I Kings 1-3:15 - The Rise of Solomon

We start I Kings with David at death’s door. His oldest remaining son, Adonijah, takes steps to become the next king. Meanwhile, the prophet Nathan and Bathsheba conspire to make Solomon king instead. (If David ever made any promises to Bathsheba about Solomon in the past, we have no record of it. It is hard to tell here if David is remembering a past event or simply responding to their suggestions.) Regardless, he arranges for Solomon to be anointed as king instead. Is this really how the LORD’s promise to David will be fulfilled – through messy politics and backroom deals? Apparently so.

After warning his son to follow the LORD and the laws of Moses faithfully (the LORD’s promise to keep the Davidic line on the throne suddenly sounds more conditional than it did back in II Samuel 7), David charges Solomon with the executions of Joab (for the murders of Abner, Amasa, and most likely Absalom – although Absalom’s name is not mentioned here) and Shimei (the relative of Saul who cursed David as he fled from Absalom). While David swore not to kill Shimei, he’s not above having his son order the hit. To be fair, he also asks Solomon to “deal loyally” with the sons of old Barzillai – who provided well for him while he was in flight. With these scores settled and his son securely on the throne, David dies.

The rejected son, Adonijah, goes to Bathsheba and asks if she will approach Solomon for him on behalf of the woman who cared for David in his old age, Abishag. Bathsheba agrees, but Solomon suspects this as a power move on Adonijah’s part. He has Adonijah killed, banishes the priest Abiathar for siding with Adonijah against him, and proceeds to have Joab executed as well – in order to “take away from me and from my father’s house the guilt for the blood that Joab shed without cause” (2:31). As for Shimei, Solomon places him under house arrest and commands him not to leave under penalty of death. When Shimei seeks out his escaped slaves three years later, Solomon does not forget their arrangement and has Shimei executed for failing to follow the rules.

After making an alliance with the Pharaoh by marrying his daughter (how times have changed since the days of Moses!), Solomon has a dream in which he asks the LORD for “an understanding mind (literally, a “listening heart”) to govern your people, able to discern between good and evil” (3:9). The LORD approves this request and grants it to him, along with riches and a long life. We end our tale with David’s son Solomon standing before the ark of the covenant in Jerusalem, the city of David, offering burnt offerings and providing a feast for his people. So far anyway, the LORD’s promise to David stands.

What has Solomon learned from his father about leadership of the LORD’s people? What have we learned? Knowing what we know now, what sense does it make to call Jesus of Nazareth “son of David”?

Click on “comments” to add your thoughts, and then join us on Sunday, October 28^th at 5pm in Parish Hall for our potluck celebration and presentation!

II Samuel 20-24 - David's Offering

Well, that was quick. As soon as David has the twelve tribes reunited, Sheba the Benjaminite (Saul’s tribe) incites a rebellion and takes the northern tribes with him. In the ensuing chaos, Joab takes the opportunity to murder Amasa and resumes his role as commander of David’s army. A “wise woman” from Abel then negotiates with Joab and gives up Sheba so that her city might be spared.

If the sword does not depart from David’s house (12:10), it certainly doesn’t depart from Saul’s either. David hands over seven of Saul’s sons and grandsons to be murdered by the Gibeonites – supposedly for a wrong Saul had done them before (one that is never mentioned directly in the text). When Rizpah, the mother of two of Saul’s sons, goes to great lengths to protect their corpses, David finally arranges to have the bones of Saul and all his sons properly buried in their ancestral home. Once again, a woman reminds David of his humanity. Rizpah joins a long line – Abigail, the wise woman of Tekoa, etc. We’re told: “After that, God heeded supplications for the land” (21:14).

In between accounts of battles with giants and a list of David’s warriors, we get two poems – one very similar to Psalm 18 and David’s official last words in oracle form (although he also speaks quite clearly in I Kings 1-2). The psalm seems oddly placed, given that much of the book reveals David’s lack of “cleanness” (22:21, 25). If anything, God’s deliverance is in spite of David’s faults rather than a reward for his purity. Is it true what this poem says of the LORD: “with the pure you show yourself pure, and with the crooked you show yourself perverse” (22:27)? One could argue that’s exactly what happens in chapter 24; the LORD responds with perverseness to the crookedness David has exhibited throughout the book. A less jaded eye might say that David’s character before the LORD is best preserved in the poetry attributed to him and in the responsibility he takes for his actions. Perhaps we should judge him in that light too – and not just by his mistakes and maneuvering.

The last episode in II Samuel deals with David’s punishment for taking a military census. After all his legitimate crimes against his fellow humans, why does the LORD get so upset over what “the anger of the LORD” incites David to do in the first place? Is David relying too much on military might and a healthy tax base and not enough on the LORD? (According to I Chronicles 21:1, it is Satan who persuades David to count the people.) Regardless, the king’s actions have a devastating ripple effect.

The prophet Gad offers David three alternatives, and the king chooses pestilence over famine or foreign pursuit – saying “let us fall into the hand of the LORD, for his mercy is great; but let me not fall into human hands” (24:14). According to the text, thousands upon thousands die as a result. David responds: “I alone have sinned, and I alone have done wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done? Let your hand, I pray, be against me and against my father’s house” (24:17). He does his best to take responsibility for what he has done. Gad directs David to build an altar and offer burnt offerings on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite (which eventually becomes the altar site for the Temple in Jerusalem), for which he insists on paying in full: “I will not offer burnt offerings to the LORD my God that cost me nothing” (24:24). At last, the plague ends – and the stage is set for the building of the Temple under Solomon in I Kings.

What do you make of all this bloodshed and loss? How does David’s story end? Keep reading! In the meantime, click on “comments” and add your reflections…

II Samuel 15-19 - David's Friends and Enemies

Like father, like son? Absalom starts out these chapters by stealing the hearts of the Israelite people and seeking the crown at Hebron, much as his father David did before him. His tactics differ, of course. He intercepts people on their way to seek justice from the king and dispenses his own version instead, thereby incurring their “loyalty”. David ends up fleeing Jerusalem in fear of Absalom’s rising power – leaving the ark behind. But before he gets too far, he ascends the Mount of Olives – weeping in mourning and shame.

Some still demonstrate their loyalty to David, however –be it Ittai the Gittite (in words strikingly similar to Ruth’s vows to Naomi in the book of Ruth), Hushai, old Barzillai the Gileadite, or the priests Zadok and Abiathar. Ziba’s loyalty, however, is harder to decipher. He claims that Mephibosheth, Jonathan’s son, has turned against David and is hoping for the kingdom to be restored to him as Saul’s grandson. Willing to believe the worst, David reverses his earlier call and gives what belongs to Mephibosheth to Ziba. Another member of Saul’s family, Shimei, throws stones and curses David as he passes: “The LORD has avenged on all of you the blood of the house of Saul, in whose place you have reigned; and the LORD has given the kingdom into the hand of your son Absalom. See, disaster has overtaken you; for you are a man of blood” (16:8). David takes these charges remarkably calmly, for the time being: “Let him alone, and let him curse; for the LORD has bidden him. It may be that the LORD will look on my distress, and the LORD will repay me with good for this cursing of me today” (16:11-12).

Meanwhile, Hushai insinuates himself into Absalom’s inner circle. When Absalom questions his loyalty, Hushai responds ambiguously: “The one whom the LORD and this people and all the Israelites have chosen, his I will be, and with him I will remain” (16:18). He then gives bad advice to Absalom and warns David to flee across the Jordan.

One wonders who is really speaking for the LORD here. Ahithophel, whose counsel was thought of “as if one consulted the oracle of God” (16:23), tells Absalom to violate ten of his father’s concubines. (Why would he advise this? There’s some reason to believe that he was Bathsheba’s grandfather. This may be part of his revenge against David for what the king did to Uriah and Bathsheba. Note that Absalom pitches his tent on the roof – the same place where David first saw Bathsheba.) Absalom follows this advice but ignores Ahithophel’s wise counsel to strike against David quickly. When his military strategy is not followed (in seeming fulfillment of the LORD’s wishes in 17:14), Ahithophel joins Saul in killing himself. If his counsel is mistaken for that of the LORD’s and then only selectively followed, who else might be misinterpreting the signals?

The Cushite who brings David the news of Absalom’s death thinks he knows the LORD’s role in all this: “The LORD has vindicated you this day, delivering you from the power of all who rose up against you” (18:31). I doubt that David sees it that way.  Absalom’s crowning glory – namely, his hair – has become his downfall; he finds himself caught in the branches of an oak tree “hanging between heaven and earth” (18:9). Despite David’s appeal to deal gently with his son, Joab strikes Absalom as soon as he’s given the chance. Although Joab’s men finish the job, David knows who is responsible. Despite the loss that Absalom’s rebellion has engendered (20,000 men according to 18:7), David can only focus on the loss of his son – until Joab reminds him that he’s not just a father; he’s also a king. He needs to go out and reassure his troops that they need not be ashamed for doing their job – so that’s what he does.

The people of Judah then escort David back to Jerusalem to resume power. Whether to placate Absalom’s followers or to punish Joab for executing his son, David fires Joab as army commander in favor of Amasa – the one who had commanded Absalom’s army just two chapters before. He temporarily shows mercy to Shimei, the relative of Saul’s who had cursed him (to see what becomes of Shimei, wait for I Kings 2.) Mephibosheth reappears as well, claiming that his servant Ziba deceived him; not knowing whom to believe, David splits the difference and divides Mephibosheth’s inheritance between them. (While this might be a pragmatic call, it is not just. One of them is lying and yet still receives half the inheritance. Does Mephibosheth’s possible disloyalty cancel out David’s loyalty to Jonathan’s son? What exactly gets passed from father to son?)  Regardless, by the end of chapter 19, David has his kingdom fully restored to him.

So is it smooth sailing from here on out? Keep reading, and in the meantime, click on “comments” to add your thoughts.

II Samuel 11-14 - David and His Sons

We come to perhaps the most famous incident of David’s life, next to his encounter with Goliath. While his troops are off to war, he spots Bathsheba bathing on the roof and sends for her. The text never tells us what she makes of all this, only that she ends up pregnant as a result. When Uriah refuses a conjugal visit with his wife, David sends him to the front lines to be killed – going so far as to have Uriah carry his own death warrant back to his commander Joab. After mourning Uriah, Bathsheba becomes David’s wife and delivers their son.

For the first time, we are told explicitly that the LORD is displeased with something David has done (11:27b). The LORD sends the prophet Nathan to David and, through a parable, Nathan delivers God’s word of judgment for “despising the word of the LORD” (12:9). The former shepherd/now rich man has sacrificed the poor man’s only sheep.  He tells David: “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house” (12:10). David admits: “I have sinned against the LORD” (12:13). (See also Psalm 51:4: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned.” Uriah – and perhaps Bathsheba - might think otherwise!) Nathan’s response: “Now the LORD has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child that is born to you shall die” (12:13-14). Is that really how it works – a child dying for the sins of his father? What about the wise woman of Tekoa’s claim that “God will not take away a life”? (14:14) For another perspective on how God works, see Jeremiah 31:29-30 or Ezekiel 18:1-4.

We’re told that “the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it became very ill” (12:15). David fasts and prays until the child dies seven days later – after which “he went into the house of the LORD and worshipped” (12:20) and began eating again. When asked why he now rose to eat, David replies: “Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me” (12:23). Shortly thereafter, Bathsheba has their second son Solomon (or as Nathan names him - Jedidiah, which means “beloved of the LORD”). For more on the relationship between Bathsheba and Nathan, see I Kings 1.

With the king’s domestic situation temporarily settled, Joab finally gets David back on the battlefield against the Ammonites. Time passes, and we learn of two more of David’s sons – Amnon and Absalom. Amnon rapes his half-sister (and Absalom’s full sister) Tamar. David’s response to the rape of his daughter: “He became very angry, but he would not punish his son Amnon, because he loved him, for he was his firstborn” (13:21). His feelings for his daughter Tamar are never mentioned. Meanwhile, Absalom bides his time, holds a feast for all the king’s sons and finally avenges his sister by having Amnon killed – over which the king and his surviving sons weep bitterly.

Absalom flees and stays away for three years while David yearns for his return. Joab senses this and recruits a woman from Tekoa to tell yet another story to David (as Nathan did with his parable) as a way for him to hear what he cannot hear directly. She follows advice later set by Emily Dickinson: “Tell all the truth but tell it slant.”  The woman then asks him to bring Absalom home on the following grounds: “We must all die; we are like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up. But God will not take away a life; he will devise plans so as not to keep an outcast banished from his presence” (14:14). By the time she’s finished, David senses Joab’s hand in all this and calls him on it. He agrees to let Joab bring Absalom home, but it’s another two years before Absalom comes into the king’s presence. When Joab won’t answer Absalom’s calls, Absalom burns Joab’s field to get his attention. Finally, David and Absalom are reunited – but not for long.

What happens next between father and son? Read on to find out. In the meantime, click on “comments” to add your thoughts!

II Samuel 7-10 - David Consolidates His Kingdom

We begin with peace. David is safely ensconced in his house of cedar and has been given rest from his enemies. He asks the prophet Nathan about building a house (or temple) for the ark. At first, Nathan agrees: “Go, do all that you have in mind; for the LORD is with you” (7:3). Apparently, he is not speaking for the LORD. That night, the LORD tells Nathan “No.” The LORD never asked for a house. Tents and tabernacles are portable; temples are not.  Whether it’s the ark or the LORD’s name that is housed, there is a danger that the people will forget that they are dealing with an undomesticated God who is always free to move.

Instead, the LORD turns it around and tells Nathan to proclaim to David: “The LORD will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you…he shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever…When he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings. But I will not take my steadfast love from him…your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever” (7:11-16).

Do we need a Messiah to make this promise true? How conditional is it? It will be another 400 years or so before it is severely challenged – when the last Davidic king is deposed from Judah and the people are taken into exile in Babylon. That is a long way off, however. For now, David responds by sitting in the tent in front of the ark and praying before the LORD: “Who am I, O Lord GOD, and what is my house, that you have brought me thus far?...Because of your promise, and according to your own heart, you have wrought all this greatness…you established your people Israel for yourself to be your people forever; and you, O LORD, became their God” (7:18-24). He realizes that this is part of God’s loyalty to Israel and not just to him personally. Still, he asks God to confirm the promise about his house in particular: “…with your blessing shall the house of your servant be blessed forever” (7:26, 29).

Then from peace, we turn quickly to war. (Interestingly, in I Chronicles 28:3 we’re told that this is the reason David will not build the temple: “You shall not build a house for my name, for you are a warrior and have shed blood.”) While administering “justice and equity to all his people” (8:15) at home, David successfully goes on the offensive against the Philistines, Moabites, Arameans, and Edomites and expands his kingdom to the north, south and east. We’re told that “the LORD gave victory to David wherever he went” (8:6). Does that mean that the LORD always approves of David’s methods? No. His treatment of the Moabites - his ancestors by way of great-grandmother Ruth and the guardians of his own parents at one point (I Sam. 22:4) - seems particularly harsh. He tries to go a different route with the Ammonites, but his reputation precedes him; his gesture of consolation is interpreted as aggression – and he’s off to war again.

At last David returns to the promise he made his late best friend Jonathan. He asks: “Is there anyone left of the house of Saul to whom I may show kindness for Jonathan’s sake?” (9:1) You mean, now that Ishbaal is dead and Michal has fallen out of favor? A servant of the house of Saul, Ziba (of whom we will hear more later), points out Jonathan’s crippled son Mephibosheth. David commands Ziba and his household to serve Mephibosheth. He gives Mephibosheth Saul’s personal property and has him eat at the king’s table – where he can keep an eye on him (as Saul’s heir, he is a potential rival to the throne) and give him a position of honor. As usual, David’s kindness is also politically astute.

What happens when doing the right thing is not to his political advantage? Read on to find out – and, in the meantime, click on “comments” to add your thoughts! 

II Samuel 2-6 - David Becomes King

Almost immediately after Saul’s death, the people of Judah (the southern part of the kingdom) anoint David as their king. He’s 30 years old. Meanwhile, Abner, commander of Saul’s army, makes Saul’s remaining son Ishbaal king over Israel (the northern part of the kingdom). Abner reluctantly – and perhaps unintentionally - kills a pursuing Asahel. Then when Asahel’s brother (and David’s nephew) Joab comes after him, Abner calls for peace. He asks, “Is the sword to keep devouring forever?” (2:26) Joab stops the attack and relents from revenge over the death of his brother, for now anyway. The sword will only continue to devour, however.

When the rival king Ishbaal foolishly alienates Abner, Abner turns to David. David agrees to make a covenant with Abner in exchange for the return of his first wife (and Saul’s daughter) Michal. Ishbaal takes her from her new husband, who walks behind them weeping until Abner makes him go away.

Abner then makes the case for Israel accepting David as king – namely, he will save Israel from the Philistines and all their enemies. Abner even brings the Benjaminites, Saul’s tribe, along. After Abner performs this huge service for David, David dismisses him in peace – only for Joab to bring him back without David’s knowledge and kill him to avenge the death of his brother. David publicly mourns Abner and distances himself from Joab’s actions. Regardless of the legitimacy of his grief, this public display has the desired effect: “All the people took notice of it, and it pleased them; just as everything the king did pleased all the people” (3:36).

Saul’s allies and descendants keep dropping like flies, but somehow David is not involved. Two of Saul’s captains assassinate Ishbaal and bring his head to David, hoping to earn David’s favor – but David has them killed instead for killing “a righteous man on his bed in his own house” (4:11). (Note that he never refers to Ishbaal as “the LORD’s anointed”, as he did Saul.)

The people of Israel end up asking David to be their king, and he defeats the Jebusites to make Jerusalem the capital of his united kingdom. It becomes the “city of David.” King Hiram of Tyre sends cedar trees, along with carpenters and masons, to build David a house. “David then perceived that the LORD had established him king over Israel, and that he had exalted his kingdom for the sake of his people Israel” (5:12). In other words, while David is at the center of all this action, it’s not really about him. The LORD is doing something for the people through him. David tries to give credit where credit is due by bringing the ark of God to Jerusalem. (Of course, this move is politically wise as well. Bringing what was considered the throne of God to his city makes a strategically located Jerusalem both the religious and the political capital of his united kingdom.)

After achieving a couple of victories over the Philistines, he starts to bring the ark back – when a man named Uzzah is struck dead by God for touching the ark without being ritually prepared to do so. We’re told that David becomes “angry because the LORD had burst forth with an outburst upon Uzzah” (6:8). He fears bringing the ark under his direct care, so he waits a few months before bringing it into Jerusalem. But when it finally happens, he holds nothing back. “David danced before the LORD with all his might” (6:14) with nothing on but a linen ephod. He and the people bring it into the city with shouting and the sound of the trumpet.  They place it in a special tent; David offers burnt offerings, blesses the people, and feeds them.

Not everyone is pleased by this no-holds-barred display, however. Michal despises him for it and tells him so. (Of course, after being torn away from a husband who clearly loved her and watching as David takes on multiple wives and concubines, she might despise David for other reasons.) David responds by effectively banishing her. If Saul’s line is to continue, it will not be through her.

What do you make of David’s relationship with the LORD? David can be angry with the LORD for striking down Uzzah and later dance with all his might before God. The connection goes beyond political expedience, and the people somehow know it. Perhaps writer Frederick Buechner puts it best as he describes David’s dance before the ark. For once David

“didn’t have to talk up the bright future and the high hopes, because he was himself the future at its brightest and there were no hopes higher than the ones his people had in him. And for once he didn’t have to drag God in for politics’ sake either, because it was obvious to everybody that this time God was there on his own. How they cut loose together, David and Yahweh, whirling around before the ark in such a passion that they caught fire from each other…on the basis of that dance alone, you can see why it was David more than anybody else that Israel lost its heart to and why, when Jesus of Nazareth came riding into Jerusalem on his flea-bitten mule a thousand years later, it was as the Son of David that they hailed him” (Beyond Words; San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2004, p. 75).

What do you think? What makes us fall in love with our leaders, and what does God have to do with it? Click on “comments” and add your voice to the conversation!

I Samuel 29-II Samuel 1 - The Death of Saul

No matter how Saul dies (by suicide, murder or mercy killing – we get different accounts, after all), chapters 29-30 establish that David was nowhere near the death scene. Under understandable pressure from his commanders, Achish, the Philistine king, sends David and his men back to Philistine territory in Ziklag.

It turns out that the Amalekites are back – the people Saul was ordered to destroy back in chapter 15. After David raids their territory in chapter 27, the Amalekites return the favor. David and his men return to find their wives and children gone. In their grief, David’s men briefly turn on him; “but David strengthened himself in the LORD his God” (30:6). He inquires of the LORD and gets the message to pursue. A stray Egyptian leads them to the Amalekite camp, where they recover everything and everyone they lost.  David then wisely shares the spoil with all his soldiers as well as his allies in Judah.

Meanwhile, the Philistines kill three of Saul’s sons on Mount Gilboa – including David’s best friend, Jonathan. According to I Samuel 31, a wounded Saul begs his armor bearer to kill him so the Philistines won’t get the satisfaction. When the armor bearer refuses, Saul commits suicide by falling on his own sword. The distraught armor bearer then kills himself. The Philistines temporarily make trophies of the bodies of Saul and his sons, until the men of Jabesh-Gilead (whom Saul bravely rescued from the Ammonites back in chapter 11) bravely recover them and try to bury them properly.

We get a different version of the story in II Samuel 1. This time, a stray Amalekite claims that he, in fact, killed Saul in order to put him out of his misery. He then hands Saul’s crown and armlet to David, perhaps expecting some kind of reward. David apparently takes him at his word and promptly executes him for killing Saul. Despite his failings, Saul was still the king – the LORD’s anointed, in David’s eyes.

David then mourns publicly for both Saul and Jonathan, glossing over their own complicated father-son relationship – as we are wont to do in eulogies. “In life and in death they were not divided” (1:23). Since when? An alternate translation sounds even more sugar-coated: “Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in their death they were not divided” (King James Version). In reality, Saul and Jonathan were most certainly divided in life, if not in death, and mostly over David himself. Jonathan was continually torn between loyalty to his father and love for his best friend. He was frequently forced to choose between following Saul’s orders and sparing David’s life. It was in the face of all this that Jonathan swore his loyalty and love to David.

So is David’s poetic portrayal just wishful thinking, a tidy version of a much messier story cleaned up for public consumption? In reality, it’s far too simple to paint Saul as merely the “bad guy” in this story. For all his faults, Saul was the one anointed by God to be the first king of Israel. In battling David, he was trying to preserve the kingdom for Jonathan. Saul wasn’t a cardboard villain, anymore than are the difficult people in our lives. He was tormented by fear, jealousy, paranoia, what we’d now identify as fierce mental illness, not to mention the deafening silence of God. Repeatedly, Saul had called out for God and heard nothing more than the sound of his own voice. God’s favor had left him and gone to David. His life was tragic, not evil, and here David seemingly has the grace to recognize that. 

What do you make of the LORD’s loyalty to David and the seeming abandonment of Saul? What do we learn of loyalty from David and Jonathan, or from the men of Jabesh-Gilead who risk their own lives to recover Saul’s body and bury him properly? Click on “comments” and add your thoughts!

I Samuel 25-28 - The "Return" of Samuel

Samuel dies at the beginning of chapter 25, but that’s not the last we hear from him. (For more on that, keep reading.) In the meantime, we meet Nabal (“fool” in Hebrew) and his resourceful wife Abigail. David asks Nabal for food for his men in exchange for their “protection,” but Nabal refuses. He speaks of David as a servant breaking away from his master (25:10) – presumably here, Saul. David says that Nabal has returned him evil for good (not unlike Saul) and vow to destroy him, perhaps because destroying Saul is not an option. 

Abigail then intervenes to make peace. She flatters David and tells him exactly what he wants to hear: “For the LORD will certainly make my lord (David) a sure house, because my Lord is fighting the battles of the LORD; and evil shall not be found in you so long as you live” (25:28). She goes on: “If anyone should rise up to pursue you and to seek your life, the life of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of the living under the care of the LORD your God; but the lives of your enemies he shall sling out as from the hollow of a sling. When the LORD…has appointed you prince over Israel, my lord shall have no cause of grief, or pangs of conscience, for having shed blood without cause or for having saved himself” (25:29-30). She then asks David to remember her, and he does. After Nabal dies (something David sees as the LORD’s doing), he marries her. He praises her for keeping him from bloodguilt and from avenging himself on Nabal by his own hand.  

In a brief note, we also learn that Saul has taken Michal, his daughter, away from David and given her to a man named Palti to be his wife instead. Can he do that? It seems so. It seems not to matter to Saul that Michal loves David. By revoking David’s son-in-law status, Saul tries to remove any claim David could make to the throne – on this basis at least.

Next is another wilderness encounter between David and Saul. Joab’s brother Abishai (more on Joab to come) offers to kill Saul in his sleep, but David refuses: “For who can raised his hand against the LORD’s anointed and be guiltless?” (26:9) They take Saul’s spear and water jar as proof that they could have killed him and didn’t. When confronted, Saul admits: “I have been a fool, and have made a great mistake” (26:21). He then blesses David: “Blessed be you, my son David! You will do many things and will succeed in them.” (26:25) These are Saul’s last words to David.

Nevertheless, David doesn’t believe Saul’s sudden change of heart and flees to the land of the Philistines, out of Saul’s grasp. He and his men stay with King Achish of Gath, for whom David had earlier feigned madness. From there, David starts expanding his territory by fighting Israel’s enemies – leaving neither man nor woman alive – but lies to Achish and says he’s fighting Israel and its allies instead. What happened to his refusal to incur bloodguilt? Apparently, that doesn’t apply to non-Israelites. The Philistines then prepare to battle the Israelites and expect David to fight with them. David’s response is typically cagey: “Very well, then you shall know what your servant can do.” (28:2)

Meanwhile, Saul sees the Philistine army assembling against him and is afraid. He inquires of the LORD, but the LORD does not answer him. So he consults a medium (or witch) in the hopes of communicating with a dead Samuel.  He hopes that Samuel will tell him what to do. What is so shocking in this passage is that the medium’s intervention actually works. Samuel “returns” from Sheol (the pit of the dead) and asks Saul: “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” (28:15) Saul should have known better. Samuel has no good news for him. He tells Saul that “the LORD has turned from you and become your enemy” (28:16). David will receive his kingdom, and Israel will fall to the Philistines. Samuel ends by warning Saul: “Tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me” (28:19). The medium at least has compassion for Saul and insists on feeding him before he leaves.

What do you think of how “enemies” are designated here? When does bloodguilt apply, and when should it? Click on “comments” and add your thoughts!

I Samuel 21-24, Psalms 34,56,57,63 - Saul Chases David

We learn more about David in these chapters. We learn that he is resourceful – and not above lying or faking insanity to get out of a scrape. First, he lies to the priests at Nob, saying that he is on an errand for Saul when he is really fleeing from him. We don’t know why he lies; perhaps it is to spare them from charges of harboring a known fugitive. (If that’s the case, his plan backfires horribly – as Saul orders their execution anyway.) Then he convinces the priest to give him and his men the holy bread, which was set aside as a thank offering to the LORD to be eaten only by the priests. (Jesus will later cite this story as a precedent for breaking ritual law when compassion requires it – Mark 2:25-26). Then before he leaves, David asks for and receives the only weapon of defense in their possession – Goliath’s sword. To his credit, David recognizes his role in the priests’ deaths and promises to protect Abiathar – the only priest who manages to escape. (Abiathar will become one of David’s high priests once he is king.)

David then moves into Philistine territory in Gath, perhaps hoping he’ll go unrecognized. But when the servants of King Achish do recognize him, David fears for his life – so he fakes insanity in order to escape. This wouldn’t seem so noteworthy, except that this episode is somehow connected with Psalms 34 and 56 (“O taste and see that the LORD is good; happy are those who take refuge in him” – 34:8; “In God I trust; I am not afraid. What can a mere mortal do to me?” – 56:11). While we don’t know the exact historical relationship between this event and these psalms, it was easy for the ancient Israelites to believe they were written by David. There is no proof that they weren’t. Does our view of him change at all as a result?

By the end of these chapters, both Jonathan (23:17) and Saul (24:20) recognize that David will one day be king of Israel. Once again, Jonathan proves his friendship – when he has perhaps the most to lose from David’s success (namely, the throne) and, at the moment at least, David has nothing to offer in return.  This is their last recorded meeting. What do we learn of friendship and covenantal loyalty from them?

The chapters end with two wilderness episodes. First, David escapes Saul in the wilderness of Ziph after Saul is called away by a Philistine attack – an event referred to in the superscription of Psalm 63. Then, more dramatically, David spares Saul’s life in the cave of Engedi. (See the superscription for Psalm 57). Saul enters the cave to relieve himself (or “cover his feet” as the ancient Hebrews euphemistically put it), not knowing that David is hiding within. But David refuses to take advantage of Saul’s vulnerability; he will not kill the LORD’s anointed.

Saul’s response is unexpected, to say the least. He asks, “Is this your voice, my son David?” and weeps (24:16). He goes on to say, “You are more righteous than I; for you have repaid me good, whereas I have repaid you evil” (24:17). He then makes David promise “that you will not cut off my descendants after me, and that you will not wipe out my name from my father’s house” (24:21), and David agrees. How long does Saul hold this stance?  Does David keep his promise? Stay tuned!

What do you notice in these chapters and psalms? Click on “comments” and add your thoughts!

I Samuel 16-20 - The Rise of David

Here we are officially introduced to David – or as Saul’s servants describe him, “a man of valor, a warrior, prudent in speech, and a man of good presence; and the LORD is with him” (16:18). Why is the LORD with him? While we’re told that he is handsome like Saul, “the LORD does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” (16:7)

Those of us who know “the rest of the story” pick up on other clues. As the youngest son, he fits a well-worn biblical pattern of younger sons supplanting their older brothers. He’s a shepherd like Moses. He’s Ruth’s great-grandson and a member of the tribe of Judah. He’s from Bethlehem. (When Jesus is born 1000 years later, Luke takes pains to tell us that he’s born in the “city of David,” i.e. Bethlehem.)

Perhaps the clearest sign of David’s leadership potential is found in his confrontation with Goliath. Even though Saul calls him a boy, David exhibits great bravery and skill. Even his choice of weapon (a slingshot) gives him the advantages of mobility and surprise. He articulates his faith clearly and publicly. He tells Saul that “the LORD, who saved me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, will save me from the hand of this Philistine” (17:37). Likewise, he tells Goliath: “This very day the LORD will deliver you into my hand…so that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the LORD does not save by sword and spear; for the battle is the LORD’s and he will give you into our hand” (17:46-47). Repeatedly in this account, the key to victory is not physical strength or military might but the presence and favor of the LORD.

I and II Samuel go to great lengths to demonstrate that David is not a mere usurper of Saul’s throne. Samuel seeks him out and anoints him as the LORD’s anointed. David refuses Saul’s armor in fighting Goliath. He doesn’t ask to be Saul’s son-in-law (and thereby in the line of succession to the throne); the very notion is Saul’s idea. Nor does David take advantage of his closeness with Saul’s son Jonathan. Repeatedly we’re told that Jonathan loves him “as his own soul” (18:1). He willingly gives David his robe and armor, as well as his sword, bow and belt. He is the one who initiates a covenant of loyalty between them (which comes into play in II Samuel) and is even willing to lie to his father in order to protect his friend.

Everyone who meets David seems to love him, at least at first. Upon first meeting him, “Saul loved him greatly” (16:21). The people quickly fall in love with him: “But all Israel and Judah loved David; for it was he who marched out and came in leading them” (18:16). Jonathan obviously loves him, as does his sister (and Saul’s daughter) Michal. In fact, Michal is the only woman in the entire Hebrew Bible explicitly reported to love a man. (To see where that love leads her, keep reading.)

As for Saul, we’re told: “Now the spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him” (16:14). How exactly does that work? In the narrator’s eyes, all things come from God – or at least are subject to God’s control – including evil spirits. Our 21^st century eyes look at Saul and see more what looks like mental illness. Yet his fear of David is not entirely delusional. David poses a very real threat to his power, and certainly to his son’s Jonathan’s chances of succeeding him. He’s absolutely right in telling Jonathan: “For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established” (20:31).

While Saul might be passive in fighting the Philistines in these chapters, he’s far from passive in pursuing David. When putting him in the line of Philistine fire and requiring a bride price of 100 Philistine foreskins (!) for Michal’s hand doesn’t work, Saul takes matters into his own hands. He hurls spears at David, sends assassins to his house, and then chases after him when David runs off to Samuel in Ramah. Here “the spirit of God came upon (Saul);” but instead of inspiring him to greatness, it leaves him in a naked frenzy – and gives David the time he needs to escape. (This episode appears to contradict the claim in 15:35 that Samuel died not see Saul again until the day of his death; it may be a place where the editorial seams stitching together various David traditions show.)

What do you make of David’s behavior in these chapters? He plays his cards pretty close to the vest. While we’re told exactly what Saul is thinking, many of David’s actions are left open to interpretation. How about the LORD – how does God come across? Click on “comments” and join the conversation!

I Samuel 12-15 - The Rejection of Saul

In these chapters, we get our first hints of David. Samuel, never a big fan of Saul or the idea of kingship, tells Saul: “The LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever, but now your kingdom will not continue; the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart; and the LORD has appointed him to be ruler over his people” (13:13-14). Two chapters later, he gets more specific: “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbors – to one better than you” (15:28).

Of course, Samuel could just be bluffing. (See Robert Alter’s The David Story – New York: WW Norton & Co., 1999, p. 73). He hasn’t met David yet, much less anointed him. Why does Samuel have it in for Saul? While the LORD may have grudgingly accepted the notion of kingship, Samuel never really does. He sees no need for a king. Samuel has been a good judge. He has not treated the people as their kings will. He has not taken bribes or oppressed them – although he hasn’t stopped his sons from doing just that.

So what are Saul’s big crimes? He steps in for a tardy Samuel in offering a burnt sacrifice, and he fails to annihilate utterly the Amalekites. After both offenses, Samuel tells him that he has violated the commandments of the LORD. Are the prophet’s commandments and the LORD’s always the same thing?

How reliable a prophet is Samuel? At the end of chapter 15, he makes this pronouncement after Saul begs him – and the LORD - to give him another chance: “The Glory of Israel will not recant or change his mind; for he is not a mortal, that he should change his mind” (15:29). Yet isn’t that exactly what seems to be happening in these chapters? The LORD tells Samuel outright: “I regret that I made Saul king.” If God is truly free, then isn’t God also free to change direction or do something new?

Of course, Saul doesn’t do much to help his cause in these chapters. Already he’s setting up monuments for himself (15:2) – in contrast to the humility he displayed earlier. While he sits passively under the pomegranate tree, his son Jonathan stages a brave raid against the Philistines. In Jonathan’s words, “It may be that the LORD will act for us; for nothing can hinder the LORD from saving by many or by few” (14:6). While Jonathan is out saving the day, Saul makes a foolish oath (without Jonathan’s knowledge) and forbids his hungry troops from eating anything until he is fully avenged – as if this is his personal battle. After it is discovered that Jonathan unknowingly violated his father’s command, Saul would rather maintain a foolish consistency than spare his own child. Fortunately, the people intercede for Jonathan – and David’s future best friend is spared.

Perhaps Saul is not fully aware of the implications of his actions. He doesn’t see himself as his people see him. For all of Samuel’s questionable behavior in these chapters, his question to Saul is spot on: “Though you are little in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel?” (15:17)

As for Samuel’s command (supposedly from the LORD) to wipe out the Amalekites, a number of questions arise. What could the Amalekites have possibly done to deserve annihilation? Apparently, they fought with the weary Israelites as Moses led them through the wilderness 400 years before when they were unable to defend themselves (Exodus 17:8-16, Deuteronomy 25:17-19). Does the LORD really hold that kind of grudge? Whether or not the command is from the LORD, Saul’s motive in sparing the Amalekite king and the best of the animals is not mercy. He and his soldiers destroy only what they cannot use. Saul denies this at first, claiming that they were going to sacrifice the animals to the LORD. Under pressure from Samuel, he then changes his story – saying that he listened to the people instead of the LORD. After making his point (“to obey is better than sacrifice” (15:22)), Samuel uses what he might call the “measure for measure” principle of punishment. Since Saul rejected the LORD’s command, the LORD now rejects him as king. Seemingly no amount of repentance on Saul’s part will change the outcome. But does Saul’s punishment really fit his crime?

What do you think? What could David learn from Saul’s mistakes up to this point? Click on “comments” and add your thoughts!

I Samuel 8-11 - The Rise of Saul

If this is the David story, why start here? Our expectations of David are framed by the leaders who come before – namely, Samuel and Saul. We start with the people’s demand for a king – so they can be “like other nations.” Israel was never meant to be like the other nations; their very identity was wrapped up in a radical dependence on the steadfast love and faithfulness of the LORD. Here they attempt to shake off those bonds. They reject the One who delivered them from slavery in Egypt for a king who will take their land and conscript their children. In Samuel’s words, “you shall be his slaves” (8:17).

Was it really so wrong for them to want a king? Was the tribal confederacy with its system of judges any better? While Samuel was a good judge, his sons “took bribes and perverted justice” (8:3). Already we’re seeing what happens when sons automatically inherit their father’s role. 

The problem is more complex than it first appears. This is more than a simple indictment of centralized government. We’re told in Judges 21:25 that without a king, “all the people did what was right in their own eyes.”  The book of Judges is a tale of chaotic violence and anarchy. Kings can bring unity when unity is required. They offer the promise of protection, even if they are not always able to guarantee it. The people are quite clear in what they want – “that our king may govern us and go out before us and fight for us” (8:20). Kings also provide convenient targets for blame, but that’s another story.

Be careful when you get what you want. The LORD makes sure that the people are warned and then lets them live with their choice. The relationship between God’s will and human freedom is complicated in I and II Samuel. While the LORD does act to influence outcomes, humans also have room to make real choices. Perhaps this interplay is nowhere better illustrated than in the life of Saul. He’s both tragically set up to fail and responsible for his own choices.

Saul never asked to be king. While out chasing his father’s donkeys, Samuel takes him aside at the LORD’s prodding and anoints him as the next ruler of Israel. Saul is understandably baffled. He says nothing to his family about it. Then when he’s chosen publicly by lot to be king, they find him hiding among the baggage. The next time we find him, he’s “coming from the field behind the oxen” (11:5). It takes a while before he actively grabs the reins of power.

Why did the LORD pick him? Like David, he’s handsome and comes from humble origins. As part of the tribe of Benjamin (the youngest son of Jacob), he comes from “the least of the tribes of Israel” (9:21). That part is not so disturbing; the God of the Old Testament is known for choosing the least likely for greatness. And like David, the spirit of the LORD enters him in startling ways. In chapter 10, Saul shows a capacity for David-like ecstasy and self-transcendence. Saul too dances before the LORD. We’re told in this moment that “God gave him another heart” (10:9). There’s almost heartbreaking potential here.

Yet even at this early date, some are asking: “How can this man save us?” (10:27) To his credit, Saul does not overreact. At the moment of his great triumph over the Ammonites when he could easily take vengeance, he shows remarkable restraint. He even gives credit where credit is due: “Today the LORD has brought deliverance to Israel” (11:13).

The violence we read about in chapter 11 is undoubtedly disturbing. Was butchering a yoke of oxen really necessary to get the people’s attention? Whether or not it was necessary, it worked. The tribes were bound by oath to join in any action needed for the defense of their fellow Israelites. Saul acts decisively here to defend the brutally bullied of Jabesh-gilead, and it appears that the LORD approves. While we are understandably squeamish at any divine “approval” of war, it’s worth noting that this moment is not about conquest. It’s about survival.  Victims of injustice are seemingly allowed to defend themselves. The strong are not free to abuse the weak. (For more on this, see Walter Brueggemann's First and Second Samuel - Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990, p. 88). Of course, defining what is “just” becomes more complicated over time, and the definitions of who is “strong” and who is “weak” will continue to shift.  

What do you notice in these opening chapters? Do you see any signs of trouble to come? Click on “comments” and join the discussion!