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.

    When Nathan confronted David over his sin with Bathsheba and what he did to Uriah, David does not recognize himself in Nathan’s story. We are all too often like that. We recognize the severity of other’s sins but do not connect the dots to our own. Nathan informs David that his sin with Bathsheba will result in strife within his own family. Then, after the story of the death of the child born to Bathsheba out of this affair, the writer tells us the story of Amnon and Tamar and Absalom’s revenge on Amnon. David’s failure to punish Amnon for raping his half-sister led directly to Absalom killing him. It speaks poorly of David that he punished neither of his sons for their misdeeds while failing to come to his daughter’s defense. Certainly David’s sin with Bathsheba contributed to Amnon thinking that he could get away with raping Tamar. So, David’s sin with Bathsheba led to Amnon raping Tamar, which led to Absalom killing Amnon, which led to Absalom;s revolt against David.

    I want to point out something which struck me in reading this. I have seen many writers condemn Jonadab for advising Amnon on how to rape Tamar. I am not going to exonerate him. However, it appears to me that Jonadab genuinely believed that Amnon wanted to have Tamar as his wife. Jonadab was close enough to Amnon to badger him for feeling down and to give him advice on how to resolve his unrequited love. However, he knew that Absalom was planning to kill Amnon long before the plan reached fruition and failed to warn Amnon against the plot. This failure suggests that Jonadab did not approve of Amnon’s actions. There are aspects to this story which suggest that Tamar may have been more than willing to become Amnon’s wife, which might explain Jonadab’s advice to Amnon. Jonadab may have thought he was acting to bring two young lovers together. That being said, I believe that Jonadab advised Amnon on how he could get Tamar as a wife and was horrified when Amnon raped her and threw her out of his rooms. This does not make Jonadab a good person, but it also does not suggest that he was a conniving conspirator looking to gain political power by stroking the ego of whomever it took to do so.

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.

    There are four story lines in today’s passage. The first story line is about David establishing dominance in the region. Previously I discussed how most of the nations in the region gained wealth by raiding their neighbors and general banditry. David appears to have put a stop to this. The second story line is about David remembering his promise to Jonathan and tracking down Jonathan’s son. By bringing Mephibosheth into his household, David eliminated the possibility of him being used as a rallying point for those opposing David’s rule. The third story line is about David’s war with the Ammonites. A war which started when David’s gesture of condolence was misinterpreted as a spying mission. The fourth story line, which grows out of the third one, is the story of David and Bathsheba.

    The writer starts the story of Bathsheba by subtly telling us that none of this would have happened if David had done what he should have done. The whole situation arose because David sent his army off to war, but did not go with them. If David had led the armies to war, he would not have been in Jerusalem to be tempted. On the other hand, if he had not sent the armies to ware without him, there would have been no opportunity to succumb to the temptation because Uriah would have been at home with his wife. The important lesson here is that if we do the things which God wishes for us to do we will face fewer temptations, and will find it easier to resist those we do face.
    I want to point out one other thing about this passage. We can neither absolve, nor convict Bathsheba on the the basis of this passage. We cannot tell from this passage if Bathsheba willingly joined David in his bed, or if she did so because she felt coerced by the fact that he was king. Bathsheba may have chosen to bath when she did in order to catch David’s eye, or, it may have just been that David happened to be on his roof at the time she bathed (or perhaps he even had an idea of when she bathed and chose to be on the roof to get a look at her). Bathsheba may have been an innocent victim, or she may have been a social climber seeking to use her body to gain power. The biblical account gives us no basis for judging because it is irrelevant to the lesson it wishes to teach us. No matter which is true of Bathsheba, David would not have ended up in that situation if he had done as he ought.

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.

    After telling how David gained kingship over all of Israel, the passage gives us examples of David’s tactical brilliance. First, he conquered heavily fortified Jerusalem by sneaking troops into the city through their water supply (a vulnerability which does not get addressed until Hezekiah is king). This seems to us like an obvious attack, yet the Jebusites had been able to hold Jerusalem against the Israelites since the time of Joshua. So, this was probably less obvious than it seems to us today, and probably more difficult than the passage makes it appear. When the Philistines learned that David had united the Israelites and taken Jerusalem, they mustered their armies to break his fledgling kingdom. The first time the Philistines attacked, David marched out against them and attacked them head on, driving them from the field of battle. The second time they attacked, David realized they would have a plan to deal with a frontal assault, so he marched around behind them and attacked them from the rear. In both cases, David sought God’s guidance before formulating a plan and launching an attack.

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.

    This passage shows us the political maneuvering which occurred following the death of Saul. When David received word of Saul’s death, he immediately moved from Philistine territory back into territory controlled by Israelites, in particular territory controlled by the tribe of Judah and made himself king of Judah (setting the stage for the political divide of Israel under his grandson). In the meantime, Abner, the commander of Saul’s army, made Saul’s only remaining son king. It is worthy of note that Saul’s son, Ish-Bosheth, had not been with Saul’s army. The fact that he did not make himself king, but was rather made king by Abner suggests that the reason was that he was not a warrior or a leader of men.

    After Ish-Bosheth insulted Abner by suggesting that he had slept with Saul’s concubine in order to gain a claim to the throne (at least that is how I read Ish-Bosheth’s confrontation with Abner), Abner begins negotiating with David to bring the rest of Israel over to David. However, those negotiations do not appear to be going on behind Ish-Bosheth’s back. When David demanded that Saul’s daughter, Michal, be returned to him as his wife before he would make a deal with Abner, it was Ish-Bosheth who gave the orders for her to be given back to David. Which means that when Joab killed Abner he prevented David from unifying Israel in a way which might have prevented some of the rebellions which happened under David and forestalled the eventual division of the kingdom under Rehoboam.
    At the beginning of this passage, David makes it very clear that he had nothing to do with the death of Saul by killing the messenger who brought the word of Saul’s death and also claimed to have committed the mercy killing of Saul. Then at the end, David makes it very clear that he had nothing to do with Abner’s death as well. In both cases, David is clear that he did not desire these deaths, even though both could be perceived as being to David’s advantage. David’s position regarding Saul’s death is supported by his earlier refusals to take Saul’s life when presented with the opportunity. And his position regarding Abner’s death is supported by the fact that the deal he had just struck with Abner would have been superior to the way things worked out.

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.

    I struggle with what to make of the story of Saul consulting with a medium in order to speak with Samuel one last time. We learn that Saul had driven all of the mediums and spiritists out of the territory which he controlled (spiritists are those who believe in salvation/enlightenment/betterment through communication with the dead). However, despite having done so, Saul was so desperate for guidance, for a way out of the situation he created for himself, that he sought out a medium in an attempt to consult Samuel’s spirit. Saul found himself in this situation with God no longer giving him any guidance because time and again in his life he chose to follow his own counsel rather than that of God. Samuel’s spirit reminded Saul of one specific occasion when Saul chose to take the course of action he thought best rather than the one which God directed, but as we have seen, this was not an isolated incident. We can learn from Saul’s life that if we choose to do what we think best when that is counter to God’s clear direction, He will eventually stop giving us any direction at all.

    The writer makes a subtle contrast between David and Saul here. When Saul went to the medium, Samuel’s spirit reminded him of his failure to follow God’s direction when he went to war with the Amelekites. When David is sent back from marching among the Philistine armies, he finds that Amelekites have raided his village and taken his family and possessions. David pursues them and defeats them, recovering his family and the families of his men (I wonder if the Amelekite raid against Ziklag, David’s village, was in retaliation for David’s raids against Amelekites).

    However, I want to focus on how God works things out for His ends. David was willing to lead his men into battle against the Israelite army under Saul. Perhaps for no other reason than that he thought he had no choice. If David had joined the Philistines in defeating the Israelite army, it would have been an impediment to him later becoming the king of Israel. So, God arranged for the other Philistine leaders to insist that David not enter the battle.
    Further when David returned to his base of operations, the town of Ziklag, it had been raided and the families of his war band had been taken captive. There are several aspects of this which shaped David’s future from here. First, if he and his men had fought in the battle between the Philistines and the Israelites, the families of David’s men would have been long gone, and thus probably their loyalty to David.

Side note: This is related to what I wrote about Saul and following God’s direction. David did not immediately set out after the raiders. Rather, he first called Abiathar the priest to ask God for direction. It was only after God assured him that he should pursue the raiders and that he would capture them that David set out in pursuit.

Second, because David pursued the Amelekites and fought them to recover the people and goods they had taken, it is clear to everyone that he was not at the battle between the Philistines and Israelites where Saul died. The evidence for his absence from that battle was the plunder which he shared with the various people and towns where he had sheltered when he was hiding from Saul. Something he did before he received the news that Saul was dead. Every time I read these passages I am impressed with the contrast between the political styles of Saul and David.

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 25-27.

    With today’s passage the focus shifts completely from Saul to David. In today’s passage we start to see how David would view his role as king (although he is far from being king at this point). When David moved into the desert in southern Judah with his men, he began protecting the shepherds and merchants in that area from bandits and raiders. This was similar to what he had done for the town of Keilah. As part of this, he expected the wealthy men whose property he had protected to provide some support to him and his men.
    Reading this passage, I have always had trouble understanding what was so terribly insulting about what Nabal said to David’s men. I do not believe that the problem was the insult to David, rather I think that it was the insult to David’s father, Jesse. Nabal did not just call David a nobody, he called his father one as well. In essence, Nabal said, “How does being Jesse’s son make you any better than a beggar?” Jesse was a man of sufficient prominence that Samuel knew who he was when God sent him to anoint one of his sons. This situation did not escalate because Nabal refused to pay for the protection which David and his man had provided for him. It escalated because he was rude about doing so. The passage makes a point of the fact that Nabal could have easily afforded to provide goods to David and his men, since he was throwing a feast fit for a king while his wife, Abigail, was off delivering a bribe of appeasement to David.

    The first time David fled to Achish, the Philistine king of Gath, he was alone. This time he arrives with his own war band, a group of men who owe loyalty to no one but David. This fact explains the different reception which David received on this occasion. While there David supported himself and his men in the time honored fashion of raiding those not under the protection of the ruler of the territory in which he resided. This was similar to what had happened in Keilah, some war bands from Philistine territory had been raiding there until David came to their defense. Rather than raid into Israelite territory (which was conveniently close) David raided the territory of other people’s in the area. However, he told Achish that he had raided Israelite territory in order to make it seem like he would be unable to return to Israel.

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 21-24.

    When Ahimelech the priest saw David arrive by himself, he trembled, which suggests that he was frightened by seeing a servant of Saul arrive alone. This makes me wonder if Saul had a reputation for having people killed for reasons that people did not understand. The more often I read this passage the more convinced I am that Ahimelech was eager to assist David out of fear of Saul rather than out of love for David. The story about being on a secret mission for Saul which David gives Ahimelech as his reason for being there supports this view of the situation. This suggests that Saul had killed other people in a manner similar to what he had attempted with David.

    On previous days I talked about how Saul’s insecurities undermined his ability as a leader. Today we see what happens with a leader who never deals with his insecurities but allows them to eat at them. There is more to it than that, we see here how Saul’s subordinates allowed, perhaps even encouraged his paranoia to grow. When Saul berates his lieutenants, one of whom David was just a short time earlier, for allowing David to get away none of them challenged his contention that David was plotting to kill him, not even when Saul said that his own son had encouraged David to do so. None of them even spoke up when Saul ordered Doeg the Edomite to kill the priests. So, we have Saul who, with the passive resistance of his chief lieutenants, kills those he perceives, with no real basis, to be plotting against him. Then, in contrast, we have David, refusing to kill Saul when presented with the opportunity, despite the encouragement by his chief lieutenants to do so and the clear evidence that Saul was actually plotting his death.
    The passage tells us that David refused to kill Saul because he was God’s anointed king over Israel. I believe that this was genuinely David’s reason, but I also believe that David realized that if he killed Saul it would lead to the collapse of the people of Israel as a unified people. David, by this time, knew that he had been anointed by God to replace Saul as king, but he needed to wait for God to make that happen. I mentioned in one of my previous posts that Saul was a pragmatist. In Saul’s case his pragmatism was a weakness because it was not informed by faith in God. David was also a pragmatist, but his pragmatism was informed by his faith in God. It was David’s faith in God which led him to be willing to confront Goliath, but it was his pragmatism which led him to reject using the weapons and armor of a warrior to do so.

    There is one other thing I want to point out about David as a leader. It was his love of his people, the Israelites, which led him to march to the defense of the people of Keilah when the Philistines were raiding them. David did this despite the danger involved of putting himself where Saul could pin him down. But he did not just act out of his concern for the people, he asked God for guidance first. Then when Saul began to march to trap him there, David did not just run away. First, he consulted God to see if his judgment was correct. In sum, David made plans based on his best calculation of the strategic and tactical situation, then, before he acted, he consulted God for guidance acknowledging that no matter how good of a commander he was there were things known only to 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 1 Samuel 16-17.

    Today’s passage contains three stories about the start of David’s rise to power: Samuel anointing David as future king, David entering Saul’s service as a harp player, and David defeating Goliath. I believe that these were three separate stories about David and by the time 1 Samuel was compiled, no one knew when they occurred in relation to each other. My suspicion is that the story about David becoming Saul’s harpist happened sometime after the Goliath story, but that the compiler put it before that because the stories he had about David and Saul from Goliath onward fit together and there was no good place to put in the story about David becoming Saul’s harpist. On the other hand, the story of Samuel anointing David could have happened before the rest, but may have happened sometime after the incident with Goliath. I have never heard anyone comment on one aspect of that story which I find interesting. Samuel never told Jesse or his sons, including David, that he was anointing David as the next king. All that they would have known was that God had chosen David for something. I want to also note that it was David’s eldest brother who looked like a king.

    There are a lot of things which can be taken from the story of David and Goliath. However, I want to look at what this story tells us about David as a future king. When David arrived at the army encampment, he rushed out to the ranks, ostensibly to greet his brothers, but I suspect in order to see the excitement. When he heard Goliath’s taunt, and the reward Saul had offered the man who defeated Goliath, David began trying to egg someone on to fight Goliath. I think David’s brother, Eliab, was right in his estimation of David’s motives, David wanted to see the battle. However, David was also convinced that whoever took on Goliath in the name of the God of Israel would be victorious. When it became clear that no one else was going to step forward to fight Goliath, David volunteered. At some point someone thought they were calling David’s bluff. I imagine that conversation went something like this.

 David: “Wow, that is a pretty impressive reward Saul is offering. You ought to go out and claim it. How can you lose? You would have God on your side!”

 Potential Champion: “Are you kidding me? Look at the size of the guy, his sword is bigger than you are.”

 David: “It does not matter how big he is, or how big his sword is. Remember what God did to the Egyptians? Or to the walls of Jericho? Don’t you remember the story of Gideon?”

 Potential Champion: “Well, if you think it’s so easy, why don’t you do it?”

 David: “OK”

David did not put himself forward as Israel’s and God’s champion against Goliath, he tried to encourage someone else to take the role. But when they tried to shut him up by pushing him forward, he stepped forward confidently. David did not seek a leadership role, but when one was thrust upon him, he accepted it willingly.

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 14-15.

    There are several different things worth exploring in this passage: Jonathan’s impromptu attack on the Philistine camp, Saul’s ill-advised command and oath, and Saul’s war against the Amelekites. Jonathan demonstrated a simple, and practical, faith in God. He was willing to attack the Philistine camp because he trusted God (and probably a bit because he was cocky). He asked for guidance from God in what he was doing in as much of an impromptu manner as he set off on this mission in the first place, but he asked for guidance nevertheless. In his ill-advised command that no one in the Israelite army eat anything before evening Saul demonstrated his tendency to get caught up in the moment. In making this oath and command, Saul did not want his army to pause in taking advantage of the victory they had gained, but by doing so he reduced their efficiency.

    The story of Saul’s war against the Amelekites tells us a lot about Saul. In particular, we get that insight in Samuel’s rebuke of Saul for not following the command he was given from God, “Although you may think little of yourself…” The reason Saul did not order the destruction of all of the possessions of the Amelekites was that his army wanted those things. It may be that Saul did genuinely intend to sacrifice all of the goods they brought back at Gilgal, but even there it was in order to throw a big feast/party which would make the people happy and, theoretically, further cement their loyalty to Saul. This whole event shows us Saul’s insecurity, which first manifest when he hid among the baggage when Samuel wanted to first proclaim him king over Israel. Saul’s failure to lead the people to follow God’s commands when popular opinion went a different direction were his downfall. Saul did not kill Jonathan for violating his command not to eat before evening because of the backlash from his army (probably a good thing).
    Here he did not follow God’s command to completely destroy the Amelekites and their possessions because his army wanted to keep the best of their things (a bad thing). While in the short term a leader who follows the winds of popular opinion may be successful, in the long run, only a leader who follows the will of God will build an organization which lasts. There is a metaphor I have often heard to describe the difference between a false leader and a true leader. A false leader sees which way the people are going and gets out in front of them. They may even turn it into a parade. However, a true leader sees which way people should be going and calls them to follow him in that direction. Saul showed in his first act as king, the rescue of the people of Jabesh Gilead, that he was capable of being the latter. However, because of his insecurities he became the former. All too many leaders in the Church today are the former as well. If you wish to be the latter sort of leader you need to be willing to follow God’s direction even if no one follows you.