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 23-24.

    Today’s passage talks about the Three and the Thirty, these were designations of the mightiest warriors among David’s followers. These appear to be designations which David gave to those who followed him. There are several places in this passage where the translation notes state that the meaning of the original Hebrew is unclear. I find it interesting that its list of “The Thirty” includes 37 men. Is this because some of them died and were replaced? Or did David, after designating the original thirty, decide that some additional men deserved being acknowledged along with the original thirty? For that matter, the passage says that Abishai was the leader of the Thirty, but the translation notes say that most Hebrew manuscripts actually say that he was leader of the Three. A few verses earlier someone else was named as leader of the Three, but it is always possible that when he died Abishai was elevated to take his place.
    Recently, I have read some articles which stated that the accounts given here of the feats of David’s mighty men were not credible. Certainly the idea that one man killed 800 opponents in one battle seems hyperbolic. However, I can construct several scenarios in my mind that make this practical, especially if the battle lasted all day. The passage does not say that he killed them all hand to hand. Perhaps he had set up a trap where a large number were killed by falling for it (there are several different types of trap which could kill multiple people at once). Or, perhaps, after he had dominated the battlefield for a period of time, numbers of men died while trying to avoid engaging with him (falling off of cliffs, falling into a river and drowning, or other similar things).

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 20-22.

    In the aftermath of Absalom’s rebellion conflict arose between the tribe of Judah and the rest of the tribes of Israel. The warriors of Judah claimed preeminence over the warriors of the other tribes because David was of the tribe of Judah. As a result, Sheba, from the tribe of Benjamin (which was the tribe Saul was from), was able to lead a rebellion. David sent Amasa (NOTE: Amasa and Joab were sons of different sisters of David) to muster the full fighting force of the tribe of Judah, giving him three days to gather them. It took Amasa longer than three days to muster the army. David knew better than to allow his enemy time to get organized, gather forces, and find a reliably defensible stronghold. So, David told Abishai, Joab’s brother, to take what troops David already had and chase down Sheba. I find it interesting that David spoke with Abishai rather than Joab. When Amasa, and the troops he had gathered, met up with Joab and Abishai, Joab killed him. My wife compared the stories of 1 and 2 Samuel to “The Game of Thrones” and there is certainly something to that (although I think “The Game of Thrones” would be much better if George R.R. Martin had used them as a model for his plot). Even the way the story of Sheba’s rebellion ends has a Game of Thrones feel to it. I will let you read that for yourself.

    I love the psalm recorded in chapter 22. David starts out by comparing God to the places where he hid from Saul when Saul was seeking his life. It was not the rocks among which he hid which protected him, nor the fortress he holed up in. No, it was God who was the true rock, the fortress which protected him when his life was in danger. When his own son sought his life, it was God who saved David from both the physical danger he was in and the depression he felt over that betrayal. Then we have imagery which is more than worthy of a fantasy novel like “The Game of Thrones.” Daenerys may have had dragons, but David had the God of Heaven:

Smoke poured from his nostrils;
fierce flames leaped from his mouth.
Glowing coals blazed forth from him.
He opened the heavens and came down;
dark storm clouds were beneath his feet.
Mounted on a mighty angelic being,[q] he flew,
soaring on the wings of the wind.

The imagery continues for a few more verses. There is a scene in “The Game of Thrones” where Daenerys is rescued by the dragons, but they just dealt destruction to the works of man. Here david describes how God can overcome barriers of nature to come to our rescue. However, perhaps the best part of this psalm is where David reminds us that the way God deals with us is a reflection of the way in which we approach Him. If we are faithful, God will show us His faithfulness. If we are pure, God will show Himself pure. However, if we are deceitful and corrupt, God will show us that He is more than cunning enough to counter our actions.

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 18-19.

    I think this passage really gives us some of the best insight into Joab’s character. It is in light of what Joab does here and then later at the end of David’s life that leads me to believe that Joab worked to maintain the stability of the Davidic dynasty. Joab was right to kill Absalom because as long as Absalom was alive he would represent a focal point for those seeking to overthrow David (and Absalom had just proven himself unable to rule effectively by failing to quickly pursue and kill David). Joab was also right in confronting David about mourning for Absalom while failing to acknowledge the victory his defenders had just won for him. In his mourning for Absalom, David was failing to live by the philosophy he expressed at the death of his first son by Bathsheba. Despite what Joab did for David here, and previously, David attempted to replace Joab as the commander of his army (this is the second time David offered Joab’s position to someone else).
    In his grief, David committed a sin which we all find too easy. He believed that his grief over the loss of his son gave him the freedom to ignore the feelings of others. He selfishly focused only on his own sense of loss and paid no attention to the relief felt by those who had risked their lives on his behalf. He went so far as to make them feel guilty for being happy that the war was over and they were victorious. Not on purpose, but that was the consequence of his actions. How often have you heard it said by or about someone that they had the right to be angry, rude, inconsiderate, or just plain miserable to others because they had just lost a loved one? There may be some truth to that, but I pray that I have someone like Joab to warn me from taking it too far if I am ever in that situation.

    When David returned to Jerusalem, Shimei hurried out to greet him and apologize for cursing him when he fled. Just as he had when they were fleeing Jerusalem, Abishai, Joab’s brother, wanted to kill Shimei. I had always thought that David’s reaction to Shimei and Abishai was similar to what Saul had done after his very first victory as king when his supporters wanted to kill those who had previously failed to support Saul. However, I noticed today that Shimei came to meet David with 1,000 men from the tribe of Benjamin. I suspect that this show of force had more to do with David extending mercy to Shimei than David’s merciful nature did. We will encounter Shimei once more when Solomon becomes king.

    Today I noticed another thing which my familiarity with this story led me to overlook. Ziba, the servant of Saul whom David had made steward for Saul’s grandson, Mephibosheth, was among the 1,000 men from Benjamin who traveled with Shimei to greet David. We are told that Mephibosheth also traveled to greet David as David returned to Jerusalem. David’s first question for Mephibosheth was why Mephibosheth had not left Jerusalem with him. Mephibosheth’s reply was that he had told Ziba to saddle a donkey for him but that Ziba had left without him. The fact that Mephibosheth had not groomed himself from the time that David left Jerusalem until his return supports Mephibosheth’s story here. What is interesting here is that David apparently believes Mephibosheth, but only returns half of the property he gave to Ziba when he believed that Mephibosheth had turned against him.

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 16-17.

    I want to note, but not actually comment on, what Ziba said to David about Mephibosheth, the grandson of Saul. Ziba said that Mephibosheth thought he was going to get the kingdom which his grandfather had ruled back. In a few chapters, Mephibosheth tells David a different story. This is followed by the story of Shimei cursing David as he flees. This is another story to be revisited later. However, there is a lesson to be learned from David’s reaction here. While David was down in this situation, fleeing for his life from his own son, he still had sufficient power to hurt, even to kill, Shimei. As a matter of fact, Abishai, who was David’s nephew and one of his military leaders, wanted to go over and kill Shimei. David ordered Abishai to leave Shimei alone. Since his own son was trying to kill him, David did not feel that he could blame someone else, someone who had some status as a result of David rising to power, for reveling in his downfall. The lesson for us is that we should not lash out at others when we suffer setbacks, especially serious ones.

    When Absalom arrived in Jerusalem, Ahithophel advised him to sleep with David’s concubines, who had been left to maintain the palace while David fled. There are several places in the Bible where the symbolism involved in this action is referenced. Earlier, when Ishbosheth, Saul’s son and successor, accused Abner of plotting by sleeping with one of Saul’s concubines. The later, when Adonijah tried to marry the last of David’s concubines in order to develop a claim to the throne to challenge Solomon. Absalom was quite willing to follow this advice.
    However, Ahithophel also advised Absalom to send him out with a band of men to pursue King David before he could get organized. Absalom was not as willing to follow this advice and turned to Hushai to see if he agreed. Hushai had wanted to accompany David as he fled, but was told by David that he would be a burden on the fleeing men so he should return and give Absalom bad advice. Hushai openly played on the reputations of David and his men, but he also subtly played on Absalom’s desire to be seen as a great leader. Hushai’s advice was to wait and gather the full army to pursue David and for Absalom to lead that pursuit himself. God used Absalom’s selfish desire for glory to thwart the good advice which he received.
    In this passage we see the contrast between David’s successful leadership style and Absalom’s failed leadership style. David humbly accepted being taunted when he lost. As a result, he did not delay to take revenge and was able to make his escape. Absalom, on the other hand, wanted the glory of being the one to defeat his father and so allowed David to escape and regroup.

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 14-15.

    There are a couple of things which we learn from this story. First, we learn that Joab had been trying to convince David to bring Absalom back for some time. I believe that Joab did this because he perceived that Absalom living in a foreign country would be used to foment rebellion, either against David or against his successor. Second we learn that Joab had probably heard about the story Nathan used to highlight David’s sin with Bathsheba to him.

    I do not usually like to draw spiritual lessons from things said by secondary characters but I believe that the woman whom Joab used to convince David said something very profound. When she made her case for David bringing Absalom back she said the following:

Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die. But that is not what God desires; rather, he devises ways so that a banished person does not remain banished from him.

God indeed does not desire for us to die and be forever separated from Him. He devised a way for us to be reconciled to Him through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In addition, He uses various strategies to convince us to accept this reconciliation. It is God’s desire that no one be banished from His presence. He is seeking even now to convince those who have banished themselves from His presence to return to Him.

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.