Category: Daily Reading

The Lord sent Nathan to David

Nathan tells the story of the rich man who takes a poor man's only lamb to provide for a traveler. David is enraged by the lack of compassion and points out that the rich man deserves to die, demanding four-fold restitution.

The wording seems purposeful. Deserves to die. David did deserve to die. He did horrible things. We all deserve to die. We've done horrible things in rebellion of the everlasting Lord.

Also of interest in this opening section is that the mere parable made David's "anger burn greatly". However, his actual actions didn't shock his conscience. There is something about our sin that makes us blind, even the biggest sin we can rationalize or just put out of mind. But the smallest sin of others we can see so clearly. I judge the moral character of a driver who dose some thoughtless driving mistake; but excuse myself for much worse sin because...well, because of whatever rationalization I have in the moment. But God sees it clearly and in proportion. Whenever I am able to consciously catch myself judging another, I try to see if I have a parallel weakness. Unsurprisingly, when I examine myself, I always find it. Just another sinner dependent on grace and mercy that I don't deserve.

"You are the man!"

Nathan brings the words of the Lord to David, and doesn't start with David's sin; but instead, David's God.

God starts with Himself and who He is. Which is what sinners forget when they sin. It's not about us. Sin is about God. If you are sinning, you're telling God you're not happy with the provision He has provided. And that's the exact message the Lord brings: (verses 7-8)

• I made you King.
• I spared you from Saul
• I gave you your house and all that you have
• I gave you the entire nation of Israel and Judah
• If this hadn't been enough; I would have happily given you more

Then the Lord focuses on David (verse 9)

• You despised the word of the Lord
• by doing evil in His sight

When we sin, we are despising His Word. I hadn't really meditated on what that really means. God had the Lord written down, and as King, David was required to know it and even had his own copy. This wasn't some obscure passage of text, this was murder and adultery and probably many more in the process. Even though he may not have consciously despised God's law when he sinned; he had the law in his head and disregarded it-trusting his own lusts over God's Word.

I do that every time I sin as well. It's even more egregious when I do it because I have the blessing of the Holy Spirit living inside me. I'm denying God directly, not just the written version of His Word. (Just as an aside, David had the Spirit, but I don't know the theology of how that experience compare to the New testament believer.)

Also in this verse, our sin is always in His sight. It's never hidden. It's never unknown. We are despising His word IN HIS SIGHT. We don't think of that way, so we're never dealing with how offensive it is to Him. So blatant and disrespectful.

Then, and only then, after God lists His provision and then explains how David sinned against Him, personally, does God actually list the sin themselves. I used to say that it hurt me most when someone I loved used a weakness against me, not just because of the weakness, but because of the choice to use it against me. The sin was bad enough; but buried under the layers of David's personal betrayal to God.

I feel so convicted right now.

Wiersbe points out that once Bathsheba tells David that she is pregnant; David did what he had done his whole life- set a goal and then work the tactics to see it through. But this time it was soaked in sin, so the processes just kept spiraling. First he tried just bringing the man home, then making a feast for he and his wife, then just outright suggested he go get it n with his wife.

Apparently, Leviticus 15:16-18 was the basis for a rule that fighting men during war didn't have intercourse with their wives, so Uriah was probably confused and offended that David would press the issue. David even got Uriah drunk and he still wouldn't cave to the warrior code.

So, David decided if he didn't marry Bathsheba soon, the whole cover up would burn down. So he decided he needed Uriah dead for that to happen.

Joab couldn't send his men to the wall without creating suspicion because they knew how deadly it could be in battle to be close enough to have things thrown down. SO he had to create a pretense.

It really hadn't occurred to me, but Joab had to send several men, "the king's servants" (probably David's own body guards!) to die to cover up his roll in the sack with his neighbor's wife.

How hard-hearted we get when we want something. THIS is why idols are so dangerous. Non-believers always ask why God's so vain that He emphasizes idols so much...but this is why. When men (and women) set their hearts onto something other than God, we lose our ever-loving minds!

Wiersbe says that Bathsheba's grief was undoubtedly sincere and then throws out, from what I can tell, I completely misogynistic, crass, and unfounded accusation that her grief was mitigated by the fact she was going to live in a palace. That's disgusting. Without proof, he called her a hard-hearted gold digger at best and a giant villain whore at worse. What kind of woman would be the least bit comforted by the murder or loss of her husband by getting to move into a fancy new house.

In my mind, there's still a chance this happened without her complete consent, but that's ok...because she gets to live in a shiny palace?

I sincerely hope it isn't Wiersbe writing this one; because he just doesn't have the same tone and feel.

What a gross thing to say.

Wiersbe closes out the section by restating that 8 is the number of renewal, and Bathsheba became David's 8th wife. This does begin a new phase in David's life, but not before dealing with the sin.

In this section, Wiersbe takes on the issue I mentioned in my previous post, what was Bathsheba's state of mind in this sin.

Wiersbe states that in the phrase, "David sent messengers and took her..." the word "took" (Laqua) can mean to get, receive, or acquire, or it can mean lay hold of, seize, or take away.

Wiersbe says that "...the reader assumes that Bathsheba cooperated with the messenger. " But I was the reader and I did not assume that. I assume that when the king calls for you and your husband is at war, maybe you think you'll hear news. Or maybe you're a loyal member of God's nation and you come when taken. But I don't assume, so far, that she is volunteering for this sin.

He says there are details in I Kings that may construe that this whole thing was a plan of hers. It seems like almost all of his hypotheticals are scenarios that paint her in a negative light, greedy scheming, seductress. He didn't come up with even a single scenario where she was completely innocent.

Wiersbe points out that Hollywood (and novels) put out many stories about adultery for entertainment. Never showing the full cost. We've made it easy to shatter a marriage, and keep on looking for the person who will always make you happy, no matter how broken you each are. Adultery has consequences, that's why God would place such high penalties on something that could affect the unity and purpose of His nation. David saw first hand how it could spiral into nationwide crisis.

He concludes this section by saying that David AND Bathsheba sinned against God. I am not yet convinced of that. Maybe there are more clues coming; but it may be seen that way however, I still see that it could be David coercing her against her will. I don't know why I feel so strongly about this; I'm not usually one to play the feminist card...but he did murder a dude, so it's not outside of the choices he could make, and he had all of the power. Mostly, I guess I'm discouraged that Wiersbe didn't even consider it. Again, maybe that's because he knew many things I don't. But I think if he had earnestly asked the question and then thoroughly answered it, instead of a few half-hearted throw-away lines, I could have settled it in my mind.

Instead, I picture this women having to clean herself up (purify herself from her uncleanness) and return to her house alone. Only to find herself pregnant while her husband is out of town-so no explanation except adultery and a stoning. Not the grand plan Wiersbe makes it out to be.

2.28.20

In His Holy Word, God leaves in the sin and failure or his key people. It shows that His sovereignty and grace allows Him to complete His purpose despite us.

Wiersbe does attribute part of David's sin to the fact that he was "idle", even though it was Wiersbe from whom I first learned that David wasn't at the battle because his counselors told him to avoid warfare. But Wiersbe theorizes that David could have been with his troops, just avoiding actual battle. I guess I need to look in to this more to understand if David made a mistake or if this is what his military advisers wanted for him. Either way, sin can tempt you. Plenty of sin happens in the workplace; and David had plenty of others tasks to do back in Jerusalem. But I also understand the admonition that idle hands are the devil's playground.

Wiresbe said it was an afternoon nap, not awake in the middle of the night. I misunderstood the timing when I read it.

Wiersbe includes a quote Samuel Johnson, "If you are idle, be not solitary. If you are solitary, be not idle." I thought that was interesting. I get it; but I'm rarely truly idle and solitary. It seems like I have so much to do around the house and work is also usually so busy. But it's a good admonition to remember.

As an aside, this Wiersbe book (just a theory) seems to have been written by someone other than Wiersbe. Or Wiersbe during a distracted phase of his life. Usually he can weave in Christ and New Testament concepts in an enlightening and interesting way. In this book, they come across more like promoted ads in a digital reading. You'll be reading along and he'll use a random word or concept and try to bolt on a Christ or New testament concept. In the chapter on Mephibosheth he quotes Mephibosheth calling himself a dead dog to transition to something like, speaking of dead dogs, we were dead in our transgressions...while not untrue...I'm not sure that the best alignment. Then the author does it here again. He claims David's problem came when David put aside his armor and then tries to make the alignment to the Armor of God from Ephesians 6. First of all, David was the King of a Nation of God. He had MANY outfits he had to wear. Taking off just his armor wasn't accurate. And then the bolt on of the armor of God was, again, not wrong...it's good concepts; but it is unrelated to the story at hand and not tied in well. It makes for a poor reading experience and makes me feel guilty that I'm frustrated with the content he infuses. I makes me feel bad that I'm annoyed by the armor of God. I do want to be reminded of all the great things in God's word; but not in the middle of an analysis of another passage. It shows how good Wiersbe is that it's taken this long into the Old Testament for it to be anything but seemless.

I agreed with Wiersbe on David's second mistake- when he saw a naked woman, rather than fleeing like Joseph, or just politely turning away- he lingered. He evaluated her beauty. He considered his own desires and how she could meet those desires without any input or consent from her. All because he lingered.

Wiersbe claims that David led Bathsheba into temptation when he sent his messengers. I don't think that's obvious. It doesn't explicitly say he raped her coerced her with his position as King; but it also doesn't say she was an explicitly consensual partner. I guess I would need to do a word study and read more about the actual first incident. And if there was more than one incident before she conceived; but it's not clear if she sinned or was a victim.

Wiersbe brought up something I had in the back of my mind but hadn't considered closely. I thought that David was making himself vulnerable by having messengers involved and Wiersbe goes further and points out that palace servants are often a bunch of gossips, Many people would have known about David's sin and it didn't seem to phase him at all. That's a sign that his heart was growing hard. He tried to hide it from the general public; but was fine with those around him knowing.

So far in this chapter, David has stayed back while his nation is at war with Ammon. He eyed another man's wife and took her for himself, sending her home to her absent husband pregnant. He then brought the husband back from war to sleep with his wife, to cover for the adulterous pregnancy. This plan failed twice.

In verse 14 David enacts a second plan, this one more cruel sinful. This time he made Uriah carry his own death order to Joab. Joab was to not only to send Uriah to the fiercest front line fighting; butJoab was to withdraw so that Uriah would be slaughtered. Joab followed orders and, this time, David's plan worked. Uriah died.

v18. After the battle Joab sent a report to the king of the events of the war; but he seemed to be distraught that David would judge him for the strategy he chose to murder Uriah. So he made sure the messenger left that note in there to be clear that the strategy was by David's own order. When David got the message, he was encouraging to Joab for his efforts.

v26 Bathsheba mourned for Uriah. To me, from the tidbits we have here, she wasn't a participant in this and was genuinely abused by David. It seems like he forced himself on her. She was put in a position to defy the king. She then had to deal with her own uncleanness and unrighteousness. There doesn't seem to be any interaction between them except her message to him that she was pregnant. And then he murdered her husband. That's terrifying. Absolutely terrifying. I guess we don't know that she knew how her husband died...but still...

And then David takes her in and makes her wife number whatever we're at...and she has a son.

v 27..."But the thing that David had done was evil in the sight of the Lord.

He sees. He hears. He knows.

So David has brought peace to Israel on all sides, he has set up an organized government, and is establishing his kingdom. He seems to be trying to settle debts he felt he owed or to share God's love. Whatever the initial motivation, he started with Mephibosheth, to honor his beloved friend Jonathan, and that went well.

Then, for some unstated reason, David remembered a kindness paid by the king of Ammon, maybe while David was running form Saul. When that king died, his son took over and David sent men to greet him and offer him kindness in return. It is a little odd that Ammon is listed in those that David defeated just a few chapters earlier in II Samuel 8:12. But maybe that is where some kindness was paid? (Ryrie is saying that this is the battle mentioned in II Samuel 8:12. So I have to remember that the timeline isn't always perfectly linear.)

It did not go well when David's men reached out. The king's princes convinced him that David's men were there to spy, so he shaved half of their beards (a humiliation in that culture) and stripped half of their clothes (a humiliation in almost any culture).

Next, according to most versions I looked at it says that "David sent to meet them." It's an odd wording. It sort of sounds like he met them; but it also sounds like he sent messengers, which is what the NIV version says... Either way, he knew they were humiliated and couldn't show back up in Jerusalem with half beards, so he told them to stay in Jericho until their beards grew back.

So Ammon catches wind that David is not happy with them and they pay 10's of thousands of mercenaries to take on Israel at Jerusalem.

David's military leader, Joab and his brother organize a defense and agree to back one another up.

It doesn't exactly show David seeking the Lord's will before sending the men originally to Ammon, but it doesn't always include that. However, when Joab and his brother are preparing the defense, they put the battle into the Lord's hands in verse 10:12.

When the battle was underway, the mercenaries fled, so then the Ammonites fled. Then they regrouped and this time David gathered all of Israel together and crossed the Jordan to put end to the whole conflict. At that point, those fighting against him surrendered and became servants of Israel.

II Samuel 10-Wiersbe

Wiresbe states that "showing kindness" can also be translated, "make covenant", so David might have been trying to make a treaty with Ammon. Which makes sense now that I know the timeline is a bit off with this story being the issue noted in 8:12. He make network connections with those outside of Israel when he was in exile and may have been following up on that in a friendly manner while subduing his enemies on his other sides.

Wiersbe also explains that the things the Ammon king did to the messengers was what would be expected of a prisoner of war.