1 Chronicles 29--God Is Able

"Riches and honor come from You, and You are the ruler of everything. Power and might are in Your hand, and it is in Your hand to make great and to give strength to all." 1 Chronicles 29:12

From 1 Chronicles 29 and the Biblical Illustrator---Truths to Meditate Upon:

"Use 3. For encouragement.
I. This truth affords encouragement in those special cases which are most apt to trouble and deject you. He can supply all your need.

(1) Want you wealth, or what you judge to be a competency? (1Ch 29:12).All the riches of the world are in His hands, and He can dispose thereof to whom and in what proportion He sees good (2Co 9:8; Php4:19).


"And God is able to make every grace overflow to you, so that in every way, always having everything you need, you may excel in every good work." 2 Corinthians 9:8

I. “God is able”—a very simple proposition. A self-evident one to those who really believe in God. Is not the opinion of many something like this?—“God is not able to do much specifically. Granting His personal existence, He can only act along the line of the laws, and in conformity with the great forces of the universe.” “God is able” is our answer to this. Whatever He has done, He can do again. Is He not the Creator still, every day? Every morning He says, “Let there be light.” Every year He says, “Let the earth bring forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind.” BI

"4. Do you say, “My nature seems strengthless. I can wish, but I can do nothing”? I answer, “God is able” to make you all that He designs man to be.

5. Or do you say, “I hope I am forgiven, and yet I am in fear. The heart is deceitful, temptation is strong. What if after all I should make shipwreck of faith”? My answer is, “God is able” to guide you safely through." (A. Raleigh, D. D.)

(2) Want you authority to countenance and secure you? (1Ch_29:11). He has the disposing of it all.
(3) Want you victory over enemies, those that afflict and oppress your souls? The Lord can give it you; it is His own.
(4) Want you strength, outward or inward, to do, or to suffer, or to resist? This He can also give you, for it is all His own (1Ch_29:12).
(5) Want you wisdom? (Jas_1:5).
(6) Want you gifts or other graces, or a greater measure of them? (Jas_1:17).
(7) Want you comfort? (2Co_1:3).
(8) Want you friends? All the friends in the world are but cyphers to Him.

2. There is encouragement to undergo or undertake anything for God which He calls you to. He is the owner of all things, and so has enough to requite you, to reward you, if all that is in heaven and in earth be enough to do it. (D. Clarkson.)

The Era of the Kings--Part I: Solomon to

www.stevethomason.net

The kingdom is united for three reigns, although even within these reigns there was strife and division between the tribes.

Saul-1st kingDavid-2nd kingSolomon-3rd king

then the official split begins:

From Bob Deffinbaugh's article "The Great Divorce"

"Our text is a vivid illustration of the way divisions occur. The division of the united kingdom occurred in a way that is classic for all divisions. Churches have split and marriages have ended in divorce in precisely the same manner. Let me point out some of the key elements. The first element is pride (or arrogance). Rehoboam was too proud to heed the petition of the people and to lighten the load his father had placed on them. The second element, closely related, is power. Rehoboam wanted to be in control, to be “in charge.” He viewed mercy, kindness, and humility as weakness, and he would have none of this. The third element is “godly counsel.” Rehoboam refused to heed the wise counsel of his father’s counselors; instead, he listened to his peers. I don’t know how many divorces have been facilitated by the “advice” of good friends. The fourth element is that of leadership. Rehoboam abused his position of leadership. He viewed his position as the opportunity to force others to serve him, rather than as his opportunity to serve others. Humility and servanthood would have saved his kingdom. Finally, there is the element of time. There was a window of opportunity for healing and reconciliation, and Rehoboam did not seize it. The longer the division lasted, the more intense it became. We would do well to ponder the failures of Rehoboam, for divisions are still very much a part of the fallen world in which we live." BD

**************************************
A friend of mine reminded me of the “principle of unintended consequences.” To be honest, I’m not sure that I fully grasp it, but I do think that our text demonstrates the fact that our actions often can have very profound “unintended consequences.” At the moment Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, I am convinced that she had no idea where her sin would lead. Actions that may seem trivial at the time have profound consequences, for good or evil. Rehoboam did not set out to divide his kingdom or to set the nation on a path of disaster. But the fact is that his foolish decision did have these consequences. Rehoboam should have known better. He followed the example of Solomon his father (at a very foolish time in his life) and the advice of his friends, rather than the Word of God and the words of wise men."  -Bob Deffinbaugh

www.stevethomason.net

*************

Comment on Kings vs. Chronicles info:

"As has been stressed repeatedly, one of the chronicler’s major purposes was to provide a comprehensive and systematic account of the divine selection of David and his dynasty and its historical development. This is why the kings of Judah dominate the record and those of Israel appear only when they relate to affairs in the Southern Kingdom. This is contrary to the approach in 1 and 2 Kings where, if anything, the rulers of Israel are pivotal and those of Judah, at least till the fall of Samaria, are almost incidental."  -KC

First era of split:

Northern Kingdom--IsraelSouthern Kingdom--Judah

J1--Rehoboam

Solomon's son, 41 when assumed reign, rules for 17 years, mother is an Ammonite, rejected wise advice of elder advisers in favor of younger, led to discontent of people and fed into the split, described as evil, had 18 wives and 60 concubines.  He appointed Abijah, the son of his favorite wife, as king and appointed his other sons to different posts throughout the kingdom.  After he became ruler, he abandoned the Lord.  Therefore, the Lord allowed Egypt, King Shishak to conquer them.  They ransacked the temple and "stole everything"...including gold shields that R later replaced with bronze.  States that because R humbled himself, there were still some good things in Judah. States that throughout his lifetime, there was constant war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam.

I1--Jeroboam

His name means "He pleads the people's cause"  reigned 22 years

From Wikipedia: 

"While still young, Jeroboam was promoted by Solomon to be chief superintendent of the

"burnden", i.e. the bands of forced laborers. Influenced by the words of the prophet Ahijah, he began to form conspiracies with the view of becoming king of the ten tribes; but these were discovered, and he fled to Egypt where he remained under the protection of pharaoh Shishak until the death of Solomon. On the death of Solomon, Rehoboam assumed the throne. However, the ten northern tribes revolted against his rule and invited Jeroboam to become their king. The conduct of Rehoboam favored the designs of Jeroboam, and he was accordingly proclaimed "king of Israel". 

During J's lifetime "there was constant strife between the two kingdoms (2Ch_12:15), but all-out war was avoided. The expression "all Israel in Judah and Benjamin" (v. 3) refers to all in the southern kingdom who were loyal to David's dynasty. 11:5-12 Much of the king's time was spent in building cities of defense for Judah. The fortified cities, located south of Jerusalem, showed that he feared attack from Egypt.

He rebuilt and fortified Shechem as the capital of his kingdom. He at once adopted means to perpetuate the division with the southern Kingdom of Judah. He erected at Dan and Bethel, the two extremities of his kingdom, "golden calves" which he set up as symbols of God, enjoining the people not any more to go up to worship at Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem but to bring their offerings to the shrines he had erected.

Thus he became distinguished as the man "who made Israel to sin." This policy was followed by all the succeeding kings of Israel." --Wikipedia

**********************

*A prophet was sent to Bethel, to find J at altar burning incense. Prophet calls out "oh altar, a child will be born to the tribe of Judah named Josiah, on you he will sacrifice the false prophets--human bones will be burned on you. He gives the immediate sign of the eventual fulfillment that the altar will split and ashes poured out. This prophecy was fulfilled 290 years later.

J points at prophet and calls for him to be seized. Hand freezes in that position and altar splits. J relents, asks to fix hand. God does.

"The king acknowledged God’s power and asked the man of God to ask God to restore his hand, which God graciously did. Jeroboam referred to Yahweh as your God, not “my God,” thereby testifying to his own idolatry." -BKC

J invites the prophet to stay and eat with him:

"Receiving an immediate cure for his hand’s paralysis (cf. 1Ki_13:6), the king extended a great favor and privilege to the prophet. He offered the shelter of his royal palace, a meal, and a gift. In the ancient Near East hospitality was a sacred custom. To eat a meal with an invited guest under one’s roof was to give him a promise of continuing personal protection. But the man of God wanted no treaty with wicked Jeroboam. He had been instructed by God not to accept even a meal, which would have placed him in Jeroboam’s debt." BKC

The prophet refuses to stay and eat with J, but on the way home, he is lured by an old prophet who lies to come home with him and eat. At his home, the old prophet predicts the other prophet's death for disobedience. After he leaves, killed by lion. Donkey and lion on roadside. Old prophet looks for him, puts him on donkey and buries him in his tomb. Asks his sons to put his bones near prophet too. Despite all this, J does not change, continues to allow anyone to be a priest."This story clarifies the importance of consistent and complete obedience to the Word of God, the lesson God was seeking to impress on Jeroboam and His people at that time. It also illustrates that added privilege brings increased responsibility; God dealt with the prophet who had the greater responsibility more severely than he did with the man who had less. The effects of spiritual apostasy even on God’s servants can be seen too, especially in the behavior of the older prophet." -BKC

****************
J2-Abijah/Abijam

 Asherah, detail from an ivory box from Mīnat al-Bayḍāʾ
Syria, c. 1300 bc; in the Louvre, Paris.

Reigned 3 years. Began reigning in Jeroboam's 18th year of rule.  Summarized as a king whose heart was not with the Lord. Went to war with Jeroboam. Gave a speech on a mountain about how Israel has gone far from the Lord by selecting unqualified priests and offering sacrifices to pagan gods. God gave Judah victory in that battle, even though they were outnumbered 2 to 1. Mentions his death, but no comment on why reign was only 3 years.


J3-Asa
Son of Abijah. Began reigning in the 20th year of Jeroboam.  Ruled for 41 years. Did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, removed poles, and prostitutes.  He even disposed his grandmother (Maacah) because she had made an obscene Asherah pole.  He burned it.  One version says he didn't destroy shrines, other said he did.  But even then, "his heart was faithful to the Lord." Asa urged people to obey God, because of this God allowed him to fortify his towns and have peace for 10 years.  Asa built up a significant army.  Ethiopian contingent came and attacked Asa with 1 million men and 300 chariots.  1 Kings says that God granted him victory despite being outnumbered...chased in Egypt.

When Baasha started to press Judah by blocking access into and out of Judah, Asa responded by seeking the help of King Ben-Hadad of Aram.   This worked and Baasha retreated, but the Lord was displeased that he sought men instead of Him.   God sent the prophet Hanani to chastize Asa.  Instead of responding with repentance, Asa jailed the prophet, put him in stocks, and began to oppress the people. 

"Asa’s plan was clever and successful, but it demonstrated lack of trust in God. For getting help from Aram’s king, the Prophet Hanani rebuked Asa (2Ch_16:7-9). Asa resented the rebuke and put Hanani in prison (2Ch_16:10). Perhaps Asa’s successes against Egypt and Israel made him think too highly of himself." -BKC

When Asa got old, his feet became diseased in the 39th year of his reign.  Even then he did not seek God, but physicians.  He died and was buried with his ancestors in the city of David in the 41st year of his reign. 

I-2 Nadab--Began reign in 2nd year of Asa's, reigned 2 years. Baasha from the tribe of Issachar, plotted his assasination while on military campaign against the Philistines. Then he killed all of Jeroboam's descendents which fulfilled the prediction of the prophet Ahijah.
I-3 Baasha--Began reign in 3rd year of Asa's, reigned in Tizrah for 24 years, did what was evil.  Assasinated Nadab and killed all of Jeroboam's descendants.  He dug his men in at Ramah and started fortifying it to restrict movement inside/outside the kingdom of Judah.  King Asa countered by removing gold and silver from the treasury and giving it to Ben-hadad of Damascus to establish a treaty with him and force Baasha to move.

God sent the prophet Hanani's son Jehu to speak against Baasha.  He foretold that his descendants who died in the city would be eaten like dogs and those in the country eaten by vultures.

From the BKC:

"Almost the same words used to describe Baasha’s future judgment (1Ki_16:4) had been given to Jeroboam by the Prophet Ahijah (cf. 1Ki_14:7, 1Ki_14:10-11) and were given later by Elijah to Ahab (1Ki_21:24). The fact that Baasha did not turn to the Lord in spite of his being God’s instrument of judgment on the house of Jeroboam suggests his complete blindness to the importance of spiritual matters in his own life and in that of his nation. Baasha committed the same sins himself. This indicates that the level of his apostasy was deep."

Interesting comment on free will vs. fate here from BKC.  It seems that both can be working in tandem...a mystery.  God has His plans, yet we are free agents within those plans.  Is it that He would have orchestrated the events differently with the same outcome if Baasha chose not to do evil or is it just that He knew Baasha would choose evil and planned in accordance of that omniscience?  It also points to the Lord's knowledge of our heart reasons.


"Even though God determined that Jeroboam’s dynasty would be destroyed and announced this beforehand through Ahijah, God held Baasha responsible for killing Jeroboam’s descendants. In doing so Baasha had not acted under God’s direction, but only to gain his own ends."  -BKC

Elah, King of Israel, ruled from Tizrah

I4-Elah- Began his reign in the 26th year of Asa's. Reigned city of Tizrah for 2 years. Zimri, the man who was over 1/2 of his chariots, plotted to kill him. When Elah was getting drunk in the palace supervisor's home, Zimri killed him.

Coronation of Zimri, who ruled Israel for 7 days

I5 Zimri- Began his reign in 27th year of Asa's...rule lasted only 7 days. Came in and assassinated all of Baasha's descendants (ironic because Baasha did the same--took the throne by force and assassinated all of Jeroboam's descendants). This fulfilled Jehu's prophecy to Baasha. The name Zimri became a byword for any man who betrayed his master (kind of like Judas or Benedict Arnold). The Isaraeli army was out attacking the Philistines at Gibbethon. When they heard Zimri had taken the kingship, they chose Omri, the commander of the army, as their new king. They attacked Tizrah and Elah enclosed himself in the citadel and burned it around him.

I6-Omri--Began reign in 31st year of Asas...reigned 12 years total, 6 in Tizrah. Half of the people wanted Omri, Israel's commander, the other half wanted Tibni, son of Ginath. Omri's supporters killed Tibni and Omri took the throne. 


"The death of Zimri (1Ki_16:17-18) did not automatically place the kingdom in Omri’s hands. Half the population including the army sided with him, but the other half preferred Tibni. Tibni’s strength can be seen in that he was able to oppose Omri successfully for six years (885-880 b.c.). During this time civil war ravaged Israel and threatened to split the Northern Kingdom into two parts. But eventually Omri overpowered Tibni and became the sole ruler (880-874 b.c.). Omri’s army support apparently proved decisive and Tibni died (1Ki_16:22), probably by being executed."  -BKC

Omri bought Shemer's hill, Samaria for 150 shekels and named in Samaria in honor of its owner. He built a city on it.

"Archeologists have unearthed evidence that Samaria was built by skillful craftsmen. The site dominated the north-south trade routes. Samaria proved to be almost impregnable as a stronghold against alien attacks because of its elevated position." -BKC

Also noteworthy:

"Omri was probably the strongest leader of the Northern Kingdom up to that time. Assyrian records dating from over a century later refer to Israel as “the land of Omri.” During Omri’s reign Ben-Hadad I, king of the Arameans in Damascus (see the chart “Kings of Aram in 1 and 2 Kings,” near 1Ki_11:23-25), continued to add to his holdings to the north of Israel. Omri’s son, Ahab, had difficulty containing these Aramean aggressors. Also the Assyrian Empire was growing stronger and farther to the northeast under Ashurnaṣirpal II (883-859; see the chart “Kings of Assyria in the Middle and the New Assyrian Kingdoms,” near Jon_1:2) and proceeded to expand its territory as far west as the Mediterranean Sea. Faced by these threats on his north, Omri was able to protect Israel well enough to attack and defeat Moab to the southeast at the same time. This victory is referred to on the famous Moabite Stone. Another of Omri’s significant achievements was his alliance with the Phoenicians which was sealed with the marriage of his son Ahab to Jezebel, a daughter of the Phoenician king, Ethbaal (cf. 1Ki_16:31)." -BKC

James Tissot, "Elijah Fed by the Ravens" 

Thy Way Is In the Sea...

"Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in the great waters, 

and thy footsteps are not known. 

Thou leddest thy people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron." 

-Psalm 77:19-20

“Thou leddest Thy people.” The whole philosophy of life is here, here for us no less than for Israel. If we think we need some other theory of living because the Israelites were only poor slaves, and we intelligent nineteenth-century Christians, we are greatly mistaken. After all these centuries, God has nothing to add to this, that men let Him lead them, in His own way, through the sea if so He will it. The true philosophy of life is summed up here, in simply following God. Over the Apennines there is a wonderful railroad, on which, in a space of less than seventy miles, one passes through forty-three tunnels, some of them of very great length. The road is full of magnificent outlooks, but every few moments you go plunging into a tunnel. And certainly the traveller over this road would show his good sense by sitting still and being carried along the line of the rail; and not by getting out at the first station, and striking into the mountains to find another path, because he did not like the tunnels. He would be almost sure to be lost and to starve to death. The road has been built to carry him to his destination by the shortest way, and he will get there more quickly and safely through the tunnels than in any other way. Oh, if we could only believe the same thing of God’s way! We want to build our own road, all out in the light; and the consequence is, it is much less direct than God’s, and much more dangerous, and we cannot bring it out where we wish. And remember, it is not all tunnels either: in the regions of the high rocks, where the tunnels are needed, are the most glorious prospects. If God’s way is partly in darkness, the light places are full of beauty, commanding such outlooks of mercy and love as ought to reconcile us to the intervals of darkness, I remember once, in Italy, climbing a mountain up which a broad, fine carriage road led almost to the summit; but there the road suddenly ceased, and nothing appeared but a narrow footpath leading round the shoulder of the mountain, and that soon dwindled into a sheep-track; and the sun beat down with terrible power, and the way was rough, and more than once I was tempted to go back; but never shall I forget the vision which burst upon me as at last I reached the end of the narrow way: it repaid all the toil. So, I say, do not be afraid of the narrow way if God turns you into it. The great thing is that He lead you; and if He lead, even though His footsteps are not known, you know that His way is in holiness, and ends at last in eternal good. (Marvin R. Vincent, D. D.)

Favorite Psalms

Every time I read through the Psalms, I find old friends.   Often, I don't know them by number or name, it's more that I enter into a familiar wave of words and ride it out with contentment.  Others are classics, but they never grow tiresome.

Here are some favorites:

Psalm 139
Psalm 123
Psalm 27
Psalm 61
Psalm 103

Good wisdom here:

Don’t sin by letting anger control you.
Think about it overnight and remain silent.
-Psalm 4:4

Various Notes on the Psalms

"That which the French proverb hath of sickness is true of all evils, that they come on horseback and go away on foot; we have often seen that a sudden fall, or one meal’s surfeit, has stuck by many to their graves; whereas pleasures come like oxen, slow and heavily, and go away like post horses, upon the spur. Sorrows, because they are lingering guests, I will entertain but moderately, knowing that the more they are made of the longer they will continue; and for pleasures, because they stay not, and do but call to drink at my door, I will use them as passengers with slight respect. He is his own best friend that makes the least of both of them." (Joseph Hall.)

Tough going with 109 and 110---I need to take time to hash through them, but they are not particularly winsome psalms, but psalms of punishment and justice.  I would much rather dwell on the merciful character of the Lord!

Psalm 109

One thing I find interesting is that the psalmist welcomes conflict---especially between the Lord and his enemy.  Our attitudes today are different---"pray for your enemies."  But here, David openly prays against his enemies.  As this is a prayer of David, it makes the whole ball of wax worse---because I don't understand why David gave Saul such a long rope (and Absalom, among others), yet he seems militantly angry and judgmental here.  I clearly don't understand the culture I think.  Or David for that matter.  Digging in....

Well, it looks like I am not alone in my initial reaction:

"Of all the Psalms of imprecation, this one is unrivaled for first place. No other calls down the judgment of God with such distilled vitriol or with such comprehensive detail. The reader cannot fail to be intrigued and fascinated by the sheer ingenuity of the psalmist in the variety of punishments he invokes on his foes!"  -BBC

What is a psalm of "imprecation"  need to dig more when I have inclination and time.

Interesting bit here---David WAS praying for his enemies, yet cursing them to God too.   Hmmmm, new thought here---you can pray for someone and still detest their behavior and bring it to God.

Psa 109:4  For my love they are my adversaries: but I give myself unto prayer.

Another comment to ponder---the real enemy is the larger evil, not just that person:

"It will help us to understand the severity of this Psalm if we remember that it refers not only to David and his foe, but also to Messiah and His betrayer, and also perhaps to Israel and the Anti-Christ in a day still future."

Here the BBC commentator takes his best stab at it:

 "The explanation that appeals to me most is that the imprecatory Psalms express a spirit that was proper for a Jew living under the law, but not proper for a Christian living under grace. The reason these Psalms seem harsh to us is because we are viewing them in the light of the New Testament revelation. David and the other psalmists did not have the New Testament. As Scroggie points out:
. . . it will be well to recognize at once the fact that the previous dispensation was inferior to the present one, that while the Law is not contrary to the Gospel it is not equal to it, that while Christ came to fulfill the Law He came also to transcend it. We must be careful not to judge of expressions in the Psalter which savor of vindictiveness and vengeance by the standards of the Pauline Epistles."

A good solution...except that now I have dissonance about the doctrine of dispensationalism as I think it brings its own problems to the table.

Ahhh, he also seems to believe in the concept of generational sin....one that I tend to lean towards too...not  a spooky kind of "curse," but more that our actions have consequences that project to future generations.   In a very practical way, this is generational sin.

"While the inclusion of a man's family in his judgment seems rather extreme to us, it was justified to the psalmist by the fact that God had threatened to visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation (Exo_20:5; Exo_34:7; Num_14:18; Deu_5:9). Whether we like it or not, there are laws in the spiritual realm under which sins have a way of working themselves out in a man's family. No man is an island; the consequences of his acts reach out to others as well as affecting himself."  BBC

MacLaren on Time

I particularly liked MacLaren's commentary on 1 Chronicles 29:29-30.   Time is such a slippery concept--the correct use of it, the loss of it, the critical nature of seizing the moment as it ripens:   

"Note “times” which make up each life. By “the times” the writer does not merely mean the

succession of moments. Each life is made up of a series, not merely of successive moments, but of well-marked epochs, each of which has its own character, its own responsibilities, its own opportunities, in each of which there is some special work to be done, some grace to be cultivated, some lesson to be learned, some sacrifice to be made; and if it is let slip it never comes back any more. The old alchemists used to believe that there was what they called the “moment of projection” when, into the heaving molten mass in their crucible, if they dropped the magic powder, the whole would turn into gold; an instant later and there would be explosion and death; an instant earlier and there would be no effect. And so God’s moments come to us, every one of them—a crisis.

I. The power that moves the times. How dreary a thing it is if all that we have to say about life is, “The times pass over us,” like the blind rush of the stream, or the movement of the sea around our coasts, eating away here, and depositing its spoils there, sometimes taking and sometimes giving, but all the work of mere aimless and purposeless chance or of natural causes. There is nothing more dismal or paralysing than the contemplation of the flow of the times over our heads, unless we see in their flow something far more than that. The passage of our epochs over us is not merely the aimless low of a stream but the movement of a current which God directs. “My times are in Thy hand.”

III. How eloquently the text suggests the transiency of all the “times.” They “passed over him” as the wind through an archway, that whistles and cometh not again. How blessed it is to cherish that wholesome sense of the transieney of things here below! The times roll over us, like the seas that break upon some isolated rock, and when the tide has fallen and the vain flood has subsided the rock is them. If the world helps us to God, we need not mind though it passes and the fashion thereof.

IV. The transitory “times that went over” Israel’s king are all recorded imperishably on the pages here. The record, though condensed, lives for ever. It takes a thousand rose-trees to make a vial full of essence of roses. The record and issues of life will be condensed into small compass, but the essence of it is eternal. We shall find it again, and have to drink as we have brewed, when we get yonder." (A. M Maclaren, D. D.)

Psalm 5

The psalms are gradually becoming an old friend of mine. Although I still cannot claim to know them all, each time through, I recognize more along my journey through them, and some have become dear familiar friends. 

My favorite commentaries on the psalms are Matthew Henry and Charles Spurgeon's Treasury of David. This time around, I am trying to give some others a fair shot as well. Psalm 5 was on my reading list for today.

"For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you. 

The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers. 

You destroy those who speak lies; the LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man."

"The passage is worthy of our most special attention. For we know how greatly we are discouraged by the unbounded insolence of the wicked. If God does not immediately restrain it, we are either stupified and dismayed, or cast down into despair. But David, from this, rather finds matter of encouragement and confi-dence. The greater the lawlessness with which his enemies proceeded against him, the more earnestly did he supplicate preservation from God, whose office it is to destroy all the wicked, because he hates all wickedness. Let all the godly, therefore, learn, as often as they have to contend against violence, deceit, and injustice, to raise their thoughts to God in order to encourage themselves in the certain hope of deliverance, according as Paul also exhorts them in 2 Thessalonians 1:5, “Which is,” says he, “a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer: seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled, rest with us.” And assuredly he would not be the judge of the world if there were not laid up in store with him a recompense for all the ungodly. " -JC

For me, it's a continual struggle to watch those who seem far from the Lord flourish in this world. It's a high bar to wait until eternal judgment for amends---distant, intangible. I appreciate Calvin's exhortation to raise our eyes unto Him for our deliverance, and his connection to Paul's sentiments in 2 Thessalonians, which is a passage I'm not as familiar with. Yes, I am, more often than not, "discouraged by the unbounded insolence of the wicked." David was intimately familiar with wickedness. Throughout his life, he had close friends and relatives plot against him, even up to his old age and deathbed. Why should any of us expect any better of this world? 

"At the outset he asks God to hear not only his words but consider his meditation as well. It is a valid request. The Holy Spirit can interpret our meditations just as easily as the words we speak." -BBC

"Give ear to my words, O Lord." Psalm 5:1

"The inward and outward sides of the Divine life

The Psalm falls into two main parts— Psa_5:1-7, and Psa_5:8-12. The inward comes first; for communion with God in the secret place of the Most High must precede all walking in His way, and all blessed experience of His protection, with the joy that springs from it. The Psalm is a prayerful meditation on the inexhaustible theme of the contrasted blessedness of the righteous, and misery of the sinner, as shown in the two great halves of life: the inward of communion, and the outward of action. A Psalmist who has grasped the idea that the true sacrifice is prayer, is not likely to have missed the cognate thought that the “house of the Lord, of which he will presently speak, is something other than any material shrine. But to offer sacrifice is not all which he rejoices to resolve. He will “keep watch”; that can only mean that he will be on the outlook for the answer to his prayer, or, if we may retain the allusion to sacrifice, for the downward flash of the Divine fire, which tells his prayer’s acceptance. " BI, MacLaren

Spurgeon's Commentary on Commentary

It's insightful to read opinions from different eras. Charles Spurgeon's tone typically strikes me as severe but refreshing. He suffers no fools and doesn't mind pointing them out publically either.

His thoughts on men who do not value commentaries:

"It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others." ha!

Here are his favorite general commentaries:

Calvin, Ness, Henry, Trapp, Poole, Bengel

And his favorites for specific books:

"Caryl on Job will not exhaust the patience of a student who loves every letter of the Word; even Collinges, with his nine hundred and nine pages upon one chapter of the Song, will not be too full for the preacher's use; nor will Manton's long metre edition of the hundred and nineteenth Psalm (Psalm 119:1-176) be too profuse. No stranger could imagine the vast amount of real learning to be found in old commentaries like the following:—Durham on Solomon's Song, Wilcocks on Psalms and Proverbs, Jermin on Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, Greenhill on Ezekiel, Burroughs on Hosea, Ainsworth on the Pentateuch, King on Jonah, Hutcheson on John, Peter Martyr on Romans, &c., and in Willett, Sibbes, Bayne, Elton, Byfield, Daille, Adams, Taylor, Barlow, Goodwin, and others on the various epistles."

Romans 1:20

Worth more thought, from Bob Deffinbaugh's article on David mourning the loss of his first son by Bathsheba. I'm intrigued by his bend on things---that a person's response to the natural world and their understanding of God in that sphere is telling of their response to Him had they been given a fuller revelation. I'm not sure whether I agree or not---here it is:

"I believe the argument goes like this. God has revealed Himself to all men through nature. This revelation is not complete, and it does not include the good news of the forgiveness of sins through the substitutionary work of Christ on the cross of Calvary. Even so, a person’s response to what God has revealed to them in nature is a demonstration of how they would have responded if more had been revealed to them. Those who have received the revelation of God in nature have rejected it, twisting it into a religion of their own making, so that they worship God’s creation rather than God the Creator. " -Bob Deffinbaugh, "The Death of David's Son," Bible.org

In the past, I had viewed the response to the natural world as vague. How could a person look at the stars and not conclude that there are mysteries beyond them? How could a person look at the intricacies of the natural world--trees, plants, seasons, on the micro level--cells, atoms, DNA--and not see the planned nature ot it all. In this sense, I was thinking that the "Creation declares the glory of God." But Deffinbaugh's perception takes it beyond this, indicating that a person's response to "little" (a bare bones assessment of our planet and the natural world), reveals what this person's response would be to "much" (direct revelation into the heart of who Jesus is and why he came). Lots to think about here, but at first glance, I like the logic here.

David on the throne

A Bob Deffinbaugh fest of commentary excerpts:

"But now David was the king of all Israel. He needed a capital that was farther north. He needed a capital which would be more centrally located, and one which would unify the nation. Jebus was the perfect city. Israel's victory over the Jebusites would unite the nation. The possession of Jebus as David's new capital would do likewise. The city was virtually on the border of Judah and Benjamin. It was a city that neither the sons of Judah nor the sons of Benjamin had been able to capture. Thus, taking this city as his capital would not seem to favor either of these two tribes. In addition to all of this, its natural setting made it difficult to defeat (which is why the Israelites had not taken and held it before). It was in the hill country, on the top of more than one mountain, and with valleys around it. With a little work, it was a virtual fortress (5:9)" -Bob Deffinbaugh, Study on 2 Samuel, Bible.org

*****************************

"Unlike Saul, David is not just a king who knows nothing other than crisis management, who seems only willing to “put out fires.” Saul only dealt with the problems he could not avoid. David dealt with problems that those before him had avoided, and with some success. The taking of Jebus is one such example of David's initiative and leadership. I believe that David understood God's promise that He would give over the Jebusites and their land. I further believe that David sought to obey God's command, though given to Israel in an earlier day, to defeat the Jebusites and drive them out of the land. I believe that David saw the city of Jebus as an ideal capital, and one that would serve to unite the tribes of Israel under his rule. He could have chosen to “peacefully co-exist” with the Jebusites, as others before him had done, but instead he took the difficult path and prevailed over them. And it was a victory such as this which gave Israel (and her king) status and respect (even fear) among the nations." -Bob Deffinbaugh

*****************************

"First, this passage illustrates the providential hand of God, working all things to the good of the believer. The battles which David fights with the enemies of Israel, who surround him, he fights having been prepared by God in the days when he fled from Saul. In chapter 5, the Philistines marched against Israel and specifically against David. We know from the parallel text in 1 Chronicles 11:15-16 that this stronghold was the cave of Adullam. Do you not find it interesting that David's hideouts from Saul become his outposts when fighting the surrounding nations? We are told in 2 Samuel 8:1 that David fought the Philistines and captured their chief city. We know from 1 Chronicles 18:1 that this “chief city” was none other than Gath. We know from 1 Chronicles 18:1 that this “chief city” was none other than Gath. All the while David was hiding from Saul in Gath, he was unwittingly spying out this land and this city, which he would eventually attack and defeat. We know that when David fled from Saul he went to Moab, and he probably received sanctuary in some of the other nations. Now, when David becomes the king of Israel, he is able to use this information to his military advantage. Surely we see from the Psalms that David cried out to God in those days when he fled from Saul. He had to ask, “Why?” and yet he received no answer at the time. Now we are beginning to see the answer. God was preparing David in those days of his flight from Saul for his days fighting as the King of Israel. I think it is Bill Gothard who points out that Israel's days of slavery in Egypt were a kind of boot camp, preparing them for the hard days they would spend in the wilderness on their way toward the promised land. Our tears, sorrows, and sufferings are never for naught; they always have a purpose, and that purpose is God's glory and our good.

But wait, there's more! The political and military intrigue we see in our text are used providentially of God to give Israel the land and the victory which God had long before promised His people. And the tribute which David obtains from his subjected enemies seems to provide the raw materials which will be required for the building of the temple. The events of our text fulfill not only the promise of God made to David in chapter 7, they fulfill the promises God had made long before to Abraham and the patriarchs and to Moses."

-BDeff

******************

Meissen Castle, Saxony---I like the way this artist features Bathsheba in the foreground and larger with David looking on, although Deffinbaugh makes a great argument that Bathsheba was probably not fully undressed.


"David's sin did not just suddenly appear in a moment of time. David set himself up for this fall. We know he disengaged himself from the battle, choosing instead a life of comfort and ease. You and I may make the same decision, though in a slightly different way. We may choose to ease up in our pursuit of becoming a disciple of our Lord, of the disciplined life which causes us to bring our bodies under our control (see 1 Corinthians 9:24-27). We may weary of taking up our cross and begin to take up ourselves as our highest cause. We may back off in the area of separation, having become weary of being laughed at for our Christian principles. We may keep quiet, rather than bear witness to our faith, lest we be rejected by our peers. We may hold off from rebuking a fellow-believer, who is falling into sin, because the last time we tried it was very messy. When we retreat from the battle, a fall is not far away.

Sins of commission are often the result of sins of omission. David committed sin by his adultery with Bathsheba and later by the murder of her husband, but these sins were borne out of David's omissions which came to pass when he stayed home, rather than go to war.These sins of omission are often difficult to recognize in ourselves or others, but they are there. And after a while, they incline us to more open sins, as we see in David." -B Deff

Finally, a few of my thoughts:

I agree that sins of omission are subtle. It reminds me of my children who are quick to emphasize the part of a chore they did do and overlook the additional pieces that were not convenient, obvious, and requiring of more thought and perspective.


It's painful to think that there are areas of my life where I am not serving God in this fullness. We always wish to see the best in us and diminish our shortcomings, but knowing so well the sins of others---commission and omission--it would benefit us to study our own lives and motives with a contemplative heart. Not just to check off the list of things that we have done for the Lord in a perfunctory spirit, but to develop a sensitivity in our spirit to the larger picture, the things of omission, missed opportunities, areas where we should operate with more self-control and pro-activity.

*****************************
"Fourth, sin snowballs. Sin is not stagnant; it is not static. Sin grows. Look at theprogression of sin in our text. David's sin starts when he ceases to act like a soldier and becomes a late sleeper. David's sin grows from adultery to murder. His sin begins very privately, but as the story progresses, more and more people become aware of it, and worse yet, more and more people become participants in it. His sin first acted out by his taking another man's wife, and then taking her husband's life, and along with his life, the lives of a number of men who must die with him to make his death credible. David's sin blossoms so that it transforms a true and loyal friend (Uriah) to his enemy, and his enemies (the Ammonites, and in some senses, Joab) into his allies." -BD



David & Uriah, Rembrandt...see poem on this painting too.


*************************************

Seventh, Uriah is a reminder to us that God does not always deliver the righteous from the hand of the wicked immediately, or even in this lifetime. Daniel's three friends told the king that their God was able to deliver them. They did not presume that He would, or that He must. And God did deliver them. I think Christians look upon this deliverance as the rule, rather than the exception. But when Uriah faithfully serves his king (David), he loses his life. God is not obliged to “bail us out of trouble” or to keep us from trials and tribulations just because we trust in Him. Sometimes it is the will of God for men to trust fully in Him and to submit to human government, and still to suffer adversity, from which God may not deliver us. Spirituality is no guarantee that we will no longer suffer in this life. In fact, spiritual intimacy with God is often the result of our sufferings (see Matthew 5).

*************************************

Bob Deffinbaugh's article on David's repentance is his strongest of the series. Not only does he tease out qualities of David's remorse, but he defines sincere repentance by contrasting it against the false repentance of others in the scriptures. His article helped me see Saul's actions in a clearer light. When reading Saul's narrative, I often found myself wondering why God was so seemingly harsh with Saul from the beginning, but reading through Deffinbaugh's assessment of Saul's insincere repentance helped me to understand how God's knowledge is higher and perfect. We see the outward acts and hear the words, but the Lord alone knows the heart of the individual. How often we judge by our own "evidence" and underestimate the limited nature of our own perception.

His article is worth reading for all of these reasons and more. Here is an excerpt:

“I remember a friend of mine in England who said something to me long ago. 'Baby repentance is sorry for what it has done. Adult repentance is regretful for what it is. If I am merely sorry for what I have done. . . I will go out and do it again.”49-BD

*********************************************

“But there are times when our grand human plans to do something for God are seen, after a night of prayer, to be a huge human distraction from what God is doing for us. That's what Nathan realized that night: God showed Nathan that David's building plans for God would interfere with God's building plans for David." -Eugene Peterson

***********************************************

"Hugh Blevins, a friend and fellow-elder, made this observation on our text. God has orchestrated these events to enable David to experience his own sin from the perspective of others. In effect, some of David's family were doing to David what he had done to God. As David had abused his authority as the “king of Israel” to sin against God by taking Bathsheba, Amnon now abuses his authority and position as a “son of the king” to take Tamar. As David sinned by killing Uriah, Absalom sinned by killing Amnon. David can now experience what God did, what Bathsheba did, what others impacted by his sin did." BD


*****************************************

"It is what Absalom says next which is most troubling to me. “And if there is iniquity in me, let him put me to death” (verse 32). It sounds a little bit like some more familiar words to us: “Give me liberty, or give me death!” But how can Absalom speak this way? Does he really believe he is without guilt? Does he not think himself worthy of the death penalty? It would seem so. And if this is true, then he once again reveals that he has no regard for God's law. He wanted the death penalty for Amnon, though the law did not require it. He thinks the death penalty harsh and inappropriate for him, though he is a murderer under the law. This is a man who manifests absolutely no repentance." -BD on Joab bringing Absalom back to Jerusalem

*****************************************




John J. Tissot, 'Absalom' (1896-1902), gouache on board,
The Jewish Museum, New York.

Not only is Absalom a liar (in saying there is no one to hear their case), he is a hypocrite. Just what kind of “justice” would he mete out? The kind of “justice” he was sure that Amnon received? The kind of justice his own sister received? The kind of “justice” he himself got? Absalom is no friend of justice or of the oppressed. He just gets people to think he is their friend. And it works! Absalom wins the hearts of the people. He is now ready to make his move. -bd

**************************

How sad to read all this. The author does not pull any punches here. The “trail of tears” began with David's sin concerning Uriah and his wife, Bathsheba. It began with the agony of David's soul, even before he repented and confessed his sin (see Psalm 32:3-4). It continued with the death of the first son born to David and the wife of Uriah. Soon, David's own daughter (Tamar) was raped by one of his sons, and then this son (Amnon) was murdered by yet another son (Absalom). Absalom flees to Gerar, and David yearns to see him, but knows he cannot. Then, manipulated by the deception of Joab, David is compelled to bring Absalom back to Israel. This is not a pleasant experience either. When Absalom gains his freedom, he uses it to undermine David's reputation and standing with the people. Next comes his rebellion, and the division of Israel, and finally the death of Absalom at the hand of Joab. It is, indeed, a trail of tears. -bd

*****************
In the midst of all this suffering and adversity, I must once again emphasize that God is not punishing David for his sins here. Nathan made it very clear David would not undergo the (death) penalty for his sin, because the “Lord had taken his sin away” (2 Samuel 12:13) Here is one of the very common errors Christians make; namely, that whenever a person suffers, it is because they are being punished for their sin. Job's friends believed this and continually sought to compel him to repent (see Job 4 and 5). Our Lord's disciples assumed the man born blind was this way because of someone's sin (John 9:1-2). There are those whose suffering is the direct result of their sin (see Deuteronomy 28:15ff.), but this is not always the explanation for suffering. Sometimes the righteous suffer for being righteous (1 Peter 4).

And then there are other times when the saints suffer because they are the“sons of God,” who are being prepared for glory (see Hebrews 12). Even our Lord suffered in order to prepare Him for his glory (see Hebrews 2:10-18; 5:7-10; Philippians 2:5-11). I am not saying here that David's suffering was unrelated to his sin. I am saying that his suffering was not punishment for his sin, but divine discipline, which was designed to draw him closer to God and to cling more loosely to the things of this world (compare 2 Corinthians 4:16-18). -bd

This text has much to say about parenting. Even a cursory reading of the Bible should make it amply clear that there were no perfect parents. Even the most godly men and women failed in their parenting (think of Eli, Samuel, Saul, and now David). We should all purpose before God to be better parents. This is not because “good parenting” guarantees godly children, but because “good parenting” pleases God. We should seek to be good parents because this is what God requires of us. -bd

****************

In the Old Testament in particular I find that family failures are often a part of God's great plan and program for His people. They do not prevent God from doing as He has promised; often they are the means by which God does fulfill His promises. -bd


**************************

When Joab tricked David into letting Absalom return, he did so in a way that did not facilitate repentance or reconciliation. If we are going to blame anyone for Absalom’s sin (other than Absalom, who bears the primary responsibility), it would have to be Joab rather than David, because Joab sought to bring about reconciliation without repentance. -bd

David's Journey to the Throne

I've been hashing over the life of David this summer.  I find his life like a kaleidoscope--each way I turn it, I find another pattern to think through.  Publically, his journey to the throne was a long one.  It begins after an inauspicious visit by Samuel, followed by a long season of waiting and strife.

From a fleshly perspective, what does David get for his anointing?  He faithfully serves Saul only to be attacked intimately by Saul's spear then more corporately hunted as a fugitive.  David's integrity toward God and his men through these years is sterling.   Though he has opportunity to take Saul's life twice, he refuses.   

TBC....

Joab

Joab has continually confounded me during my sojourning in Samuel and Chronicles.

Here are some facts:

*He was the son of Zeruiah, a sister of David.  So, Joab was David's Nephew

*Joab has been with David since the cave of Adullam when 400 men and his family come to support him.

*He had two brothers, Abashai and Asahel.

*He was a brave commander, not afraid to fight and seize the moment.  2 Samuel 10: 9-14

*Joab was from Judah.  Abner, Ishbosheth, (and Saul) were from the tribe of Benjamin, representing Israel.

Abner

Deffinbaugh brings up some interesting background on Abner, commander of Israel while Saul is living and after his death:

*Abner's father was probably Ner, the brother of Kish (who was Saul's father). This would intensify the loyalty Abner had toward Saul.

*Abner was there when David slew Goliath. He didn't step up to the plate then.

*As David was a captain of a thousand in Saul's army of which Abner was the commander. Abner was surely familiar with David then too.

*The second time David could have taken Saul's life, he stole Saul's water jug and spear. After retreating, he taunted Abner and asked him why he wasn't defending Saul as he should be.

"As we put all of these elements together, we see that Abner is guilty for failing to protect his king, and thus worthy of death. His failure is divinely caused (by God putting all of them to sleep), thus making Saul vulnerable to Abishai, who wants to kill him but is prevented from doing so by David. David is shown to be a protector of Saul’s life, more effective than Abner. David then pronounces a curse on the one who may be turning Saul against him. Who comes out looking most guilty in all of this? Is it not Abner?" -Bob Deffinbaugh, A Study of 2 Samuel

Also this comment from BD on Abner and Asahel:

"He is not willing to do so, because he knows he will then have to face Joab, his older brother (not to mention Abishai). When Asahel refuses to give up his pursuit, Abner runs him through, not with the point of his spear but with the butt of his spear. This must take incredible strength and ability, and Abner is fully up to it, as he seems to know."

Joab and his older brother, Abishai, are not about to let the death of their brother pass without what they consider the only appropriate response -- killing Abner, who kill Asahel. If they kill Abner in the context of war, it will not be viewed as a murder but a necessary part of war (see 3:28-34; 1 Kings 2:30-33). The problem seems to be that while there is an initial victory for the men of Judah, the servants of David, Abner, and his men are able to reconnoiter, and in a position to be able to successfully defend themselves from atop a hill (2 Samuel 2:25). When Abner recommends that they call a cease fire, Joab agrees, stating that it is inevitable anyway (2:26-28).-BD

Here Deffinbaugh seems to conclude that Abner is influential in Saul's bad opinion of David. Saul was swayed by the opinions of man throughout his life. Examples: Saul goes ahead and offers sacrifice because Samuel is late and men are fleeing. Saul became jealous because the people credited David of slaying ten thousand, while Saul only had slain thousands.

David as King, Snapshots from 2 Samuel

2 Samuel, Chapter 2

On the Situation After Saul Died and Before David Assumes Kingship: 

This was a decisive and important move for it immediately alienated him from the Philistines with whom he had taken refuge and made an alliance; it signified the quasi-independence of Judah from Israel, an attitude which would find complete expression at the division of the kingdom after Solomon’s death (1Ki_12:16); and it asserted David’s reign as being in rivalry with that of Saul’s son, Ish-Bosheth, who succeeded his father in the North. -BKC

On Hebron

Unto Hebron - The metropolis of the tribe of Judah, one of the richest regions in Judea. The mountains of Hebron were famed for fruits, herbage, and honey; and many parts were well adapted for vines, olives, and different kinds of grain, abounding in springs of excellent water, as the most accurate travelers have asserted. -Adam Clarke

Hebron was well suited for the temporary capital of David’s kingdom, being situated in a strong position in the mountains of Judah, amidst David’s friends, and withal having especially sacred associations (see the marginal references note). It appears to have also been the center of a district 2Sa_2:3.  -Barnes

Re David's Polygamy

David had his share of sin---the premeditated murder of Uriah and his accumulation of wives in general--six total at this point in 2 Samuel. In the Biblical Illustrator, W. G. Blaikie describes it thus:

"Though polygamy was not allowed to David, it certainly was winked at; it was not imputed to him as guilt; it ‘was not treated as an act of rebellion against God’s law. But, on the other hand, this toleration of polygamy did not and could not prevent the evils to which, from its very nature, it gives rise. There could be no unity in David’s family, none of that delightful feeling of oneness, which gives such a charm to the home. In his own breast, that sense of delicacy, that feeling of chastity, which has such a purifying influence in a family, could scarcely flourish. And further, as the absence of delicacy must have been characteristic of David, so was it also of his children; the unbridled passions of some of his sons gave rise to the most dismal tragedies; and left blots on their name that even time could never wash out."

David had much greater success in his public life than he did in his private.  It's a rare person who has both.  Perhaps the polygamy led to his indulgent nature toward his children, or at least, it would certainly cause the wives to pit their children against each other and spoil them in this way.  In any event, the polygamy has its consequences.

In our modern day, I think of multiple marriages and divorces as having many of these same consequences.   Whether God "allows" for these instances is one point, but another is that it almost always creates an environment of disharmony in the homes affected.  This seems like a natural consequence of the outgrowth of the choice to divorce and remarry.  Family life becomes increasingly complicated and fragmented.  It certainly lacks the unity of a one home one partner marriage.

The Partial Obedience of Saul

The Partial Obedience of Saul

1 Samuel 15

Saul is told to strike the Amalekites.  He musters Israel to fight, conquers them, but makes the mistake of keeping what is worthwhile:

1Sa 15:9  But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fattened calves and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them. All that was despised and worthless they devoted to destruction.

In some odd way, this reminds me of Cain and Abel.  If the sacrifice is worthless in the giver's eyes, then it becomes an insult to the Lord instead of a pleasure.  What good is it to destroy only the "despised and worthless"? In 1 Samuel 15:11, we are given insight into the Lord's thoughts on Saul directly:

1Sa 15:11  "I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments." And Samuel was angry, and he cried to the LORD all night.

Samuel and the Lord seem more grieved and affected than Saul.  Perhaps this is the problem?  The Lord's regret centers upon two complaints (1) that---"he has turned his back from following me" (2) "and has not performed my commandments."

Fearful comment by MacLaren---which type of "devoted" do we wish to be?  We are part of His plan whether we acknowledge Him and cooperate with Him or whether we stiffen our necks and deny His ways.  Although there is an initial cost of obedience, inconvenience, uncertainty on the front end, I prefer that to the back end where you become a reluctant part of His plan and experience the consequences of disobedience.

"The terrible old usages of that period are brought into play again, and the whole nation with its possessions is ‘devoted’. The word explains the dreadful usage. There are two kinds of devotion to God: that of willing, and that of unwilling, men; the one brings life, the other, death. The massacre of the foul nations of Canaan was thereby made a direct divine judgment, and removed wholly from the region of ferocious warfare." -MacLaren

The Life of David

Encounter with David & Abigail:

Note, 1. God is to be acknowledged in all the kindnesses that our friends do us either for soul or body. Whoever meet us with counsel, direction, comfort, caution, or seasonable reproof, we must see God sending them. 2. We ought to be very thankful for those happy providences which are means of preventing sin. -Matthew Henry

On Sparing Saul's Life a 2nd Time

The tigerish lust for blood awoke in Abishai. Whatever sad, pitying, half-tender thoughts stirred in David as he looked at the mighty form of Saul, with limbs relaxed in slumber, and perhaps some of the gloom and evil passions charmed out of his face, his nephew’s only thought was,’ What a fair mark! what an easy blow!’ He was brutally eager to strike once, and truculently sure that his arm would make sure that once would be enough. He was religious too, after a strange fierce fashion. God-significantly he does not say ‘Jehovah’; his religion was only the vague belief in a deity-had delivered Saul into David’s hands, and it would be a kind of sin not to kill him. How many bloody tragedies that same unnatural alliance of religion and murderous hate has varnished over! Very beautifully does David’s spirit contrast with this. Abishai represents the natural impulse of us all-to strike at our enemies when we can, to meet hate with hate, and do to another the evil that he would do to us.-MacLaren

On Coming back to Ziklag after the Amalekites had burned it down and taken his family captive:

"At Ziklag in his distress, on his way to the Amalekites, and among the Amalekites.
I. David in his distress. See in it the frequent benefit, of affliction to the people of God. In this instance it did immediately two things for David.

1. It restored him to his spiritual courage and strength. Look ones more to chap. 27. We find there his heart failing him; and, like a frightened deer, he runs away from Judah into the land of the Philistines. Now when did this happen? You will say, “Doubtless when Saul was close behind him ready to take his life;” but no; it was at, a time when it seemed least likely to happen—when David had humbled Saul to the dust by his magnanimity. David says in his heart, “I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul,” and there goes the once bold champion of Israel, timid and crouching, to seek the protection of a heathen king. See here what man is; see what even a servant of God is, when left to himself. He can fall down without a blow. Now, come again to the chapter before us. Here is this same David, the frightened runaway, calm and fearless, and where? In a situation of the utmost distress and danger; with his home burnt, his family in the hands of his enemies, and with six hundred half frantic men around him threatening to take his life. O, how God sometimes glorifies his grace in our world! “What time I am afraid,” not, in a quiet hour, no, in a fearful hour—“what time I am afraid, I will trust in thee.”

2. David’s affliction restored him also to a holy caution and self-distrust. It led him, though he feared nothing else, to fear himself. He seeks now counsel of the Lord. We should have expected him to have done this before in his fear when he fled into the land of the Philistines, or when he followed the army of Achish against Israel, but he did not do it. “David enquired of the Lord, saying, Shall I pursue this troop? shall I overtake them?” This is what the Scripture means by acknowledging God in our ways. And thus the affliction of David was a benefit to him—it restored him to his spiritual courage and strength, it led him to seek counsel of the Lord and submit his ways to Him. In His people’s case, the Lord turns even these bitter things to a blessed account. So does He love His people, that He cannot even smite them without blessing them. His very judgments become mercies. Thus we find David, in Psalm, of coupling together mercy and judgment, and saying He will rejoice in both and sing of both." - BI

"2. David’s encouragement. And let me say that in your journey go heaven, or in setting about any good work on that journey, you must calculate on meeting with both these things, with both discouragements and encouragements. Your path will not be a uniform one. David’s discouragement was the loss of two hundred men, apparently a formidable loss; it turned out nothing. His encouragement was what? It came from one man one sick man, a man scarcely alive; and he did all that David wanted. " BI

"Here, you observe, was help for David from one who could not help himself; and, as it turned out, effectual help; and help, observe, too, from the very host of his enemies. Anything will serve the Lord when the Lord has to overthrow his enemies or help His people, He needs not move heaven or earth, he needs not create powerful instruments to do it; anything in his mighty hand will do it—a castaway thing, a despised, abandoned thing." BI

"It is not only we who are safe in God’s hands if we are his, all that belongs to us is safe there. It is safe no where else. When we give it up to him, He remembers that we have done so, and takes it as His charge. There is an hour coming when God will let us see that He has taken good care of all that is ours as well as of us, such care as we had scarcely thought of. The health we have lost in His service, the property we may have expended in His cause, the earthly gain or earthly love or honour we have sacrificed for His cake—we shall hear of them again in heaven. O what a recompence for them awaits us there!" (C. Bradley, M. A.)


My own thoughts:

1. David started by doing the right thing and sparing Saul's life in 1 Samuel 26
2. Coming off that, he made a wrong self-protective decision to seek shelter among the Philistines. 1 Samuel 27.  This led him into an alliance with the Philistine King of Gath, Achish.

On Saul and the Witch, and Saul's Death

"As the flash of lightning reveals the hidden scenery around, so the reception of momentous news suddenly reveals character. Two such events we trace—the news of the terrible defeat brought to Saul, and the news of Saul’s death brought to David. Leading his people to meet the Philistines, at whose number he is astonished and affrighted, we come upon Saul as his army is encamped on the slopes of Gilboa." -

"On his predicament in being asked to fight his own people while seeking refuge from Saul in Philistia--

"First, notice we are not told why David does what he does. Under divine inspiration, our author is fully able to inform us of David’s motives and intentions. For example, earlier in 1 Samuel we are told why Saul gives David promotions in leadership and offers David his daughters in marriage. The reason may not be immediately evident to those around Saul, but the author of 1 Samuel informs his readers of Saul’s motivation and intention: he is jealous and threatened by David and fully intends to kill him, thus being rid of him as a rival for the throne. In chapter 27, we are told why David flees to King Achish for sanctuary from Saul: David is afraid and does not believe there is any way to save himself other than by seeking asylum in Philistia. Now, at a time we would very much like to know what David plans to do and why, we are not told.

We know one thing for certain: the author purposely withheld this information from us. The author does not wish us to know what David intends to do or why for several reasons. (1) The author seems to want us to wonder what David is thinking, which enhances the element of mystery and suspense. A good writer holds our interest as much by what he withholds as by what he reveals. (2) The author is not trying to nominate David for sainthood, but portray him as a “man of like passions,” who has doubts and fears and makes mistakes, just as you and I do. (3) Had we been told what David intended to do and why, we would go more easily with David. We would tend to make excuses for him."

We live in a day when situational ethics are common. Situational ethics do not judge an action – say immorality, for instance – as wrong, but seeks to discern “rightness” or “wrongness” on the basis of motives. If a man commits adultery, but out of a “loving,” “caring” concern for the other party, then his actions are not wrong. While there is a certain element of truth here, some things are just plain wrong, and our motivation and attitude in so doing won’t make them right. The author does not seem to want us to “understand” why David acted as he did, but rather to agonize over why David acted this way.

Second, the author departs from a strictly chronological order in these chapters. In chapter 28, we find the Israelites encamped at Gilboa, while the Philistines are at Shunem (28:4). This is quite far to the north and the scene of the actual battle between these two armies (see 31:1). But in chapter 29, the Philistines are gathered at Aphek, while the Israelites are at Jezreel. This is considerably south of the sight described in chapter 28, which means that the events of chapter 29 precede those of chapter 28. The author has purposefully departed from the chronological order of events to a more thematic order. He is more interested in making his point than providing us with a chronological time line. It would seem that the author’s intent is to alternate between Saul and David so as to continually contrast these two men." - Bob Deffinbaugh