as much more serious than what Saul did, but the Bible is quite clear that God makes no distinction between failure to obey His commands.  On behalf of God, Nathan told David that God had forgiven him, had taken away his sin.  However, Nathan also told David that he would still suffer the consequences of his sin.  The rest of today’s passage describes some of the consequences of David’s sin.  If we look at Amnon’s rape of Tamar, how different is it really from David’s relationship with Bathsheba?  Except that David married Bathsheba, while Amnon wanted nothing to do with Tamar after he forced himself upon her.  We might say that David did not force himself upon Bathsheba, but the passage suggests that Tamar was willing to go to bed with Amnon, if he married her.  And while Absalom’s motives, and methods, were different, what he did to Amnon was not very different from what David did to Uriah.

I use 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.

My first thought on reading today’s passage was, to ask why David went to war with the Moabites?  After all, he had placed his parents into the care of the king of Moab while he was on the run from King Saul.  Of course, We are not told what happened to David’s parents after he put them into the care of the king of Moab.  I came across a reference which says that there is a Jewish tradition that David’s parents were killed while they were in Moab.  If that were true it would explain David’s harsh treatment of the Moabites.  We also do not know why David went to war against Hadadezer, unless that war came after his war against he Ammonites, which is mentioned later in today’s passage.  Something I would not rule out as the writer(s) do not have the same concern with chronological order that we do today.  Which brings me to another interesting point about the accounts of David’s wars.  Nahash was the name of the king of the Ammonites whose attack on Jabesh-Gilead led to Saul establishing his kingship.  Some commentators think that Hanun, whom David went to war against, was the son of the Nahash whom Saul had warred against.  I think that this is unlikely.  I believe that the Nahash with whom David was friendly was the son or grandson of the man with whom Saul made war.

Usually I try to make a point about what the passage teaches us about how we should live our lives.  However, today I am going to write about what the passage tells us about what happened.  As I read about Mephibosheth in today’s passage I thought it supported my thoughts that David’s interaction with Abner would have peacefully brought the House of Saul under David’s kingship if Joab had not killed Abner.  It seems to me that while David was overjoyed that he was able to show grace to his friend Jonathan’s son, he was seeking any descendant of Saul through whom he could show that he held no animosity towards those who had remained loyal to King Saul.  Further, as I read the account here I cannot help but try to understand what happened between Mephibosheth, Ziba, and David when David fled from Absalom (and when he then returned to Jerusalem).  I am not sure that I understand what is going on relative to that, but reading this, knowing about that later incident makes it seem like there is some tension between what Ziba “owned” before Mephibosheth was brought before David and was then given into the ownership of Mephibosheth.

I use 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.

When David decided to move the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem, we are told that they brought it from the house of Abinadab.  Interestingly, back in 1 Samuel 6-7, after the Philistines returned the Ark to the Israelites, it was taken from Beth Shemesh to Kiriath Jearim and left in the house of Abinadab.  It also says that it remained there for twenty years.  However, I cannot accept any reading of the two books of Samuel which has today’s passage happening only twenty years after those of 1 Samuel 6-7.  As I read this, the events of 1 Samuel 6-7 occurred before Samuel began leading Israel. Then Samuel was followed by Saul being king for forty-two years. Then I noticed as I was reading through this year that in 2 Samuel 14:18 it says that while Saul was king the Ark was with the Israelites when they mustered for battle.  As I was getting my facts straight on this, I came across an article which suggested that the twenty years which 1 Samuel 7 says that the ark remained at Kiriath Jearim was the time between the return of the Ark and Samuel beginning to lead Israel described next there in chapter 7.  The explanation then of why David was bringing the Ark from Kiriath Jearim to Jerusalem in today’s passage would be that while the Israelite army was not mustered for war, the Ark was returned to Kiriath Jearim.

I use 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.

Some people think the account given of Saul’s death here contradicts the one given at the end of 1  Samuel.  While this is true, they miss the fact that the account of his death given here is not told as what happened.  Rather, it is told as what the messenger who brought the news to David said happened.  The writer makes no comment in this passage as to whether or not the messenger is telling the truth.  Even David’s response does not necessarily tell us that David believed the messenger.  It is worth noting that the messenger was an Amalekite and that David had recently returned from chasing down a group of Amalekites who had destroyed his home and taken the women and children of his men, and himself, captive.  So, David was predisposed to think poorly of Amalekites.  The messenger did confess to killing the king, something David had refrained from doing at least twice.

I have often wondered at the hostility which David expresses towards Joab and his brother Abishai.  I think today reading this passage I finally understand it.  It is not made completely clear, but when Abner offered to come over to David, David asked for Saul’s daughter Michal to be returned to him as his wife.  Ish-Bosheth, Saul’s surviving son whom Abner had previously supported as king over Israel, ordered her taken from the man to whom King Saul had given her after David fled from Saul’s attempts to kill him.  This suggests that not only was Abner going to swear fealty to David as king, but that Ish-Bosheth would do so as well.  So, Joab killing Abner ended to opportunity to end the conflict between David and Saul’s house without further bloodshed.  After the death of Abner, Ish-Bosheth was afraid that someone among David’s men would kill him as well.  We see from David’s psalm of mourning in today’s passage that he had no enmity towards Saul’s family.  In any case, while David had stopped Abishai from killing Saul on the occasion when the two of them had snuck into Saul’s camp, he only starts complaining about how bloodthirsty Abishai and Joab were after the incident with Abner.

I use 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.

When I read today’s passage two questions cross my mind.  The first one: would David have fought for the Philistines and against the Israelites if the other Philistine rulers had not demanded that Achish send him away from the battle?  Second, why is the account of Saul consulting the medium in Endor included here?  I do not think that we can answer the first question with any more than a guess.  While David lived under Achish’s rule, he was careful to never attack any Israelite settlements but told Achish that he had.  As to the second question, I think we can reach a few conclusions about why it was included.  First, it gives us an idea about how desperate Saul had become as he heads into his final battle.  Additionally, it tells us that at least some of those who claim to speak with the dead are indeed able to do so.  Finally, we learn that if we turn aside from God we will be left with nowhere to turn when things inevitably go wrong.

On the other hand, David consulted God whenever he had a decision to make.  So, when he was about to feel compelled to fight against his own people, God arranged for the Philistines to send him away from the battle, just in time for him to return to his home base to discover that his wives and possessions, and those of his men, had been taken by bandits.  Again, David consulted God before setting off in pursuit of those bandits.  With God’s help David was able to overtake the bandits and recover not only all of the goods and people which the bandits had taken from him and his men, he also recovered that which they had taken from other towns and villages nearby.  He shared some of this plunder with the elders of Judah who had provided him supplies and support while he was hiding from King Saul.

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