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

Before I get to my main point I want to touch on what I talked about in yesterday’s blog.  In today’s passage, we have another instance where Joab killed someone whom David had appointed to take his place as commander over the army of Israel (although in this case, it was only the army of Judah at the time).  We also have another instance where Abishai acted to defend David.  Just further illustrations of the complicated relationship David had with these two brothers.

I want to write about the psalm of David included here as my primary focus.  First, as I have said about this psalm in the past, I love the imagery in it.  I wish I had the talent to draw the images which it evokes in my mind’s eye.  David describes the trouble he was in with language which conveys a visual image of that distress.  I picture a cloud of grey smoke which takes on a more tangible form as it wraps around him.  Then we have the cry which carries across vast differences until it is heard by God upon His throne.  God leaps up and an earthquake of immense proportion shakes everything.  Smoke pours out from God’s nose, and fire comes out of His mouth as He bellows in anger.  The next part brings to my mind the images sometimes used for Zeus: God mounted on a chariot (although that is not what David describes), surrounded by storm clouds to the point of almost being obscured, except for the brightness of His being and the lightning which bursts forth to sunder His enemies.  That brightness is where this differs from being a more majestic display of the cartoon images I remember of Zeus on his chariot.  I picture a brightness which does not allow His form to be made out.  Then, a hand reaches out from the brightness, and the dark clouds and grasps David and lifts him out of His troubles, the grey ropes of smoke being dissipated by God’s brightness and those who turned them on David cowering in fear.

Then comes the part of the psalm which both takes me some thought to interpret, and great hope for myself when I understand what I think it says.  David says that God has dealt with him according to his righteousness and that he has not turned away from God.  David continues to say that he is blameless before God.  Yet this is recorded here only a short ways after the writer had told us about David’s affair with Bathsheba and his plot to kill her husband in order to cover it up.  So, what are we to make of this?  Well, Nathan told David that God had taken away his sin.  In the same way, we are told that God has taken away our sin through our faith in Jesus.  So, we too can present ourselves as blameless before God, as can anyone, even the most heinous sinner*, who repents of their sin and puts their faith in Christ.  I want to go back to the beginning of the psalm for a moment: I am convinced that the distress which David expressed there was about his terrible sin, and that a portion of the great rescue he experienced was God taking that sin away.  So, once God has taken our sin away, as He did David’s, we can experience what David felt when he wrote:

The Lord lives! Praise be to my Rock!
Exalted be my God, the Rock, my Savior!

Therefore I will praise you, Lord, among the nations;
I will sing the praises of your name.

*I want to go back and touch on that bit about the “heinous sinner”.  Paul writes in 1 Timothy 1:15 that he is the worst of all sinners.  And I as I wrote this today it occurred to me that we too should think of ourselves as having been the worst of all sinners, saved only by God’s marvelous grace to become holy and blameless in His sight.

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.

Today’s passage once again shows us the contradictions in King David’s complicated relationship with the sons of Zeruiah, David’s sister, which makes them his nephews.  While fleeing Jerusalem ahead of Absalom, David had reprimanded Abishai for suggesting that Shimei should be killed for cursing David.  And in his reprimand David had expressed unhappiness with both Abishai and his brother Joab.  No sooner had David established himself in Mahanaim then he appointed Joab and Abishai as two of the three commanders over his army.  Then, after the victory of David’s army over Absalom’s army, and Absalom’s death, Joab confronts David over the way his mourning for Absalom is disheartening his army, and the threat that poses to David’s safety.  Finally, Abishai once more called on David to have Shimei killed as David re-establishes himself as king of Israel, a recommendation which David gets angry about.  Abishai’s argument for executing Shimei echoes David’s condemnation of wanting to kill King Saul when the two of them had  snuck into Saul’s camp, and David’s justification for ordering the execution of the Amalekite who claimed to have administered the coup-de-gras to King Saul.  I would struggle more to understand David’s hostility towards Joab and Abishai were it not for the two occasions where Joab killed the men David had attempted to replace Joab with as commander over his armies.  As I said on the 12th, I think David’s hostility has to do with Joab and Abishai only being concerned with what they perceived as best for themselves, David, or the kingdom rather than giving any thought to what was the right thing to do.

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.

When Hushai presented himself to Absalom, Absalom was initially skeptical of Hushai.  However, when Ahithophel, who was generally considered to be a very wise advisor, advised Absalom to give him a small force to pursue David, Absalom sought Hushai’s advice before taking Ahithophel’s advice, and then chose Hushai’s advice over that of Ahithophel.  Let’s look at this a little closer.  Absalom followed Ahithophel’s advice to sleep with David’s concubines without question or delay.  But when Ahithophel advised Absalom to send a force under someone else’s command after David, he balked.    One of the things which Ahithophel advised was to only kill David and to welcome those of his followers who turned to follow Absalom after David’s death. While Hushai advised killing all of those who had chosen to follow David as he fled from Absalom.  I believe that this played almost as much of a role in Absalom heeding Hushai’s advice as the glory he felt he would receive as leader of the army which defeated David.  It seems likely that Absalom wanted to see those who did not abandon his father to follow him pay a price for their loyalty to David.  Perhaps Absalom blamed his father, and those who remained loyal to him, for Amnon raping his sister.  Or, perhaps he just wanted vengeance on them because they had not immediately come over to his side.  In either case, Absalom provides a case study in making bad decisions.  He rejected good advice in favor of bad advice which stroked his ego.

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.

We know from other passages that David would have liked to reduce Joab’s influence (and that of Joab’s brother) over his policies.  Yet, when I read this passage, and a couple of others which describe Joab’s actions, Joab appears to have acted in David’s interest (or, at least, what Joab perceived to be David’s interest) in every occasion but one (and in that one, Joab appears to have acted in what he believed to be the kingdom’s interest).  In this case, Joab recognized that David was saddened by Absalom being exiled.  So, Joab took action to convince David to end Absalom’s exile.  Every time I have read this passage I have wondered at David’s hostility towards Joab and his brothers.  Then today, as I was trying to put this together I realized the answer.   While Joab did what he thought was best for David and his kingdom, and sometimes got David to do what Joab knew he wanted to do, he did not seek God’s guidance in deciding what those things were.  Take this incident as an example, Joab convinced David to bring Absalom back from exile because he knew that David desired to do so.  And Joab got David to not only bring Absalom back from exile, but to recognize him as his son, and heir, once more.  These two things led to Absalom plotting to take the throne by force.  Perhaps it was this sort of encouragement by Joab which led David to sin with Bathsheba in the first place.  It was certainly Joab’s willingness to carry out David’s commands, even when they were wrong, which led to David killing 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 12-13.

Part of me wants to write about Amnon and Tamar and how that led to Absalom killing Amnon (and later to Absalom’s rebellion), but I am really struck by David’s reaction to Nathan’s confrontation and the following illness and death of his son with Bathsheba.  When Nathan confronted David, David confessed his sin.  At which point Nathan tells David that God has taken away his sin.  However, that did not mean that David would not suffer any consequences from his sin.  In fact, Nathan told David that the consequences of his sin would follow him for the rest of his life.  So, we learn from this that we must confess that we have sinned (and part of that confession is regretting that we had done wrong, not just regretting that we got caught).  If we do confess our sin, God will forgive our sins.  However, we will still need to live with the consequences of our sins.

Which brings me to David’s reaction to one of the consequences of his sin, the son he had with Bathsheba became sick and then died.  When David learned of the child’s illness, he prayed and fasted begging God to heal the child and mourning the boy’s illness.  Then, when he learned that the child had died, he gave up his fasting and mourning.  While the child was ill, David petitioned God for healing, but once the child had died David recognized that the time for mourning was over.  He saw that the boy would not return to this life, but that he would in time join the child with God.  We should think and behave similarly.  While those we care for live, we should pray for their well-being, to the point of fasting and mourning for them if they are ill and/or suffering.  Once those we care for have died, in most cases, we should set aside our mourning and get on with our lives, not necessarily as quickly as David appears to have done here.   I will note that even though David gave up his mourning after his son’s death, he did not fault Bathsheba for mourning their son’s death.  Instead David comforted her in her loss.  We also should strive to comfort those who mourn the loss of their loved ones.

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.

Shortly after the death of Abner, two brothers killed Ish-Bosheth, cut off his head, and took it to David, expecting to be rewarded for doing so (at least, I assume that is what they expected).  Instead David had them executed for the murder of Ish-Bosheth.  I mention this only because it continues the pattern I referred to in yesterday’s blog.  However, I want to focus on the interaction between Michal and David after David brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem.  While the ark was being transported, David became caught up in the celebration and worship, completely forgetting himself and his dignity.  When Michal, David’s wife and King Saul’s daughter, became embarrassed by David’s behavior (and perhaps a little jealous).  She appears to have felt that his behavior was beneath the dignity of a king.  Then, when David came into his palace, intending to bring the celebration to his own household, Michal rained on his parade and disparaged him and his joy.  David responded by saying that he would be humiliated in order to bring praise to God.  David also made another important point.  Michal was concerned that David had made a fool of himself in front of “slave girls”, those of lower status than herself (and David).  David claimed that he would humiliate himself even further in order to praise God, and would be honored by those “slave girls” for it.  So, we should keep in mind these lessons.  First, we should not be ashamed to express our joy as we worship the Lord.  Second, we may be surprised by how much others respect us for being willing to express our love of God.

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.

In today’s passage we have two accounts about how David reacted to the deaths of his political enemies (although the death of Abner occurred after Abner had reconciled with David).  When an Amalekite brought David the news of King Saul’s death, claiming to have administered the coup-de-gras, David ordered him executed.  Later, when Joab murdered Abner, David forced Joab to put on a show of mourning for Abner’s death.  After Abner’s burial, David laments his inability to control Joab and Abishai.  In both cases, the death of Saul and the death of Abner, David mourned the loss of those he counted as great men.

One thing which often seems odd to me is the verse which tells us that Joab and Abishai murdered Abner in vengeance for Abner killing their brother.  Yet, one would have thought that if Joab sought vengeance for his brother’s death he would have continued the pursuit of Abner on the day when Abner had killed him, rather than calling off the pursuit.  Instead we have Joab killing Abner after Abner had made an agreement with David to turn over the kingship still held by the House of Saul in return for David giving him Joab’s job as commander of David’s armies.  I realized today that the reference to Joab killing Abner as revenge for the death of his brother records Joab’s defense against a murder charge.  Mosaic law gives implied permission to the family of someone killed by another the right to take the life of the killer.  So, the writer is not claiming that Joab murdered Abner to revenge his brother.  Rather, the writer is explaining, in part, why David could not execute Joab for doing so.

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.

I always find the account of Saul going to the medium of Endor difficult.  My understanding of Scripture has always been that those who claim to speak with the dead are either frauds or mistaking other spirits for the spirit of the dead.  Yet, this passage is quite clear that the woman summoned Samuel’s spirit and that Saul spoke with him.  This story contains an important lesson for us, one which is easy to miss.  At several points we are told that Saul had implemented God’s law in the land, at least to some degree.  In the introduction to this account we are told that Saul had expelled all of the mediums and spiritists from the land.  That was in accordance with God’s law as given to Moses.  Yet, despite implementing God’s law as the law of Israel, God departed from Saul because of his disobedience.   I don’t want to go into what Saul did, both good and bad, because it would be too easy to draw the wrong lesson.  The lesson is that God desires that we obey Him more than He desires that we offer sacrifices, or sing His praises.  King Saul thought that he could pick and choose which of God’s commands to obey.  It does not work that way, God calls us to obey all of His commands.  While He will forgive us when we fall short of His expectations, we cannot act against His commands just because we have good intentions.

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 25-27.

As I was reading the story of David and Nabal again, it struck me that, while the passage does not spell it out, David had an agreement with Nabal for David to provide security for Nabal’s men and Nabal’s property.  Nabal’s response to David’s men makes more sense if he had some sort of agreement with David beforehand, even if the agreement was more or less unspoken,  David’s anger at Nabal’s response also makes more sense.  Finally, the fear clearly expressed by Nabal’s servants when they went to Abigail makes more sense.  If there was no agreement of some type between Nabal and David, why didn’t Nabal just ignore David’s messengers?  On the other hand, if there was some sort of agreement, Nabal’s answer would seem to be, “I am not going to pay you.  What are you going to do, appeal to the government over breach of contract? Sure, go ahead and appeal to King Saul’s government.  Hasn’t the king put a price on your head?”  Nabal’s servants would have quickly seen the problem with Nabal’s response.  Sure, David could not appeal to King Saul over Nabal’s failure to keep his end of the bargain, but Nabal had entered into the agreement with David in the first place because King Saul was unable to protect him from raiders and bandits…and David’s men, who had provided protection from those raiders, could easily take that which they had prevented others from taking.   We see a little later in this passage that when David took his men over the the Philistines they became raiders (although exclusively against non-Israelites).  It could be that Abigail’s good business sense was the reason David chose to marry her after the death of Nabal.

I also want to write a bit about David sneaking into King Saul’s camp and taking his spear and water jug.  This story is the first account we have of David’s contentious relationship with the three sons of Zeruiah, who were his nephews.   On the one hand, Abishai volunteers to go with David to infiltrate King Saul’s camp.  On the other hand, he also suggests that David allow him to kill King Saul, despite the fact that David had declined to kill Saul when he had previously had the opportunity.  In fact, on that previous occasion David had expressed feeling guilt about the threat implied by cutting the hem off of Saul’s cloak.  So, we see that Abishai was loyal to David, but failed to share David’s reluctance to kill his fellow Israelites (even when he might have been justified in doing so).  I am not sure what lessons we should take from this passage, but we see here the first indication that while Abishai and his brothers were fiercely loyal to David, they did not fully share his values.

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 21-24.

I am going to write about some elements of today’s accounts which we often overlook.  I am not sure that they contain much in the way of spiritual insight, but we will see.  In this passage, at one point it says that David’s parents stayed with the king of Moab as long as David was “in the stronghold.”  Then at the end of the passage, after David declined the opportunity to ambush and kill King Saul, it says that David and his men “went up to the stronghold.”  On both of these occasions it uses the singular as if it was a single location. In addition, at one point the prophet Gad tells David to leave “the stronghold”.   Elsewhere, it refers to David and his men staying in “strongholds” (in the Desert of Ziph for awhile, then later in the wilderness of En Gedi).  So, I am unsure if the places where the passage uses the singular for stronghold refers to a single place (and, if so, was it the same place each time?), or was the writer just using the singular because it was easier than writing the plural…and it doesn’t really matter for us to understand what was going on.  On to another point: when David was in the Desert of Ziph, near Horesh, Jonathan was able to find him and speak with him.  Yet, just a short time later, Saul was unable to do so.  This is not particularly surprising, since David wanted to meet with Jonathan, and wanted to avoid being found by Saul.

The final item we normally overlook does have a bit of spiritual lesson for us.  Because of the way the passage tells the accounts we normally miss that the priest Abiathar did not join David until he was at Keilah.  Once Abiathar had joined him in Keilah, David had Abiather use the ephod of the high priest (and presumably the Urim and the Thummin ) to consult God’s will.  However, the passage makes clear that David sought God’s guidance in his decisions before that point.  I find two points worth thinking about here.  First, if we seek God’s guidance, He will make it known to us.  In fact, He will even make it known to us in ways which others who are skeptical of our initial interpretation of God’s direction will find convincing.  Second, as we seek to know God’s guidance for our actions, He will provide us with ever clearer ways to understand what He wants from us.

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