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.
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.
Much has been made about the context set in verse one. I had been taught that David put himself in trouble by avoid war and sending Joab. The lesson being, if we're doing the right things, we can avoid temptation.
But in the recent previous commentary of Wiersbe, he was saying that David had previously been in a battle I'll read about in I Chronicles and there had been a near miss with David being killed or something and his leadership team told him he needed to let his warriors fight the battles. That makes sense. Our President doesn't mount a tank and head to the front lines.
Now I am ambivalent. I agree that idle hands leaves us vulnerable to sin; but I also see that the Proverbs talk about the wisdom of much counsel. The truth is, sometimes God spares us from a curse, like He did with Balek and Balaam, only to have the enemy find a way for us to volunteer for our own trouble- as Balaam was able to orchestrate later.
Either way...here we are. David is home while the war was raging and he had a great view from his mansion roof.
Verses 2-13
So...mt ambivalence fades pretty fast after verse one.
It seems like Bathsheba was just living her life. She waited until night to bath, when people were sleeping. And she was on the roof, where people bathed. I'm guessing most others couldn't see her on her roof, but David's mansion probably had higher elevation. There are assumptions on my part. I'm be curious if Ryrie or Wiersbe corrects me on anything.
David was out of routine. It sounds like he was awake int he middle of the night and checking things out from his roof. When he saw a naked form, he should have averted his eyes, but he looked long enough to evaluate her form and found it pleasing.
Then he asks about her and finds out she's married. But he doesn't miss a beat. He bring her over and has sex with her.
She cleanses herself and returns to her life, only to find out she is pregnant. This is super bad news because her husband is off at war, so adultery is the only way she could have conceived- making her eligible for stoning to death. And would cause problems for David as well.
So, our very flawed hero first tries to just cover up his sin. He brings home the husband from war with the hope that the husband will have relations with Bathsheba close enough to David's sin that everyone will assume the child belongs to the husband. In this first plan, David was content to let another man raise his baby to cover up his sin. And to let another man be cuckolded.
But David has a problem. Uriah is an honorable man. Or at least a man focused on his military mission. He knows he should be back at the battle with his brothers-in-arms. He can't go home and live in luxury (including sex with his wife) while his crew is in the thick of it. Even when David gets him drunk, he's still not interested in heading home.
That means Bathsheba is marching closer to her stoning and David his scandal.
I've been dreading this chapter. David has been so great until now.
I learned in college that American Literature invented or greatly expanded the idea of a flawed hero. Previously, heroes, by definition, were "perfect" or ideal characters to whom we should admire and emulate. Greek and Roman adventures and warriors who showed us courage, wit, strength, and valor, even when they were losing, they were still winning.
Then along comes the settling of the American West and cowboys and Indians and bank robbers and somehow, America started to have a soft spot for characters who did some bad things but had the "hooker with a heart of gold" soft spot that, ultimately, led them to do the right thing and save the day.
Now that's how we like our heroes. Not perfect. Approachable. Maybe you would even enjoy getting a beer with one of them. Who wants to have a beer with a larger than life Greek hero. We're the country of throwing off the binds of the monarchy and manifest destiny...we don't abide snooty, perfect heroes.
I am particularly prone to this genre. I love Mitch Rapp, Jack Ryan's darker counterpart, John Clark/Kelly, The Grey Man. Orphan X. If they have a sad childhood story and shoot the bad guys...I'm in.
There is, however, a serious flaw with the flawed hero. I think we love these guys (and sometimes, but rarely women) because we want to believe there is a hero out there who, like the kryptonite-sensitive, love-sick, and vulnerable Superman, will fly in at save the day.
See the problem? We want to be...saved. We know in our hearts that there is evil in this world and that a lot of it is stronger than we are. There are bad men (and sometimes women) who are plotting and scheming to take things from us, to hurt or even kill us, to make us feel helpless. For kids it can be a vague fear of the bogey man; but then we grow up and some people fear the government, others fear big corporations, or certain types of people, some fear diseases, or money-related problems. Some know that all of the evil comes from the enemy of God.
And the truth is...they're all correct to be afraid to one degree or another. All of those things can be very real and very scary, bringing great pain, tragedy, and harm to our lives. So we were correct all along. We. Do. Need. A. Savior.
The problem is...the FLAWED hero is just as big of a myth as the classic. perfect hero. Our longing for a hero is real and should drive us to the only savior that can actual save us. Jesus Christ.
C.S. Lewis makes the point in several of his books that we can't long for anything that doesn't exist somewhere. And the longing for peace and safety and security and provision and health and happiness is a longing for paradise lost, as we live in this fallen world. Jesus is the way God designed to restore us to what was lost, but it has to be on His terms- through Faith in Him.
That's the real flaw in the flawed hero. The fallen actually cannot save the fallen. And that's what we want. The flawed hero IS approachable. We could buy him a beer after his next big adventure saving the world. But he actually cannot fight the bogey man, or pay the bills, or fight cancer, or any of our personal battles.
And that brings me to David. I kept stalling from starting the chapter and I didn't know why. It's because David has been such a fun hero to read about. A man after God's own heart, slaying his ten thousand, but refusing to slay the man trying to kill him in obedience to God. He's been flawed, but in, relatively minor ways. But now David is about to fall and fall hard taking with him the idolatry I have in my heart for men who can save us without having to kneel our (my) rebellious heart and cry out to the only one who can really save me. Jesus.
Jesus, I'm sorry I'm still on the trail looking for heroes to save me when you already have. You're all I need and all I want and I am so disappointed to find such a rebellious heart every time I turn a corner. I long for the day that my worship of you is incorruptible because of the work you have done for me by suffering and dying on the cross.
The good news is David is an archetype of Jesus in many ways. So I can keep looking for those and waiting for the day of Jesus, crying out to him alone to save me.
And...now I have to go do taxes, so I'm still only on verse one of the chapter. 🙂
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.
David asked if there was anyone left in the house of Saul for whom he could show kindness of God for Jonathan's sake. I get the impression that he had settled the military issues, got the government underway, had his house, relatively, in order and had some time to think and missed his dear friend, Jonathan, with whom is was going to co-rule. I'm reading into that, of course.
David brought in a servant of Saul's and found out the Jonathan had a son, crippled in both feet. David brought him to the house and called him by name, Mephibosheth fell on his face before David.
David told him not to worry and assured him that he, David, would show him kindness (for Jonathan's sake), restore the land that belonged to Saul, and share his meal table regularly.
Mephiboseth, again, fell on his face and asked why David would regard him like this. He called himself a dead dog. Then David assigned Saul's servant, Ziba, and Ziba's 15 sons, and Ziba's 20 servants to work Saul's former land and property and to bring in the harvest, even though Mephibosheth would most often be with David.
Mephibosheth ate at King David table, as one of his sons.
Mephibosheth had a son, named Mica.
Ryrie footnotes point out that the word "kindness: in verse 1 is the Hebrew word "Hesed" It means loyal love. The footnote references another footnote in Hosea 2 that talks about it being a love of belonging together. This would support my early theory that once David's life settled down, he missed his friend and wanted to know if there was any part of Jonathan left to belong with.
There's a lot here to unpack and I don't know if I would have caught it by myself, but I heard a message about this chapter at the women's retreat last summer.
David and Jonathan had a covenant with one another and although it may have ended with Jonathan's death, David felt the need to pursue it. Our speaker this summer asked if we had any covenants in our life that needed tending to and I thought of my commitment to be the God Mother to my nieces and nephew. I didn't totally know what that meant at the tie, beyond being flattered; but now feel the weight of sharing in the spiritual journey.
It also shows us grace. We live in a fallen world and all walk with a limp of one sort or another. We are all crippled apart from the King who showed us grace and made provision for us. Just like God said to Israel just across the Jordan: You'll live in houses you didn't build and you'll eat food you didn't grow. Don't forget who provides for you."
Wiersbe offers the following summary regarding this chapter:
It probably occurred between chapters 6 and 7, which is between David bring the Ark to Jerusalem and the opening line of Chapter 7 when it states that the Lord had given him rest on every side.
8:1 is a victory to the west; 8:2 is a victory to the east; 8:3-12 is to the north and 8:13-14 is to the south
Parallel account = I Chronicles 18-19
Saul fought many of these same battles.
God promised Israel the land from the River if Egypt to the Euphrates River. David was used to fulfill that promise.
David reclaimed land that Saul had lost. He conquered land given by Joshua and not fully claimed by the tribes, and he expanded beyond the original tribes.
For v 8:2, Wiersbe points out that David had a complicated relationship with Moab. Moab had been friendly to David because they thought he was the enemy of Saul. He even had his family hide there from Saul. David was also related to the Moabite through Ruth and they were all distant cousins via Lot. However, they were, ultimately, enemies of the Lord had had to be subdued. Rather than wiping them out, though, he spared every third soldier and turned them into servants- which was probably his way of showing some mercy to this complicated situation.
By defeating the Arameans/Syrians to the north, he gained control of key caravan routes, which was a military advantage and an economic boon as traders had to pay a toll to travel through the routes.
Tucked in v 8:12 is the end of a long, ugly story- the defeat of Amalek and the Amalekites, whom God had declared war in the time of Moses and whom Saul failed to obey in their defeat. David finally brought God's will to completion.
Wiersbe has a similar take as I had in the previous post regarding the significance of verse 8: 15-18. It's remarkable that the leader could win the military battles but also take care of things at home. They were desperately in need of restoration following the time of the judges and the flawed reign of Saul. The dawning of a new day and the rising sun after a rain.
He defeated the Moabites, and spared 1 line, slaying 2 lines. Ryrie thinks this either means he spared every third man, or he measured height, so that he was slaying the adults and sparing the children. Survivors became their servants.
2.15.2020
Then it says he defeated the king of Zobah as he went to restore the rule at the River. And the generic word river was capitalized. So it made me wonder what river and why we got that extra little commentary. The only info in my Ryrie footnote was that Zobah was north of Damascus and Zobah was an Aramean kingdom. Because of the capitalization, I assumed the river was the Jordan; but I looked at the map and it seems to distant for the Jordan. There are rivers there that may connect to the Jordan; but it isn't clear.
Saul, David, and Solomon Kingdoms
Then, I ended up down a rabbit hole.
I was looking at the map in the back of my Bible for David's Kingdom and the best choice was the one that compared Saul, David, and Solomon's kingdoms. (right side of the image below) Here are some thoughts I had:
Saul's is much smaller than David's, which isn't a surprise, except that Saul was the first king of Israel and he was king over all 12 tribes.
So I compared Saul's kingdom to the map on the twelve tribes of Israel as it was given to them by the Lord through Joshua. (left side of the map below)
Saul never reclaimed much past the Dead Sea, which left chunks of Simeon and Judah.
Then there was this chunk missing from the north Trans-Jordan side; but the section right below it was expanded.
So. East Manasseh was severely shrunken and Gad was expanded.
At first I thought that must be Saul's tribe, because he would focus on his own, but he was of the tribe of Benjamin.
According to the map on the right, none of these kings fully conquered Philistia, which is carved out of Judah and Dan. I expect we'll hear about this phenomenon later.
It also shows Phoenicia being oddly untouched, as it seems it would be prime territory just a sliver between them and sea; but if you look at the map on the left, it wasn't given to any tribe. It's outside the boundary of the Promise Land. The Phoenician King was the one who send David the materials for his house and made alliances with his as well. One commentary (Ryrie or Wiersbe?) suggested it was an attempt to preempt warfare and that these two nations had become dependent on one another because of the geography. The Phoneticians needed the agricultural output from Israel and Israel needed access to the sea and the wide array of good the Phoneticians brought back from their sea travels.
It is impossible to know God's thoughts and reasons, but it seems like He had a special blessing or protection on Phoenicia. I remember from World History what a significant influence they had across the world with their sea-going civilization. They spread goods and culture, like the alphabet, across the world. And as blessed and successful as David and Solomon were, they didn't seem to touch this kingdom. I just found this interesting.
Looking closer, Damascus is north of the Promise Land, so to my original question, David was expanding, not just restoring. Which is the title of this post; but I didn't have the map out to understand the actual territory yet.
Similarly, Moab is the square below Reuben's inheritance. SO even taking that was expansion...see how much more you learn when you use the reference materials! I should know better.
However, as mentioned above, the Philistines weren't an expansion. They were part of Judah and Dan's inheritance. So we can see why God wanted the enemy completely defeated, or they would never stop coming at Israel until it was enslaved or destroyed.
So, in conclusion...I guess...since it was just a random set of observations...it looks like Saul did rule over most of the original Promise Land, except the chunks I mention above. It just looks small because David expanded so far, and Solomon even further.
Map image from The Ryrie Study Bible, NAS, 1978 The Moody Bible Instituteof Chicago
One more observation from looking at the map. I think in the back of my mind I wondered how Saul, the King, couldn't find David with such a large contingency attached to him. I used to think it was just David on the run; but when I learned he had a huge entourage, plus their families, it was harder to imagine them hiding. But looking at the map, I can see God's long-term planning. David was from Judah and Judah is HUGE. And, it is placed at the far reaches of the kingdom. And Benjamin is tiny. Saul would have to enter deep into Judah's territory and couldn't necessarily depend on the locals for supplies and intelligence. As King, he probably could force that a little bit; but tribe is tribe. Again, the map brings the story to life more.
I'm just now on verse 4!
Ok, got a little off track there.
In verse 4, Chapter 8 of II Samuel, for those who lost track...it lists some of the booty David captured from the King Zobah. In the Ryrie footnote, it assumes a copyist's error because the numbers do not match the I Chronicle account. There have been a few of these so far, where the math doesn't make sense, or it is contradicted in another place in the Bible. This seems like evidence against Biblical Inerrancy. I think it's worth sorting out what i think about this.
From my understanding from others who are much more learned about theology than I, the Word, as it was given to the original author, in inerrant. God breathed into a person with their own personality and voice; but inerrant none the less. Then passed through CENTURIES and MILLENNIA, it was passed down through careful copying and sharing. The New Testament books have thousands of copies to compare across time and they remain consistent. The Old Testament has fewer, but has a single cultural group who fostered their copies as prized possessions.
So what does that mean. It does seem like some human error has been introduced here. Doesn't that, but definition make this errant? Not to mention simply reading two translations side-by-side and noting some significant word choice differences. Which one is "correct"?
These are fair questions. And to an unbeliever I think the investigation stops there. These are hard arguments to counter without the aid of the Holy Spirit. However:
Again, the inerrancy comes at the point of God giving the Word to the author. It is incumbent on the reader to pursue the original language to the degree to which they are able if there is something they suspect is being lost or confused in the modern translation. We can't always read it in our modern language and culture and grasp the complete meaning. We are called to be able to make a defense of our hope and faith and that's going to take a lifetime of study, not a drunken debate about copyist errors.
The Bible is a complete artifact and no one part can be excised. So, even if there are errors, they can be easily spotted because the Bible continually references itself and tells a story along a consistent arc.
Also, and most importantly, even more importantly than all theology, Jesus is the Word. And Jesus was perfect. So when He left us with His Spirit, the Holy Spirit, so He could be with each of us always...we have His Word in our hearts all of the time. I have complete faith that, if I am reading a man-made, translated version of His word, and I run across an error, I have Him. He's going to handle it. Most of the time, from what I've seen, it's an issue with a number transcribed, or a single letter, not a whole story or concept. So I don't have much concern. But again, if it's more than that, it will stand out because it won't align with the rest of the collection that God wrote with a consistent arc using 40 authors, 66 books, 6000 years of history and two testaments.
I know how this sounds. It sounds like I am admitting to errors or, at a minimum, variations and then dismissing them to still use the term inerrant.
Again, I can see how an unbeliever would come to that. And they are correct. IF. If you don't have an eternal relationship with Jesus, through His saving grace, you only have the old man; not the new man to comprehend the world, let alone heaven. Heaven is now.
I'm just now on verse 5!
Wow. I am on a roll. Slow going through the chapter. I was sick earlier in the week and took the previous two days off and completely rested. It was really, really nice. I also fasted for breakfast and lunch for both days. The rest and fasting has left me felling so refreshed. Able to concentrate. And think more deeply than I have in a long time.
So, back to II Samuel 8, now on verse 5!
v.5 The Arameans had help arrive and David slayed 22,000 of them. (Ryrie labels these as Syrians)
v.6 David built garrisons to help control the Arameans, as they became servants and paid tribute. "And the Lord helped David wherever he went."
v7-12. David collected substantial wealth from those he defeated. Gold shields, silver, bronze. What's significant was, he dedicated it all to the Lord. He was accumulating personal wealth, but treasure to build his Lord's temple, when the time came after his reign.
If we can just get our mind to that perspective. It's seems like a small thing; but it's actually everything. If we can consider all of the workls of our hand and all of our victories to be collecting resources for the Lord, we would see our finances and all of our resources, including our time and talents, as sacred. Not as ours but His. We would make different decisions and we might even find that: "the Lord helps us wherever we go."
v. 13 David was making a name for himself.
v. 14 He also put garrisons in Edom. They also became servants. "And the Lord helped David wherever he went."
v. 15 "David reigned over all Israel; and David administered justice and righteous for all of his people."
v.16-18 Lists his various entourage: Joab= army; Jehoshaphat=recorder; Zadok and Ahimelech=priests; Seraiah= secretary; plus other administartors, including his sons.
These last verses, 15-18, show an incredibly well-rounded leader. He delegated big jobs to others. this requires trust and shows that the leader isn't a cult of personality trying to hoard power with fear and greed- such as demonstrated by Saul. This is what the Lord had in mind for His people, if only they had worshiped and trust Him. Now they had David, who was shepherding them as a people, as a nation, and as the Lord's city on a hill for the world to see and through whom they could come to know the Lord.
