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

Today, I am reading and commenting on 1 Samuel 25-27.

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

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

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

Today, I am reading and commenting on 1 Samuel 21-24.

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

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

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

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

Today, I am reading and commenting on 1 Samuel 16-17.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 David: “OK”

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

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

Today, I am reading and commenting on 1 Samuel 14-15.

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

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

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.

    This passage starts with Saul demonstrating his ability to be king. While Saul was out in the fields word came to his town about the threat by a foreign power to mutilate the men of an Israelite city. Those who heard the news wept and mourned this terrible tragedy. Saul acted. His reaction to the news was anger and action. He called the fighting men of Israel to war. He then marched to the relief of his countrymen who were under attack. However, he showed his kingship in more than just his ability to make war. After his victory, there were those among his followers who wished to punish those who had questioned, and resisted, Saul’s kingship. Rather than use his victory as an opportunity to destroy his enemies, Saul used it to unify the people of Israel and refused to retaliate against those who had rejected his leadership.

    Saul was a pragmatic leader, as shown by his actions after he won his first great victory and again when he gathered his army at Gilgal to face off against the Philistines. Saul waited for Samuel to come to make sacrifices and call on God to bless his army in it battle against the Philistines. When Samuel did not arrive after seven days (by the seventh day? the wording is ambiguous), Saul’s men began to leave his army. Looking at the situation pragmatically, Saul realized that if he did not do something he would soon not have an army. So, he decided to make the offerings himself. Saul’s decision may have been pragmatic, but it was not according to God’s will.
    What should Saul have done? He waited seven days as Samuel had instructed him. His men were scattering in fear. He needed to do something. He needed to go into battle or he was going to lose his army, but he also needed to at least appear to have God’s blessing for the battle. What Saul failed to do was ask God for guidance. He looked at the situation, debated his options, and chose a course of action. He made a mistake which is all too easy for us to make. We think we have taken everything into account, but the problem is that we do not know what we do not know. Sometimes everything we know can point to a decision which is the wrong decision. That is what happened to Saul here. He relied on his own judgment rather than asking God to guide his decision.

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 became old and was no longer able to lead the people of Israel, he turned the role over to his sons, who were little, if any, better than Eli’s sons had been. This, among other things, led the Israelites to ask Samuel to appoint someone king over them. They wanted to be like everyone else. Their desire for a king was not a repudiation of Samuel or his service. It was a repudiation of God. Rather than acknowledge that their problems were a result of their failure to faithfully follow God, they blamed God for not giving them a king to rule over them. They looked at other nations and thought that if they were like them, if they had a king, they would not have the problems which they had.

    One of the things which has stood out to me for several years when I read about Saul being chosen to become king. That thing is what the author thought most important to point out about Saul. That something was that Saul was a head taller than anyone else and the most handsome young man in Israel. This does not mean that Saul did not have qualifications which might have made him a great king because I think that he did. However, it shows us once more that the people of Israel were choosing a ruler for the wrong reasons. They wanted someone who looked the part more than they wanted someone who could do the job. We often make the same mistake in choosing leaders today. We choose someone because they look like what we think a leader should look rather than judging them on their skills. There is a difference between how Saul became king and how David became king. Saul became king because he looked like a king. David became king because he led like a king. I want to repeat that I do not want to belittle Saul’s skills as a king because I know they are on display in tomorrow’s passage.

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 Israelites were battling the Philistines and they attempted to use the Ark of the Covenant as a totem to force God to give them victory. Instead, they suffered a crushing defeat. This is a lesson for us. God is not some totem we can call upon to bring us victory, or success, in pursuing our own agenda. However, there is more to this story as well.
    The Philistines thought that their victory was an indication that their gods were more powerful than God. In particular, they placed God in a subservient position to Dagon, the lord of their pantheon. The Philistines would very definitely gotten the message of the imagery of the statue of Dagon falling prostrate before the Ark of the Covenant, especially after it happened a second time with the head of the statue breaking off. These combined with the outbreak of plague in Ashdod, and then in Gath when they moved the Ark there, made the Philistines realize that God could not just be integrated into their pantheon. While our attempts to use God for our purposes will fail, and lead others to question the power of God, God will subsequently display His power in a manner which shows that our failure was because our actions did not have God’s support, not because God was unable to grant us success.

    When the Ark of the Covenant was returned to the Israelites by the Philistines, the reason and manner of that return inspired a revival in faith among the Israelites. Samuel then told them that if they wanted to return to the Lord they needed to do so “whole hog”. There could be no hedging their bets by continuing to worship other gods, or even by just holding on to the idols and paraphernalia of such worship. If they wanted to return to the Lord, they needed to commit themselves to serve Him alone. That is what God wants from us, that we worship and serve Him above all other things. In today’s world, it is less a matter of worshiping other things we view as gods and more a matter of accepting competing ideologies.

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.

    The beginning of this passage gives us an insight into how important having children was to women in biblical times. I could spend time discussing some of the reasons for this, but the important thing is to recognize that it was extremely important to most of them. Hannah desperately wanted children. A feeling which was exacerbated by her husband’s other wife (another reason for monogamy). In her desperation, Hannah poured out her heart to God. In this she serves as an example for all of us. She prayed and asked God for the desire of her heart, but she also offered to dedicate the desire of her heart to serving God’s will. The most important part of this is that she followed through on that promise.

    I find it difficult to know what to make of Eli. On the one hand, the sons of his body had grown into evil men who brought disgrace on the name of the Lord. On the other hand, he raised Samuel and taught him to serve God faithfully. Eli rebuked his sons for their sins, but he did nothing further (of course, we have no reason to believe that he could have done anything further). He also accepted the Lord’s judgment on his family without complaint.
    Perhaps the most important thing which Eli did in his life was teach Samuel to respond to God by saying, “Speak, for your servant is listening.” I am going to do something here that I generally avoid. I am going to expand on this phrase.

• “Speak,” acknowledging that God has something to say to us.
• “your servant,” expressing a willingness to do as God commands.
• “listening,” recognizing that we need to pay heed to what God has to say to us.