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.”

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 11-13.

    In today’s passage we see how the same qualities which make someone a good leader can turn them into a bad leader over time. In yesterday’s passage, we read that a segment of the people of Israel rejected Saul as king when he was first crowned. To begin with, Saul chose to take no action against them, and for that matter to do nothing with his new authority. A short time later, the King of the Ammonites attacked the city of Jabesh, east of the Jordan. (This was the same area where Jephthah had defended the Israelites against an attempt by an earlier Ammonite king to take control of the area.) Saul raised an army and defeated the Ammonites. After the victory, some of Saul’s followers wanted to kill those who had initially rejected his kingship. Saul however recognized that doing so would lead to division and partisanship in his new kingdom. Instead, Saul took the opportunity of this moment of unity to have himself re-crowned with unanimous support.

    However, a short time later when war had broken out with the Philistines, this same political pragmatism led Saul to take the role of priest and offer sacrifices to God in Samuel’s place instead of waiting for Samuel to arrive as he had been instructed. This is the first time where Saul chose to do what seemed right from a politically pragmatic standpoint rather than doing as God had instructed. When Saul first became king his sense of politics led him to unify the tribes of Israel into a single kingdom. However, once his power was established that same sense of politics led him to seek to consolidate his power rather than trusting God to do so for him. When Saul found himself in a bad situation, he chose the course of action he believed best, rather than trust that God would see him through.

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 8-10.

    When Samuel got old he appointed his sons to resolve disputes among the people of Israel. Unfortunately, Samuel’s sons were no better than Eli’s had been. So, the people of Israel decided they needed a king, a powerful central government. After centuries of being in a loose confederation, only coming together under a central leader in times of difficulty, they decided that they needed a central government with more clearly established authority. Samuel warned them that such a central authority would expand its authority and abuse them. The people were sure that the limits in the Law of Moses would keep that from happening, and, besides which, the benefits would outweigh the liabilities. The writer of the Book of Judges (perhaps “compiler” would be a better word for this person) agreed with the people (which is why the Book of Judges several times refers to the lack of a king as an explanation for why everyone did what was right in their own eyes). It is here that we see that the writer/compiler of the two books of Samuel disagreed.
    The people of Israel had experienced two times in a row where the successors to their informal leader had proved to be venal and corrupt. First, there was Eli followed by his sons. Then there was Samuel followed by his sons. Reading this reminded me of the debates regarding the writing and ratifying the U.S. Constitution, and some of the quotes from men of that period about it. What the people of Israel did not understand was that the failure of their “government” (using quotes because they did not have what we would recognize as a government during most of this period) was not due to poor design of that “government”. Rather, it was a result of their failure to remain faithful to God. Instead of doing what the Law of Moses instructed them to do, they did what they decided for themselves was right. The exception was when a leader rose up and guided them to follow God’s laws, but even then, they did so because of the leader, not because they chose to follow God’s commands.

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 4-7.

    The capture of the Ark of the Covenant by the Philistines tells us a lot about the way we tend to think of God. The Israelites lost a battle to the Philistines and wondered why God had allowed it to happen. Then instead of going to God with prayer and supplication, they tried to force His hand by bringing the Ark to battle with them the next time. We often do the same sort of thing, and it almost always ends badly, just as it did here.

    However, we also learn something from what happened once the Philistines had the Ark. The Philistines concluded that since they had captured the Ark their gods were more powerful than the Israelites’ God. They set the Ark up as a sort of offering to Dagon in the presence of their image of Dagon. The way in which the idol fell over as if worshiping God was not lost on the Philistines, especially not when plague broke out shortly afterwards. So, the Philistines consulted their diviners who told them to send the Ark back with a gift. I am always fascinated by the way the Philistines sent the Ark back. They put it on a cart and hitched the cart to cows which had just given birth, putting the calves in a pen separated from their mothers. Despite the natural tendency of cows to try to get to their calves, these cows took the cart to an Israelite town. Despite all of this, when the Israelites got the Ark back seventy of them allowed their curiosity to get the better of them and looked inside the Ark. Those 70 men died.

    After all of this, the people of Israel mourned because they believed that God had abandoned them. They finally sort of got it. God does not work on our terms. It was at this point that Samuel told them what to do, instructions we should follow today. If we want God’s help, we need to want to turn to Him. In order to turn to God we must put aside all other gods, everything which might take our focus off of doing God’s will. The Israelites followed Samuel’s instructions, got rid of all of their idols and other objects of worship, and gathered together to worship God as instructed by Samuel. Then came the bad news, the Philistines had mustered their army and were coming to attack them. Samuel did not turn his attention from God, not even as the Philistines attacked. It was when the Israelites focused on worshiping God and did not let their troubles distract them from doing so, not even the imminent attack of their enemies, that God defeated their enemies for them. The same holds true for us. This is the same message as when Peter tried to walk on water to Jesus. As long as Peter kept his eyes on Jesus he could walk on water. As soon as he began to look around at the potential problems he began to sink beneath the waves.

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 1-3.

    In her prayer for a son, Hannah vows that if God gives her as son she will dedicate him to God’s service and his hair would never be cut. Some manuscripts suggest that she also vowed that he would never consume wine, thus dedicating him to the vow of the Nazirite which was described in Numbers 6:1-21. However, Samson’s parents were instructed that his hair should never be kept as a sign of his dedication to God. So, it seems like there was a tradition among the Israelites of not cutting their hair as an act of dedicating an individual to God. I do not know if this was a variation of the Nazirite vow, or a separate tradition, but I suspect that the writer, both here and in the story of Samson, intended for us to make the connection to the Nazirite vow. I, also, believe that the writer intended for us to think of Samson when we thought about Samuel’s birth. I am firmly convinced that the writer of the Book of Judges was setting the stage for the rise of kings in Israel and explaining why they were necessary. It seems to me that the Samuel 1 and 2 continue that theme.

    Eli had failed as a father to his biological sons. We cannot know if that was because he had done something wrong or because his sons refused to follow his godly lead, but we can be sure that any godly father whose sons turned out as Eli’s did would consider themselves to have failed. However, he did not fail in raising Samuel. The first steps in that success were his recognition that God was calling Samuel in the night and his acceptance of God’s judgment on his sons and himself. I said that we do not know if Eli did anything wrong in raising his sons, and that is true, but once their sinful behavior was revealed Eli failed to remove them from positions of authority. Eli may have done nothing wrong as a father, but as a priest he failed in his duty to remove his sons from their priestly duties. That responsibility was not because he was their father but because he was the high priest. Eli’s sin was to allow his sons to continue to function as priests after he became aware of the sins they committed while filling that role.