Today, I am reading and commenting on  2 Samuel 14-15.

As I read today’s passage I find myself thinking about several questions.  First, I wonder when Absalom began plotting his coup.  Did he begin plotting as soon as King David called him back from exile?  It appears to me that Absalom had begun plotting a coup when he reached out to Joab to enlist Joab’s aid in being allowed to leave his own estate.  Which raises the question in my mind as to what degree Joab was aware of Absalom’s efforts to become king and to what degree he approved of them?  From there I wonder whether Joab would have thrown his support behind Absalom if Absalom had asked for it?  If the answer to that question is “yes”, then Absalom’s failure to ask for Joab’s support was his first mistake.  As I think about it, I conclude that Joab would not have thrown his support behind Absalom.  If Joab would have been willing to support Absalom’s coup, Absalom would not have needed to burn Joab’s fields to get Joab to listen to him.  In another vein, I wonder as I read this if Absalom plotted to overthrow his father because he blamed David for Amnon raping his sister, or perhaps just for David’s failure to punish Amnon for that rape.

The final point I want to touch on is not a question, but a thought about why Absalom failed.  Absalom has a strategy for getting the people to back him once he had overthrown his father.  The passage describes how he had ingratiated himself with the common people.  However, the description of what happened when David fled Jerusalem illustrates Absalom’s miscalculation.  I have already touched on Absalom’s failure to get Joab’s backing for his coup, but he apparently failed to gather support from any of the other power bases of the kingdom (If I remember I may compare how those power bases split differently when I read the passage about Solomon becoming king).   First the writer highlights how the elite soldiers of King David’s army remain loyal by pointing out how a unit of Philistine mercenaries went with David into exile.  Additionally, Absalom had failed to gather any support from among the priestly caste.  The whole account of Absalom’s coup indicates that while King David had done a good job of gaining the backing of those who controlled the levers of power in Israel, he had left the rest feeling left out.

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 think that King David gives us a great example on how we should approach sickness and death in our loved ones from the way he reacts to the sickness and death of the son he had through his adulterous affair with Bathsheba.  When the boy got sick, David fasted, mourned, and prayed to God for the boy’s recovery.  Yet, once the boy died, David resumed his normal life and did not mourn any longer.  In other words, David expressed his love for the child while he lived, when it mattered to the child, but got on with his life once the child had died.  In the same way, we should express our love for others while they are alive, when they can appreciate it, rather than waste our time mourning for them when they have died and can no longer experience how much they meant to us.  I am not saying that it is wrong to mourn, just that we should put more effort into expressing our love while those we love are alive than in doing so after their death.

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.

When I read about King David’s conquests of the surrounding kingdoms I debate in my head between two theories I have about what he was doing.  The one that came to me is that King David was protecting the merchant caravans, similar to the way he had protected Nabal’s shepherds when he was on the run from King Saul.  In that theory, the neighboring kingdoms profited from raiding merchant caravans.  My second theory is that, instead, David conquered the surrounding lands in order to seize control of the caravan routes as far as he could.  I think the first theory better explains why he did not attack the Ammonites until they provoked him.

Today was the first time that it occurred to me that the reason that King David did not lead his army against the Ammonites was that the war against the Ammonites was not part of the strategy that led him to conquer his other neighbors.  In any case, staying home while he sent the army out to fight was a mistake, perhaps even a sin.  I believe that the writer of this passage felt the same way.  He expresses his judgement on King David for not leading his army by writing, “In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out…”  The writer follows that up with recording Uriah’s reason for not going home to his wife.  All of this leads me to my main point on this: if King David had been doing what he ought to have been doing, leading his army in war, he would not have been tempted to do, and thus would not have done it, what he should not have done, sleeping with another man’s wife.  In the same way, if we fill our time with doing the things which we ought to be doing, the things which God desires us to do, we will not fall into temptation

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.

After the second time David had a close encounter with King Saul when Saul was pursuing him, David decided to take his men over and enter into the service of the Philistine king of Gath, Achish.  This was second time David went to the king of Gath to join his service.  The first time David was alone and pretended to be crazy to avoid being killed.  This time David had a force of 600 loyal men following him, giving him protection.  We read in yesterday’s passage that David went to a lot of effort to convince Achish that he was raiding Israelite towns and villages, when he was not actually doing so.  As a result, when the Philistines went to war against King Saul, Achish asked David to accompany him and planned to give him a position of great importance in his order of battle.  However, the other Philistine rulers feared that David would do what the Israelite mercenaries in their army had done in their first battle against King Saul many years earlier and insisted that Achish not include David in his order of battle.

We do not know what David intended to do had Achish included him in his order of battle, but we see how God worked to keep David from going into battle against his own people.  God also worked to send David and his men back to their village in time to rescue their families, who had been taken captive by a raiding party while they were with the Philistine army.

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.

Usually when I read today’s passage I focus on David’s encounter with Nabal and Abigail.  Today I want to focus on David’s refusal a second time to take King Saul’s life.  On both occasions when David refused to take King Saul’s life he did so for the same reason, Saul was God’s anointed king over Israel.  He did this despite the fact that Samuel had anointed him to take Saul’s place as king over Israel.  However, despite Saul’s promise that he would not harm David, David knew that it was just a matter of time until King Saul set forth once more with his army to kill David and his men.   We can take a lesson here on respect for those whom God has put into positions of political authority.  David refused to take any action against King Saul because God had made Saul king.  David did this despite having been chosen by God to replace Saul as king.  David honored Saul as king until God removed him from the throne.  We should have a similar respect for those whom God has placed in positions of authority over us, even those who fail to honor God.

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.

One thing which always strikes me about this passage is that Ahimelek the priest was afraid of David when David came to him alone.  We know from the rest of the passage that Ahimelek did not yet know that David was running from King Saul.  It seems that Ahimelek feared that David had been sent by Saul to kill him.  We see from King Saul’s actions later when he ordered Ahimelek, his family, and  all of the people of the town of Nob killed (note that Nob was a town of priests) that Ahimelek’s fear was not without basis.  However, I want to focus on what the incident at Keilah tells us about David’s decision making.  When David heard that the Philistines were raiding Keilah, he asked God for guidance as to whether he should defend the town.  Then, when his men were afraid to go, he asked God again.  Once he was in Keilah and heard that King Saul was mustering the army to attack Keilah, David sought God’s guidance once more.  We see here that David regularly sought God’s guidance in making decisions.

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 16-17.

We normally think of David’s father as being a man of no particular note.  However, reading between the lines a little bit in this passage, combined with some of the things we learn in later passages about David’s nephews, suggests that Jesse was a man of great prominence in the tribe of Judah.  In this passage we see that Samuel knew who Jesse was, and was worried that King Saul would quickly learn that he had gone to see him and anoint one of his sons.  Additionally, Jesse was an important enough person that the idea that Samuel would go to him to conduct a sacrifice was believable.

Then we have two stories which seem to describe different ways in which David entered into King Saul’s service.  While the two stories conflict with each other, they do not contradict each other.  If one realizes that the book we are reading is a compilation of oral traditions you realize that each story came from different oral traditions and each needed to end with David in King Saul’s service.  The first story explains how David came to play the lyre for King Saul, the second story explains how David came to be a war chief for King Saul.  I believe that David began playing the lyre to soothe King Saul before the Goliath incident, but did not fully enter into King Saul’s service until after the incident.  But since the oral tradition did not contain the account of David vs Goliath, it needed to explain David entering into long term service with King Saul and thus talks about David becoming Saul’s armor-bearer and then remaining in King Saul’s service.    For those who wonder about how an armor-bearer became a war chief, remember the account about Jonathan going up against the Philistine camp accompanied by just his armor-bearer.  Jonathan’s armor-bearer fought alongside him there.   As such, I am convinced that both stories took place, but that the part where King Saul made David one of his armor-bearers and took him permanently into his service took place after David defeated Goliath.

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 4-7.

This passage contains a lot about the power of God and the honor He demands.  The Israelites attempted to use the ark of the covenant to manipulate God.  Their reasoning appears to have been that if they brought the ark to the battlefield, God would be forced to bring them victory.    God does not work that way.  We cannot tell God what to do.  In a way, the Israelites were attempting to use the ark as their god.  Then after the Philistines captured the ark they thought their gods were more powerful than God.  The symbolism was quite clear.  They set the ark of the covenant beside their god, Dagon, as if it was tribute to him.  The following morning they found their image of Dagon prostrate before the ark of the Lord.  After they set the image back up, they found it prostrate the following morning with its hands and head broken off…almost as if they had been cut off for not honoring God.  In addition, a plague broke out among the Philistines.  All of this led the Philistines to conclude that they must return the ark, but they realized that they had no way of determining where to return it.  They also wanted to be sure that the plague was not just a coincidence.  So, they placed the ark on a cart and yoked two cows which had recently given birth to it.  The normal expectation would be for the cows to head for where their calves were.  These cows instead headed for Israelite territory.  The Israelites rejoiced at the return of the ark.  Some of them could not resist their curiosity and looked inside the ark, despite not being properly consecrated to approach the ark.  Those who treated the ark of the Lord like a carnival attraction died.  All of these events led the people of Israel to return to worshiping the Lord. When they did so, Samuel told them that it was not enough to start worshiping God again.  They needed to give up their various idols as well and worship only God.  Samuel had they gather to rededicate themselves to God.  When the Philistines attacked this gathering, the Israelites continued to worship and only responded to the threat after God had acted on their behalf.

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 1-3.

I noticed something in the passage today that never registered to me before.  After Samuel’s birth, Elkanah, his father, went up to offer his annual sacrifice and fulfill his vow.  Now, the fact that Elkanah went up to offer an annual sacrifice was mentioned in the introduction to the book, but nowhere does it mention that he took a vow.  So, is this vow which he was fulfilling related to Samuel’s birth?  Had Elkanah taken a vow similar to the one which Hannah had taken regarding the birth of Samuel?  I do not know the answers to those questions and am not sure that it is important, but I thought it was interesting that Elkanah had taken a vow which he fulfilled shortly after Samuel’s birth.

Of greater interest to me is, how and why did Eli fail so miserably to raise his sons to be God-fearing, yet succeed so outstandingly when it came to Samuel?  Obviously, the first piece of that puzzle is to be found in Samuel’s mother, Hannah.  Every year, she made Samuel a robe and brought it to him when she came to offer sacrifices with her husband.  I am sure that at the same time she reminded Samuel of how God had honored her by giving her him as her son.  It is worth noting that Samuel would have witnessed the sins of Eli’s sons, and would have had the example of his father, Elkanah, faithfully offering his sacrifices despite their blasphemy.  And yet, we cannot discount the influence which Eli had on young Samuel.  After all, it was Eli who told Samuel how to respond when God called out to him in the night.  Eli had failed to raise his sons to fear God.  To what degree that was Eli’s fault is open to question, although the passage does indicate that God placed at least some of the blame on Eli.  However, we can also see that Eli sought to correct whatever mistakes he had made with his own sons in the raising of Samuel.  And this is a point we should take to heart: whatever mistakes we have made in the past, we do not need to continue to make those some mistakes today and going forward.

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.

Every time I read the story of David and Nabal, David’s reaction seems excessive.  Yet, it is clear that Nabal’s men expected that reaction.  At one time I thought that Nabal’s answer was a deadly insult which just does not translate into modern language and culture.  However, I have come to believe over time that David had an agreement with Nabal, whether it was an agreement they had entered into, or one which was understood from common usage, to protect Nabal’s men and herds from raiders and bandits (which were apparently fairly common in that area and time as we will see later).  Reading it in that light, Nabal’s response to David’s request for payment for having performed his side of the bargain can be read as Nabal telling David, “I’m not going to honor our agreement.  What are you going to do about it? Ask King Saul to enforce it?”

So, here is the situation.  David could have taken everything from Nabal in the first place, but instead entered into an agreement to protect Nabal’s property from others who might try to take in return for supplies.  When it came time for Nabal to fulfill his part of the bargain, Nabal reneged and David gathered his forces to take everything Nabal owned.  Abigail, Nabal’s wife, gathered the supplies which David was owed (and perhaps a bit more, but we have no way to know) and took them to him.  When Nabal learned of what Abigail had done, he had a stroke (or perhaps a heart attack), and ten days later dies.   Shortly after which David marries Abigail and gains ownership over Nabal’s property..  This story gives us a hint that the role of women in that society is more significant and powerful than a cursory reading of the Old Testament might lead us to believe.

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