1 Chronicles 10: Saul's Death

1 Chronicles version of 1 Samuel 31 & 2 Samuel 1, discussing how Saul died.

Introduction

We're only given a single chapter on Saul by the chronicler, who spends most of his time talking about David. It is interesting to me because this is a typical pattern found in most cultures. Leaders who disappoint us are not spoken of as often as those who carry significant impact or are loved. By the time the chronicler was born, Saul would have been just a tiny speck in history. Although he was the first king of Israel, he hadn't been very remarkable and it was David's line that inherited the throne. Although the chronicler does not go into great detail about Saul, we are given two important confirmations in this chapter.
Top

How Did Saul Die?

Many people complain that the account of Saul's death is a contradiction. In 1 Samuel 31 we are told that Saul killed himself, but in 2 Samuel 1, an Amalekite tells David he killed Saul. People often forget that 1 and 2 Samuel are actually the same book, and the two passages were likely written by the same author. Which means the person likely knew and meant to give two different accounts. The important distinction is that in the first account we are being told what happened, but in the second, a man is telling his version of the story. This man isn't the first man to lie. Since David and Saul were are odds, the man probably thought if David believed he had killed Saul, he would gain favor. 1 Chronicles 10 confirms that Saul killed himself, further supporting the theory that the Amalekite man was lying to David.
Top

Condemnation

The Chronicler only gives enough information on Saul to explain why Saul was condemned as king. We see him condemned for consulting a familiar spirit and for not abiding in God's law. Despite these transgressions, the Israelites still rescued his body to give him a proper burial. This should remind us that no matter how a person choses to live their life, we have a duty to treat humans with dignity in both life and death.
Top

References

2 Samuel: Tying Up Loose Ends

A few tidbits and a summary of what I thought after completing 2 Samuel.

Introduction

2 Samuel takes us through the rest of Samuel's life and the end of David's reign. When we casually read the Bible, we have a tendency to false-glorify people. In our minds, Biblical heroes like David become great examples and we forget that they were just men. God says that David was a man after His own heart, but David messes up, too. If you haven't read about David in a while, as you read 2 Samuel thoroughly, you will definitely think to yourself "this isn't how I think of David!" We often assume that because David was a man after God's heart, he must have been a great person, which is sort of true, but David wasn't perfect. David was favored by God because of His faith, not his works. Even back then, God it was faith over works. God does not change (Malachi 3:6), and people did not change so drastically between David's time and Jesus' time that God had to change how we come to Him. We are incapable of perfection, and so was David. The lesson we should carry from David is that strong faith and the desire to follow God will take us far, but when we fall, we should be quick to repent and get back up.
Top

Name Origins: Saul & Samuel

Some claim a contradict with Saul and Samuel based upon the meaning of their names.^[1] Saul means "asked for or prayed for," while Samuel means "name of God" or "God has heard."^[2][3] The complaint is that when Hannah names Samuel in 1 Samuel 20, she does so because "Because I have asked him of the Lord." This reasoning fits the meaning of the name Saul moreso than that of Samuel. Those who make this claim, argue that the narrative of Samuel's birth is actually Saul's but was changed to give credence to David and Samuel and downplay Saul's credibility.^[1]

What doesn't make sense, however, is why not change Hannah's words too? It would be so easy to change the narrative to suggest Hannah said she named Samuel because "God has heard" her request. If they were editing the text, why not just change the whole thing? I'd wager Hannah's exact words were less memorable than who she gave birth to, and thus an even easier forgery opportunity than swapping characters all together. I think it is more reasonable to assume that the narrative always referred to Samuel, but we have misinterpreted Hannah's reason for naming her son.

In the case of Saul, the people asked and prayed for a king. God wasn't really fond of the idea, but He let it happen anyway. In the case of Samuel, however, when Hannah asked for a son, God heard her plea and chose to grant her request out of love. Hannah is naming her son because "God heard" that which she asked. She is declaring the "name of God" because with God, she would not have given birth. Samuel's name is given as praise to God. Most commentators do not give credence to this complaint because the names are so similar in meaning.^[4][5]
Top

Eglah vs. Michal

Another issue that comes up when discussing the book of Samuel, is that of Michal. Michal was Saul's daughter and the first wife of Samuel. She doesn't have any children (2 Samuel 6:23), but she raised her sisters children (2 Samuel 21:8). Some believe that Eglah and Michal are actually the same person. This tradition came about to excuse David's excessive number of wives, but there is nothing in the Bible that suggests they were in fact the same person. People who believe they are have also concocted a story to explain Eglah's child, since Michal was said to have never given birth. It is an interesting thought, but it has no merit in the Bible text.
Top

References

1. "Saul". Wikipedia; visited January 2017
2. Mike Campbell. "Saul". Behind the Name; visited January 2017
3. Mike Campbell. "Samuel". Behind the Name; visited January 2017
4. Matthew Henry. "1 Samuel 1 Commentary", via BibleStudyTools.com; visited January 2017
5. "1 Samuel 1:20 Commentary", via Bible Hub; visited January 2017
6. Tamar Kadari. "Michal, Daughter of Saul: Midrash". Jewish Women's Archive. March 20, 2009

2 Samuel 21-24: Contradictions on David's Final Days?

The final bit of information revealed, concerning a census carried out by David, contains 5 points of contention. All 5 supposed "contradictions" are discussed below.

Introduction

The final chapters of 2 Samuel cover David's final days, but also some information that may be from his very earliest days as king. Many people assert than these final 4 chapters serve as an appendix for the Book of Samuel. The final bit of information concerning a census carried out by David contains 5 points of contention. All 5 supposed "contradictions" are discussed below.
Top

A Famine in the Land

3 Birds waiting to be fed
Photocredit: FreeImages.com/kbralgpe

2 Samuel 21 seems to take us back in time to David's earliest days as king. A time-jump is not specified, nor are there explicit events or identifiers given to predict he year. However, when the events of the chapter take place, God says the events are punishment for an act Saul committed. It seems unlikely—though not impossible—that God would have waited so long to act. Chronologically, we have already seen David sin and be punished so it seems logical that the punishment for Saul's act came shortly after Saul's death. Scholars agree that the last few chapters of 2 Samuel (covered in this post) are actually an appendix, highlight prominent events.^[1]

Saul's crime, which invokes God's wrath, is the slaughter of the Gibeonites. God actually blames the crime on Saul's entire family, attributing the breach of contract to the "bloodthirsty house of Saul."^[2] It is not specified when Saul launched this attack on Gibeon, but long before Saul's war, in Joshua 9:3-17, the Israelites had sworn an oath of peace with the Gibeonites. God does not take kindly to those who break their oaths. Can you imagine if He suddenly decided Jesus wasn't enough to get into Heaven? A promise is worthless if the promiser doesn't uphold his end of the bargain. Thus, God punishes the people with a 3 year famine, which occurs during David's reign.
Top

Just Following Orders?

At first glance, it may seem rash to punish the whole nation for Saul's crime, but it brings us to the question of where our responsibility to God and our own actions truly lies. Saul did not slaughter the Gibeonites by himself; surely an army carried out the act under his command. Is the army guiltless because they were "just following orders?"

The book of Daniel tells us that after king Nebucheduzzer issued a decree to bow to a pagan idol, 3 of God's people refused to bow and God protected those people from the king's wrath. Similarly, the Pharisees and Saudeces and all the elite in Israel wanted Jesus to go somewhere and sit down, but Jesus followed God's command above the government. In the end times, the world government will require the mark of the beast to participate in society, but to take it is to sentence yourself to the real and final second death.

While it is true that Saul may have been angry if a soldier were to speak up, had all the elders and all the soldier spoke up on the matter, Saul would have been forced to comply or fight the entire army. The fact that the battle played out according to Saul's plan shows that the army carried out the order despite knowing the oath of peace Israel had made. This places at least a portion of the blame on the soldiers.

Today, we face the same types of questions. 2 years ago, the courts attempted to convict Oskar Gröning for his role at a Nazi Death camp.^[3] It wasn't Gröning's idea to start a death camp, but he was not only silent about the issue, he aided in the pipeline that ultimately brought people to their death. Similarly, the German people elected Hitler, just as the American people have elected Trump, despite the hate-filled rhetoric that he ignited during his campaign, and just as the Israelites begged for a king. While the citizens may have not borne all the blame, they shared a portion of it.
Top

Trials and Tribulations

Most people think life as one of God's chosen people is akin to life in the garden of Eden. We assume that because we have faith and because God loves us, nothing bad will ever happen, but there are numerous Biblical examples to dispel this myth. The famine inflicted upon the kingdom during David's reign is one of them.

We aren't told if the famine occurred before or after David's incident with Bathsheba, but we are told that it isn't punishment for that act, and aside from that act, David's heart followed God. Although God promises evil will befall David due to the murder and adultery he committed over Bathsheba, these are all fulfilled through Absalom, so the famine occurred for seemingly no reason at all. David repented of his sin with Bathsheba and was anointed (i.e., favored) by God for the entirety of his reign. Unlike Saul, David's role was never revoked by God.

This goes to show that even though David was appointed, favored, and faithful, he still faced adversity. We should expect the same in our lives.
Top

Making it Right

David approaches the Gibeonites to right the wrong Israel committed in breaching the treaty. The Gibeonites inform David that they don't want wealth (i.e., silver or gold) or the death of the Israelites; instead the ask for revenge on Saul's house. Specifically they wanted to exact revenge by killing 7 of Saul's sons. If Saul's sons were leaders in the massacre, as insinuated in 2 Samuel 21:1, it makes sense that the Gibeonites wanted direct revenge on them.

David obliges, but spares Mephibosheth (the son of Jonathan that David has taken in as his own). The 7 sons David sends are from just 2 of Saul's wives. Rizpah, a concubine of Saul's, had 2 sons that were taken. The other 5 were the sons of Adriel and Mreab, the grandsons of Saul.

We are also informed that Michal had raised these 5 men for her sister (Merab). Since Michal never had children of her own (2 Samuel 6:23), it must have been hard to have all 5 of her surrogate children ripped from her arms. This is also interesting in the sense that Michal's position as first wife of the king should have placed the these sons in a position of safety. We aren't told how many of Saul's children had sons, nor how many of Saul's sons survived. Thus, it is possible that only these 7 were available (aside from Mephibosheth). It is also possible that these are 7 that participated in the battle.

The Gibeonites waste no time hanging the men. Presumably, since the Gibeonites were not God's people and were incharge of the hanging, God's law to remove the bodies by evening was not obeyed. Of course, as strangers in the land they were supposed to follow the law as well, but we've seen how poorly Israel was at keeping the law; I doubt they were in the position to enforce the law on external nations. Thus, after the hanging, Rizpah stays to protect the bodies of the men from desecration. She goes through great lengths to keep birds and such from lighting on their bodies. When Daivd learns of Rizpah's act, he ensures the sons of Saul are properly buried. David also collects the remnants of Saul and Jonathan, so that the family might be buried together. Once this is complete, God lifts the famine from the land.
Top

The Philistines and Their Giants

The Philistines apparently had an entourage of giant men at their disposal for war. At some point in time, they send a second giant to fight the Israelites. This time it is a man named Ishbibenob. Ishbibenob is killed by Abishai, the brother of Joab and a captain in David's army. Unlike David who volunteers to kill Goliath in a one-on-one battle, Abishai kills Ishbibenob to save David's life, which means it probably wasn't a scheduled one-on-one fight.

Another clue that these events occur early in David's leadership manifests in the reaction of the soldiers. They are adament that David no longer fight with them. Throughout the other battles in 2 Samuel, we have seen David sitting out of the action. If the battle in question was one of David's earlier battles as king, it would explain why he doesn't fight in most of the battles discussed in the book.

In addition to learning about Abashai's victory, we are given a list of Israelites who slew the giants of the Philistines. The list includes Sibbechai, Elhanan, and Jonathan (David's nephew). This information is probably meant to inform us that there were brave and mighty men in addition to David in the the army. Unfortunately, there is controversy over 2 Samuel 21:19. Most English translates read that Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath, but some believe the original translation reads that Elhanan slew Goliath.

If 2 Samuel 21:19 asserted that Elhanan killed Goliath, it would conflict with 1 Samuel 17 and 1 Chronicles 20:5. Part of the reason for this confusion is the text in 2 Samuel, which is actually broken. However, scholars agree that is remarkably similar to that of 1 Chronicles 20:5. It is easier to commit a scribe error and end up with the text we have today that to end up with the text that says Elhanan killed Goliath.

I think it's important to note that the Book of Samuel is not actually 2 books with separate authors, but one book (see the introduction to the book from further information). If someone was to go back and change the text to make David look good, they would have had access to both parts of the book. If they desired to alter history,it seems unlikely they would miss the text in 2 Samuel 21. It would seem more likely if someone altered Samuel, but the contradiction occurred in Kings or Chronicles, books they may not have had access to. The most sensible conclusion is that Elhanan killed Goliath's brother.
Top

The Psalm

David is the author of many psalms and one is present in 2 Samuel 22. The gist of the psalm is praise to God. David describes God as the rock of salvation. Isaiah 28:16 prophesies Jesus to be our rock and it is confirmed by Jesus in Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, and Luke 20:17. David also discusses the righteousness of God's way. He is reiterating the fact that God's law is good and just.
Top

David's Census and Choice

The final narrative of 2 Samuel details a choice God gives David in the punishment of Israel. The punishment is both for Israel's behavior and a census David carries out improperly. It is a difficult passage to cover without studying because the retelling in 1 Chronicles 21 appears to contradict the narrative of 2 Samuel 24.
Top

The First "Contradiction"

2 Samuel 24:1 tells us that God was angry with Israel and moved David to number the armies of Israel and the armies of Judah. 1 Chronicles 21:1 tells us it was actually Satan that told David to carry out this task. Many would consider this a contradiction, but when you stop to think about it both statements could be true.

Satan has limited power; he can only do what God allows. Remember in Job, even though it is Satan causing trouble for Job, God gives Satan permission to do so and sets the boundaries of what Satan can and cannot do. Based on 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1, the way this event played out is that Satan thought to tempt David, and God, who was already angry with Israel, allowed Satan to do so. Thus both had a hand in creating the feeling that David should carry out this task.

Apologetic Christian ministries agree that Satan merely carried out a task God allowed. Why did God allow it? We are told in 2 Samuel 24:1 that God was angry with Israel. Israel has cast aside David easily to follow Absalom, and even after returning him to the throne, they had let a rift come between the northern and southern kingdoms which led to Sheba declaring himself king. In the midst of all this fighting, there was likely some idolatry going on as well. I say this because (i) if everyone had been following God, they should have been on the same page about David being king, and (ii) Israel has a long history of Idolatry. God was probably planning to punish Israel anyway. Since David was being righteous, at the time, God may have been sparing Israel for the sake of David. The devil's temptation plot would bring about God's Will to punish Israel, even though Satan thought it would be a victory for himself. The author of 1 Samuel 24 gives us the narrative from the position that God is control of all things; they want us to remember despite the devil meddling in the plot, God has the ultimate authority and the course of action worked toward God's Will. Alternately, the author of 1 Chronicles 21 gives us the detailed picture; this author reminds us that despite God being in control, the devil can deceive us into thinking we are doing something of God that is actually sinful or taint Godly acts with sin.^[5]

The act of carrying out a census isn't actually a sin. God commands Israel to carry out 2 censuses while they are in the wilderness; these are recorded in Numbers. In fact, God instructs the Israelites on how a census should be carried out in Exodus 30. Based on God's law, each man who was counted was to pay a sum to God. David doesn't do this, however. This is where sin enters. God may have put the idea of numbering the Israelites in David's heart, but it was Satan who told David he didn't have to collect the sum and offer it to God.
Top

The Second "Contradiction"

Joab, who is placed in charge of carrying out the task, seems to understand that David's method is wrong. He pushes back on the command, but eventually carries out the order because he is loyal to David. He finds that there are 800,000 men in Israel's army and 500,000 in Judah's. This bring us to another "contradiction." 1 Chronicles 21:5 says that there were 1,100000 men in Israel's army and 470,000 in Judah's.

It would appear that only one of these figures could be right, however, we look at how the men were numbered we see that the discrepancies comes from which units were considered part of the army. It is important to note that the number given in 2 Samuel 24:9 is in reference to the valiant men, while the numbers given in 1 Chronicles 21:5 is the total number of swordsmen. Also note that in 2 Samuel 24:9 only the men of Israel are described as swordsmen, leaving the possibility that the men numbered by Judah could be both swordsmen and other army personnel.

Chronicles actually gives us a possible method to determine where these extra men came from. 2 Chronicles 1:14 informs us that there was a 12,000 man army over the chariots in Jerusalem (commanded by Solomon). Perhaps the author of Samuel considered these men to be dedicated to Jerusalem, as opposed to Judah or Israel, and did not include them in the count. In addition, 1 Chronicles 27:1-15 tells us there was an Israelite army, meant to represent the entire nation, which consisted of 24,000 men from each of the 12 tribes. This army included people of Judah, but was considered for Israel. It has been suggested that these men were not included by the author of 2 Samuel (perhaps they were not valiant). 12 units with 24,0000 men give us an army of 288,000 men plus the 12,000 charioteers in Jerusalem is 300,000 men, the exact difference been 1 Chronicles' 1,100,000 men and 2 Samuel's 800,000 men fighting for Israel.^[6] Note that it is only a possibility; these armies may have developed after Joab numbered the armies, and the discrepancy may simply hang on which units were considered valiant.

Of course, there's still the issue of Judah's men. 1 Chronicles says Judah had 30,000 less men than 2 Samuel does. It makes sense that there would be more men in the total army than the number of valiant men counted as was the case of Israel, but how are there more valiant men than the total number of men in the army? 2 Samuel 6:1 may give us that answer. When David moved the ark, he gathered together 30,000 men to take the ark to Jerusalem. These men aren't described as swordsmen (remember I pointed out that 2 Samuel 24:9 doesn't call Judah's 500,000 swordsmen), but they would be considered valiant as they were entrusted with moving the holiest object the Israelites possessed. The author of 2 Samuel likely included these men where the Chronicles author did not.^[6]

In a census, people usually keep precise numbers for demographic purposes. Today, census results can be broken down based on race, age, gender, and many more factors. Similarly, Joab probably collected numbers per unit and per tribe to bring back to David. The scribes would have tallied these numbers to present a "total." Each author included the total number for the people they were worried about, in the author of Chronicles' case, swordsmen, and in the author of Samuel's case, valiant men. Thus the totals do not conflict, they are merely totals for different demographics.
Top

The Aftermath

After David hear's Joab's report, his heart turns against him. As a man, David was imperfect and prone to sin, like all of us, but as a righteous man, David was quickly made aware of his own sins. David is quick to repent of his actions, because he is eager to please God.

God sends a message to David through the prophet Gad. In this message, God gives David the option of three different punishments for the kingdom. David could chose from 7 years of famine, 3 months fleeing his enemies, or 3 days of pestilence.

The 7 years of famine seems the worst as it is the longest and Israel had not had time to prepare. They would likely have to borrow food from their neighbors who were also their sworn enemies. 3 months of fleeing, however, provided David with an option that would likely not endanger civilians. Only he and his army would be displaced by the punishment. Of course, that doesn't account for the treatment of the people by the invading force. Pestilence for 3 days would have the shortest impact, but effect the whole nation. Also, 3 days of pestilence might actually kill more than 7 years of famine depending on how God carried out the pestilence. It must have been a hard decision for David to make.

In the end, David chooses pestilence (probably because of it's short-term infliction). 70,000 people die during the 3 days of pestilence. The angel sent to carry out the judgement is stopped by God from destroying Jerusalem (another example highlighting God's supreme authority and power). Meanwhile, David begs for mercy on the people, reminding God that it is he who sinned and the people were but sheep following his command. This is the sin of a true leader, willing to take the blame for his own mistakes. Some leaders will blame their followers for a failure, but a true leader will admit he lead the people in the wrong direction (or didn't lead at all) and take ownership of the failure. David, thinking the punishment is solely for the poorly carried out census, is telling God that it is his fault and his alone that the action occurred. Now that's some brave, honest, and righteous intercession!

God sends the message of how to end the pestilence through Gad. God desires an altar to be built on the threshing-flood of Araunah, a Jebusite. The location of this threshing floor is what we know today as the Temple Mount. This is also the place where Isaac was almost sacrificed.^[1] David was to offer upon the altar once it was finished, as well. Since the pestilence was supposed to end after 3 days, I assume these actions was carried out on the third day. After David offers the sacrifices, God shows mercy on the people.
Top

The Third "Contradiction"

1 Chronicles 21 disagrees with 2 Samuel on the length of the famine. In 2 Samuel Gad offers David a 7 year famine, but in 1 Chronicles 21:11-12, Gad offers Samuel a 3 year famine. Some assert that this a copyist error, but others have harmonized the passages. 2 Samuel 24 follows verses discussing a 3 year famine that occurred for unrelated reasons. The soldiers took a little less than a year to complete the census, which may have occurred just after the initial 3 year famine. Had God exacted another 3 year famine (as suggested in 1 Chronicles 21:12), Israel would have suffered approximately 7 years total in famine (as suggested in 2 Samuel 24). Gad could have offered Samuel 3 additional years of famine or 7 total years of famine, and it would technically be the same thing.^[12] The wording different supports this idea as well. In 2 Samuel, Gad asks if 7 years of famine will come upon the land< which can be construed as "will you take on an additional 3 years of famine?" or "will this famine continue another 3 years" if they were in the middle of the famine. This matches the text of 1 Chronicles 21, in which Gad offers 3 years of famine.
Top

The Fourth "Contradiction"

The fourth "contradiction" of this passage is in reference to how much is spent to purchase the threshing floor. Surprisingly, Araunah is willing to give the threshing-floor to David freely, but David insists that it must be paid for. 2 Samuel 24:24 says David bought the threshing floor and the oxen to sacrifice for 50 shekels of silver; this would be roughly $307 today (not accounting for inflation).^[7][8]

1 Chronicles 21:25 gives a different price: 600 shekels of gold. On first glance many people see the different numbers and assume this is a contradiction. However, it makes perfect sense. Note that 2 Samuel lists the price for the threshing floor and the oxen while 1 Chronicles lists the price for the place. David bought the threshing floor and oxen separate from the whole property. Realizing God had plans for the space, David went ahead and bought the whole property. He only spent the 50 shekels to buy the threshing floor and oxen, which would have been worth less than the whole property. However, after he purchased the whole property, he had spent 600 shekels (which probably includes the 50 shekels paid for the piece of the property known as the threshing floor).^[1][10]
Top

The Fifth "Contradiction"

2 Samuel lists the man whom David purchases from as Araunah, but 1 Chronicles identifies him as Ornan. People may quibble over these name changes, but we have to remember that name variations are quite frequent. In the Bible we have actual name changes such as Abram/Abraham, Jacob/Israel, Saul/Paul, etc., but in life we see variant spellings of names as well. Take for instance the name common name John. John and Shawn are actually rooted in the same name, with variants such as Jean and Sean (French), Ivan, Juan, Yannick, Johannes, Han, Jonas, Evan, and Shane (just to name a few) appearing in other languages.^[9] Similarly, Ornan may be a variant of Araunah. Possibly pronounced the same way, the authors simply spelled the name differently (i.e., Geoffery vs. Jeffery).^[10] Strong's Lexicon identifies Ornan as an orthographical variation of the name Araunah.^[11]
Top

David's Final Words

2 Samuel 23 recounts David's final words and includes a list of the great men that served under David.

Interestingly Joab is not listed. This proves that God and the scribe who penned Samuel probably felt Joab's act of murdering Amasa was wrong and lowered his importance. Since Joab is not the focal point of the story, we aren't given much information on his reaction to his own actions. Thus, we cannot say for certain if he repented of his crimes later in life or if he continued unrepentant.

One of the great men listed is Ittai, however this Ittai is not the same Ittai mentioned earlier in 2 Samuel. The Ittai mention in this chapter is an Israelite, specifically from the Tribe of Benjamin.^[4]

Nonetheless, the men listed as great in this passage are being praised for their victories in war, including the act of killing men from the enemy's army. Yet, in each of their cases, they were fighting to protect their land and for God. Of course, the opposing army would have claimed they were fighting for god, or the gods, as well, but the Lord is the only God there is and He was on Israel's side. We see the same issue today; many people take up cause to fight for "god" but how do we know they are fighting for the Lord? I believe motive for the war is a major indicator of who the army is serving, but the only sure-fire method of differentiating, is prayer.

The great men of David's army answered the call of God into war—on faith. All of the people of God said to be great took a leap of faith to get where they are. This is something to remember!

Another thing to remember, is that while these men were praised for their victories, I can't help but think they were remorseful when they returned. Having spoken to veterans, I know that the toll of battle is hard. God did not create us with the intent of us killing each other, let alone in mass numbers; our brains and hearts are not meant to handle such sights. I imagine these men were quite humbled by their experience.
Top

References

1. William MacDonald. Believer's Bible Commentary, pg. 345-349. 1995
2. 2 Samuel 21:1
3. Associated Press. "Oskar Gröning: German court backs Auschwitz guard's conviction". The Guardian. November 28 2016
4. "Ittai". BibleStudyTools.com. 2017
5. Troy Lacey. "Contradiction: Who Incited David to Count the Fighting Men of Israel—God or Satan?". Answers in Genesis. March 31, 2015
6. "Is there a contradiction between 2 Samuel 24:9 and 1 Chronicles 21:5, when the number of soldiers Joab counts comes up different?". Bible.org. January 1, 2001
7. "Convert Shekel (Biblical Hebrew) to Gram". UnitCoverters.net; visited January 2017
8. "Price of Silver". APMEX.com; visited January 12, 2017
9. Mike Campbell. "John". Behind the Name; visited January 14, 2017
10. Kyle Runge. "Balancing the Budget". Answers in Genesis. August 23, 2011
11. James Strong. "H728. Aruanah". Strong's Concordance, via BlueLetterBible.org; visited January 2017
12. Michael Belknap. "A Famine of Three or Seven Years?". Answers in Genesis. August 14, 2012

2 Samuel 1-4: After Saul's Death

The death of a leader often brings about chaos, especially in a monarchy.

Introduction

It isn't a surprise that after Saul died, David became king, because we know that God had already chosen David to be king. If we paid close attention in 1 Samuel, we probably could have guessed the kingdom would be divided over this issue. Unlike countries today, which have lengthy succession plans, Israel didn't have a law for how to handle the death of the king. The closest thing to a law for who should take over the throne was the idea that God would appoint a rule. Of course, as we saw when the Israelites were in the wilderness and even in Saul's behavior, the Israelites didn't always recognize or believe God when someone was appointed.
Top

David's Reaction to Saul's Death

It is an Amalekite who brings news of Saul's death to David. The nameless Amalekite has his own version of what happened to Saul, which loosely follows the narrative given in 1 Samuel. According to the Amalekite it is he who kills Saul, which isn't necessarily a conflict, though it doesn't seem entirely truthful. We are told that Saul begs his armor bearer to end his life; these words match what the Amalekite says was asked of himself by Saul (1 Samuel 31:4 vs 2 Samuel 1:9-10). We know that the Amalekite can't be Saul's armorbearer because the armorbearer kills himself (1 Samuel 31:5). If Saul didn't immediately die, he may have asked the passing Amalekite to kill him, but it seems more likely the Amalekite found the dead Saul before the Philistines and raided his body hoping to get a reward from David.^[2] Half-truths about Saul and David's broken friendship probably plagued the kingdom the same way the rumor mill churns out stories about celebrities today. Some people likely believed there was truth to Saul's paranoia, or that David harbored ill will towards Saul because of all that had transpired. In the Amalekite's mind, proof of Saul's death to David would earn him a reward.

Unknown to the Amalekite, however, was David's respect for Saul. Not only does David (and his men) mourn the loss of the king and his sons, he has the Amalekite executed for killing God's anointed king. This sent a message to the surrounding kingdoms including Israel, that David had nothing to do with the king's death and was an ally to Saul. It proved that David had not been trying to kill Saul as some people believed.

During this time, David offers a lamentation on the death of his king and his friend Jonathan. I discussed the misconception of David's words in 2 Samuel 1:26 when I discussed the "bromance"/friendship of David and Jonathan a few posts ago, but it is worth noting again that in this passage David is not saying he loves Jonathan in a sexual manner. He was saying that the love of their friendship was more powerful than the romantic loves he had with women. This makes perfect sense given that David's original wife was given away (or left him) and he shared his affections with multiple wives. Jonathan's friendship was more stable, more sure, and more important than romantic love. People have different purposes in our lives and thus impacts. In today's society we often romanticize the idea of marrying our best friend, however in David and Jonathan's era, men and women weren't really friends. The truth is, it's likely that David's wives were just pretty to look at and fun to sleep with; he probably didn't have deep philosophical conversations with them. This placed Jonathan in a much more important role; David could find new wives that fit those criteria, but he couldn't replace Jonathan so easily. This is what he meant by a love greater than women.

David teaches this lamentation to the people and records it in the Book of Jasher. The Book of Jasher, mentioned in Joshua 10:13 as well, is a missing book of the Bible. Scholars have not been able to locate the original Book of Jasher, though there is a forgery from the 18th century in circulation.^[1] The original book is thought to have contained poetry and songs, like the lamentation David wrote for Saul.
Top

Israel and Judah

Eventually, Israel permanently becomes two kingdoms; it is the southern kingdom of Judah that the Jews of today from which both descend and receive their name. At the end of 1 Samuel, we see that David favored Judah because it was to Judah's elders that he sent the spoils of war. This favoritism likely stemmed from where his supporters were, because it is the people of Judah that crown David king after Saul's death. The northern part of Israel chooses Saul's son Ishbosheth.

Ishbosheth is 40 years old when he becomes king of Israel and reigns 2 years. David is crowned king of Judah at 30 and reigns 7 years. Once the two kingdoms are united, David rules another 33 years.
Top

Who is Ishbosheth

When I read 2 Samuel 2:12, I was quite confused. In 1 Samuel 14:49 we are told that Saul has three sons and given each of their names. We are told all three of these men died during Saul's last battle, at the end of 1 Samuel (1 Samuel 31:2). Of course when I went back to look at the two verses, I saw that different people are listed. Jonathan and Melchishua are listed in both verses, but the third son in 1 Samuel 14:49 is Ishui and in 1 Samuel 31:2, it is Abinadab. Now we come to 2 Samuel 2:12 and find the mysterious Ishbosheth has taken the throne. Someone somewhere has probably logged this as a contradiction of the Bible, but there are a couple reasons why this isn't a contradiction and why it makes plenty of sense.

The first thing we should note is that 1 Samuel 14:49 doesn't say Saul only had 3 sons. Saul had 3 sons at that time. Thus we know Saul's oldest sons were probably Jonathan, Ishui and Melchishua. 2 Samuel confirms that Saul had a concubine (2 Samuel 3:7), and assumably he had multiple wives, which means he probably had a lot of children.

The second point to be made is that 1 Samuel 31:2 could be referring to Saul's legitimate sons. We know Saul had a concubine and some of his sons were likely born to a lower station than their brothers. Jonathan was the son Saul wanted to succeed him, Abinadab and Melchishua were probably Jonathan's full brothers and next in line. Ishui may have already been dead or the son of concubine. We don't know what happened to Ishui, who was by this theory probably should have taken the throne in the absence of Jonathan, Melchishua, and Abinadab. Maybe Ishui died in battle or sided with David; he is only mentioned the one time.
Top

Warring

Naturally, there would be some animosity between the two kings. Ishbosheth places Abner, a relative and confidant of Saul's, in a position of power, while David's army is captained by the bothers Joab, Abishai, and Asahel. Asahel is killed by Abner, sparking a bitter rivalry between the remaining brothers and Abner. As the war between the two kings continued, God strengthened David, while Saul's son grew weaker.

During this warring, Ishbosheth accuses Abner of trying to sleep with one of Saul's concubines. This action seems to be indicative of Abner attempting to usurp the throne from Ishbosheth.^[2] We learn that the whole time Abner defended Ishbosheth, he knew that God had appointed David to be king. Perhaps Abner's outburst is proof of his loyalty to Saul's house. After the accusation, Abner becomes angry and seeks an alliance with David. Ishbosheth fears Abner, so he does not speak up and seemingly goes along with Abner's plan.

The terms of the alliance required David's wife, Michal, be returned to him. Although we are not told how Michal felt about her new husband, we are told that when she is taken from him, he weeps. With the treaty in place, it seems that Abner (and Ishbosheth) are ready to reliquinish their claim to the throne, making David the official king. However, Joab still doesn't trust Abner. Without consulting David, Joab and Abishai kill Abner.

Despite the warring, David laments and mourns Abner's death. David even fasts until the evening. When the news reaches Ishbosheth, he is troubled. Ishbosheth feared Abner, and from his point of view, Abner went to strike a deal with David only to end up dead. This would have given Ishbosheth justifiable cause to fear David, too.

While Ishbosheth is processing all of this, his captains kill him! The captains take his head to David, thinking it will bring them favor, just as the Amalekite did with Saul. In 2 Samuel we see a lot of wishy-washy people. By this, I mean people who jump ship to accommodate the person they think will win. These men had no loyalty to Ishbosheth; they followed him because he had power. Once Ishbosheth's power waned, they decided to follow someone else. We should be wary of people like this; no one should to be surrounded by shifty characters such as these. We should also be mindful that we do not become like the captains. We should follow people we believe in and when times get tough, we should be ready to fight by their side. After all, that is exactly how Jesus describes the time of His second coming. Like with the Amalekite, David puts his foot down that this is wanton murder. The captains are sentenced to death for the murder of Ishbosheth.

Initially, I wondered why they were punished but Joab and Abishai were not. Part of me thought it was typical that the victors where not punished for their crimes while the losers were; however, as I thought about the situation, it made more sense. Israel's law allowed for people to avenge the death of their kinsmen by killing the murderer. Since Abner killed Joab and Abishai's brother and was not in a city of refuge, it was perfectly legal for them to kill Abner. The captains, however, committed an unjust murder in addition to treason. David was able to put them to death simply for breaking the law, but it also stands to reason that he wouldn't want such turncoats in his presence.
Top

References

1. "What is the Book of Jasher/Jashar and should it be in the Bible?". GotQuestions.org. 2016
2. Holman Bible Publishers. Holman KJV Study Bible. pg. 528-529. 2014

1 Samuel 28-31: Saul's Last Battle

Abandoned by men of faith, Saul resorts to sorcery before dying in his final battle.

Introduction

Once again, the Philistines gather against Israel. This time, Saul has neither Samuel (who is now dead) nor David (who is in exile) to be his strength in the battle. Without these two faithful men present in his life, Saul turns to "a woman that hath a familiar spirit"—a person he was forbidden from dealing with by God (Leviticus 19:31). The woman would have been a sorcerer or medium, and the "familiar spirit" would be how she communicated with the dead. Since God does not give us these abilities (hence forbidding them), we know it is the devil who rules these people.^[3]
Top

Saul

Breaking God's Law

Photocredit: FreeImages.com/Mario Alberto Magallanes Trejo

The woman is initially wary of fulfilling Saul's request; wizardry, witchcraft, etc. were all against God's law, and thus also against the laws of Israel. As king, Saul was to uphold God's law so the woman likely thought he was setting her up. Saul, however, had drifted so far away from God that he believed breaking God's law would bring him closer to God. Saul needed comfort and reassurance, but he no longer had a relationship with God. When Saul prayed, God didn't answer. This drove him to such desperation that he swore an oath to God not to punish someone for breaking the law of God. This is the exact point I was trying to make in my response on a pastor teaching his congregation to be "clean and empty;" when you are full with God's Spirit, you run the risk of filling yourself with something that isn't good for you.

Relating to Today

This is an important part of Saul's story because it gives us a framework to remember about our own lives. Saul put himself in a situation many of us have been in or will be in at some point in our lives. We have a tendency to put God on the back burner, and then when life gets tough, we want Him to be at our beck and call. No where in the passage do we see Saul repent of the wrong he's done or make amends for all the time he's spent away from God's presence. Saul jumps straight into worrying about the battle and asking for God's help. Similarly, we often will go days, weeks, maybe even months without thinking about God, until something happens and we are forced to pray for His help.

When God doesn't immediately answer, Saul impatiently jumps to the next thing. How often do we do that? When we don't hear from God or can't understand His voice, we often try to take matters into our own hands, which is never a good idea. I say "can't understand His voice" because I think most of the time, it isn't that God isn't answering so much as the fact that we either aren't listening or have forgotten His voice. There are many verses that state God will never leave or forsake us (i.e. Deuteronomy 31:8, Hebrews 13:5), but that doesn't mean we won't feel forgotten. We are told the Spirit of God leaves both Samson and Saul at some point during their lives. In Samson's case, when he repents, God returns, giving him the strength to carry out the mission. The key there is the repentance. Saul does not repent, so God does not return to save the day for Saul.

We should remember this. When we feel we have lost the presence of God, we should reflect on our behavior, on our relationship with God prior to our current situation. Along with repenting, we must exercise patience and faith that God will return to show us the way. It is this patience that will keep us on the right path.

Did Saul Actually Speak to the Dead?

As we know, Saul didn't do this. Instead, he convinces a sorcerer to contact the spirit of Samuel. Remember Leviticus 19:31 and Deuteronomy 18:11-14? God told the Israelites not to try to communicate with the dead. Saul clearly didn't remember this, or he deliberately chose to disobey God. When a man appears, Saul infers him to be Samuel and begins a conversation. It's important to remember that 1 Samuel 28:14 says "Saul perceived that it was Samuel," which means it may not have been Samuel. If it was Samuel, I would think the text would have said something along the lines of "Saul saw Samuel..." As it is written, it could just as well mean that Saul only thought this person was Samuel.

However, the words of Samuel are what lead me to believe Saul spoke with the real Samuel. Samuel tells Saul that he will lose the battle, his sons will die in battle, and the kingdom will pass to David. All three of these prophecies come true, just as Samuel predicted. In the New Testament, one of the ways to discern a prophet of God from a false prophet is whether their prophecies come true or not (Deuteronomy 18:21-22). Since we know the real Samuel was a real prophet, it follows that the real Samuel would give a true prophecy, but a demon posing as Samuel may not. That being said, although the devil isn't all knowing like God, he does know some things. Since his game is deceiving people, it seems unlikely the devil would give the full story in a prophecy, however he may have been using Saul as a pawn. When Saul's soldiers saw that he consulted a medium (ungodly), spoke to the dead (ungodly), and received a valid prophecy, they may have followed in his footsteps.
Top

Saul's Defeat

As predicted, Saul does not fare well in battle. 1 Samuel 31 recounts the death of Saul and his sons. Saul is initially wounded by an arrow, but the wound must have been too great for him to continue in battle. Knowing that he would be tortured when captured, Saul requests his armor bearer finish the job before the Philistines capture him. When the armor bearer refuses, Saul kills himself by falling on his sword. The armor bearer commits suicide after discovering Saul has killed himself, and all three of Saul's sons die in this battle. Although Saul escaped torture, his body was desecrated when the Philistines found it on the battlefield. I imagine this was a great day of mourning for the Israelites.

The act of killing oneself to avoid torture has been a long standing tradition and found in many cultures. I find it interesting, however, that this trait has been found mainly in those who are/were against God. Jesus, our ultimate example, did not kill himself when He was taken from the garden. He didn't avoid the torture of being whipped, crowned with thorns, hung on a cross or pierced in the side. The only man of God (that comes to my mind) who "committed suicide" was Samson. Though, Samson didn't commit suicide to avoid torture; Samson killed himself in the process of killing a multitude of Philistines (more like a suicide bomber). Even so, I wouldn't count Samson among the most faithful and godly men; he got himself into bad situations by disobeying God the same way Saul did. How we respond to adversity is definitely something to think about. It seems to me that the key difference is in the faith affirmed or denied in the action. By falling on his sword, Saul admitted that he had no faith in God delivering him in the battle. He was convinced Israel would lose, the Philistines would capture his body, and he would live long enough to be tortured, which means the wound couldn't have been that bad. This lack of faith is perfectly juxtaposed with David's valiant faith as these last few chapters parallel the two battles. David's army is tired and worn out, but David doesn't put off the battle, nor does he give up. Instead they trusted God to lead them to victory and came out unscathed.
Top

David

1 Samuel 29 switches to the Philistine side of the battle, primary because that is where David is. While Saul is cowering and consulting sorcerers to prepare for the battle, David and his men are following the Philistines into battle. David and his men were located in the rear of the main army, with Achish, the king of the Philistines. Naturally, this made the Philistines nervous. The princes complained, suggesting that David would turn on them in battle. With David and his men located at the rear, he could easily trap the Philistine army by cutting off their retreat should he decide to fight for Israel instead. Achish has great faith in David that he wouldn't betray them, but eventually, David is dismissed back to Ziklag.
Top

Would He Betray Them?

I often wonder if David would have betrayed them. Samuel told Saul that he would lose the battle, and it is assumed that it was God's Will for Saul to lose and die and that moment. Thus it stands to reason that God did not intend on David fighting for Israel that day. If David had fought and switched sides mid-battle as the Philistines feared, surely Israel would have won. However, if David had fought for the Philistines, why would Israel accept him as king? Would that not be fighting against God? It seems unlikely, to me, that David was ever inclined to fight his own people. Achish's faith in David was based on a misunderstanding which convinced Achish that David had already attacked his own people, but David had done no such thing.
Top

Ziklag

We get a better glimpse of David's mindset when he returns to Ziklag 3 days later in 1 Samuel 30. While they were gone, the city had been invaded by the Amalekites. The Amalekites burned the city and took the women captive. This included the wives of David, as well as, the wives of the soldiers. The people were so angry, they threatened to stone David!

Unlike Saul, David knew he could not fix the situation by himself. He calls upon Abithar, a priest, so that he may consult God for direction. Abithar brings David the ephod, and then David asks God what he should do. It interesting that the ephod is mentioned just before David prays to God, and God answers David. It almost seems that David used the ephod to contact God. I find this interesting, only because I've heard theories from ancient alien theorists that many of God's holy items were actually high tech communication devices to "alien" space ships.

While I don't necessary share the same ideas or beliefs as these theorists, God (along with the angels) are not earthlings which technically makes them aliens... I'm not sure whether the ephod served as a "telephone" to God, or if it was just a symbol. Back in Leviticus, the ephod was described as an article of clothing, however as the Bible continues, scholars agree the word "ephod" seems to take on a different meaning.^[1][2]
Top

David's Victory

God was marching with David, so even though his men were tired (they had just walked 3 days from the location of the Philistine battle to their "home" in Ziklag) and distraught (over the situation in Ziklag), David still defeated his enemies. When David and his men set out behind the Amalekites, they happened upon an Egyptian servant from the Amalekite army who had been left to die. Not only does this man confess that he was there when they burned Ziklag, but he agrees to take David and his men to the army, provided they do not harm him. This man took a leap of faith on David. An ungodly man would have killed the servant once they had the information they needed, but David promised neither to kill nor hand over the servant. This is one of the passages in the Bible many Southern whites apparently skipped during American slavery.

In remaining true to God, both in his heart and in his actions, David ensured he would win. He was able to recover all of the stolen goods along with all of the people who had been kidnapped without losing any soldiers in the process. How often do people win battles without losing something? I guarantee it only happens when God is present. Further confirming his allegiance to God and Israel, David sends the spoils of his victory to the elders of Judah (1 Samuel 30:26).
Top

References

1. Emil G. Hirsch, Immanuel Benzinger, Solomon Schechter, and Louis Ginzberg. "Ephod". Jewish Encyclopedia. 2016
2. "What was the significance of the ephod?". GotQuestions.org. 2016
3. "What are familiar spirits?". GotQuestions.org. 2016

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