Skip to content

Category: David

Published on Leave a comment on II Samuel 12: 15-23 (Even if)

v 15b ..."Then the Lord struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was very sick."

A couple of items to contemplate from this verse:

  • It is specific that the Lord struck the child sick.
  • The child was male.
  • The author phrases it as Uriah's widow, not Bathsheba, keeping the cause of the issue in the forefront. She bore another man's child.
  • And, the Lord struck the child sick, not dead.

Why sick and not dead? As always, I do not presume to speak for God; but the next verse is my clue:

v. 16 "Davis, therefore, inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground." For seven days, he denied himself to intercede for the child. Even when his elders were pressuring him to eat and take care of himself. To the point they thought he might harm himself when the baby actually died.

David got himself (and the baby and Bathsheba, and everyone else) into this when he refused to deny himself everything he wanted- even when what he wanted wasn't his to have.

And even more importantly, David still had hope for the child and went seeking God's face. Something else he wasn't doing before Nathan came to him.

In other words, David was genuinely repenting and his behavior (at cost to himself) was demonstrating that he really got the point. When we babysit our nieces and nephew and catch them doing something wrong, we correct them. And if we get a smirk or a grin in return, we try again to show them why what they did was wrong. We make an effort to explain it and we look for signs that they "got it". Otherwise, the second we left the room they would resume. We didn't want external pressure to be the only thing mitigating the behavior; but an internal understanding. A smirk does not denote internal understanding. So I used to joke that I wasn't done with the correction until I saw them cry. I did not want them to cry, but I was looking for a sign that they understood, in a real way, that what they had done was unsafe or mean, or whatever. Sometimes, it meant when they did get it, they would tear up.

That's what I perceive as happening with David. Suddenly, the life of his child was on the line and he understood that it was his choices that led to this. Personal responsibility before the Lord.

He also understood that the Lord was his only help. What his elders had to say was useless in light of the circumstances. God and God along could decide how the story would end.

And then this chapter of the story did end tragically. The baby died.

In response, David ended his vigil and went to worship the Lord. Only then did he end his fast and return to his normal life. This was very confusing to the elders, who understood the world, but not necessarily, the Lord. So they asked David about his surprising behavior. Here's his reply: (my paraphrase)

v. 22-23 While the baby was alive, I had hope that God would intervene by His graciousness and answer my prayer. But His answer was 'no', so now it is out of my control. God has decided and it is final.

I want to burn this scene into my mind. I think there are so many lessons for living.

  • There are consequences for sin. Sometimes we pay them, sometimes we are forgiven of the sin and the consequence, and sometimes we are forgiven of the sin, but still bear the natural consequence.
  • Genuine repentance bears witness through changed behavior. David didn't have his men fast, as Saul had done when he was trying to change outcomes. David fasted in a long and serious way.
  • David took personal responsibility. There's no evidence that anyone fasted with David or shared in this scene.
  • Faith is asking God for what you want and keep asking with confidence that He may say yes.
  • However, when God clearly says no, and a door is closed, faith is also accepting the no and still remembering that God is good and perfect and there is a reason for the no that is beyond what we can comprehend. (In this case, the salvation of the world and blaspheme of God was on the line, so He said no and the whole world was a better place for denying David's request to avoid the consequences of his sin.
  • Those around us may not understand the scene we are having with God. It may look mysterious, strange, or wrong to them; but if we're being led by the Holy Spirit and we're genuinely trying to love out our faith in the Lord, we keep on keeping on until we're on the other side and can better explain ourselves.
  • A child died. That is the most horrible thing many of us can imagine. While it would be unwise to casually throw out this story to someone in a trying situation; it is worth pointing out that God is in the trials of life with us. This story has a lot to say to those suffering.
  • Notice Nathan was gone at this point. God used Nathan to speak to David at first, but then it came down to God and David. When we try to minister to people, we should never forget that we only have a small part to play. The real change happens when that person gets alone with God.

Published on Leave a comment on II Samuel 12: 9-15 (Spared)

Consequences of Sin

v10-12. You slayed by the sword; and now the sword will never leave your house. Consequences:

  • Rise up evil from your own household
  • Take your wives
  • Companion will lie with them in broad daylight
  • You did in secret, I will do before Israel and in the sunlight

Plot Twist

v 13 Just when it seems the Lord's anger is building and the consequences are increasing, an amazing thing happens.

  • First, David's response to Nathan's Word from God. He admits that he sinned, and specifically, sinned against God. This is good that he recognized and acknowledged his sin; but this isn't the amazing part.
  • In the same verse, Nathan responds to David's confession with, "The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die."
  • Sadly, this is followed by, "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die."

Then Nathan leaves.

There's a lot to unpack in these few verses.

Previously, God had reminded David of who God was and what He had done for David. Then He explained how David sinned against Him, the Lord. Then God recounts David's sin against Uriah. Now we come to the consequences.

It's not explicitly noted, but it seems like there are separate sins for the murder and then the adultery. And they seem to be a reflection of each sin itself. This is tragic and scary. However, we have often seen this in the Old Testament books. People sin. God delivers righteous judgement and consequences.

And David's response is within what we'd expect as well. Confession when faced with God's judgement. Even Saul did this (several times).

But then we immediately see God's mercy and grace in a moment.

He takes away David's sin, removing the well deserved death penalty.

The grace and mercy is not surprising. Every time Israel or one of her people sinned and God sent punishment, He always sent mercy and grace to allow them to go on. But it's never been so stark and immediate to me. This took my breath away. "The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die."

Why?

Why would David receive such preferential treatment? I know. I know. He pays a HUGE price, beginning in the next sentence. And God doesn't free Him from the other natural consequences of his actions; just the legal requirement that he face death as punishment. So God didn't etch-a-sketch the whole thing away. But still, in the midst of His judgement, He also delivers immediate amnesty. It seems noteworthy. Shocking, really. So...why?

Of course, if God wanted us to know why, He would have added it to the text. So there might be a million reasons and they are all His own. We're not entitled to them (or anything else). But there is a substantial hint in the next verse, when David hears the bad news side of the commutation:

"However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also born to you shall surely die."

He gave us the the "because", so He gave us the "why". Lots of people commit adultery; but never once, that I know of, did God note that the adultery could give God's enemy a weapon.

What made David's adultery different? In chapter 7, God established an individual covenant with David and it included promises such as God establishing a forever kingdom in God's name.

God spared David for God and God's name, in my opinion. To our human ear, maybe that sounds like I'm calling God selfish. But God's forever kingdom comes through Jesus. And if that baby is born in the sins of adultery and murder, God's plan, as we now know it, is stained and imperfect. Stained and imperfect cannot redeem humanity and gets us back to a right relationship with God.

God spared David for us. All of us. BUT...THROUGH HIS PLAN. And since we don't know His thoughts or His plans, all we can do is pray and have faith and be grateful that we know He is good and He is for us. A baby was born and then died for all of us. Seems to have some parallels to another story we hear much later in this book.

It's worth remembering, God has a plan and his plan will not be denied. And even if we fail our part of the plan, we can either be Peter, failing and being redeemed by Christ, or Judas, failing and paying with his life for eternity. We learn in upcoming verses that David fails and God's plan proceeds anyway; AND David is redeemed by His faith in God.

One final question I pondered from this short set of verses. When Nathan finished giving his original message from the Lord, the first words out of David's mouth was a confession that he had sinned against God. He got it. He wasn't apologizing for getting caught; or for the sins themselves. He was confessing that those sins had actually been against God. It was immediately after that confession, in the same verse, in the next sentence, Nathan spoke forgiveness to David from God.

So here's my pondering...what if David hadn't? What if, instead, he had blamed Bathsheba, or God himself, like Adam did? Or if he blamed his men, like Saul did? Or some other rationale or defense?

I think God would have found a way to move His plan forward, regardless. But I wonder what would have happened to David? Things get really bad as it is...I have to wonder what God would have done if David had acted like the other men who sinned before God in previous books? I don't have a theory, so I didn't explore it very far. But I suspect. The answer would be sobering.

It's worth remembering that, it seems, God takes it quite seriously when one confesses immediately, taking personal responsibility, and most importantly, recognizing that sin itself is less important than recognizing that the sin, any sin, is directly against God.

Published on Leave a comment on II Samuel 12: 1-9 (Sin)

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.

Published on Leave a comment on II Samuel 11: 5-27 (Wiersbe)

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.

Published on Leave a comment on II Samuel 11- Wiersbe v. 4

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.

Published on Leave a comment on II Samuel 11- Wiersbe v. 1-3

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.

Published on Leave a comment on II Samuel 11: 14+

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.

Published on Leave a comment on II Samuel 11:1-13

Verses 1

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.

Published on Leave a comment on II Samuel 11-Intro

Flawed Hero

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. 🙂

Published on Leave a comment on II Samuel 10

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.