Virtual Vestry ~ The Books of Samuel

Notes to follow...

Notes to follow...

Notes to follow...

Notes to follow...

Notes to follow...

Notes to follow...

Notes to follow...

Notes to follow...

Notes to follow...

Notes to follow...

Notes to follow...

Notes to follow...

Notes to follow...

Notes to follow...

So here we are, at the end of Act One of the story of David. The story of Saul and his family is over. The demise predicted back in chapters 13:14 and 15:26 has happened. The strangely specific prediction from the Samuel 'stand-in' at Endor...

What's more, the Lord will hand you and the army of Israel over to the Philistines tomorrow, and you and your sons will be here with me. The Lord will bring down the entire army of Israel in defeat.

The author of Samuel, who is clearly on the side of David, has the decency to relay the events of Saul's death in a neutral, even poetic way. More on that later...

The events of the last few chapters now come to a head. Chapter 29 saw David sent home by the Philistines who didn't want him and his troops swelling their ranks. The unfortunate interlude with the Amalekites (ch 30) has happened and David is safely out of the way - and has nothing to do with this final act of regicide.

• Do you think David was specifically excluded, by God, from this last battle with Saul?
• Do you think David considered himself an Israelite anymore? His allegiance was to the same God as the God of Israel, but do you think David felt any allegiance to the people of that nation?

The chapter is very matter of fact. There's little embellishment. The author states the facts and moves on.

• v1-3: The Philistines attack. Three of Saul's sons are killed - Jonathan (the same Jonathan from earlier chapters; his death is recorded here almost as an afterthought), Abinadab and Malkishua. Saul is wounded, by an archer's arrow.
• v4-5: Saul asks his armour-bearer to kill him, before he can be caught and tortured. The armour-bearer refuses - he was 'afraid'. So, Saul kills himself. The armour-bearer does likewise.
• v6: This is the end.
  Brueggemann writes

  The narrator draws a summary that is majestic in its terseness: "Thus Saul died, and his three sons, and his armour-bearer, and all his men, on the same day together". The sentence must be spoken slowly. There must be a pause with each phrase to grasp the massiveness of the death, its finality, and its majesty. Saul could not live. Early on, it was destined that he would die a failure. The narrator, so devoted to David, does not cheat Saul out of a compelling death.

  Try reading v6 as Brueggemann suggests. How does it make you feel?
  • Was it a sad death?
  • An ignominious end?
  • An honourable death?
  • A pathetic death?
  • An indifferent death?
• v7: The end of the King means the end of the battle. The Philistines move in.
• v8-10: Not only have the Philistines won, but their God has won, too. They 'proclaimed the good news of Saul's death in their pagan temple'. We are told of the brutal treatment meted out to Saul's body.
• v11-13: To the people of Jabesh-gilead Saul was a hero (see chapter 11:1-15). The people come, possibly at some personal risk, and rescue Saul's body. They are not afraid to be identified with the fallen king. They rescue the memory of Saul from mockery and dismissal. They remember his fidelity and the way he changed their life and their future, and they respond in kind.

This is the end of the book of 1st Samuel. Whilst it can be argued (probably correctly) that chapters 1 to 4 of 2nd Samuel are a continuation of the literary unit beginning in 1st Samuel 16, let us take this ending to pause and take stock.

Where have we been, what have we seen and what have we learned?

Discuss!

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

There's an old proverb: "When the cats away, the mice will play".

Warfare is often driven by opportunism. The Amalekites would have realized that there was a major battle to be fought between the Israel and the Philistines. That meant that cities in both those communities would be without most of their fighting men.

• v 2 "They killed none of them"
  • What patterns of behaviour have we already observed in our study to date when cities are being destroyed.
  • What range of motivations could be behind these patterns.?
• vv 3-8 Mixed reactions
  • Are you surprised by the varying responses in this passage, and in particular the statement "David was distressed because the men were talking of stoning him"?
  • Imagine yourself caught up in this situation and ask the question: 'how would I have reacted'?
  • What are typical responses to these sorts of situations in our age?
  • What does this passage tell us about the qualities of GOOD LEADERSHIP?
• vv 9-10 On rode the 600
  • What do we know about the six hundred men who were David's followers that might account for some of them being 'too exhausted'? What advantages did this situation create?
• vv 11-16 The Egyptian
  • This passage conjures up all sorts of Questions.
  • Make your own list of these, and bring them to the discussion?
  • What does it tell us about the characters involved in the story?
  • What does it tell us about the extent of this Amalekite campaign?
• vv 17-20 The battle
  David and his men took the Amalekites by surprise. The were celebrating and feasting, probably drunk. A surprise attack would have been devastating. They were obviously in total disarray and were slaughtered.
  • How significant is the comment about the 400 young men?
• vv 21-25 The consolidation
  • Does it surprise you that the story so candidly reports that some of David's followers were "evil men and troublemakers"?
  • What does this story tell us about the qualities of David's leadership?
• vv 22-31 Sharing the bounty
  • Was this act of sharing and acknowledgement as a key part of the future?
  • What does this whole passage tell us about David's readiness for KINGSHIP?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

This short passage focuses on a theme that has repeated itself on battlefields over the centuries.

The fear or reality that there can be an army within an army, that can turn in any direction in the middle of a battle is very real.

Do you know of events in history where this happened, even in your own country?

Are there examples in Scripture of this happening?

• Was Achish a bit gullible? What evidence is there in this whole story (including the previous chapter) that this was the case?
• What does the story tell us about the intelligence capabilities of the Philistine Leaders?
• How important was the 'lack of information' on the battlefield in the culture of the time?
• How well did Achish handle himself in the situation?
• Are you surprised that David didn't seem to 'get it' when he is asked to leave?
• Are you surprised by the phrase: 'as pleasing in my eyes as an angel of God'?
• Why the 'do nothing to displease the Philistine Rulers'?
• What does this passage say about the importance of Achish in the 'pecking order' of Phillistine leadership?
• What does the passage say about David? Had he a lot of charisma?
• Do you have outstanding questions about this whole sojourn of David among the Philistines?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

At school, to get through a variety of English exams, there was inevitably a question on Shakespeare. The one play I always homed in on was 'Macbeth'. It embedded in my mind the idea of a witch, or in Macbeth's case, three witches.

I learned about the 'witch' of Endor as a youngster, but the image portrayed in 1 Samuel doesn't conform to Shakespeare's portrayal. In fact, when I examined both the King James' version and the NIV, and read the intercalated Hebrew to English version, there is no use of the term 'witch'.

A better, more appropriate, modern translation is the term 'medium'. Personally, because I was partially brought up in the Adventist tradition, I am much more wary of the concept of 'medium' than I am of 'witch'.

Our study begins with the comment that 'Saul had expelled the mediums and spiritist from the land'.

During much of my lifetime, I have heard little or nothing about mediums. Do we have to be wary of them, or is it a diversion from the thing that affects us most in Western Europe and increasingly in America, 'modern atheism'?

In these verses, do you think Saul's terror is simply because of the formidable military force facing him, or is there something else at play?

He enquired of the Lord for guidance. However, irrespective of whatever communication avenues to the Lord he opened up, he was met by silence. Hence, "Find me a woman who is a medium, so that I may enquire of her".

• Why a woman?
• Was Saul at this time in his life beyond redemption?

He approached the medium in Endor disguised. After all, he had expelled all the mediums from Israel. Even Saul suspected that if she knew who he was, she was likely to be a tad uneasy! Perhaps his accent, even although he was likely using the local language, possibly would make her suspicious.

Interesting use of language in verse 10: 'Saul swore to her by the Lord'.

Was this just a linguistic habit, or did he still have a connection to the Lord?

Discuss the following statements and questions:

1. 'She brought up Samuel'
2. Examining the apparition and the dialogue, which part is true and which false?
3. We are aware of the Fox Sisters and their classification as mediums in the latter part of the 19th Century. Also, there was a spike in medium activity after the first world war for obvious reasons. Am I correct in stating that this form of activity appears to have faded during the last number of decades in the west? If so, can you suggest a reason?
4. 'tomorrow you and your sons will be with me'.

This act appears to demonstrate that this 'witch' was driven by compassion for Saul and his men. Discuss!

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

I was troubled by this part of the story. To start with, David flees Saul's pursuit by escaping to the Philistines. David goes to King Achish of Gath, one of the five main cities of the Philistines and the home of Goliath. David takes his two wives and 600 men and their households with him. I'm not sure what the total number of people was but it would have been a town of it's own. King Achish gives David the town/region of Ziklag to dwell within, which remained the property of David and his line (although, there is debate where the actual location of Ziklag was). David remains in Ziklag for a year and four months. Perhaps this sounds fair enough...?

However, while David is with the Philistines and King Achish, David leads the massacre of villages of the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites (traditional enemies of Judah/Israel). All of these people dwelt south of Judah with David making raids even as far as Egypt – some of these peoples may also have been enemies of the Philistines, e.g. the Amalekites), killing the men and the women so no-one can report back to Achish while taking all the goods and spoils for himself.

It is my understanding that this was not the usual practice of war. Most of the time peace was offered so the nation would become a vassal nation. If not, the men were killed and women and children made slaves (see Deuteronomy 20:10-15 ). David's brutality here might be compared to 2 Samuel 8 where he defeated Aram and Moab but didn't even kill all the males, putting them to use in his kingdom.

Do I see David as a private citizen indulging a penchant for banditry and raiding against people no-one cares about or a man who is the anointed heir of Judah/Israel acting according to God's command against the traditional enemies of Israel/Judah/God's nation (see Deuteronomy 20: 16-18). But then again, Divid doesn't do things according to either of these passages in the law. Again, how do we reconcile a God of love with the massacre of whole villages.

Then, when the Philistines go to war against Israel again, Achish expects David to fight with the Philistines. David's words, "Now you will see for yourself what we can do" imply that David is about to fight against his own people. And Achish appoints David as his body-guard. Given that last's weeks discussion highlighted the portrayal of David as cultural/national hero, this is pushing the boundaries.

Some of the commentaries I read about this time was that it was not a spiritually fruitful time for David. No psalms were produced during this time. Instead, David is like a wolf among the sheep Philistines.

• Does this passage change your view of David and his relationship with God?
• Discuss David's decision to go to the Philistines to escape Saul. Was it understandable, a loss of faith or something else?
• David seeks to find favour with Achish and ends up in a situation of compromise – discuss (I am deliberately not giving clues on how to answer this question).
• David essentially becomes a bandit. There is a lot of massacring of various peoples who were Israel's enemies and taking the plunder. From last week, in light of Brueggemann's suggestion that 1 and 2 Samuel are morality plays, what does this say about the morality of the time. Can you find parallels to our own time?
• What might this story of Saul's persecution of David and his fleeing into enemy territory represent in modern times?
• How do you think the author wanted the reader to view this part of the story?
• What can we learn from David's time with the Philistines? Note that God is not mentioned or called upon at all throughout this passage.
• Have we had times when we moved to a place that was away from God in a spiritual and/or physical sense?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

I've been reading one of our suggested commentaries for our Samuel study, "First and Second Samuel" by Walter Brueggemann, and he has an interesting theory (which I've floated in class before) that may be important for this week's study. So, let us entertain Brueggemann's theory for a few minutes.

He posits that the books of Samuel are not so much a straightforward historical record but are more a sort-of morality play in which the characters, whilst being actual flesh and blood real people, are portrayed more in a fictitious manner in order to promote some overarching narrative.

In this week's study this comes to a head. Chapter 26, says Brueggemann, is actually the same story as Chapter 24 -

"We have already seen this tale told in Chapter 24. To record only the tale, chapter 24 is not enough. Israel, however, knew this tale was crucial for its future, its faith, and its self-understanding. Israel could not leave the story with such a simple telling. The same narrative is retold in chapter 26".
Brueggemann p 183

• Given what happens at the end of chapter 24 and what happens at the end of chapter 26, what do you think of this idea?
• Overall, how comfortable are you with the idea that sizeable chunks of the OT might be best viewed as poetry or morality plays? I've heard this idea being used to explain, for example, the book of Job, but never to explain a book as seemingly 'historical' as Samuel. Job would make good sense as a morality play, but 1 Samuel...?

The story is fairly straightforward. Saul hears that David is holed up somewhere and sets off to find him. In a role reversal, where Saul the hunter becomes Saul the hunted, David and Abishai walk into Saul's camp and walk right through all the sleeping guards and into Saul's tent. A handy spear is to be found right next to Saul's bed. Abishai is up for seizing the opportunity and killing Saul there and then.

David says 'No'.

Don't kill him. For who can remain innocent after attacking the Lord's anointed one? Surely the Lord will strike Saul down someday, or he will die of old age or in battle. The Lord forbid that I should kill the one he has anointed!

I assume v13 begins in the morning. David taunts Abner, Saul's right hand man. Saul recognises David and calls him "my son, David". David and Saul have some to and fro. The chapter ends with the last face to face meeting between the two. David is vindicated and Saul apologises.

• v11. David will not kill Saul. His reason? Saul is the Lord's anointed. We saw last week that David was very ready to wipe out Nabal (plus a good few 'collateral damage' others). Why the difference? Is the simple commandment of "Don't murder" not enough for David?
• v12. The sleep of Saul and his men was induced by Yahweh. Yahweh makes David safe - there's an explicit reference here to God directly looking after David. In chapter 24 David was simply 'lucky'. Do you read anything into the differences here? (Also, how did the author of the story know that Yahweh was responsible for the deep sleep?)
• v14. David calls out Abner, not Saul. Is this a slight at Saul? Is David acknowledging that the real power of Israel lies with Abner and his ideas?
• v15. David refers to the 'king' rather than uses Saul's name (3 times). Is he addressing the role rather than the man? Saul is irrelevant, it is the role that is important. Discuss...
• v17. Saul calls David 'my son'. What do you make of this? Is Saul having a change of heart? Why?
• From Brueggemann:

  David then exhorts Saul to sort out his reasons for the pursuit of David (v19). Saul's pursuit may be instigated by Yahweh (which we do not believe, neither does David). Or perhaps Saul has acted on bad advice. Either way, the endless, relentless pursuit of David will cause David to leave Israel, to leave the land of Yahweh, and to depart the rule of Yahweh. To be driven from the land is to be dispatched where he must server other gods who rule other lands (cf Josh 24:14-15). David will violate the first commandment, and it will be Saul's fault! Finally, David appeals to Saul not to drive him away, to die away from the face of Yahweh (v20). This is a desperate, poignant appeal. How odd that while the narrative traces the growing success and legitimacy of David's theological claims, David's actual situation vis-à-vis Saul grows more and more precarious.
  Brueggemann p 186

  What do you make of this analysis?
• v23-24. David's claim to righteousness is based on a specific action - he did not kill Saul. David seeks nothing from Saul, only from Yahweh. These are the last words from David to Saul. Has David broken free of Saul with this statement?
• v25. Has Saul now lost? His words to David are very strong. Has he given up?

As of the end of this chapter the narrator of Samuel has laid out the theological case for David's legitimacy. The rest will follow.

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

The Wilderness or Desert of Paran is said to be the place where Hagar was sent into exile from Abraham's dwelling in Beersheba. (Genesis 21). Paran is later mentioned in Numbers 10:12 and 12:6 as the place where the Israelites temporarily settled during the Exodus. It's mentioned in Deuteronomy 1:1 and 2:2.

These are the words Moses spoke to all Israel in the desert beyond the Jordan--that is, in the Arabah--opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth and Dizahab. And, He said: The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones, from his right hand went a fiery law for them.

It looks to me like, in the Hebrew mind, it would be a place of exile, safety, and vision.

When I was reading the translator notes, it looked to me, no surprise, that there is still animated discussion about where exactly it is.

There also seems to be no agreement on the distance from Maon to Carmel either so I for sure don't know the distance of Nabal's work commute.

• Nabal - The name Nabal comes from the Hebrew word Nābhāl, which can mean "fool", "futile", "worthless", or "good-for-nothing". It can also figuratively mean being shamelessly acting with impropriety. I think this might be a name applied to him in adulthood because I cannot imagine a parent burden a child with that moniker.
• Abigail - is a feminine given name. The name comes from the Biblical Hebrew name Hebrew: אֲבִיגַיִל / אֲבִיגָיִל ʾĂvî-Ghayil, meaning "my father's joy" (alternatively "my father is exulted" or "my father is joyful", among others).
• David - (Hebrew: דָּוִד, Modern: David, Tiberian: Dāwîḏ) means "beloved", derived from the root dôwd (דּוֹד), which originally meant "to boil", but survives in Biblical Hebrew only in the figurative usage "to love"; specifically, it is a term for an uncle or figuratively, a lover/beloved (it is used in this way in the Song of Songs: אני לדודי ודודי לי, "I am for my beloved and my beloved is for me")
• Ahinoam - Ahinoam (Hebrew: אֲחִינֹעַם‎ ʾăḥīnoam) is a Hebrew name literally meaning brother of pleasantness, or my brother is pleasant, thus meaning pleasant.

• The Lord - Yahweh – the personal God with Whom one has a covenant/ committed relationship.
• God – lohim – Majesty. Plural in form, singular in meaning.

I just have to tell you this. I confess I cannot resist. When I was looking up Hebrew customs that might indicate a trade in food and water for security from bandits, the first article was entitled: What the Mafia learned from God's Favorite King.

None the less, it does seem like it was within David's understanding of quid pro quo (well, not exactly since Latin didn't exist then) that it was culturally normative to pay, in barter of food and water, the people who protect your land. Self-serving idiots were not invented in the 21st Century. Added to this, we are talking about people of the desert who quite clearly understood the mandate of hospitality.

1. What do you think it was like for David that Samuel died?
2. What do you think it was like for Saul?
3. What do you think it was like for others in the country?
4. I wonder what you think was David's state of mind…and that of his support team... that they were both grieving Samuel and needing to avoid Saul.
5. Do you see similarities between Nabol and Saul?
6. 25: 4-8 – Why do you think David send his ambassadors with those words?
7. 25: 14-17 What does that way the servants talked with Abigail indicate about her relationship with them, their sense of her business acumen, and their sense of her courage and her care for her workers?
8. And her understanding of cis male reactions to disloyalty and unfairness. (If you want I can talk a bit about how understanding loyalty and fairness has played into research about boys who murder).
9. 25:20 – Why did she go "under the cover of the mountain"?
10. Her actions were designed to defuse a very angry, righteous man. What do you make of them.
11. 25:39 – Why did David ascribe the stroke to God's vindication of him and his people?
12. Why do you think David asked Abigail to be his wife and didn't just take her. This seems unusual for what we think of the time period.
13. 25:41 Why do you think Abigail replied to the proposal as she did?
14. What part of this story did you most like.

I look forward to our discussion.

I wish for you Gentle blessings.

Catherine

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Grace can be defined as courteous good-will, to do honour or credit to someone or something by one's presence or, undeserved favour. It seems to me that David exhibited all three of these qualities in his interactions with Saul.

• Keilah – The Citadel - The earliest historical record of Keilah is found in the Amarna letters from the 14th century BCE. In some of them, Qeilah and her king Shuwardatha are mentioned.] It is possible to infer from them the importance of this city among the cities of Canaan that bordered near Egypt before the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites.
• According to the First Book of Samuel, the Philistines had made an inroad eastward as far as Keilah and had begun to appropriate the country for themselves by plundering its granaries until David prevented them.
• The Wilderness of Ziph – Ziph ( Romanized Zip)was a town in the Judean Mountains south-east of Hebron. Here David hid himself from Saul (Psalm 54). The name of Zif is found about four miles south of Hebron, attached to a rounded hill of some 100 feet in height, which is called Tell Zif.
• Horesh – The name means "forest". It was located in the Wilderness of Ziph There's disagreement about any other possible information.
• Maon – in the Arabah south of the desert. The rift valley is along the edge of the Dead Sea – and I of course wonder about the significance of that.
• En Gedi - means "the spring of the kid goat" in Hebrew, is a desert oasis on the western shore of the Dead Sea that appears in the Bible many times. The oasis is known for its beauty and natural resources and has been home to people for thousands of years. It features waterfalls, pools, streams, and two freshwater springs, one of which is the only one along the Dead Sea's western shore. The area is also home to a variety of wildlife, including deer, rabbits, leopards, and ibex, as well as exotic birds and beautiful foliage.

• Ephod - an elaborate garment worn by the high priest, and upon which the Priestly breastplate containing the Urim and Thummim rested.

• God – lohim – majesty – plural in form; singular in meaning.
• Lord God – Yahweh – the personal or covenant God. Indicates relationship.

• Irony

1. vv 23:6 - What was the significance of Abiathar bringing an ephod with him as he escaped to David?
2. vv 23:7 – Why do you think that Saul used lohim in this phrase.
3. God has alienated him (David) into my hand. What do you think is the meaning of his use of that particular descriptive phrase?
4. What do you think it indicates about David that he used Yahweh as he talked about God?
5. vv 23:14 – What do you think was the writer's intent when they wrote "But Lohim did not deliver David into his (Saul's) hand".
6. vv 23:16 – What meaning do you make of Jonathan leaving his father's camp and going to David.
7. What do you make of him using lohim when he talked with David about his father?
8. vv 23:18 – What does it say to you that Jonathan and David made a covenant before Yahweh about their intended relationship?
9. I find it very ironic that Saul only uses Yahweh when he is part of a covenant of perfidy.
10. vv 23:24 – what do you make of the Philistines raiding 'the land' just as Saul is about the attach David.
11. vv 24:1 – I just love that this place means the rock of the mountain goats. What meaning do you think the name may have meant to David and his folk?
12. vv 24:4-7 What do you think is meant to David and his men to use the name Yahweh in this conversation.
13. vv 24: 8-15 What to you make of the fact that David used the name Yahweh as he spoke to Saul?
14. vv 24: 16-21 What do you make of the fact that Saul used Yahweh in this conversation with David?

I just love that it turns out that we have 7x2 questions!

As always I am looking forward to our conversations. And, as always, in the midst of so many things going to with our families, I wish you unexpected blessings.

Catherine

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

When we commenced studying the beginning of the kingship of Saul, my view of Saul's character was reasonably positive. The narrative within these verses has revealed the true character of the man. When we are under certain strains and pressures, our true characters are frequently revealed.

Contrast Christ's response, from the Garden of Gethsemane till His death on the cross. Stripped of authority, deserted, whipped and nailed to a cross. The use of force, whatever was to happen to Him, totally forbidden.

vv 22:6-8

Here we have a paranoid Saul. Do you think his sense of paranoia contributed to his eventual downfall? What does this passage relay about Saul's relationship with his followers?

vv 22:11-16

David deceived Ahimelech, which we studied last week. Yet he put his life on the line by defending him in front of an obsessed Saul? Why do you think he did so?

vv 22:17-19

Saul's guards were reluctant to carry out his orders. Did they have mixed loyalties and/or were they acting out of principle? Doeg, the Edomite, carried out the collective punishment. It is difficult to make sense of how this was carried out if Doeg was acting alone. I suspect there were others involved. Is collective punishment ever justified or was it just a mediaeval, barbarous act? If you have time, look at 'Collective Punishment' in Wikipedia. My inclination is to believe that modern humanity can behave no differently from the tribes in the Old Testament. We often deceive ourselves by our packaging!

vv 23:1-7

Remember, the Philistines were advanced in their military technology. They were experienced and motivated warriors. David's men were understandably beside themselves with fear. However, there is no supporting evidence that David shared their fear. Why not?

vv 23:8-14

David and his men had saved part of Saul's kingdom from the Philistines. Yet Saul was obsessed with finding and destroying David and his followers. Do you think that Saul's actions may have been the final nail in the coffin for the retention of his kingship? Feelings for revenge can be so self destructive. How should we deal with them?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

This story of the Consecrated Bread comes with more questions than answers. We would say today that it opens a 'can of worms'.

1. Were there multiple centres of worship in Israel at the time?

   Originally, the Tabernacle was the focal point of worship and sacrifice.

   We have already seen that different leaders had set up their own centres of worship, and there were different centres who had priests with Ephods.

   • Would this suggest there had been a fragmentation of the religious unity of the nation?
   • Would it suggest that they may have been more like today than we might think?

2. Why did David pretend he was on the king's business?

   • Was he trying to deceive Ahimelek, or protect him?

3. Ahimelek "trembled" as did the elders in Bethlehem when Samuel arrived

   • Does this suggest that a spirit of fear is a common experience in the history of humanity?
   • How often does FEAR drive human decision making?
   • How is this displaying itself in the world today?

4. The consecrated bread involved was like the leftovers after communion.

   The current consecrated bread (bread of the Presence) had been newly baked. Priests or Levites who were ritually clean ate the old bread.

   • Did Ahimelek break the rules?
   • Did David violate the rules?

5. What do you think of the statement that Doeg the Edomite is "detained before the Lord"?

   The Hebrew word means held back, restrained, kept in a firm hold, arrested, locked up.

6. Would the fact that Ahimelek gave David Goliath's sword trigger a reaction in Saul when he finds out?

7. DAVID ON THE MOVE

   • Flees to Achish king of Gath. Uses his acting skills to feign madness.
   • Then he goes to the Cave of Adullam (the stronghold) but gets the king of Moab in Mizpah to provide sanctuary for his family.
   • His army of 400 could be described as misfits: "all those in distress or in debt or discontented".
   • He has a personal seer, or prophet by the name of GAD.
   • GAD tells him not to stay in the stronghold but go to Judah where he hides on the forest of Hereth.
   • Gath was one of the 5 Phillistine cities, but they still have a significant presence and garrisons in the heart of Israel. Chapter 23 tells us they have a garrison in Bethlehem.
   • Saul was somehow restricted by their oversight even within Israel's own territory.

   What questions would these events trigger in your mind?

   What does it tell us about David as a person?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

This story pulls my heart into tears.

1. What qualities of Jonathan do you like?
2. What qualities of Jonathan do you admire?
3. What are the strengths you see in the relationship shared by David and Jonathan?
4. What do you think it was like for them to say goodbye?

• Lord God – Jahweh – The iteration of God who makes sacred agreements.
• Oath – a promise made in God's presence to another human party.
• Covenant – essentially a legal agreement between two parties that are then sealed or confirmed by the swearing of an oath. On our planet covenants can be made between a Divine Being and a human being or between two humans.
• Love – Ahav - can cover a broad spectrum of the meanings of love.
• Cut off – karat – the fundamental term in the Hebrew Bible that signifies the end of a covenant.

Sometimes I wonder how David's reign would have been different if Jonathan would not have died. There's something about them that reminds me of Jack and Bobby Kennedy.

• New Moon Feasts (Rosh Chodesh) - The beginning of the month in the lunar based Hebrew calendar. The beginning of the month was not known by astronomical calculations but by the testimony of messengers appointed to watch for the first sliver of the new moon. As soon as the sliver was seen, the sighting was announced across the country by signal fires on the mountain tops and the blowing of trumpets. The inner court of the temple would be open on seventh day Sabbaths and on the New Moon.

Why do you think Jonathan was so willing to give up the throne?

• The stone Ezel – place of departing

How does this story affect you?

I am looking forward to seeing you in a few days. In the meanwhile, I wish for you unexpected gentle blessings.

Catherine

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

HAVE YOUR BIBLE OPEN AND READY FOR ACTION!

This part of the story portrays Saul as being incredibly unstable. Last week we saw Saul trying the strategy of getting the Philistines to kill David. That didn't work, and David marries Saul's daughter Michal.

Saul now wants David killed. There are 3 parts to the story.

1. vv1-7: Saul tells Jonathan and his attendants to kill David. Jonathan warns David to hide. He then intercedes with Saul, who makes the following oath: "As surely as the Lord lives, David will not be put to death". Jonathan brings David to Saul and David returns to his role in Saul's court.

2. vv8-17: We have no idea how long it took before war with the Philistines resumed. Once again David excels in battle and Saul and "an evil spirit from the Lord" drives Saul to try and kill David with is his spear.

   David escapes from the court but is at home with his wife Michal.

   1. Michal persuades David to escape.
   2. Michal pretends that David is ill.
   3. Michal lies to her father, implying that David threatened to kill her.

   MICHAL is not one of the prime characters but plays an important role in the outcomes. She must live with the decisions being made by others.

   • Have you ever been caught similar situations?
   • Envisage MICHAL'S DILEMMA. What does this tell us about Michal's relationships with her father and husband? Can you empathize with her?
3. vv18-24: Samuel enters the story once again, because David sought him out at Ramah. Saul decides to get capture David to face his appointed end. Three times Saul's henchmen are sent to arrest him, but all 3 groups are overwhelmed by a "a spirit of prophecy". Saul goes himself and is also overwhelmed by that same "spirit of prophecy", and even laid naked all day and all night .

This passage provides key character insights of the three main characters: Saul, Jonathan and David. Over the last couple of months, we have seen all the characters in action, and these are the building blocks of really beginning to understand them.

• What strengths can you detect in each of them?
• What weaknesses have exposed themselves or may lie dormant within them?

We have repeatedly seen what I would describe as a PARADE OF PROPHETS.

• Is the above description justified?
• It never describes how it physically manifests itself? What do you think was happening?
• Saul hits this spiritual brick wall. Why did it have such overpowering outcomes?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

What I really want to talk about in this study is relationships, male relationships in particular, and what the relationships between David and Jonathan, David and Saul and David and Saul's daughters can teach us.

Verse 1 talks about a bond that forms between Jonathan and David. Verses 3 and 4 outline a covenant between Jonathan and David.

In regards to David and Jonathan's bond, I read various commentaries and they noted the following

• "as his own soul" demonstrates that the men were like-minded in their observance of God's Law and zeal for Israel.
• In regards to the covenant they made—Such covenants of brotherhood were frequent in the East. They are ratified by certain ceremonies, and in presence of witnesses, that the persons covenanting will be sworn brothers for life."
• A covenantal context provides the lens for understanding the love between Jonathan and David.
• Jonathan was not so interested in David as a minstrel but that after David killed Goliath, Jonathan saw David's heroism and modest, manly bearing, his piety and high endowments, which kindled the flame not just of admiration, but of affection.

What does David and Jonathan's story say about male relationships? Was it special or a one off and what can we learn from it.

The relationship between David and Saul was the opposite of David and Jonathan. During this passage we see the almost father and son relationship between David and Saul grow steadily worse until Saul considers himself David's enemy. David on the other hand seems very altruistic in his dealings with Saul.

After David kills Goliath, Saul keeps David with him (verse 2) (one reference says Saul forcefully conscripted David into service) and then sends David out to battle. Then, verse 7 records that the women sang about Saul and his thousands and David and his ten thousands.

Comment on David's success as a warrior and Saul's jealousy that merges into increasing paranoia?

Please also comment about the evil spirit from God that came upon Saul (verse 10). (Read also 1 Samuel 10:6 and 19:23-24.) It's in this state of raving that he eventually picks up his spear and tries to kill David, but David eluded him – twice.

Verse 12-16 gives a further explanation for Saul's fear; 1) Saul begins to realise that God has left him and is with David and 2) everyone loved David, including Saul's men and the men of the army. Please comment.

What can we learn about David and Saul's relationship and male relationships in general?

What do we learn about men and mental health from Saul?

David and Merab. In verse 17, Saul offers his daughter Merab to David if he goes and fights the Philistines in the hope that the Philistines will kill David. David doesn't seem that impressed with the offer, claiming he's a nobody.

Is David being humble or deliberately avoiding getting close to Saul?

Then in verse 19 Merab was given to another when it came time to marry. Please comment.

David and Michal: Michal was in love with David and Saul decides to use this to trap David by offering her to David in marriage. Except that, as with Merab, David initially rejects the offer to marry Michal. Saul concocts a scheme to get rid of David, telling him he only needs one hundred Philistine foreskins as a bride price. This is the part of the story that really makes me shudder. And yet David brings the one hundred foreskins before the allotted time (more shuddering).

Why did David vow he was unworthy when he was offered first Merab to marry and then Michal to marry? Was he truly humble or was he avoiding becoming Saul's son-in-law?

Why did he eventually acquiesce to Saul's demands and do what was required to marry Michal. Do you think David returned Michal's feelings? (The passage talks about Michal's feelings but doesn't really say anything about David's feelings for Michal.)

What do these passages say about the status and treatment of women in this time?

After Saul's plans to get rid of David are foiled, David marries Michal and in verse 28, Saul realises that The Lord is no longer with him and is now with David.

Saul becomes David's enemy but in verse 30 we see David's success against the Philistines and his fame increases.

What do you think these passages teach us about love: agape love, romantic love, love twisted by jealousy and paranoia?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

This is a special 'theme week', or 'random diversion', where we invite a guest to come and talk with us on a subject of their choosing.

This week we have Dave Neal, the TED Communications Director, with a presentation entitled "The Listening Ear"

All the usual notes etc can be found on our 'Random Diversions' page

This is the beloved story from children's bible study classes in Sabbath or Sunday School. Which, when you think about it, is rather odd. David kills Goliath, after much taunting, and then cuts his head off!.

A useful moral tale, I'm sure...

The Philistines are camped on one side of the valley of Elah, with the Israelites on the other. It appears that they might have been there some time. Every day Goliath, the Philistine, comes out to taunt the opposing army, "When are you all coming to fight?!".

David shows up, leaves his belongings with 'the keeper of supplies' and, after some discussion as to what might be in it for himself, ends up before King Saul. An argument ensues but eventually Saul sends David in to battle the giant.

David abandons the king's armour, and selects 5 stones from a stream and heads off. The taunting from Goliath begins. David retorts with a claim that the Lord God of Israel is on his side, puts a single stone in his sling and despatches the giant. David cuts off the dead Goliath's head.

The battle is over, the Philistines run away and are roundly slaughtered. Saul calls for David, to try and figure out who he is. David shows up, still carrying the giant's head, and the story is over.

• v26: Not particularly noble (get a reward and a daughter of the King for marriage)?
• Is he really doing this for the glory of God? Or is he wanting to show off? A young arrogant so and so? Read v28 and the comments of David's brother Eliab:

  "What are you doing around here anyway?" he demanded. "What about those few sheep you're supposed to be taking care of? I know about your pride and deceit. You just want to see the battle!"

• Similarly to his Psalms – it's all about me?
• In v36 David makes a nobler claim to be acting because of Goliath's disrespect of the 'living God'. In his earlier conversations with the troops he doesn't mention this at all - he seems much more concerned with the potential rewards.
• What has been David's motivation for anything up until this point? What do we know from the opinion of those who knew him. Samuel clearly saw something...?
• In vv45-47 David makes an explicit claim of being a representative of the "Lord of Heaven's Armies - the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied" and that Goliath needs to be defeated because of that defiance. What do you think of David's motivations at this point?

• David gets introduced to Saul. Does he not already know who he is?
• Is the chronology a bit mixed up here? The previous chapter ends with David being the minstrel at court, and being loved by Saul. What's happening here that Saul doesn't appear to know who he is?
• David doesn't give his name – only that he is a son of Jesse.
• What do you think of the theory that Goliath's skull was taken and buried in Jerusalem at the place later known as Golgotha?

Brueggemann presents the whole story as primarily a theological dissertation. The cast, the dialogue and the action is secondary to the theological meaning - ie the details don't particularly matter, what matters is the overall story arc. The story is only about the killing of a giant in passing. It's actually about the transfer of power and legitimacy from Saul to David. What do you think of this?

A recent BBC 'Storyville' documentary was entitled "Praying for Armageddon". Whilst the documentary is about the power and infuence of American Evangelical Christians as they seek to fulfil the Armageddon prophecy, I was struck by some of the language used - 'God needs warriors'. Does God need warriors? Should we be standing up for God in our godless world using the same language as David? If not, why not?

What Would Jesus Do??!

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

We are about to embark on the life of King David in our series based on 1 and 2 Samuel.

David is probably best known as the psalmist (Psalm-writer), then as the hero who killed Goliath and then as the anti-hero who seduced Bathsheba. He did, of course, do (and not do) many, many other things, good and bad, as we will discover in our continuing journey through 1 & 2 Samuel in the weeks to come.

This week is more of a pen and paper exercise, so please arm yourselves appropriately and let us imagine ourselves in an RI/RE class at school. Not all Bibles show a heading for each Psalm. The Authorised KJV and the NRSVA show these very clearly at the start of each Psalm. Different English translations may use different wording. Don't worry too much about this for our study this week. And there will be time for some discussion on Sabbath as well.

This week I'd like us to:

1. Check how many of the Psalms David actually wrote.
2. Note the names of any other Psalmists who are named and check on-line to find who they were, what their jobs were and when they lived.
3. Draw up a table of David's Psalms which have specific relevance to events in his life. This is noted in the headings to these Psalms in some Bibles (not all do), eg

   Psalm 63	A Psalm of David when he was in the wilderness
   Psalm ...	etc...

4. Note in passing that terms such as Jeduthan, Maskil and Miktam appear occasionally. If you have time you might like to check on-line for further information regarding these terms. (Ignore any references to musical instruments.)

As we continue through the life of David we will be referring to appropriate Davidic Psalms when they refer to specific events in David's life and experience. We will also make time to consider how some of these Psalms might help us individually on our life journey. (Facilitators please note!)

1. Why do you think the compilers of the Hebrew Bible included a book of Psalms?
2. In your Christian life and experience have you found individual Psalms helpful personally? If so, please choose one and tell us why.

• PDF of these notes
• Slides from the discussion
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

The latter part of Saul's reign was after Samuel's death. Samuel has a hard time dealing with the person that Saul had become, but still had strong feelings for him.

Samuel's instruction to anoint David would have been a challenging task for him. David was probably 16-18 years old at this time, yet he did not become king till he was 30 years old. A lot of things happened during this time, much of which is covered in the rest of Samuel 1.

16:1 "How long will you mourn for Saul?"

• What state of mind would Samuel have been in at this time?
  Had he not thought that his mentoring of Saul's kingship would the final stage of his long ministry? He was quite old by now.

16:2-13 "If Saul hears of it, he will kill me."

• Was he right to be afraid of Saul?
• Why were the Elders afraid of Samuel?
• The offering of Sacrifice was a priestly duty!
• Are there times when DECEPTION is advisable?
• Was the Anointing of David, a restricted activity to the family of Jesse?

• How do you think they would react to this situation?

v14-17

• Who or what was responsible for Saul's state of mind?
• Why is MUSIC now being recognized in multiple settings for its HEALING CAPABILITIES?
• Do you personally know of how music can have healing properties?

To what extent is God attributed with actions, which are human explanations based on the Cultural beliefs and norms of the time in which events took place?

If you think this happens a lot in the OT or NT, or even today...

1. What criteria can be used to distinguish what God does, and what he often gets blamed for?
2. Are there clues in Scripture that our human interpretations are not always correct?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

This week, I am going to read Ruth 1 to you, making some comments about the people and the story line, through these lenses, as we go. Then we'll have some time to discuss our thoughts on this reading of the book and the history. I think you will find it helpful to read the four chapters. I think you might also find it helpful to look at the different names for God used at different parts of Chapter 1 and think about why each of them was used at that point in the story.

1. The barley harvest - Passover
2. The time of the Judges – Theocracy of Israel
3. Relationship to Moab - Deuteronomy 23:3-6 (The reason - Numbers 25)
4. The names parents give their children is indicative of their hopes or place on their spiritual journey.

1. Bethlehem – house of bread
2. Elimelech – My God is King
3. Naomi - My pleasant one... Mara – Bitterness
4. Mahlon – to be weak or sick
5. Kilion – to be frail
6. Ruth - Friendship
7. Orpah - to turn one's back
8. The Lord: (Ruth 1:6,8,9,17,21,/2:4,12,20,/3: 10, 13/4:11,12,13,14 ) YAHWEH – The personal aspect of God; God who is in covenant relationship.
9. The Sovereign One or Lord God Almighty (Ruth 1:20) El Shaddai – The aspect of God who has promised descendants to those who follow Heaven's ways.
10. God (Ruth 1:16/ 2:12) Majesty; plural in form but singular in meaning with a focus on great power.

1. Irony
2. Chiasm?
3. Story arcs

...for each of the characters? I attach Kohlberg, see 'Resources', below.

• Why do you think Ruth's descendants were not subject to the Deuteronomic prohibitions about Moab?
• What do you think this says about God?
• What do you think it says about Ruth?
• Do you think Naomi ever changed her views on God? What are the indicators?
• Do you think Ruth is an object lesson? If so, of what?
• Why do you think this book was written?
• What's your favorite part.?

• PDF of these notes
• Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

1. "Now go and completely destroy the entire Amalekite nation - men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys."???

   You need to read Exodus 17:10-16 to understand why this command was issued.

   This is one of the most difficult passages for a Christian from the modern, western world to defend.

   Irrespective of what Richard Dawkins states, the God in whom I believe is not a genocidal maniac!

   DISCUSS!

2. Saul slaughtered the Amalekites. He captured the king, Agag, and spared his life. He kept the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs.

   Remember Pam's comment on the 20th April; 'There is a pattern of behaviour.' He doesn't quite carry out God's commands. Catherine's instincts about Saul appear to be reinforced by following the narrative in 1 Samuel.

   Where do we now sit with Saul?

3. "I am sorry that I ever made Saul king, for he has not been loyal to me and again refused to obey me."

   Can you reconcile this statement with an all-knowing and all-wise God?

4. We need to read during our discussion, 1 Samuel 15:12-22.

   "Obedience is far better than sacrifice." We need to discuss this statement, but on the basis of Jonathan Sachs' interpretation of 'To Obey'.

   Was Paul making a similar point in 1 Corinthians 13?

5. "Then Saul finally admitted, 'Yes, I have sinned. I have disobeyed your instructions and the Lord's command, for I was afraid of the people and did what they demanded. Oh please forgive my sin now and go with me to worship the Lord."

   Verse 30: "Then Saul pleaded again, "I know I have sinned. But please, at least honour me before the leaders and before my people by going with me with me to worship the Lord your God."

   Is there a problem with Saul's attempt at repentance and his plea for forgiveness?

6. Agag was brought before Samuel and he cut him to pieces. Was due process ignored, or the equivalent, 3000 years ago?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

• 1 Samuel 14:24-52
• Genesis 9:4-5
• Exodus 28:30
• Numbers 27:21

Last week we left unfinished the story of Jonathan the honey-eater who did not hear his father's rash curse on any troop member who ate food before evening and Saul being avenged on his enemies. We pick up the story following Jonathan eating some honey having not heard his father's curse.

1. vv29-30: What do you think about Jonathan's response when he heard about his father's curse?
2. vv31–32: Were the troops right or wrong to take the enemy's animals for slaughter?
3. vv32–34: What scenes come to mind as you read this?
4. v35: Was Saul right or wrong to build 'his first altar'? Why?
5. vv24,39: Last week we started a discussion regarding Saul's character. Vs 24 refers to Saul's 'rash act'. Was his statement in v. 39 also rash? What might this suggest further about Saul's character?
6. v43: What might have gone through Jonathan's mind and with what tone of voice do you think he responded to the charge? What might this suggest regarding Jonathan's character?
7. v44: What might have gone through Saul's mind as he saw the result of the lot. What do you think of Saul's response? Has this modified your opinion regarding Saul's character?
8. v45: What do you think about the people's response to the sentence pronounced on Jonathan and its outcome?
9. vv47–52: This appears to be a brief summary of Saul's battles and his family situated between two very detailed warring situations (the second one starting in chapter 15). Any comments?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Hopefully, we can continue to add to what we learned from Steve's presentation, last week. There is much more dialogue. Perhaps that tells us more about the different characters.

1. Jonathan and his armour bearer set off to attack an outpost. He did not tell his father and no-one realised he had left the Israelite camp.

   Wreckless or courageous? Did he demonstrate the qualities of being a future king?

2. "Let's go across to see those pagans"...
   "Perhaps the Lord will help i us for nothing can hinder the Lord. He can win a battle whether he has many warriors or a few."
   "I'm with you completely whatever you decide"

   What do these statements inform you as to the nature of Jonathan's faith?

3. "We will cross over and let them see us. If they say to us, 'Stay where you are or we will kill you', then we will stop and not go over to them. But if they say, 'Come on up and fight,' then we will go up. That will be the Lord's sign that he will help us defeat them."

   Is this a good method of determining the Lord's will?

4. Challenged by the Philistines, Jonathan said to his Armour Bearer, "Come on, climb right behind me, for the Lord will help us defeat them."

   They killed about 20 men, causing panic to break out in the Philistine army. The Philistines fled.

   Do you think this disarray was caused by human agency, or Divine agency, or a combination of both?

5. Just then an earthquake stuck and everyone was terrified!

   Was this Divine intervention or a coincidental, natural happening?

6. The Israelite lookouts saw the army dissipate, causing Saul to ask questions. Discovering Jonathan and his Armour Bearer missing, and probably concluding that they played some part in this, he decided to consult with the priest. However, the commotion in the Philistine camp grew louder. "Never mind; let's get going."

   Saul saw a strategic, military advantage in moving quickly. Consulting with the priest may put the Israelites at a disadvantage. Was this a good idea?

7. The men of Israel were worn out before they could conclude their military operations because of Saul's oath. (A curse was to fall on anyone who ate before Saul had full revenge on his enemies.)

   We have discussed oaths before. Do you think this oath imposed by Saul was a reflection of his tenuous hold on power?

8. Verses 21 and 22 indicate some Israelites appear to be part of the Philistine army. Some Israelites were in hiding. When they saw Saul had the upper hand, they went over to him.

   What does this tell you about the birth pangs of the state of Israel?

9. Jonathan ate the honey because he was unaware of the oath. He felt revitalised. He realised the major blunder his father had made from a military point of view, the result of which would affect Israel for years to come. The problem was compounded by the fact that the soldiers were so desperate for sustenance they ended up eating meat with blood still present.

   What lesson can we learn from this debacle?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Frequently I find it hard to follow the Old Testament stories, and our study this week is one of those occasions. Yes, I can read and understand what happened. But what eludes me at times is the why question...

Let's do a quick scan of this week's texts:

• Saul raises an army of 3,000 fighters. 1,000 go with Jonathan to Gibeah, with the remainder staying with Saul at Micmash.
• Jonathan defeats the Philistines at Geba and rejoins Saul at Gilgal.
• The Philistines have "mustered a mighty army of 3,000 chariots, 6,000 charioteers, and as many warriors as the grains of sand on the seashore! "
• Saul's army takes fright, and some troops hide, or escape into Gad and Gilead.
• Saul waits 7 days for Samuel to arrive, during which he "realized that his troops were rapidly slipping away".
• Saul decides to offer the burnt and peace offerings.
• Samuel arrives just as the burnt offering is concluded. He is not happy.
• Samuel tells Saul that his days are numbered.
• Samuel leaves, and Saul rounds up the remainder of the army, a mere 600 men.
• The Philistines seem to have a monopoly on ironwork, as a result no-one, apart from Saul and Jonathan, has a sword or spear.
• Things aren't looking good.
• ...and we leave the rest of the story for Jim to pick up next week. A cliffhanger ending...

It would seem that the purpose of the early Israelite kings was to fight the Philistines. Which was no easy task. We start this week with Saul's first attempt to do just that. He'd been upheld by Samuel as king in chapter 11 and now, following Samuel's farewell address in chapter 12, it's time to take up arms.

Verses 1-7 tell us that the Philistines are the clear favourites. Jumping forward to vv19-22 (where we have a rather odd diversion into the economics of metal weaponry) we can see some obvious problems. The Philistines have got 3000 chariots and too many troops to count. Saul's army are "trembling" (v7).

• Compare the attitude of the troops in vv6-7, with the attitude of the people in 11:14, post the defeat of the Ammonites - Saul's first battle as king. What's gone wrong?
• Some commentators state that the Israelite army was a 'volunteer militia', as opposed to whatever passed for a professional army in those days. Might their reaction be a perfectly reasonable response to the shock and awe of the Philistines?

Morale is low and, presumably to raise the spirits of his disheartened troops, Saul decides to ask for the Lord's blessing by offering sacrifices (v8-9). He'd waited a week for Samuel, as Samuel had instructed, and now goes ahead in the absence of the prophet.

• Was this a reasonable thing to do? I confess to not understanding the 'rules' of who is allowed to do what under what circumstances. Brueggemann contends that 9:13 would indicate that Saul's role was to be a judge and a warrior and that priestly duties were reserved for someone else. I'm not sure I would read that into 9:13. What do you think?

Immediately after Saul has finished the offering, Samuel arrives (v10). Saul is not uneasy about his actions, rather he simply explains what he did given that Samuel had not shown up and the troops needed leadership. But Samuel is not happy. Not happy at all.

Brueggemann (p98) writes "it almost appears as a setup, in which Samuel is testing to see how far he can keep Saul under his control and subordinate to his priestly authority. Samuel found that there are limits beyond which Saul will not submit. Saul is not prepared endlessly to risk his army out of deference to Samuel. This finding did not please Samuel." Samuel clearly thinks that a great wrong has been done.

• What do you think of Brueggemann's analysis?
• Is it fair for Samuel to be so angry?

Traditionally we tend to think of Saul as being somehow weak, or deficient is some way. And we think of Samuel as being the wise old man of God. In Brueggemann's decidedly contrary take, Samuel is being almost petulant. Saul explains his seemingly perfectly reasonable actions (vv11-12) and Samuel just shoots him down.

Saul's defence of his actions are laid out. "He acted for pragmatic reasons, because the troops were scattering (v11). He acted because he did not want to begin battle without a proper religious gesture (v12). Above all, the time limit on Samuel's arrival had elapsed (v11). These appear to be compelling and valid reasons for his act, which was hardly precipitous. And besides, 'I forced myself' (v12). Saul did not offer the sacrifice greedily, eagerly, aggressively, or to pre-empt the power of the old priesthood. Saul could hardly be more deferential." (Brueggemann p99)

Samuel immediately gives his verdict - "Foolish!" (v13)

• Is Samuel being reasonable?
• What's the offence that Saul has committed (v13)? Is it an important offence? What commandment has been broken?
• v13 is a bold statement that had Saul keep the command (what command?) then "the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever". What does that mean?
• That statement was made after Saul had failed. Is that not too late?
• After all is said and done, what exactly was God's promise to Saul, given just a few chapters back?

Verse 14 seems to be a direct reference to David.

• Has Samuel already given up on Saul?
• Had he given up even before this battle was joined? Somewhere back in the previous chapter?

I find it difficult to know what to make of this story. Brueggemann's view is that Samuel (or the author of the book at least) is being unfair to Saul. Samuel makes a number of 'the Lord said...' statements that are very harsh on Saul and that seem difficult to square with the facts of the events as laid out.

Let me conclude with Brueggemann's conclusion. "In the end we may expect to grieve for Saul, who was outdone by forces to which he had no access. Even the powerful are helpless in the face of God's inscrutable holiness. The narrative, however, does not linger long to grieve Saul. It has other, more pressing business."

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

This week we are deparing from our 'Books of Samuel' series and having a 'Theme Week'. Catherine will lead us in a discussion on an important topic.

The notes for this week are here...

Saul had been declared king in Gibeah after Samuel had led them through the selection process by the casting of lots. The early part of of his reign was marred by a faction that questioned the selection, presumably because he was from a small family of the tribe of Benjamin.

After the defeat of the Ammonites that objection was overcome, and Samuel called the whole nation to Gilgal where Saul was reaffirmed as king by the whole nation. He had now proved himself in battle with a great victory. He was 30 years old when he became king and reigned for a further 42 years. On that basis Saul died when he was 72. That raises significant questions.

What we don't know!

• We are not told where they started counting the years of his reign.
• We are not told how much time passed between the first declaration of the kingship and the second one.

• In the next chapter Jonathan, his son is OLD ENOUGH to lead part of the army.
• In this part of the story Saul had not had any battles with the Philistines.
• Samuel's farewell address is only given after the second affirmation of Saul's kingship.

• Would these time anomalies suggest that the early part of Saul's kingship was crippled by the dissention caused by him being a Benjamite?
• Would Samuel have been responsible in his duty to God and the nation if he had thrown in his oversight responsibilities prior to the unified acceptance of Saul's kingship?

The reason for my emphasis on the TIME ANOMOLIES is that we have 40 years of history packed into a small amount of space, with overlapping stories and without the date references that are common in modern historical writing, when the writers look a differing aspect of the developing history. When we invented BCE dating that problem was solved and it became possible to approximate the dates of past events. The writer of the OT could not do that, and for them the stories were the most important. Time anomalies were not on their agenda.

Samuel is making it clear that this is the end of his POLITICAL leadership of the nation, but his actions confirm that his call to spiritual leadership is still intact.

Samuel seeks acknowledgement of the integrity of his own leadership.

• Was Samuel being VAIN in bringing this issue before the people?
• Was Samuel drawing a line between himself and his sons, who the people already believed to be corrupt?
• Would YOU ever want to walk in Samuel's shoes?

When the people originally asked for a king Samuel anointed Saul without anyone's knowledge. Saul never even told his uncle what Samuel had done. When the people gathered at Mispah, and the lots were cast, it eventually led to Saul's selection. Saul himself was so fearful of the challenge that he hid in the baggage.

When he was declared king by the people, Samuel explained what God expected as the RIGHTS and DUTIES of kingship and WROTE these down. (v. 25-26). Not everyone recognized him as king.

• Did Saul realize that there was dissent about him?
• His hiding in the baggage indicated self-doubt and fear, is that understandable?
• Is it possible that Saul may have taken a low profile for several years?

The Ammonite threat, which we studied last week, stirred him to action and led to the re-affirmation of his kingship.

Samuel's farewell address was the FORMAL RESIGNATION from his POLITICAL ROLE.

Immediately he puts on his second hat (PRIEST and PROPHET) and spells out a series of warnings concerning the future of the kingdom.

Samuel recalls the history of God's goodness to Israel and their constant failure to respond by their sins, and the worship multiple other God's.

• Is this pattern of recalling the past failures of Israel something we see in both OT and NT?
• Would the rivalry between the tribes and within the tribes pain the heart of God?

• Was this act of punishment appropriate to the circumstances of the occasion?
• What is the significance of (v 22) in the light of this moment?

Samuel's personal commitment to teaching, ministry, and prayer on behalf of the nation.

• What does that tell us about the quality of Samuel as a man of God?

YOU CAN CHANGE YOUR LEADERSHIP ALL YOU WANT.

GOD IS STILL GOD, and his expectations for each of US and for HIS PEOPLE never change!

• WHAT IS GOD'S EXPECTATION FOR US ? (Isn't it interesting that all the different perspectives within our studies bring us back this point)?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

In this study we will discuss one of the most momentous decisions in Israel's early history and get the first inkling of what it will mean. I've included some notes that I hope will make these few verses more alive for you.

I see it in two sections:

1. The deconstruction of the theocracy.
   1. the calling of the people
   2. a history of ways Yahweh cared for and "ruled" them.
   3. a formal acknowledgement of Israel's decision. Note: this is my definition of God's notion of judgement.
   4. The use of "the lot" to show God was still involved in the working of the people and this Their choice was Saul for the people of this time. This was a very public action that differed from the anointing.
   5. Introducing the king.
   6. God finding the "ruler"... among the baggage
   7. Samuel writing a clear new contract.
2. Saul's first act...
   1. Nahash goes against Jabesh Gilead; a village that has recently undergone a massacre "to provide wives for Benjamin" because they had refused to participate in a massacre. Judges 21:8-15. They now find themselves desperately needing help from ... .a Benjamite.
   2. In an action reminiscent of the Levite who cut up his wife and sent her to Israel to call war against Benjamin, Saul cut up his oxen and sent the pieces around to call Israel to war.
   3. He threatens those who do not come.
   4. The Army routs Nahash
   5. Saul saves the lives of people who did not want him as king.
   6. He is established as king by acclaim.
   7. Peace offerings given, "Saul and all the Israelites were very happy.

1. God is love.
2. Choice is an absolute mandate.
3. Judgements are only acknowledgment of choices we have made.
4. Dominion was given as an object lesson of the way Heavenly beings use power: protect, nurture, build life skills, serve the vulnerable.
5. There is a conflict with God and the serpent as to who is focused on our best good.
6. God meets us where we are and offers skills and supports to bring us home.

1. Leadership change from theocracy and judges to address issues among the tribes to a monarchy.
2. The role of a checks and balances prophet is put into place to give voice to God's priorities. Note: Other prophets were doing other things during the time of the monarchy.

Mizpah – Hebrew: A watchtower used for military defense. The place and memorial where Jacob and Laben made their peace as he escaped with his family. Neither could pass the stone if they were on the way to the other's home to do evil.

The Lord God - Yahweh - The personal name of God. The one who has a individual and corporate covenant with Israel

God - Hebrew Lohim – the plural of majesty; plural in form, singular in action.

Nahash – Hebrew – The viper (copper or bronze). The root of this word is the serpent; by extension the mythological creature of chaos opposed to God.

Ammonite – Descendants of Lot's younger daughter. Deuteronomy 23:3,4.

No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the Lord till the 10th generation of their descendants for they did not meet you with food and water as you came from Egypt and furthermore, they hired Balaam.

Jabesh-Gilead - Judges 21: 8-14 – Read this story if you want to understand what it must have taken for this group to ask for help... .from a Benjaminite.

Irony – I Samuel 10:24 – Indeed, there is no one like him among all the people.

Heartbreaking Irony – Yahweh, the personal God of the theocratic covenant, is the God, honoring Israel's right to choose and overseeing Israel's decision to have a king.

Story Arc – Saul's coronation as end of theocracy; beginning of monarchy.

1. The Massacre of Jabesh to help the Benjamites: The rescue of Jabesh by a Benjamite
2. Body parts of wife/concubine sent around as call to war: Body parts of oxen sent around as call to war.
3. In choosing to go to war against Israel, Nahash (the Serpent) represents the battle of the "mythological creature of chaos against the ruler of the universe.

Object lessons: Mizpah was the dividing line between two people; in this story it becomes the witness/dividing line between two times in Israel's history.

Compare and Contrast: Jabesh Gilead/victim and rescued.

Story telling – as teacher.

1. In the thinking of this place and time, battles took place on two levels. The actions of earth were seen to represent the battles between the deities in the heavens. The people who won a battle were seen as representative of the deity they worshipped, and their victory or loss was seen as a victory or loss in the heavenly realm.
2. Because Hebrew is a concrete language that uses places, stories, people, histories, and objects to represent concepts or lessons.
3. For instance: As the stories and policies of Exodus and Leviticus were the formal institution of Israel's theocracy... 1 Samuel 17-24 was the formal deconstruction of the theocracy and the beginning of the time of some prophets have the job of checks and balances or the monarchy.

1. How do you think God felt about the deconstruction of the theocracy?
2. What do you think it was like for Samuel to be part of the deconstruction of the theocracy?
3. Why did Samuel go over the ways God had protected Israel as he begins the formal transition?
4. What do you think is the meaning of the phrase "Now, take your positions before the Lord, by your tribes and by your clans"?. In what other events or services had this happened in Israel?
5. Why the use of the lot?
6. What do you make of 10:22... The Lord says he has hidden himself among the baggage?
7. What do you make of the phrase, And Samuel talked to the people about how a kingship would work. He wrote it down on a scroll and set it before the Lord.
8. From a psychological perspective of history what do you make of these battles between the descendants of siblings and cousins?
9. Tell me what you think might be the layers of feeling experienced by Jabesh Gilead when threatened by Nahash.
10. Do not think for a second that these people did not see the parallels between what the Levite did and what Saul did with the oxen bits. What do you think might have been their reaction?
11. Do you think Saul's anger was the only possible reaction when the Spirit of God rushed upon him?
12. In the warrior census, why do you think Judah was separated out from the other 11 tribes?
13. Why do you think Samuel brought the people to Gilgal to renew the kingship there?
14. What are your thoughts on the change in Saul between 10:22 and 11:7?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Last week we read about how the Israelites demanded a king, and that God told Samuel to "listen to their voice and set a king over them" (1 Sam 8:22). In our study this week we will see how the selection of Saul and his anointing took place and the immediate consequences of him being anointed.

The following are possible timelines relating to the lives of Saul and David:

• from Britannica
• from The Biblical Timeline
• from bible.ca

Resources - See these few pages from Brueggemann's commentary.

1. Given the loss of the donkeys in time for Saul to meet Samuel, the boy telling Saul about the Seer, Saul meeting Samuel just as Samuel was visiting the town on the hill in order to make a sacrifice, Saul meeting people at Rachel's tomb, the Oak of Tabor, Gileath-elohim and Gibeah, the donkeys being found... How much was God involved in arranging these events? Or were they all coincidental?
2. Why didn't Samuel anoint Saul publicly?
3. What is your understanding of Saul being possessed by the Spirit of the Lord, being in a prophetic frenzy and being turned into a different person? (10:6)
4. What do you understand by "God giving Saul another heart"? (10:9)
5. Why didn't he tell his uncle about the anointing?
6. What might have been going through the minds of Samuel and Saul as this event ran its course?
7. What might we learn from this event that could help us in our listening to and consequently doing what God seems to be telling us to do either directly or through other people?

• PDF of these notes
• Brueggemann notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

In summary: Samuel tells the Israelites to get rid of their foreign gods and serve the Lord only and God would deliver them from the Philistines. The Israelites gather at Mizpah where Samuel judges them. The Philistines get nervous about this and go to war against the Israelites, who then beg Samuel to cry out to the Lord for them, which he does, offering sacrifices. Then when the Philistines attack, God thunders at them, throwing the Philistines into confusion and thus the Israelites were able to route the Philistines.

Last week we discussed whether God caused the plagues. This week God apparently intervenes by thundering at the Philistines. This resulted in the Philistines being routed and many of them dying at the hands of the Israelites.

1. Was it God who thundered at the Philistines? (It's okay if you want to say yes or no.) What does this say about the nature of God?

If we can't blame God when bad things happen, ie the plague and the tumours and the rats, can we also then attribute good things to God? Or are they just chance too?

If God doesn't necessarily make bad things happen, ie he allows consequences and uses natural processes rather than causing them, what then do we say about miracles? Why are they not just chance as well? Can we say that God specifically blesses us/makes good things happen when we follow God's ways or is it that following God's way simply results in a better outcome without any intervention from God?

2. If you had been an Israelite, how would you feel about God after this 'deliverance'? What if you were a Philistine?
3. Does Israel's deliverance promote faithfulness? Do miracles of any kind promote faith? What happens when miracles don't happen?

In summary: Samuel sets up the Ebenezer stone or "stone of help". Towns were restored to Israel. There was a long period of peace in which Samuel served as Judge and Samuel also builds an alter to the Lord in his hometown.

I looked into the meaning of Judge in the Old Testament and, while it included the role of judging cases in Israel, a Judge was mainly a leader in Israel. Joshua was the first Judge after being appointed by Moses as the leader of Israel. Some judges were warriors and some were prophets. Samuel was a prophet, not a warrior. Several of the judges were warriors, including Gideon, Samson, Ehud, Jephthah and Shamgar. Gideon and Samson take up most of the stories about the judges. Deborah, the only woman who was a judge, was also a prophet. There was forty years of peace under Deborah. Some judges only ruled for as short as seven or eight years. The book of Judges includes 12 Judges. Eli and Samuel are also described as Judges but are included in I Samuel instead. Apparently, the Judges of the book of Judges rarely ruled over the nation as a whole. That didn't happen until Eli and Samuel. In some places the 12 judges in the book of Judges are described as the 12 heroes of Israel. As judges they displayed all the frailties of being human. Samson was plotted against and lost his power. Gideon, after his amazing interaction with God ended up in idolatry. One, Jephthah, made a foolish vow and sacrificed his daughter. Some seemed to be quite wealthy and that is all we really hear about them. Each Judge was raised up by the Lord in a time of need. But there were times when there was no Judge as well.

4. Please comment about the Judges as leaders of Israel (as opposed to a king). Were there positives and negatives?

Samuel was judge of Israel all his life and it describes the circuit he took to judge the people in each of these places. I'm thinking he spent a great deal of time being a judge compared to time spent with his family.

Read also Judges 8:22,23.

When Samuel became old, he appointed his sons as judges over Israel. Unfortunately, they took bribes and perverted justice. There is an irony in this when you think back to Eli and his son's.

5. Was it a mistake for Samuel to appoint his sons as judges? In what way?

The elders of Israel ask Samuel to appoint a king to govern Israel "like other nations". Samuel is displeased but God says to give them a king as they are not rejecting Samuel but God as their king. But – God tells Samuel to 'solemnly' warn them about what having a king would be like.

This was not the first request for a king. They had also wanted to make Gideon king but he refused.

6. Why did the Israelites ask Gideon to be their king?

In 1 Samuel, the request for a king came in response to the corruption of Samuel's sons.

7. Please comment on the statement by God to Samuel "They are not rejecting you, they are rejecting 'Me' as their king".

Given God's warning about what having a king would be like, it doesn't sound like a good bargain.

8. What else might have prompted their request for a king?
9. Why do people look for a strong human leader (a king) they can follow even if it's not a good bargain, eg Trump or dictators like Putin or Hitler, etc?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

This chapter is set around 1100BC, towards the end of the Judges' period, when the Philistines were still a distinct tribe.

During this period, a temple had not been built, so the Ark represented the presence of God on Earth. In the 1960s, when I joined the Adventist Church in Glasgow the reverence of the 'Sanctuary' was taken very seriously because it was reckoned to be God's house, and therefore Holy and Sacred.

• Can we discuss the importance of the Ark in Jewish worship and life around 1100BC?

For seven months, the period for which the Philistines held onto the Ark, it appeared to cause their nation great distress. They were racked with disease, some commentators suggesting it may have been some form of bubonic plague. Their priests and diviners suggested it had to be returned with a guilt offering.

• Why do you think they considered this to be necessary?
• What's the significance of the five gold tumours and five gold mice?
• What part do you think the Exodus played in the return of the Ark?

Interesting story about the new cart and two milk cows... When harnessed up they were left to their own devices. If they headed toward Beth-shemesh, then it was the Lord who brought the plagues on them. If they do not, then the plagues happened by chance.

• How do we determine when God has intervened in our lives, or that an event occurred purely by chance?

It appears that the people of Beth-shemesh who were harvesting in the field at the time when the Ark appeared, were ecstatic.

They chopped up the cart and offered the cows as a burnt offering. Do we have an equivalent way today of expressing our appreciation when the Lord has done something remarkable for us?

Worth reading verses 17 and 18 to understand the significance of the number '5'.

God struck down 70 men because they looked inside the Ark. Comment!

Eventually, the Ark ended up in Abinadab's house at Kiriath-jearim. "And all the house of Israel mourned and sought after the Lord". What will make the people of our nation turn to the Lord today?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)
• Map that Jim referred to in our discussion:

Samuel is growing up: possibly around 20-25 at the time of this events. He is well known throughout the nation of Israel. Eli and his sons are still alive, although Eli is seriously old by now and his sons must be seriously middle-aged. It may be assumed that their behaviour had not changed and that Eli no longer had the capability of ruling the nation. That role has effectively passed to Samuel although this seems not to be official until ch.7

These three chapters (1 Sam 4-7) are regarded by scholars to be a coherent and distinctive narrative unit. They are conveniently referred to as "the ark narrative" because, apart from the powerful, invisible working of Yahweh, the ark is the only "character" who acts in the story. Miller and Roberts have effectively argued that the "hand" of Yahweh is the main theme... . This narrative is theologically "primitive" in the sense that Yahweh acts directly, without recourse to a secondary agent... . the casting of the narrative does not invite us to an explanation of the action, but to an awed silence before the one who is inexplicable, inscrutable and finally irresistible.

Please read Judges 13:1; 1 Samuel 3:19 - 5:12

1. One estimation suggests that Israel's defeat by the Philistines occurred around 1160 BC (from Thompson's "Chain Reference" Authorised Version. Other dates appear elsewhere). There is no record in Judges following 13:1 that the Philistines are subsequently fully defeated, although they were subdued and left Israel alone in the days of Samuel (7:10-14), and in the days of Solomon they appear to cause little trouble.
2. A similar estimation suggests that the Israelites went to war against the Philistines (1 Samuel 4:1-10) around 1140 BC.

For information regarding the Philistines see the following:

• The Philistine people, from Britannica.
• Who Were the Philistines, and Where Did They Come From? , from the Biblical Archaelogy Society.
• Philistines from World History Encyclopedia.

1. What was the likely cause and effect of the various events listed in this particular story as recorded in 1 Sam 3:20; 4:2-3; 4:10; 4:18; 5:8-12?
2. How do you understand the relationship between the God, the Ark and the Israelites in 4:1b-11?
3. Was the statement made by the wife of Phinehas in 4:22 true? Why / why not?
4. What do you make of the events that occurred in the temple of Dagon in 5:1-5?
5. How do you understand the relationship between the God, the Ark and the Philistines in 5:7-12?
6. What do you think of the statement by Brueggemann (see quote, above)
7. What can WE take from this story that will help us personally in our understanding of and walk with God today?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

1. Principles - Policies - Practices
2. Context
3. Literary Devices
4. Names
5. Object Lessons
6. Story Arc
7. Lessons for Us?

1. God is a God of love.
2. Choice is an absolute mandate.
3. Judgements are only acknowledgments of choices we have made.
4. Judgements are delayed, sometimes for centuries to give people, communities, and nations time to learn the qualities of God so they can make an informed decision.
5. Dominion was given as an object lesson of the way Heavenly beings use power: protect, nurture, build life skills, serve the vulnerable.
6. Relationships are sacred.
7. There is a conflict with God and the serpent as to who is focused on our best good.
8. God meets us where we are and offers skills and supports to bring us home.

1. Sacrifices to be held at the sanctuary.
2. Fat to be burned.
3. Priests to get the rest.

1. Fat represents sin.
2. A parent giving a child to serve Yahweh, and to be His representative to the people can also, like the sanctuary messages, be representative of God's chosen personal sacrifice of sending a beloved member of the Deity to us.
3. Eli's eyes had begun to fail, physically and spiritually.

1. Poetry - Hannah's prayer.
2. Irony -
   1. the one who should see best sees least.
   2. Hannah, who was reproved for praying her first wish silently, not only speaks the second one aloud but gets it in print.

1. Takes place during the theocracy.
2. Most of this story arc takes place in the sanctuary environs.
3. Parents pick spouses for their children. (It would be helpful to remember that Elkhanah probably did not choose to have two wives)

1. Samuel - his name is God; he is heard of God.
2. Hannah - favour; shows compassion or mercy.
3. Elkhanah - God has possessed.
4. Eli - God has exalted - his parents had high hopes.
5. Hophni - tadpole
6. Phineas - the black man

1. The Lord - Yahweh - the personal name of God. The iteration of God who is in covenant relationship with His people.
2. God - Lohim - plural in form/singular in meaning. Great or Powerful.

1. From what I have read, children in Hebrew times would have been weaned between the ages of 3 to 5 - sometimes as late as nine (this last is a little startling to my 21st century self).
2. In the first year of life children learn that they will be kept safe in the world.
3. By age 3 children should have a sense of themselves as valued and protected.
4. We learn about relationships from the families in which we are raised. Samuel's example of parenting for most of his childhood was Eli and his boys. It makes some sense to me that he would not have known how to parent his own children... plus he was away at work a lot later in life.

1. In this study I again see the compassion, patience, and love of God in the Old Testament.
2. I read Hannah's prayer through my lens of the Spirit of Prophecy described in I Corinthians 14:3 - Those who prophecy speak to people for their strengthening, encouragement and consolation . It fits for me.
3. The term horn/s often refers to weapons of defense.
4. Rocks are places of safety.
5. I find the names Hannah uses for God in her prayer interesting given the phrase in which she uses them.
6. Since fat of the offering represented sin and its burning represented the sin of the petitioner being burned away, I find it particularly heinous that Eli's sons, in their gluttony and abuse of power, would take away the object lesson of people's sins being destroyed. I can only imagine the horror and grief of the person. In their selfish, power-brokering arrogance they caused untold psychological harm.
7. As a young child Samuel was already serving in the linen ephod worn by priests - made by his mother.
8. Samuel grew up before the Lord. It reminds me of the phrase written much later: Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. Luke 2:52
9. After so many years of spiritual and cultural perfidy it is amazing to me that God sent a prophet to Eli and then Samuel to warn Eli and his sons. Even then, they had time, after the two prophetic voices to change their ways. I am sure this is one of the stories Peter knew when he wrote: God is longsuffering to us and not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
10. I find it interesting that Samuel should be sleeping in the temple, and that the ark was also there. 3:3
11. Samuel did not yet know Yahweh...that's the covenant but also personal name of God. Knowing can mean intimate (not always sexual; that particular object lesson isn't germane to this discussion) and indicates to me that Samuel would grow to have a deeply personal and emotional with relationship with God. Samuel would have been one of those who knew what God's voice sounded like and would converse with Him.
12. I just love the phrase in 3:10 and Yahweh came and stood nearby as Samuel was sleeping. It sounds so lovingly parental to me.
13. I keep thinking about the fact that after all the warnings, the last one was given by someone who loved and deeply cared for Eli. That seems like an object lesson to me.
14. 4:1 - And Samuel revealed the word of the Lord to all Israel - His work has begun.
15. I wonder how many years are covered by chapters 2 and 3?

• Where, in her poem prayer, do you think Hannah was expressing her own strengthening, encouragement, or consolation?
• Why do you think she was using those particular names of God in those various places?
• Where in that prayer poem do you find any of those qualities of God?
• What implication or meaning do you think of the phrase (in Chapter 2:21) that Samuel grew up before the Lord.
• What do you make of the fact that Eli did not deal with his sons, their theft and their brothel?
• What do you think of God giving so much effort to change to Eli and his sons?
• Why do you think the author of Samuel would have mentioned Samuel sleeping near the ark?
• What do you think is the significance of this story taking place in the Sanctuary environs?
• What do you think were the qualities of Samuel's upbringing that left him with the qualities that made him such a great figure in the Biblical story.
• What aspects of this story stand out to you?
• What do you think are the most important lessons here?
• What part of the story did you just like the best?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Our study of Inspiration led us into the history of the Judges. The challenges posed by the ethical chaos of that period and God's relationship to the development of Israel poses as many questions as answers. Constantly, throughout Judges it laments about the lack of kings at the time of the events. It would suggest that there was a strong yearning for strong and ethical leadership. What's new?

There is a common belief that 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings were originally one long book, which some traditions describe as the 'Book of Reigns'. For practical purposes of scrolls it was divided into the 4 books as we now have them. The common theme follows the history of the kings through of the nation and then the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

The records tell the age of the king on coming to the throne, where and for how long they reigned. It also provides information on basic character and significant issues of his reign. Some kings have extended records in relationship to their importance (Saul, David and Solomon being examples).

The highlight is the repeated failure of Israel to take its commitment to God seriously. The records seem to have been gathered during the early days of the captivity in Babylon from whatever written documents that survived the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem, and the collective oral traditions among the exiles.

1 & 2 Chronicles is a later and different record that overlaps this first one but includes some of the post-exilic period of Ezra and Nehemiah. There are some significant differences in the two accounts.

Samuel is the last of the Judges. The book charts a reluctant Samuel gradually accepting the need to transition to having kings.

The geographical setting for SHILOH is very significant.

• It was in SAMARIA in the territory of where Elijah had conducted his ministry and one of the key locations of what was to become the 10 Northern Tribes.
• ELI was the priest/judge that ruled over Israel at the time and for a total of 40yrs (1 Sam 4:18)
• The Ark of the Covenant had remained in Shilo for almost 400 years.
• ELI's 40 years terminated with the Ark of the Covenant being captured by the Philistines and the death of his two sons.

What connection does this have to Judges 19-21 in terms of time?

In the latter part of Judges there seems to have been multiple locations that superseded Shiloh as important centres of worship. The Levite at the heart of that story came from EPHRAIM. He did not seem to have any significant commitment to Shiloh.

ELKANAH (and his two wives PENINNAH with her sons and daughters, and HANNA) lived in the same area and faithfully followed the instructions of the Covenant to worship at the location of the Ark of the Covenant, which was at Shiloh.

• Was Elkanah being UNFAIR in his treatment of Peninnah when he loved Hanna more, and gave her a double portion of the sacrificial meat?
• What was this annual celebration for anyway?
• How does the inability to have children impact a woman who desperately wants to have a child?
• Was that issue more significant in the culture of that time?

• What do you think of the PRAYER and PROMISES made by HANNAH? Jews are generally very vocal and demonstrative in prayer.
• Why would Hanna be praying silently with her lips moving. Why did she do that? This may have been the first time ELI had witnessed something like this.
• What do you think of how Eli responded to her need? Did he make any promises?
• Was the VOW that HANNA made the sort of vow that the LORD WOULD FIND ACCEPTABLE?

Eli would have no idea what the outcome of Hannah's prayer had been till it was answered?

• What would your response have been if you were ELI?

1 Samuel 2:1-10

• What do Hanna's actions and this song of praise tell us about Hanna's love for God.
• What does it tell us about God?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)