Stories of Beginnings
Notes for 28 Dec
Notes to follow...
Feb 2024 onwards
These books cover a landmark period in the history of the Children of Israel, during which the previous loose system of government by Judges, initiated after the death of Joshua - who led them across the Jordan to enter the "Promised Land" - gets replaced by a Monarchy.
We investigate the life and actions of Samuel - the man, often referred to as a prophet, who bridged the gap between the Judges and the first two God-appointed kings of the nation: hunky, handsome javelin-throwing Saul; then David, the Psalm-writing, harp-playing shepherd boy turned adulterous, treacherous warrior who was also described as the "man after God's own heart".
This period, lasting from around 1170-1000 BC, is frequently violent and gruesome. The Israelites alternately follow and desert, obey and disobey God, and interact with their pagan neighbours. This series will both seriously challenge and inform our understanding of God's working with broken humanity. God's patience is continuously tried and tested and as God remains faithful to His people - for the time being at least.
We didn't have a formal study guide. Rather we made use of various relevant books and articles and other information gathered from a variety of websites.
Audio recordings of our discussions (password protected) are available.
Notes to follow...
It's Christmas! So we are putting aside the Books of Samuel for a few weeks and diverting into other things.
Catherine will lead us in some reflections on Christmas.
All the usual notes etc can be found on our 'Random Diversions' page
...when the kings normally went out to war, David stayed home and sent 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.
David sent his servants to get her...the Hebrew can read "And he took her".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Ammonites, realizing their offense, hire Aramean troops from neighbouring regions. Israel, led by Joab, mobilizes in response.
Facing a two-front war, Joab divides his forces:
He calls for courage, emphasizing faith and submission: "May the Lord's will be done."
Other biblical narratives reflect similar dual threats:
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:
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.
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...)
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:
Can I ask you to read the following passages in preparation for this part of our study?
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?
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?
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.Agreed...
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.I bet they became servants to David, and I bet they paid 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.Guided by such statements, and the "Guidelines for the Conduct of the Troops in Russia" document, the Wehrmacht's troops marched east.
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.What?!
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.
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 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.
God gives feedback through NATHAN. The passage ends with the statement "Nathan reported to David all the words of this entire revelation."
I will bless your house... BUT I may punish your house.
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.
2 Samuel 6:8-11 recounts David's anger about what happened to Uzzah but also that he is afraid of God now.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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:
Brueggemann brings valuable insights to texts like 2 Samuel 5, emphasizing the theological and social implications of David's kingship and the establishment of Jerusalem. Here are some reflections on the chapter inspired by Brueggemann's work:
Phew! Make of that what you will...!
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.
"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'?
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.
Joab
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).
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).
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.
David's grief for Abner: In verse 31, David orders Joab and his men to tear their clothes and morn for Abner.
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.
David's cursing of Joab and his descendants (verse 29):
David's lament for Abner (verses 33-34): The lament implies that Abner did not expect Joab's vengeance.
The author made a note of the people being happy to see David grieve for and give Abner a proper funeral (verse 36-37).
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.
1 Sam 24:16-22
Saul acknowledged that David would be the next king, and specifically asked David not to kill the members of his family.
David made an oath not to.
1 Sam 26:23-25
Once again Saul recognizes that David is in the right and he is not. "May you be blessed, David my Son;
you will do great things and surely triumph". These incidents happened in the sight of Saul and David's own armies.
How much information existed to make it 'an open secret'?
The beginning of Chapter 3 has already told us 3 critical pieces of information:
Verses 8-11
In anger Abner confronts Ish-Bosheth with the 'open secret'
Verses 12-16
Abner offers to make an agreement with David to make him King over all the Tribes.
Verses 17-19
There were other OPEN SECRETS that had surfaced during this period.
Verses 20-21
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...
Births, defections, betrayal, death, and more grieving.
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.
Genesis 36:12 – they were descendants of Esau.
Psalm 83:7 - they are mentioned among the enemies of Israel.
1 Samuel 15 – Israel fights against the Amalekites. Saul saves their king and loses the crown over his decision.
1 Samuel 15:8 – Agag, king of the Amalekites is spared.
1 Samuel 30:13 – Amalekite owner abandon's sick servant.
Esther 3 – Haman, a descendant of Agag, will plot against Mordecai and work to destroy all Jews in the Empire.
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.
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
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....has come to pass.
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.
The chapter is very matter of fact. There's little embellishment. The author states the facts and moves on.
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?
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!
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.
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?
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".
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:
This act appears to demonstrate that this 'witch' was driven by compassion for Saul and his men. Discuss!
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.
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".So, rather than chapter 26 being titled "David Spares Saul Again" (as it is in the NLT), it should actually be "David Spares Saul, Retold".
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!So, he takes the spear and a jug of water and returns to his own camp.
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.
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.What do you make of this analysis?
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.
Due to one thing and another (airport runs that went very wrong!) we cancelled this week
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.
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.
I look forward to our discussion.
I wish for you Gentle blessings.
Catherine
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.
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
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?
This story of the Consecrated Bread comes with more questions than answers. We would say today that it opens a 'can of worms'.
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.
Why did David pretend he was on the king's business?
Ahimelek "trembled" as did the elders in Bethlehem when Samuel arrived
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.
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.
Would the fact that Ahimelek gave David Goliath's sword trigger a reaction in Saul when he finds out?
DAVID ON THE MOVE
What questions would these events trigger in your mind?
What does it tell us about David as a person?
This story pulls my heart into tears.
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.
Why do you think Jonathan was so willing to give up the throne?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
We have repeatedly seen what I would describe as a PARADE OF PROPHETS.
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
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?
This is a special 'theme week', or 'random diversion', where we invite a guest to come and talk with us on a subject of their choosing.
This week we have Dave Neal, the TED Communications Director, with a presentation entitled "The Listening Ear"
All the usual notes etc can be found on our 'Random Diversions' page
This is the beloved story from children's bible study classes in Sabbath or Sunday School. Which, when you think about it, is rather odd. David kills Goliath, after much taunting, and then cuts his head off!.
A useful moral tale, I'm sure...
The Philistines are camped on one side of the valley of Elah, with the Israelites on the other. It appears that they might have been there some time. Every day Goliath, the Philistine, comes out to taunt the opposing army, "When are you all coming to fight?!".
David shows up, leaves his belongings with 'the keeper of supplies' and, after some discussion as to what might be in it for himself, ends up before King Saul. An argument ensues but eventually Saul sends David in to battle the giant.
David abandons the king's armour, and selects 5 stones from a stream and heads off. The taunting from Goliath begins. David retorts with a claim that the Lord God of Israel is on his side, puts a single stone in his sling and despatches the giant. David cuts off the dead Goliath's head.
The battle is over, the Philistines run away and are roundly slaughtered. Saul calls for David, to try and figure out who he is. David shows up, still carrying the giant's head, and the story is over.
"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!"
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??!
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:
Psalm 63 | A Psalm of David when he was in the wilderness |
Psalm ... | etc... |
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!)
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?"
16:2-13 "If Saul hears of it, he will kill me."
v14-17
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...
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.
...for each of the characters? I attach Kohlberg, see 'Resources', below.
"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!
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?
"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?
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?
"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?
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.
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.
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?
"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?
"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?
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?
Just then an earthquake stuck and everyone was terrified!
Was this Divine intervention or a coincidental, natural happening?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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:
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).
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.
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.
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)
Verse 14 seems to be a direct reference to David.
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."
This week we are deparing from our 'Books of Samuel' series and having a 'Theme Week'. Catherine will lead us in a discussion on an important topic.
The notes for this week are here...
Saul had been declared king in Gibeah after Samuel had led them through the selection process by the casting of lots. The early part of of his reign was marred by a faction that questioned the selection, presumably because he was from a small family of the tribe of Benjamin.
After the defeat of the Ammonites that objection was overcome, and Samuel called the whole nation to Gilgal where Saul was reaffirmed as king by the whole nation. He had now proved himself in battle with a great victory. He was 30 years old when he became king and reigned for a further 42 years. On that basis Saul died when he was 72. That raises significant questions.
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.
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.
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.
Samuel's personal commitment to teaching, ministry, and prayer on behalf of the nation.
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!
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:
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.Their god was Milcom.
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.
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.
Since I like using components of 3, 7, and 12, I will stop with the questions here. I am getting this to Steve fairly quickly because I want you to have time to look at the questions and see which are important to you, that you might want to discuss. As is usual with me, I thought this was going to be a fairly straightforward story... but no. Since we are dealing with Hebrew minds and thinking I should have known there would be layers... and layers.
I am looking forward to seeing you, and hearing your thoughts, this Sabbath.
I wish for you unexpected blessings.
Catherine
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:
Resources - See these few pages from Brueggemann's commentary.
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.
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?
In summary: Samuel sets up the Ebenezer stone or "stone of help". Towns were restored to Israel. There was a long period of peace in which Samuel served as Judge and Samuel also builds an alter to the Lord in his hometown.
I looked into the meaning of Judge in the Old Testament and, while it included the role of judging cases in Israel, a Judge was mainly a leader in Israel. Joshua was the first Judge after being appointed by Moses as the leader of Israel. Some judges were warriors and some were prophets. Samuel was a prophet, not a warrior. Several of the judges were warriors, including Gideon, Samson, Ehud, Jephthah and Shamgar. Gideon and Samson take up most of the stories about the judges. Deborah, the only woman who was a judge, was also a prophet. There was forty years of peace under Deborah. Some judges only ruled for as short as seven or eight years. The book of Judges includes 12 Judges. Eli and Samuel are also described as Judges but are included in I Samuel instead. Apparently, the Judges of the book of Judges rarely ruled over the nation as a whole. That didn't happen until Eli and Samuel. In some places the 12 judges in the book of Judges are described as the 12 heroes of Israel. As judges they displayed all the frailties of being human. Samson was plotted against and lost his power. Gideon, after his amazing interaction with God ended up in idolatry. One, Jephthah, made a foolish vow and sacrificed his daughter. Some seemed to be quite wealthy and that is all we really hear about them. Each Judge was raised up by the Lord in a time of need. But there were times when there was no Judge as well.
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.
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.
In 1 Samuel, the request for a king came in response to the corruption of Samuel's sons.
Given God's warning about what having a king would be like, it doesn't sound like a good bargain.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
For information regarding the Philistines see the following:
This, again, was one of those studies that I thought I knew and thought I would just breeze through while prepping it for you. Much to my benefit, I was wrong again. These two chapters are packed. Nothing wrong with me to have so many opportunities for humility.
As always, I picture you in our little Zoom boxes and am already looking forward to your opinions and lively comments.
I look forward to seeing you again in a few days. In the meanwhile, I wish for you those unexpected blessings that I treasure.
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.
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.
Eli would have no idea what the outcome of Hannah's prayer had been till it was answered?