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.

    While David’s illicit child with Bathsheba was sick, David fasted and prayed for God to heal the child. He did this for seven days. His servants and advisers were afraid of what he would do when the child died. However, when he learned that his child had died, David got up, cleaned himself up, and ate. David understood that death was not the end and that we will be rejoined with our loved ones after death. We should have a similar attitude. While our loved ones are alive, but sick and suffering, it is appropriate to fast and pray, seeking God’s healing power. But once they have died we need to put aside our grief and go on about serving the Lord. I do not mean that quite as it sounds. There is a place for mourning the loss of our loved ones, especially when they die suddenly. However, we need to recognize that while we will miss them, it is only for a short time until we will be rejoined with them in eternity (at least, those who have chosen to serve the Lord).

    The story of the rape of Tamar and its aftermath have always bothered me. There is Amnon raping his half-sister and David is reported as being angry about this, but David takes no action. There is Jonadab, David’s nephew, advising Amnon on how to arrange to rape his sister, then later in a position to report to King David that Amnon was the only one of his sons killed by Absalom. Then there is Absalom killing his older half-brother, Amnon, and only suffering a three year exile. The fact that Amnon, and Jonadab, could think that he could get away with raping Tamar reflects how poorly disciplined he had been his whole life. Further, the fact that Absalom began plotting immediately to kill Amnon when he learned what had happened to Tamar tells us that Absalom knew that David would impose no discipline on Amnon. In a way, David’s sin with Bathsheba resulted in Amnon raping Tamar, which resulted in Absalom killing Amnon, which later led to Absalom attempting to usurp David’s throne. Perhaps, if David had disciplined Amnon, he would not have needed to fight the civil war with Absalom later.

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.

    Once David had secured his throne by conquering most of the surrounding peoples, he remembered his promise to Jonathan and sought out any sons of Jonathan who remained alive. When he found Jonathan’s son, Mephibosheth, he brought him into his household and gave him the properties which had belonged to Saul. (What is it with the names Saul’s family gave their sons after Saul became king? Ishbosheth, Mephibosheth,…) There is not a lot here for us, but it shows that David was secure enough in his kingship to not feel threatened by the descendants of Saul. David was generous to Jonathan’s son in memory of his friendship with Jonathan.

    I was going to write an summary of what happened in the war against the Ammonites and then explain how that led to David’s sin with Bathsheba. However, I realized that what I really wanted to write about was how David’s decision to pass the hard work of leading the army off onto someone else led him into sin. If David had led the army of Israel out to war, as was his responsibility, he would not have been in Jerusalem to be tempted with the sins he committed. This is a lesson for all of us. Our failure to actively do the things we ought to be doing often places us in the path of temptation and placing ourselves in the path of temptation leads us to sin. Do that which God is calling you to do and you will be less likely to find temptation coming your way. If we follow Paul’s advice in Phillipians 4:8 Samuel 8-11 we will avoid situations like the one in which David found himself:

And now, dear brothers and sisters, one final thing. Fix your thoughts on what is true, and honorable, and right, and pure, and lovely, and admirable. Think about things that are excellent and worthy of praise.

It really is amazing how well that works to defeat temptation. I just wish I was better at doing it myself.

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.

    Ishbosheth’s reaction to Abner’s death suggests that perhaps he had been accepting of Abner’s plan to turn the kingship of Israel over to David. In yesterday’s passage, Ishbosheth had returned Saul’s daughter, Michal, to David as his wife, which would have given David a claim to the throne as Saul’s successor. However, Abner’s death both deprived Ishbosheth of his best army commander and removed the assurance that he would survive handing his throne over to David. Unfortunately for Ishbosheth two of his men decided that they could curry favor with David by killing Ishbosheth. Those two men discovered that David did not approve of their action. David had them killed for doing so. I feel bad for Ishbosheth. He was never trained to be king and he never sought to be king. Abner made him king because he needed a son of Saul to be figurehead. Then when Abner got himself killed, two of Ishbosheth’s captains killed him in a deluded effort to curry favor with David.

    We see in today’s passage two aspects of David’s leadership that allowed him to be successful. First, we see that he had a good eye for strategy. When he sought to conquer Jerusalem, he saw that it was vulnerable to attack through the tunnel carrying water into the city. Later, when the Philistines attacked him, as they had Saul, he sought advice. The passage tells us that David sought God’s guidance, but I am sure that he also sought the advice of his commanders. As a result of this advice, David did not fall prey to the most common problem for military commanders, fighting the current war according to the strategies which worked in the last war.

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 Book of 2 Samuel begins with the story of how David received the news of Saul’s death. It tells us of a messenger who brought the news to David, claiming to have committed the coup-de-gras to Saul. The messenger appears to have expected a reward from David for his actions. Instead, David has the messenger killed. This story establishes a pattern which David will follow throughout his life, David executed those who thought to curry favor with him by bringing him news that they had killed one of his enemies. Once David had finished mourning the death of Saul and Jonathan, he sought God’s guidance on returning to the land controlled by the tribe of Judah. As soon as he had established himself there, the leaders of Judah came to him and made him their king.

    About the same time that the leaders of Judah made David their king, Abner, Saul’s army commander, made Saul’s remaining son king over the rest of Israel. Abner then marched his army to Gibeon (despite the fact that Saul’s son, Ishbosheth, was king, it was Abner’s army). The city of Gibeon was a city of significant political importance in Israel, including Judah, and Joab, David’s army commander, would not allow Abner to claim it for Ishbosheth. So, with the two armies facing each other and neither willing to make the first move, Abner suggests to Joab that they have a battle of twelve champions (that number is significant, at least partially because of the twelve tribes). All twelve fights end in each fighter killing his opponent. While Joab’s forces won the day, I believe that battle of champions shows us that neither side could win the ensuing war militarily. Unfortunately, during the battle, Abner could not escape from Joab’s younger brother and was forced to kill him.

    During the ensuing war, we learn that Abner is the true power behind the throne of Saul’s son. When the two men have a falling out, Abner promises to turn Ishbosheth’s throne over to David. What I find interesting is that Ishbosheth cooperated with Abner’s negotiation with David. Joab did not believe that Abner was dealing honestly with David and killed Abner by trickery. The passage tells us that Joab killed Abner in revenge for Abner killing his own brother. Right after this we learn that David and Joab do not have the most cordial of relationships. Joab and David are cousins (as were Abner and Saul), which makes me wonder if some members of the tribe of Judah had greater loyalty to Joab than to 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 28-31.

    The first thing I want to comment on is that the town where Saul found a medium was Endor. George Lucas chose to name of the home of the Ewoks. It seems unlikely that George Lucas knowingly chose that name from this source, but I am curious how he came up with it for the movie. Aside from that, I struggle with this passage because my reading of the rest of the Bible leads me to believe that the spirits of the dead cannot be summoned in this manner. Yet, here we have the witch of Endor summoning Samuel’s spirit for Saul. Perhaps my understanding about summoning the spirits of the dead is mistaken (although God clearly forbids attempting such a thing, even if it is possible), or perhaps this story of Saul summoning Samuel’s spirit is merely figurative. In either case, despite having refused on multiple occasions to heed God’s commands, Saul was seeking God’s guidance one last time. But this time, Saul could not get any guidance from God, no matter what methods he tried, not even by consulting Samuel’s dead spirit. There is an important lesson for us here. If we refuse to do as we know God has directed us, eventually He will not offer us guidance, no matter how desperately we desire it.

    The Philistine king to whom David had gone seeking protection from Saul asked David to join the Philistine army being assembled to go to battle against Saul. David eagerly accepted. Based on David’s refusal to kill Saul when he had the chance, and the fact that he raided no Israelite towns (while telling the Philistine king that they were Israelite towns, I have to wonder what David really planned to do. However, in the event, the other Philistine kings and military commanders demanded the David not be part of their order of battle. They remembered what had happened the first time they had gone to battle against Saul, when the Hebrew troops in their lines switched sides in the middle of the battle. Perhaps David knew that this would happen. Or perhaps God just provided him a way to avoid going to battle with the people over whom he would soon rule.

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.

    In the story of Nabal and Abigail, I seem to be missing something about the severity of the insult which Nabal gave to David. The writer assumes that the reader would see how terrible the insult was, and all of the other characters in the story are aware that Nabal’s insult was severe. We have one of Nabal’s servants who sees it as so potent an insult that he must go tell the mistress at once. As soon as Abigail hears of it, gathers gifts and sets out to meet David. It’s not that I do not see the insults, it is just that they don’t seem that severe to me. However, I can sort of imagine how these insults might be a threat to David’s survival. Nabal called him a nobody who was the son of a nobody. Furthermore, Nabal essentially said that David was a run away slave. On top of that, he called David and his men outlaws, after they had spent the season protecting his own men and property.

    The combination of the story of Nabal and Abigail with the rest of the passage gives us a good idea how David rose to power. When Nabal died a short time later from basically natural causes, David acquired his wealth by marrying Abigail. It may even be this marriage which led Saul to seek to kill David again. In any case, despite being able to show Saul up once more, David felt that it was just a matter of time until Saul trapped and killed him. So, he went over to the Philistines where he became a raider much like what Nabal had accused him of being (I think there is a distinction, but I am not sure I could explain it). However, David only raided those who the people of Israel had long considered their enemies (with significant reason), while telling the king of the Philistines he was raiding towns of Judah.

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.

    Reading between the lines of this passage gives us insight into what type of ruler Saul was. The first thing we note is that when David, known as Saul’s reliable right-hand man and son-in-law, came to Ahimelech the priest, Ahimelech trembled in fear. Ahimelech’s comment suggest that what most frightened him was that David was alone. This suggests that Saul sent men to kill those whom he believed had wronged him. Then later when Saul learned that Ahimelech had aided David, he assumed that Ahimelech had conspired with David against him. Further Saul had Ahimelech, all of his family, and all of the families of the priests living in Nod (the village where David met with Ahimelech) killed. The passage suggests that Saul’s style of ruling resembled that of modern dictators such as Saddam Hussein, or the rulers of North Korea.

    Saul acted the way he did because he was convinced that people were conspiring against him. Throughout his reign Saul suffered from bouts of rage and paranoia, angered and convinced that people were out to get him (note the rant Saul went on against his own senior officers). David, on the other hand, did not seek revenge against those who clearly were out to get him. Even when he had the opportunity to kill Saul and end the threat to himself and his family David held his hand and allowed Saul to get away.

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 18-20.

    Sometime after David killed Goliath, Saul began using him for special missions. He was so successful on these missions that Saul made him a commander over a significant portion of his army. During this time, David and Soul’s son Jonathan became friends. David’s friendship with Jonathan was one of two things which should have made Saul realize that David was not seeking to take his throne. The other key factor thing was the fact that David turned down the opportunity to marry Saul’s oldest daughter, and initially turned down the opportunity to marry Saul’s daughter Michal. Saul’s jealousy and hostility to David reflects a style of ruling which played a major role in the downfall of Saul’s dynasty. It seems unlikely that David was the only successful commander whom Saul drove away due to fear that they would try to take his place. Not even the love his son and daughter had for David was lead Saul to rethink his hostility to him. Rather it fueled that anger and made Saul more convinced that David was a threat to him. While Saul, for awhile, had David play the harp to soothe his anger, he never took ownership of that anger and acknowledged that he needed to control it.

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.

    When Samuel is led by God to anoint one of Jesse’s sons to succeed Saul as king over Israel, Samuel immediately concludes that Jesse’s eldest son, Eliab, must be the one God has chosen. Eliab was tall, handsome, and carried himself like a leader. By the way people judge things, Eliab had all of the traits of a leader. The passage does not say so explicitly, but every time I read this passage I feel like the writer tries to contrast David’s appearance to that of his older brother. Unlike his eldest brother, David was not the type that people just look at and think, “There’s a leader.”

    The story of how David came to play his harp to soothe Saul’s moods is placed here even though the account of Saul’s reaction to David after he defeats Goliath tells us that it must have come sometime later. Its placement here suggests that the Book of 1 Samuel was oral history before it was written down. The rest of the book just flows from the description of Goliath to the end with no place where explaining why David played his harp for Saul fits in without disrupting that flow, but we need to know this in order to understand the context when Saul first tries to kill David.

    Ordinarily I might stop at this point, but I took the day off today and the snow is preventing me from doing what I had planned, so I have time (reminder: I write these blogs the day before the date on them). I am glad I have the time because the story of David’s encounter with Goliath tells us a lot about David’s personality and character. When David’s father gave him supplies to take to his brothers with the army, David was hoping to see some excitement. However, the situation was kind of boring with the two armies camped facing each other and neither commander willing to move first. When Goliath came out to challenge the Israelites to send a champion to meet him, David saw his opportunity for excitement. He tried to egg one of the Israelite soldiers into going out to face Goliath. It might seem like David was being callous, trying to get someone to go out and get themselves killed for his entertainment. Certainly, his oldest brother Eliab saw it that way. The problem here was that the soldiers, including Eliab, had gotten locked into viewing Goliath’s challenge as soldiers. They looked at Goliath and thought of going out to fight him as soldiers, fighting him the way they would fight if the whole army went into battle. If they fought Goliath in that way, they did not stand a chance. If they fought Goliath that way, he would kill them before they could get close enough to hit him. David did not look at fighting Goliath that way.
    When David could not goad any of the soldiers into challenging Goliath, he volunteered to do it himself. We quickly see that Saul viewed Goliath’s challenge the same way that his men did. Saul did not see how David could possibly defeat Goliath, but Goliath’s daily challenge was bad for the morale of his troops, so he accepted David’s offer. Saul dressed David in his armor and gave him his sword. However, David already knew his strategy and quickly realized that he could not execute it dressed like that. David took the weapons he knew, his sling and his shepherd’s staff, and went out to fight Goliath. Goliath could no more imagine how David could defeat him than could the soldiers of Saul’s army. David realized two things that no one else there did.

1. Goliath was not just challenging the men of the Israelite army, he was also challenging God
2. Goliath was big and strong, but also, slow and lumbering

David was confident and sure that God was on his side, but he was not foolhardy. David had seen something which no one else had noticed. Goliath was the perfect killing machine by the technology of war for his day. But, as is often the case with cutting edge military technology, he had taken no thought to defending against low-tech weapons. Against spears, javelins, or bows, there were really only a few places where you could land a decisive shot, and those would require a good deal of luck. Further, an opponent would be unlikely to be able to get off more than one shot. However, David was not heavily armored, so he could easily stay out of Goliath’s reach, and a sling did not require as long to deliver a shot as a bow. Further, unlike a bow, a sling could deliver a decisive shot to the forehead. David was not foolhardy. While he believed that God was on his side and would make the difference in the fight, David did not count an being successful with his first shot. He chose five stone for his sling, even though, in the event, he only needed one.

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.

    We see in today’s passage that Saul chose the appearance of godliness over the actuality of doing what God commanded. After winning a decisive victory because of the actions of his son, Jonathan, Saul takes an oath placing a curse on any member of his army who eats before the enemy forces are completely destroyed. Two things come out of this. His men become tired and weak because they do not eat and Jonathan falls under his curse because he did not hear Saul’s curse and eats some honey which he comes upon.

I want to take note of something here which is not part of my main theme. We are told that those Hebrews who had joined with the Philistine army turned on the Philistines and sided with Saul when the battle started to go against the Philistines. This is significant because it sets the stage for the Philistines refusing to allow David to join their battle against Saul later on. In addition, I have long wondered if the writer used the word “Hebrews” to distinguish between those descendants of Jacob who did not choose to follow Saul as their king (and thus were not part of the nation of Israel) or to indicate that there were Hebrews in the land who were not descendants of Jacob.

Later, Samuel tells Saul that God has commanded that he completely destroy the Amalekites, including all of their livestock. Instead of doing so, Saul takes their king prisoner and allows his men to keep the best of their livestock. Despite having done this, when Samuel came to meet him Saul claimed to have followed God’s command. Saul truly believed that he had followed God’s command because he was bringing the best of the Amalekites livestock to where the Ark of the Covenant was to hold a great victory feast there while sacrificing them. I am not sure how he justified to himself not killing their king. We have a tendency to justify not acting according to God’s commands in the same way that Saul did, by proclaiming that we will use the “proceeds” to honor God. Samuel’s reply to Saul applies to us as well, “Obedience is better than sacrifice, and submission is better than offering the fat of rams.”