Friday, June 29

Second Samuel 13: David, it seems, is not the ideal father, and this chapter presents us with first evidence that all was not going well on the home front. Incestuous rape and murder are not favorable signs. Indeed, the tragedies in the present chapter put the reader in mind of David’s own actions with respect to Bathsheba and Uriah, a sexual offense followed by a murder.

Ammon himself was the crown prince of the realm, David’s heir apparent, and the devout reader will discern the hand of God in his removal from the scene. A man who rapes his half-sister is no fit heir to the throne. Unlike his father, Ammon does not repent; indeed, he does not even perform the minimum obligations toward Tamar required in the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

Arguably worse in the context, however, is David’s response, when he refuses to deal with the terrible situation. David becomes angry, but that is all (verse 21). This failure to deal discipline with his son puts the reader in mind of Eli at Shiloh, who also was indulgent toward his sinning offspring. David’s own moral failures have evidently deprived him of the moral authority to chastise his own children, and this failure eventually leads to rebellion and civil war.

Having waited two years in vain for David to deal with the situation (verse 23), the frustrated Absalom, Tamar’s full-brother, decides at last to take charge of the matter himself. He is able to do this because he senses a vacuum of authority in the realm, a vacuum that will tempt him, we know, even further in the near future. David’s kingdom will soon come unraveled.

In its story of David’s double sin, the Bible describes certain theological aspects of all sin, by portraying David’s offense through a series of striking parallels with the earlier account of Adam’s Fall in the Garden.

First, regarding the circumstances and immediate consequences of David’s infidelity, there are several points of correspondence with the offense of Adam. Thus, both Adam and David are tempted by women, Eve (Genesis 3:6) and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:2–4). Likewise, in both cases the two men are abruptly confronted with the gravity of their sin: “Have you eaten from the tree . . . ?” (Genesis 3:11) and “You are the man!” (2 Samuel 12:7). Next, judgment is pronounced on the house of each offender in the shape of death (Genesis 3:19; 2 Samuel 12:14). Indeed, Adam and David is each preceded to the grave by a son born of that same woman (Genesis 4:8; 2 Samuel 12:18). That is to say, in both instances sin leads immediately to death (cf. Romans 5:12). On the other hand, in each example, a new son is born as a sign of promise and renewed hope (Genesis 4:25; 2 Samuel 12:24). Thus, in the circumstances of Adam’s and David’s sins, we see a narrative sequence of fall, judgment, curse, and mercy.

Second, with respect to the more extended effects of their transgressions, both Adam and David become the fathers of fratricides, Cain (Genesis 4:8) and Absalom (2 Samuel 13:29). Their fall, that is to say, leads to hatred and murder. Indeed, there is a remarkable similarity between the description of Cain’s murder of Abel and the parabolic portrayal of Absalom’s killing of Amnon. In each instance the murderer rises up and slays his brother in a field (compare Genesis 4:8 and 2 Samuel 14:6). We observe, moreover, that in each case, the murderer himself is initially spared (Genesis 4:15; 2 Samuel 14:11), though a restricting curse still hangs over him (Genesis 4:16; 2 Samuel 14:24). Thus, even though in neither instance is the murder punished by death, guilt remains as an active element in the story, a source of continuing narrative tension.

Third, the biblical text goes to some length to demonstrate the long- term consequences of the sins of Adam and David, which intensify through the fratricides committed by Cain and Absalom. Both of the latter act in hatred, which in turn provokes the fear of vengeance (Genesis 4:14; 2 Samuel 14:7). The consequences of these offenses eventually include full-scale rebellions. In the account of Adam this rebellion is indicated both before and after the Flood (Genesis 6:5; 11:3, 4), while in the case of David the resulting rebellion takes shape in Absalom’s civil war (2 Samuel 15—18).

Saturday, June 30

Second Samuel 14: When Nathan narrated the story of the ewe lamb, we saw how readily David listened to—and became involved in the plot of—a good narrative. The present chapter gives another instance, the yarn spun by the “actress” complicit in Joab’s plot to bring Absalom back from exile.

The narrator does not assign a motive to Joab’s effort in this respect, but the reader suspects it has nothing to do with friendship for the young murderer. More likely, surely, is a well-founded suspicion, on Joab’s part, that Absalom represents a danger of revolution against David. If this is the case, Joab believes, Absalom can be better controlled within Israel than abroad.

Unlike Joab, however, David has very mixed feelings about Absalom, and as we shall see, Joab will eventually feel obliged to deal with David’s son is a more decisive way.

This “actress” is described as a “wise woman,” one of several so described in the present book. Listening to her, David becomes emotionally involved in the story. As in the case of Nathan’s parable, David makes an executive decision on the basis of that involvement. Once again, the trap is sprung on him, and the lady makes Joab’s point: “Why then have you schemed such a thing against the people of God? For the king speaks this thing as one who is guilty, in that the king does not bring his banished one home again.” Here “the king speaks this thing as one who is guilty” corresponds exactly to Nathan, “You are the man!”

David immediately espies the hand of Joab in this encounter, a discovery Joab surely wished for. Prudently, the “actress” praises David’s sagacity, though it is obvious to the reader that David has, in fact, been duped! Whatever qualities David displays during this entire Absalom episode, wisdom is not among them. Joab, who shows David a similar deference, is charged to bring Absalom back to Jerusalem.

Nonetheless, David is burdened with ambivalent feelings about his son. Though the young man lives within walking distance of the palace, he is not permitted to see his father; this strained situation lasts two years.

Absalom’s frustration is of no concern to Joab, who is content to have him close, in order to keep tabs on him. Further frustrated, Absalom decides to put more pressure on Joab—by burning his fields. Joab finally approaches the king, and Absalom is restored to court and to his father’s favor.

The reference to Absalom’s unusual growth of hair serves to prepare the reader for the circumstances of his death in chapter 18.

Sunday, July 1

2 Samuel 15: Absalom, so easily forgiven by a vacillating father, is now determined to replace that father. He lays the groundwork carefully by befriending those already dissatisfied with the current political arrangements. As the son expected, David does nothing about it.

In due course it is too late, for Absalom has garnered considerable support throughout the realm and developed a revolutionary network. If it is true—as the woman from Tekoa testified earlier—that David “knows everything in the land, the king’s failure to act is truly astonishing.

Eventually, Absalom makes his move against his father. Indeed, he even secures David’s blessing to travel to Hebron (the earlier capital), there to consolidate his power and move directly to assume command of the kingdom.

After he describes the origins of Absalom’s rebellion, the author’s attention turns more directly to David’s flight from Jerusalem. This king, traveling eastward across the Jordan and up the Mount of Olives, rides a donkey. Betrayed to the enemy by one of his inner circle, repudiated by his people and mocked by a scoundrel, David has ever seemed to Christian readers a type and foreshadowing of Jesus. In making this association, they have been inspired by the prophet Zechariah, who wrote of the coming Messiah, “ Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! / Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! / Behold, your King is coming to you; / He is just and having salvation, / Lowly and riding on a donkey, / A colt, the foal of a donkey” (9:9).

The imagery of Zechariah is taken from the description of David’s flight in the present chapter. The king leaves in disgrace, riding on a donkey, the poor animal of the humble peasant. David is the very image of meekness in the face of defeat. In his heart is no bitterness; he bears all with patience and plans no revenge. He portrays the outlines of a “suffering anointed one.”

Even in the present description of David fleeing from Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, there is a striking contrast with the victorious Absalom, the usurper, who is driving “a chariot and horses with fifty men to run before him.” Absalom represents worldly power and worldly wisdom, contrasted with the humility and meekness of the King.

Incorporating this image of David as a mystic prefiguration of the Messiah yet to come, Zechariah prophesied the messianic entry of Jesus into Zion. In the Gospel story, the Savior arrives by the very path David used to flee from the Holy City. Riding the donkey, Jesus comes down westward from the Mount of Olives, crosses the Kidron Valley, and finally enters Jerusalem. He thus begins the week of His meekly borne sufferings, including betrayal by a friend and rejection by His people.

Monday, July 2

Second Samuel 16: This chapter tells of David’s second sojourn in the wilderness; as he earlier fled to the southern desert to escape Saul, so now he flees to the eastward wilderness to escape the forces of Absalom. This move away from the capital is both strategic (because the king could be trapped inside Jerusalem) and humane (because many citizens might perish, if Jerusalem were besieged).

This resolution is typical of the narrative as a whole, in which political decisions are made on the basis of plain political calculation. Nonetheless, this is more than a political narrative; it is the story of the Lord’s fidelity of His promise to David. It is a story about God’s providential guidance of history, a guidance which makes use of fallible human decisions. In this story, God’s power is perfected in man’s infirmity.

Thus, Hushai, who will be instrumental in thwarting the traitor Ahitophel, appears on the scene immediately after David’s desperate prayer: “O Lord, I pray, turn the counsel of Ahitophel into foolishness!” (15:31)

Instead of permitting Hushai to travel with him, David sends him back to Jerusalem to act as a counter-agent against the conspiracy. That is to say, God’s help is invoked, but the prayer is answered in a way that invites a human political decision. This is a story of both providence and politics.

The same comment is warranted with respect to the priests who want to flee with David. He makes them stay in the city with the Ark of the Covenant. This decision is based on political calculations—it was a sign to everyone that David expected to return—but it also provided the king with extra eyes and ears in the city. That is to say, the political decision becomes part of the providential plan.

Given David’s earlier protection by the Philistines (when he was pursued by Saul), it is ironical that once again he relies on the support of Philistine mercenaries when he flees from Absalom (15:18).

The chapter begins with David’s meeting with Ziba, to which we made reference earlier. David takes Ziba’s testimony against Mephibosheth at face value, but he will be obliged to reconsider the matter later (19:24-30).

In the encounter with Shimei (verses 5-14) we understand how much Saul’s relatives—even so many years after David’s accession to the throne—resent the downfall of the earlier king. David, in the words of the Prophet Zechariah, comes in meekness, sitting on the foal of an ass.

David’s nephew, Abishai, wants to cut off Shimei’s head—the sort of response we have come to expect of Abishai (First Samuel 26:6; Second Samuel 2:24; 10:10). Just as David, during his earlier exile, had forbidden Abishai from using violence on Saul, so here, in his second exile, he prohibits Abishai from dealing violently with Shimei.

Tuesday, July 3

Second Samuel 17: Since Absalom’s revolt took shape at Hebron in chapter 15, the narrative has moved rapidly. The scene changed immediately to Jerusalem, where David, informed of the rebellion, took stock of his scant military resources in the city. This inventory prompted the king’s decision to flee. From that point on, David became the narrator’s point of attention. Absalom was mentioned only within the dialogues of the characters until David fled (15:14,3134). After David’s flight, Absalom’s arrival in the city was barely noted—“And Absalom came into Jerusalem” (15:37)—because the narrator wanted to maintain the theme of David’s flight.

In 16:13 he turned his attention to what was happening (“Meanwhile”) in Jerusalem while David fled. First, there was Absalom’s public assumption of his father’s harem. This bold step, taken on the counsel of Ahitophel, symbolically testified to Absalom’s seizure of the throne. It was certainly a point-of-no-return in the course of the revolution. It also had the effect, moreover, of giving David and his party an extended time to get further away from Jerusalem.

As we move into chapter 17, Ahitophel, now conscious that this delay is not helping the revolution, offers to pursue David while he may still be within striking range of a surprise attack (verses 1-4).

At this point Hushai speaks up. This is the truly decisive moment in the whole story. David’s determination to keep Hushai at Jerusalem—to serve as a spy while posing as the king’s adversary—leads directly to the story’s most important factual development: Absalom’s decision to strengthen his position in the capital before pursuing David. This decision, taken on the counsel of Hushai and directly against the advice of Ahitophel, permits David and his company to escape. Humanly speaking, this counsel of Hushai is what determines the providential outcome favorable to David, because “the Lord had purposed to defeat the good advice of Ahitophel, to the intent that the Lord might bring disaster on Absalom” (verse 14).

The next episode, involving two pro-David spies employed by Hushai (verses 15-21), further demonstrates the Lord’s “intent” against Absalom. At their warning, David crosses the Jordan during the night (verse 22).

Leaving David, the narrator turns his attention once again to Jerusalem. Here, it does not take long for the worldly-wise Ahitophel to size up the situation and realize that he has backed a loser. He removes himself from the coming disaster by taking his own life.

Meanwhile, Absalom, apparently informed about the two spies, senses the need to hurry. He marches his army across the Jordan in pursuit of David, whom he could have overtaken the previous day if only he had followed the advice of Ahitophel.

Wednesday, July 4

Second Samuel 18: After his flight to the other side of the Jordan, it appears that David’s little army receives increasing support from new volunteers, as word of the rebellion spreads. By the time Absalom crosses the Jordan, a huge opposition has gathered to support David, a force large enough to be broken into three contingents.

We know of Absalom’s love of military display (15:1), but in the course of his career he has shown no sign of military ability. Consequently, he marches his forces straight into the trap set for him. The few tactical details mentioned in the story suggest that Absalom is hit from both flanks, as he advances on what he believes to be David’s entire army. The double flanking tactic used against him is all the more effective because it is deployed in a wooded area, which provides concealment for David’s forces. The result is a complete rout of the revolutionary army.

David, prior to the battle, is so confident of victory that he gives instructions about how Absalom is to be treated, once he is captured. Even now, he is concerned about the safety of his rebellious son.

The Bible’s dramatic description of Absalom’s fate would be sufficiently memorable by itself, but it has been rendered even more unforgettable through its representation in the works of such artists as Francesco di Stefano, William Brassey, Georges Rochegrosse, and Gustave Dore. Absalom’s luxuriant hair, already established in the story as a symbol of the young man’s unbounded self-absorption, now becomes the instrument of his humiliating defeat. His very “elevation” is his downfall.

Suspended by his hair from the overhanging limb of a terebinth tree, helpless Absalom is discovered by soldiers under Joab’s command, and Joab, in contravention of David’s order, executes the rebel, putting three spears into his chest. The reader senses in Joab’s literal “overkill” his response to a great frustration. He has strenuously worked to keep Absalom in the royal favor, and to what avail? Absalom, who burned Joab’s fields, certainly showed no gratitude. And now the young man has thrown the whole country into civil war. As for as Joab is concerned, enough is enough. He has no intention of honoring David’s plea for gentle treatment for his rebellious son.

The fast-paced narrative of Absalom’s death is followed by a very slow account of how the news of it comes to David. The pace of the story reflects the reluctance everyone in his army feels about sharing the news with the king. (The reader already knows, after all, how David reacts to bad news and how dangerous it was to be the bearer of such news!) When he does learn of it, David’s lament for the death of Absalom is even more poignant than his dirge about the death of Saul and Jonathan.

Thursday, July 5

Second Samuel 19: Six parts comprise this chapter: David’s conversation with Joab, his return trip to Jerusalem, his mercy to Shimei, his encounter with Mephibosheth, his meeting with Barzillai, and a quarrel between the citizens of Judah and the other Israelites.

In the first part (18:33—19:8), Joab objects to David’s continued public mourning over the death of Absalom. Not only is this lamentation excessive and unseemly, in Joab’s view, it also demoralizes David’s supporters, who recently risked their own lives and fortunes by coming to the king’s assistance during the rebellion. Joab, the no-nonsense general who actually took Absalom’s life, accuses David of loving his enemies more than his friends.

Joab’s words yank David’s attention back to the present moment. David must put a stop to the mourning; this is a new day, and there are things to be done in order to restore order and settle the fortunes of the realm. Within just two verses (5 & 6), Joab uses the word “today” five times.

If one thing has been made clear about David in the immediately preceding chapters, it is his vulnerability. Joab, in speaking to the king so strongly and frankly here, is confident that David is aware of this vulnerability. Humanly speaking, David owes the maintenance of his throne to Joab. He is unable to gainsay the stern counsel of his chief general.

Joab’s private exhortation to the king leads to the second part of the chapter, David’s return to the capital to secure the realm and restore order. Along the way, he has time to think about Joab, the man who dared to ignore his order that no harm should come to Absalom. He resolves to replace Joab as chief general.

Exhausted from the events of the past several days, David is in no mood to seek revenge on Shimei—at least not “today” (four times within verses 20-22). This resolve does not include the future, however, and Solomon will be released from any obligation to show continued mercy to Shimei (cf. First Kings 2:8-9,36-46).

Nor does David feel confident, just now, of settling the old business between Ziba and Mephibosheth. Unable to adjudicate their conflicting claims, he determines on a compromise.

David is in the mood, however, to reward his friends, especially Barzillai, whose assistance was invaluable during the recent conflict. The story in verses 31-39 served, in ancient days, to explain the prominence of Barzillai’s family at the royal court.

The final part of the chapter (verses 40-43) describes a rivalry of loyalty to David. This episode indicates a continued dissension between north and south, a dissension that will break out presently in the rebellion of Sheba.

Friday, July 6

Second Samuel 20: Absalom’s revolt is barely suppressed before another is started by a Benjaminite named Sheba. This rebellion provides the context for several dialogues, through which the drama of the chapter is advanced:

First, there are the commands given to Amasa, the new military leader, and to Abishai, the brother of Joab. There appears to be some breakdown in communication. Amasa, summoned to meet with David, charges off to pursue Sheba at once. David, who seems to panic, not certain where Amasa has gone, dispatches Abishai to go after Sheba. Meanwhile, the reader has no idea where Joab is. Probably the others in the story did not know either.

Second, when David’s two forces are joined at Gibeon, the displaced Joab greets Amasa and treacherously murders him, very much as he earlier had Abner. De facto, David signed the death warrants of both Abner and Amasa by favoring them over Joab.

Amasa’s men, now deprived of their leader, are persuaded to join the other group, led by Joab and Abishai, in pursuit of Sheba.

Third, there is the conversation—or negotiation, perhaps—between Joab and the “wise woman” of Abel Beth Maachah, who speak to one another over the wall of the city. Joab, who is quite prepared to besiege the city for as long as it takes, is questioned by this woman with respect to his intent. When he assures her that he would much prefer not to destroy the city, the lady offers to toss Sheba’s head over the wall. With this guarantee from Joab, she then persuades the town elders to comply. Once he has Sheba’s head in hand, Joab honors his part of the commitment and retires his army back south to Judah.

The description of this final conversation puts the reader in mind of Joab’s earlier “wise woman” from Tekoa. These anonymous women are described in exactly the same way—“wise woman”—and both serve to avert the threat of further vengeance. As the first woman helped Joab resolve the problem between David and Absalom, the second assists him to resolve the problem of the siege. Both, that is to say, are women of wise counsel. Both women want to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. The first exhorted David, “do not permit the avenger of blood to destroy anymore, lest they destroy my son” (14:11), and the second tells Joab, “You seek to destroy a city and a mother in Israel” (20:19).

The chapter closes with the adjustment of David’s staff after the two recent revolutions. Nothing is said, for now, about David’s personal feelings with respect to the treacherous Joab, who has a good deal of blood on his hands and has given the king every reason to distrust him.

Friday, June 22

Second Samuel 6: With the intent to transform Jerusalem into Israel’s true—not simply geographical—center, David determines to bring there the Ark of the Covenant. An unexpected incident during this transfer produces one of the most famous scenes in Holy Scripture.

David, as he begins to consolidate his reign, is full of plans. The Ark, the ancient symbol of God’s presence among the Israelites, is a part of those plans. Nothing in the Sacred Text indicates that David reflected adequately on the moral ambiguity involved in this endeavor. Very early in the Book of Samuel was another story of Israelites using the Ark to advance their own agenda. There was a battle with the Philistines, of which we are told:

So the people sent to Shiloh, that they might bring from there the ark of the covenant of the Lord of hosts, who dwells between the cherubim. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God. . . . So the Philistines fought, and Israel was defeated, and every man fled to his tent. There was a very great slaughter, and there fell of Israel thirty thousand foot soldiers. Also the ark of God was captured; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, died (First Samuel 4:4, 10-11).

In that episode, near the beginning of the Book of Samuel, the Lord endeavored to teach Israel that He could not be used. Did David understand that?

In the present story, the Lord makes His point once again, when Uzza—quite innocently, it seems—puts forth his hand to steady the Ark on the ox cart. He is struck dead on the spot.

Since he dies in the act, the lesson is not for Uzza. The lesson is for David, and he knows it. David is upset:

And David became angry because of the Lord’s outbreak against Uzzah. . . David was afraid of the Lord that day; and he said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” So David would not move the ark of the Lord with him into the City of David (verses 8-10)

Just as David is unable to bring the Ark into his own capital on his own terms, he will also not be permitted to build a temple in that capital on his own terms. God has chosen David, to be sure, but God intends to keep David on a shortened leash. Subsequent events will prove God right on the point: David is not, in every respect, worthy of trust. His ambitions will get the better of him in due course, and his sins will introduce tragedy into his history.

Still, he is God’s anointed one, as the next chapter will make clear.

Saturday, June 23

Second Samuel 7: The story in this chapter makes a clear break in the narrative sequence. We are told that the things in the present chapter “came to pass when the king was dwelling in his house, and the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies all around,” but those enemies are not subdued until the following chapter. The present account of David’s desire to build a temple follows thematically on the material about the Ark of the Covenant in chapter 6; this general theme—not a consideration of chronology—is the reason the material appears here where it does.

As the account opens, David’s palace, the construction of which he commissioned to Phoenician architects and builders, has been completed. David’s mind turns to the Ark, which was brought to Jerusalem in the previous chapter. David observes the irony—and the impropriety—that his own house has been built, whereas the Ark is still sheltered in a wooden and fabric structure, the “tabernacle” constructed for that purpose (and, one suspects, modeled on the Mosaic tabernacle of ancient times).

Conceiving a plan to construct a proper “house” for the Ark, David seeks prophetic counsel on the matter. He calls the court prophet, Nathan, who now appears in Holy Scripture for the first time. Nathan, prior to consulting God in prayer, rashly encourages the king in his plan. That night the Lord takes the initiative, giving Nathan an opposite message for David.

The crucial word in the message is “house,” a term understood in more than one way. David’s house, as the story begins, is the royal palace. David wants to construct for the Lord an equivalent house; that is to say, a temple. “No,” says the Lord, “you will not build Me a house. I will build you a house.” Here the word refers, not to a building, but to the royal dynasty, “the house of David,” the succession of his sons on the throne recently established in Jerusalem. That is to say, David’s true house is not the palace. It is the Davidic throne, to which the Lord promises permanence through a special covenant He established with the king.

In short, David is instructed that he can do nothing for God. On the contrary, God will do something for David. As for the temple, God—not David—will determine the time, the setting, and the conditions of its construction. It must happen at God’s initiative, not man’s. Once again, David is taught a lesson about presumption.

Once the Lord has established David’s house—through his son’s accession to the throne—then this son will build a house for God.

The Lord reveals to Nathan—and through Nathan to David—that the heirs and beneficiaries of this new covenant will not always be faithful and loyal. Indeed, the throne will be occupied, often enough, by scoundrels and sinners. When this happens, the Lord will punish those unfaithful men, but in no way will He permit their sins and infidelities to bring ruin on the dynasty itself. Here Nathan introduces the messianic promise that will become—over the centuries—the subject of much theological speculation, as the line of David is subjected to a series of disasters.

In response to Nathan’s promise and prophecy, David retires to the tabernacle, where the Ark of the Covenant is sheltered, to ponder and to pray. Nothing further happens for now. The covenant initiated in grace is celebrated in prayer. David prays, and then he leaves the rest to God, who will fulfill His purpose when He sees fit.

Sunday, June 24

Second Samuel 8: This chapter, which is chiefly a summary of David’s military exploits as king, includes material earlier than the things narrated in chapter 7.

As one reads the present chapter, some attention to a map demonstrates the practical outcome of David’s victories; namely, he has created a small empire, of which Jerusalem is the geo-political center. (David was able to do this, because of the relative weakness of the two powers on the ends of the Fertile Crescent, Egypt and Babylon/Assyria.)

To the west and southwest of Israel, the conquest of the Philistines is complete; from now on, they will cease to bother Israel. Indeed, David hires their best warriors—the Cerethites (Cretans) and Pelethites—for his own bodyguards (verse 18). (This is the reversal of the earlier situation, when David and his men served as the bodyguards of a Philistine king.)

To the south, David defeats the Amalekites and the Edomites, incorporating both groups into a satellite status within his small empire. To guarantee that they faithfully pay their annual tribute, and to discourage any impulse they may feel toward rebellion, David places garrisons of armed Israelites throughout their territories.

The conquest of the Edomites is particularly significant, inasmuch as Israel acquires a southern port on the Gulf of Aqaba. Later, Solomon will exploit the advantage of that acquisition, which provides maritime access to Arabia, the west coast of Africa, and other places as far away as India.

To Israel’s east, on the other side of the Jordan, David subdues the Ammonites and Moabites, whose annual tribute will finance David’s government, building projects, and other ventures.

To the northeast, David’s forces continue their conquest, adding Syria and Zobah to his little empire.

Directly to the north lies the maritime power of Phoenicia, which is happy to be on David’s good side. During their whole history the Phoenicians are never a threat to Israel; they look only for commercial partners, not enemies to subdue. It is arguable that no other political alliance of David is as significant as his treaty with Phoenicia.

Moreover, the rise of David has been extremely beneficial to Phoenicia, because David subdued the Philistines. Among the activities of the Philistines was piracy in the eastern Mediterranean (In Egyptian literature, they are known as “the sea peoples’), a piracy that severely hampered Phoenician trade routes. David’s defeat on the Philistines put an end to that piracy, much to the benefit of Phoenician mercantile ventures.

Monday, June 24

Second Samuel 9: The tone changes abruptly from the bare chronicle style of the previous chapter: “And David said . . .” The narrative of this new chapter is carried forward completely by dialogue.

The story of Mephibosheth illustrates the kindness of David, but it also indicates his political skill. Mephibosheth, as the son of Jonathan, is the direct heir of Saul. Consequently, around him could gather rebellious elements in the kingdom that might like a return to the old regime. In addition to a desire to take care of the son of Jonathan, David also has in mind to keep that son close to him; Mephibosheth is not consulted on the point. He is simply informed that, for now on, he will be living at court. Ziba, formerly a servant of Saul, will care for his hereditary property.

As for Mephibosheth himself, he was already introduced in 4:4, where we learn that his physical affliction was the result of a fall he suffered as a small child. In the present chapter, he is clearly much older and has a son of his own. Until now, he has been living secretly and in exile, east of the Jordan. Summoned to appear at David’s court, he is probably afraid for his life, knowing that the king may regard him—a descendent of Saul—as a potential rival. David sees in this cripple, however, a son of Jonathan more than a grandson of Saul.

Mephibosheth’s residence at the court is without incident until the political complications arising from Absalom’s rebellion. Counseled by Ziba at that time, Mephibosheth remains behind when David and most of the court must flee the city. Ziba, who is arguably the most duplicitous character in the Bible, represents Mephibosheth’s action as connivance in the rebellion. David, deceived by Ziba, summons the young man to account, when he returns from exile. Mephibosheth convincingly pleads his innocence and is spared, but David, who was recently helped by Ziba during his brief exile, is reluctant to punish the slanderer.

Mephibosheth, true son of Jonathan, is no fool. He proves himself as loyal to David as his father did earlier. David, in his treatment of Mephibosheth, adheres strictly to the terms of his covenant of friendship with Jonathan (1 Samuel 20:12-17; 2 Samuel 21:7).

Through Mephibosheth’s son, Mica, the descendents of Jonathan will become a reputable family in Israel (cf. 1 Chronicles 8:35; 9:41-44).

Tuesday, June 25

Second Samuel 10: It is not clear whether the military events narrated in this chapter are identical with—or later than—the campaigns narrated in chapter 8. The present writer is disposed to think them identical. That is to say, chapter 8 served as a summary of David’s military activities; the present chapter tells of these same activities in detail.

Like chapters 7 and 9, this one begins with something David says. The story begins with an internal resolution of the king.

As in the previous chapter, David thinks to do a kindness to the son of a friend to whom he feels a debt. In the present case, the kindness is not so well received, and trouble ensues.

Nahash the Ammonite, prior to the monarchy, was not always a friend to Israel. Indeed, his siege to the city of Jabesh, the reader recalls, was one of the factors that brought Saul to the throne in 1020. Although we are not told what sorts of favors Nahash later did for David, the latter feels grateful to his memory. So, learning of Nahash’s death, he sends a delegation of friendship to Hanun, the late king’s son and heir.

This ill-advised young man, however, seems bent on trouble. He deliberately disgraces the emissaries of David by disfiguring their beards and mutilating their clothing in an embarrassing way. This is more than a breach of civil etiquette; it is a deliberate insult to an act of kindness. It amounts to a declaration of war.

When the delegation crosses the Jordan back to Israel, David makes them wait at Jericho, until their beards grow back. The king needs a little time to reflect on what steps must be taken against the upstart, offending Hanun.

Hanun knows, of course, that he has just handed Israel a casus belli, so he proceeds to secure a military alliance with his neighbors to the north.

Against him, David sends a force under Joab. This is the first time we see David stay at home during a battle. Older now, he stays in the capital and leaves the fighting to younger men. (The author is preparing us for the story of Uriah and Bathsheba.)

The ensuing battle is described: Joab, finding his forces pinched from two sides—the Ammonites from the south and their mercenaries from the north—splits his force. He leads a body of elite soldiers to attack on the north and sends another group, under his brother, Abishai, to counter the Ammonites to the south. Joab shows himself to be a shrewd and successful commander. The Ammonites take refuge in their capital, Rabbath (modern Amman).

Wednesday, June 27

Second Samuel 11: Unwilling to maintain a siege of Rabbath through the winter, the Israelites under Joab’s command return to battle in the spring. David stays in Jerusalem.

The king, taking a stroll on the roof, or perhaps a high balustrade, of his palace, looks out into the city. Not far away he spots a woman taking a bath. Inquiring about her, David learns that she is Bathsheba, the wife of one of his own commanders, Uriah, a man of Hittite descent. Knowing that her husband is away at war, David invites Bathsheba for a quiet evening with him at the palace.

Because the king uses several emissaries in this tryst, it is not possible to keep the adultery secret. The whole court surely knows about it.

As it happens, Bathsheba is soon aware of being pregnant from her evening with David. “I am pregnant” are her only recorded words in this chapter. What began as an evening of fun is now developing into a crisis. Wars don’t last forever, and Uriah will be back home soon enough. Bathsheba knows that only David can do something about it.

David summons Uriah back from the siege of Rabbath, ostensibly to give him a report on the progress of the wary. After the interview, David recommends to Uriah that he return to his home and his wife for the night, before returning to the front. In this way, the king thinks, Bathsheba’s pregnancy can be safely accounted for.

David does not understand Uriah. A professional soldier and leader of men, Uriah does not dream of spending the night in the arms of his wife while his own men are sleeping uncomfortably on the field of battle. (This personal trait puts Uriah in the same category of certain military leaders in American history, such as Anthony Wayne and Robert E. Lee.) After the interview with David, Uriah lies down and falls asleep at the entrance of the palace. After this happens a second night, David realizes that his plan—to ascribe Bathsheba’s pregnancy to Uriah—has failed. Cruelly, he gives Uriah a message for Joab, a message that is the messenger’s own death warrant.

Joab understands and complies. Uriah is allowed to perish in battle, and, after the prescribed period of her mourning, Bathsheba becomes a permanent resident at the palace. Everything has been covered over, as well as David can manage. No one at the palace, surely, will raise a question on the matter.

Thursday, June 28

Second Samuel 12: The Lord has already promised David that He will remain faithful to His covenant, no matter how sinful the heirs of David might become. Now the divine fidelity shows itself, in the case of David himself, adulterer and murderer.

Arguably the most important person in the life of David is the Prophet Nathan. His very name means, “gift,” and Nathan is certainly God’s generous gift to the king. Except for Nathan, David might remain unrepentant till the end of his life, a sinner as bad as Saul. Nathan is assigned to do for David what the Apostles were appointed to do for all mankind—to preach repentance and the remission of sins (Luke 24:47).

Like Jesus, Nathan preaches repentance by means of parable. He tells David the story of the ewe lamb, a narrative surely to be numbered among the Bible’s finest examples of what T. S. Eliot called “the moral imagination.” By means of storytelling Nathan successfully engages the king’s own sense of decency and justice. He skillfully stimulates David’s return to “the permanent things.”

Nathan’s method, of course, is to cloak the king’s sinful actions within the folds of his own homespun. As Nathan’s account progresses, David becomes morally aroused, with no suspicion that he is himself the villain of the narrative. Finally he pronounces the anticipated moral judgment, or, as the Scripture says, “David’s anger was greatly aroused against the man, and he said to Nathan, ‘As the Lord lives, the man who has done this shall surely die!’” It is at this point, finally, that the prophet’s impeaching finger is thrust at the royal face: “You are the man!” (12:5, 7).

It is instructive to observe that Nathan, in preaching repentance from sin, does not “preach down” to the sinner. He does not assume the “higher moral ground.” On the contrary, the prophet’s story compels David himself to seize that ground. Nathan does not directly accuse the king until after he causes the king to accuse himself. Nathan’s method is to transform the sinner’s imagination within a drama, until at last David is disclosed in the character of the drama’s villain.

Moreover, even as David is explicitly condemned, he is implicitly affirmed. That is to say, in order to impugn the very worst in David, Nathan addresses himself to the very best in David—his innate, more deeply abiding sense of right and wrong. As a result of this preaching, the king’s condemnation of his sins springs forth from his own conscience. David becomes his own accuser: “I have sinned against the Lord” (12:13). Thus, Nathan’s preaching functions very much like the crowing of the nocturnal rooster that dramatically awakened the sleeping conscience of Simon Peter (Matthew 26:75).

Friday, June 29

Second Samuel 13: David, it seems, is not the ideal father, and this chapter presents us with first evidence that all was not going well on the home front. Incestuous rape and murder are not favorable signs. Indeed, the tragedies in the present chapter put the reader in mind of David’s own actions with respect to Bathsheba and Uriah, a sexual offense followed by a murder.

Ammon himself was the crown prince of the realm, David’s heir apparent, and the devout reader will discern the hand of God in his removal from the scene. A man that rapes his half-sister is no fit heir to the throne. Unlike his father, Ammon does not repent; indeed, he does not even perform the minimum obligations toward Tamar required in the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

Arguably worse in the context, however, is David’s response, when he refuses to deal with the terrible situation. David becomes angry, but that is all (verse 21). This failure to deal discipline with his son puts the reader in mind of Eli at Shiloh, who also was indulgent toward his sinning offspring. David’s own moral failures have evidently deprived him of the moral authority to chastise his own children, and this failure eventually leads to rebellion and civil war.

Having waited two years in vain for David to deal with the situation (verse 23), the frustrated Absalom, Tamar’s full-brother, decides at last to take charge of the matter himself. He is able to do this because he senses a vacuum of authority in the realm, a vacuum that will tempt him, we know, even further in the near future. David’s kingdom will soon come unraveled.

In its story of David’s double sin, the Bible describes certain theological aspects of all sin, by portraying David’s offense through a series of striking parallels with the earlier account of Adam’s Fall in the Garden.

First, regarding the circumstances and immediate consequences of David’s infidelity, there are several points of correspondence with the offense of Adam. Thus, both Adam and David are tempted by women, Eve (Genesis 3:6) and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:2–4). Likewise, in both cases the two men are abruptly confronted with the gravity of their sin: “Have you eaten from the tree . . . ?” (Genesis 3:11) and “You are the man!” (2 Samuel 12:7). Next, judgment is pronounced on the house of each offender in the shape of death (Genesis 3:19; 2 Samuel 12:14). Indeed, Adam and David is each preceded to the grave by a son born of that same woman (Genesis 4:8; 2 Samuel 12:18). That is to say, in both instances sin leads immediately to death (cf. Romans 5:12). On the other hand, in each example, a new son is born as a sign of promise and renewed hope (Genesis 4:25; 2 Samuel 12:24). Thus, in the circumstances of Adam’s and David’s sins, we see a narrative sequence of fall, judgment, curse, and mercy.

Second, with respect to the more extended effects of their transgressions, both Adam and David become the fathers of fratricides, Cain (Genesis 4:8) and Absalom (2 Samuel 13:29). Their fall, that is to say, leads to hatred and murder. Indeed, there is a remarkable similarity between the description of Cain’s murder of Abel and the parabolic portrayal of Absalom’s killing of Amnon. In each instance the murderer rises up and slays his brother in a field (compare Genesis 4:8 and 2 Samuel 14:6). We observe, moreover, that in each case, the murderer himself is initially spared (Genesis 4:15; 2 Samuel 14:11), though a restricting curse still hangs over him (Genesis 4:16; 2 Samuel 14:24). Thus, even though in neither instance is the murder punished by death, guilt remains as an active element in the story, a source of continuing narrative tension.

Third, the biblical text goes to some length to demonstrate the long- term consequences of the sins of Adam and David, which intensify through the fratricides committed by Cain and Absalom. Both of the latter act in hatred, which in turn provokes the fear of vengeance (Genesis 4:14; 2 Samuel 14:7). The consequences of these offenses eventually include full-scale rebellions. In the account of Adam this rebellion is indicated both before and after the Flood (Genesis 6:5; 11:3, 4), while in the case of David the resulting rebellion takes shape in Absalom’s civil war (2 Samuel 15—18).

Friday, June 15

First Samuel 30: David and his men, not yet informed about the outcome of the Battle of Mount Gilboah, return to their earlier base on the southeastern edge of Philistine territory. They arrive on the third day.

This story also serves the apologetic purpose of putting a great distance between David and the death of Saul. David could never be blamed for it, because he was far away.

David’s company discovers that the Amalekites, in their absence, have attacked and destroyed Ziklag, where they had left their families and property.

Since Ziklag was taken in the absence of David’s band, there was no real battle. Consequently, there were no deaths in the attack; all the prisoners are still alive. The prisoners have become—like Joseph of old—prisoners of Amalekite slave-traders.

As for David, he genuinely fears that his men, discovering that their families have been abducted, are going to take some revenge of him; it was his idea, after all, to be away from Ziklag these past several days. The author’s inclusion of this detail of David’s fear indicates how precarious his situation has been over the past fourteen months. His handful of followers has given up a lot on his behalf. They are desperate men, and they have their limits. David fears those limits may have been trespassed by this recent catastrophe at Ziklag. The author comments on David’s spiritual attitude in this crisis: “David strengthened himself in the Lord his God.”

In David’s consultation with the priestly oracular ministry, there is a clear contrast between him and Saul. Whereas the latter has just been reduced to seeking counsel from a dark source, David has the advantage of a priest, Abiathar, in his camp, and from this priest he seeks guidance in the present calamity. Abiathar reassures him.

On their way to rescue their families, David and his men find an abandoned Egyptian, who provides information helpful to their cause. Using this information, they quickly discover the raiders, spread out and insouciant to danger. Since four hundred of them will escape David’s surprise attack, their number is apparently large. Gorging themselves with food, however, and having too much to drink, they are no match for David’s enraged band descending on their camp without warning.

The booty taken by David includes not only the spoils absconded from Ziklag, but also the material the raiders have taken from other adventures in the region. All of this material belongs to the Israelites as the rewards of war.

Those who have accompanied David all the way, however, are reluctant to share the booty with the exhausted men who stayed behind. David, who perceives that the recent success represents, not simply human effort, but the generosity of God—what the Lord has given us—insists on a corresponding generosity among his men.

In such a adjudication, the reader perceives that David is more than a brave and skilful warrior; he is also the sort of humane leader Israel will now need, for Saul (as we presently see) has just perished on a battlefield further north.

Saturday, June 16

First Samuel 31: The narrator now turns north and east, to Mount Gilboah, where the Philistines are engaged in a great victory over the forces of Saul.

The Battle of Mount Gilboah actually takes place somewhat northwest of the mount itself, in the Valley of Jezreel, where the Philistine chariots enjoy the advantage of a flat terrain. The Israelites, overcome by these forces, flee to Mount Gilboah, where fighting in a chariot is more difficult. The chariots, therefore, do not pursue them. Instead, the Philistines advance their archers to harass the fleeing Israelites. In the course of this archery attack, Jonathan and his brothers are slain.

As for Saul, the traditional Hebrew (Massoretic) text says that he “was overcome with fear.” Some textual historians, nonetheless, amend that text to read, “badly wounded.” The present writer is less than persuaded by this emendation, because a badly wounded man would not likely be strong enough to throw himself on his sword. In any case, Saul commits suicide, a thing fairly rare in Holy Scripture (cf. 2 Samuel 17:23; 1 Kings 16:18; Matthew 25:7).

The defeat of Saul’s army leads to a general panic in the neighboring vicinity, and the eastward flight of whole populations leaves many cities and villages uninhabited. The Philistines quickly seize and occupy those places. Thus, Philistine occupation effectively cut a great swath through Israelite territory—west to east—so that the northern tribes are cut off from Judah and Benjamin in the south. This practical estrangement of the northern and the southern tribes will not be resolved until much later in the story, when the greatly weakened house of Saul will lost popular credibility and the political support of Abner.

As a sign of Israel’s total humiliation, Saul’s decapitated body is impaled on the wall of Bethshan, roughly eleven miles southwest of Mount Gilboah. This town, near the Jordan, is twelve miles west of Jabesh Gilead on the east side of the river. The citizens of Jabesh, learning of the fate of Saul, and remembering how he relieved the military siege of their city twenty years earlier (1 Samuel 11), bravely effect a night raid across the Jordan to retrieve the corpses of Saul and his sons. The bodies are burned, perhaps because they have already begun to decay.

As the citizens of Jabesh had endured that siege for seven days, so now they fast for seven days to mourn the loss of their erstwhile deliverer.

Although there is no narrative break between this story and the first chapter of Second Samuel, the editors and copyists of the Greek (Septuagint) translation—forced by the physical volume of the work to split it into two scrolls—discerned a certain propriety in dividing it at the end of the Battle of Mount Gilboah. The death of Saul, Israel’s first king, has removed the major obstacle to David’s ascension to the throne. The Bible’s next page truly is a new leaf.

Sunday, June 17

Second Samuel 1: Some days after David’s return to the camp at Ziklag, there comes a straggler from Saul’s army, perhaps an Amalekite mercenary. He presents David with part of Saul’s royal raiment, and he boasts of having given the dying Saul the coup de grace on Mount Gilboah. He evidently expects David to welcome him with open arms.

David, however, having just pursued and defeated a band of treacherous Amalekites, is in no mood to suffer a dubious story from yet another one. The man’s account sounds implausible from his first words; he claims, “I happened by chance to be on Mount Gilboa.” He happened to be on Mount Gilboah?! David senses duplicity here, and narrows to two his responsive options: Either this Amalekite is simply a scavenger who stumbled on the corpse of Saul before the Philistines found it, or he is what he claims to be—the very killer of Saul. David goes with option number two. The reader, who already knows how Saul died, perceives the irony that this Amalekite is lying his way to a death sentence. (No reader of Samuel, up to this point, has yet discovered much reason to look on Amalekites with favor!)

David is not favorably impressed. If this Amalekite had time to remove Saul’s crown and bracelet, why did he not remove Saul’s body and save it from desecration? Instead—according to the man’s own account—he presumed to lay a violent hand on the Lord’s anointed, a thing David has several times refrained from doing. Indeed, a man like this would feel free to king any king, including David himself. Such a one has forfeited his own life, as far as David is concerned.

David has, in addition, lost his best friend—Jonathan. Doubtless this is the reason why David’s poetic lament on the battle of Mount Gilboah (verses 19-27)—in addition to the epic theme of its historical reference—takes on a great personal pathos. This chant opens for the reader a window into the soul of David.

Also, this is one of the few places where Holy Scripture explicitly names an earlier literary source—The Book of Jasher, which was perhaps an anthology of martial poetry. It is quoted also in Joshua 10:12-13.

In days gone by, David knew, Israelite maidens had danced when “Saul killed his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.” Let not the Philistine maidens similarly rejoice over the tragic fall of Saul:

Tell it not in Gath,

Publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon,

Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice,

Lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.

David, aware that he had been a source of alienation between Jonathan and Saul, seems to find peace in the thought that in death, at least, the father and son were once again united.

Monday, June 18

Second Samuel 2: This chapter breaks into three parts: David’s accession to authority over the tribe of Judah in the south, Ishbosheth’s succession to the throne of Saul in the north, and the rivalry between these two thrones during the period after the Battle of Mount Gilboah.

In the first section (verses 1-7), David abandons Philistine service and leaves Ziklag. Then, following oracular counsel (presumably given through the ministry of Abiathar, the priest who has accompanied him since First Kings 22), he and his band settle in and around the southern city of Hebron. When the leaders of the tribe of Judah choose him as their king, this city becomes his capital. There is no evidence that the Philistines look askance at this; both they and David, after all, appear to be allied against the house of Saul.

One of David’s first actions is to dispatch a message to the citizens, praising their care for the body of Saul. This action of David is a good political move, as well, ingratiating him with an Israelite city on the other side of the Jordan. In his message, David is careful to mention that he has become king in Judah.

In the second section (verses 8-11), we learn that Abner did not perish at the Battle of Mount Gilboah. Now, loyal to the memory and legacy of Saul, he establishes the latter’s remaining son on the northern throne. The author of the Book of Samuel calls him “Ishbosheth,” literally “man of shame,” which seems to be the derisive nickname by which he is known in the south. His real name, according to Chronicles, is “Ishbaal,” “man of the Lord.” Because of the continuing Philistine menace, his capital is set east of the Jordan, at Mahanaim. As events will show, this northern throne depends absolutely on the support of Abner.

In the third section (2:12—3:1), the author uses a memorable episode to illustrate his thesis, “there was a long war between the house of Saul and the house of David” (3:1). Ishbosheth, in the north, slowly expands his realm, which means that he must have had some unrecorded victories against the Philistines. When his forces move south, they encounter those of David near the city of Gibeah, in the territory of Benjamin, not far north from the still-Canaanite city of Jerusalem.

The leaders of the two forces want to avoid a pitched battle, but they are not adverse to selecting some of their better warriors to engage in individual combat with the other side: “Abner said to Joab, ‘Let the young men now arise and compete before us.’ And Joab said, ‘Let them arise.’” Twelve is the number of warriors chosen from each side, perhaps symbolizing the number of Israelite tribes.

Very quickly, however, things get out of hand, as new combatants enter the fray, and before long “there was a very fierce battle that day, and Abner and the men of Israel were beaten before the servants of David.”

Since Abner is likely the best warrior on the field, he becomes a special mark for the bold. And also for the foolish young men who want to make a name for themselves—such as Asahel, David nephew. Abner, unable to outrun Asahel, reluctantly slays the youngster, dealing him a backward thrust with the blunt end of his spear. Joab, Asahel’s brother, never forgives Abner, and a few years later he will take revenge.

Tuesday, June 19

Second Kings 3: There are four components to the present chapter: first, a list of David’s sons born through the years 1000-992; second, an account of Abner’s change of allegiance to David; third, the story of Joab’s murder of Abner; and fourth, the narrative of David’s lament over Abner.

In the list of David’s sons born during the sojourn in Hebron (verses 2-5), the reader identifies the chief figures who will darken the later story of David: Ammon, who will rape his sister; Absalom, who will rebel against David himself; and Adonijah, who will attempt to steal the throne in the closing days of David’s life.

The story of Abner’s defection to the throne of David (verses 6-21) describes how the northern and southern kingdoms become united. As a royal relative and the recognized commander of Israel’s army, Abner’s responsibilities are considerably increased after the death of Saul and Jonathan at the Battle of Mount Gilboa. Indeed, the political stability of the northern tribes greatly depends on his personal authority during these troubled years, nor could the house of Saul have stayed in power, up till now, were it not for the backing of Abner.

Following the Battle of Mount Gilboa, the Israelites are divided between north and south, a division rendering it easy for the Philistines effectively to control most of the northern area west of the Jordan. This hapless situation, threatening to become permanent, poses for Abner a true moral dilemma.

He is an instinctively loyal man, principled, and innocent of personal ambition. The sundry loyalties of even such a man, nonetheless, may sometimes stand in conflict, and Abner is compelled in due course

to choose between his expected adherence to the house of Saul and his more abiding concern for Israel’s very survival.

Long accustomed to viewing David through the eyes of Saul, Abner experiences much of the same conflict of loyalties that earlier plagued the conscience of Jonathan, and his painful resolution to that conflict, like Jonathan’s, leads directly to the tragedy that ends his life.

The story of Abner’s murder by the hand of Joab (verses 22-30) is tied directly to the previous chapter, where Joab’s brother, Asahel, perished at the hand of Abner. The contrast between Joab and Abner could not be starker. Joab is a simple and savage character, whose actions often gain no credit for the throne of David. Here he murders the conscientious Abner in cold blood, insouciant to the reputation of David, who offered Abner political refuge. Later, Joab will murder the defenseless Absalom.

In the final account in this chapter (verses 31-39), we find the exasperated David lamenting the murder of Abner but politically unable to execute justice on the murderer. He does, however, go to some length to separate himself from the deed.

Wednesday, June 20

Second Samuel 4: These two military leaders in the north, observing David’s positive response to Abner’s arrival, apparently sense that it’s all over for the house of Saul. Aware—with everybody else, it would seem—that David’s future rule over all Israel is inevitable, they determine to make their move against Ishbosheth and, thus, to secure the good favor of David. Ishbosheth is murdered in his sleep.

They are thoroughly surprised at David’s response. David is disgusted with all the blood recently poured out by actions of Israelite-on-Israelite. First came the deaths of Saul, Jonathan, and two other of Saul’s sons. Then, Asahel picked a fight with Abner and was killed, in spite of Abner’s sincere wish against it. In the chapter immediately preceding this one, Joab treacherously took the life of Abner. Now, here come these two nobodies from the north, proud of themselves for murdering Ishbosheth in his sleep. It is too much for David. The author of the Psalms finds it all revolting.

On two occasions, as we have seen, David refrained from taking the life of Saul, and, on the second of these occasions, Saul himself was asleep (1 Samuel 24 & 6). In the mind of honorable David, the murder of a sleeping man is dishonorable beyond contemplation. In the present chapter, then, we are not surprised at his reaction to the murder of Ishbosheth (verses 9-12). Such an atrocity is repugnant to the classical chivalric spirit of the warrior David.

David’s reaction here is of a piece with his response to the murder of Abner in the previous chapter. David, throughout the difficult days during which he was a fugitive in the Judean desert, had placed his trust in the justice of God and had refrained from taking matters into his own hands. The present act of treachery, the murder of Ishbosheth, was exactly what could be expected, David believed, if men placed political and military expediency above moral principle.

Prior to telling this story of the death of Ishbosheth, however, the author pauses to insert a single verse on Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan. This quiet insertion, without comment, prepares for the lengthier treatment of this important character in chapter 9. With the death of Ishbosheth, this poor cripple becomes the last heir of Saul’s house. This insertion, then, introduces a point of great historical irony.

Thursday, June 21

Second Samuel 5: The present chapter narrates several events illustrating what David does to consolidate his political and military power. These events are narrated so close together that they appear to happen all at once. Given the Philistine threat from the southwest, this impression may be correct. Things must be done quickly because of that military threat.

This is a very important chapter of political transition. Abner’s adherence to David, followed quickly by the death of Ishbosheth, prepares the way for David’s assumption of authority over all of Israel. Their king and chief military figures all gone, the elders of the northern tribes sue for peace, in order to put the entire realm and region under David’s authority. They explicitly recognize that David is the Lord’s chosen and anointed one; recent events have proved it.

From his capital at Hebron, David has reigned over Judah since the Battle of Gilboah in 1000 B.C. The present scene brings us to about 992, some seven and a half years later, when David assumes complete authority over Israel and moves his capital to Jerusalem, a recently captured city. This significant place—-because it belongs to no particular tribe of Israelites—is less likely to be subject to tribal rule and tribal rivalries. David’s reign at Jerusalem is to last until 961 (verse 5).

David, having great plans for Jerusalem, establishes diplomatic and commercial relations with the Phoenicians, the people to Israel’s immediate north (verses 11-12). It is the Phoenicians that will provide the sundry materials for the construction of a new city on that site, including the Temple that David’s son will eventually construct. For now, however, David settles for the building of a palace for his growing family.

More sons are born to David at Jerusalem, one of them Solomon, who here (verse 14) makes his first appearance in Holy Scripture.

A chief reason prompting the northern tribes to place themselves under David’s rule, surely, is the need for a common defense against the Philistines, who so soundly defeated Saul’s army at Mount Gilboah. Consequently, dealing with those Philistines, now that he has a larger army, becomes David’s first order of business (verses 17-25). Doubtless these new developments in Israel bring great distress to the Philistines; for the past seven and a half years, after all, they were the beneficiaries of the strife between Israel’s northern and southern tribes. After this encounter among the mulberry trees, they know their political world is not the same.

Friday, June 22

Second Samuel 6: With the intent to transform Jerusalem into Israel’s true—not simply geographical—center, David determines to bring there the Ark of the Covenant. An unexpected incident during this transfer produces one of the most famous scenes in Holy Scripture.

David, as he begins to consolidate his reign, is full of plans. The Ark, the ancient symbol of God’s presence among the Israelites, is a part of those plans. Nothing in the Sacred Text indicates that David reflected adequately on the moral ambiguity involved in this endeavor. Very early in the Book of Samuel was another story of Israelites using the Ark to advance their own agenda. There was a battle with the Philistines, of which we are told:

So the people sent to Shiloh, that they might bring from there the ark of the covenant of the Lord of hosts, who dwells between the cherubim. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God. . . . So the Philistines fought, and Israel was defeated, and every man fled to his tent. There was a very great slaughter, and there fell of Israel thirty thousand foot soldiers. Also the ark of God was captured; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, died (First Samuel 4:4, 10-11).

In that episode, near the beginning of the Book of Samuel, the Lord endeavored to teach Israel that He could not be used. Did David understand that?

In the present story, the Lord makes His point once again, when Uzza—quite innocently, it seems—puts forth his hand to steady the Ark on the ox cart. He is struck dead on the spot.

Since he dies in the act, the lesson is not for Uzza. The lesson is for David, and he knows it. David is upset:

And David became angry because of the Lord’s outbreak against Uzzah. . . David was afraid of the Lord that day; and he said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” So David would not move the ark of the Lord with him into the City of David (verses 8-10)

Just as David is unable to bring the Ark into his own capital, he will also not be permitted to build a temple in that capital. God has chosen David, to be sure, but God intends to keep David on a shortened leash. Subsequent events will prove God right on the point: David is not, in every respect, worthy of trust. His ambitions will get the better of him in due course, and his sins will introduce tragedy into his history.

Still, he is God’s anointed one, as the next chapter will make clear.

Friday, June 8

First Samuel 23: Three episodes make up the narrative of this chapter: first, David at Keilah (verses 1-13); second, Jonathan and David together (verses 14-18); and third, Saul’s further pursuit (verses 19-28).

The complex episode at Keilah, in which David delivers the city from the enemies of Israel, may be contrasted with the story of Nob, in which there was no one to deliver the city from the King of Israel.

Faced with reports of the Philistine siege of Keilah, David is uncertain of his course: Does he dare take his modest guerilla band to fight the besiegers, even as Saul pursues him with a large army? David is no coward, but he also does not want to tempt the Lord by presumption.

Well, then, there is nothing for it but to consult the Lord, and recent events have made this recourse a bit easier. When Abiathar fled from Nob, he took with him the oracular ephod used by the priests to discern God’s will (verse 6). David, who appeals to this source several times in the present chapter, seeks guidance about what to do about Keilah. He consults the oracle once for himself, and then again to reassure his men. The answer, both times, is “Go for it!” He does, and a mighty victory ensues (verses 1-5).

Saul, who should have been the one to help Keilah, learns that David is now in the city, behind its walls. Aha, says he to himself, now we’re got him! Forthwith, the king proceeds to march toward Keilah.

David now confronts a new dilemma: Should he stay and take a stand in Keilah, to face Saul’s inevitable siege of the city, or should he flee before Saul arrives? There is a more direct way of posing the question: Will the citizens of Keilah protect David from Saul as he protected them from the Philistines?

On the face it, there is every reason to believe that the people in Keilah will be unwilling to put themselves at risk. They know what Saul just did to Nob, when he believed that city had aided David. David, again guided by oracular counsel, leads his men out of Keilah. It is a close call, nonetheless, and David is afraid (verses 14-15).

Jonathan, learning David’s whereabouts, leaves Saul’s force and comes to visit his friend in the Judean Desert (verses 16-18). On this, their final meeting, they renew their fraternal covenant.

One suspects that if Jonathan can ascertain the whereabouts of David, so can Saul, and he does. A messenger arrives, however, to report that the army is needed elsewhere to engage another Philistine attack. Once again, David experiences a providential mercy.

Before Jonathan departs from his friend, he professes certainty that David will inherit the throne. He adds that Saul, too, knows this. Thus, the reader is given an update on the state of Saul’s mind: He is aware of the hopelessness of his cause; he is conscious of resisting the inevitable.

This resistance, nonetheless, is still pretty strong. Relying on further reports of David’s whereabouts in the southern desert, Saul again advances and closes in on him. Just as the situation seems critical for David, word reaches Saul that he must break off the pursuit and journey back to deal with those pesky Philistines (verses 19-28). Divine Providence strikes again.

Saturday, June 9

First Samuel 24: When Saul’s jealousy and dangerous behavior drove David from the royal court, he was obliged to wander, much like an outlaw, in the desert regions in the south of Judah. Harassed and pursued by the army of the increasingly deranged king, David was constantly on the move, he and his small band of friends, hiding here and there as chance provided, often hungry and always exposed to danger. Saul had put a price on David’s head, moreover, so there was the added peril of betrayal; the king’s spies might be anywhere.

David’s plight was dire indeed: “in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness,” “being destitute, afflicted, tormented,” while wandering “in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth” (2 Corinthians 11:27; Hebrews 11:37-38).

The present reading tells the story of David’s concealment in another cave, this one at Engedi, just west of the Dead Sea, where Saul had led a military detachment to apprehend the young fugitive. The circumstances of this encounter draw attention to two features of the story, both of them typical of this whole period of David’s desert wandering.

First, there is the quiet, subtle working of Divine Providence, whereby the Lord protects David from capture and delivers his enemy into his power. The Lord has all these things in His historical control, a truth already perceived when David just happened to show up at Saul’s camp at the very moment Goliath was throwing out his challenge! This theme will be repeated in the next two chapters, the story of David and Nabal, and a second encounter with Saul.

Second, David shows mercy to Saul, whom he yet regards as Israel’s rightful king. This trait of mercy will also be manifest (and put to the test) in the two chapters that follow.

Throughout this period of great hardship and relentless persecution David learned by experience that “all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28). God has “called” David to become the next and better king, and David must bide God’s time and pleasure to reveal that call.

Psalm 55: Of the fourteen inscriptions that assign specific psalms to occasions in David’s life, nine are related to the period of his exile as a fugitive from the insane wrath of Saul. These assignments, which are rather imaginative, can be strung together, relating step-by-step to episodes during David’s time of desert exile. They are worth listing in sequence, following the narrative in 1 Samuel 19—31.

In this arrangement, the first assignment is Psalm 58 (59), which its inscription relates to the very beginning of David’s exile: Saul’s officers watching through the night, planning to arrest him in the morning (1 Samuel 19:11-12).

The second is Psalm 55 (56), assigned to David’s seizure and temporary detainment by the Philistines (21:10-15). This incident is also the assigned setting of the third example, Psalm 33 (34), but here there is an historical problem: Whereas David plays an idiot before Achish in the scene in First Samuel, this psalm title speaks of “Ahimelech,” an obvious confusion. The mistake prompts me to think a different—less careful—scribe was responsible for this inscription.

The fourth example, Psalm 141 (142), places David “in the cave.” This appears to be the cave of Adullam in 1 Samuel 22:1.

The fifth example relates Psalm 51 (5) to the treachery of Doeg the Edomite (22:9-19), who is thus identified as the boastful man with the vicious tongue. This assignment is probably the most persuasive.

The sixth example is Psalm 53 (54), the inscription of which relates it to David’s betrayal by the Ziphites (23:14-23).

The seventh example, Psalm 56 (57), is tied to David’s “close call” with Saul in the cave near Engedi (24:3-8).

The eighth example, which places David “in the wilderness of Judah,” is Psalm 62 (63). It is apparently a general reference to this whole period of David’s life.

The final example, Psalm 17 (18), celebrates the end of David’s exile, when Saul is slain in the Battle of Mount Gilboah. The text of this psalm is virtually identical to 2 Samuel 22.

One is impressed that nine of these fourteen biographical references are assigned to a relatively short period in David’s life: the time of his desert exile.

One is also struck that six of them are found in the “second book” of the Psalter, clustered between Psalms 51 and 62 (52 and 63). Five of those are assigned to discrete incidents within 1 Samuel 19-24. At least five of them, and perhaps six, appear to come from the same hand, which means that they appeared at the same time in a particular manuscript of the second book of the Psalter.

The impulse prompting that early copyist to make these biographical references is a matter of speculation, but surely the proper path in this speculation is to consider what those references did, in fact, achieve. There are two things, I believe:

First, by assigning these psalms—particularly those clustered in the second book of the Psalter—to the period of David’s persecution and distress, our scribe effectively identified the suffering just man, a very prominent a figure in the Psalter, with David, the Anointed One. In other words, the Lord’s Suffering Servant was made identical to the Lord’s Messiah.

Except for the incident of Absalom’s rebellion (the title assignment of Psalm 3), the period of David’s desert exile offered that ancient copyist the most persuasive opportunities to make that identification.

Second, our scribe’s interest in the period of David’s wandering in the desert evokes a comparison with Israel’s corresponding experience during the years following the Exodus. In the Psalter, this latter period receives extensive consideration (cf. Psalms 77 ([78], 94 [95], 104 [105], 105 [106], etc.).

Such a comparison, however, serves mainly to highlight a contrast: Whereas Israel, during its forty years in the desert, was repeatedly unfaithful to the Lord, the exiled David was entirely faithful during his desert sojourn. Tempted, in several instances, to assert his own will and take the future into his own hands, this Suffering Servant consistently surrendered his destiny and placed his soul in the hands of God.

Sunday, June 10

First Samuel 25: In this chapter, roughly halfway through the description of David’s exile, comes the endearing account of his meeting with Abigail and of their eventual marriage. Reckoned among the most winsome narratives in the Bible, it is a story interesting, and even intriguing, from several aspects. The principal interest of the biblical author himself is properly theological, especially the theme of wisdom.

Even though she will not become an active participant in the drama until verse 14, Abigail is immediately introduced with her husband Nabal, near the very beginning of the account. This stylistic arrangement allows the author to establish early what becomes a sustained contrast between the two characters throughout the story. Abigail is “a woman of good understanding and beautiful appearance,” whereas her husband “was harsh and evil in his doings” (verse 3). The rest of the account, elaborating the differences between a wise, attractive woman and her sottish, offensive husband, thus becomes a narrative enactment of the tension between Wisdom and the Fool, a standard theme of the Bible’s sapiential literature.

Nabal is rash, compulsively driven, hot-tempered, sharp-tongued, stubborn, stingy, impossible to reason with, and very slow to learn. A major feature of Nabal’s moral imbecility is the failure to appreciate his wife’s wisdom. Long habituated to ignoring her example and her counsel, he has followed his own path to self-destruction. His household servants sum it up: “He is such a scoundrel that one cannot speak to him” (verse 17).

Notwithstanding the conditions of her marriage, however, Abigail is not a woman to sit around agonizing over her fate. On the contrary, she is the very embodiment of the resourceful, energetic, and “virtuous wife” described in Proverbs 31:10–31: loving and patient, disciplined, hard-working and efficiently organized, wise and discerning, and endowed with a gentle disposition and pleasant speech.

Abigail’s household is so well ordered that, with no prior notice, she can promptly put together an enormous meal (including two hundred loaves of bread!) to feed David’s entire army (verse 18). A woman of great practical insight, she acts with dispatch; three times in the one chapter we are told that she “made haste” (verses 18, 23, 42). The attentive reader gains the impression of a woman who decided, years ago, that her very survival would require an energetic but disciplined approach to life.

To save her household, therefore, Abigail goes out to meet the outraged David. This latter, sadly, is not far behind Nabal in rashness of temper. Vowing an exorbitant retaliation for Nabal’s arrogant affront, he too is on the point of playing the Fool (cf. Proverbs 14:17). But then Abigail, acting as David’s own personal Lady Wisdom, comes to seek him out, giving the “soft answer [that] turns away wrath” (Proverbs 15:1), instructing him not to “answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him” (26:4). As the personification of Wisdom on David’s behalf, Abigail “has slaughtered her meat, / She has mixed her wine, / She has also furnished her table. / She has sent out her maidens, / She cries out from the highest places of the city” (9:2–10).

In his hour of impending moral peril, then, David’s deliverance comes from receiving the instruction of Wisdom (Proverbs 15:32–33). He is rescued from an evil course of action that his anger had caused to seem proper (16:25; Ecclesiastes 7:9). The wise Abigail exhorts him to patience and restraint. She persuades him to abandon his foolish vow—compare this with Saul’s earlier vow in chapter 14—of blood-vengeance and to leave retribution to a provident God.

Thus rescued from the edge of moral catastrophe, David recognizes and praises Abigail as a woman of sense and discretion. The ultimate, decisive difference between David and Nabal is that the one will listen to Abigail’s exhortation and the other will not. The wise man gladly receives instruction and reproof, but the fool does not.

As the messenger of Wisdom, moreover, Abigail serves in a prophetic role. She perceives God’s true purpose in history, foretelling David’s ascent to the throne and the founding of his dynasty: “The Lord will certainly make for my lord an enduring house” (verse 28; see also verse 30). She asks for herself only to be “remembered” by David (verse 31), a modest petition that is providentially granted in the marriage that ends this lovely story with both irony and extravagance.

Monday, June 11

First Samuel 26: This chapter describes a second encounter between Saul and David during the latter’s time of wandering in the desert as an exile.

There are distinct points of similarity between this story and the account found two chapters earlier—the encounter at the cave of En Gedi. These similarities include the betrayal of David by the friends of Saul, the irony of Saul’s seeking David and David’s finding Saul, David’s mercy to Saul and the reference to Saul as the Lord’s “anointed,” Saul’s retreat from further pursuit, and certain close resemblances in the conversations between the two men on both occasions.

In each account, the circumstances of their meeting give David an advantage over his adversary, an advantage that he exploits with singular restraint. In the first story, he cuts off the edge of Saul’s robe; in the second, he absconds with the spear and water jar placed near Saul’s head while he sleeps in camp. In both cases, the seized items serve as tokens to smite the conscience of Saul and bring him to a sense of remorse.

A major difference between the stories is the introduction of extra characters—Abishai and Abner—in the second. These are relatives of the antagonists; David is the uncle of Abishai, and Abner the uncle (or, perhaps, cousin) of Saul. From the perspective of the literary structure, the introduction of these extra characters ties the present episode to later—and deadly—encounters between them (cf. 2 Samuel 2-3).

Like the account of the cave at En Gedi (1 Samuel 24), the present story is largely structured on the contrasted characters of Saul and David. The one is mad and relentless in persecution, while the other is longsuffering and patient in mercy. Whereas the one imagines himself threatened, the other—who truly is threatened—forgives the offense and foregoes vengeance. Saul is clearly the unworthy king; David is clearly worthy to be the king.

This double thesis is elaborated through an identifiable dramatic sequence: David is tempted for a second time. Two chapters earlier he had “turned the other cheek” to Saul’s offense, refusing to return evil for evil (24:17). Now, once again, David steadfastly declines to harm this king who has proved himself to be an enemy. He turns the cheek a second time.

Nonetheless, the author’s moral contrast between the two men is far more than the development of an ethical theme. That is to say, the primary purpose of this narrative is not to convey a lesson in virtue. The author is not a Hebrew Aesop, nor even a biblical Plutarch. The moral structure of the story serves, rather, to illustrate the righteous judgment of God and His purposeful governance of history. God is the chief actor in this play.

If the two main characters in this new account are less explicit on this thesis than they were in the En Gedi story (cf. 24:12,20), the narrator is not. Indeed, I suggest that the entire theological burden of the encounter is conveyed in a single and subtle detail, which is introduced into the narrative at the point where David, under cover of darkness, departs from the enclosure of Saul’s picket line: “So David took the spear and the jug of water by Saul’s head, and they got away; and no man saw or knew it or awoke. For they were all asleep, because a deep sleep from the Lord had fallen on them” (26:12).

With this masterful stroke of storytelling, the narrator inserts the divine action into the story: “a deep sleep from the Lord had fallen on them.” The author mimics, as it were, the subtlety of David’s secret intrusion into the camp of Saul. This introduction of God is so quiet, so unobtrusive, that the reader—like one of those pickets posted on the line—must be fully awake to observe it. This “deep sleep from the Lord” is the sole point at which the narrator reveals the true theological significance of the story: a vigilant God keeps guard over these events.

What transpires here is not just a conflict between two antagonists. It is an episode in the dramatic enactment of the divine judgment. David, the reader knows, will come to the throne. At the end, even Saul’s knows it: “Be blessed, my son David! You shall do great things and you will continue to prevail.”

The deep slumber that came over Saul’s camp that night was the historical lock, into which God inserted “the key of David.” He shuts, and no one opens; He opens, and no one shuts.

Tuesday, June 12

First Samuel 27: As this chapter begins, the reader is immediately aware that the story shifts from the external circumstances in David’s life to his internal world of reflection and resolve. Hitherto, only dialogue within the narrative has disclosed what David is thinking. Now, however, for the first time in the story, the narrator enter, directly into the mind of David and, as it were, records his thought: “David said in his heart, “Now I shall perish someday by the hand of Saul.” David now reaches the same conclusion that has probably occurred to the reader already! Saul cannot be trusted. David may not be so fortunate, if he meets the king a third time.

David’s decision to “go over” to Israel’s traditional enemies, the Philistines, is drastic. He has already received prophetic intimations—from Jonathan, Abigail, and even Saul—that he will eventually become King of Israel. He must realize that this decision to join the Philistines, on the face of it, renders those prophetic intimations less likely. Will the Israelites ever choose, as their king, a man who—as far as they can tell—abandoned them in order to collaborate with their enemies?

One suspects this question occurred to Saul, as well, because he foregoes further pursuit of David: “And it was told Saul that David had fled to Gath; so he sought him no more.” The situation lasts sixteen months, until the Battle of Mount Gilboah.

One further suspects that other Israelites at the time also regarded
David’s move, as described in this chapter, to represent betrayal and apostasy. The Philistine king depends on this impression among the Israelites, because he believes it will strengthen David’s loyalty to him.

Arguing for a frontier post for himself and his followers, David uses these sixteen months to continue smiting Israel’s Canaanite enemies to the south, cleverly disguising this activity from his Philistine overlord. His pretense requires the slaughter of whole Canaanite populations, so that no survivors can tell the truth.

David scruples over this slaughter no more than the original Israelites who conquered the Canaanites back in the time of Joshua. Indeed, David surely regarded this policy as a continuation of Joshua’s own conquest, except that he does not scruple to take spoils from those whom he kills.

Questioned on the matter, David deceives the Philistine leader into believing that his conquests have been against his own countrymen, the people of Judah. Just as in the case of David’s acts of slaughter, the biblical author does not comment on the morality of this lie. It appears that the Philistines, in spite of David’s constant proclamations of loyalty, still have their nagging doubts. David’s words, after all—if carefully analyzed—suggest a touch of evasiveness!

Two can play that game, however. By making David’s men his own bodyguard, the Philistine king contrives to keep him close and under surveillance.

It is worth remarking here that the episodes in this chapter testify to the truthfulness of the biblical story. If the account of David’s rise to power were simply an idealized, Camelot-like narrative, the details in this chapter would never have found their way into the Bible. They are included for the simple reason that the biblical author knew them to be historical facts.

Wednesday, June 13

First Samuel 28: Moving from the Philistines to the Israelites, this chapter tells of the two opposing kings. It opens with an impending crisis and goes on to narrate how each man prepares for the coming battle.

The author continues, first, to elaborate the complicated relationship between David and the Philistine king. The latter, having grown suspicious (it seems) of David’s activities and his motives, makes him and his small band the royal bodyguard. While appointment to this service is certainly a mark of confidence on the king’s part, it also has the effect of keeping David close to court, the better to keep track of his activities.

Now the king sees an opportunity—in the impending battle—to test the loyalty of David. He determines that the latter’s small force should play a prominent role in the fight. David, learning this, responds with a cautious ambivalence. “Well,” he says, “you will certainly learn what I am capable of.”

This brief conversation is followed by a second notice of the death of Samuel, inserted here to introduce the main event of the chapter—Saul’s meeting with the witch at Endor.

Saul, apprehensive about the coming conflict, covets some preternatural guidance with respect to its outcome. Such consultations were hardly unknown in antiquity. We recall, for instance, that Croesus of Lydia, who contemplated war with the Persians, consulted the oracles at both Thebes and Delphi.

Alas for Saul, however, Israel’s most recent valid “oracle,” Samuel, was dead, and Saul’s grievous mistreatment of the priests makes priestly consultation an improbable choice.

Moreover, Saul himself has purged the land of sorcerers, soothsayers, and other necromantic media. There is, in short, a shortage of witches! The author appreciates the irony of Saul’s situation: For some time an evil spirit has held sway over the imagination and mind of the king, clouding his thought and prompting him to act irrationally. Now, however, in order to seek further light, the king will go to another dark source.

The writings of the Old Testament, composed over several centuries, are not of one mind with respect to an afterlife for the dead. In general, the dead are treated as though they were no longer living; they were simply inaccessible to contact from this earth. In some sources, nonetheless, they seem to be shadowy figures, resembling the spirits of the dead in the Odyssey. The Torah proscribes all attempts to reach them, commanding capital punishment for those who make the effort. Thus, Saul is about to violate the very injunction (from Leviticus) he had enforced.

Saul’s assumption of a disguise advances an ongoing theme of the book: Saul’s gradual loss of his regal clothes. Already we have seen him naked, dancing among the dervishes, and recently David has cut off part of his garment. Now, he puts aside the royal raiment and dons the guise of a commoner.

Because the witch herself suspects a trap, Saul assures her with an oath. When the ghost of Samuel appears in his prophetic robe, nonetheless, the witch knows Saul has deceived her. She screams, and Saul repeats his oath not to punish her.

Samuel wears the very coat torn by Saul at an earlier meeting. For Saul, this is not a good sign. Nor are Saul’s first words very encouraging: “Why have you awakened me?” Samuel then repeats the dire prediction he gave to Saul years before: He would lose the kingdom. God has already determined it. Tomorrow, says Samuel, you and your sons will join me in the realm of the dead.

There ensues the poignant story of the witch feeding Saul his last meal.

Thursday, June 14

First Samuel 29: Leaving the night scene of the previous chapter, the narrative moves backwards to an incident of the previous day, the time when we last read of David and the Philistines.

Twice in this sequence, in fact, the narrator finds an advantage in moving backwards in time, as he shifts the story from one camp to the other. In the present place, the insertion of the story of the witch serves to provide a narrative space between David’s two meetings with the Philistine king (28:1-2 and 29:6-9). In the next instance, the battle with the Amalekites, which occurs after the Battle of Gilboah (“when David and his men came to Ziklag, on the third day”—30:1), is told first, so that the Battle of Mount Gilboah holds the properly climactic position in the narrative.

The Philistine king, who had planned to use David’s force in the coming battle, finds no support among the other commanders. Recalling his earlier service to Israel, they simply do not trust this self-alleged Israelite rebel; they suspect he will turn on them in the coming battle. The king, embarrassed by this circumstance, asks David and his men to withdraw from the field and go back to Philistia.

A scene of complaint and remonstration ensues, David and the Philistine king each protesting his lack of responsibility in the circumstances.

It seems strange that the Philistine king, swearing his friendship to David, should invoke Israel’s God; “Surely, as the Lord lives . . .” Although David once again professes his loyalty to the king, he must surely feel relieved that Divine Providence—using the Philistine commanders as historical instruments—is setting him free from a difficult situation. More than one reader has observed that the words chosen by David refer to his loyalty to “my lord the king.” Just what king does David have in mind? Is this choice of words deliberately multivalent? And just who are the “enemies” to whom David refers? The answer to the first question determines the answer to the second. David does not clarify.

We observe the contrast of night and day: Just after Saul’s midnight meal at the residence of the witch, “David and his men rose early to depart in the morning, to return to the land of the Philistines.” This is the morning of the battle; the other incidents in the chapter took place the previous day.

The development in this chapter serves two narrative purposes: First, it liberates David from a difficult situation in the coming battle. Second, it places him in a position to advance the cause against enemies. The Amalekites, taking advantage of the absence of the Philistine army, are determined to do a bit of mischief, as we shall see in the next chapter.

Friday, June 15

First Samuel 30: David and his men, not yet informed about the outcome of the Battle of Mount Gilboah, return to their earlier base on the southeastern edge of Philistine territory. They arrive on the third day.

This story also serves the apologetic purpose of putting a great distance between David and the death of Saul. David could never be blamed for it, because he was far away.

David’s company discovers that the Amalekites, in their absence, have attacked and destroyed Ziklag, where they had left their families and property.

Since Ziklag was taken in the absence of David’s band, there was no real battle. Consequently, there were no deaths in the attack; all the prisoners are still alive. The prisoners have become—like Joseph of old—prisoners of Amalekite slave-traders.

As for David, he genuinely fears that his men, discovering that their families have been abducted, are going to take some revenge of him; it was his idea, after all, to be away from Ziklag these past several days. The author’s inclusion of this detail of David’s fear indicates how precarious his situation has been over the past fourteen months. His handful of followers has given up a lot on his behalf. They are desperate men, and they have their limits. David fears those limits may have been trespassed by this recent catastrophe at Ziklag. The author comments on David’s spiritual attitude in this crisis: “David strengthened himself in the Lord his God.”

In David’s consultation with the priestly oracular ministry, there is a clear contrast between him and Saul. Whereas the latter has just been reduced to seeking counsel from a dark source, David has the advantage of a priest, Abiathar, in his camp, and from this priest he seeks guidance in the present calamity. Abiathar reassures him.

On their way to rescue their families, David and his men find an abandoned Egyptian, who provides information helpful to their cause. Using this information, they quickly discover the raiders, spread out and insouciant to danger. Since four hundred of them will escape David’s surprise attack, their number is apparently large. Gorging themselves with food, however, and having too much to drink, they are no match for David’s enraged band descending on their camp without warning.

The booty taken by David includes not only the spoils absconded from Ziklag, but also the material the raiders have taken from other adventures in the region. All of this material belongs to the Israelites as the rewards of war.

Those who have accompanied David all the way, however, are reluctant to share the booty with the exhausted men who stayed behind. David, who perceives that the recent success represents, not simply human effort, but the generosity of God—what the Lord has given us—insists on a corresponding generosity among his men.

In such a adjudication, the reader perceives that David is more than a brave and skilful warrior; he is also the sort of humane leader Israel will now need, for Saul (as we presently see) has just perished on a battlefield further north.

Friday, June 1

1 Samuel 16: As Saul was introduced by a series of three episodes, so is David. First, there is a private anointing: Saul in 9:26—10:1, David in 16:1-13. Second, there is a more elaborate introduction: Saul in 10:20-24, David in 16:14-13. Third, there is a military exploit: Saul in 11:1-15, David in 17:1-31.

Whereas chapter 15 ended in Samuel’s mourning for Saul, at the beginning of the present chapter the Lord tells him it is time to stop mourning and so something positive about the situation. The time has come to disregard Saul who belongs—already!—to the past. Samuel must forget those things that are behind and reach forward to those things that are ahead.

Like Saul (9:16; 10:1; 11:15), David will be anointed three times: by Samuel (verse 13), by the tribe of Judah (2 Samuel 2:4), and by the elders of Israel (2 Samuel 5:3).

Right from the beginning of David’s rise, Holy Scripture insists that the process of that rise cannot be understood by external observation; considerations of flesh and blood do not explain it. The meaning of it eludes the scrutiny of the “objective historian,” who will see in it only a political narrative. Such a one will comment on the various political forces, including David’s own ambition, which will bring the son of Jesse to the throne. All such considerations, however, fail to cover the case, says Holy Scripture.

Consequently, Samuel is cautioned not to regard the matter with solely human eyes, because “God does not see as man sees.” David will become king because God wants him to be king. Whereas Saul was chosen, in part, because he looked like a king (9:2; 10:23), such considerations must now be excluded from the process (verse 7).

As in the case of Saul (9:12-24), David’s first anointing is preceded by a sacrificial meal (verses 3-5).

As is so often the case in Holy Scripture—Abel over Cain, Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Ephraim over Manasseh—David is chosen instead of his older brothers. As the “youngest” (haqqatan—verse 11), David is presumably the smallest, a feature in which he is contrasted with Saul (cf. 9:2; 10:23).

At the end of the first scene (verse 13), the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon David and abode there “from that time onward.” Only at that dramatic point is David’s name actually used.

Samuel leaves the scene and will not appear again until three chapters later (19:18).

The second scene in this chapter, which brings Saul and David together for the first time, introduces a situation of mammoth irony. The Spirit of the Lord, in descending on David, departed from Saul. The latter, as a result fell into a state of ever deepening depression—“an evil spirit”—manifest in jealousy (18:3-8), intrigue (18:15), violence (19:9-10; 20:33; 22:16-19), paranoia (20:25), and superstition (28:7-13).

To minister to this rapidly disintegrating king, David was introduced into the court as a musician, because Saul’s depression responded positively to the influence of music. The reader and—except for David—only the reader recognizes that this musician had already been anointed as Saul’s replacement on the throne! The irony is heightened by the fact that Saul cherished David (verse 21).

We may be correct in the suspicion that some of David’s psalms may have come from this period.

In this chapter is our first explicit assertion that the Lord was “with” David (verse 18). Indicating the source of David’s wisdom and strength, this assertion will be repeated several times (cf. 18:12,14,28; 2 Samuel 5:10).

Saturday, June 2

1 Samuel 17: Here we come to the famous story of David and Goliath (cf. Sirach 47:4-5; Josephus, Antiquities 6.9.1-5[170-192]).

This chapter presents greater textual challenges than any we have met so far. The reader will sense the magnitude of the textual problem if he simply compares the usual translations of it (New King James, Revised Standard Version, etc.) with the much shorter version in The Orthodox Study Bible. The latter is based on some major (but not all) manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint, while the former translations were made from the Hebrew text inherited from the medieval Massorites.

Why are the Greek manuscripts of this chapter shorter than the Hebrew? After all, when these two textual traditions differ, the Hebrew readings tend to be shorter than the Greek. The best hypothesis—though not absolutely certain—is that the Greek translators shortened the text in order to avoid the general awkwardness and historical inconsistencies characteristic of the traditional Hebrew text of this chapter.

These inconsistencies include the fact that when David appears in this story, he comes as a total stranger—one would never suspect that he was already well known at court and served as Saul’s armor bearer. Because of such inconsistencies in the Hebrew text, some commentators argue that the Greek translation, especially in the Vaticanus manuscript, better preserves the original form of the story.

To me the very opposite seems to be the case. That is to say, it seems far more probable that the story was shortened in order to eliminate narrative inconsistencies than that these inconsistencies were gratuitously added to the text at a later date. At the same time, as I have noted, I regard the question of a “more original” text as a literary, not a theological, concern. Both versions of the story of David and Goliath have been handed down by the People of God. Following the path consistently pursued throughout these comments on Samuel, both traditions will be considered here, but I consider it probable that the received Hebrew text—the Massoretic—represents the earlier form of the story.

With respect to the historical inconsistencies in that text, I will simply note their existence. If they did not bother the inspired biblical writer, there is no reason why the Bible reader need be concerned about them.

The Philistines, who arrive in the Holy Land about the same time as the Israelites, arrived from the Greek coastlands and islands. Indeed, the Egyptians called them “the sea peoples.” Thus, they were Europeans, whose ways were quite alien to the Semite territory they invaded. Indeed, the Philistines were very much the same people described in Homer and other ancient Greek literature. We are correct, therefore, in regarding them as the first Western invaders of the Middle East. Thus, there is a special irony in the fact that the very name of these invaders, “Philistines,” is the root word that eventually gave its name to the region they invaded, “Palestine.”

Several things are notable about this battle:

First, we observe the attention given to single-handed combat, a feature this story has in common with so many battle scenes in Homer. Because so much of ancient warfare was hand-to-hand, stories of individual heroism tended to dominate ancient epic accounts of battle. Although thousands of men fought on both sides of the Trojan War, for instance, the interest of the poet was largely directed to just a few outstanding warriors on each side, whose battles he describes in dramatic detail. In this respect the present chapter of 1 Samuel almost reads like a page from the Iliad.

Second, in that classical literature the significance of such battles was indicated to the reader through the dialogue in which the battles were set. Thus, for instance, the significance of the fight between Hector and Patroclus is to be found in the brief speeches that each man gives in preparation for the encounter. The same is to be said for the final fight between Achilles and Hector.

We find much the same thing here in 1 Samuel. The significance—in this case, the theological significance—of the fight between David and Goliath is to be found in the dialogues and speeches of this chapter: Goliath’s challenge, the announcement by Saul’s spokesman, David’s dialogue with his brothers and the other soldiers, the conversation between David and Saul, the challenges hurled at one another by Goliath and David, and the dialogue of Saul with Abner. David’s pre-battle declarations carry the theological weight of the narrative.

Third, great attention to detail characterizes the description on the giant and his armor (verses 4-7). He is definitely the strong man fully armed. With respect to the prophetic mystery of the battle with Goliath, our Teacher commented, “But if I cast out demons with the finger of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace. But when a stronger than he comes upon him and overcomes him, he takes from him all his armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoils” (Luke 11:20-22). In this text, Jesus discloses the deeper identity of Goliath and David.

Fourth, when David arrives at the battlefield, things are not going well for Israel. First of all, the tallest man in the army, King Saul, is terrified of the apparently taller Philistine (6’9” in the Greek, 9’9” in the Hebrew). Since his recent emotional collapse, His Majesty is way off his stride. Saul is so chowderheaded that he does not even recognize David, who has already been identified as his armor bearer. Even at the end of the chapter, when the immediate crisis has passed, Saul has no idea who David’s father is, even though he had written a letter to that father in the previous chapter (16:19). The king’s weakness and confusion have infected the whole army, as David discovers on his arrival at camp.

Fifth, Goliath is said to “challenge” or “reproach” Israel; the verb haraph, found five times in this chapter (verses 10,25.26,36,45), bears both meanings. It conveys insult, not only to Israel’s army, but also to Israel’s God. We gain some sense of the verb’s meaning in this chapter by consulting the Psalms: “My enemies reproach me [herpuni], / While they say to me all day long, / ‘Where is your God?’” (42[41]:10). Again, “My dishonor is continually before me, / And the shame of my face has covered me, / Because of the voice of him who reproaches (mehareph) and reviles” (4[43]:15-16).

Recognizing the blasphemy of Goliath, David could well have prayed on this occasion, “O God, how long will the adversary reproach [yehareph]? / Will the enemy blaspheme Your name forever?” (74[73]:10; cf. 55[54]:13; 74[73]:18; 79[78]:12; 89[88]:53; 89[88]:52 (twice); 102[101]:9).

Sixth, this battle is really about Israel’s “living God” and the idol of the Philistines. That is to say, this is a repeat of the battle earlier waged in Dagon’s temple. When the mortally wounded Goliath falls on his face, he assumes the posture in which Dagon was found before the Ark (5:3).

Trinity Sunday, June 3

First Samuel 18: Like the previous chapter, though not quite so extensively, the present chapter exhibits a high percentage of variant readings between the Hebrew and Greek textual traditions; here, too, the traditional Hebrew text is more ample and detailed. Sometimes the differences are significant. For instance, the Greek version (along with Josephus) says nothing of David’s proposed marriage to Saul’s eldest daughter, Merab.

The chief motif of chapter 18 is Saul’s growing suspicion and distrust of David, which is elaborated in the context of Saul’s family. Both his son, Jonathan, and his daughter, Michal, quickly become fond of David.

With respect to Saul’s daughter, Michal, the king sees a way to use her affection for David as a means to dispose of him: He offers the girl in marriage, but requires his planned son-in-law to pay one hundred Philistine foreskins as a bridal price. Saul presumes that this requirement—which includes a course ethnic humor about Philistine genitalia—will enrage the Philistines bit of enough to finish David off. In the Greek version, David simply produces the one hundred foreskins, but the Hebrew text is more interesting and ironical: David decides to show Saul a thing or two by producing—and counting out!—two hundred Philistine foreskins!

With respect to Saul’s son, Jonathan, the king observes with distress that he has become deeply attached to David, much impressed with the latter’s handling of Goliath. David’s abrupt intervention on the battlefield, at the hour when “Saul and all Israel . . . were dismayed and greatly afraid,” seized the attention of Jonathan. His eyes fixed on this newcomer walking calmly back into the camp, his one hand gripping the giant’s sword and his other swinging the giant’s severed head.

Jonathan, unlike most godly men of the Old Testament, died young. Indeed, combat being a pursuit commonly ungenerous in respect to years, Jonathan’s prospects for maturing to grey hairs were never promising. However, as we have seen, he fought with a derring-do that lowered those chances further yet. As for the enemies of Jonathan, their odds for old age were even worse, for he was truly fearsome in the arts of war.

Though he was manifestly adept as a swordsman, it was chiefly as an archer that men remembered Jonathan. They often watched him begin his day in the discipline of that skill (20:20–22, 35–38). The funeral dirge of Saul and Jonathan, memorized by the Israelites and in due course recorded in the Book of Jasher, was known, in fact, as the “Song of the Bow” (2 Samuel 1:18), named for that line that reads, “the bow of Jonathan did not turn back” (1:22).

Jonathan’s pursuit of warfare was contoured by, and inseparable from, a warm commitment to his father’s throne. He was a faithful son, but his fidelity will be sorely tried in the chapters that follow. As it became obvious to both father and son that David, not Jonathan, would be the next king (20:15; 24:20), the situation grew tense and progressively complex. Saul, increasingly deranged and acting in rage, not only disputed the fidelity of Jonathan (20:30, 31), but even made an impetuous attempt on his life (20:33). Remaining ever loyal to David, however, Jonathan stayed steadfast at the side of his doomed father, finally dying with him on the desperate slopes of Gilboah, brave and faithful to the end.

Monday, June 4

First Samuel 19: This chapter is structured on three episodes, in each of which David is delivered from the clutches of Saul: (1) with the aid of Jonathan; (2) with the aid of Michal; and (3) with the aid of Samuel. There is a progressive intensity in these three episodes: in the first, David is delivered by negotiation; in the second, by a ruse; and in the third, by a demolishing counter-attack.

In the first episode (verses 1-7) Jonathan, following a promise to David, persuades his father to call off the execution of his friend. David is so placed that he can hear the conversation and be reassured. This intervention is successful, and David returns to court. This arrangement, nonetheless, is not permanent, because David’s continued military success plunges Saul once more into a deep and murderous madness (verses 8-10).

In the second episode (verses 11-17) Michal, learning of Saul’s scheme to kill her husband the next morning, plots his escape during the night. Her ruse includes placing a statue of a household god in David’s bed and pretending he is sick. Meanwhile, David makes good his getaway.

This story reminds the reader of Rachel, who, like Michal, also employed the services of a household god to deceive her own father, Laban (Genesis 31:19,34-35). The similarity between the two cases, moreover, prompts the reader to recall that Laban, like Saul, meanly used his two daughters to exploit Jacob; both Laban and Saul delayed handing over the desired daughters and increased the price for them.

In the third episode (verses 18-24) Samuel, receiving David at his home in Ramah, protects him from Saul and the agents Saul sends to capture the fugitive.

This episode is elaborately told. Three delegations are dispatched. At each instance, Samuel and his prophetic followers are raised to ecstatic experience, causing a negative and debilitating reaction among those dispatched to capture David. (They become as helpless as the three delegations sent to arrest Elisha in 2 Kings 1:9-18.) Finally, Saul himself arrives, and in this case the debilitating reaction becomes extreme: Saul goes completely mad, strips off his clothes, and lies naked in the dirt.

The final details of this third episode form a contrasting parallel with Samuel’s first encounter with Saul at Ramah in chapter 9. There are five points of correspondence: (1) Both meetings take place at Ramah; (2) in each case Saul makes inquiry how to find Samuel; (3) in each case the inquiry is made at a well (cf. 9:10-11; 19:22); (4) in each case Saul is gripped by an ecstatic experience; and (5) in both cases the bystanders inquire, “Is Saul among the prophets?

This detailed parallel, however, serves entirely to heighten a contrast. Whereas in the first encounter with Samuel Saul was elevated in honor, in the second he is utterly degraded. In the first case, the question, “Is Saul among the prophets?” invites a positive response: “Yes!” In the second case the same question solicits a negative answer: “No, Saul is among the hopelessly insane!”

As Saul slips into lunacy, David makes his escape. Never again to appear in the court of Saul, he begins to live as a fugitive and outlaw, a thing not so easy to do in a place as small as the Judean Desert.

Tuesday, June 5

First Samuel 20: It would be a simple matter to document the political crisis brought about by the decline of Saul and the simultaneously increasing success of David. Holy Scripture is not content, however, simply to chronicle the details of this crisis. Two other aspects of the political situation are objects of his interest and reflection: the divine purpose and the human drama. The first aspect is concerned with theology, and the second with psychology.

First, with respect to God’s purpose in the painful unfolding of the events in these chapters of Samuel, the comments of Holy Scripture are necessarily brief, modest, and occasionally indirect. The biblical writer claims no clarity of perception into the divine mind beyond the experienced conviction that the Lord of history had a decisive hand in the political development described in these pages. Things did not simply happen. They happened, rather, because they were guided by an obscure providential impulse that nudged events along in a determined direction. At no point in the story, moreover, did this providential impulse violate or impair the free choices and decisions of those taking part in the drama.

Here and there the biblical author points to some seam in the story’s fabric where God inserts a subtle but determining influence. For instance, when David and his two companions gain the advantage over Saul as he sleeps in the camp at Hachilah (chapter 26), the author discerns the divine intrusion that makes the story’s outcome possible: “David took the spear and the jug of water at Saul’s head, and they slipped away; and no man saw or knew it or awoke. For they were all asleep, because a deep sleep from the Lord had fallen on them.” How did this happen? The writer has no idea, but he is sure of it, and that little detail determines the outcome of the narrative.

Sometimes the author’s perception of the providential influence is so oblique that he refrains from drawing attention to it. The reader is obliged to ferret the matter out for himself. For example, after going into minute detail on everything David did on the morning he set out for Saul’s camp near Azekah (chapter 17), the biblical writer barely hints at (wehinneh—“and behold”) the significance of Goliath’s appearance at the very moment David arrives on the scene. If the reader is unable to spot the significance of this “coincidence,” the author will not insult him by pointing it out.

More often the biblical writer summons his characters to become the spokesmen for his thesis. In the present chapter, for instance, Jonathan conveys his conviction that God is leading David to the throne; the Lord, Jonathan asserts, will be with David as He was, in former days, with his own father. Abigail, too, in chapter 25, voices this same conviction about the divine plan. She says to David, “For the Lord will certainly make for my lord an enduring house.” Even Saul becomes the spokesman for this thesis, declaring in the following chapter, “May you be blessed, my son David! You shall both do great things and also still prevail.”

Second, with respect to the human drama of this political crisis, the biblical author describes in detail the complex psychological experiences of the major characters.

Chief among these is Saul himself, who suffers the emotional trauma born of his rebellion. For a brief period—exactly one verse in the previous chapter—Saul lets Jonathan persuade him to abandon the persecution of David. The reader detects Saul’s unhappiness at his own state, but to no avail. Deeper than these transitory impulses of remorse is Saul’s radical rebellion against the divine will. Even though Saul can say—and evidently, for the time being, believe it—“I have played the fool and erred exceedingly,” David cannot trust the king’s emotional instability.

In the present chapter, the author examines the inner suffering of Jonathan, who is understandably torn between the obligation of piety to his father and loyalty to his friend. Intrinsically opposed, both claims were equally tested. Even as he is faithful to his father, Jonathan is fully aware that the old man cannot be trusted, even with his son’s life. Saul is doomed, and Jonathan knows it, but Saul is still his father. David, to whom he is bound by personal covenant, is in danger, and Jonathan must protect him, even at the cost of offending Saul. At the same time, he knows, David will prevail; David will wear the crown—not he. And what—he wonders—will David do, when he comes to power, to secure this power against the claims of Jonathan’s own family? Most of all, in the present chapter, what can Jonathan do to demonstrate his absolute loyalty to his friend, whom the rest of the world must see as Jonathan’s rival for the throne? Was ever a friendship so tested as this one?

Wednesday, June 6

First Samuel 21: Jonathan, though sorely pressed in the effort, found a way to remain loyal to David without breaking his allegiance to Saul. Not everyone involved in the crisis was able to do this—the priests at Nob, for example, one of whom David now approaches in the first story of this chapter (verses 1-10).

Ahimelech, chief of the priests at Nob, was the great-grandson of Eli, the priest of Shiloh, who was so important to the first chapters of this book. That family moved south after the Philistines’ capture of the Ark and the death of Eli, and now we find them at Nob, not far from Jerusalem.

Ahimelech, acquainted with reports of the deteriorating relationship between the king and his son-in-law, is at first fearful to receive David. Doubtless he knew these reports from his brother, Ahijah, who served as Saul’s chaplain (14:3). Ahimelech is nervous.

He has reason to be: Although David has struggled to remain an obedient subject of the king and a faithful friend to the king’s son, he is not overly scrupulous with the truth on every occasion, including two occasions in this chapter.

In short, David deceives Ahimelech, perhaps with the intention of giving him an excuse if Saul should learn of this meeting. First, David is well aware that Ahimelech has custody of the sword of Goliath. Indeed, it was to obtain this sword that David has come to Nob. Nevertheless, he never mentions the sword; he simply requests a weapon, and he does so near the end of his visit, as though it were an afterthought.

Second, David deceptively reassures Ahimelech that, far from being on the outs with Saul, he has just been dispatched by the king on a top-secret mission. He goes on to elaborate this hoax by mentioning that the rest of his party is concealed in the neighborhood.

That is to say, David hoodwinks the priest into helping him—the first of many beggars to hoodwink the clergy this way—and when the incident is very soon reported to Saul, Ahimelech will pay a dear price for his kindness. In due course, David’s conscience will not lie easy on this matter.

The bread David receives from Ahimelech come from “the loaves of the presence,” the dedicated bread placed in the sanctuary before the Lord and replaced each Sabbath (cf. Exodus 25:30; 35:13; Leviticus 24:5-9; 1 Chronicles 9:32). This bread is normally eaten only by the priests, but Ahimelech makes an exception in the present case. This exception will later meet a very important approval (cf. Matthew 12:3-4; Mark 2:25-26; Luke 6:3-4).

One verse mentions that Saul’s spy witnesses the entire transaction. Not good.

In the second, and shorter, story (verses 11-16), David continues to elude Saul by going southwest and crossing into Philistine territory. This is risky, but David is a bit desperate. We suspect that reports of the political crisis in Israel may have reached Philistine ears, but David takes no chances. To make certain the Philistines will see in him neither a threat nor an advantage, he begins to act demented. When David recently watched Saul in a completely demented state, he took notes and knows what to do. The Philistines are impressed.

There had been abroad lately whole sections of Saul’s army—even Saul himself—suddenly growing crazy, so the Philistines are on their guard. The problem might be contagious, for all they know, so Achish, the king of Gath, declines to have anything to do with this mad visitor from Israel. Out with him!

While David is playing the idiot in Gath, Saul’s Edomite spy wastes no time getting word to the king about what has just happened at Nob.

Meanwhile, it occurs to David that his own family is at risk; he must get them to safety, away from Saul. They will be safest in Moab, he considers. Through their venerable ancestor, Ruth, the family has a touch of Moabite blood. It is time to turn east and see to the thing.

Thursday, June 7

First Samuel 22: This chapter is formed of three parts, the first concerned with the journeys of David (verses 1-5), the second with the activities of Saul and Doeg (verses 6-19), and the third with the flight of Abiathar (verses 20-22).

Several significant facts emerge from the first section:

First, David is joined in his wanderings by his family and other outcasts interested in eluding Saul. This group will provide the wanderer with the makings of a guerilla army.

Second, David puts his family under the protection of the king of Moab, who feels no qualm, we imagine, to helping someone he thinks is opposed to the king of Israel.

Third, David begins to receive guidance from a prophet, Gad, who enters his service and will remain with him for years to come (cf. 2 Samuel 24:11-19; 1 Chronicles 21:9-19).

This chapter’s second part, concerned with the activities of Saul and Doeg, presents three scenes:

First, Saul convenes a sort of “court of inquiry,” during which he upbraids his officers for their alleged disloyalty to him (verses 6-8). Doeg, by way of defending himself against this indictment, reports on David’s helpful reception by the priests of Nob (verses 9-10).

Second, in pursuit of Doeg’s charge, Saul subpoenas Ahimelech and interrogates him on the charges alleged by Doeg (verses 13-15). In spite of the priest’s able defense and asseverations of innocence, Saul condemns him and all his family to death (verse 16).

Third, when Saul is unable to find anyone else to do the deed, he commissions Doeg to execute the priests, and his slaughter is extended to the entire priestly city of Nob (verses 17-19). Even the farm animals are slain, as Nob were—like Jericho of old—a city under a divine ban (cf. Deuteronomy 13:16-17; 20:16-17; Joshua 10:28,30,32; Judges 1:8,25).

The number of slain priests varies in the sources: the Massoretic text—85; the Septuagint—305; Josephus (Antiquities 6.12.6[260])—385.

The final section of this chapter (verses 20-23) tells of the escape of Ahimelech’s son, Abiathar, who seeks and finds refuge in David’s company. Now this group includes a priest as well as a prophet.

Saul’s mental and spiritual deterioration is now extreme. What began as personal jealousy is quickly becoming a civil war, including the willful slaughter of innocent people.

Saul has sunk so low that he throws in his lot with the likes of Doeg, arguably the worst man in the Bible. When Dante put Judas Iscariot in the lowest place in hell, he must have forgotten about Doeg. This was a man of cultivated cruelty, an individual with a developed taste for evil and a singular delight in the shedding of blood, a callous villain of no remorse.

Doeg’s ethical stature did not rise so high as hopelessness. As a moral character Judas seems preferable. Doeg would never have been capable of a moral sentiment so “sensible” as despair, nor a moral statement so “principled” as suicide. Judas surpasses Doeg in terms of literary, psychological, and artistic interest. The problem with Doeg is that he is not only bad, but that he is so evil as to be uninteresting.

Friday, June 8

First Samuel 23: Three episodes make up the narrative of this chapter: first, David at Keilah (verses 1-13); second, Jonathan and David together (verses 14-18); and third, Saul’s further pursuit (verses 19-28).

The complex episode at Keilah, in which David delivers the city from the enemies of Israel, may be contrasted with the story of Nob, in which there was no one to deliver the city from the King of Israel.

Faced with reports of the Philistine siege of Keilah, David is uncertain of his course: Does he dare take his modest guerilla band to fight the besiegers, even as Saul pursues him with a large army? David is no coward, but he also does not want to tempt the Lord by presumption.

Well, then, there is nothing for it but to consult the Lord, and recent events have made this recourse a bit easier. When Abiathar fled from Nob, he took with him the oracular ephod used by the priests to discern God’s will (verse 6). David, who appeals to this source several times in the present chapter, seeks guidance about what to do about Keilah. He consults the oracle once for himself, and then again to reassure his men. The answer, both times, is “Go for it!” He does, and a mighty victory ensues (verses 1-5).

Saul, who should have been the one to help Keilah, learns that David is now in the city, behind its walls. Aha, says he to himself, now we’re got him! Forthwith, the king proceeds to march toward Keilah.

David now confronts a new dilemma: Should he stay and take a stand in Keilah, to face Saul’s inevitable siege of the city, or should he flee before Saul arrives? There is a more direct way of posing the question: Will the citizens of Keilah protect David from Saul as he protected them from the Philistines?

On the face it, there is every reason to believe that the people in Keilah will be unwilling to put themselves at risk. They know what Saul just did to Nob, when he believed that city had aided David. David, again guided by oracular counsel, leads his men out of Keilah. It is a close call, nonetheless, and David is afraid (verses 14-15).

Jonathan, learning David’s whereabouts, leaves Saul’s force and comes to visit his friend in the Judean Desert (verses 16-18). On this, their final meeting, they renew their fraternal covenant.

One suspects that if Jonathan can ascertain the whereabouts of David, so can Saul, and he does. A messenger arrives, however, to report that the army is needed elsewhere to engage another Philistine attack. Once again, David experiences a providential mercy.

Before Jonathan departs from his friend, he professes certainty that David will inherit the throne. He adds that Saul, too, knows this. Thus, the reader is given an update on the state of Saul’s mind: He is aware of the hopelessness of his cause; he is conscious of resisting the inevitable.

This resistance, nonetheless, is still pretty strong. Relying on further reports of David’s whereabouts in the southern desert, Saul again advances and closes in on him. Just as the situation seems critical for David, word reaches Saul that he must break off the pursuit and journey back to deal with those pesky Philistines (verses 19-28). Divine Providence strikes again.