Why Is There So Much Senseless Violence?

One would be right in challenging the title of this post on the basis that all violence is senseless—whether violence is an act of defense from someone else's senselessness or the violence itself is senseless, something senseless has to occur for violence to be involved. Last week, when I saw that yet another mass shooting had occurred, I didn't have any words. I haven't said anything because I don't know what words to use. While people have been praising New Zealand's response to the crime, I can't get past the fact that someone entered a mosque and just started shooting. 50 people are dead. Why?

Photocredit: Unsplash.com/Kyle Johnson

Some mass shootings and terror attacks seem to have no rationale, except that the person felt like killing people. Yet others can be characterized as hate crimes:

• The mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand (March 15, 2019)
• Pulse Night Club in Orlando, FL (June 12, 2016)
• Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC (June 17, 2015)
• 16th St. Church Bombing in Birmingham, AL (September 15, 1963)

But, no matter how it's explained, I can't get passed this question: How can you hate someone you don't know?

My dad once told me that when crazy stuff starts making sense, it means you're crazy too, so I'm quite content not being able to understand how you can pick one thing about some—something that probably doesn't even tell you a lot about them—and suddenly hate them. What I'm not content with, is seeing this play out over and over. I don't care what you believe, you should know that we were not created for this.

People were claiming we live in a post racial society, that racism was over because we elected a black president, and now, here we are. White supremacy is on the rise and endorsing the President of the United States. This senselessness is spreading from our borders. We don't need a wall to keep people from getting in, we need a wall to imprison the hatred that is seeping out.

It breaks my heart to know that people operate in such a manner, to know that level of hatred can exist. The people who died last week didn't do anything to this murderer. There was absolutely no reason to kill them. Yet here we are, watching people bury their loved ones.

The debate for gun control can be had. You can argue yourselves blue in the face about it. But what I want to get to is a world where given then chance, no one would even think of doing something like this. I want to live in a world where just the thought of killing people because they're different from you, just the thought of killing people because you're angry and don't know who to take your frustrations out on, just the thought of this kind of terror is unfathomable.

References

1. Ben Westcott, Jenni Marsh, Helen Regan, Meg Wagner, Brian Ries, Veronica Rocha, Aimee Lewis, Rob Picheta, and Harmeet Kaur. "Dozens killed in Christchurch mosque attack". CNN. March 16, 2019
2. CNN Library. "1963 Birmingham Church Bombing Fast Facts". CNN. September 7, 2018
3. Ralph Ellis, Ashley Fantz, Faith Karimi and Eliott C. McLaughlin. "Orlando shooting: 49 killed, shooter pledged ISIS allegiance". CNN. June 13, 2016
4. Jason Horowitz, Nick Corasaniti, and Ashley Southall. "Nine Killed in Shooting at Black Church in Charleston". New York Times. June 17, 2015

The Commandments Before Israel

What came first the law or Moses' hike up Mount Sinai? Many people would have you believe the law only applies to the Israelites and was first instantiated on Mount Sinai. However, there are examples of the law being enforced well before Moses' and the Israelites embarked on the Exodus. Let's look at some of these examples and discus what it means for us today.

Introduction

Photocredit: Unsplash.com/Claire Anderson

People point to the law of Moses and the 10 Commandments as "Jewish law". When I explain that I keep the Biblical Sabbath, people continue the conversation by referring to it as the "Jewish Sabbath." We'll skip the distinction between Israelites and Jews, in favor of moving on to a more interesting topic: commandments that appear before Moses climbed Mount Sinai.
Top

The Proof is in the Pudding

Before I go into specific examples of specific laws, I want to talk about the obvious. In the beginning the only law given to Adam and Eve was not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Once Adam and Eve broke that law, they were expelled from the garden and not only lost access to the Tree of Life, but the Tree of Knowledge too. Since they were barred from entry from the garden, it was impossible for them to eat from the Tree of Knowledge again. Yet, by the time of Noah's generation sin was so rampant, God decided to destroy practically everyone and everything with a flood.

Romans 3:20 tells us that knowledge of sin comes from the law, while Romans 5:13 tells us that sin can't be imputed (or represented) without the law. Basically we are being told in Romans that sin has existed in the world from the moment Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, but we only know we have sinned when there is a law to define sin. We see this more explicitly in 1 John 3:4 where sin is defined as transgression of the law.

That begs the question, how was there sin in Noah's day if there was no law until Moses? We could say that by barring them from entry to the garden specifically to protect the Tree of Life, God was implicitly creating the laws not to enter the garden and not to eat from the Tree of Life. However, we know that these people weren't all sneaking into the Garden of Eden—which was fortified with an Angel carrying a flaming sword—to steal fruit from either trees. God didn't need to create a law about the treasures of the garden because He made it impossible for them to get to it. That would be like our government writing a law that makes it illegal to live on Mars.

The chain of events tells us God must have given the first people some sort of law to live by. This law may not have ever been written down and was likely just passed down from parent to child through upbringing and verbal affirmation (or condemnation). When examining what was considered wrong and sinful pre-Mosaic law, we can see how God's law has not changed.
Top

Sacrifice and Offerings

³And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. ⁴And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: ⁵But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.Genesis 4:3-5 KJV

One of the first glimpses we see of life after the garden is the giving of offerings to God. Cain's anger grew as a result of God's favor toward Abel's offering over his on. Abel not only gives God a firstling of his flock, but the fat of the animal as well.

Doesn't this sound familiar? Leviticus goes into thorough detail about how animals are to be offered to God. In these passages God instructs that the fat is not to be eaten, but given to Him. Now, isn't it telling that Abel was shepherding a flock, sacrificed the offspring of his flock, and reserved the fat for God when he didn't even eat meat? Livestock would have been handy for many of the tasks they had to carry out, so it makes sense that he had a flock. However, why would he think to kill and sacrifice the animal? These sacrifices were a gruesome reminder that it was supposed to be us who died because of sin.

There were no pagan cultures around to influence Abel and Cain and the devil isn't mentioned in the narrative, which means Cain and Abel were inspired (or told) to bring sacrifices to God. At some point between the creation of Adam and Eve and Genesis 4, God instructed them to bring offerings to Him. This proves that sacrifices were a thing well before Moses began writing the law down.

Genesis continues to show us examples of the patriarchs building altars and sacrificing to God. Clearly some protocol had been established for this type of behavior well before Moses.

Examples of Sacrifices in Pre-Mosiac Law
Bible Verses	Example
Genesis 4:3-5	Cain and Abel offerings to God. Cain's was an offering of the field (grain), while Abel's was of the flock (burnt)
Genesis 8:20	Noah offers burnt offerings for every clean animal to God after the flood.
Genesis 22:1-18	Abraham almost offers Isaac, but God sends a ram to be offered instead.
Genesis 35	Jacob builds an altar, then pours a drink offering on the altar.
Exodus 10:24-25	Moses' argument to the Pharaoh about letting the Israelites go includes the need to give God sacrifices and burnt offerings.
Exodus 18:12	Moses' father-in-law gives a burnt offering to God in honor of what God has done for Israel. This is just before the Israelites reach mount Sinai.

Thou Shalt Not Kill

The first crime to be committed after Adam and Eve are expelled from the garden is murder when Cain kills Abel. God condemns Cain for this action and He is punished. If Cain was unaware that it was wrong to kill Abel, why did he lie about it and why did God punish him? When Cain is angry/jealous of Abel, God warns Cain that "sin lieth at the door" (Genesis 4:7), which is a big clue to what Cain did and did not know. Also, this mirrors Jesus' statement that we are in sin just for being angry at our brother without cause (Matthew 5:22).

Since God is telling Cain that he is about to sin and Cain clearly hides the fact that he killed Abel as though he knows it is wrong, based on the Bible's definition of sin and our own knowledge of human nature, we must assume Cain knew that it was wrong to kill. Thus there must have been a law of some sort stating the murder was wrong, even in the days when only the original family was on the earth.
Top

Noah Knew Clean and Unclean

People are quick to say clean and unclean, particularly when it comes to animals/diet, was only for the Israelites. Moses defines clean and unclean in Leviticus 11, but Noah knew the difference back in Genesis 7:2. God instructs Noah to bring more of the clean animals than the unclean ones. Once Noah and his family are back on dry land, God tells Noah he may eat meat and Noah makes a sacrifice when the clean animals. When God tells Noah he can eat the flesh of the animals, he doesn't specify clean or unclean, though he does bring up the issue of blood, which is repeated by Moses. Despite God not telling Noah specifically not to eat blood, we have to remember that the act of eating flesh usually followed sacrifice—they ate the meat they burned on the alter (i.e. cooked). Leviticus covers many of the laws about who could eat the sacrifices and when they could be eaten. Noah would have eaten the clean animals he sacrificed. This also explains why more of them were brought on the ark.

Sodom & Gomorrah

When we think about sin, it's impossible not to think of Sodom and Gomorrah. These two cities were eradicated, never to be built again, due to the sins being committed within their borders. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is given in Genesis 19. Let's put this in perspective of time. Just before destroying the city, God reveals His plan to Abraham who bargains with God to spare the city. Abraham's son Isaac is the father of Jacob who is the father of the 12 men the Tribes of Israel are named for. Therefore Abraham is the great-grandfather of the progenitors of the nation of Israel. Moses isn't even born until the descendants of those 12 men had been in captivity in Israel for roughly 400 years. Needless to say, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were not Israelites and were quite far removed from the law being written down by Moses.

So what sins were committed in Sodom and Gomorrah? The one that probably comes to mind first is homosexuality; this one is the most obvious in Genesis 19. However, Ezekiel 16:49 provides a more extensive list of sins committed. Ezekiel tells us that Sodom was prideful, idle, ignoring the poor, haughtiness, and committing the abomination. Moses writes several laws about how to treat the poor when he and the Israelites are in the wilderness, but none of these had been written yet. Each of the things God despises in Sodom are the same things Jesus warns us about in the New Testament! We are told not to be proud in James 4:6 and Philippians 2:3 (to name a few). We are told of the dangers of idleness in 1 Timothy 5:12-13. Jesus tells us to be mindful of the poor in Luke 14:12-14; it is them that we should strive to feed! Haughtiness is spoken against throughout the Bible. The abomination is probably sexual immorality. All of these were considered sins before Moses and in the New Testament.

Levirate Marriage

The Levirate Marriage is outlined in Deuteronomy 25:5-6. The idea was that if a man died before his wife bore him children, she was to marry his brother, who was to provide an heir to the deceased brother's lineage. We see an example of this with Judah and Tamar. Judah was one of the 12 sons of Jacob; his descendants make up the tribe of Judah and most of the people we call Jews today are descended from him. Judah's eldest son married a woman named Tamar, but died before Tamar conceived. Tamar then married Judah's middle son, who tried to avoid producing an heir and was struck down by God. Judah refused to allow her to marry his youngest son, but in a strange twist of fate, ended up fathering Tamar's twins anyway (Genesis 38). The Israelite nation was only just forming at this time and Tamar was actually a Canaanite. While it's likely that she converted to worshiping the God of Abraham and abiding by His laws, for her to be so persistent that her child's father come from Judah's line implies that this was a common tradition on the region. God is clearly not saying that it's a new thing in Deuteronomy, rather He's confirming it as an actually party of His law.

Remember!

When God writes out the 4th commandment, did you ever wonder why He said "remember" before introducing the Sabbath? I've never said "remember" before bringing up something the other person or people didn't already know about. If I'm introducing something I want them to remember, I might say "Don't forget..." but it's not likely that I'm going to say "Remember to go to the grocery store next week". Just think about it; the command to remember something is literally asking you to think about something that has already happened. When did it already happen? During creation. God created the Sabbath from the very beginning. He didn't make that day holy while the Israelites were waiting at the foot of the mountain; it was holy from the first Sabbath ever created. It's never not been holy! In fact, before the Israelites get to Sinai, when God explains the food situation to the Israelites, He reminds them to collect double on the sixth day because none will fall on the Sabbath (Exodus 16:23-30).

Something to Think About

There are two reasons I think it's important to think about this. One, to realize that God's law is absolute and just. Two, to have a more solid foundation when the world brings up similarities between the law Moses wrote and "older" laws found in civilization.

Just Laws

People use the idea that the law was written for the Jews to justify not giving up habits that are condemned by the law. We see this logic fall apart when we poke harder. No one who argues that that they don't have to keep the Sabbath or that they can eat whatever they choose will agree that they can commit murder. The habit of picking and choosing which laws we choose to abide by severely hampers the message broadcast by the church. There's a lot more to the topic of understanding God's law than simply what is covered here. Obviously some rules did change; we don't sacrifice any more and people can't marry their relatives (Adam and Eve's children all married their sisters/brothers, remember). I discus the law a little more in the post entitled The Law, but eventually I plan do something a little most organized and coherent. Nonetheless, I think this is part of that idea. God didn't just make up laws for one group because He thought it would be fun to watch them struggle to keep them. Those laws are meant to protect the health, spirit, and well-being of His people, and since there is no difference between Jew and Gentile (Galatians 3:28), these laws are for the good of all mankind.

Stolen Laws?

Many of my non-believing friends and acquaintances have accused Moses of plagiarism based on the fact that the 10 Commandments are similar to laws that had been in existence long before the Israelites reached Sinai. I don't think it's the least bit odd that other cultures came to the conclusion it was wrong to kill, steal, lie, or cheat on your spouse. Even atheists will agree on that. The Bible talks about deception being the biggest reason for sin, especially in the end times. Even in the beginning, Eve was deceived into eating the fruit. Mankind's instinct identifies obvious evil behavior with no problem. Therefore it isn't shocking to find similarities across these laws.

What's more, these tribes and nations all funnel back to the same point. The Egyptians, for instance, descended from Mizraim who was the son of Ham. The Israelites from Shem who was Ham's brother. Shem and Ham would have been raised with similar morals and I imagine those morals would have been passed on to their children much like a game of telephone. Each of us is raised to believe certain things and behave a certain way, but we also have the free will to choose other paths. In my childhood church, we were all given the same lessons but life gave us different experiences. We each turned out different. Someone of us believe exactly what that church taught, some believe something a little different, some might not believe at all anymore. Yet we retain a lot of similarities in our behaviors and moral standards, regardless of where we ended up. The same can be said of how laws and beliefs spread after the flood. God's reason for telling Moses to write it down was to preserve the real information since so many versions were popping up around the world. This was God giving His one-on-one interview after the tabloids had leaked faulty information.

References

2 Chronicles 25: Amaziah

And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, but not with a perfect heart.2 Chronicles 25:2 KJV

Amaziah becomes king of Judah after the death of Joash. He his crowned king at the age of 25 and reigns for 29 years. Like his father, he is assassinated for turning against God.

Introduction

Amaziah becomes king of Judah after the death of Joash. He his crowned king at the age of 25 and reigns for 29 years. Like his father, he is assassinated for turning against God.
Top

Amaziah

When I look at the name Amaziah, I think "amazing," though I'm pretty sure that's not where we get the word from. For a while, Amaziah is amazing, however. He at least begins his rule by following the word of God.

When he becomes king, one of the first things he does is kill the men who killed his father. This was lawful by God's law. Not only had God not instructed the men to kill Joash, God was capable of killing those who disobeyed him on His own. Thus, these men had committed murder which was punishable by death.

Later, when Amaziah gathers an army to go into battle with Edom, God tells him to leave part of the army behind. This part of the army was from the northern kingdom, and thus not a part of Judah. Even so, this was much like the test of faith God had given many others. In battle, God often proved His presence by delivering an outnumbered Israelite army to victory. Although Amaziah was initially skeptical, considering he had already paid these men and could not be refunded, Amaziah obeys God and reaped exactly this miracle.

And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, but not with a perfect heart.2 Chronicles 25:2 KJV

Unfortunately, just after this victory, Amaziah decides to take up the idols of his enemies. God becomes angry at this breach of the covenant, but Amaziah doesn't repent. He even rejects the counsel of the prophets.

Seeing that the army he hired from Israel has pillaged cities of Judah on their way back home, Amaziah wages war with Israel's king Jehoash (not to be confused with Amaziah's father Joash—both spellings are used for the names). For once, it is Israel that is shunning the war as Jehoash initially refuses to engage Amaziah. After much prompting, the two meet on the battle field and Israel claims victory. Amaziah's lack of faith and disobedience to God caused him to lose the battle. Yet still, Amaziah outlives Jehoash by 15 years. Eventually, Amaziah is assassinated by his own people because he stopped following the ways of God.
Top

References

2 Chronicles 23&24: Athaliah & Joash

A look at the boy who became king of Judah at the age of 7! Plus discussion on the parallels between Athaliah's murders and end of days prophecies.

Introduction

Joash was one of the youngest kings to be crowned in Israel. The youngest son of Ahaziah, Joash was in danger of being killed by Queen Athaliah when she purged the kingdom of Ahaziah's line to usurp power. Fortunately, Joash was saved by his aunt and able to reclaim the throne. Although Joash reigned for 40 years, like Solomon and David, he stilled died at the young age of 47.
Top

The Purge

There have been 2 obvious attempts by Satan to stop the Messiah from being born. In Genesis 3:15, God tells Satan that the seed of Eve (a reference the New Testament confirms to be about Jesus), would defeat him. As with most movies we've seen, the villain always wants to eliminate the hero before he has a chance to become the hero. Satan's first attempt to foil God's plan came when the Israelites were in Egypt. If they were forced to be slaves forever, they could never cultivate their relationship with God or set forth the laws of God as example for the world to see. Satan didn't want them delivered from Israel, so he inspired Pharaoh to have all the male children killed. Because God's plan always comes to fruition, Moses was spared and came back to save Israel. This paved the way for the nation that would eventually bring the Messiah into the world. Flash forward to Jesus' birth, and Satan inspires Herod to kill the male children to eradicate the real Messiah. Once again, God protects His chosen heir and protects Jesus. Ironically, it is to Egypt that Mary and Joseph flee with the baby. The attempted purge of the Davidic line by Athaliah, was no doubt an inspiration from Satan and another of his attempt to prevent the Messiah from arriving.
Top

Foreshadowing

What is most interesting about this is the foreshadowing of end times events and the parallel conflict between God and Satan. In the northern kingdom of Israel, they kings were from Omri's dynasty, and God had placed a curse of them due to Ahab's immense idolatry. God had vowed to eliminate Ahab's line from the throne. Meanwhile, in the southern kingdom, the kings were from David's dynasty, and God had promised that they would have dominion forever (a promise fulfilled through the Messiah). While Jehu was cleansing the north of Ahab's descendants per God's order, Athaliah was trying to rid the south of David's descendants per the devil's order. However, there was overlap! Ahaziah was a descendant of both Ahab and David, thus the same was true of his sons and their sons.

In Revelation, there are two women featured; one represents the true church of God and the other represents the false church. Here, David's line represented the true church of God, the rightful heirs to the throne, while Ahab's line represented the false church. Most of David's descendants attempted to follow God, though many made mistakes and ultimately succumbed to idolatry. The kings of the north made no attempt to follow God at all. However, unlike the explicitly pagan nations surrounding them, God hadn't declared a separation between these two. There was nothing the forbade Jehoram from marrying Ahab's daughter the way Solomon had been forbidden to marry his pagan wives. This ushered in a new lineage in the southern kingdom that was actually the product of both lines. This foreshadows the daughters of the whore of Babylon. In Revelation 17, we are told that the false church is the mother of harlots, which means it produces more like itself. Similarly, Ahaziah followed the ways of Ahab (the false church). Today, we see a mixture of paganism and Biblical teachings and the two have become so intertwined that we cannot differentiate between them. Just as the true line of David has to be restored, the true church of God has to be called out from Babylon (Revelation 18:4).

Satan adds to the confusion by mimicking God's actions. We know which is which because we are reading about the events and hindsight is 20/20, but during the end times, we won't have the benefit of hindsight. We will need to be able to recognize the true church from the false church and differentiate God punishing the false church from Satan persecuting the true church.
Top

Joash Spared

DISCLAIMER: No one knows what anyone from the Bible
looks like, this image is just a reminder of Joash's youth.
Photocredit: Unsplash.com/Joseph Gonzalez

Ahaziah's sister, Jehoshabeath, smuggles the infant Joash from out of Athaliah's clutches. She takes the baby to her husband Jehoida, who was a priest, for safe keeping. Joash spends 6 years hiding out under the protection of the priests in the Temple. (Can you still see the parallels to revelation?) During the seventh year, Jehoida calls together an army to protect him so that he can ascend the throne. It was likely a hard task to keep the boy confined to the Temple. Further, Athaliah was damaging Israel's relationship with God, so it behooved them to put a man of God back on the throne as soon as possible.

Jehoida's army was strategically placed around the Temple with weapons to guard the young king. Once they were in place, Joash is anointed king. This act causes great jubilation and rejoicing which attracts the attention of Athaliah. When the queen comes to investigate the noisy celebration, she is killed by the army set to protect the young king.
Top

Joash's Reign

Joash starts off a great king; he follows God and honors the law. One of his first orders of business it to make repairs to the Temple, which has become run down. Between aging over time and the carting off of its riches, it stands to reason that at this point in time, the Temple may have been a bit shabby. Having grown up in God's home, Joash would have been quite aware of these damages and probably had a stronger desire than any one else to restore the Temple.

However, like many of Judah's kings, during the end of Joash's reign, he succumbs to the devil's temptations. A son of Jehoida the priest named Zechariah speaks out against the idolatry that has crept back into Judah. Zechariah prophesies destruction if they continue down that path. This enrages Joash to the point that he has Zechariah stoned! In doing so, Joash is not only rejecting the message of God, he is allowing and even sanctioning sinful behavior in his people. Further, Jehoida would have likely been the only father figure Joash had ever had and it was because of him that Joash was even able to reclaim the throne. How cruel is it that Joash has Jehoida's son, who may have been like a brother to him, stoned? Naturally God punishes this change of heart. Joash's fall is so great that when he dies, he is not buried with the other kings of Judah.
Top

Zechariah

The first question I had after reading these chapters, was if Zechariah the son of Jehoida was the same Zechariah in the Book of Zechariah. Apparently this is quite the hot topic.

In Matthew 23:31-35, Jesus says that Zechariah was the son of Berechiah and that he died between the Temple and the altar. The Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24 was stone in the courtyard of the Temple and is the son of Jehoida. Does this mean there's a contradiction? Or are these passages referencing different Zechariahs? Or, are these passages saying the same thing in different ways? There are enough similarities to suggest that the court of the Temple was located between the Temple of the altar and since "son of" could refer to distant ancestors, both Berechiah and Jehoida could be the "fathers" of Zechariah. However, if we read Zechariah 1:1, we see that the Zechariah Jesus is referencing ruled during the reign of Darius I of Persia, some 300 years after the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24 lived. Thus, these are not the same men.^[2]
Top

References

1. Revelation 17
2. Tim Chaffey. "Was Jesus Wrong About Zechariah’s Father?". Answers in Genesis. February 2012

2 Chronicles 22: Ahaziah & Athaliah

Ahaziah's brief reign plus the cruelty of his mother Athaliah are discussed.

Introduction

2 Chronicles 21 tells us that Jehoahaz takes over for Jehoram after his death, but 2 Chronicles 22 details the reign of Ahaziah, who has taken over for Jehoram. This is because Ahaziah and Jehoahaz are the same person; this is evidenced by the matching back stories given for them. Name changes are not only common in the Bible, they are common in our present day society.

2 Chronicles 21 tells us about the defeat and punishment of Ahaziah's father Jehoram, which included the capture of Ahaziah's brothers. As the sole remaining heir, Ahaziah was placed on the throne without contest, despite being the youngest son. Ahaziah has only a short reign before his mother, Athaliah, takes the throne.
Top

Ahaziah's Reign

2 Chronicles 22:2 says Ahaziah was 42 when he began to reign, but this doesn't make sense if his father was only 40 when he died. 2 Kings 8:26 says Ahaziah was only 22 when he became king, which seems much more probable. Answers in Genesis has an in-depth article on resolving Ahaziah's age. They suggest 2 possibilities. One is that 42 refers to his place in the dynasty of Omri, while 22 refers to his actual age. The other is that it is a copyist error because older versions of the manuscript read 22 in both places.^[1] Since Omri was neither a good king nor a focal point for Judah, I am inclined to side with those who believe it is a copyist error. However, it is important to note that the numbers do add up. Omri was king for 12 years (1 Kings 16:23). His son, Ahab, reigns for 22 years (1 Kings 16:29). Ahab's daughter married Jehoram of Judah, who reigned 8 years before Ahaziah becomes king of Judah. During Jehoram's reign, Omei's line is still ruling in Israel. Following Ahaziah's lineage, we see that 12+22+8 is exactly 42, so Ahaziah really does describe his place in the dynasty as well.
Top

The Ways of Ahaziah

As king, Ahaziah listens to his mother (Athaliah) and follows the ways of Ahab, who was Ahaziah's grandfather and an ungodly king who had ruled over the north kingdom previously. Ahaziah goes to war against Syria with his uncle, Jehoram of Israel (not to be confused with his father). The pair then fight Jehu which brings about both of their ends. Jehu kills Ahaziah because he was descended from Ahab and God was eradicating Ahab's line in the north. Ahaziah only ruled for 1 year before dying in battle. Since he was not leading Judah to God and participated in idolatry, it's probably a good thing that he did not get a full reign.
Top

Queen Athaliah

Photocredit: Unsplash.com/Maarten van den Heuvel

2 Chronicles 21 says that Jehoram's wives were taken captive, but it doesn't specify that all of his wives are taken the same way it does regarding his sons. Ahaziah's mother, Athaliah, apparently managed to escape with her son and is thus a major part of Ahaziah's reign. Given that Ahaziah's brothers were all taken away and that at 23 Ahaziah was unlikely to have fathered any children old enough to be king, the heir to throne would have had a hard time taking a stand for power on his own.

Determined the acquire this power and never relinquish it, Athaliah kills her own grandchildren to become queen. Jehoram's daughter (and thus Ahaziah's sister), Jehoshabeath, hides Ahaziah's youngest son. Jehoshabeath was married to a priest, which explains why the boy was raised in the Temple. The baby was hidden in the Temple for 6 years while Athaliah reigned.
Top

References

1. Stacia McKeever and Bodie Hodge. "Two Ages at Once". Answers in Genesis. December 15, 2008

2 Chronicles 21: Jehoram

The reign of Jehoram of Judah is discussed.

Introduction

Jehoram, also spelled Joram, is one of the kings of Judah that shares his name with a king of Israel. Not only does he share his name with a king of Israel, the two reigned at the same time! Some have speculated that they are actually the same person and that Judah was under the reign of Israel at the time. This theory will be discussed below, in addition to details of Jehoram's reign.
Top

Who Was Jehoram?

Jehoram takes over the throne of Judah at the age of 32 when his father, Jehoshaphat, dies. Jehoram had several younger brothers, who were given great gifts from Jehoshaphat. The names of his brothers are given as: Azariah, Jehiel, Zechariah, Michael, and Shephatiah. Strangely, Azariah is listed twice, which made me wonder if Jehoshaphat had two sons named Azariah. Although it sounds weird, it's strangely common according to Google searches.^[1] In the original Hebrew text, the name is not quite identical. One "Azariah" contains an extra character; this could change the name or be an indicator between siblings with the same name. Whatever the case, none of Jehoram's brothers were able to enjoy the gifts they inherited from Jehoshaphat. didn't get to enjoy these gifts because Jehoram kills them as soon as he became king.

It goes without saying that Jehoram was not a good king and did not follow God's law. He marries the daughter of Ahab, which scholars believe may have been suggested by his father in attempt to bring the two kingdoms back together.^[2] Instead, the kingdoms remain at odds and Jehoram ends up following the ways of Ahab and turns Judah into idolatry just as Israel had been.

Although God's anger is kindled against Jehoram (and a few other descendants of David) God does not destroy the lineage however, because of his covenant with David. God already knew that He would fulfill His promise to David, Abraham, and even Eve, through Jesus. In Israel God allows dynasties to die, the way Ahab and his descendants did, but God ensures that there is always a descendent of David because it is through this succession that Jesus was to come. Nonetheless, God cuts Jehoram's reign short, allowing up to control Judah for only 8 years.

The Two Jehorams

When Did He Reign?

The timeline surrounding the two Jehoram's is quite confusing. 2 Kings 1:17, 2 Kings 3:1, and 2 Kings 8:16 seem to conflict on when exactly these successions took place.

1 Kings 22:41 tells us that Jehoshaphat (Jehoram of Judah's father) began his reign during the 4th year of Ahab (Jehoram of Israel's father). Ahab reigns for 22 years (1 Kings 16:29), before his son Ahaziah takes the throne. Jehoram of Judah takes the throne after Ahaziah, who reigns for 2 years. Jehoram of Israel takes the throne after Ahaziah. Based on this timeline, it seems that Jehoram of Israel should start his reign roughly during the 20th year of Jehoshaphat. However, we are told that Ahaziah began his reign during Jehoshaphat's 17th year (1 Kings 22:51) and Jehoram during Jehoshaphat's 18th year. This makes sense if you consider that these numbers are probably rounded up; the final year of each king was probably not a complete year. On top of that, we must consider that when defining "the xth year of" a particular king, we may be starting from the beginning of the year or the point of coronation. Taking this into consideration, 2 Kings 3:1 makes sense.^[3]

However, 2 Kings 1:17 tells us that Jehoram of Israel took the throne during Jehoram of Judah's 2nd year. Many people initially believe this to be a contradiction, before considering co-regency. Co-regency often occurred as kings planned to pass the kingdom on to a particular son. If we consider a co-regency, then this verse goes from being a contradiction to a basket of new information. If a co-regency existed between Jehoshaphat and Jehoram of Judah, it would make sense that Jehoshaphat's 18th year was the same as Jehoram's 2nd year.^[3]

What about 2 Kings 8:16, though? This verse tells us that Jehoram of Israel had already been reigning for 5 years when Jehoram of Judah began his reign. How is that possible if Jehoram of Israel started his reign during Jehoram of Judah's 2nd year? Perhaps what is meant is that Jehoram of Judah began his independent reign 5 years in to Jehoram of Israel's reign. Depending on the time of year each event occurred, this would mean Jehoram of Judah took over for Jehoshaphat after Jehoshaphat had ruled 23 to 24 years. This doesn't quite line up with the 25 years Jehoshaphat reigned, though does it? Actually, it does. 2 Kings 8:16 tells us that Jehoshaphat was still king. During his last year as king, he likely handed over the reigns to his son and gave him the primary role as king.^[3]
Top

Where There 2 Jehorams?

With all the confusion surrounding the timeline of the Jehorams, it's not surprising that people began making up conspiracy theories. There are some who believe there was only one Jehoram and that Judah was briefly conquered by Israel. There isn't anything to back up this claim. It is not unusal for people to have the same name, in fact many people in the Bible have the same name. Further, the marriage between Ahab's line and David's could have played a role in this if they were named after someone.^[4]

Battles & Wars

Although God didn't wipe out Jehoram and his entire family, He did punish Jehoram for his sinfulness. God allows the Edomites to rebel. Prior to these events, the Edomites had been under the dominion of Judah, but now they had appointed their own king. Essentially Edom was declaring itself independent. Following Edom's lead, a place called Libnah also revolted. Jehoram sends armies to bring these nations back under his control, however, neither nation caves to Jehoram's demands. With God out of the picture—due to Jehoram's poor relationship with God—Judah was like a sitting duck and unable to take on a real army.
Top

Idolatry & More Warring

Jehoram also makes altars outside of the Temple; whether these were pagan or for God, were forbidden. This caused the Israelites of Judah to drift further from God. The prophet Elijah sends him a letter explaining God's disappointment for these actions as well as outlining the punishment God would give Jehoram. This possibly the only king of Judah that was contacted by Elijah, the great prophet of Israel.

God enacts vengeance through a great plague, which was a sickness of the bowels. God also stirred up the spirit of the Philistines and the Arabians near Ethiopia to battle with Judah. These nations raided the house of the king, stealing not only valuables but Jehoram's wives and children. The only person left is Jehoahaz, Jehoram's youngest son, who would go on to continue the lineage.
Top

Death and Illness

Photocredit: Unsplash.com/Jon Butterworth

Following such failure and lost, God strikes Jehoram with the incurable disease of the bowels prophesied by Elijah. After 2 years of suffering, Jehoram dies. Because of his shame, the people buried him with David's descendants but not with the other kings.
Top

References

1. "Google Search: Sibling with the Same Name"; visited March 2017
2. Holman Bible Publishers. Holman KJV Study Bible, pg. 761-763. 2014
3. "2 Chronicles 21 Commentary". Bible Hub; visited March 2017
4. Dick Harfield. "Who began his reign first: Jehoram of Israel, or Jehoram of Judah?". Stack Exchange. October 2013

1 Kings 21: Jezebel Executes Naboth

1 Kings 21 shows us the true treachery of Queen Jezebel--she is probably the source of the phrase "I'd kill for it."

Introduction

1 Kings 21 tells the story of ruthlessness in the pursuit of furthering our own goals. A lot of times when people who have power want something, they refuse to take no for an answer. This chapter is a perfect example of how situations can get out of hand. People often think that because they've made a reasonable request, the people around them are obliged to follow. A common arena for this today is in how men approach women. Often, I've seen men who believe that simply because they are a nice guy the girl didn't have a right to refuse a date with him. This misconception isn't limited to men. In this chapter, we see that Jezebel devises a murderous plot to get her husband something he has been denied. Just because you want something and ask for it nicely does not mean you should receive it.
Top

Naboth

Photocredit: FreeImages.com/adyna

A man named Naboth owned a vineyard in Jezreel which was near the palace of king Ahab. This must have been a well kept and prosperous vineyard because king Ahab desired it for himself. Even though Ahab was considered a corrupt king, he took the proper steps in his attempt to acquire the land; he offered to give Naboth a better vineyard elsewhere or to pay money for the land. Both options seem fair, but, Naboth was unwilling to part with the land. Naboth informs Ahab that the vineyard is his inheritance from his fathers and he won't part with it.

I understand the sentiment of Naboth because like Naboth, I would never sell my family's "farm." My grandparents purchased a sizable amount of land during in the Jim Crow South, which is no small feat for a black couple—let alone a black couple with little to no formal education. My grandfather was a farmer and my grandmother was a cook, but they managed to buy more land than all of their children, somehow (probably from desire). They worked hard and I respect that. That land meant a lot to them; I saw it in my grandmother's eyes during the housing boom when companies were doing everything they could to find a way to take it. In circumstances like this, money and "better" become obsolete. You can't replace the memories or the sentiment of the land. I'm sure Naboth had a similar connection to his vineyard.
Top

Ahab's Reaction

King Ahab didn't understand this; which is understandable for a king. If you've ever seen Disney's The Emperor's New Groove, you can easily see this unfolding. In the movie, the emperor was a spoiled brat who wanted to build a vacation spot where another family lived. He didn't care about the peasants who had sentimental and monetary ties to that land, he just wanted what he wanted. Ahab was a little better, but still quite similar.

From Ahab's point of view, he'd made a reasonable request. After all, he'd offered to pay or to find him a better vineyard. The sentiment that builds from hard work was probably lost on a king who had lived his entire life as royalty. Ahab resorts to sulking and refuses to eat. He also complains to his wife, Jezebel.
Top

Jezebel's Revenge

A lot of times when we see things we want, we jokingly use the phrase "I'd kill for it." Jezebel took that phrase to heart and orchestrates a plot to have Naboth killed so her husband could have the vineyard. Ahab was king of the land, it was definitely possible for them to find another plot of land or another vineyard. Ahab even stated in part of his offer that he would find a vineyard for Naboth. Her actions prove that she had a lot of malice in her heart and was selfish in nature, thought fiercely loyal to her husband.

Jezebel contacts the elders of the city and asks them to find people to bear false witness against Naboth. In the midst of exalting Naboth's righteousness these witnesses were to proclaim that Naboth was guilt of blasphemy. Not only does Jezebel have him framed for blasphemy, which bore the death penalty, Jezebel places the decree in the king's name and with his seal. To Israel's knowledge, it is Ahab who orders Naboth's death.

When the elders of the city notify the king's people that Naboth is dead, Jezebel urges Ahab to take advantage of the situation and take charge of the property. Ahab doesn't condemn his wife for this action. The fact that he goes to take possession of the property just as she suggestion implies that he thought it was a great idea. It is also possible that he did not know of his wife's treachery. This is precisely why we are not follow people blindly.
Top

Judgment

God sends his judgment on the events to the prophet Elijah. His judgment comes with an ominous message foretelling of Ahab's untimely death. When Elijah shows up, Ahab already considers Elijah his enemy; what he doesn't seem to process is that by making himself an enemy of God's people, he has made himself an enemy of God. The only reason he and Elijah were enemies was because Ahab was an enemy of God in the first place. Elijah was simply delivering the messages he received.

This is something to remember as you look at who is against you in life. Is it the world who is against you or a representative of God? You should hope it is the world that is against you, that means you're probably on God's side.

When Elijah lays out Ahab's crimes and his coming punishment, Ahab humbles himself before God. He tears his clothes, fasts, and puts on sackcloth, to show his humility. Because of this, God postpones his judgment for the next generation. Sometimes it takes an external person telling us about ourselves to truly see how far from God we've drifted.
Top

References

2 Samuel 11-12: David and Bathsheba

Bathsheba was a young woman just trying to stay clean, when David's wandering eyes got both of them into trouble. The hidden lesson in this passage confronts the double standard for men and women concerning sex.

Introduction

Bathsheba was a young woman just trying to stay clean, when David's wandering eyes got both of them into trouble. The hidden lesson in this passage confronts the double standard for men and women concerning sex.
Top

Peeping Tom?

We all know that David first sees Bathsheba when she is bathing. What we don't know is why David saw Bathsheba bathing. The narrative tells us that David arose, went to the roof, and saw a beautiful woman bathing. It doesn't seem that David went to the roof with the intention of spying on unsuspecting women, nor does it seem that Bathsheba was bathing in plain sight for all to see with the intention of luring in a man.

The same way we credit God for putting us in the right place at the right time, sometimes the devil lures us to the wrong place and the wrong time. Think about it, if David had gone to his roof 30 minutes earlier or later, he may have never seen Bathsheba or only saw her clothed and never thought twice about her. Instead, David finds himself so captivated by her that he has to inquire about who she is from his servants.

One question I had after reading these verses, was the manner in which David inquired of her identity. Unless she had distinguishing features or was so exceedingly beautiful everyone knew her, I'm not sure how David could ask about her without pointing her out. The most logical explanation is that David saw her (clothed) in the city some time after and asked about her.

The main reason it confuses me, is because if David could identify the owner of the house to inquire of a beautiful woman living there, he would have likely known that she was married, too...

David's Sins

We often focus on the adultery committed by David and Bathsheba, but David commits two sins over Bathsheba. Both sins are against the 10 Commandments, not just the ordinances, and one actually leads to another. When you're little, people say "little white lies" become big lies, because you have to keep lying to keep up with the first. The same is true of sin; often you have to sin again to cover the first sin. It always better to just confess the sin and left God be the judge.

Adultery

a photographer's imagination on what Bathsheba may have looked liked
(there is no Biblical description of Bathsheba, except that she's pretty)
Photocredit: Noire3000 Studios/James C. Lewis

David learns from one of his servants that the woman he has been watching is Bathsheba. She is the wife of a high ranking soldier known as Uriah the Hittite. At the time, Uriah was away in battle.

It isn't clear whether Uriah's rank would have made him close enough to the king that David might have paused at the name. Regardless, the knowledge that she was a married woman should have been a massive, red, stop sign for David. The proper thing to do would have been to put all thoughts of her out of his mind. Knowing that David had plenty of wives as it was, I don't think this is such an unreasonable task.

Instead of entertaining himself with his own wives, David boldly seeks out Bathsheba. He doesn't beat around the bush the way things like this unfold in romance novels or on TV. There isn't an extended period where he subtly grows closer and closer to her until they "accidentally" fall in love, or a lavish outpouring of gifts and wealth to win her affection. David jumps straight to the point; he commands his men to bring her to him and proceeds to sleep with her.

Punishment for adultery was death, by Israelite law. Of course, the command condemning David to death would have had to come from himself or the priest. David wouldn't have commanded his own death, and Abiathar, the priest, was loyal to David. As king, he might have gotten away with the act in the eyes of man, but the fruit of David's sin was a pregnancy. With Uriah off fighting in battles, a pregnant Bathsheba was bound to draw attention.

Murder

When David hears the news of Bathsheba's pregnancy, he sends for her husband. He asks Uriah for a report on Joab and the war, but his real purpose is to give Uriah the chance to sleep with Bathsheba. This would make it appear as though the baby belonged to Uriah. Setting up this plan, David excuses Uriah to go home, but Uriah sleeps at the door of the kings house instead. Uriah's reason for not returning to his home is quite honorable. He asserts that since his brethren are on the battle field living in tents, it would be unfair for him to go home and enjoy the perks of normalcy.

David asks Uriah to stay one more day, to which he obliges. This time, David gets Uriah drunk. Likely, he expected the alcohol to change Uriah's resolve, however it does not. Unable to achieve his goal, David goes to Plan B (or maybe this would be Plan C and getting Uriah drunk was Plan B, but I digress).

David's next plan proves that once we sin, we enter a slippery slope of sin if we don't simply confess and repent. David could have repented and let God handle the situation, but he takes it in to his own hands trying to cover it up, only to make matters worse.

David sends a note to Joab by the hands of Uriah. The note commands Joab to put Uriah on the front line to die. Obviously Uriah was an upright man because he did not peep at the note—presumably he would not have knowingly delivered a message for his own murder. Joab complies with David's command and Uriah dies.

Joab sends a message to David about the tidings of the war, explaining their loss at this battle. Joab tells the messenger if David becomes angry that they lost, tell him Uriah is dead. David encourages the messengers and sends word for the army to grow in strength, an indication that he is not mad but also a coded message to Joab that he is pleased.
When Bathseba hears the news of her husband's death she mourns him. David allows her to mourn, but when she has finished mourning, he brings her to his home to be his wife. To the human eye, everything probably seemed fine—Joab probably assumed David's order to have Uriah killed was based on something he did/said during their meeting. However, God was displeased with David's behavior.

Double Standards

An interesting observation about David's encounter with Bathsheba is that her side of the story is completely missing. We aren't told if she eagerly hopped into bed with David, did so after a bit of sweet talk, was coerced, or was flat out assaulted. Given the nature of David and the omission of details, I think its safe to say David didn't force Bathsheba to have sex—there are several passages in the Bible where rapes are made clear, so I believe we would have been told this was part of why God was angry with David, if it was the case.

The other 3 possibilities are all quite plausible, however. Bathsheba might have been flattered to be asked to sleep with the king. Sadly, I have seen many women on social media make the claim that they would happily sleep with President Obama if they had the chance, despite the knowledge that President Obama is married (and happily at that!). Power can be attractive and some women will sacrifice their morals for a chance at power. Bathsheba may or may not have been plotting to gain access to the throne, but it is her son that will crowned king after David, so that's definitely a possibility. There's also the fact that David was supposed to be quite the looker; maybe she was equally smitten. Again, we don't know Bathsheba, so David may have had to woo her first. As a king with many wives, I'm sure David was well practiced in the wooing division. A final thought is that of coercion, which is still considered rape in our culture today, but wouldn't have been considered rape back then. David was the king and refusal of a king could mean death. Bathsheba may have agreed simply because she was afraid to say no.

Bathsheba may bear the pregnancy as a sign of the sin, but God gives David quite the earful about the situation. Unlike today's coverage of such drama, the author of Samuel rarely mentions Bathsheba and never places blame on her. He doesn't say she was wrong for bathing outside or suggest that whatever she wore to meet David drove him mad. The focus is on God's anger toward David for David's sin. God says he's going to take David's wives and that ruin will come to David. Bathsheba suffers the pain of losing her and David's first child, but her second child is loved by God and chosen to be Israel's next king.

This is evidence that God recognized the power play and also evidence that God didn't give David a pass for "being a man." God didn't put it on Bathsheba being naked in David's sight; He expected David to carry himself as a man of God and resist temptation. That's definitely a lesson for the 21st Century.

Full Circle

David's sin did not escape the eyes of God, and God was determined to bring David to justice. God sends the prophet Nathan to David with a parable designed to make it more obvious to David that he is in the wrong. Nathan tells David of a rich man and a poor man. The rich man has many flocks while the poor man has only one ewe. The poor man bonds with the ewe as we do today with our pets; he grows to love her as a daughter. When a traveler passes through their land, the rich man does not spare one of his own flock but takes the poor man's ewe to give the traveler.

Hearing this, David becomes angry and sentences the man to death for his selfishness. Nathan then reveals that the story is about David. God's message to Nathan condemns both David's act of adultery and murder. God asks why David has despised Him so that he would break the commandments. As punishment, God promises that evil will befall David. David's wives will be taken from him and someone else would lie with them. God reminds David that he may have sinned in secret, but God would punish him publicly. This is fulfilled by his own son, Absalom, when he rebels later in 2 Samuel.

When David finally confesses that he has sinned, Nathan points out that David is lucky God did not kill him for the sin; both murder and adultery carried the death penalty by law. Nathan also reminds him of the position he has put the kingdom in. Like with members of the church or churches as a whole, the world looks at God's people for an example. Just as the world sees "the church" as a community of hypocrites, the enemies of God now saw David committing the sins he was meant to keep others from committing. To see that God spared Him only fueled the fire of hatred they had for God. Similarly, no matter how great our faith or our destiny, we put God in a bad position when we screw up for the world to see. Instead of killing David (or Bathsheba, who as I mentioned earlier, is left out of the condemnation),it is determined that the child will have to die.

Killing the child seems harsh, because it isn't the child's fault his parents committed adultery. However, God would not reward their adulterous union with a heir to the throne. Bathsheba's second child would become the renowned king Solomon, but with the other son born first, technically Solomon would not have had the right to the throne. God could have given him the blessing, as was done with Jacob or with David, but both of those situation also caused animosity, bloodshed, and hatred. I think God wanted to spare the first child from such prospects, as well as the stigma that would have surrounded him in the community.

When the child is born, he falls ill. The first 7 days, David fasts and morns, pleading with God to keep the child alive, but on the 7th day, the child dies. Knowing that the child is dead, David moves on with his life. On lookers are confused that David mourned while the child was alive, but does the opposite now that he is dead. David explains that when the child was sick, he didn't know if God would preserve him or not, but now that the child was dead, nothing David did would bring him back. It made no sense for David to fast now.

David comforts Bathsheba and the conceive another son: Solomon. Unlike their first son who was born from sin, Solomon is loved by God.

Meanwhile, Joab continues to fight against the Ammonites. They defeat Rabbah, and place the king's crown on David's head. The remaining Ammonites become servants of Israel.

References

1. Holman Bible Publishers. Holman KJV Study Bible, pg 542-545. 2014

1 Samuel 18-27: Saul Tries to Kill David

Saul becomes jealous of David and attempts to kill him. This post covers those attempts, the help of David's supporters, and David's reaction.

Introduction

Jealousy is a dangerous thing, that's probably one reason why God told us not to covet. When women in the kingdom begin to praise David's military accomplishments, specifically attributing a higher number of kills to David than to Saul, Saul becomes discontent with David. Eventually, Saul decides to kill David.
Top

Motive to Kill

Photocredit: FreeImages.com/dlritter

Generally speaking, men tend to be more competitive, so it's no surprise that Saul would feel animosity about the kingdom boasting of David's accomplishments over his own. However, it seems extreme that he would suddenly want to kill David. Most people would have simply strove to prove they were better... After all, this boasting could also have been the kingdom's way of saying Saul was a great king because he chose a great military captain.^[11] It seems quite rash that Saul would want to kill the man who was leading his army to victory.

The issue stemmed much deeper than simple jealousy over praise or lack thereof from Israel. Saul knew he was in hot water with God—if you've ever walked with God at all, you definitely know when you've messed up. With Samuel no longer visiting him, an evil spirit visiting him, and the community placing David on a higher pedestal, Saul knew that God was bringing his reign to an end. Not only was Saul not ready to give up power, he wanted to pass the kingship on to his own lineage. With David gaining such notoriety, it was becoming obvious to Saul that the people would want David as the next king. Saul didn't want that, and the easiest way to solve the problem, at least in his mind, was to kill David.
Top

Saul's Attempts on David's Life

Attempts By Saul to Kill David
	Location	Method	Verses
	Saul's home	javelin thrown at Saul (twice)	1 Samuel 18:11
	-	David made captain of an army in hopes he was be killed in battle	1 Samuel 18:12-15
	Saul's home	marriage arrangement to Merab (sending David to battle)	1 Samuel 18:17
	Saul's home	marriage arrangement to Michal (sending David to battle)	1 Samuel 18:20-21
	Saul's home	servants ordered to kill David	1 Samuel 19:1
	Saul's home	javelin	1 Samuel 19:10
	David's home	messengers sent to kill David	1 Samuel 19:11
	David's home	messengers sent to fetch David for Saul to kill	1 Samuel 19:15
	Naioth in Ramah	messengers sent to fetch David for Saul to kill, again	1 Samuel 19:20
	Naioth in Ramah	messengers sent to fetch David for Saul to kill, again	1 Samuel 19:21
	Naioth in Ramah	Saul attempts the murder himself when his messengers fail	1 Samuel 19:22-24
	Ziph and Horesh	Saul seeks for David in the wilderness	1 Samuel 23:15
	Ziph	Saul seeks for David in the wilderness, again	1 Samuel 26:2

Saul attempted to kill David not once, not twice, but on multiple occasions. The first few attempts on David's life by Saul occur while David is soothing Saul's spirit. Saul takes the javelin he holds while sitting on the throne and lunges it at David. Saul also plots to kill David by enticing him to take on more battles with the promise of giving him one of Saul's daughters to wed. He hopes David will die in battle trying to prove himself worthy to marry Saul's daughter. When that fails, Saul sends messengers to kill David multiple times. When these attempts fail, Saul tries to kill David himself again. In the commotions of all these things, Saul ends up killing a priest who helps David unknowingly. David has to flee Saul's house, taking refuge with Samuel, with Ahimelech (the priest who ends up getting killed), Achish (the king of the Philistines), and in the wilderness. The table to the right details the attempts on David's life by Saul and lists the associated Bible verses.
Top

Saul's Children Choose David

Saul's desire to kill David was rooted in jealousy, as discussed earlier, which is an issue that arises from insecurity. Generally, people who are secure and confident are less likely to be jealous of those around them. Saul felt his kingdom was slipping away from him (and rightfully so, because it was). The people saw David as a better soldier and David had found favor in God's eyes. This was enough to drive Saul to the point of madness, in which he desired David dead. It is no wonder that he becomes more obsessed with killing David when he learns two of his children choose to help David over their own father.
Top

Jonathan, David's Best Friend

Saul's son Jonathan took an instant liking to David. The Bible is clear that Jonathan loved David deeply; 1 Samuel 18:1,3 says Jonathan loved David the way he loved himself. When Jonathan hears that his father is planning to kill David, he is quick to tell David. Recognizing David as the true heir to the throne, Jonathan remains on David's side throughout this ordeal. The two even make a covenant to remain friends and to have peace between their houses after death.

When Jonathan tests the waters with Saul to see if he is still intent on killing David, his words in support of David cause Saul to throw a javelin at his own son. Saul curses Jonathan's mother (possibily the world's first iteration of son of a *****) in anger and is furious that his eldest son would take David's side. Saul reminds Jonathan that David is a threat to his own inheritance of the throne, but Jonathan knows that God has chosen David.
Top

A Covenant Among Friends

When David finally flees Saul's presence to seek safety for himself, the two friends make a covenant with each other. Both men knew that eventually David would become king; tradition held (and still holds) that new kings would kill competing lineages to seal their claim to the throne. A more modern example was that of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. When the Bolsheviks seized power from the Tsar Nicholas II, they killed all of his children. Many believed the assassinated king's youngest daughter had survived and several women impersonated her, hoping to claim her status.^[9] When David took the throne, it was likely expected that he would kill Saul's lineage to keep any of them from trying to steal the throne back.

In David's case this would have been difficult considering he was married to Michal, Saul's daughter. At the time David made this covenant with Jonathan, Michal was Saul's only wife, so presumably David's heir to the throne would still be of Saul's lineage, as well. However, inheritance passed through sons, not daughters. It would have been Jonathan, Ishui, and Melchishua that could lay claim to the throne. Jonathan made David promise that he wouldn't kill Jonathan's family; their houses were to remain friends.
Top

Were Jonathan and David Gay?

Some people try to twist their relationship into romantic love and suggest there was a homosexual overtone in the description of their friendship.^[6][7] People often forget it is possible to love someone without being "in love" with someone. The first obvious point is that self-love, the love Jonathan would have had for himself that is described as the love he has for David, is not sexual. In addition, mother's usually love their children more than themselves, another example of non-sexual love.
Top

More Than The Love of Women?

Something that comes up is often a quote from 2 Samuel 1:26 in which David remarks that Jonathan's love surpassed the love of women. People who want to imbue this friendship with homosexuality interpret this to mean the two loved each other more than they loved the women in their lives and thus were in love with each other. However, this a forced interpretation, especially given what we know of God's (and their society's) view of homosexuality. If they were romantically involved, the last thing David would do is infer such a thing by admitting he loved a man more than his wives! The Israelites would have had him stoned on the spot. It has only been in the past 10 years or so that people have not been completely ostracized for being openly gay; again, I highly doubt David would have armed the rumor mill with such a statement. Furthermore, this is a common saying among friends! How many friends don't make a pack not to let relationships severe their bond? This is the basis of phrases such as "chicks before dicks" and "bros before hoes" (pardon the crudeness). These statement are meant to illustrate that the friendship, which usually begins well before either friend is involved in a romantic relationship, is too important to lose because of spouses.

Bromances such as that of Corey and Shawn from Boy Meets World depict this perfectly; Corey was in love with Topanga but his friendship with Shawn was forever. When Shawn dates a girl who forbids him to see Corey, they begin sneaking away to meet each other. Topanga reveals the fact that she understood their friendship and would never come between them, however Shawn's girlfriend ends up getting dumped. The two were determined to be friends even after girlfriends (and marriage). This is how David and Jonathan were, as well.
Top

Love at First Sight?

Another point pro-homosexual interpreters have is the fact that Jonathan gives David all of his stuff after they meet in 1 Samuel 18:4. The passage does not confirm or deny David's presence when Jonathan strips himself. Whether he was or wasn't, you have to read the passage in the context of the time period, not in the context of today. Back then, to strip yourself of your clothes was a sign of humility. Clothes were (and still are) a symbol of status. By removing these clothes and giving them to David, Jonathan was transferring his status as "prince" or "future king" to David. Like David, Jonathan was a man of God; he realized that God had selected David to inherit the throne and this was Jonathan giving up his claim to the throne.
Top

The Dinner Conversation

As I mentioned earlier, Jonathan defends David at the dinner table and brings about Saul's wrath. This conversation occurs in 1 Samuel 20. Some try to turn this into a "coming out" scene.^[6] Supporters of this theory suggest that "many gay men have experienced dinner conversations that sounded very similar to this one. They made the mistake of talking about their lover at the table, and their father became furious. More often than not, the blame goes first to the mother, who was “too soft,” or “too harsh,” or who “perverted” her son somehow. Then the father turns his anger toward the son: “Can’t you see how you’re shaming the whole family? Do you even care what this will do to your career? You’ll never amount to anything until you give up this foolishness!”"

If that's what you want to see, I can see how they get that interpretation, but that requires you to step away from the literal text. It is Saul who mentions David's absence first. Knowing that David and Jonathan are friends, Saul inquires of Jonathan where David is. Jonathan says David wanted to go to his family to offer a yearly sacrifice so Jonathan let him go. It is then that Saul gets angry. Saul says that he knows Jonathan has chosen David "to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness." This is where things get interesting. According to pro-homosexual interpreters, the mentioning of "thy mother's nakedness" makes this a homosexual reference. They believe Saul is accusing Jonathan of being David's lover. That, however, would be the "confusion of Jonathan's nakedness." What does his mother have to do with it? How is a homosexual relationship the confusion of a mother's nakedness?

From the books of law, we know that uncovering nakedness is a sexual reference, but "thy mother's nakedness" would be a reference to his mother's sexual encounters not Jonathan or David's. The very next verse explains exactly why Saul referenced Jonathan's mother's nakedness. Jonathan was the eldest son of his mother and should have succeeded Saul to the throne, however, David was desired by the people. With David in the picture, Jonathan could not claim the throne. Saul knew that Jonathan was relinquishing his claim to the throne in favor of David ("thine own confusion") and thus abandoning his inheritance, which was his right through the union of Saul and his mother ("thy mother's nakedness"). Scholars suggest that by giving up the throne, Jonathan was painting his mother as a whore (again, "thy mother's nakedness") and proclaiming himself unworthy to lead.^[8]

Even if Saul did accuse Jonathan of loving David in a homosexual manner, that doesn't mean it was a true statement. Here we have a man who is half mad, pained with an evil spirit, paranoid, and trying to kill a faithful servant in a jealous rage, how can you trust any of his judgements? People who are devoid of God are often bewildered at the behavior of those who follow God. My male friends who are waiting or who have waited until marriage to have sex have all been accused of lying or being gay. Only those who don't know God make these types of accusations, however. These accusations normalize their own behavior, which soothes any guilt they may have about how many partners they've had before marriage. It is far easier to accuse those who followed God's word of being gay or lying than to admit we were too weak to do the same. Similarly, it would have been easier for Saul to claim Jonathan was gay and take out his anger on Jonathan who was present, than admit he was in the wrong and had lost the throne for his lineage.
Top

Michal, David's Wife

After Saul fails to marry off his eldest daughter to David, he is thrilled to learn that his other daughter, Michal, is in love with David. David wasn't in the social class to marry the king's daughter, though; he didn't have the means to pay a dowry or brideprice for such a match. David knew this, and so did Saul. Saul tells David not to worry about the dowry (1 Samuel 20:25), instead he wants 100 foreskins of Philistine soldiers.

Saul is sure this task will get David killed, despite the fact that David has already won many battles and defeated Goliath. David probably thought the request was symbolic of not only defeating God's enemies, but forcefully cleansing them via circumcision, thus the request would not have set off any red flags in his mind. David goes above and beyond, bringing Saul 200 foreskins to "buy" Michal as a wife. Saul could have refused, but we see a glimpse of honesty in Saul, and he gives Michal to be married to David.

When Saul decides to send messengers to David and Michal's home to kill David, Michal helps David escape. Once David has safely fled the home from a window, she tucks a life-size idol in his bed to fool the messengers. The text does not tell us why an idol is in David's home; it may have belonged to Michal, since it is unlikely David took anything to do with idols. After Michal helps David sneak out, she lies to her father's messengers and claims that David is sick in bed. When Saul sends more messengers to fetch David and it is revealed that David is gone, Saul questions his daughter about why she lied to him. Saul felt betrayed that his daughter would just allow his "enemy" to escape so easily.
Top

Michal's Love

The Bible is very clear that Michal loves David; not only is it explicitly stated in 1 Samuel 18:20,28, but Michal's actions prove that she loved David. Michal could have been killed for assisting David—in 1 Samuel 22 Saul kills an entire city of priests because one priest aids David unaware that he and Saul are at odds. Considering Saul's violent outbursts and evil spirit, I don't think it's far-fetched to think Michal may have been worried her father would kill her for helping David. Michal chose David over family, this is an explict declaration of love.

Interestingly, it is never stated that David loves Michal. Wikipedia contributors point out that David doesn't try to contact Michal while he is on the run and that he takes other wives.^[1] When David takes off to save his life, we haven't seen anything that suggests he loves her as much as she loves him. This, plus the fact that David took additional wives while he was separated from Michal paints David as a womanizer.

I think a case can be made for David's love of Michal, too, however. One thing that stands out is David's 180 on his decision about marrying a daughter of Saul. When Saul is trying to get David to marry his eldest daughter, David isn't interested. The offer isn't drastically different, so why was David more receptive to marrying Michal? Obviously, this isn't an explicit declaration of undying love, but it does suggest that there was something there that was reciprocated. However, we aren't told a lot of this story. If this was set in modern day America, David would have texted Michal, or left her a private message on Facebook, to i. let her know he was alright and ii find out if she was ok. However, during David's era, there were no cellphones or computers and all of his supporters (i.e., the people who would have been safe to transport a message to Michal) were with him. Contacting Michal would have been quite difficult. Also, in contacting her, he would have risked angering Saul to the point of killing his own daughter. Just because he did not contact her does not mean he didn't miss her or desire to contact her.
Top

A Marriage Under Siege

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.Genesis 2:24

While David is gone, Saul gives Michal to another man. By God's law, Michal's second marriage was probably not lawful. There are several examples of polygamy in the Bible, though there are passages that suggest monogamy is preferred.^[2][3][4] However there are no examples of polyandry and the Bible explicitly states that a woman who leaves her husband for a reason other than adultery and marries another man, commits adultery.^[5] In the books of law, the word "wife," not "wives" is used to define marriage, and Deuteronomy 17:17 forbids a king from taking multiple wives, so David was probably not supposed to take on two more wives, either.

We aren't told whether Michal hears of this then asks to be remarried to someone else—how betrayed would you feel if you risked your life and turned against your father to save a man, then he went and found him 2 more wives?—or if Saul forced Michal into a new marriage. In 2 Samuel, we will see Michal returned to David, but we also will see a change in how she feels about him (2 Samuel 6:16).

David had strong faith in God, but women were definitely a weakness of his.
Top

David Seeks Asylum

David hides out in several different locations while Saul is hunting him down. Many people are on David's side and eventually he is accompanied by an army of 400 men.
Top

Nob

At one point, in 1 Samuel 21, David requests food from Ahimelech, a priest in Nob. Ahimelech does not have any bread but the shewbread meant for the priests. David lies to Ahimelech, suggesting Saul had sent him on mission rather than admitting he was running for his life. Seeking to help David, Ahimelech offers him and his men the shewbread provided they are not unclean from sleeping with their wives. Jesus refers to this in Matthew 12:2-4. People debate whether Jesus was condoning David's deceit and subsequent breaking of the law or if Jesus was making a point about the Pharisees hypocrisy.^[10] I believe Jesus was pointing out that people praised David's unlawful act but condemned Jesus' lawful act. David was clearly forgiven by God and made peace with Him concerning this action, though the details of this process are not recorded in the text.

When Saul discovers Ahimelech's role in aiding David, he is furious. Saul orders not just Ahimelech killed, but all the priests in Nob. Saul has 45 priests killed, along with women, and children. Clearly, Saul was possessed with an ungodly anger. Ahimelech's son Abiathar escapes the mayhem and joins David.
Top

Gath

David hides in Gath, a Philistine city, twice. The first time David flees to Gath, he worries that people will recognize him. David feigns like he is mad and is taken before Achish, the king of Gath. Seeing his insanity, Achish sends him away, saying he has no use for a madman. The second time, David is more sure of himself and is able to convince Achish to give him a place to dwell in the country, specifically the city of Ziklag.

By the time David comes to Gath the second time, Achish has likely heard that Saul is trying to kill David. This makes David the enemy of Achish's enemy. Using the principle "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," Achish makes peace with David. David furthers this assumption by deceiving Achish into believing an attack he carried out on the Geshurites was actually against his own people.

As I read this passage, I couldn't help think sometimes the enemy of my enemy should make my enemy my friend. In Achish's case, David was actually the bigger enemy; David was a man of God and would not hesitate to carry out battles to defeat the Philistines at God's command, but Saul was not so keen on listening to God. Under Saul's reign, the Israelites were destined to lose battles (previously witnessed), but under David's reign, they would thrive. It would have been in Achish's best interest to kill David and use it as a peace broker with Saul. This is one of the many examples that show when you are against God, you are against yourself. God will always lead us in a direction that benefits our best interest.
Top

David Lets Saul Live

On a few occasions, God places David in the position to kill Saul. God is showing both David and Saul that He has chosen David; where Saul has been unsuccessful at killing David over several attempts, David walks into situations where he could easily kill Saul without even trying. In both cases, the person with him advises him to take advantage of the position God has placed him in, but David refuses. David says Saul was anointed by God, thus it isn't right for him to take his life. Instead, David takes the opportunity to prove to Saul he means him no harm. When the encounter passes, David shows Saul a relic of the event, proving he was both undetected and within range to kill the king. At this revelation, Saul always admits his sin and ceases his pursuit of David momentarily. Why this revelation does not stick with Saul is unclear.
Top

Once Anointed, Always Anointed?

This passage led me to reflect on the doctrine of "once saved, always saved" or perseverance of the saints. This doctrine persists in denominations that stem from Calvinism. Baptists and other evangelical denominations hold this position as well.^[12] The idea is that once a person professes belief in Jesus, they are guaranteed salvation. The point of contention is whether this is dependent on their choices after professing belief. There are many people who claim to be "non-practicing" Christians; many of whom will say they believe in Jesus they just don't follow the Bible. Opponents of "once saved, always saved" attack the teaching because many who grew up in churches that adhere to the doctrine grow up to believe they can stray from Jesus' teachings but because they believe in him they're OK. I'll talk about the doctrine itself in a post by itself so that I can cover it in more detail, but right now I want to discuss this idea as it relates to how David viewed Saul.

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.1 John 3:9

We are told that those who are of God will not sin, which means once a person confesses Jesus is Lord, he/she should not be actively committing sin. This can't mean they never sin or that they won't receive eternal life if they sin once, because Moses sinned (everybody sins). He may not have seen the promised land, but he was taken to Heaven and appeared at the transfiguration of Jesus (Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-8, and Luke 9:28-36). However, the devil knows Jesus lives, chooses to sin, and will not be in Heaven. So where does that leave us? Personally, I believe it's about open rebellion versus minor slip-ups. Moses gets caught up in the moment and does something he shouldn't have; likely, he repents of the actions after he realizes his mistake. The devil, on the other hand, rebels openly, consciously choosing to do what God has told him not to do. If you have chosen Jesus, you will not choose to rebel or remain in sin (though you may fall into it on occasion), but if you have not chosen Jesus, you will rebel just as Satan did. We have to remember that people can claim to believe without actually believing.

Imagine you're on a boat and it begins to capsize, so you and your friend throw out a life boat. People from the boat will make their way out of the water and into the life boat. As long as they remain in the boat (and the boat has no holes), they will stay afloat, but if one chooses to jump off the boat, they may drown. Similarly, as long as we choose God we are guaranteed to stay afloat. The question is what will happen if we choose to jump ship? Did Saul truly repent, or was he in open rebellion against God?

David's insistence that Saul was anointed by God and thus should not be harmed begs the question, what did ancient Israelites believe. Samuel has told David he would be king and anointed him. Samuel has also informed Saul that the kingdom was being taken from him. Yet, when David is given the opportunity to kill Saul and claim the throw, he choses not to. Did David think "once anointed, always anointed?" Will Saul be in heaven despite his treatment of David and the priests?

David's perspective represents that of non-judgment. David knows that at one point, God chose Saul; that makes Saul a chosen person by God and worthy of respect. Saul's sinfulness is between him and God. While God may have placed David in situations that gave David the advantage and ability to kill Saul, God never issues a direct command to David that such a thing is to be done. David understand his anointing to give him authority as king after Saul has died of natural causes or in battle.
Top

References

1. "Michal". Wikipedia. 2016
2. Genesis 2:24
3. 1 Timothy 3:2,12
4. 1 Timothy 5:9
5. Matthew 19:9
6. LifeJourney Church. "David loved Jonathan more than women". Would Jesus Discriminate?. 2016
7. Musgrove, Jared. "The Truth About David and Jonathan". The Village Church. March 7, 2012
8. Guzik, David. "Jonathan's Final Attempt to Reconcile His Father and David". Blue Letter Bible. 2001
9. Biography.com Editors. "Anastasia Biography". Biography. June 22, 2016
10. YellowJacket. "How Does Jesus' Argument From David and the Showbread Work". Hermeneutics Stack Exchange. January 12, 2014
11. Holman Bible Publishers. Holman KJV Study Bible. pg. 501. 2014
12. "Perseverance of the Saints". Wikipedia. 2016