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

I have a Youtube video of me reading the Scripture passage and my comments. Please check it out and let me know your thoughts.

Also, here is the link for my Patreon page

I am always struck by Ziba’s conversation with David.  I know from having read this passage and those which follows repeatedly that when David returns after defeating Absalom Mephibosheth denies what Ziba says about him here.  We are never given any basis to figure out which one lied and which one told the truth.  Which brings me to my thought, why did ZIba say what he did about Mephibosheth?  Did Mephibosheth actually say what Ziba claimed he said?  Or, was ZIba merely taking advantage of the situation to ingratiate himself to David?  If the latter, why did he not instead attempt to ingratiate himself with Absalom?  Perhaps, Mephibosheth did something which Ziba misinterpreted to meaning what he said to David.  I will note that Ziba’s contribution was important to David’s eventual success against Absalom.  Without the food and donkey’s which Ziba brought, David’s forces would have been weakened and slowed down.  If they had been slowed down, Absalom’s forces may have overtaken them.

I sort of feel sorry for Abishai, David’s nephew.  He was offended by Shimei cursing the king, the Lord’s anointed.  I think he was applying here the lesson he had learned from his experience when he accompanied David into King Saul’s camp while Saul was hunting David.  On that occasion, David refused to allow him to kill King Saul because King Saul was God’s anointed.  Here, Abishai thought Shimei deserved to die for cursing God’s anointed.  David was angry with Abishai because Abishai thought the solution to every problem was to kill someone (oversimplifying a bit by saying that).  David knew that God was having Shimei curse him for a reason.  So, he remained humble and did not allow Abishai to kill him.  Perhaps, David’s problem with Abishai and Joab was that they tempted him to lose his humility and vent his anger.

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.

I have a Youtube video of me reading the Scripture passage and my comments. Please check it out and let me know your thoughts.

Also, here is the link for my Patreon page

I am going to start writing about when David was fleeing from Absalom.  As he was fleeing the city the passage tells us that David went up the ascent of the Mount of Olives weeping, barefoot, and with his head covered.  David went up to the Mount of Olives in mourning.  Additionally, it tells us that God was worshiped on the summit of the Mount of Olives.  As I read that I made the connection to Jesus going there to pray after the Last Supper.  I had always thought that Jesus went there because it was a place where he could pray in relative privacy while He was in Jerusalem.  I had never made the connection with God being worshiped there historically by the Jews, nor with the Old Testament prophecies which referred to the Mount of Olives.   In Ezekiel, the the Mount of Olives was where the glory of the Lord stood when it left the temple and the city shortly before Jerusalem was sacked by the Babylonians. And in Zechariah, the Mount of Olives was where the Messiah would stand to fight  the nations when they battle against Jerusalem.  Here, in today’s passage.  David weeping and mourning foreshadows Jesus doing likewise the night before His crucifixion.

When I began writing I was not sure if I was going to write about anything else, but I have decided I do want to touch on another element of today’s passage.  When I read today’s passage, I wonder whether the unintentional role Joab played in enabling Absalom’s rebellion factored into David’s hostility toward Joab and his brother.  If not for Joab, David would not have brought Absalom back from exile.  Further, if Absalom had not convinced Joab to go to David on his behalf, Absalom would not have been able to charm the people of Israel to support his claim to the throne.  Joab did both of these things because he knew that David mourned his estrangement from Absalom.  However, I wonder if Joab was also thinking about the succession, about what would happen when David could no longer rule.  If perhaps Joab thought that Absalom would make a good king to follow David, or perhaps just supported him as the next king because he was David’s oldest living son.  One final point just occurred to me, although I know I have thought about it before.  I wonder if Absalom plotted his rebellion against David because he blamed his father for Amnon raping his sister Tamar, or perhaps just resented David for not punishing Amnon for 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.

I have a Youtube video of me reading the Scripture passage and my comments. Please check it out and let me know your thoughts.

Also, here is the link for my Patreon page

God sent Nathan to rebuke David for what he did with Bathsheba, and to Uriah.  Nathan brought the rebuke home by telling David a story which David at first thought was true.  When Nathan pointed out to David that what he had done was at least as bad as the villain in the story, David recognized, and repented, of his sin.  Nathan told David that God would forgive him this sin, but that David would still face the consequences.  The consequences began immediately when the first son born to Bathsheba and David became sick and died.  David actually models something important for us in dealing with this.  While the child was sick David fasted and prayed to God, seeking healing for the child.  Once the child died, David resumed his life (having mourned the child during his sickness).  David recognized that he would join the child again, but that the child would not return to this world.  Those of us who love Christ know that we will be reunited with our loved ones who also love Christ once more.  Death is not the end for those who trust and obey Christ.

David began to experience other consequences when Amnon, David’s first born son, raped his half-sister Tamar.  Followed again two years later by Absalom, Tamar’s full brother, killing Amnon for raping his sister.  Every time I read this I think that David was a poor father to both Amnon and Absalom.  It seems to me that David had failed to teach Amnon that bad behavior has consequences.  And if David had forced Amnon to marry Tamar (which Mosaic law prescribes for this sort of situation), Absalom would likely have been mollified.  Or, would have at least been reluctant to murder his sister’s husband.

We also get two insights into the intrigue of David’s court in this passage.  First, Joab tells David that he had better come out from Jerusalem and lead the final battle against Rabbah, or people might start seeing Joab as a rival to David rather than as his subordinate.  An example of how Joab seems to look out for David’s interests.  It suggests to me that while Joab liked being the commander of the army, he did not want to be king.  The second is the role Jonadab played in Amnon’s actions and later close knowledge of Absalom’s plot.  Jonadab was another nephew of David.  His involvement in advising Amnon in how to seduce/rape Tamar and later knowledge that Absalom had only killed Amnon suggests that he was a confidant of both men.  I have long wondered what Jonadab’s agenda was in this situation, but we learn nothing more about 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 8-11.

I have a Youtube video of me reading the Scripture passage and my comments. Please check it out and let me know your thoughts.

Also, here is the link for my Patreon page

Every time I read this passage I wonder what led David to kill two thirds of the Moabites (I am assuming there were the same number of people in each of the lines David had them form).  This seems strange since David’s great grandmother, Ruth, was a Moabite and he had put his parents into the care of the king of Moab while he was on the run from King Saul.  The only thing I have seen which explains this is a Jewish tradition which says that the king of Moab either killed his parents, or turned them over to King Saul, who killed them.

This year when I read the passage I wondered about something else.  When David asked after anyone left of the house of Saul that he could show kindness too, why did they only mention Mephibosheth?  After all, in a few chapters we will learn that, in addition to Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth, there were two sons and five grandsons of King Saul still alive.  I will be perfectly honest, no sooner had I begun to wonder about this than I realized the answer.  David said that he wanted to show kindness to this descendant of Saul for Jonathan’s sake.  The logical answer was therefore Jonathan’s son.  Is it possible that David was made aware of the rest of King Saul’s descendants who were alive at this point?  Absolutely, but since they were all healthy and did not need assistance, he chose only to show special kindness to the crippled son of his dear friend, Jonathan.

Finally, I want to touch on something else I noticed for the first time with this reading.  I have read/heard some people suggest that Bathsheba was on the roof bathing in an attempt to catch King David’s attention.  I always felt that was taking a position which was not supported by the text, but I could not say that they were wrong.  Except that today I noticed that the text says that Bathsheba had been “purifying herself from her uncleanness”.  I am sure that was included to indicate that she was particularly fertile at the time David took her, but it also explains why she was bathing at that time.  Bathsheba was not bathing in order to get David’s attention and “trade up”.  She was bathing because Mosaic law called for her to bath after the end of her menstrual bleeding.  So, Bathsheba was not bathing in order to attract David’s attention.  Rather she was doing so to return to a state of ritual cleanness.

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.

I have a Youtube video of me reading the Scripture passage and my comments. Please check it out and let me know your thoughts.

Also, here is the link for my Patreon page

I want to focus on David’s actions while he brought the ark of the covenant into Jerusalem.  As the ark was being transported, David danced and shouted before the Lord with all of his might.  The passage makes a point that David was wearing a linen ephod.  I want to note that when the priestly garments are described in Exodus it specifies that the priest is to wear undergarments to “cover their naked flesh” under the priestly ephod.  David is wearing an ephod because it is a garment with associations with worship, but he did not take it into account in his enthusiasm.  Michal, David’s first wife and the daughter of King Saul, saw David dancing enthusiastically and exposing himself (accidentally) and looked down on him for being “undignified”.   Michal’s criticism of David was not just that he had exposed himself, but that he had done so in front of people below his “station”.  When she confronted David about this, he replied that he was celebrating before God, and would be willing to suffer even greater embarrassment in order to praise God.   Further David was not willing to consider those among whom he celebrated God to be below his station.

David ignored social censure in order to praise God fully.  We should do likewise.  He was not embarrassed by what he had done, and was willing for those who were embarrassed on his behalf to be even more embarrassed, as long as he was serving God.  We should allow the spirit of worship to enter into us and not allow ourselves to be embarrassed by what we do in the moment of praising God.  David did not consider what others thought of his actions while he was dancing before the Lord, and when it was pointed out to him that others were embarrassed by his actions his response was, “If you thought that was bad, wait until you see what I do next.”  The point is not that he raised the level of his behavior to further embarrass Michal.  Rather, his point was that he was not going to even entertain the idea that he should worry about what others think of his actions praising the Lord.

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.

I have a Youtube video of me reading the Scripture passage and my comments. Please check it out and let me know your thoughts.

Also, here is the link for my Patreon page

Today’s passage divides into three parts.  First, it tells us about David learning of the death of King Saul and his son Jonathan.  Second, it tells us about David becoming king over Judah and his war against the House of Saul.  Finally, it tells us about Abner’s attempt to bring all of Israel over to David and Joab’s murder of Abner.  People often claim a contradiction between the account of Saul’s death given here by the man who brought the news to David and the account of Saul’s death given at the end of 1 Samuel.  The problem is that there is only a contradiction if you believe that the passage here intends for you to believe that the man who brought the news was telling the truth.  As I read it, it reads to me as if this man, an Amalekite, brought the news, and told it the way he did, in order to gain favor with David.  David’s action in killing the Amalekite who brought him news of King Saul’s death, and who claimed to have delivered the death blow, is consistent with his repeated refusal to take opportunities to kill Saul while Saul was hunting him.  David received power because God delivered it into his hand, not because he sought it out.

It reads to me like the war between David and the House of Saul was more because Abner tried to set up Ish-bosheth as ruler over all of Israel, rather than because David tried to expand his power base.  While Joab’s murder of Abner prevented Abner from ending that war. it was effectively over from the time Abner came to David to negotiate peace.  We see in that ending, and in David’s reaction to Abner’s murder, how David relied on God to establish his kingship.  Our ambitions should be similar.  Our ambitions should be to do God’s will, and if God desires for us to be leaders, He will direct us into that role.

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 have a Youtube video of me reading the Scripture passage and my comments. Please check it out and let me know your thoughts.

Also, here is the link for my Patreon page

I struggle to interpret the story about the woman of En-dor who summons Samuel’s spirit (ghost?) for King Saul.  The description of it actually being Samuel who was summoned runs contrary to my understanding from other parts of the Bible about what happens when a medium actually produces results (as opposed to those mediums who are just charlatans).  However, I do not want to get too caught up on that because the point of the story is that King Saul went into his final battle with the Philistines knowing, and feeling, that he had been abandoned by God.  Repeatedly throughout his life, Saul turned to God for aid when things looked bad, but he did not truly turn from his sins.  King Saul sought God’s guidance to deal with problems he could not deal with on his own, but he did not seek God’s guidance in the rest of his life.  So, God finally stopped answering his requests for guidance.  Let us not let ourselves come to that point.

In contrast to that we see what happened with David at almost the same time.  While Saul was visiting a medium to consult Samuel’s spirit about what he should do, David was coming into the Philistine camp.  David had spent his time among the Philistines making it seem like he was attacking his fellow Israelites while actually raiding other peoples in the area (which lends an interesting insight into the peoples of the area at the time).  Now, his deception has led him into a place of prominence in the Philistine order of battle with the Philistine lord under whose protection he had placed himself.  However, the other Philistine lord’s remembered how in the battle involving Goliath the Hebrews who were in their army turned against them.  Therefore they told Achish to send David away.  They did not want David in their order of battle.  This shows God working to spare David from having to go against his own people in this war.  So, while Saul was seeking God’s guidance and not finding it, God was working to put David in the right place at the right time.

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.

I have a Youtube video of me reading the Scripture passage and my comments. Please check it out and let me know your thoughts.

Also, here is the link for my Patreon page

Today’s passage contains three stories which tell us something about how David became the king that he was: the account of Nabal and Abigail, the account of David sparing King Saul’s life again, and the account of David’s time among the Philistines.  Over the years, I have written various things which we can learn from the account of Nabal and Abigail, but I still feel like there is something about that interaction that I am missing.  So, I am going to mention things which I noticed today and see where that takes me.  I never noticed before, but the passage seems to make a comment on the character of Caleb’s descendants.  It says that Abigail was discerning and beautiful, but that Nabal was “harsh and badly behaved, he was a Calebite.”  That seems to me to suggest that Calebites had a reputation for being harsh and lacking in tact.  Almost as if the descendants of Caleb took pride in their lack of tact to the point of being needlessly offensive.  Which reveals to me a lesson for us.

Some people speak plainly and accidentally offend others.  This passage indicates that Nabal went beyond that.  He likely prided himself on being a “plain speaker”, when he actually purposely spoke in ways which offended others.   We see how Nabal did this when he responded to David’s messengers.  Nabal implied that David was powerless to do him either good or harm because David was but a rebellious servant of King Saul.  Then the passage seems to imply that Nabal had a stroke, which led to his death a few days later, when he learned what had almost happened to him because of his rudeness.  Alternatively, it may mean to suggest that his harshness and bad behavior led to his stroke and death.  In either case, the passage clearly shows that being intentionally rude is bad.  Nabal would have called himself “blunt”, when in fact he was rude.  It is not wrong to be blunt and direct.  In fact, it is probably good.  However, there is a difference between being blunt and direct and being rude.  It is wrong to be rude.

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 have a Youtube video of me reading the Scripture passage and my comments. Please check it out and let me know your thoughts.

Also, here is the link for my Patreon page

I always notice when I read this that Ahimelech was frightened when David came to Nob, apparently because David was alone.  This suggests that King Saul often sent out men to kill people he saw as a threat of some sort.  I suspect that David had been sent on such missions, but possibly not.  As we read the rest of this passage, it becomes clear that Ahimelech was dedicated to at least appearing to be a loyal subject of King Saul.  We also see that Ahimelech’s fear was justified.  We see David’s behavior contrasted with King Saul’s.  King Saul killed Ahimelech and most of his family because he, Saul, perceived Ahimelech as being disloyal for helping David at a time when almost everyone thought David was still one of King Saul’s favorites.  David, on the other hand, went to Keilah, at significant risk to himself and his men, in order to protect it from Philistine raiders.  Then, when David realized that the men of Keilah would surrender him to King Saul he left without causing any problems in Keilah.  Later when presented with an opportunity to kill King Saul, David refused to do so, or to allow his men to do so.

I want to take note that David had been anointed to be king in Saul’s place, yet he was not willing to raise his hand against King Saul because Saul was God’s anointed.  I struggle to articulate the lesson we learn from this, but we get part of it in Saul’s response to David showing him what he could have done.  Saul tells David that he had repaid Saul with good while Saul had repaid David with evil.  This seems to me to tell us that David did something which the Apostle Paul told us to do in Romans 12.  “Repay no one evil for evil, … Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

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 18-20.

I have a Youtube video of me reading the Scripture passage and my comments. Please check it out and let me know your thoughts.

Also, here is the link for my Patreon page

I like today’s story, but I find it challenging to identify a spiritual lesson for us in it.  This passage makes me really like Jonathan, and then I feel bad about what happens to him as a result of his father’s sin.  So, this is not actually a spiritual lesson, but King Saul demonstrates some behaviors of a bad leader.  When people praised David, Saul became jealous.  Rather than see David’s actions as things which strengthened his kingdom and looking for ways to benefit from David’s skills, Saul felt threatened by him.  When King Saul offered his daughter(s) in marriage to David, he saw it as a means to set David up to be killed by the Philistines.  Instead of seeing it as a way to get David to be loyal to his family, Saul saw David’s success in getting the bride price he set as a threat.  Further, Saul failed to accept his son Jonathan’s assessment of David’s character, or to recognize that the loyalty between them went both ways.  King Saul failed to recognize that his daughter, Michal, also thought highly of David, to the extent of helping him escape Saul’s assassination attempt.  King Saul refused to recognize that both his son and his daughter thought highly of David.  A good leader would have found ways to use David’s success and popularity to strengthen his kingdom.  A good leader recognizes that the success of his subordinates reflects will upon himself.  Throughout the description of King Saul’s reign we see evidence that he was a totalitarian ruler.  He viewed everyone with power which did not depend upon his power as a threat to be eliminated.  A good leader seeks to empower those under them to become as powerful as possible.

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