Father and Son

Reflections on 1 Kings 2:1-9

When David was about to die, he had a personal talk with his son Solomon. The future of Israel was now in the hands of his son, and David had a few parting words.

KEEP GOD'S COMMANDS. David began by instructing his son Solomon to observe all that the Lord required of him. If David had not previously taught the Lord's laws and requirements, this last instruction would have been meaningless. Although David had failed to discipline Adonijah (1 Kings 1:6) and perhaps other sons, he began instructing Solomon at a young age because he knew Solomon would be king after him. Later, Solomon wrote,

When I was a boy in my father's house, still tender, and an only child of my mother, he taught me and said, "Lay hold of my words with all your heart; keep my commands and you will live. Get wisdom, get understanding; do not forget my words or swerve from them." -- Proverbs 4:3-5

At the beginning of Solomon's reign, he sought the Lord and completed the task of building the temple, which God had given him through David.

RULE JUSTLY. Next, David asked Solomon to finish some business that he had left unfinished. David felt keenly about these matters because they were matters of justice. First, he had not properly punished Joab for ignoring his own wishes and killing Abner and Amasa. Such an insubordinate man would be a threat to Solomon's throne, so David told Solomon to deal with him according to his wisdom. Second, David felt he had not yet shown sufficient kindness to the sons of Barzillai for the loyalty Barzillai had shown him during Absalom's rebellion. Finally, David warned Solomon that Shimei, who had cursed David when he fled Jerusalem, was still a dangerous man though David had not punished him for insulting the Lord's anointed. Again, he instructed David to deal with Shimei wisely.

After David died, Solomon did not immediately have Joab and Shimei executed, but he waited until they displayed disloyalty or disobedience to the king. Then the kingdom was firmly established in Solomon's hands.

A Land Polluted by Bloodshed

Reflections on 2 Samuel 21:1-14

Sometime during the reign of David, probably shortly after David moved to Jerusalem from Hebron, a famine came upon the land for three years. David sought the face of the Lord so that the Lord might look favorably on Israel again.

THE OFFENSE. God told David that the problem was that Saul and other members of his house (family) had killed the Gibeonites (v. 1). The Gibeonites were not Israelites, but they lived in several villages in Benjamite territory. Joshua had made a treaty with them promising not to kill them, and the Israelite leaders had confirmed the treaty with an oath (Joshua 9:15). Saul, however, in his zeal for Israel had plotted against them and tried to annihilate them (v. 2). Many had been killed (v. 5), and others had fled their homes to save their lives (see also 2 Samuel 4:2-3 which reports that the Gibeonites of Beeroth had fled to Gittaim and lived there as aliens). They had not been able to live anywhere in Israel safely (v. 5).

THE ATONEMENT. When David asked the Gibeonites how atonement or reconciliation could be made, they said they had no right to demand money or to put anyone to death. Such a statement, however, was the beginning of a bargaining process (cf. Ephron's negotiations with Abraham in Genesis 23:11 and 2 Samuel 24:22-23). When asked again, they requested that seven male descendants of Saul be killed before the Lord. David turned over seven male members of Saul's family to the Gibeonites who executed them at the beginning of the barley harvest.

FAMINE'S END. The Gibeonites exposed the bodies of those they executed, and Rizpah, the mother of two of them, protected their bodies from the birds and wild beasts until the rains came. At that time, David retrieved the bodies of Saul and Jonathan from Jabesh Gilead and buried them in the family grave in Benjamin along with those who had been executed. After atonement had been made for the land, God heard Israel's prayers and lifted the famine.

A PROBLEM. Although Canaanite law apparently permitted killing the children of a person who had violated a covenant (Youngblood, 1992, p, 1054), God's law stipulated that children could not be punished for the sins of their fathers (Deuteronomy 24:16). Had these descendants of Saul participated in the slaughter of the Gibeonites? Possibly they had for verse one indicates that Saul's family had participated in the bloodshed. However, the text also says that David spared Jonathan's son Mephibosheth not because he was innocent (he was only five at the time of Saul's death - 2 Samuel 4:4) but because of the oath David had made to Jonathan. Furthermore, Merab did not marry Adriel until after David slew Goliath (1 Samuel 18:19), so her sons, who could not have been more than teenagers at the time of Saul's death, probably did not participate in the slaughter. (A textual problem complicates the issue of which daughter of Saul was mother of five of the men. While some Hebrew and Greek manuscripts read "Merab" in 2 Samuel 21:8, most read Michal. However, Saul gave Michal to Paltiel in 1 Samuel 25:44, and David recovered her from him in 2 Samuel 3:15. Saul gave Merab to Adriel in 1 Samuel 18:19.) Whatever the solution to this problem, God revealed to David that Saul's sin had led to the famine, and God accepted the atonement and blessed the land again.

Dividing a Candy Bar Fairly

Reflections on 2 Samuel 19:24-30

When we were young, Mom would occasionally divide a candy bar between my brother and me. When she did, we often argued over which one got the biggest piece. I am sure this annoyed Mom because when we were old enough to cut the candy bar ourselves, one of us cut the candy bar, and the other got first choice. Something about that process eliminated the arguing. King David had to settle a conflict between two of his subjects: Mephibosheth and Ziba. He divided Saul's lands between them equally. We may never know exactly what dividing the lands accomplished, but this we do know,

As the heavens are high and the earth is deep, so the hearts of kings are unsearchable.
-- Proverbs 25:3

SUSPICION. Like Shimei, Mephibosheth rushed out with the other Benjamites to meet the king at the Jordan River. Also like Shimei, he had reason to fear the king's return. As a sign of distress and sorrow, he had not taken care of his feet, trimmed his mustache, or washed his clothes since David fled the city. David immediately asked him, "Why didn't you go with me when I fled Jerusalem?" With the exception of his personal agents whom he had left in the city, all David's household had fled with him. Because Mephibosheth ate at David's table, he expected Mephibosheth to go with him. Accordingly, David was suspicious when Mephibosheth failed to do so.

EXPLANATION. Mephibosheth explained that he had desired to go with David, and had even asked Ziba to bring his saddled donkey for him to ride, but Ziba had misled him and never returned with his donkey. Not only that, but Ziba had gone to the king and slandered Mephibosheth, saying that he was hoping to become king in place of David.

DILEMMA. David remembered Ziba's accusations against Mephibosheth, and he remembered that he had given all of Mephibosheth's lands to Ziba. So, who was telling the truth? David seemed annoyed and refused to make further investigation. He abruptly directed that the lands be divided between Ziba and Mephibosheth. Was this a judgment or a test? If a judgment, it seems unfair. Was David afraid to alienate Ziba and the other Benjamites who had come to support him? If a test, like Solomon's command to divide the living son and to give a half to each of the women (1 Kings 3:16-28), it lacks a conclusion. Whether judgment or test, Mephibosheth's response was important. When he said, "Let Ziba take everything now that you have returned safely," he made it clear that he had no personal ambitions. Like the woman who begged Solomon to spare the child, so Mephibosheth wished to preserve David's kingdom. Saul's family supported David and would never entertain royal ambitions. It played no role in the developing rift between the house of Joseph and the tribe of Judah which would become apparent soon.

Drama in the Courtroom

Reflections on 2 Samuel 14:1-22
Use the frame on the left to read these Scriptures.

As king, one of David's responsibilities was to judge difficult cases according to law. Often enough, plaintiffs and defendants dramatized their cases, and David had to separate fact from fiction. In 2 Samuel 14, the entire case is a fabrication. A woman of Tekoa played the part of a widow in a play written by Joab. As a superb actress, she changed David's behavior toward his son Absalom.

BROTHERS IN A FIELD. The woman stated the case quite simply: "I your servant had two sons. They got into a fight with each other in the field, and no one was there to separate them. One struck the other and killed him" (2 Samuel 14:6). Immediately, David would recall the story of Cain, who killed his brother in a field. Though Cain was guilty of murder, God had spared Cain and even protected him from being killed himself (Genesis 4:15). Without denying her son's guilt, the woman artfully prepared the king to make a judgment favorable to her.

CLAN'S QUESTIONABLE MOTIVE. As would be expected, the elders of the clan asked that the remaining son be turned over to them so that they might kill him to avenge the death of his brother (see Numbers 35:16-25), but the woman insinuated that the clan was more concerned with profit than justice because they had said that when they got rid of the murderer, then they would "get rid of the heir as well" (2 Samuel 14:7).

BURNING COAL. Finally, the woman revealed her own motive for wanting to spare her son. He was the "only burning coal" she had left. Housewives used a glowing coal from the previous day's fire to start a fire for the coming day. If only one ember was left, it was very important to preserve it until the fire was started for the next day. Her son was her husband's one remaining descendant. If he was executed, her husband would have "neither name nor descendant on the face of the earth" forever.

The woman acted superbly, and she obtained the judgment she desired though at first it appeared half-hearted. Then when she applied her story to Absalom, she also obtained the judgment Joab desired. Joab wanted David to show mercy to his son who had killed a brother just as God had shown mercy to Cain. Joab, through the woman, also insinuated that David's motive for not recalling Absalom may not have been justice so much as a desire to "get rid of the heir" so that David could give the throne to young Solomon. David immediately suspected Joab's role in the plot, but he relented. Joab was relieved because he knew he had forced David's hand. David sent Joab to recall his son from Geshur.

Severe Mercy

Reflections on 2 Samuel 12:1-12
Use the frame on the left to read these Scriptures.

We all know that God was merciful to David and forgave him, and we usually assume that God's mercy removed the severity of his punishment. While God's mercy certainly removed completely the eternal punishment of his sin, God did not in his mercy reduce the severity of the consequences of his sin. God's severe mercy is justified by the parable Nathan told David.

THE PARABLE. The parable stresses three things. First, it stresses the great difference in the wealth of two men. The rich man had a "very large number of sheep and cattle," but the poor man had a single ewe lamb that he had bought. Second, the story stresses the intimacy between the poor man and his ewe lamb. It lived in his house like a pet. It ate his food, drank from his cup, and "slept in his arms" ("lay in his bosom" - KJV). The lamb was like a daughter (Heb. bat, which is the same as the first syllable of Bathsheba). Finally, the story emphasizes the rich man's heartless treatment of the poor man. The rich man had no pity and slaughtered the poor man's dear pet to feed a traveler.

THE KING'S JUDGMENT. David was enraged because the rich man had no regard for the feelings of the poor man. David declared, "As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this deserves to die." The fourfold restoration for the sheep required by the Law (Exodus 22:1), and which guided David's final judgment, could not restore the object of the poor man's affection. The Law's penalty was a woefully inadequate for the callous act (EBC, 1992, p. 943). David's declaration recognized the inadequacy of even fourfold restoration and left him no room to protest the Lord's judgment.

GOD'S JUDGMENT FOR MURDER. As soon as David gave his verdict and noted its inadequacy, Nathan declared, "You are the man who had no pity, you are the man who deserves to die. You are the rich man who had many wives while your poor neighbor had but one. Nevertheless, you killed Uriah with the sword (in other words, in battle, for he was killed by archers on the wall) and took his wife. Therefore, the sword will never depart from your house." The actions set in motion by David's sin could not be stopped with David's death. The sword would not devour one man, David, but many in David's family instead. David's earlier reply to Joab, "the sword devours one as well as another," would haunt him repeatedly as the swords of lust, revenge, rebellion, and selfish ambition devoured his own sons. David learned that the God whose law he had despised, was the God who said, "I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me" (Exodus 20:5). What a great punishment God handed down!

GOD'S JUDGMENT FOR ADULTERY. After sentencing David for murder, God turned to the charge of adultery. Just as David had taken the wife of a man close to him, so one close to him would take his wives and lie with them openly. What David had done to Uriah would be done to him, "wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exodus 21:23-25), but with a painful twist. Not merely one of his wives would be taken, but many; furthermore, they would not be taken secretly, but openly. What a dreadful thing it is to fall into the hands of the living God!

Political Favors

Reflections on 2 Sam. 4:1-12

Politicians often publicly disassociate themselves from political action groups that operate illegally and slander their opponents, but they secretly welcome that help and even reward the lawbreakers when they win an election. David was not that kind of man.

FAVORS LOST. Baanah and Recab were from Beeroth, a town belonging to the Gibeonites (Josh. 9:17) in the territory of Benjamin (Josh. 18:25) near Saul’s hometown. Sometime before this, the Gibeonites had fled Beeroth, possibly when Saul killed many of them (2 Sam. 21:1-2). After they fled, Saul may have given their lands to Benjamites such as the father of Baanah and Recab (cf. 1 Sam. 22:7). Whatever favors they had received from Saul and from Ish-bosheth as captains of his raiding bands, they no longer expected those favors to continue.

NEW FAVORS EXPECTED. Baanah and Recab knew Ish-bosheth had no real power without Abner and that the people were eager to make David king. They were sure that Ish-bosheth would lose the throne and probably his life also. Why not make the best of a bad situation? Accordingly, they went to the royal residence and found Ish-bosheth sleeping at midday. They killed him, cut off his head, and took it to David hoping to win a reward when they presented the evidence of his rival’s death. They obviously expected to win David’s favor when they reminded him that Ish-bosheth’s father had tried to kill him. David would surely be impressed that they had acted as God’s agents in avenging “my lord the king this day on Saul and on his offspring” (v. 8). They confidently awaited new favors from the new king.

JUST REWARD. Their reward was not what they expected because David was not a man whose judgment could be impaired by political favors. He did not need the help of lawless men. He had the help of the Lord who had delivered him out of every adversity (v. 9). Accordingly, David not only disassociated himself from these men who murdered his rival, but he also gave them their just reward. He executed the men who thought that favors could be purchased with wickedness.

A "Confession" Gone Awry

Reflections on 2 Sam. 1:1-16

The young man who brought the news of Israel’s defeat on Mt. Gilboa to David was an opportunist. He habitually sought to take advantage of situations to gain wealth or advancement, and he did so without considering whether his actions were right or wrong. Evidences of his opportunistic character are found throughout this episode.

FIRST, the young man said, “By chance I happened to be on Mount Gilboa” (v. 6). By neglecting to give his reason for being on Mt. Gilboa, he probably raised David’s suspicions about his character. He was not there at the command of an officer. He was not participating in the heat of battle out of loyalty to the king or to Israel. He just happened to be there. He implies he was behind the line of battle because the wounded king saw him when he “looked behind him.” He was probably a human vulture at the battle site merely to profit from any opportunity that might present itself.

SECOND, the young man was an opportunistic liar. Although David had no way of knowing that the messenger was lying, we know from 1 Sam. 31:3 ff. that he was lying. Saul could not have been “leaning on his spear” (2 Sam. 1:6) after he and his armor-bearer had fallen on their swords. What the Amalekite saw was a dead king. No armor-bearer was there to defend the king’s life or honor. Accordingly, when he saw the dead king, he thought it would be to his advantage to confess to David, “I killed him.” He thought he could obtain honor and advancement because he had lived in Israel long enough to know that Saul was the only obstacle to David becoming king.

THIRD, the messenger brought Saul’s crown and arm-band to David (2 Sam. 1:10). If he had killed Saul out of a sense of mercy as he implied, he would have tried to restore the crown to the royal family, or at least to one of Saul’s army officers, without claiming to have killed him. Instead of doing that, he made a much longer journey to take the crown to David. So the crown and arm-band were not only evidence that Saul was dead, but they were also conclusive evidence of the Amalekite’s opportunism.

FOURTH, the young man told David he was the son of an alien or sojourner (2 Sam. 1:13). His father was an Amalekite, a member of the nomadic, warlike tribe that David had been destroying in obedience to God’s command. Perhaps many in his family were opportunists who chose to sojourn in Israel merely to save their lives. (If you can’t beat them, join them.) However, aliens who obeyed Israel’s laws received rights and protections from those laws, so David could not execute the Amalekite merely because he brought bad news.

FIFTH, the Amalekite showed no respect for “the Lord’s anointed.” The messenger’s claim to have killed the king showed that he had no loyalty to Israel’s law or Israel’s rulers. As such, the young man could not claim the protection of that law. In fact, he would fall under the condemnation of that law. His “confession” did not bring him the advancement and honor he anticipated. Instead, it convicted him and brought him swift destruction.