Virtual Vestry ~ The Books of Samuel

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In the latter part of Judges there seems to have been multiple locations that superseded Shiloh as important centres of worship.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)

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)

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)

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:

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 altar 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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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 favourite part.?

• PDF of these notes
• Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 favourite 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This group is full of personal and professional experts on grief, so I won't take your time listing the qualities of grief that can be the bane of our life experience. We'll talk about them as we go.

In order to understand what I once considered a very odd and violent reaction of David, I looked at the history of these people and their relationship with Israel.

1. Last week in 1 Samuel 31:4 we learned that Saul died by suicide. This week the text notes that David was fighting against the Amalekites while Saul and Jonathan were in battle with the Philistines. What do you think are the reasons this young Amalekite came to David?
2. Why do you think he thought could get away with lying?
3. Is there symbolism for you that David and his men fasted until evening after hearing of the death of Saul and Jonathan?
4. What do you think were David's feelings when he had the Amalekite executed?
5. What do you think was the greater symbolism in that act? It seems to me that there are at least two levels.

The Scroll of the Upright One is non-canonical writing that has not been preserved. It's mentioned in this text and in Joshua 10:12-13.

6. Why would David want this lament preserved?
7. Why would he want the people of Judah to be taught The Bow? Note: this is one tribe; not all of Israel.
8. What do you think are the mix of reasons in vs. 20 that hearers and singers were told who should not hear this song.
9. Vs. 21 - what do you think is the symbolism that David writes Saul's shield is not anointed?
10. What do you think it means that David wrote vs. 24 - oh daughters of Zion weep for the one who clothed you in scarlet and jewellery? Could this also be a reference to 1 Samuel 18:7?
11. Is there a difference between 2 Samuel 1:26 and the rest of the lament? If you see that possibility, what do you make of it.
12. What do you think is the significance of David's mix of actions reported in 2 Samuel 1?
13. What do you think might have been the significance of his actions to the people of Judah? ...and to the rest of Israel.
14. What part of today's text touched you or felt particularly important to you?

As always, I am looking forward to seeing you and hearing your thoughts on this.

As always, I wish for you unexpected, gentle blessings.

Catherine

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

1. David is still grieving.
2. His first acts are to "ask of the Lord".
3. He moves his base to Hebron
   
   In case you are interested Hebron is about 19 miles south of Jerusalem and lies at a level of 3050 feet above sea level. It contains the location Machpelah and is therefore known as the home and burial place of (some) of David's ancestors.
4. David, in a very unusual way, recruits more soldiers.

1. Abner - (father of light, or, my father is a lamp) son of Ner, Saul's uncle. He appears in 1 Samuel 14:50, 1 Samuel 17, 1 Samuel 20: 25, 1 Samuel 26, 2 Samuel 2 and 2 Samuel 3. I think reading over his appearance in these texts will give you a sense of who he is in the story.
2. Joab (Praise Jehovah) is complicated; both loyal and a danger. He was eventually a threat. His story could be one of Shakespeare's characters.
   1. Son of David's mother - his uncle.
   2. He first appears in 2 Samuel 2:13 . Joab continues to appear throughout this story. You can take a quick gander and 2 Samuel chapters 2, 11, 14, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24 and well as 1 Kings 1,2, and 11. His is a complicated story of family, loyalty, power, and ...well, betrayal
3. Ish Bosheth (man of shame)

1. How do you think grieving may have affected David's decisions or actions?
2. Why do you think he moved his army and his family to Hebron? (I have given you a clue somewhere above)
3. When the text says they settled in Hebron, what's the meaning for you in terms of length of planned stay?
4. What do you think that may have indicated about an interest in further battles for the throne. It seems like 7.5 years is a long time in this situation. What do you make of this interlude?
5. What do you think of David's recruitment style (vs. 4-7)
6. What are the gifts and challenges of having family members as your leadership team?
7. This sounds very similar to Scottish clan warrior structure. Comments?

8. What do you think might have led to Abner's decision to appoint Ish Bosheth king? What do you make of the timing? Vs. 8 and 9
9. It looks to me like the confrontation at the Pool of Gibeon was planned. What do you make of this strategy?
10. It looks to me like that outcome was a complete and stupid loss. Do you have any other ideas?

11. It looks like Abner and Joab's family knew each other. What do you make of their interactions in vs. 20-23?
12. What do you think about the interactions reported in vs. 26-28
13. The rest of this section is about the larger battle. If you were reading this in a newspaper or on the BBC what would you make of it?
14. What about the reading and discussion this week did you find particularly interesting, helpful or touched you in some way?

Births, defections, betrayal, death, and more grieving.

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

Catherine, in her notes for last week, 'accidentally' covered the material for this week as well. So, we'll pick up where last week ended - at more or less verse 8 of 2 Samuel 2...

• Same notes as last week...
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

This passage raises some significant questions about how much was known by Abner, and indeed Saul's family about what Saul knew concerning the future of his family in relationship to their right to be kings.

Each of the questions is for open discussion about the outworking of these events which lasted for about 7 years.

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

Last week we read that Abner, Saul's powerful military general and the man who put Ishbosheth on the throne, went over to David after a falling out with Ishbosheth over a dispute about one of Saul's concubines. Abner had promised to give all of Israel to David after he got affirmation from the Elders of Israel that this was what they wanted. David and Abner negotiated over a meal together and David sent Abner away in peace, his only requirement being that Abner bring Saul's daughter Michal, who Saul had promised to him, with him.

Note from Pam: My apologies for last week. I thought we were supposed to discuss the issues around Michal being taken away from her husband this week, but I did not read the passage properly. My apologies to Andrew; we should have discussed it last week. I found this part of the story somewhat cruel though.

This week we look at the circumstances of Abner's murder. Joab and his men return from a raid and is not happy to hear that Abner was there while he was away and nothing happened to him. He goes to David and accuses Abner of being a spy.

Joab acts without David's knowledge when he brings him to Sirah and there murders him in revenge for his brother Asahel. When David does hear of it, he is very unhappy with Joab and Abishai. David declares that the house of David is guiltless of Abner's blood and curses Joab and his descendants.

David then demands that Abner is properly respected through mourning and a proper funeral service. David even writes a lament for Abner. David shows his grief by refusing to eat among other things. The people are pleased by David's actions and understand he was not involved in Abner's murder.

The passage ends with David highlighting his powerlessness against the violence of the sons of Zeruiah and asking the Lord to pay them back for what they have done.

I chose to focus on the main characters in this passage.

We know Joab had a grudge against Abner because of Asahel. This casts a different colour on his accusation that Abner was there to spy (verse 25). And yet he uses deception to get Abner alone where he can kill him (verses 26, 27).

1. What do you think of the way Joab spoke to David in verse 24? Compare to verse 39.
2. Why do you think Joab went behind David's back?
3. Do you think Joab was justified in killing Abner?

Last week we discussed about how powerful Abner was in Israel. Abner appears to have acted in good faith when he was with David and when Joab called him back (verse 26).

4. Why do you think Abner went alone with Joab?
5. Was he too trusting or do you think he was arrogant, not thinking he was vulnerable?

In verses 22-23, David sends Abner away in peace: they had just made a good deal, so it makes sense to me to send Abner away in peace. David is not interested in any kind of vengeance. He does not imprison Abner or have him killed.

6. Do you think David was right to send Abner away in peace (given Joab's reaction)?

David's grief for Abner: In verse 31, David orders Joab and his men to tear their clothes and morn for Abner.

7. Do you think Joab realised his mistake?

In 1 Samuel 17: 54-58, Abner was there the day that David killed Goliath and to Abner that David proudly declared he was the son of Jesse. These men have known each other for a long time.

8. Do you think David's grief for Abner was real?
9. Do you think David wished to restore his relationship with Abner? Why?
10. Why do you think it was important for David to declare he was guiltless of Abner's murder (verse 28).

David's cursing of Joab and his descendants (verse 29):

11. Was David justified in putting a curse on Joab's house?
12. Do you think this was as inspired as his psalms were?
13. What do you think of verse 39?

David's lament for Abner (verses 33-34): The lament implies that Abner did not expect Joab's vengeance.

14. What does the lament say about Abner and/or what David thought of Abner?

The author made a note of the people being happy to see David grieve for and give Abner a proper funeral (verse 36-37).

15. Why do you think this was important?

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

Recently, I posted an article about the 'Tel Dan Stele'. The stele contains several lines of ancient Hebrew. The surviving inscription details that an individual killed Jehoram, King of Israel-Samaria, son of Ahab, and Ahaziah of Judah, a king of the house of David. (Source-Wikipedia). The inscription dates around the 9th century BCE. This appears to confirm that David was not a fictitious character as some biblical critics would contend. Some may not require that sort of validation, but where evidence confirms faith it gives me a lift.

The second piece of evidence that has given me a lift is from reading the book 'Legacy' by Harry Ostrer. It is a genetic history of the Jewish people.

One interesting piece that came out of the book was the genetic history of the Cohanin, plural for Kohen, or the priestly class. As they were only permitted to marry women of a particular pure, Jewish background, they have a unique genetic signature. By examining their Y-chromosomes (particular to males) they can determine the number of generations back to a common male ancester. Apparently, they reckon that 106 generations have occurred since this event, and if you take each generation renewing every 25 to 30 years, then the event took place between 2650 to 3180 years ago, which is within the period of the building of the first temple. This interpretation does have some critics.

Partly my interest in following this, and looking for extra-biblical evidence, is simply because if Jewish history in the current disputed area did not exist, it places a huge question mark over the veracity of the Old Testament in particular.

It provides a certain comfort when I'm studying the history of Saul and David to discover corroborating evidence.

• Verse 1: Saul's youngest son is called Ish-Bosheth. In I Chronicles 8:33 and 9:39 he is called Eshbaal. Also, the son of Jonathan is named Mephibosheth in 2 Samuel, but Merrib-baal in I Chronicles 8:34 and 9:40. The name 'Baal' is associated with idolatry.
  • Can you account for this inconsistency?
  • You may arrive at a surprising conclusion if you do a bit of research on this.
• With the death of Abner, Ish-Bosheth became discouraged and the Israelites became alarmed. What does this tell you about Abner?
• Verse 4: What is your reaction when you read this verse in parenthesis?
• Verses 5-6: Is regicide ever justified? What were the upsides and downsides on the killing of Ish-Bosheth?
• Verses 7-8: The response of Recab and Baanah to David:

  "This day the Lord has avenged my lord the king against Saul and his offspring." What does this statement inform you about Recab and Baanah?

  Is there such a thing as a 'righteous killing'?
• Verses 9-12: David's retribution was very severe. Why do you think this was the case?

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

Looking at this week's texts it seems as if the writer is itching to get on with it. These few short verses deal with David becoming king over both Judah and Israel, his establishment of Jerusalem as his new capital, and his victory over the Philistines, whom, lest we forget, were his allies in the discussions of a few weeks back.

We are at the end of the long narrative of the rise of David, from shepherd boy to king. The story that started way back in 1 Samuel 16 has come to a climax.

We start with the elders inviting David to be king over Israel. Oh, that choosing the leader of a nation were so straightforward! The old men (and they would all have been men) decide that David is the chap for them and that's that.

It wasn't too long ago that we Brits had an election in which we all (not just the old men) had a say in who should be running things. Next week our American cousins go through what has been described as the most important US election in years. And yet, in the UK, the US, and many other countries, the process is fraught with difficulties, not least of which is the fact that the people who want to be in charge are often the last people who should be in charge.

• What do you think about going back to the process of 2 Samuel 5 and letting the elders decide...???

Saul, Abner, Jonathan and Ish-bosheth are no more (note that David has had no part in their demise - he is blameless). The very short experiment of having a king hasn't worked out terribly well for Israel. So, the elders of Israel, the old Saul party, come to David with an invitation.

• What does 'flesh and bone' mean in v1?
• In v2 we read that "...when Saul was our king, you were the one who really led the forces of Israel. And the Lord told you...". Brueggemann says that the Hebrew here is emphatic - "the Lord told you"
• Is 'shepherd' in v2 the first reference we have to David's old job and his perfect metaphor for God in Psalm 23?
• The word at the end of v2, translated variously as 'ruler', 'leader' and 'prince', is the Hebrew word "nagid". Its meaning is much disputed but it seems clear that the elders of Israel deliberately did not use the word "King". Brueggemann suggests that the use of this word leaves room for the kingship of Yahweh. "This nagid is one way out of the vexed notion that human kingship is a rejection of the kingship of Yahweh" (Br p238). What do you think of this subtle choice of wording? Are the elders trying to say something profound to David? Even though they are asking him to be king (perhaps for purely practical reasons?), their true allegiance is elsewhere?
• What do you make of the 'covenant' of v3? Compare with, say, the acts of Abner in 2:9 wherein he made Ish-bosheth king. Here we have a covenant. There we have a simple unilateral act. Is this difference important?
• v4 is clearly written from a distance of at least 33+ years. Can we conclude that the Books of Samuel were all written some time after the events described therein? Does it matter that these might not be contemporaneous accounts?

Brueggemann declares these verses to be "among the most difficult in the books of Samuel". The purpose is straightforward - David is taking the city of Jerusalem to be his new capitol. But...

• What's with all the references to the 'lame' and the 'blind'?
• In modern-speak: Is David ableist?
• Is it important for David's kingship that his new 'safe place' is neither with Judah nor with 'Israel'? v9 says he called it the 'City of David'.
• Why does this matter?
• Do we see a modern equivalent with, say, the choices of Washington DC, Brasilia or Canberra in modern times? Or the placement of so many international bodies in Geneva?

Our author makes clear in v10 that all this is the Lord's doing - "And David became more and more powerful, because the Lord God of Heaven's Armies was with him." Brueggemann considers the end of v10 to be the end of the 'Rise of David' and the beginning of the 'Reign of David'.

David starts work on the city of Jerusalem, building terraces and doing the place up. The rulers of adjoining nations start sending him gifts (v11) along with workmen to help with the renovations. He moves in (v13) and claims the trappings of power - more wives and more concubines. And many sons and daughters.

He is no longer a warrior but now a statesman.

The entente cordial between David and the Philistines is over. Not so long ago (1 Sam 27) David was trying to ingratiate himself with them, but now they seem to view him as an important new enemy. An enemy to be stamped out quickly.

Verses 19 to 25 are another of those simple-to-read but hard-to-understand stories where David seems to be in direct contact with God. He asks the Lord direct and detailed questions and the Lord replies with direct and detailed answers.

• Discuss!

For a bit of fun this week I asked ChatGPT to summarise 2 Samuel 5 for a modern reader, taking note of the writings of Walter Brueggemann, and to then provide some discussion questions. Here's what it came up with:

Phew! Make of that what you will...!

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

2 Samuel 6 is a most perplexing chapter. It recounts the story of the transport of the Ark to David's City, Jerusalem. David is settled in his city and now the Ark must come there. This is a good thing, right!? It turns out to be more complicated than expected and quickly descends into tragedy and regret.

2 Samuel 6: 1-7 recounts the story of Uzzah, who tried to steady the Ark when the oxen stumbled. Is this a case of "no good deed goes unpunished"?

But...

If you look at Exodus 25:12-14, Numbers 7:9, the way the ark was being transported was already being done in the wrong way. First, the Levites should have been tasked to bring the Ark to David's City. The ark was mean to be carried on the shoulder using gold plated poles and rings (Exodus 25:12-14). It was not meant to be put on a cart. And it was the family of Kohath who were meant to carry the ark (Numbers 7:9), not Abinadab's sons, Uzzah and Ahio. Yet even the Kohathites were not meant to touch the holy things or they too would die (Numbers 4:15).

The Ark was a dangerous thing and should not be treated without thought. God gave specific instructions on how the Ark was to transported and they were not followed.

• Why did David make this mistake of having the Ark incorrectly transported?
• Should Uzzah have died for this mistake? Was he to blame or an innocent victim?
• Have our good intentions gotten us into trouble before?

2 Samuel 6:8-11 recounts David's anger about what happened to Uzzah but also that he is afraid of God now.

• David decides to stop transporting the ark. Was this justified?
• How did God show David that he should continue to transport the Ark to David's City?

Verses 12-17. Now that David has seen how the household of Obed-edom the Gittite was blessed by the presence of the Ark, Daivid decides to bring it the rest of the way

• What is different about how David transports the Ark this time?

I have always had a problem with the exacting way that God seems to require obedience. In this case, not transporting the Ark correctly results in death. The story of Uzzah and the Ark seems to imply that God gets angry when we don't do things exactly as he said, which for many Christians points them toward legalism.

• Does God require a slavish adherence to exacting rules in all things or is there a difference in what God expects in some things compared to others?
• Why do you think this is?

2 Samuel 6:12-19 recounts the celebratory way that the Ark was brought to Jerusalem. Sacrifices were made to the Lord. David blesses the people and gave gifts of food. And there was dancing.

In the celebration of bringing the ark to Jerusalem, David dances before the Lord (vs 14 & 16). In verse 14 it says that David danced with all his might. I've always loved things such as ballet and figure skating and other forms of dancing. I think I would have enjoyed watching David dance, whether he was king or not. Our SDA culture frowns on dancing, yet this is different.

• Feel free to discuss your thoughts, beliefs and experiences of dancing and being SDA.
• What place does dance have in worship, the church and Christian life?

2 Samuel 6:16-23 recounts the final story of David and Michal, and it's not a happy one. Okay, we've all at least seen pictures of the statue of David, if not in person. Here the bible records David dancing with very few clothes on before the Lord. And apparently the servants/maids got an eyeful (vs. 20).

And Michal is not impressed. David has more drama to contend with it seems.

Let's just back up a little. Here is a woman who loved David but never seemed to be his number one. She is married off to another man, who seems very upset to have lost her, but then is forcibly returned to David. Her status is uncertain, given all the other wives and concubines David has. Or maybe not, given she is the daughter of Saul.

Perhaps you have your own ideas on who Michal is.

• Why do you think Michal criticised David?
• Was she justified in her criticism?
• How does David respond?
• How should we deal with criticism? Can we learn something from David.

The final sentence always saddened me (vs 23). To the point that I am not sure it should have been there. It implies that Michal being childless was punishment for criticizing David.

• Do you think this is true?

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

The actions of David are, by our modern standards, a combination of being commendable on some occasions and deplorable in many others.

By our standards he was a genocidal maniac: killing with impunity, wiping out cities and their entire populations - men, women and children. He condoned or ignored revenge killings, and by our modern western world standards would be considered an international criminal.

Consequently, we tend to conclude that all this was done as part of God's Will, and that the God of the OT is incompatible with the God of the NT. David was God's Man, wasn't he?

The current and upcoming passages bring these issues into stark focus and cannot be ignored.

There are several realities and questions that need to be considered as we address these issues.

1. Does God control humanity, or has he given us freedom of choice in what we do, and how we behave?
2. Is God limited by the cultural realities of humanity on its onward journey over time?
3. In the moral, ethical, and political realities that pervaded the Ancient World of the OT, where 'People were expendable' and 'might was right' were they capable of allowing any other philosophy to coexist therein?
4. Would God have to tolerate violence and warfare as a necessary evil to protect his own chosen people? Is there evidence to suggest that this is how God saw the reality of the situation?

• What prompted David to desire to build the Temple? How did Nathan react to the suggestion?
• POINT TO PONDER: Do "AND?" or "BUT!" have the same meaning!?

God gives feedback through NATHAN. The passage ends with the statement "Nathan reported to David all the words of this entire revelation."

• Why do you think that statement is specifically recorded!?

I will bless your house... BUT I may punish your house.

• Blessings and Curses; Salvation and Judgment seem crop up all the way through Scripture, both OT and NT. Why?

• How would you describe this prayer?
• Did he overlook anything?

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

Andrew began his notes last week with this:

By our standards he [David] was a genocidal maniac: killing with impunity, wiping out cities and their entire populations - men, women and children. He condoned or ignored revenge killings, and by our modern western world standards would be considered an international criminal.

2 Samuel 8:2 is one of the most unsettling and chilling verses that I can recall in our studies of the books of Samuel:

He also defeated the Moabites and, making them lie down on the ground, measured them off with a cord; he measured two lengths of cord for those who were to be put to death, and one length for those who were to be spared . And the Moabites became servants to David and brought tribute.

Two things to note here. Firstly, the author of 2 Samuel chooses to add this note about the Moabites (along with some gruesome detail in v4 about deliberately maiming horses). Other conquests don't get any similar notes. From this I think we might reasonably conclude that this form of random execution was worth mentioning - even to the author, at the time of writing, this was unusual behaviour.

And secondly, and most disturbingly, in v6 and v14 we read that "the Lord gave victory to David wherever he went".

In the nearly 5 years of VV studies we have always tried hard to contextualise what we read. We've had a go at putting ourselves in the text - if we were there what would we do? What would we think?

So... what would you do? What would you think?

Just how can one human do this to other humans and be considered in any way honourable?

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, let's consider the Nazis for a moment.

In 1941 General Erich Hoepner of the Panzer Group 4 stated:

The war against Russia is an important chapter in the German nation's struggle for existence. It is the old battle of the Germanic against the Slavic people, of the defence of European culture against Muscovite-Asiatic inundation and of the repulse of Jewish Bolshevism. The objective of this battle must be the demolition of present-day Russia and must therefore be conducted with unprecedented severity. Every military action must be guided in planning and execution by an iron resolution to exterminate the enemy remorselessly and totally. In particular, no adherents of the contemporary Russian Bolshevik system are to be spared.

Historians Alex J. Kay and David Stahel argue that, including crimes such as rape, forced labour, wanton destruction, and looting in addition to murder, "it would be reasonable to conclude that a substantial majority of the ten million Wehrmacht soldiers deployed at one time or another in the German-Soviet War were involved or complicit in criminal conduct". The German Wehrmacht is regarded as being a "crucial factor in the most horrendous crime perpetrated by any nation in modern history" in regard to genocides committed by the regime.

In the best spirit of VV, let's put ourselves into the 'text'. You are a Wehrmacht soldier marching through Poland.

So... what would you do? What would you think?

When the war is over and the victors put the vanquished on trial what defence would you offer for your actions? What defence would your commanding officers proffer?

Let's return to the actions of David in 2 Samuel 8. I spent some time searching for commentaries on this chapter. Brueggemann says nothing at all about v2. Various online commentators skip over it with unseemly haste. I was particularly offended by this

But David sacrificed his own family relationships [previous reference had been made to the fact that David's great-grandmother was a Moabite, and the Moabites had offered him sanctuary from Saul] to fulfill God's will and a prophecy that the Moabites would serve the Jews because of their wickedness. From this account, God reveals that a Spirit-led leader makes personal sacrifices to serve God.

• That fact that the author of 2 Samuel notes the unusual manner by which the Moabites were culled removes our usual 'excuse' that these were very different times from today and that we cannot apply our morality to their times. When you read the first 14 verses of 2 Samuel 8 what do you think of David's morality? What do you think the author of 2 Samuel 8 makes of the incident?
• In previous VV discussions we have discussed that maybe David was becoming transformed. The shepherd boy and harp player was long gone. The marauding bandit of no fixed allegiances was gone. He was now King of a sizable nation (see map). Must he necessarily be brutal? If so, how brutal? Even the Nazis had limits...
• I don't expect an answer to these, but...!
  • Try and explain to an intelligent historically-aware person how the horrors of these verses can contain the words, twice, "the Lord gave victory to David wherever he went"
  • Did the Lord give the Moabite-culling order to David...?
  • ...or was this more of a post hoc ergo propter hoc ('after this, therefore because of this') argument? David was a brilliant military leader and won all these battles. Therefore David clearly must have been blessed by the Lord.

The map gives a good indication of the extent of David's kingdom at the end of chapter 8.

The taxes were coming in, the treasures were arriving in Jerusalem (vv 7, 8, 10, 11, 12) and 'David won a name for himself' (v13, NRSVA). And, lest we forget, 'the Lord gave victory to David wherever he went' (v14, NRSVA).

In v11 we read that David dedicated to the Lord all these treasures.

• A question for the historians... What would dedicating treasure to the Lord have meant, practically speaking? Would it have been melted down and refashioned into some implements for worship? Any ideas as to what these might be?
• Or was this a euphemism!?

The chapter closes out with a statement that 'David administered justice and equity to all his people' and a list of important job titles and their holders.

• The author is keen to emphasise that 'David administered justice and equity to all his people'. Why? Might this be a reference back to v2 and the possible unease with which the author records those events?
• David made his sons priests, according to the NSRVA. Other translations use 'ministers'. If they were priests, should David have done that? Were priests not supposed to be Levites?

• Take a look at 1 Chronicles 18, which covers the same events as 2 Samuel 8, in very similar detail - except for the method of killing the Moabites. Do the historians amongst us have any insight into these two slightly different accounts?
• The next chapter is about David's care and concern for Mephibosheth. How do you square up, in your own thinking, the David of 2 Samuel 9 (or Psalms 23, and many other scriptures...) with the David of 2 Samuel 8:2?
• Is this relevant?

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

I propose two parts to our study. Firstly, to explore several issues connected with the narrative in chapter 9. Secondly, to tease out how disability is treated in various biblical passages in both the old and new testaments.

In order for us to be more informed on the subject I want to draw your attention to a number of biblical passages which may give a varied picture on the subject.

First of all, let's deal with David's compassionate side after confronting his brutal side in chapter 8:

1. Verse 3: "Is there no-one still left in the house of Saul to whom I can show God's kindness?"
   • What motivated David to pose this question?
   • Can you explain the term "God's kindness?"
2. In verse 7: why do you think Mephibosheth appeared to be afraid?
   • "I will surely show you kindness for the sake of your father." Was David's concern for Mephibosheth conditional?
3. In verse 8: "What is your servant that you should notice a dead dog like me?"
   • What does this tell you about Mephibosheth's sense of self-worth?
   • Is it to do with the collapse of his birth-right or his disability?
4. Mephibosheth was ultimately treated as a member of David's own family.
   • Was David taking a risk?

Can I ask you to read the following passages in preparation for this part of our study?

Leviticus 21:16-23

In the UK today, if we attempted to implement this we would fall foul of the equality act. In view of the fact that we were originally made in the image of God, can you give an explanation for this?

It appears to focus on outward disabilities. Today we know much more about hidden disabilities and potential for disabilities because of our knowledge of genetics. I am bald and carry a number of genetic mutations which cause autoimmune diseases, therefore, I would not meet the selection criteria. If we had a similar system for selecting males to administer sacrifices in a modern day equivalent to the temple it is likely that the subset of 'perfect' males to chose from would be very small. In fact from a genetic point of view, would it be possible to select the perfect male?

John 9:1-3

The cause of the man's blindness is not related to the sin of his forefathers, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life." Explain please!

Leviticus is not without compassion. Please read 19:14.

We live in an age of self-congratulatory self-righteousness. After all, the age of 'enlightenment' initiated care for the disabled. However, please read Proverbs 31:8.

The New Testament in particular is my inspiration on how to treat the disabled. The whole ministry of Christ was a testament to that.

Read Matt 15:30-31 and Luke 14:12-14.

I expect the reading of these passages to generate points and/or questions to which you may want to respond.

If you were a legislator in the current UK parliament, debating the assisted dying bill (it had its second reading was yesterday, the 29th November 2024) how would you vote?

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

The Ammonites, descendants of Lot (Abraham's nephew), trace their origin to the tragic story in Genesis 19:30-38. After the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot's daughters, fearing the extinction of their family line, made their father drunk and slept with him. The sons born from this incestuous relationship became the ancestors of the Moabites and the Ammonites.

The chapter captures a pivotal moment in Israel's history under King David's reign. The chapter begins with an act of peace - David's attempt to extend goodwill toward the Ammonites after the death of their king, Nahash. Yet, this gesture of diplomacy quickly devolves into a conflict that sets the stage for a broader confrontation. The chapter illustrates themes of honor, betrayal, divine intervention, and the tension between human peace and divine peace.

This complex history between Israel and the Ammonites sets the stage for their long-standing enmity. Though Lot was a relative of Abraham, the Ammonites, through their actions, show a deep-seated rivalry with Israel that would continue throughout their history.

The chapter begins with the death of Nahash, king of the Ammonites, and the ascension of his son Hanun. David, wishing to show kindness and maintain peace, sends ambassadors to express his condolences. This is a diplomatic effort meant to preserve good relations between Israel and the Ammonites.

• Beards: Symbolize dignity, wisdom, and masculinity
• The cutting of robes near the hips could also be seen as a challenge to Israel's divinechosenness. The hips were associated with lineage, family, and covenant in the Bible, so the act of cutting the robes in such a specific place could represent an attack on Israel's honor and spiritual identity. It was a physical symbol of disrespect and a challenge to the authority of David and the God of Israel.

Hanun's advisors assume that David's envoys are spies, projecting their own fears or mistrust onto David. This reflects the psychological phenomenon of projection, where one attributes their thoughts or motives to others.

Croatian proverb: "Lopov ne vjeruje da ima poštenih ljudi" (A thief doesn't believe in honest people). This proverb aligns with the advisors' suspicion - they judge David based on their own deceitful tendencies.

The culture of Sodom and Gomorrah was marked by inhospitable and corrupt thinking. This mindset appears to persist in the Ammonites, shaping their perception of David's genuine intentions.

1. How does the history of the Ammonites influence their relationship with Israel?
2. What can we learn from their origin about generational cycles of conflict and bitterness?
3. How do the actions of Hanun and his advisors reflect human pride and insecurity?
4. In what ways does David's response (allowing time for healing) demonstrate compassion and leadership?
5. How does our own mindset or past influence the way we perceive others?
6. How can we recognize and overcome projections in our relationships, whether personal or cultural?

The Ammonites, realizing their offense, hire Aramean troops from neighbouring regions. Israel, led by Joab, mobilizes in response.

• 20,000 from Beth-rehob and Zobah: Suggests significant external resources
• 1,000 from King of Maacah: A minor ally
• 12,000 from Tob: Ironically echoes the covenantal number (12 tribes), used against Israel

Facing a two-front war, Joab divides his forces:

• Elite troops under Joab: Fight the Arameans in the open fields.
• Remaining forces under Abishai: Face the Ammonites near the city gate.

He calls for courage, emphasizing faith and submission: "May the Lord's will be done."

• Internal challenges symbolize struggles within the community or personal life (e.g., sin or doubt).
• External challenges represent worldly pressures (e.g., idolatry, pride).

Other biblical narratives reflect similar dual threats:

• Nehemiah 4: Internal discouragement among the builders and external opposition from Sanballat and Tobiah.
• 1 Peter 5:8: Satan prowls like a lion (external), while believers are called to resist him with steadfast faith (internal discipline).
• Ephesians 6:12: The spiritual battle is against rulers, authorities, and powers (external forces), but it requires putting on the armor of God, which emphasizes personal preparedness (internal strength).

1. What does Joab's response to the conflict tell us about leadership in times of war?
2. How can we reconcile human effort and military strategy with the acknowledgment of God's sovereignty?
3. What does this coalition of forces reveal about the persistence of opposition against God's purposes?
4. How do we see similar alliances against faith in today's world?
5. How does Joab's strategy reflect practical ways to approach life's challenges?
6. What role does unity play in overcoming both internal and external struggles?

The Arameans, having been defeated, sue for peace. Israel's temporary victory brings relief to the region, but this peace is short-lived. The military outcome includes:

• 700 Charioteers: Symbolize complete victory over human pride.
• 40,000 Foot Soldiers: Represent the full extent of worldly power, ultimately defeated by God.

David's peace is symbolic of God's promise but is limited and incomplete. This points forward to Christ, who will bring lasting peace—not through military might, but through sacrificial death and resurrection.

David's reign foreshadows the greater reign of the Messiah. While David's peace is temporary, the Messiah's peace will be eternal, fulfilling God's promise of peace that transcends human conflict.

1. How does the peace David establishes compare with the peace promised in the New Testament?
2. In what ways does Christ's peace differ from the world's understanding of peace?
3. How does the sequence of victories demonstrate the interconnectedness of internal and external struggles?
4. What lessons can we draw about perseverance in faith even after achieving spiritual victories?

David: The name means "beloved," pointing to the ultimate Beloved, Jesus Christ

Jerusalem: Combines "Yireh" (to see) and "Shalem" (peace), meaning "city of peace"

Key Takeaways (everyone's thoughts...)

1. How does this chapter encourage us to face personal and communal challenges?
2. What role does mutual support play in our spiritual lives?
3. How does this story deepen our understanding of God's sovereignty and faithfulness?

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

1. Narrative
2. Irony
3. Hyperbole - Psalm 51

1. When the Kings went out to war.
2. Mikvah - the ritual bath done in private at the end of a woman's menses when she is likely to be able to conceive children.
3. Role of the Prophet - counterbalance the power of the king; represent the values of Yahweh in the royal court.
4. Hittites - Biblical history: descended from Heth, the son of Canaan. Historically known for being warriors. Abraham bought a grave site from Ephron the Hittite. Two of Esau's wives were Hittites. Hittites opposed Israel during the conquest of Canaan. David had Ahimelech was a soldier in David's army as was Uriah.
5. The king's power.
6. Children were seen as a blessing from God.
7. Hebrew is a concrete language. The actions of God are not necessarily the feelings of God.

...when the kings normally went out to war, David stayed home and sent Joab.

Questions

1. Why do you think the writer made a point of these two choices of David's?
2. How do you think this decision affect his relationship with Joab?

David went out on the roof and sees a woman bathing. She is bathing alone which would be one of the first signals that this is a mikvah. No one else would want to be in the bath with her or they would be ceremonially impure/unclean . And then, of course, there is the text.

Question

3. Do you have a sense from the text of the type of person Bathsheba is?

David sent his servants to get her...the Hebrew can read "And he took her".

Questions

4. What does it say about David's state of mind that he sent messengers to get her?
5. What do you think it says about David's sense of royal privilege?
6. What do you think was going through Bathsheba's mind?

I am so angry with David about these next actions that I don't want to write them. I trust you can read them just fine.

7. What do you think was in David's mind?
8. What do you think was in Bathsheba's mind?
9. What do you think was in Uriah's mind?
10. What do you think was in Joab's mind?

And Bathsheba mourned her husband.

And the Jahweh (the God with whom we have personal and corporate commitments) ...the which David had done was evil in the Lord's eyes.

Question

11. How do you think Jahweh felt?

Questions:

1. What is in this parable that indicates that God thinks Bathsheba is innocent of wrongdoing?

Verses 7-12

2. Why do you think these specific consequences were given to David from God. For instance, do you think it is retribution or natural consequences?
3. What do you think of the contrast between private and public here.

Verses 13,14

4. Why do you think Nathan was specifically told to say to David that he would not die?
5. Why do you think the child died?

Verses 24, 25

6. Why does Jahweh through Nathan name the child Jedidiah?

Psalm 51

7. What do you think might be the various explanations of vs. 4?

Note: You will notice as we continue that one of Nathan's new responsibilities is the personal care and protection of Bathsheba and Solomon in the machinations of the royal court.

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

This story and the ones that follow on from it, are shocking to anyone who has a strong moral compass. The fact that it happened under the rulership of David is shocking. In the culture of that time, even elite women of Royal Descent were not respected or protected as they should have been.

• Of the events recorded in the story up to this point, which is the most important?
• What reasons would you give for your personal choice on this question?

1. David (as king he has the most power and influence)
2. Amnon (David's firstborn son 1 Sam 3:2)
3. Jonadab (David's brother was Amnon's Advisor)
4. Absolom (David's thirdborn son)
5. Tamar (Absolom's Sister)
6. OTHERS? (This did not happen out of sight)

The above list is based on POWER: the pecking order and the expectations that went with it.
- Is the list a fair representation of the power dynamics of the time?

• WHO AMONG THESE HAD THE MOST MORAL INTEGRITY?
  Make a list of the reasons for your choice!
• What happened within this story that gave you a sense of revulsion?
  (Whether recorded in the story, or absent from the record)
• MORAL FAILURE: what is your honest assessment of all these characters?
• Which characters are NOT MENTIONED, who you might expect to have participated?

This event was a PIVOTAL MOMENT in the history of David's Kingship. Subsequent weeks will spell out the aftermath of this event.

LET'S BE HONEST: are these events a thing of the past, or do they continue in our current age?

Looking forward to a lively discussion!

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

Recap: Could I ask you to read 2 Sam. 15 to 22 again?

Tamar was raped by Amnon. "Then Amnon hated her with intense hatred". He threw her out of his house. Her status as a virgin had been destroyed.

Irrespective of the circumstances her loss had a profound psychological impact on her. A maiden having her honour intact was of extreme importance on her marriage night. To demonstrate this standing and the degradation she felt, she put ashes on her head and ripped off her robe denoting both her royal and virginal status. "Weeping aloud as she went". These texts are harrowing. Her situation was caused by male lust, uncontrolled male emotions.

• Do you think Absalom's statement to her, "don't take this thing to heart", was helpful or insensitive?
• "When David heard all this, he was furious". What made him furious?

It is clear both in terms of Absalom's relationship to Tamar and the fact that Tamar resided in his home, that he was her protector.

"He hated Amnon because he had disgraced his sister Tamar."

This is the emotional context for verses 23 to 38.

Unfortunately I have not read any of Dostoevsky, but I have read plenty of the Old Testament to understand there is a relationship between crime and punishment. Inevitably, because of this tragic story, much of our discussion will centre on the place of punishment.

• Verses 23-33: What does this passage inform us about Absalom's character? Did David understand Absalom?
• Verse 34: "Meanwhile, Absalom had fled"
• Verses 34-36: I assume the weeping was for Amnon. What would your reaction have been?
• Verse 39: "And the spirit of the king longed to go to Absalom, for he was consoled concerning Amnon's death."

In view of certain passages in chapter 14, do you think David's emotional state was very much in flux?

We had a marvellous session last week on forgiveness. From a Christian perspective:

• Do you think there is a place for punishment?
• Do you think it should have a purpose?
• Do you think in all circumstances it should have limits?
• Do you think the punishment of hanging at Nuremberg was justified in 1946?

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

DAVID: King, father, judge, leader.

JOAB: Facilitator, counsellor.

TEKOA: Actress, courageous adviser.

ABSALOM: Ambitious, sulking hulk, son of David.

This is a lengthy passage with all sorts of complex human emotions surfacing. However, we may be able to identify with some of these complexities in our own lives.

1. Arts.

   Tekoa performed a one woman play for David to drive home a point.

   • Do we underrate the power of the 'Arts' to convey deep spiritual meaning?
   • Does the written word, preaching from the pulpit, or discussion in our sabbath school class, or on Virtual Vestry, limit what we can convey in terms of meaning and emotion of certain biblical passages?

   • Verses 5 to 11: Can I ask you to read John 8:1-11? It's a very powerful story. Compare it with Rembrandt's painting shown here. Does the painting convey something extra that our reading of the passage is unable to do?

     Rembrandt, 'The Woman Taken in Adultery', National Gallery, London

2. Punishment.

   A few weeks ago we explored the concept of 'forgiveness'. Absalom was effectively banished, which considering his status and the culture of the time was a severe punishment. The threat of punishment makes us think before breaking the law.

   • Is there a place for it? David, the father, made a judgement on Absalom because he murdered Amnon, the heir apparent. Discuss the problem with this?
   • Why is it important to have an independent judiciary?

3. Forgiveness.

   Consider our recent explorations of forgiveness. We didn't delve too deeply into its nature. Read verses 23, 24.

   • Is there a problem with David's concept of forgiveness?
   • Do you think forgiveness should be conditional?
   • Absalom realised that the reconciliation with his father was nowhere near complete. He wanted Joab's help. Joab initially ignored his pleas. Why do you think Joab ignored him? However, he found an interesting way of grabbing his attention. What does this inform you about Absalom and his state of mind?

   Discuss verse 33!

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

Thankfully the body-count is down this week, and nobody gets killed. Phew!

Once again, our narrator tells a seemingly simple tale. Inserting the details of the palace intrigue between the lines of the story is up to us. So, what is going on?

Last week we were in 2 Sam 14 where Absalom and David were awkwardly avoiding each other. Verse 28 tell us that "Absalom lived in Jerusalem for two years, but he never got to see the King [David]". After some light arson involving a field belonging to Joab, "at last David summoned Absalom, who came and bowed low before the king, and the king kissed him". All is well in the Court of Jerusalem!

Maybe not...

Absalom buys himself much bling - a chariot and horses and 50 bodyguards to run before him. We already know that he is a handsome man, and he knows he is a handsome man. Verse 2 tells us that "he got up early every morning and went out to the gate of the city. When people brought a case to the king for judgment, Absalom would ask where in Israel they were from, and they would tell him their tribe. Then Absalom would say, 'You've really got a strong case here! It's too bad the king doesn't have anyone to hear it. I wish I were the judge. Then everyone could bring their cases to me for judgment, and I would give them justice!'"

• Jerusalem is not a very big city, but we get the impression from this story that is full of impressive people doing very public and impressive things. What is Absalom doing?
• Absalom spends a lot of time offering himself as an alternative candidate for the king even though the role is not vacant. What do you think David is doing about this upstart?
• The people seem to like what he is doing. Verse 5 tells us that "When people tried to bow before him, Absalom wouldn't let them. Instead, he took them by the hand and kissed them. Absalom did this with everyone who came to the king for judgment, and so he stole the hearts of all the people of Israel."
  • Life in opposition is much easier than life in power. Do you think Absalom had any better ideas about how to administer justice than does David?
  • Think of modern politics. Are we too easily taken in by those in opposition?
  • Why are we (along with the people of Jerusalem) so fickle?
  • When were you last impressed when a new leader came to power?
  • Do we demand too much?
  • How do you view our political leaders? Is everyone a scoundrel? And if you think they are, does that tell us more about you than it does about them? Discuss!
• Do you think that David had neglected his judicial duties?
• Why do you think David apparently did nothing about Absalom?

Absalom is patient. After four years (four years!) he makes his move... He heads off to Hebron, using worship as a cover for political activity. There he launches his coup. Absalom takes 200 men from Jerusalem as 'guests', who, apparently didn't know what was going to happen. And he sends for Ahithophel, one of David's advisors. "Many others also joined Absalom, and the conspiracy gained momentum."

It's a little unclear what happens next and in what order. Read verses 13 to 16.

• What is David doing?
• Why?
• In verse 19 David refers to "King Absalom". Has David given up? What has happened to the anointed shepherd boy, defeater of Goliath, and brilliant military strategist?
• Note that the Ark of the Covenant and Zadok, the Priest, went with David. What does this tell us about the power struggles? Where is God? Where is the political 'might'?

David sends Zadok and the Ark back to Jerusalem. He heads up to the Mount of Olives and has an encounter with Hushai the Arkite, about whom we know almost nothing, other than he is called "the King's friend" (1 Chron 27:33).

Despite, apparently, giving up the monarchy David isn't quite done yet. He tells Hushai to go back to Jerusalem and to offer his services as an advisor to "frustrate and counter Ahithophel's advice" (v33). He enlists the sons of the priests Zadok and Abiathar to act as spies and relay information back to him.

The chapter ends with a cliffhanger.

"So David's friend Hushai returned to Jerusalem, getting there just as Absalom arrived"...

Watch this space... David is not done yet.

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

This chapter opens with a meeting between David and Mephibosheth's servant, Ziba. David had shown Mephibosheth extraordinary kindness, giving him a seat at his table and the assurance of a legacy in Israel through land, servants and family as the son of Johnathan and grandson of Saul.

In verse 1-2 we see Ziba coming to David there with a large amount of provisions for David and his people, as noted by the text. All good to this point. Then in verse 3, Ziba claims that Mephibosheth has sided with Absalom. In verse 4, on hearing Ziba's words, David hands over all of Mephibosheth lands, servants etc. to Ziba.

• What do we think of Ziba and his actions here. What explanations might there be?
• What do we think of Mephibosheth and his actions. What explanations might there be?
• What do we think of David's actions. What explanations might there be?

In chapter 15 we read how David and his people passed through the Kidron Valley, came to the Mount of Olives and went up on the mountain there.

In these verses we see a negative interaction between David and Shimei, who comes out to curse David.

• Who is Shimei and where is he from?
• What explanations do we have for his actions?
• Do you think Shimei might be alone in wanting to curse David?

Not only does Shimei curse David but he also throws rocks, and not just at David.

From what I have read, there are some things not recorded in order here. The deaths of seven of Saul's sons is recorded in 2 Samuel 21, but some commentators think these deaths occurred before Absalom's rebellion. We will look into this further when we get to chapter 21. However, in verse 8, Shimei seems to be cursing David for these deaths. Other blood may be both Saul and the death of his son Ishbosheth and later Abner.

It is implied that Shimei's accusations are unfair as David was not truly responsible for all these deaths. Shimei also accuses David of stealing Saul's throne. Shimei's last words are that David has come to ruin because he is a murderer.

• Is Shimei right?
• Who might Shimei represent with his accusations at David.

In verse 9, Abishai (Joab's brother) wants to cut off Shimei's head. David essentially rebukes him "What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah." This section records the cursing David receives and how David patiently endures the cursing, stating that the cursing is from God.

• Discuss this cursing and David's reaction.

I would like to take a little diversion to John chapter 18. Note the locations in verse 1 - crossing the Kidron Valley and the Mount of Olives where Jesus was arrested. Also compare Abishai's request to cut off Shimei's head, and David's reaction, with the story of Peter cutting off the high priests ear and Jesus reaction in John 18:10-11.

David tells Abishai to leave Shimei alone because it's God who wants him to curse David (2 Samuel 16:10-11). In John 18:11, Jesus says "should I not drink the cup of suffering the Father has given me?"

Read also Matthew 26:51-55 and Luke 22:49-51.

Note the part in Matthew 26 where Jesus says those who live by the sword die by the sword.

• How do you think this might apply to David?
• Is it possible that David has given up living by the sword?

Note also the curses that were thrown at Jesus during his trial, journey to the cross and while he was on the cross.

• Read again 2 Samuel 16:10-12 and discuss any parallels or contrasts you find.

There are also parallels in David's story of betrayal by Absalom, Ahithophel and others with Jesus betrayal by Judas and Peter as well as the desertion of all the disciples.

• Discuss parallels and contrasts between David's actions/reactions here and Jesus actions and reactions leading up to and at the crucifixion.

In chapter 15, David sends Hushai back to becomes a plant to frustrate Ahithophel's advice. I don't know when Hushai plans to do this, but, in my opinion, he drops the ball here. I am getting heartily sick of the way women are being treated in 2 Samuel. What happens to the concubines David left behind makes me want to scream. I want to whack both Ahithophel and Absalom over the back of the head with a shovel here. Ahithophel for suggesting it and Absalom for actually doing it, especially after what happened to Tamar. And where was Hushai? Didn't he think this might be a good time to step in and frustrate some of Ahithophel's advice.

• Given the spectacularly bad (and unconscionable) advice given by Ahithophel, discuss verse 23. You may also be interested how another version puts it. Can we see any dangers in presuming someone is infallible?
• Suggested point for discussion - Judges 21:25 is a notable example of Jewish irony. Where would 2 Samuel 16:23 sit on a scale of 1-10 if Judges 21:25 was a ten. Discuss any parallels.

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

We're almost arriving at the end of the feud between Absalom and David. And the betrayal and backstabbing does not does not subside. It seems to only escalate further and it is difficult, as a reader, to keep track of the alliances, distant family ties or fellow villagers. And surprisingly God is even playing a background role in this chapter.

We've been briefly introduced to an advisor called Ahithophel. And the last chapter ended with the statement:

Now in those days the counsel that Ahithophel gave was as if one consulted the word of God; so was all the counsel of Ahithophel esteemed, both by David and by Absalom.
(2 Samuel 16:23)

And it seems that he is giving a wise and peaceful council to Absalom yet another Hushai (always mentioned as David's friend) gives another more violent council.

1. Compare the two suggestions on how to deal with David and his men? Which do you like better? Why?
2. Who is betraying who here? On which side is Ahithophel and whose side is Hushai?
3. According to the story God has a hand in which council is followed (verse 14). What do you think of his role - especially when you read verse 23?

Hushai, David's friend, betrays Absalom by warning David of his own violent plan - so David can escape. So Hushai asks Zadok and Abiathar who send a female servant to Jonathan and Ahimaaz, to tell David of the plan. "But a young man saw them and told Absalom" (verse 18). So Ahimaaz and Jonathan have to hide in a well before they can tell David.

1. What is the impression you get from this "cloak and dagger" story to get information to David?
2. Why was this plan (from Hushai) necessary, instead of Ahithophel's plan?

There is still a gruesome, but beautiful part of the story coming, but we seem to have arrived at the final betrayal. Amasa is made head over Absalom's army (Joab has been removed and is fighting with David). But this was not a smart move because:

Amasa was the son of a man named Ithra the Ishmaelite, who had married Abigal the daughter of Nahash, sister of Zeruiah, Joab's mother.
(2 Samuel 17:25)

And David is staying in Mahanaim - Shobi (the son of Nahash and thus the brother of Abigail who is the sister of Joab's mother ... it's a small world) and Rabbah, Machir and Barzilllai are supplying him with all the goods

It is clear from these couple of verses that Absalom is completely on his own, he can't and shouldn't trust anyone. David is the only one that can trust the people he speaks to and hears from. It is clear who will win ... if you can keep track of the names, family ties, villagers and alliances.

1. Betrayal seems to play an important role? Why?
2. Deep down, on whose side are you really? Who is the underdog here?

What role does betrayal play in your own life? Does God play a role in it? Have you been the one betraying?

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

When Hebrew readers read these texts, they read the meaning of the name or place. I thought it would be interesting for you to have some of this experience reading our text.

• Absalom - "My father is peace" - son of David
• David - "Beloved"
• Joab - "Yahweh is father" - son of David's sister Zeruiah.
• Abishai - "my father is a gift" or "father of gifts" - son of David's sister Zeruiah
• Ittai - "the Lord is with me" - part of the group of soldiers who served with David and who were probably from Gath of Philistine descent. I find it interesting to note that where line of descent is vital... this is how he is mentioned.
• Zeruiah - "pain or tribulation of the Lord" "wounded" or "flowing" or "running"

Irony is a regularly used technique in Hebrew literature. Somehow it struck me that reading these names connected to the action in which these people were involved seems ironic.

Also. I think it's heartrendingly ironic that David asks Joab to be gentle with Absalom who is a traitor while he had used Joab to collaborate with him in the murder of Uriah - one of the stellar Biblical examples of loyalty.

Parallelism - This is the second time that David not leading his troops into action leads to a disaster for him personally, and for his family.

In the culture of the Israelites, stories were designed to be repeated as a way to hear their history and as teaching tales. I think it would be interesting if you try reading this short bit two or three times and see what you notice differently in each reading.

Note: While the name 'squad' is relatively recent, both the Romans and Catherine's favorite world conqueror divided their troops also into groups of ten.

Questions

1. What's it like for you to read this story using the meaning of the names of the people involved?
2. In the time of King David archeologists estimate that larger towns covered 15 acres and their population was 300 to 400 people. What do you make of the writer of Samuel saying David "appointed leaders of thousands and of hundreds".
3. What do you think it meant that David would replace a deceased family member with a Gittite?
4. Do you think there were other motives the soldiers may have had in telling David not to lead them.
5. Knowing what happened in the past, what is your reaction when David stayed behind at the city gate?
6. What do you think is the significance that he was "at the city gate"
7. Why do you think the writer notes that the entire army was listening when David gave the order to be gentle Absalom?
8. Why do you think David was trying to protect Absalom?
9. Are the any lessons for you in David's desire to protect Absalom.
10. What do you think would be the impact on Israel to have 20,000 soldiers killed?
11. Why do you think the soldier who discovered Absalom did not cut him down?
12. Why do you think he went and told Joab instead?
13. What do you think were Joab's motives in killing Absalom
14. Why throw him into a pit?….this is not the norm in that family or culture.
15. There are several things that might be said about Absalom setting up a memorial monument. What do you think this says about him?
16. How do you think this murder of Joab's will affect his relationship with David?
17. What are lessons you take in your own life from this reading?

Even though this story is a difficult one for me, I look forward to talking it over with you.

I wish for you gentle blessings.

Catherine

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

There is no record of Absalom's son having died, but the building of the monument in verse 18 suggests it must have happened. The erection of the pillar suggests it had a significant impact on Absalom.

Verses 19-23: Ahimaaz requested to carry the message. David instructed that one of Zadok's two sons should be responsible for communications. (2 Sam 15:36)

• Why would Joab want the Cushite to carry the message?
• Why did he agree to let Ahimaaz to go as well?
• Why did Ahimaaz ask to run behind the Cushite, then deliberately overtake him?

Verses 24-32

• Did the confusion caused by the two messengers and the delivery of the messages, especially Ahimaaz telling the king a lie, help or hinder David's ability to process the truth?

Verse 33

• Is David's response to Absalom's death normal, or unique?

The real significance of this incident is the context in which it happens.

The Jews understanding of themselves was that they served the one God.

In the first two commandments (Exodus 20:7) they had been given some critical guidance.

1. No worship of other Gods
   • That was not an acceptance of their existence, but rather man's belief that they did.
     1. why did I make the above comment?
2. Outcomes for obedience and disobedience
   • Were these blessings and curses...
     1. ...the outcomes of human actions?
     2. ...inflicted by God?
3. Defending the character of God.
   "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God"
   
   • What did JESUS teach that clarifies the meaning of this commandment?
   • What significance does this have TODAY?

Had David dishonoured himself, his kingdom and God when he raped Bathsheba and killed her husband?

Had the GUILT and SHAME from those actions cripple David's ability to handle the events that followed?

Were the outcomes predetermined?

Could he have done anything that may have changed the outcomes?

• Is David the only person to be trapped in such a dilemma?
• Are 'moral dilemmas' part of human experience?
• Have you faced a moral dilemma yourself?

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

Chapter 19 covers a lot of ground. After the war there are a lot of things to sort out and David is not in the best head space. This chapter records David's interactions with a number of different characters but all along the way, the seeds of division are observed.

David is the undisputed overall hero of 1 and 2 Samuel, however, in this section David falters - again. David has been a bright and shining hero but at other times, he has been the villain, going dark. But he never quite loses his humanity and ability to see himself, not a fantasy version of himself, but his real self. He understood what he did to Bathsheba and Uriah. But now David is crumbling with grief and it affects everyone around him.

Read verses 1-4 and discuss:

• Why did David publicly show such grief in this situation - given that he was a king who had just been victorious?
• How would you feel as one of David's soldiers?
• How should we deal with grief?

Read verses 5-7. Joab rebukes David, pointing to all who have been saved that day. David seems to have tunnel vision, seeing only Absalom's death, and ignoring everything else that had been gained.

• Was Joab right to rebuke David?

In verse 8, David appears to pull himself together and goes out to the city gate and the soldiers come to him.

• Discuss the impact of this simple act.

There appears to be much confusion and discussion about what to do about David as king now that Absalom is dead. This war has created a great deal of chaos in Judah and Israel. David must rebuild trust in his kingdom and him as king. David sends a letter to the elders of Judah asking them why they have not accepted him back as king. He also makes a promise to Amasa to take Joab's place as leader of the army.

• Discuss...

Shimei asks for mercy from David for his past actions. Abishai again declares that Shimei should die because "he cursed the Lord's anointed." However, David again rebukes Abishai, distancing himself from the "sons of Zeruiah", calling them his adversaries.

• If Abishai and Joab are loyal to David, why does David rebuke them and treat them as adversaries?
• What message do you think David's forgiveness of Shimei sent to Israel?

We see here the other side of the story of Mephibosheth and Ziba. We end up with a "he said, he said" situation though. Either Ziba has acted deceptively, taking advantage of the war to gain land and resources for himself; or, Mephibosheth is speaking deceptively to get back into David's good graces.

• Who do you believe and why?
• What do you think of David's solution?

This is a nice story. We haven't heard of Barzillai and his son Kimham but they seem to be the perfect examples of Jewish hospitality and they are rewarded for what they have done. It is also another example of how David interacts with those around him.

• Discuss...

An argument arises between the people of Judah and the people of Israel. This is a continuation what started in verses 8-18. David stops at Gilgal and the men of Israel feel slighted that David crossed the Jordan with his own men/kin and did not wait for other important people in Israel. National/tribal jealousies and sensitivities arise and foster a division that was seeded by Absalom's uprising.

• How do you think David handled this reunification and what might have been done differently.
• Are there any other points you would like to make.

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

Chapter 20 tells us that all is not entirely well. The natives are revolting...

The sad case of Absalom has only just been resolved (whatever that means!) and here we go again. David may have been promised the throne by Yahweh but it is a fragile crown.

Our narrator, ever loyal to David, refers to Sheba, the leader of the insurrection, as a troublemaker. Sheba is a Benjaminite (with that tribe's allegiance to Saul and to its older Mosaic tradition) and declares that David does not represent him or his people.

Sheba wants to split the barely united kingdom in two and appears to have some support. Verse 2 tells us that the 'men of Israel deserted David and followed Sheba'.

Verse 3 seems to be a bit out of place - why are we inserting a paragraph about the poor concubines, who have suffered much already in this sorry saga?

Brueggemann's commentary on v3 gives some hints as to why, and suggests that this insurrection may be about more than simply power.

It must have been galling to the traditional North that the king in Jerusalem has concubines. The presence of concubines suggests how much the monarchy has embraced the royal ideology of the Near East, which is inimical to the old covenant tradition. David takes the drastic step of confining the concubines and presumably having no more to do with them. His action is most likely a concession and a conciliatory gesture to the North. By this act David moves visibly away from the royal ideology in the direction of the old requirements of covenant. In making this move, David not only distances himself from his own former practices but also offers a contrast to the conduct of Absalom (16:21-22).
Brueggemann, p330

I find this analysis interesting. Let me skip ahead to the end of Chapter 21, to verse 24, which contains the rather chilling statement that "Adoniram was in charge of forced labour". This is a new phrase - the first mention of this abusive practice, later to become so important to the reign of Solomon (1 Kings 5:13, 9:15-22).

Recall our study on 2 Samuel 8, where David "made the people lie down on the ground in a row, and he measured them off in groups with a length of rope. He measured off two groups to be executed for every one group to be spared".

What has happened to David?

• Do you think David has lost his 'moral compass'?
• Did he ever have one? Or am I guilty (as has been frequently charged!) of hoping that some of the decency of Christ could be found in a man supposedly 'after God's own heart'?
• Think back to the last few studies, where David has been very unclear as to his place in the kingdom, even wondering at one point whether Absalom was Yahweh's chosen replacement (2 Sam 16:11). And it's my impression that the writer is using much less of the 'and the Lord said to David' style in his narrative.
  • Does David still deserve the 'chosen one' appellation?
  • Is God still talking to him, in the same way as he did earlier in the story?

Amasa is sent out to round up the army. He's given 3 days and apparently doesn't do the task in time. Verse 6 and onwards tell us that Abishai and Joab were sent off with the best of the troops, the king's bodyguard, to chase Sheba before he could hole up in a fortified town.

It's unclear to me what the justification is for the killing of Amasa in vv8-10.

• Do you understand why Amasa is so badly treated?

• Is Joab out of control?
• Remember the killing of Absalom - Joab seems to be doing whatever he likes. And he likes killing David's enemies. Do you think David might want it this way? Might David want (need?) an ultra-loyal killing machine?

Read vv14-22.

• What exactly is going on in this story?!
• Does Sheba have the support of the people of Abel-beth-maacah?
• The 'wise woman' declares herself to be "one who is peace loving and faithful in Israel" (v19) but a few moments later she is throwing the head of Sheba over the city wall (v21-22).
  • Realpolitik?
  • 'Situational ethics'?
  • WWJD!
  Discuss!

Breuggemann considers vv23-26 to indicate that the long narrative from Chapter 9 to Chapter 20 is over. The king is safe and well-established, and the text discusses the bureaucracy. Look back at chapter 8:15-18 and you'll see a similar listing.

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

In today's study we shall interrogate three issues:

You need to read the first 14 verses to appreciate the details of the story concerning the Gibeonites, the injustice done to them by Saul, and their demand for appropriate reparations.

Can we identify a biblical record which records the occasion when this partial genocide of the Gibeonites occurred?

David feels honour bound to offer some form of financial reparation, which they refused. The Gibeonites made it clear that they didn't want to inflict collective punishment on the Israelites, which results in David asking them what would be appropriate. Here's the deal:

"As for the man who destroyed us and plotted against us so that we have been decimated and have no place anywhere in Israel, let seven of his male descendants be given to us to be killed and exposed before the Lord at Gibeah of Saul — the Lord's chosen one."

1. Was this proportionate and fair?
2. David's reaction was basically, "we have a deal!"
   • What is your reaction to David's response?
   • Are you disappointed because his response doesn't accord with our image of "a man after God's own heart"?
3. The agreement which David is making with the Gibeonites, is it consistent with Exodus 34:7?
4. Can you reconcile the difference between what is stated in Exodus 34:7 and Ezekiel 18:20?

On reading 2 Samuel 21, again it may be difficult to reconcile David's action with the view that he was classed as "a man after God's own heart". During our past discussions the inconsistency between what we understand this statement to mean and a number of David's actions has unsettled some of us.

The statement was first made in 1 Samuel 13:14.

• Why did the Lord make this statement?

• A crucial question: Was it Saul's sin or his reaction to it that doomed his kingship?

• Is this verse specifically about David or was Samuel pronouncing a principle for the appointment of a king?

• Was Saul mainly the appointment of the Israelites or the Lord?
• If so was Samuel making the statement that in any future event the Lord was having the majority stake in the appointment of the king?

The wars recorded in 2 Samuel 21:15-22 are somewhat confusing in terms of chronology. It is suggested by commentators, because of the nature of the wars recorded, that they may be an insert concerning events earlier in David's kingship.

• Is this a more likely explanation for these events being placed in chapter 21?

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

"They were put to death during the harvest time - during the first days of the barley harvest." I have only heard the phrase first days of the barley harvest - which is the beginning of Passover - twice, Ruth 1 and here. This leaves me thinking that the author of Ruth and, at least this section of Samuel are the same person. It makes these four chapters either poignant or ironic for me. The first mention was in the context of love, devotion and the beginning of the story of David. This second mention takes place at a horrible reckoning and before "the last words of David".

Knowing them affects our understanding of what is going on.

• The Lord: Yahweh, the covenant God. The personal Being with whom we have a relational contract.
• God: Elohim - often denotes majesty or power. Lohim - was also used by surrounding nations for their gods.
• The Most High: El Elyon E

1. In verses 2,3 David uses both names of God. What do you think is the nuance he is trying to say?
2. Same in verse 7. Why both aspects of God here?
3. The Most High - vs. 14 El Elyon - one of the first mentions of this name is in Genesis 14:18-20 - the God whose priest was Melchizedek, king of Salem

4. 2 Samuel 22; 4-7 remind me of Jonah's song from when he was trapped in the large fish. What do you make of that?
5. 2 Samuel 22:14 El Eylon is mentioned as shooting arrows and scattering. Why would David use this term for these actions?
6. 2 Samuel 22: 19,20,21 - what does David's use of Yahweh say about his state of mind.
7. 2 Samuel 22:29 - Is there a corporate memory or memories David is trying to invoke here? Why do you think so?
8. 2 Samuel 22: 32, 33 David may be taking a jab at his non-Hebrew enemies. Why do you think he would use this Elohim in this spot for that point.
9. 2 Samuel 22:42 The word Protector in the NET is "rocky cliff". Why do you think David would use that word?
10. 2 Samuel 22: 50 - Why would David use that particular name for God at the end of this psalm?

11. 2 Samuel 23:1 - Why do you think David would use the terms "the Lord" (1st part of the question) and "anointed" (2nd part of the question) is this opening phrase?
12. 12 Samuel 23:2 - What picture might David have been trying to invoke when he used the term "Yahweh's breath". To where in the origin stories might he have been alluding?
13. 2 Samuel 23:3 - Then he uses terms that can be translated "the majesty of Israel, the rocky fortress of Israel". Why there?
14. 2 Samuel 23:5 - My dynasty is approved of my Elohim - Majesty and power... what might he have been saying to anyone reading this? - to Israel and to other nations?

15. 2 Samuel 23:8-12 Tachemonite - the word means wise, intelligent, knowing, judicious, acute judgement, sagacious, learned reverent, pious . Why would the author use these descriptors at this point?
16. 2 Samuel 23:9 - Why this historical descriptor for one of the mighty warriors at this mentioned at this point?
17. 2 Samuel 23:11,12 - My goodness what a fighter/leader... why would you have wanted him at your side? Haraite means mountaineer or inhabitant of the hills of Judah...
18. 2 Samuel 23:13-17 - what do you think it says about leadership that David refused to drink the water?
19. 2 Samuel 23:18,19 - what is it about Abishai that would lead these three amazing people to let him lead them?
20. 2 Samuel 23:20-23 Benaiah - what do you think it says about David as a leader that led him to make the decision he did about Benaiah's position in the military.
21. 2 Samuel 23:24-39 - depending on the 37 different perspectives that could be held by the nine to eleven of us in our decorative boxes on the zoom screen, this could be an older account stuck on by some errant editor in a dark closet or it could be a final accounting to give a sense of him at his strongest. Either way when I read Uriah's name at the bottom of the list... I found myself sucking in a breath. What did it mean to you?

1. What would we like our last formal words to be?
2. Who would we honour?

As always, I look forward to our animated and kind opinions. I wish for you, in these chaotic times, unexpected gentle blessings.

See you soon

Catherine

• PDF of these notes
• Kohlberg's stages of development, referred to in our discussion
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Verse 1 of this passage says that God's anger burns against Israel so God incites David against Israel to conduct a census. I'm not sure it makes sense that God incites David to do the wrong thing.

Read also 1 Chronicles 21. This passage says that Satan stood up against Israel and tempted David to take a census of the people. This makes more sense to me, however, how should we interpret this? 2 Samuel 24 says nothing about Satan but rather puts it all on God. The author of 1 and 2 Samuel is inclined to say that God was the originator of all things, good or bad.

One commentor says that sometimes God allows Satan to do stuff as a way to test believers and purify them. I have always wondered why God would allow pain and suffering just to purify believers. I'm not sure this coincides with a God of Love. If it's unavoidable that's one thing but for God to specifically say, lets cause some pain and suffering to test them – I always found that view somewhat objectionable.

Lastly - what if it was David's own fear and pride that incited him to take a census and it's just convenient to blame either God or Satan.

• Discuss your views on who incited who or not and what you think this all means.

What is meant by a census and why does this seem to be a bad thing?

First, read also Numbers 1:1-5 and Exodus 30:12.

One commentor states that, in those days, a man was only allowed to count what belonged to him. Israel did not belong to David, but to God. Hence God's anger.

There was also meant to be a ransom paid for the counting so a plague would not come on the people. Given that this was stated (???) years before this incident and the outcome of the census, I'm wondering if this is more than coincidence.

Also, as noted by another commenter, a census was preliminary to a draft of soldiers and a levying of taxes. It's possible that this census is about David wanting to increase his kingdom through human means and not by reliance on God. He notes that modern churches do this by wanting to increase their churches by marketing and salesmanship – is this the same thing?

• Discuss your views on the census.

In verse three, Joab is obviously against the taking of a census, but the word of the king prevails. Joab's words are quite plain. As much as he's loyal to David, he thinks this is not a good idea.

In 1 Chronicles 21:6 it also says that Joab doesn't include Levi and Benjamin in the census. While Deuteronomy has specific instructions about not including Levi in a census, it's not clear why Joab did not include Benjamin.

• Given the complicated figure that Joab is – what does this say about Joab?

The census takes quite some time to complete - nine months. Joab brings back the numbers and there are more numbers in Israel compared to Judah.

In verse 10 though, after David is given the numbers, he is troubled by what he has done. David has a sensitivity to when he has sinned. Here, again, we see David, when he has sinned, admit his guilt "I have done foolishly" and seeks the Lord.

Have a quick skim read of 2 Samuel 12, focusing on vv10-16. Compare/contrast his admission of wrongdoing regarding Bathsheba and Uriah and his desire to make things right in these incidents.

• Discuss David's reaction to his sin regarding the census.

In verses 11-13, God allows David to choose the punishment for his sin. Famine, war or pestilence, in decreasing amounts of time.

• Why would God do this?

• Discuss

• Discuss

In verses 18-24 we see God's solution to the plague and David's sin come to an end. God sends the prophet Gad to give instructions to David to build an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. David follows these instructions, however there is some back and forth between David and Araunah about who shall pay for this. Araunah wants to give it to David freely, but David insists on paying. Verse 24 interests me the most here, especially when David says, "I will not offer burnt offerings to the Lord that cost me nothing".

• Discuss

Read Psalm 91 and comment on David as a person.

Read also Deuteronomy 17:14-20 about kingship and comment on David's kingship.

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