2 Samuel – David Sets the Future in Motion
Sept. 11, 2026
1. In 2 Sam, when was this book split from 1 Sam?
2. How does 2 Sam differ from 1 Chr 1-21?
3. In 2 Sam, what archaeological evidence do we have of David’s rule?
4. In 2 Sam 1:4-10, why do the Amalekite’s words contradict the account of Saul’s death in 1 Samuel 31:3-5?
5. In 1 Sam 1:4-16, are there times today when people lyingly tell of committing sins when they really did not?
6. In 2 Sam 1:6-15, why did David kill the man who purportedly killed David’s enemy?
7. In 2 Sam 1:18, how did David teach the men of Judah the use of the bow?
8. In 2 Sam 1:19-27, what is the structure of this poetry?
9. In 2 Sam 1:23, why did David say Saul was lovely and pleasant in his life when Saul repeatedly tried to kill David?
10. In 2 Sam 1:23-24, when should we ignore the negative and paranoid things about a person and just say the positive like David did?
11. In 2 Sam 1:26, since David’s love for Jonathan passed that of women, does that mean they had romantic feelings for each other?
2 Samuel 2 - Some are looking for a fight
1. In 1 Sam 2:1, what were the consequences of David being anointed as king over Judah?
2. In 2 Sam 2:1, why would God want David to make Hebron his capital?
3. In 2 Sam 2:5-7, why did David especially send messengers to the town of Jabesh Gilead?
4. In 2 Sam 2:8, why is Ish-bosheth called Esh-baal in 1 Chr 8:33; 9:39?
5. In 2 Sam 2:8, why did Abner not support David?
6. In 2 Sam 2:8, when today should we patiently wait for evil to dissipate, fleeing if necessary, and when should we stand up and fight, either for what God has given to us or God has given to others?
7. In 2 Sam 2:8-11, why would Abner and later Ishbosheth set up Israel’s capital on the east side of the Jordan River?
8. In 2 Sam 2:9, who were the Ashurites?
9. In 2 Sam 2:10, did Ish-bosheth reign two years, or did David reign for seven and a half years in Hebron in 2 Sam 2:11 and 2 Sam 5:5?
10. In 2 Sam 2:19-24, why did Asahel pursued just Abner and why did Abner hit him with the butt of his spear?
11. In 2 Sam 2:19-24, Asahel was certain that his running fast was sufficient to defeat a mighty, well-armored warrior. Asahel’s over-confidence was fatal. Are there times today when someone’s skill in one area gives them a false confidence in another area?
12. In 2 Sam 2:26-32, why did Joab stop pursuing Abner’s army?
13. In 2 Sam 2:30-31, why were the
losses, 375 vs. 20, so lopsided?
2 Samuel 3-4 – What is Loyalty?
1. Does 2 Sam 3:1 mean there were fighting all the time for seven and a half years?
2. In 2 Sam 3:1-5 and 2 Sam 5:13-16, should David have married all these wives?
3. In 2 Sam 3:7, what do we know about Rizpah?
4. In 2 Sam 3:8, is loyalty a two-way street, or in other words, does a leader have any responsibility of loyalty to his followers?
5. In 2 Sam 3:12, what did Abner mean by “whose land is it?”
6. In 2 Sam 3:14-16, did David violate Dt 24:1-4 that says a man who divorces his wife and she marries another cannot take her back again?
7. In 2 Sam 3:24-25, why did Joab accuse Abner of deception and just coming to spy on David?
8. In 2 Sam 3:26-30, was Joab loyal to David?
9. In 2 Sam 3:28-36, was David’s kingdom really guiltless of the blood of Abner?
10. In 2 Sam 3:39, why did David merely curse Joab instead of executing him?
11. In 2 Sam 4:8, should David have celebrated Rechab and Baanah assassinating Ishbosheth, since they said the Lord provided the vengeance?
12. In 2 Sam 4:9-12, why would Rechab and Baanah think David would be pleased with them for disloyally assassinating Ishbosheth?
13. In 2 Sam 4:9-12, what are some ways people, including ourselves, can forget (really ignore) critical information?
14. In 2 Sam 4:11-12, why would
David call the rebel Ishbosheth a righteous man?
2 Samuel 5 David creates a stronghold
1. In 2 Sam 5:3, what is unusual about this agreement?
2. In 2 Sam 5:5-6, where did the Jebusites comes from?
3. In 2 Sam 5:7, how big was the citadel of Jerusalem?
4. In 2 Sam 5:8, why did David hate the lame and blind?
5. In 2 Sam 5:9, 1 Ki 9:15, 2 Ki 12:20, 2 Chr 32:5, what was the Milo (or Millo)?
6. In 2 Sam 5:11 and 1 Ki 5:1, Since Hiram of Tyre was so famous, was he anachronistically placed on the throne in David’s time as the skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.304,325 claims?
7. In 2 Sam 5 and 6, did David bring the ark to Obed-Edom’s house after defeating the Philistines, or before as 1 Chr 13 and 14 imply? (A Muslim brought this up.)
8. In 2 Sam 5:17-8:18, is unusual about the structure of this passage?
9. In 2 Sam 5:25, what is significant about this victory over the Philistines?
2 Samuel 6 Following God Disrespectfully
1. In 2 Sam 6:1-5, what commendable thing did David do here?
2. In 2 Sam 6:3-8 and 1 Chr 13:7, what did David do wrong here?
3. In 2 Sam 6:5, how did cymbals originate?
4. In 2 Sam 6:6-7 and 1 Chr 13:9-14, why did God kill Uzzah?
5. In 2 Sam 6:6-7, why did God not kill the Philistines who handled the ark, since God killed Uzzah for touching it in 2 Sam 6:6-7?
6. In 2 Sam 6:7, does holding the ark as sacred mean we should venerate relics as the Orthodox and Catholic churches do?
7. In 2 Sam 6:20, why did David (allegedly) dance in public without clothes?
8. In 2 Sam 6:20, how should we take it if when we are pleasing the Lord, a fellow believer sarcastically mocks us?
9. In 2 Sam 6:23, did Michal not have children due to her comments towards the king?
10. In 2 Sam 6:23, why was Michal childless the rest of her life?
2 Samuel 7-8 David can’t build the temple
1. In 2 Sam 7:1-2, do all good intentions we have actually come from God?
2. In 2 Sam 7:3-17, was Nathan a false prophet for first telling David to do whatever he wanted?
3. In 2 Sam 7:8-12, why couldn’t David build a temple for God?
4. In 2 Sam 7:13,16 it says Solomon's kingdom would apparently last forever, but it did not. How do we explain that?
5. In 2 Sam 7:18-29, what is significant about David’s attitude here?
6. In 2 Sam 8:2, was David right to kill two-thirds of the Moabite men?
7. In 2 Sam 8:3, did David defeat Hadadezar, or Hadarezer as 1 Chr 18:3 says?
8. In 2 Sam 8:13, in the Valley of Salt, did David kill 18,000 Syrians, or Abishai kill 18,000 Edomites as 1 Chr 18:12 and the header of Ps 60 say?
9. In 2 Sam 8:17 why is Ahimelech given as the son of Abiathar, since Abiathar’s father, who was killed before David became king, was named Ahimelech?
10. In 2 Sam 8:18, how were David’s sons [supposedly] priests, since David was from the tribe of Judah, not Levi?
11. In 2 Sam 8:19, 15:18; 20:7,23; 1 Sam 30:14; 1 Ki 1:38; 44:1; 1 Chr 18:17; Ezek 25:16; and Zeph 2:5, who were the Cherethites / Kerethites and Pelethites?
2 Samuel 9-10 Kindness to peace, and kindness to war
1. In 2 Sam 9:1-13, what is the structure of this chapter?
A: This is written as a chiasm, a common feature of Hebrew poetry.
9:1 David wants to show favor to Saul’s family
- 9:2-5 David speaks with Ziba, Saul’s servant
- - 9:6-8 David shows favor to Mephibosheth
- 9:9-11a David speaks with Ziba, Sauls’ servant
9:11b-13 David shows favor to Saul’s family through Mephibosheth
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.916 for more info.
2. In 2 Sam 9:1-13, why was David kind to the lame Mephibosheth, since he loathed the lame and blind defending Jerusalem according to 2 Sam 5:8?
3. In 2 Sam 9:1-13, why was David kind to Mephibosheth?
4. In 2 Sam 9:1, did David say this after executing Saul’s sons, as Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.309 says?
5. In 2 Sam 9:4, where was Lo-Debar?
6. In 2 Sam 10:2,4-8, since David’s original motive apparently was to show kindness to Nahash’s son, why did David go to war against him?
7. In 2 Sam 10:2,4-8, how can being paranoid, or assuming the worst intentions in others, become a self-fulfilling prophecy?
8. In 2 Sam 10:7-19, how could Joab and David defeat a combined army of Ammonites and Syrians?
9. In 2 Sam 10:17-19 what were the consequences of this war?
10. In 2 Sam 10:18 were there 700
charioteers, or 7,000 charioteers as 1 Chr 19:18 says?
2 Samuel 11 When a king thinks he can break boundaries
1. In 2 Sam 11-12, what is the structure of these two chapters?
A: These are arranged as a chiasm, and this is one of the longer chiasms in scripture.
11:1 Daved sends Joab to besiege Rabbah
- 11:2-5 David gets Bathsheba pregnant
- - 11:6-17 David has Uriah killed
- - - 11:18-27a Joab sends David a messenger
- - - - 11:27b The Lord is very displeased
- - - 12:1-14 The Lord sends David a messenger
- - 12:15-23 The Lord kills David’s infant son
- 12:24-25 David gets Bathsheba pregnant again
12:26-31 Joab sends for David to capture Rabbah
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.927 for more info.
2. In 2 Sam 11:1-5, since David was a man of God, how could he covet another man’s wife, commit adultery, get someone drunk, and order a murder? (an atheist asked this)
3. In 2 Sam 11:1, did David usually stay home when the army went to war?
4. In 2 Sam 11:3, what do we know about Bathsheba’s background?
5. In 2 Sam 11:1-5, what does this tell us about the record in 2 Samuel?
6. In 2 Sam 11:3 why is Eliam, Bathsheba’s father, called Amiel in 1 Chr 3:5?
7. In 2 Sam 11:8f, why did David give Uriah a gift?
8. In 2 Sam 11:8f, are there times today when someone gives a dirty, cheap gift to someone they don’t care about?
9. In 2 Sam 11:11, what is David feeling here?
10. In 2 Sam 11:14-21, what was doubly unfair about this?
11. In 2 Sam 11:15-27, how can godly believers, who start out really, really good, get corrupted by having power? How can that be prevented?
12. In 2 Sam 11:16, what does this show about Joab’s loyalty?
2 Samuel 12 Hypocrisy: You are the man!
1. In 2 Sam 12:1-12, why did Nathan use this approach to talk with David about his sin?
2. In 2 Sam 12:1-12, what can we learn from Nathan’s masterful approach?
3. In 2 Sam 12:5-6, what is interesting about David’s response to the rich man in Nathan’s story?
4. In 2 Sam 12:8, why did God give David multiple wives, if polygamy was [allegedly] a sin?
5. In 2 Sam 12:9, David basically gave Uriah to God’s enemies. Are there times today when someone might see gain in giving something to their enemies or the enemies of God?
6. In 2 Sam 12:13, what is significant about David’s reaction?
7. In 2 Sam 12:15-23, why did God have the first child of David and Bathsheba die?
8. In 2 Sam 12:20, why did David worship God just after his son died?
9. In 2 Sam 12:21, what does this say about the Catholic practice of praying for the dead?
10. In 2 Sam 12:21-23, did David and Bathsheba’s first son go to Heaven, or not?
11. In 2 Sam 12:23, what did David mean when he said the child will not return to him, but that he would go to the child.
12. In 2 Sam 12:28, why did Joab speak to David this way?
13. In 2 Sam 12:30, how heavy was this crown?
14. In 2 Sam 12:31, did David kill
some Ammonites by putting them under saws, axes, and in the brick kiln?
2 Samuel 13 Partial Forgiveness does not work well
1. In 2 Sam 13:1-22, what is the structure of this chapter?
A: This is arranged in a deep chiasm.
13:102 Amnon was lusting after Tamar
- 13:3-5 Jonadab advises Amnon to rape her
- - 13:6-9a Tamar comes to cook for and feed Amnon
- - - 13:9bAmnon order his servants to all leave
- - - - 13:10-14a Amnon commands Tamar to come to bed with him; she refuses
- - - - - 13:14b-15a Amnon rapes Tamar and his lust turns to hatred
- - - - 13:15b-16 Amnon commands Tamar to leave, despite her pleas
- - - 13:17 Amnon commands his servant to return and kick Tamar out
- - 13:18-19 Tamar leaves
- 13:20 Absalom tells Tamar not to worry; Absalom will take care of it
13:21-22 Absalom hates Amnon
In the middle of this, 2 Samuel 13:15 is a chiasm.
Amnon hated her
- With a hatred
- - Great
- - - Exceedingly
- - - Indeed
- - Great
- Was the hatred
with which he hated her.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.955,962 for more info.
2. In 2 Sam 13:5,7-8, Jonadab suggested Amnon use David, unwittingly, to advance his evil plan. Are there cases since then where an evil person has used an unsuspecting person to advance their evil?
3. In 2 Sam 13:6, how did Amnon make himself sick?
4. In 2 Sam 13:6-7, what can we learn from David about parenting here?
5. In 2 Sam 13:6-7, what are some ways today that a person can “love the relationship” more than they love the person?
6. In 2 Sam 13:11-17, why did Amnon’s feeling toward Tamar turn from lust to hate so rapidly?
7. In 2 Sam 13:13, what are three possible reasons Tamar said to ask the king and he would let them be married?
8. In 2 Sam 13:16-17, why would Tamar think Amnon sending here away would be a greater wrong?
9. In 2 Sam 13:20, why did Absalom tell Tamar not to worry so much about getting raped?
10. In 2 Sam 13:21, exactly why was David angry here?
11. In 2 Sam 13:21, how can this apply to some believers today?
12. In 2 Sam 13:24-25, why did Absalom ask David to go to the “killer party”?
13. In 2 Sam 13:29, why did Absalom flee with the rest of the king’s sons?
14. In 2 Sam 13:32-33, how did Jonadab know this so confidently?
2 Samuel 14 The Consequences of Sin Keep Coming
1. In 2 Sam 14:1-20, what is the structure of this chapter?
A: This is a somewhat deep chiasm with the following organization.
14:1 Joab “knew”
- 14:2-3 Joab tell the wise woman what to say
- - 14:4-5aThe woman makes a request of the king
- - 14:5b-10 The woman’s first appeal
- - - 14:11She successfully requests for her son’s life
- - 14:12-17 The woman make her second appeal.
- - 14:18-19a The king asks the woman a question
- She admits that Joab coached her
14:20 The king “knows”
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.975 for more info.
2. In 2 Sam 14:1-9 and 13:21, what should David have done first to punish Absalom for rape and incest, and then later Absalom of murder, given that David himself had committed adultery and murder?
3. In 2 Sam 14:1-9, why did Joab use this strategy to get David to recall Absalom?
4. In 2 Sam 14:15-23, do we see any repentance on Absalom’s part?
5. In 2 Sam 14:15-23, when should we forgive and restore someone who has done wrong?
6. In 2 Sam 14:24,28, was David right not to let Absalom see his face?
7. In 2 Sam 14:26 how could Absalom’s cut hair weigh 200 shekels?
8. In 2 Sam 14:27 did Absalom have three sons, or did he not have any sons by which to carry on his name, as 2 Sam 18:18 says?
9. In 2 Sam 14:29-32, what does
this show about Absalom?
2 Samuel 15 When you are down because of your own sin
1. In 2 Sam 15:1-12, do we have any other examples of sons who wanted take the throne away from their father?
2. In 2 Sam 15:6, how does somebody steal people’s hearts?
3. In 1 Sam 15:7-12, what did Absalom do that others since then have done too?
4. In 2 Sam 15:7, should it say 40 years, or 4 years?
5. In 2 Sam 15:7,20 how did Absalom make a vow to the Lord?
6. In 1 Sam 15:10, are there other examples where a son tried to take the throne from his father?
7. In 2 Sam 15:14, why did David flee Jerusalem, since Jerusalem was very strongly fortified?
8. In 2 Sam 15:19-20, why did David tell Ittai the Gittite he did not have to go with David?
9. In 2 Sam 15:31-34, why did David send his wisest counselor, Hushai the Arkite, back to the enemy?
10. In 2 Sam 15:32-34, was David right to have Hushai lie for him?
2 Samuel 16-17 The Result when Sin Festers
1. In 2 Sam 16:5-14, what is interesting about the structure of this passage?
A: This is arranged in a chiasm.
16:5a David flees towards Bahurim
- 16:5b-6 Shimei curses and throws stones at David and his men
- - 16:7-8 How Shimei cursed David
- - - 16:9 Abishai wants to kill Shimei
- - 16:10-12 David takes Shimei’s curses without reacting
- 16:13 David explains why he does not react to Shimei’s curses
16:14 David and his group arrive past Bahurim
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1000-1001,1003 for more info.
2. In 2 Sam 16:5-8, why was Shimei cursing David for executing Saul’s sons, when the execution only occurred later in the book, as Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.315-316 claims?
3. In 2 Sam 16:5-12, what is significant about David’s reaction not trying to repay Shimei?
4. In 2 Sam 16:7-14, what can we learn about David’s attitude here?
5. In 2 Sam 16:15-17-29, what is the structure of this passage?
A: This is a complex structure; it is chiastic but not a chiasm.
16:15-19 Absalom is befriended by Hushai
- 16:20-22 Ahithophel advises Absalom
- - 16:23 Ahithophel is described as very wise
- 17:1-4 Ahithophel gives his counsel
- - 17:5-13 Hushai gives his counsel
- - - 17:14 Hushai’s advice is considered better than Ahithophel’s
- - 17:15-16 Hushai counsels Zadok and Abiathar
- 17:17-22 David crosses the Jordan River
- - 17:23 Ahithophel commits suicide
- 17:24-25 Absalom crosses the Jordan River
17:27-30 David is befriended in Mahanaim by Shobi, Makir, and Barzillai
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1006 for more info.
6. In 2 Sam 16:22, why did Absalom sleep with David’s ten concubines in broad daylight?
7. In 2 Sam 17:1-14, how can we tell Ahithophel’s advice was better than Hushai’s?
8. In 2 Sam 17:7-14, was Hushai right to lie for David, by giving bad advice to Absalom?
9. In 2 Sam 17:23, why would Ahithophel hang himself when his advice was not followed?
10. In 2 Sam 17:25 who was Amasa?
2 Samuel 18 When you are down because of your own sin
1. In 2 Sam 18:6, where were the woods of Ephraim?
2. In 2 Sam 18:6, why would David’s soldiers fight in the woods?
3. In 2 Sam 18:17, was Absalom buried in the forest of Ephraim (far from Jerusalem), or did he build a memorial in the Kidron Valley (near Jerusalem) as 2 Sam 18:18 says?
4. In 2 Sam 18:17, why did they erect a large pile of stones aver Absalom?
5. In 2 Sam 18:7, why did 20,000 men die as a consequence of the sins of David and Absalom?
6. In 2 Sam 18:7, why did Joab want to stop Ahimaez from telling David that Absalom was dead?
7. In 2 Sam 18:16-18, why did Joab have the trumpet blown to stop the victory, since they were winning?
8. In 2 Sam 18:19, how did Ahimaaz son of Zadok outrun the other messenger if they did not cross paths?
9. In 2 Sam 18:30-33, how was Ahimaaz actually an unreliable messenger?
10. In 1 Sam 19:1-7, what are some ways leaders communicate the wrong message, as David almost did?
11. In 2 Sam 19:24-30, 16:3-4, do you think that Mephibosheth really thought he had a chance to be king, or was Ziba lying to get what David had given to Mephibosheth?
12. In 2 Sam 19:29, was David right to have Mephibosheth and Ziba divide the land?
13. In 2 Sam 19:32-40, was Barzillai right to refuse the king’s offer?
14. In 2 Sam 19:41-43, why did this quarrel happen between the men of Israel and the men of Judah?
2 Samuel 19 How to Mess up as a Leader
1. In 2 Sam 19:1-7, what are some ways leaders communicate the wrong message, as David almost did?
2. In 2 Sam 19:3-7, what are some ways that being sharply focused on just one thing can cause someone to be blind to big problems because of their tunnel vision?
A: In David’s case, it would look clear to everyone that he cared nothing for them compared to his son that had caused the deaths of many. He valued his private loss as more important than the national emergency.
The Lydian Empire ended in 546 B.C. ________________
In Great Britain, King George III and most of Parliament ______________________
In France, King Louis XVI ____________________________
In Russia, the last Tzar, Nicholas II _______________________
In China, Emperor Xuan Zhong _______________________
3. In 2 Sam 19:6, what are some ways today you can communicate (intentionally or unintentionally) that they means next to nothing to you?
4. In 2 Sam 19:13, why would David mention Amasa’s family ties with David as a reason for him to be general, when Joab had even closer family ties?
5. In 2 Sam 19:18-23, why did David not punish Shimei at all?
6. In 2 Sam 19:24-30, 16:3-4, do you think that Mephibosheth really thought he had a chance to be king, or was Ziba lying to get what David had given to Mephibosheth?
7. In 2 Sam 19:29, was David right to have Mephibosheth and Ziba divide the land?
8. In 2 Sam 19:32-40, was Barzillai right to refuse the king’s offer?
9. In 2 Sam 19:41-43, why did this quarrel happen between the men of Israel and the men of Judah?
10. In 2 Sam 19:41-43, how do you handle it when two sides give the appearance of trying to come to an agreement, when actually neither side really wants agreement?
2 Samuel 20 – Handling rashness, in yourself and others
1. In 2 Sam 20:9-10, what can you say about Joab’s loyalty towards David?
2. In 2 Sam 20:1, was Sheba close to being successful?
3. In 2 Sam 20:14, what archaeological evidence do we have of Abel Beth Maacah?
4. In 2 Sam 20:15-26, was Joab right to threaten to destroy the city of Abel?
5. In 2 Sam 20:15, how do you know when you are about to do something rash, like Joab here?
6. In 2 Sam 20:15, what causes someone to be rash?
7. In 2 Sam 20:15-26, was the advice of the woman from Abel right, to behead Sheba?
8. In 2 Sam 20:16-21, what is the best way to reason with someone who is about to do something rash?
9. In 2 Sam 20:19, what is interesting about calling the city a “mother”?
2 Samuel 21- Justice is Served
1. In 2 Sam 21:1, were famines common back then?
2. In 2 Sam 21:1-9, why did God send famine so that Saul’s other sons would be killed?
3. In 2 Sam 21:1-7, did David have Saul’s sons killed for the security of his own reign, and then blame it on God, as Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.308 says?
4. In 2 Sam 21:1-7, did God have Saul’s sons put to death for the sin of Saul, contrary to Ezek 18:4,17-20 and Dt 24:16?
5. In 1 Sam 21:1-9 why did God have David allow the Gibeonites to execute seven of Saul’s sons, since David swore to Saul he would not kill his descendants in 1 Sam 21:21-22?
6. In 1 Sam 21:4-6, why did the Gibeonites ask for seven sons?
7. In 2 Sam 21:6, why did the Gibeonites bring up that Saul was the chosen of the Lord?
8. In 2 Sam 21:8, did Merab or Michal have children here, since Michal had no children according to 2 Sam 6:23?
9. In 2 Sam 21:16-17, why was David almost killed here?
10. In 2 Sam 21:19, why did the Philistines have a number of giants?
11. In 2 Sam 21:19, did Elhanan kill Goliath, or did David kill Goliath the Gittite as 1 Sam 17:50 says, or did Elhanan kill Lahmi the brother of Goliath as 1 Chr 20:5 says?
12. In 2 Sam 21:20, were six-fingered individuals common?
2 Samuel 22 Will your life have a victory song, despite the setbacks?
1. Why is 2 Sam 22:1-51 almost the same as Ps 18?
2. In 2 Sam 22:2-5, what is the meanings of each metaphor of God being a rock, fortress, deliverer, shield, horn of my salvation, stronghold, and savior?
3. In 2 Sam 22:5, why is the metaphor of waves apt here?
4. In 2 Sam 22:6, Ps 91:3, and Ps 116:3, how is death like a hunter that sets snares?
5. In 2 Sam 22:7, will God always save believers from distress?
6. In 2 Sam 22:8-16, why and how did David use all these anthropomorphic metaphors here?
7. In 2 Sam 22:21,25, does God do things to reward people according to their righteousness?
8. In 2 Sam 22:21-27, what is this saying about the David’s works?
9. In 2 Sam 22:22-23, why did David say he did not depart from God, since David did depart?
10. In 2 Sam 22:26-27, why does God show Himself as both merciful and shrewd?
11. In 2 Sam 22:28, why does God want to bring down the proud?
12. In 2 Sam 22:38-43, is this an appropriate attitude for believers in New Testament times?
13. In 2 Sam 22:45 and Ps 18:44 what should the order of the phrases be?
14. In 2 Sam 22:51, how do we sing our victory song (or not)?
2 Samuel 23 Do you have a “Three and Thirty”?
1. In 2 Sam 23:1-7, what is interesting about these verses?
A: These verses form a special kind of symmetry in Hebrew poetry called a chiasm.
2 Sam 23:1b-e David speaks of himself as “he”
— 2 Sam 23:2-3ab David speaks of himself as “I”
— — 2 Sam 23:3cd-4 The Lord speaks
— 2 Sam 23:5 David speaks of himself as “I”
2 Sam 23:6-7 David speaks of evil men as “they”
As an aside, David also spoke of himself in third person in 2 Samuel 7:20.
2. In 2 Sam 23:1-7, how different would David’s life have been if he had never been anointed king or never killed Goliath?
3. In 2 Sam 23:8-39, how come these were David’s “three and thirty” when there were actually 37?
4. In 2 Sam 23:8-39, who is conspicuously missing from this list and why?
5. In 2 Sam 23:8-39, is it good to honor believers who have served well or not?
6. In 2 Sam 23:8, did the Tachmonite kill 800 men, or did the Hachmonite kill 300 men in 1 Chr 11:11?
7. In 2 Sam 23:11, were the Israelites delivered in a field of lentils, or a field of barley as 1 Chronicles 11:13 says?
8. In 2 Sam 23:16, why did David pour out the water?
9. In 2 Sam 23:20, what are lion-like men?
10. In 2 Sam 23:25-32, have any of these names been found by archaeologists?
11. In 2 Sam 23:39, why is Uriah
the Hittite mentioned here, since Uriah was killed in 2 Samuel 11:17,24?
2 Samuel 24 When you look over your life: with Pride
1. In 2 Samuel 24:1, when was this census taken?
2. In 2 Sam 24:1, how big was David’s empire at its largest?
3. In 2 Sam 24:1, why was God angry with Israel over the census in counting the fighting men? Just one generation ago, the Israelites were a loose collection of tribes subjugated by the Philistines. Now, for a brief period of time, they were one of the strongest
4. In 2 Sam 24:1, why did God move David to number Israel?
5. In 2 Sam 24:1, did God move David to number Israel in a census, or did Satan move David as 1 Chr 21:1 says?
6. In 2 Sam 24:1-10, David appeared to be unaware that he had sinned and given into his pride before he completed the ensues in verse 10, even despite Joab warning him beforehand. Why is it the people can do things out of pride or arrogance, and yet be totally unaware that they are doing so?
7. In 2 Sam 24:9, was the result of the census 800,000 in Israel and 500,000 in Judah, or was it 1,100,000 in Israel and 470,000 in Judah as 1 Chr 21:5-6 says?
8. In 2 Sam 24:10-12, why did God kill the Israelites for David’s sin, instead of killing David?
9. In 2 Sam 24:13, were there seven years of famine, or were there three years of famine according to 1 Chr 21?
10. In 2 Sam 24:14, why would David choose to fall into God’s hands, since Heb 10:31 says it is a very fearful thing?
11. In 2 Sam 24:16, how did God repent?
12. In 2 Sam 24:16-17, was the destroying angel visible?
13. In 2 Sam 24:24, did David pay Araunah 50 shekels of silver for the oxen and threshing floor, or did David pay Araunah 600 shekels of gold for the entire place?
2 Samuel 1 – David Sets the Future in Motion – some brief answers
1. In 2 Sam, when was this book split from 1 Sam?
A: In Jewish Bibles today they are one book. 1 and 2 Kings are also one book. According to both the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.295 and Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.267, 1 and 2 Samuel were split when the Septuagint was translated about 250 B.C. In the Septuagint they are called 1, 2, 3, and 4 Kings respectively.
It is not important whether 1 and 2 Samuel are treated as one book or two. What is important is the content contained in 1 and 2 Samuel.
2. How does 2 Sam differ from 1 Chr 1-21?
A: They cover the same time period and are similar. However, 1 Chronicles is more concerned about genealogy, and it omits the bad things that David did. In addition, the praise song in 2 Samuel 22 is very similar to Psalm 18.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.803 for more info.
3. In 2 Sam, what archaeological evidence do we have of David’s rule?
A: Prior to 1993 we had none, but now we have three archaeological artifacts that may refer to David.
The Tel Dan Stele was created of expensive stone by an Aramaic ruler around 800 B.C. It mentions “Jehoram son of Ahab, King of Israel” and “Ahaziahu son of Jehoram, king of the House of David”.
Mesha Stele (11-18) in Moab mentions “the house [of Da]vid.” You can see a picture of the Mesha Stele, also called the Moabite Stone, in the Rose Book of Charts, Maps & Time Lines p.77.
Shoshenq Relief in Thebes, Egypt commemorates the raid of Pharaoh Shoshenq/Shishak into Judah in 925 B.C. It mentions the “highland/heights of David”
See http://theophilogue.com/2009/04/24/extrabiblical-evidence-for-king-david/ (Jan. 4, 2014) for more info.
4. In 2 Sam 1:4-10, why do the Amalekite’s words contradict the account of Saul’s death in 1 Samuel 31:3-5?
A: The details are different. In 1 Samuel 31:3-5, the archers had hit Saul. After being mortally wounded Saul committed suicide. The Philistines took Saul’s armor to adorn their temple. The Amalekite said it was chariots and horsemen, he killed the Amalekite, and the Philistines left the armor for the Amalekite to take later.
The simplest answer is that the Amalekite was lying, because he thought David would give him a reward. Apparently the Amalekite came upon Saul before the Philistines stripped the dead because the Amalekite made off with the crown and armlet. It would also be very curious if the Amalekite were in the Israelite camp as a soldier for the Israelites. It is more likely that the Amalekite was in the area after the battle and came afterwards to strip the dead of any valuables.
The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.806 says that Josephus erroneously attempted to harmonize the Amalekite’s words with 1 Samuel 31, but there is no need to try, if the Amalekite was lying.
See also The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.457, Hard Sayings of the Bible p.218, the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.324, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.181-182, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.322, When Critics Ask p.168-169, and the New International Bible Commentary p.374 for more info.
5. In 1 Sam 1:4-16, are there times today when people lyingly tell of committing sins when they really did not?
A: In the Amalekite’s case, he saw a great deal of potential benefit and no harm in doing so. He certainly would not have considered that David would have thought it was wrong. Likewise, people can lie about committing sins today, when a) they don’t think it is wrong, or b) they see no harm in “enhancing their reputation” by doing so, or c) they see benefit in doing so.
What the Amalekite totally missed is that David was above all a noble man of honor, and Saul, like many others, was not. Many in the world do not understand the concept of a man or woman of honor.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.287 for more info.
6. In 2 Sam 1:6-15, why did David kill the man who purportedly killed David’s enemy?
A: David considered respect for the office of king more important than how quickly he could become king. David might also have been less concerned about God breaking His promise than people not respecting the government. These two issues: trust in God ultimately working things out, and trusting that God’s timing is best, are important aspects of our faith in God today, too.
On the other hand, if people had heard that David had spared and even rewarded the man who killed the previous king, David would not be looked on as a legitimate king, rewarding those who killed his predecessor.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.284-285, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.808, and the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.213 for more info.
7. In 2 Sam 1:18, how did David teach the men of Judah the use of the bow?
A: While Egyptians and others had been using bows and arrows for a couple of thousand years before David, the bow might not have been common among Israelites. See the discussion on 1 Samuel 13:22 for the weapons they probably used at that time.
Nevertheless, while KJV accurately translates this as “teach the children of Judah the use of the bow”, with “the use of” in italics, the NASB, NIV, NRSV, NKJV, and Green’s literal Translation are different. Instead of “the use of”, these have “the song/lament of” in italics or else have a footnote explaining this.
If the KJV rendering is correct, 2 Samuel 1:18 is a parenthetical phrase, perhaps explaining why Jonathan had a bow in 2 Samuel 1:22. If the other translations are correct, the song is entitled “the lament of the bow”, perhaps because Jonathan, (but not Saul) used a bow.
8. In 2 Sam 1:19-27, what is the structure of this poetry?
A: These verses contain a type of Hebrew literary symmetry commonly found in the Old Testament called a chiasm. It was apparently a famous poem, because the author of 2 Samuel mentions that it is in the Book of Jashar. Here is the structure of the poem.
2 Sam 1:19 Jonathan (implicit)
— 2 Sam 1:20 both men (implicit)
— — 2 Sam 1:21 Saul (explicit)
— — — 2 Sam 1:22-23 (Jonathan and Saul (explicit)
— 2 Sam 1:24 Saul (explicit)
— 2 Sam 1:25-26 Jonathan (explicit)
2 Sam 1:27 both men implicit
As an interesting sidenote, in Hebrew a funeral song like this, as well as the Book of Lamentations, when accompanied by wailing is called a qyn. In Ireland a funeral song accompanied by wailing is called a “keen”. David ordered this taught to the men of Judah because David is not yet king over Israel.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.810,811,812 for more info.
9. In 2 Sam 1:23, why did David say Saul was lovely and pleasant in his life when Saul repeatedly tried to kill David?
A: David would have had a lot to complain about in his fifteen-year wait to be king, if he had chosen to do so. David was being polite and calling to mind the earlier and better part of Saul’s life.
One naturally might expect David to have a bitter hatred of Saul in his heart. His remarks here show that he chose not to carry this grudge. Likewise, we have a choice on whether we want to carry hatred and grudges in our heart or not. Matthew 18:21-35 and 1 Corinthians 13 show that we must not.
10. In 2 Sam 1:23-24, when should we ignore the negative and paranoid things about a person and just say the positive like David did?
A: David seemed a bit successive in his praise of Saul, and scripture faithfully records what he sang. You don’t have to say something negative about a person; sometimes it is better to keep silent. David had three purposes here. He genuinely would want to mourn his friend Jonathan. David wanted to make it clear that he did not contribute or aid to the death of the previous king. David wanted to get the support of the northern tribes. A key point of this is that David shows no bitterness whatsoever for Saul.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.805,815 for more info.
11. In 2 Sam 1:26, since David’s love for Jonathan passed that of women, does that mean they had romantic feelings for each other?
A: No. The Hebrew word here, ‘aheb, means a friendship love. It is not used for homosexuality anywhere else. People can have strong feelings of friendship without there being a romantic relationship involved.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.706-707, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.351, and When Critics Ask p.165 for more info.
2 Samuel 2 - Some are looking for a fight – some brief answers
1. In 1 Sam 2:1, what were the consequences of David being anointed as king over Judah?
A: David had already been privately anointed king by Saul, fifteen years ago. But publicly anointing David as king would cause quite a stir. First, it would be a clear signal to the Philistines that he was not their vassal. Second, David waited fifteen years for Saul, the Lord’s anointed, to die before he became king. But David was not going to accede to Ish-Bosheth, who was not chosen by God, becoming the next king. When David was crowned king of Judah, this would be a split from the rest of Israel, which would lead to a civil war.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.458 for more info.
2. In 2 Sam 2:1, why would God want David to make Hebron his capital?
A: Scripture does not say, but we can see five reasons.
1. Hebron was one of the largest cities in Judah.
2. Historically Abraham and the patriarchs were buried there.
3. The Israelites in the north had not accepted David as king, yet.
4. Hebron was in the mountains, the higher than any other city of Judah, and safer from any attack. Jerusalem, 19/20 miles north-northeast, would be even better, but Jerusalem was still under the control of the Jebusites.
5. Hebron was one of the towns of Judah that David had previously sent plunder to in 1 Samuel 30:31.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.213, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.819, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.323, and The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.352 for more info.
3. In 2 Sam 2:5-7, why did David especially send messengers to the town of Jabesh Gilead?
A: They might think their actions to honor Saul and Jonathan would make the new king, David, angry at them. David deliberately sent messengers to assure them that was not the case, and David respected the memory of Saul and Jonathan. This was also shrew on David’s part to peacefully try to win over the people of Jabesh Gilead to accept him as king.
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.325 for more info.
4. In 2 Sam 2:8, why is Ish-bosheth called Esh-baal in 1 Chr 8:33; 9:39?
A: Baal can mean master, Lord, or a Canaanite god. “Esh-Baal” means “fire of Baal, and “ish” means man. Saul named his son Ish (man) of Baal, most likely with the intent of master or Lord. The writers or copyists probably changed the name to bosheth meaning shame. Ishbosheth might also be the Isvi in 1 Samuel 14.
See 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.112 and the New International Bible Commentary p.375 for more info.
5. In 2 Sam 2:8, why did Abner not support David?
A: If Abner had, that would have prevented seven years of civil war. While Scripture does not say, remember that Abner probably was one of the army leaders who earlier pursued David. Abner was a cousin of Saul, so after Saul’s son he would have had a claim to the throne. Often people suffer from one of two problems. Either they are not loyal when they should be, or they are loyal to what they should not be.
As an aside, David reigned over only Judah for seven and a half years, and Ishbosheth reigned in the north for two years. That means there were five and a half years of Abner leading the northern armies before he played kingmaker and crowned as king Ishbosheth, who was 40 at the time. Note it does not say the people of Israel crowned Ishbosheth as king; only Abner did. Abner might have been very busy pushing the Philistines out of Israel. Abner was more interested in remaining in charge, than in either national unity or making Ishbosheth king. But after Ishbosheth rebuked Abner for taking one of Saul’s concubines as his own, Abner saw his power was curtailed, and then went to David’s side, where he hoped to still have power under or alongside Joab.
A prime example of being loyal when you should not be was the brilliant German chemist Fritz Haber. He was the father of the Haber process, which was a way to extract nitrogen from the air. This enabled Germany to manufacture explosives without relying on imports from Chile or other countries. Isaac Asimov’s Book of Facts p.254 points out that if it were not for Haber’s work, Germany would have been forced out of World War I by 1916. Haber also directed Germany’s poison gas development in World War I. Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.254 also mentions that Haber was exiled when Hitler came to power, because Haber was Jewish.
What are all the things to which you are loyal?
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.823-824, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.214, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.458-459, Believer’s Bible Commentary p.325, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.354, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.323-324, and the New international Bible Commentary p.375-376 for more info.
6. In 2 Sam 2:8, when today should we patiently wait for evil to dissipate, fleeing if necessary, and when should we stand up and fight, either for what God has given to us or God has given to others?
A: David patiently waiting on Saul, and David not willing to tolerate Ishbosheth is an interesting study of when it is best to be forebearing and when it is not.
A simplistic answer is to fight when God wants us to, and not fight when God doesn’t. But how then do we know when God wants us to fight.
Christians are being persecuted in Mainland China, North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, Assam in India, and northern Nigeria. Of course the United States should not split its military into six parts, and attack Mainland China and the other five areas, to defend the oppressed all at once. So how do you tell when to defend others and when you cannot?
7. In 2 Sam 2:8-11, why would Abner and later Ishbosheth set up Israel’s capital on the east side of the Jordan River?
A: Remember, the Philistines occupied a fair amount of land between Judah and the Sea of Galilee. A capital on the east side would be hard for them to reach. Mahanaim was likely well-fortified, since David fled there when running from Absalom.
See The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.352 for more info.
8. In 2 Sam 2:9, who were the Ashurites?
A: These were probably people from a village named Ashuri. There people of the trib of Asher were farther away. These were not from Asshur, the early capital of Assyria.
9. In 2 Sam 2:10, did Ish-bosheth reign two years, or did David reign for seven and a half years in Hebron in 2 Sam 2:11 and 2 Sam 5:5?
A: Christians have two different answers.
David reigned over Judah only for seven and a half years: Ish-bosheth, Abner, and the Israelite army had to retreat east across the Jordan River after the Philistines’ victory. Ish-bosheth was made king over Gilead, Ashuri, and Jezreel first, according to 2 Samuel 2:8-9. Only after five and a half years did they reconquer enough territory west of the Jordan. Therefore, Israel had no king for 5 1/2 years, then Ish-Bosheth reigned for two years, and then David. The skeptical work Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.298-299 also mentions this. See When Critics Ask p.171, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.183-184, and 735 Bible Questions Answers p.113 for more info on this answer.
David reigned in Hebron for seven and a half years: While there might have been a small delay before Ish-bosheth was crowned, the seven and a half year period referred to all the time David reigned in Hebron prior to capturing Jerusalem and reigning there. Between the time that Ish-bosheth was murdered and David reigned in Jerusalem, David reigned no where else but at Hebron. Therefore, Ish-bosheth was king over Israel for two years, then David was king over both Israel and Judah for 5 years in Hebron, then David moved his capital to Jerusalem.
However, the first view is probably correct; there is nothing that says Abner crowned Ishbosheth immediately.
10. In 2 Sam 2:19-24, why did Asahel pursued just Abner and why did Abner hit him with the butt of his spear?
A: Joab and Abishai specifically pursued Abner too in 2 Same 2:24. Perhaps they realized that Abner was both the power behind the rebellion and a capable general, and if they just killed him then the Israelites would submit. Asahel ran very fast; perhaps he had a lighter frame than Abner (who was older) and others. Abner did not seem too concerned about Asahel killing him; but he saw this war would end with a lot more difficulty if he killed the brother of Joab and Abishai. Perhaps instead of turning and using the sharp end of the spear, Abner might have intended just to wound Asahel. But regardless of what Abner intended, the blow ended up killing Asahel who had not expected this.
See the New International Bible Commentary p.375 and the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.214 for more info.
11. In 2 Sam 2:19-24, Asahel was certain that his running fast was sufficient to defeat a mighty, well-armored warrior. Asahel’s over-confidence was fatal. Are there times today when someone’s skill in one area gives them a false confidence in another area?
A: This can be common in business when success in one industry makes executives think they can branch out to other industries. Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are not. Sometimes politicians and doctors, who have a lot of experience or knowledge in one area, assume their expertise will carry over to all areas.
See The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.353 for more info.
12. In 2 Sam 2:26-32, why did Joab stop pursuing Abner’s army?
A: Scripture does not say. Perhaps Joab knew this was a senseless war, and he was happy to stop as soon as Abner was. But if Abner had not brought up the idea of mercy, perhaps Joab would have the army keep fighting to kill as many Israelites as possible.
13. In 2 Sam 2:30-31, why were the losses, 360 vs. 20, so lopsided?
A: David probably learned of new weapons and new techniques, from fighting against the Philistines, from fighting on the same side as the Philistines of Gath (1 Samuel 27), and having some of the Philistines in his army. (They were called Cherethites and Pelethites.) 2 Samuel 1:18 also says that David taught his soldiers how to use bows and arrows. Also, David had experienced soldiers, and many of the experienced soldiers in Saul’s army had been killed by the Philistines on Mt. Gilboa.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.299 for more info.
2 Samuel 3-4 – What is Loyalty? – some brief answers
1. Does 2 Sam 3:1 mean there were fighting all the time for seven and a half years?
A: This was a state of hostility, not constant fighting. Remember that both Abner and David and Joab had their hands full fighting the Philistines. In the middle of these hostilities David requested from Ishbosheth that David wife Michal be returned to him and Ishbosheth complied without complaint. As we will see later in 2 Samuel 3-4, there are different kinds of loyalty, and different kinds of disloyalty. During almost all this time Abner was loyal to Ishbosheth, but is bigger question is: “was he loyal to God?”
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.299 for more info.
2. In 2 Sam 3:1-5 and 2 Sam 5:13-16, should David have married all these wives?
A: No, some of their children would cause David much grief later. A large harem might be a status symbol for some kings, but for God’s people Deuteronomy 17:17 says that the king must not take many wives for himself so that his heart not be turned away from his loyalty to God. After David married Michal, Ahinoam, and Abigail, he went on to marry Maacah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah. Scripture does not mention Chileab/Kileab/Caleb again, so he likely died before becoming an adult. Three of the sons of his wives, Amnon son of Ahinoam, Absalom son of Maacah, and Adonijah son of Haggith, would cause David a lot of sorrow and have their lives ended tragically.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.830, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.461, the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.326, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.214, the New international Bible Commentary p.375, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.353, and The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.324,326 for more info.
3. In 2 Sam 3:7, what do we know about Rizpah?
A: Rizpah was Saul’s concubine, or secondary wife. When Ishbosheth became king, it was customary for kings to inherit the concubines of their father. This would make Rizpah Ishbosheth’s father’s wife, which is kind of creepy. This practice goes against Leviticus 18:8 as well as 1 Corinthians 5:1 in the New Testament. Then Abner had sexual relations with her. We are not sure that Rizpah had any say in these things. Rizpah was the one who protected the exposed dead bodies of seven of Saul’s make descendants in 2 Samuel 21:8-11. Despite her past of being “handed around” Rizpah was loyal to the dignity of her extended family.
4. In 2 Sam 3:8, is loyalty a two-way street, or in other words, does a leader have any responsibility of loyalty to his followers?
A: Abner assumed so, and felt betrayed by Ishbosheth’s accusation. People who put a leader in place expect the leader to do what they were placed there to do. Leaders are expected to faithfully care about their position and those under them.
Note that Abner did not say "dog", but "dog's head", which is still derogatory. Jewish commentators interpreted to mean Abner lost his temper and angrily asked if Ishbosheth disrespected Abner as just the head/leader of a pack of dogs. Abner is exaggerating and jumping to a conclusion over Ishbosheth’s displeasure of what Abner views as just a small thing. However, Abner was “strengthening himself” in 2 Samuel 3:6 because it could help pave the way for Abner later seizing the throne, and Ishbosheth did not see this as a small thing at all.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.301 and The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.833, 836 for more info.
5. In 2 Sam 3:12, what did Abner mean by “whose land is it?”
A: This might be a case of strategic ambiguity on Abner’s part. On one hand Abner made Ishbosheth king so Abner was in a powerful position of having control over the northern kingdom. On the other hand, David was the rightful king appointed by God, and Abner was recognizing that David really he should be king over all of Israel. Both meanings dovetail into Abner telling David, “I have effective control over the northern kingdom, and I am giving it over to you. So please take care of me well.”
Abner had been loyal to Ishbosheth, but it might be considered “placeholder loyalty”. Since he was not in any position to be king himself, he wanted to be in a strong position under whoever the king might be. Ishbosheth was just a “placeholder” unless a better opportunity came along. Sometimes a person might be loyal to a friend, boyfriend, girlfriend, or even a spouse as a “placeholder”. They don’t want to be alone, so they want to stick with that person, at least until something better comes along.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.832-833,834 for more info.
6. In 2 Sam 3:14-16, did David violate Dt 24:1-4 that says a man who divorces his wife and she marries another cannot take her back again?
A: Actually, no. David never divorced Michal; Saul took her from David.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.835 for more info.
7. In 2 Sam 3:24-25, why did Joab accuse Abner of deception and just coming to spy on David?
A: We do not see that Joab had any basis for saying thing. However, it could have appeared as a possibility. Joab was quick to point this out because he did not want a competitor as the top general in David’s army. Also, this entire war was started because of Abner, and loyal men of Judah were killed, including Joab’s brother, and Joab would be unhappy David was feasting with his brother’s killer.
Abner was very likely honest in his dealings with David. In 2 Samuel 3:1, as David’s forces got stronger, and Abner’s weaker, Abner saw the end result, since Ishbosheth would not voluntarily give up being king. So Abner could see that this was the only way out.
Joab seemed to know a lot about deception. It was Joab who decided to murder Abner without telling David in 2 Samuel 3:26-30. Joab has gone from obeying, following, and serving David to doing whatever he thought best to do for himself. While Abner killed Asahel in battle, not accidentally, in the city of Hebron, a city of refuge, Abner would at least be entitled to a trial. But Joab was not concerned about that either.
Sometimes a person who is acting honorably will be accused of disloyalty, even by those who are treacherous themselves. Joab accused Abner of being treacherous, but it was actually Joab who as being treacherous.
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.326-327, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.301, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.459, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.35, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.355, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.324, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.215, and the New international Bible Commentary p.376 for more info.
8. In 2 Sam 3:26-30, was Joab loyal to David?
A: Yes and no. Joab certainly did have some loyalty do David, but Joab viewed his own interests, including revenge and preserving his position, as higher than his loyalty to David. Just like there is partial obedience, there is also partial loyalty. Joab could rationalized his loyalty by making the excuses that he never betrayed David, and he did not go against anything David explicitly commanded. But Joab knew for certain what David wanted, and Joab treacherously thwarted David’s will and made his king appear like a treacherous liar. One might wonder if partial loyalty even counts as loyalty at all.
9. In 2 Sam 3:28-36, was David’s kingdom really guiltless of the blood of Abner?
A: Perhaps not. It was Joab and his brother Abishai, acting by themselves, who killed Abner. They might have thought of the responsibility of the relatives of a murdered man (Asahel) to bring the murderer to justice. However, Abner did not murder Asahel; he killed him honorably in battle. Nevertheless, David did not act justly and arrest Joab and Abishai and execute them for murder. On the other hand, David saw that if he arrested Joab and Abishai, it might be he himself who would be executed; that is, if David did not rely on God.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.840 for more info.
10. In 2 Sam 3:39, why did David merely curse Joab instead of executing him?
A: Joab thought Abner was just an opportunist, and perhaps he was in a sense. Joab wanted to avenge his brother’s fair death in battle. Joab showed here that he was looking out for both his own interests and what he thought was best for Israel; following David was not his primary concern. David not disciplining his officers and sons when needed appears to be one of David’s greatest weaknesses. In a sense, David placed his loyal relationships with Joab, Abishai, and his sons as a higher priority than his loyal service carrying out God’s will. David rationalized that he was not powerful enough to punish Joab and Abishai.
David saw Abner as an honorable man as well as a former opponent. He genuinely mourned Abner, but it was also a media event to convince everyone that David had nothing to do with this. In 2 Samuel 3:31-38, it must have been extremely, extremely uncomfortable for Joab and Abishai to be present among the people and leaders when David publicly mourned Abner.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.840,842 Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.215, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.284-285, and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.459 for more info.
11. In 2 Sam 4:8, should David have celebrated Rechab and Baanah assassinating Ishbosheth, since they said the Lord provided the vengeance?
A: As David knew, we should realize that you can’t believe everything someone says. Even if they say it was by God, we have to always entertain the thought that they might be making it up. Sure, God can avenge, but that does not give them the right to treacherously kill someone.
See The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.356 and the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.215 for more info.
12. In 2 Sam 4:9-12, why would Rechab and Baanah think David would be pleased with them for disloyally assassinating Ishbosheth?
A: Apparently they had not known or forgotten about the Amalekite who had claimed to kill Saul. They thought it obvious that David would see removing a rebel against the rightful king was a good, worthwhile end. But what they failed to see was David’s non acceptance of their treacherous, dishonorable means. They had access to Ishbosheth’s house because they were trusted by him. One motto in communism and other ideologies is “the ends justifies the means.” Rechab and Baanah very mistakenly thought David valued the outcome as everything and loyalty as nothing.
Something a little similar to this happened centuries later. When Alexander of Macedon was conquering the Persian Empire under King Darius, and Darius was assassinated, instead of rewarding the assassins, Alexander killed the assassins for their treacherous act according to Justin’s history (12:6) and Curtius (7:5). Like many people, Alexander valued honor. Alexander probably also saw that he would have more legitimacy as king in the eyes of his Persian subjects if he did not approve of a treacherous assassination. See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.312 info for more on this.
13. In 2 Sam 4:9-12, what are some ways people, including ourselves, can forget (really ignore) critical information?
A: Rechab and Baanah were certain David would be pleased with them. Yet David’s response assumes they had heard what he did to the Amalekite who had claimed to kill Saul. In the case of many people who forget or ignore critical information, it is not because their memory is bad; rather it is something else.
We have “models” that we construct of other people to help us make sense of reality and provide our minds with concise summaries of how things work. If we have a few facts, and they fit a pre-conceived model that we have, then we extrapolate to think that all the model is true. Models, like stereotypes, are fast, efficient ways to be able to jump to conclusions. The trouble is, the conclusions might be wrong, or in this case, very, very wrong. The trouble with making models is that most people just toss out facts that don’t fit the model. It is far more satisfying, and gives others more confidence, when you say “I understand it all” versus saying some things don’t make sense to me. If Rechab and Baanah were like most people, they did not forget hearing about David and the Amalekite, they just tossed out that fact because ordinary kings don’t act like that.
For us, we will be wiser if we are always open to the possibility to humbly admit to ourselves, and others, that some things don’t fit our model. We need models; we can’t spend huge amounts of time thoroughly analyzing a thousand small decisions a day that we might make. But realize that our models are over-simplifications. As one mathematical modeler put it well: “all models are wrong, but some models are useful.”
14. In 2 Sam 4:11-12, why would David call the rebel Ishbosheth a righteous man?
A: This sounds similar to what David sang about Saul in his funeral song. As far as we can see, Ishbosheth was honorable; he did things in an honorable way; it is just that is goal was against God’s anointed. In the American Civil War, some people have accused Robert E. Lee of being a traitor, because he pledged allegiance to fight for our country and then changed his allegiance. But that is false; Lee was not a traitor. He did not use deception or treachery, but changed his allegiance honorably. Unfortunately, he fought, and fought well, for a cause that would leave to permanent enslavement of African Americans. If he had been a lousy general, instead of such a good one, many fewer soldiers, including southern soldiers, would have died. If you always act honorably, then great; but also make sure you are fighting for the right side.
After the Civil War ended, Lee was not charged with either treason or war crimes because everyone knew he was innocent. But the Arlington National Cemetery was created close to his land, where he could always have a good view.
2 Samuel 5 David creates a stronghold – some brief answers
1. In 2 Sam 5:3, what is unusual about this agreement?
A: God made covenants with people, individuals made covenants with other individuals, and kings often made treaties and covenants with vassal kings. But this is the only time in scripture, and perhaps the only time in the ancient world, where the king made a covenant with the people he was ruling. You see this again in the Magna Carta of England. David had previously made a covenant with an individual, Abner, but not with an entire people. The idea of the king as a “shepherd” was also expressed prior to Moses’ time by Babylonian king Hammurapi (1792-1750 B.C.).
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.851-852 for more info.
2. In 2 Sam 5:5-6, where did the Jebusites comes from?
A: Jerusalem is an old city, older than Abraham. The inhabitants in David’s time might not even be the same people as in Abraham’s time. Archaeologists have found many similarities between Jebusite names and Hurrian names. The Hurrians might be the Hivites or Horites in the Bible (not Hittites). “Hivite” and “Horite” are only one letter different in Hebrew. In Genesis 36:2 Zibeon was first called a Hivite, and then later a Horite.
The Hurrians were a mixture of two peoples: a ruling class, that might have come from northern India (such south of the ancestral homeland of the Medes, Persians, and Scythians), and a lower class people that they conquered. This is sort of like what the Philistines tried to do with the Israelites. The Hurrians, also called Mitanni, were very powerful in the Middle East from 1800-1600 B.C. They lived on the edge or Iran, up north through Armenia, and west through Syria. The Assyrians were subjects of the Hurrians. The Egyptians during that time called the land of Palestine Huru. Eventually the Egyptians under Amenhotep II conquered the southwest part of their Empire up to the Euphrates. Later the Hittite king Suppiluliumas fought the Hurrians in the west, and after this Assyria under Ashur-uballit I successfully rebelled. We do not hear much about them in the Bible because the Israelites were slaves in Egypt during this time.
See the Wycliffe Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology p.294-298, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.216 and The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.854 for more info.
3. In 2 Sam 5:7, how big was the citadel of Jerusalem?
A: The citadel was a "fort" within the city and a place of last refuge. In 1983 Yigal Shilo what was probably the citadel in pre-David times, and it is large, 2,150 square feet. The city itself in David’s time was about 11 acres, or 480,000 square feet. By comparison, the original campus of the University of Texas at Austin was 40 acres, though now it is about 430 acres. Later the city of Jerusalem expanded a lot. The Temple Mount was actually outside of the city in David’s time. As an aside, Jerusalem was the most defensible city in Israel due to both mountains and a spring. It was in land of Benjamin near the border with Judah, so it was centrally located for the tribes. This is the first time “Zion” is mentioned in the Bible. Zion was originally the name of the mountain.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.855, 858, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.216, and Hershel Shanks, "The City of David After Five Years of Digging" in Biblical Archaeology Review 11, 6 [1985] p.25-26 for more info.
4. In 2 Sam 5:8, why did David hate the lame and blind?
A: Did not actually “hate” the lame, as later Mephibosheth was lame and David showed great kindness to him in 2 Samuel 9:13. But there are three parts to why David was against the blind and lame here.
1. Since the lame and blind were not every mobile, the Jebusite leaders assigned them the task of being the soldiers that guarded the water shaft.
2. The lame and blind were not normally a part of battles. In fact, there is no record of David or anyone else ever fighting the lame and blind apart from this one case.
3. But here, since they shed their non-combatant status to fight David, David and his men fought against them, regardless of how distasteful it was.
5. In 2 Sam 5:9, 1 Ki 9:15, 2 Ki 12:20, 2 Chr 32:5, what was the Milo (or Millo)?
A: Archaeologists are not certain what Millo was, the Hebrew word means “filling”. The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1120-1121 says it might have been a fortress on the north side of the walls of Jerusalem. They might have been stone-filled terraces.
The New International Dictionary of the Bible p.651 says it was a raised mound, called a rampart, outside the city of David.
Regardless, it had strategic importance, as David built it up, Solomon strengthened it (1 Kings 9:15, 24; 11:27), and Hezekiah strengthened it against the Assyrians in 2 Chronicles 32:5.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.856, the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.328, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.461, and The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.357 for more info.
6. In 2 Sam 5:11 and 1 Ki 5:1, Since Hiram of Tyre was so famous, was he anachronistically placed on the throne in David’s time as the skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.304,325 claims?
A: No. Asimov says that Hiram of Tyre had just become king in 969 B.C., four years after Solomon (Asimov p.325). However, The NIV Study Bible p.479 says Hiram ruled from about 978-944 B.C. and that he might also have ruled as co-regent with his father as early as 993 B.C.. The Nelson Study Bible p.567 also says Hiram ruled from 978-944 B.C. The New Geneva Study Bible p.480 says Hiram ruled from about 980-947 B.C.
7. In 2 Sam 5 and 6, did David bring the ark to Obed-Edom’s house after defeating the Philistines, or before as 1 Chr 13 and 14 imply? (A Muslim brought this up.)
A: 1 Chronicles 13 and 14 do not say it was before defeating the Philistines. There is no difficulty once you realize the passages do not have to be in chronological order. Unless a passage transitions with “then” or “afterwards” or something similar, they can be at the same time or in either order. By the way “Obed” means servant, so his name literally means “servant of Edom”.
2 Samuel 6:1 has the word “again” in it, but the “again” does not necessarily mean after the fighting. There also is no time-order word in 1 Chronicles.
In a similar way Sura 16:115-119 says that various foods were prohibited to the Jews. Yet Sura 16:120 talks about Abraham. Jews started with Jacob, Abraham’s grandson, so these are out of order. So, is this a problem in the Qur’an? In this particular case no, because the Qur’an did not claim these verses were in chronological order. There was no time-order word in Sura 16:119-120.
8. In 2 Sam 5:17-8:18, is unusual about the structure of this passage?
A: This is a literary device common in Hebrew called a chiasm, with symmetry of the lines.
— David defeats the Philistines (5:17-25)
— — David brings the ark to Jerusalem (6:1-23)
— — — God makes a covenant with David (7:1-17)
— — David prays to the LORD (7:18-29)
— David defeats his enemies (8:1-14)
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.861 for more info.
9. In 2 Sam 5:25, what is significant about this victory over the Philistines?
A: The Philistines realized that David was no longer a loyal subject of theirs, he had merged with the rival kingdom to the north, and David was fortifying Jerusalem. So the Philistines wanted to take action before Jerusalem’s fortifications were complete. The Philistines were confident of victory, but they did not consider that the Lord would fight for Israel in 2 Samuel 6:24. Geba was only 5 miles north of Jerusalem, and the Philistine city of Gezer was 25 miles west of Jerusalem. So David drove them out of the central part of Israel. David had God’s guidance for when to attack and when not to. A key point is that David did not assume the God’s guidance for one battle was necessarily the same for the next.
As the Israelites had brought the ark into battle in Eli’s time, the Philistines brought their idols in 2 Samuel 5:21. 1 Chronicles 14:12 tells us that David had all the Philistine idols burned.
After defeating the Philistines once, David would have to defeat them again in 2 Samuel 8:1. The term “Metheg Ammah” in 2 Samuel 8:1 probably means “mother city” of the Philistines.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.902-903, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.216, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.358,360, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.463, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.216, the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.328-329, the New International Bible Commentary p.377-378 for more info.
2 Samuel 6 Following God Disrespectfully – some brief answers
1. In 2 Sam 6:1-5, what commendable thing did David do here?
A: David had just become the sole king of Judah and Israel, and yet David put God first. When you are successful, or anointed king over something, do you throw a party for yourself, or have a worship celebration for God, your king?
2. In 2 Sam 6:3-8 and 1 Chr 13:7, what did David do wrong here?
A: David had the right heart, and David did the right thing; David did it at the right time, but David did it in the wrong way. David honored God by especially putting the ark on a new cart. After all, the Philistines put it on an ark, and nothing bad happened to them for doing that. However, this was not the proper way to handle the ark. The ark was to be transported by inserting poles through the loops, and having the Levites, not animals, carry it.
Today sometimes we can do things to especially honor God. However, God wants us to honor Him in His way, not in ways that do not contradict what the Bible teaches.
David was angry that Uzzah died when Uzzah was just trying to help. But David might also have been angry at his own lack of seriousness towards God’s command and that of the priests who should have known better.
See The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.359, the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.330, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.216-217, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.327, and The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.870 for more info.
3. In 2 Sam 6:5, how did cymbals originate?
A: While we do not know where they came from, they were a very ancient instrument. In Hebrew the plural form, mesiltayim, apparently came from the ancient Ugaritic word, msltm, according to The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p879. The people of Ugarit lived on the coast of Syria and Lebanon from before the time of Abraham.
In David’s time they had two types of cymbals: one set was struck vertically and the other horizontally; it is not clear which one was larger. They have found bronze cymbals at Beth Shemesh.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.870 for more info.
4. In 2 Sam 6:6-7 and 1 Chr 13:9-14, why did God kill Uzzah?
A: Uzzah and the others showed disrespect for God by carrying the ark on a bumpy cart in 2 Samuel 6:3. There is no evidence that Uzzah was even a Levite, much less a Kohathite Levite. On one hand they wanted to serve God; but on the other hand they were not viewing God as holy, so God did not accept that. The ark was supposed to be carried on poles, and only by the Levites. Some have thought that God was unjust to kill Uzzah for trying to steady the ark.
There are two points to consider, though.
1. Uzzah and the others were not treating the ark with the respect God commanded them to give it. David later realized that he was wrong in permitting a casual attitude toward the ark in 1 Chronicles 15:13.
2. God apparently was more concerned with the respect people showed the ark, than whether or not it went in the mud. Mud would not hurt the gold anyway.
3. On God’s objects of worship, God has the right to set the rules. Our service to God must be on God’s terms, not our terms.
See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.219-221, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.463, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.871, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.327, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.217, and the New International Bible Commentary p.378 for more info.
5. In 2 Sam 6:6-7, why did God not kill the Philistines who handled the ark, since God killed Uzzah for touching it in 2 Sam 6:6-7?
A: The Bible does not say whether or not the Philistines handled the ark with their hands or with the poles. Either way though, God knew they were unaware of God’s rules about the ark, and God takes into account how much a person was able to know, as Romans 4:15; 5:13 shows.
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.39 for more info
6. In 2 Sam 6:7, does holding the ark as sacred mean we should venerate relics as the Orthodox and Catholic churches do?
A: No. If this did relate to “relics”, it would support never touching a relic more than venerating relics. There are three points to consider in the answer.
1. Uzzah was killed for disobeying the law on touching the ark (Numbers 4:15), not for lack of worship or veneration.
2. The Israelites were supposed to have respect for this ark of the Lord, but that is a different kind of respect than respecting human things.
3. While respect for God’s people, on earth and in Heaven, is fine, that is different from veneration. Veneration differs from respect, as veneration includes praying to or praying through the image or statue.
See When Cultists ask p.51 for more info.
7. In 2 Sam 6:20, why did David (allegedly) dance in public without clothes?
A: David was not naked; he was wearing a linen ephod, according to 2 Samuel 6:14. David was not dressed in kingly robes or acting in a way Michal thought a king should act, and Michal was criticizing him for dressing like a commoner and acting in an undignified manner.
It is one thing to criticize a person to help them improve. It is another thing to criticize a person in such a way that you show you have no respect for that person any more.
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.330, Hard Sayings of the Bible p.221-222 and The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.360 for more info.
8. In 2 Sam 6:20, how should we take it if when we are pleasing the Lord, a fellow believer sarcastically mocks us?
A: In partial defense of Michal, perhaps she remembered that the Spirit of God came upon Saul in an embarrassing way and he stripped of his clothes, when Saul was trying to pursue David in 1 Samuel 19:22-24. She might have looked at David’s dancing and thought I was taken from my beloved husband Phaltiel for him! David was probably taken by surprise and hurt by her rebuke of him worshipping God. Notice four good things David did.
No retaliation: We should not seek revenge (Luke 6:27-36 and Matthew 5:43-44) or retaliate (1 Peter 2:23).
Defend: We should defend our actions by explaining what we are doing is right. Likewise, Romans 14:16 says not to let what you consider to be good be spoken of as evil.
Continue: David emphasizes that he would continue to do so.
Keep your focus on God, not on the mocker: We should choose not to let a few bad words spoil his experiences worshipping God.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.217, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.874-875, and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.463-464 for more info.
9. In 2 Sam 6:23, did Michal not have children due to her comments towards the king?
A: Yes, this is what this verse shows. We don’t know if Michal’s comment to David, dripping with sarcasm, was private or in front of other people too. Michal had no children due to her comments disrespecting her husband the king. However, the Bible is silent on whether not having children was due to God or absence from David.
But either way, one disloyal, ungodly word from someone you would expect to be loyal and godly can have a long-lasting effect. Matthew 12:36 says, “I tell you that on the day of judgment, people will give an account for every worthless word they speak.” (NET). This tends to make us come to the same conclusion James taught us in James 1:19.
Allegorically speaking, we can remember that a critical mocking spirit stifles fruitfulness.
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.330, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.876, 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.314, and the New International Bible Commentary p.378 for more info.
10. In 2 Sam 6:23, why was Michal childless the rest of her life?
A: Michel, by being the first wife, could have hope a son of hers would become the next king, except that she was childless. Scripture does not say why she was childless, but there are four possibilities.
1. She was never able to have any children. Note that she did not have any children by Phaltiel either.
2. David deliberately did not want to have any children by her, since she did not respect him.
3. David was not with her often, and she did not conceive any children.
4. David was with her often, but God made Michal childless after she showed disrespect for her husband.
Regardless, scripture is silent on Michal ever having a change of heart, and turning to either David or God and asking forgiveness. This silent, cold estrangement was a tragedy.
Scripture is silent on the direct mechanism of why she did not have any children. Perhaps the reason scripture is silent is that we do not need to know. The lesson for us here is that Michal did not hold her husband and Israel’s king in honor, and by whatever mechanism, God disciplined her for that.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.878, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.327 and The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.360 for more info.
2 Samuel 7-8 David can’t build the temple – some brief answers
1. In 2 Sam 7:1-2, do all good intentions we have actually come from God?
A: No. While God knows everything we think (Psalm 139:2), and everything we say before we say it (Psalm 139:4), God chooses not to control us like puppets. Some good things come from a believer's own initiative, as 2 Corinthians 8:17 shows. In this case, David had a good intention, but it was not God’s will for David to carry out this intention. It is obeying God's will that is important, not just following good intentions. Good intentions are no substitute for obedience.
2. In 2 Sam 7:3-17, was Nathan a false prophet for first telling David to do whatever he wanted?
A: No. Nathan probably just assumed that is was obvious that God wanted the temple built now. However, being a true prophet does not mean you will never say anything in error. It means that, speaking as a prophet, when a true prophet says, “Thus says the Lord”, it is God’s true word.
However there is a caution for us here. We should not say that God wants somebody to do something unless we know for certain that God wants that. If something is directly in Scripture, then we can say that. For example, we can tell someone “God says” “it is OK to remarry in the Lord after the death of a spouse in 1 Corinthians 7:39. But don’t “God wants you to marry so-and-so” if God did not directly tell you that. If you falsely say that, and marrying that person was a mistake, then what have you made God look like?
A side note is that David originally had the plan and then asked Nathan if he should proceed or not. David was not afraid to surround himself with people who, while loyal, would still tell David when something was not a good idea. This is in contrast with leaders who do not want anyone around them who would disagree with them.
See The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.360 and the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.330 for more info.
3. In 2 Sam 7:8-12, why couldn’t David build a temple for God?
A: Hiram became king of Tyre about 20 years after David, so some time had passed. After David conquered the citadel of Jerusalem, and built himself a palace, David wondered why he had not made something even better for God. David saw a need, and David’s heart was in the right place. It would be built, but not by David. David was disqualified not just because he was busy waging war as Solomon said (1 Kings 5:3), but also because he was a man of blood according to 1 Chronicles 22:8; 28:3. Remember, David almost killed Nabal out of anger, David later killed Uriah and was brutal to the Ammonites and Moabites. So David’s past actions would disqualify him from doing it, but his heart was in the right place. So in 2 Samuel 2:11-12 God said that instead God would build David a house; a legacy of an enduring name. This is one of the milestones of Old Testament prophecy.
Sometimes there is a work of God that needs to be done, and we are willing to do it, but we are not the right person God has chosen. But, like David, we can step out of the way, but help the person who is going to doing it by giving them any supplies they need. Note that here in David’s worship, David emphasizes “sovereign Lord” seven times.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.464, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.857,887, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.884-885, the New International Bible Commentary p.378, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.361, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.217, and The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.328 for more info.
4. In 2 Sam 7:13,16 it says Solomon's kingdom would apparently last forever, but it did not. How do we explain that?
A: 2 Samuel 7:5-17 is all one prophecy to David that has dual fulfillment: it is about David's seed, both immediate and long term. As soon as David died, his own seed, Solomon would become king and it would be Solomon who would build the Temple. Long term, 2 Samuel 7:13 promises that the throne of Solomon's kingdom would be established forever.
The Bible also says the Messiah would be from David: Jeremiah 23:4; and in the New Testament Luke 3:31; Acts 13:22-23; Revelation 22:16.
Many Jewish Talmuds say the Messiah will come from David's line. According to The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.9 p.298 and vol.3 p.891-892, certain groups in Late Judaism considered this, such as the Qumran text 4Q Florilegium.
It turns out these are true in two different ways. Biologically Jesus came from Mary, who was a descendant of David, but not Solomon, in Luke 3:23-31. Legally, but not biologically, Jesus was the son of Joseph, descendant of both David and Solomon in Matthew 1:6-16. So biologically Jesus was from David through Mary, but kingship was not passed through the mother. So, by Mary alone, Jesus would have no right of kingship in Israel. But since Jesus was legally Joseph's son, Jesus did have a right of the throne.
There are two interesting side issues here though.
If Jesus had in fact been biologically from Joseph, a scriptural prophecy would have been broken. Joseph was a descendant of King Jeconiah (Jehoiachin), descendant of Solomon, in Matthew 1:11-12. Yet Jeremiah 22:30 says that no descendant of Jeconiah would ever sit on the throne again.
A second issue is that since there exile there has been no descendant of David who has been a king, and few Jews today even know which tribe they are from (some priests surnamed Cohen know though.) So, from a strictly Jewish perspective, this prophecy appears to have failed, - unless of course Solomon's throne was established forever through Christ.
5. In 2 Sam 7:18-29, what is significant about David’s attitude here?
A: On one hand, this would seem very disappointing to David. David offered to build a Temple for God, using all his own resources, and God explicitly turned him down here. David wanted so much to build a house for God. God said “no”, but God turned around and built a living house for David, through Solomon and his descendants.
We can speculate that since God knew what David would do with Bathsheba and the Moabite men, God did not think it appropriate for David to be the one to build the temple.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.896 for more info.
6. In 2 Sam 8:2, was David right to kill two-thirds of the Moabite men?
A: Originally David had good relations with the Moabites in 1 Samuel 22:3-4. David was more magnanimous in victory against the Philistines and Arameans. However, David was unusually very severe here, as if he felt the Moabites acted treacherously towards him. A Jewish tradition claims that the Moabites betrayed David’s trust and murdered his parents. David’s goal was not to kill all the Moabites, but to reduce their ability to rebel. Nothing in scripture says that God approved of this action. On the contrary, 1 Kings 5:3 says that God did not want David to be the one to build the Temple, because David was a man of war.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.903 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.465 for more info.
7. In 2 Sam 8:3, did David defeat Hadadezar, or Hadarezer as 1 Chr 18:3 says?
A: This one letter difference in the Hebrew is most likely a copyist error. The correct name is very likely “Hadadezer”, because Hadad was the Aramaic/Canaanite storm god. Bible Difficulties & Seeming Contradictions p.130 and The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.927 say that the Hebrew letters “d” and “r” are similar to each other.
As a side note, the gold shields in Jerusalem were taken from Hadadezer in 2 Samuel 8:7-8, as The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.329 and the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.331 point out.
See The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.363 for more info.
8. In 2 Sam 8:13, in the Valley of Salt, did David kill 18,000 Syrians, or Abishai kill 18,000 Edomites as 1 Chr 18:12 and the header of Ps 60 say?
A: Abishai, brother of Joab
apparently led King David’s army. There is likely a manuscript error here; the
Valley of Salt would be close to Edom. Most Hebrew in 2 Samuel 8:13 manuscripts
have “Arameans” (=Syrians) here, but some Hebrew manuscripts, the Septuagint,
and the Syriac all have In Hebrew the words for Aram and Edom are the same
except for an “r” vs. a “d”, and the letters are similar.
“Edomites”. All the manuscripts have “Edomites” in 1 Chronicles 18:12 and the
note before Psalm 60.
The Valley of Salt was either the Wadi el-Milh east of Beersheba, or else in the Es-Sebkha area south of the Dead Sea, which would be closer to Edom than Aram.
One might wonder why David’s kingdom was so powerful, since Egypt was to the west, and Assyrians and Babylonians were to the east. Egypt was not strong at this time, and there was a vacuum of power, with civil wars, in Mesopotamia. Also, Persians and Medes had not shown up on the scene yet.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.908, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.465, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.363 and the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.331 for more info.
9. In 2 Sam 8:17 why is Ahimelech given as the son of Abiathar, since Abiathar’s father, who was killed before David became king, was named Ahimelech?
A: There are two possibilities.
Copyist Error: It was likely the names were reversed. In both 2 Samuel 8:17 and 1 Chronicles 18:16 the Syriac version reads “Abiathar son of Ahimelech” instead of “Ahimelech son of Abiathar” as the Masoretic text and Septuagint read. (2 Samuel 8:17 and 1 Chronicles 18:16 are not preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls.) See The New Geneva Study Bible p.438 and the New International Bible Commentary p.380 for more on this view.
Grandson named after a grandfather: If a grandson was named after his martyred grandfather, young Ahimelech likely did not become a priest until the last part of David’s reign. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.911 says this practice, called papponymy, was common. (see 1 Chronicles 6:9b 0 10:a; 7:20). See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.466 for this view.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.911 and the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.332 for more info on both views.
10. In 2 Sam 8:18, how were David’s sons [supposedly] priests, since David was from the tribe of Judah, not Levi?
A: They were not; there is no evidence that David’s sons had any priestly duties in the temple. While the Hebrew word here is the common one for priests (kohen), 1 Chronicles 18:17 says they ministered as chief officials. When Critics Ask p.172 points out that the Hebrew word also means servant, minister, or counselor.
See The NIV Study Bible p.436 for more info.
11. In 2 Sam 8:19, 15:18; 20:7,23; 1 Sam 30:14; 1 Ki 1:38; 44:1; 1 Chr 18:17; Ezek 25:16; and Zeph 2:5, who were the Cherethites / Kerethites and Pelethites?
A: These were Philistine soldiers who served loyally in David’s army. They were under the command of David’s commander Benaiah according to 2 Samuel 8:18.
In particular, in Ugaritic the word Krty is found to refer to people from the Island from Crete. So Kerethites were probably not just Philistines, but the tribe of Philistines specifically originating from the Island of Crete.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1050, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.465 and the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.223 for more info.
2 Samuel 9-10 Kindness to peace, and kindness to war – some brief answers
1. In 2 Sam 9:1-13, what is the structure of this chapter?
A: This is written as a chiasm, a common feature of Hebrew poetry.
9:1 David wants to show favor to Saul’s family
- 9:2-5 David speaks with Ziba, Saul’s servant
- - 9:6-8 David shows favor to Mephibosheth
- 9:9-11a David speaks with Ziba, Sauls’ servant
9:11b-13 David shows favor to Saul’s family through Mephibosheth
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.916 for more info.
2. In 2 Sam 9:1-13, why was David kind to the lame Mephibosheth, since he loathed the lame and blind defending Jerusalem according to 2 Sam 5:8?
A: Though the lame and blind could not fight well, David loathed having to kill them to take the aqueduct feeding Jerusalem. The fact that Mephibosheth was lame did not make David’s kindness towards him any greater or lesser.
Good soldiers can have a similar feeling today? As a soldier would you ever want to shoot a little kid? What if the little kid was holding an AK-47 rifle and aiming it at you. Yes, you would kill him, but you would not feel good about doing it, and you would loathe the circumstances that drove you to do that.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.918 for more info.
3. In 2 Sam 9:1-13, why was David kind to Mephibosheth?
A: David was not kind to Mephibosheth because David happened to come across him. Rather, David chose to seek out Mephibosheth because he was looking for ways to be compassionate to Saul’s family, to demonstrate that he had no hatred for them. David had made a promise to Jonathan in 1 Samuel 20:42 to take care of him and his family, and David was a man of honor. This is the essence of what covenant love is in the Old Testament, a promised commitment and trust. Even though Jonathan was dead and could no longer do anything to help or hurt David, David was going to keep his commitment to take care of Jonathan’s descendents.
However, Mephibosheth probably did not know about this promise and was shocked at David’s kindness. Mephibosheth was lame (2 Samuel 4:4) because his nurse took him to flee from David. Mephibosheth would have been about five years old at the time. Kings often killed all the children of the predecessors, and it was assumed that David would act like a typical king and want to do the same. However, David was no ordinary king.
Mephibosheth can be allegorically thought of as a lost person. He is a poor outcast, lame with no way to come to David. But out of grace and a covenant love David had Mephibosheth brought to Jerusalem and cared for.
See the New International Bible Commentary p.380, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.916-918, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.329-330, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.218-219, the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.332-333, and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.466 for more info.
4. In 2 Sam 9:1, did David say this after executing Saul’s sons, as Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.309 says?
A: Asimov claims David said this prior to the executions, because it would not have been hard to find members of Saul’s family prior to the executions.
Two points to consider in the answer.
Looking for a son loyal to him: David did not say he was just looking for one of Saul’s sons. Rather, David said he was looking for one of Saul’s sons to whom he could show kindness for Jonathan's sake.
Not chronological: 2 Samuel 21:1 says the execution of Saul’s sons occurred “during the reign of David”, and it is not necessarily chronological. In other words, it is possible that Asimov might be correct here.
5. In 2 Sam 9:4, where was Lo-Debar?
A: Lo-Debar was east of the Jordan and south of the Sea of Galilee. This town would be a safe place far from Jerusalem, across the Jordan River, and close to the desert where David could make an escape to the desert if he needed to do so. The New International Dictionary of the Bible p.599 says that the town has not been found yet. The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1044 and The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.917 say that while the site is not certain, archaeologists think the location might be at Umm ed-Dabar about 8 to 10 miles south or south southeast of the Sea of Galilee. Lo-Debar also means “no thing”.
6. In 2 Sam 10:2,4-8, since David’s original motive apparently was to show kindness to Nahash’s son, why did David go to war against him?
A: David did not know anything, good or bad, about Hanun, the son of Nahash, but he wanted to honor the life of a king who was an ally. Perhaps David was doing a proper political formality, but Hanun’s nobles, perhaps being paranoid about a larger kingdom next to Ammon, suggested to Hanum that he should interpret it very differently. When Hanun unexpectedly showed he wanted to be David’s enemy, David obliged him. Hanun expressed contempt for David and was not afraid to demonstrate this. David likely reasoned that if he did not act, other nations would hold Israel in contempt too.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.922 for more info.
7. In 2 Sam 10:2,4-8, how can being paranoid, or assuming the worst intentions in others, become a self-fulfilling prophecy?
A: When you expect ill of others, it is easy to slip out that you expect them to be against you. When people know that you don’t trust them and even think they will do you harm, they can immediately ponder, “is there a reason why they feel this way about me”, and “is there something I should know to defend myself against them”, and “should I act in the way they expect me to act?
8. In 2 Sam 10:7-19, how could Joab and David defeat a combined army of Ammonites and Syrians?
A: Three points to consider in the answer.
1. Being a charioteer fighting an ill-equipped army is a relatively safe job. One only has to shoot arrows from a distance. If the army got too close, one could simply drive the horses farther away. Infantry would not be able to stop a chariot charge if they only had short swords.
2. However, it is a different story fighting against well-equipped infantry. The Israelites were experienced in fighting against Philistine chariots. They had arrows, and a massed group of infantry archers would have more concentrated firepower than chariots. A wall of infantry with long spears would stop a chariot charge.
3. Centuries later, the Persian king Darius learned this, to his dismay, as time after time the phalanxes of the Macedonian army of mainly infantry defeated massive numbers of Persian cavalry.
9. In 2 Sam 10:17-19 what were the consequences of this war?
A: Nahash, king of the Ammonites, was defeated by Saul back in 1 Samuel 11 after the Ammonites attacked Jabesh Gilead. It is speculated that he helped David when David was a fugitive from Saul. So David wanted to offer condolences when King Nahash died. This war originally was just to punish Hanun, king of the Ammonites, for the shameful treatment of David’s ambassadors, similar to what might be done to prisoners of war. David recognized it for what it was: a declaration of war. But when Hanun brought in many allies from the various Aramaean (Syrian) kingdoms, The Israelites saw that this would be no easy battle in 2 Samuel 10:11-12. The two armies of Israel ended up defeating all of them and having kingdoms as far as the Euphrates River server him. Politically and militarily it looked like a big win for the Israelites. But sometimes in the midst of great success we need to be careful not to let down our guard and let something bad infiltrate, as the next chapter shows.
Committing adultery with Bathsheba was a turning point in his reign. After that he would lose respect among the people and he would have multiple rebellions. The fighting and close call with destruction with Absalom were more important crises than the gain of the land to the Euphrates.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.219, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.466, the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.333, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.364, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.923-925, and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.468 for more info.
10. In 2 Sam 10:18 were there 700 charioteers, or 7,000 charioteers as 1 Chr 19:18 says?
A: It could be either one. This is apparently a Masoretic text copyist error.
2 Samuel 10:18 says 700 chariots and 40,000 horsemen in the Masoretic text and the Septuagint.
1 Chronicles 19:18 says 7,000 men who fought in chariots and 40,000 infantry in the Masoretic text and the Septuagint.
It was probably 700 men who fought in chariots and 40,000 infantry.
The doctrine of inerrancy means that we believe the Bible was without any error (including real contradictions) in the original manuscripts, but recognizes that some copyist errors occurred in transmission.
Objectively, one can neither prove nor disprove that this was a copyist error or an error in the original manuscripts. However,
1. Given the many archaeologically verified statements in the Old Testament, and
2. Given that most of the other places where there are genuine discrepancies in modern copies have to do with numbers,
Thus, the evidence is not conclusive but favors a copyist error.
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.333, Haley's Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible p.320-321, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.925, Hard Sayings of the Bible p.239-240, the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.333, and Bible Difficulties & Seeming Contradictions p.157-157 for more info.
2 Samuel 11 When a king thinks he can break boundaries – some brief answers
1. In 2 Sam 11-12, what is the structure of these two chapters?
A: These are arranged as a chiasm, and this is one of the longer chiasms in scripture.
11:1 Daved sends Joab to besiege Rabbah
- 11:2-5 David get Bathsheba pregnant
- - 11:6-17 David has Uriah killed
- - - 11:18-27a Joab sends David a messenger
- - - - 11:27b The Lord is very displeased
- - - 12:1-14 The Lord sends David a messenger
- - 12:15-23 The Lord kills David’s infant son
- 12:24-25 David get Bathsheba pregnant again
12:26-31 Joab sends for David to capture Rabbah
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.927,940 for more info.
2. In 2 Sam 11:1-5, since David was a man of God, how could he covert another man’s wife, commit adultery, get someone drunk, and order a murder? (an atheist asked this)
A: There is no defense of David; David sinned greatly in doing these things. He was in a comfortable position; he was master of everything; - it turns out everything except himself. He was idle instead of going with the army, he was in a sense “too comfortable”, and he had a wandering eye. David was walking with God in victory, and there is no indication that David was looking to fall. Rather, David put himself in a vulnerable position and did not look away, but rather acted upon his temptation. Deuteronomy 27:24 stress how evil it is for someone to kill their neighbor secretly.
Three points to consider in the answer.
1. The issue here is not an alleged contradiction in the Bible. Scripture merely recorded the evil things David said and did. David did not just think about doing this; David was a mano of action and carried it out. Sometimes being a person of action is a bad thing.
2. A problem here is the contradiction inside of David. David was a man after God’s own heart, but 2 Samuel 12:10 says David despised God here. Yet many people are double-minded (see James 1:7) at some time in their lives. There have always been hypocrites, and we can all agree that here David was a hypocrite of the first degree.
3. The real issue is why God would still love and use someone like David. There are four very simple points on this issue.
3.1 God can do whatever He wants with whomever He wants Who are we to tell God how to use His creatures.
3.2 God knew that David did have a genuine love for Him. The lesson here is that while every hypocrite is not necessarily a genuine believer, some hypocrites could still be genuine believers, and have a genuine love for God under their hypocrisy.
3.3 God loved David and disciplined him severely for his hypocrisy. Severe discipline can be a form of God’s love: though it is undesired at the time, it can bear fruit of repentance.
3.4 After David repented, God completely forgave Him. There were still consequences and discipline to David; however, but David was forgiven. We should forgive others who have repented, too. Romans 15:7 says that we should accept one another as Christ accepted us.
For a different but complementary answer, here is what Today’s Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties p.260-261 says about the real issue.
“Keep in mind the fact that very few of God’s chosen instruments were without fault, or even serious sin. Moses was a murderer. David was an adulterer and a murderer. Jacob was a con-man and Abraham was a liar. Jonah was a racist who rebelled at the idea that God would forgive the Assyrians. And what about Peter’s impulsiveness and the contentious spirits displayed by James and John? Yet, God used them all.
God can use whomever He chooses to use. He used Balaam, the Syrian prophet. He used Cyrus, the Persian king. He even used Pharaoh and his hardness of heart to advance His plan. … I find this knowledge encouraging.”
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.928,935, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.331, the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.334, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.372, and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.468 for more info.
3. In 2 Sam 11:1, did David usually stay home when the army went to war?
A: No. David went with the army in 2 Samuel 5:2; 8:1-14; and 10:17. However, when David got older his men asked him to stay in the city in 2 Samuel 18:3; 21:17.
See The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.36 for more info.
4. In 2 Sam 11:3, what do we know about Bathsheba’s background?
A: Bathsheba’s husband Uriah was a Hittite, and Hittites typically were workers in the temple. Uriah’s name means “the LORD is my light” so his parents were likely believers. Bathsheba’s father was Eliam, one of David’s mighty men in 2 Samuel 23:24. Eliam was the son of Ahithophel, David’s wise counselor. Later, when Absalom revolted from David, Ahithophel gave his allegiance to Absalom instead of David. Perhaps who Bathsheba lost her first husband left a bad taste in his mouth.
See The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.366 and The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.929 for more info.
5. In 2 Sam 11:1-5, what does this tell us about the record in 2 Samuel?
A: Typically court chroniclers would record the annals of the king; and the king had direct control over what was included vs. omitted. This passage shows that this record was not under the control of the king. Neither David nor Solomon would likely want this information to be publicized, so this was not under their control.
See The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.331 and The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.928 for more info.
6. In 2 Sam 11:3 why is Eliam, Bathsheba’s father, called Amiel in 1 Chr 3:5?
A: There are at least 22 pairs of places in the Old Testament where people had two names. See the discussion on Exodus 2:18 for the answer.
See also 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.323 for more info.
7. In 2 Sam 11:8f, why did David give Uriah a gift?
A: This would have the appearance of David favoring Uriah, and gratitude towards him. It would also show others that David was very favorably disposed towards Uriah. Actually this was a dirty, cheap trick. It probably was not due to a feeling of guilt; because of what David would do to Uriah after that. David connived to deceive others about his intentions, with no regards for Uriah at all.
See the New International Bible Commentary p.381 for more info.
8. In 2 Sam 11:8f, are there times today when someone gives a dirty, cheap gift to someone they don’t care about?
A: David’s whole motivation was to bury his sin, even if meant burying Uriah too. An explicit bribe is a little bit like this; but there are implicit bribes too. Whenever you receive a gift, especially a generous gift, from someone you did not think had so much affection and gratitude towards you; it is good to silently ask yourself why. Is there something they would like from you, and are they honest and above-board about it?
See The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.332 for more info.
9. In 2 Sam 11:11, what is David feeling here?
A: David probably has a mix of frustration and desperation to the point of panic. He thought he had the perfect plan to cover up his sin, except that Uriah was too loyal to participate. Unwittingly Uriah “rubbed it in” by calling her “my wife” instead of “Bathsheba”. Uriah called her by her role. Uriah knew who he was, and he knew who his wife was, just as David was forgetting who he was.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.934-935 and the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.385 for more info.
10. In 2 Sam 11:14-21, what was doubly unfair about this?
A: Of course it was unfair, the Uriah, David’s loyal champion, would be treacherously killed this way. But what did the Israelite soldiers around do to deserve getting killed by David and Joab’s treachery? Their only “crime” was getting in the way of David’s lust. David’s evil was not only directed at Uriah, but he was willing to sacrifice other bystanders loyal to him to cover up his sin of one night.
See the New International Bible Commentary p.381-382 and the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.334 for more info.
11. In 2 Sam 11:15-27, how can godly believers, who start out really, really good, get corrupted by having power? How can that be prevented?
A: No believer, no matter who they are, is so good that they can let down their guard. The same David who would not kill King Saul who was pursuing him, would kill Uriah and those around him. The same David who mourned the death of Saul and noble Jonathan, apparently did not mourn the death of loyal Uriah, whose death he caused. This should be a warning to us. But for the grace of God, and us daily drawing near to God, we could end up like him or like a Demas in the New Testament.
If anyone could let down their guard, you would think it would be Paul. And yet Paul himself said, “Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way as to take the prize. 1 Cor 9:25 Everyone who competes in the games trains with strict discipline. They do it for a crown that is perishable, but we do it for a crown that is imperishable. Therefore I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight like I am beating the air. No, I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.” 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 (Berean Bible). Paul is speaking to believers when he says that we should examine ourselves to see that we are “in the faith” in 2 Corinthians 13:5.
To keep us from dropping our guard we need to stay close to God, and to be in fellowship with others, who can hold us accountable.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.385-386 for more info.
12. In 2 Sam 11:16, what does this show about Joab’s loyalty?
A: Earlier we saw that Joab was indeed loyal to David, but he was loyal to his self-interest even more. But here Joab is more loyal to his leader than he is loyal to what is right. Loyalty can be a good think, but loyalty is bad if it is to something that God does not want. As Joab only had partial loyalty to David, Joab had even less loyalty to what is right.
Uriah is listed as one of David’s top 37 soldiers in 2 Samuel 23:39, but you can see where Uriah’s loyalty got him, serving a partially loyal general and a treacherous king.
See the Evangelical
Commentary on the Bible p.220 for more info.
2 Samuel 12 Hypocrisy: You are the man! – some brief answers
1. In 2 Sam 12:1-12, why did Nathan use this approach to talk with David about his sin?
A: Two possible reasons, both of which might be true.
1. King David already knew what he did was evil. David did not need either instruction or correction here; he needed rebuke. Nathan approached David in such a way that his “defenses” would not be aroused. Once Nathan appealed to David’s strong sense of justice, and got David’s anger aroused at this “unnamed oppressor”, then Nathan laid it on David heavily.
2. David was a king who had just ordered the death of a valuable and loyal servant. While Nathan was already risking his life to rebuke David, Nathan would want to use an indirect, yet effective approach.
Also notice that God did not tell Nathan to rebuke David right away. Some time passed for passion to cool, David to feel guilt, and an opportunity for David to repent on his own had passed.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.388 for more info.
2. In 2 Sam 12:1-12, what can we learn from Nathan’s masterful approach?
A: There are five interesting points in how Nathan approached this very uncomfortable conversation.
1) At this point in time, David could see sin in others more than in himself. He could see the speck in someone else’s eye, but not the log in his own (Matthew 7:3-5). Sin does that to people; giving them selective blindness. So Nathan told a story, which seemed to be about someone else.
2) Nathan could have used an analogy of a calf, a merchant being stolen from, or something else, but Nathan used a lamb, something David the shepherd could easily relate to emotionally.
3) Nathan changed the circumstances enough that David would not recognize that this parable as about him. So he did not use an analogy of a loyal servant or marriage. But the rich man with a lot of sheep referred to David and his wives, and the poor man referred to Uriah and his wife.
4) David had a sense of honor, and a sense of pity for a cute lamb and his owner. Nathan appealed to those virtues in David.
5) By the end of this story, David’s anger towards the rich man, because of David’s sense of honor and pity towards the poor own of the lamb, was jarred by exposing David’s shameful, pitiless treatment of Uriah.
6) When Nathan said, “you are the man!”, David’s eyes were opened to the injustice. He knew that as shepherd of Israel, the magnitude of the harm he had done to the flock.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.220, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.367, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.942-943, and The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.332 for more info.
3. In 2 Sam 12:5-6, what is interesting about David’s response to the rich man in Nathan’s story?
A: At first David says that the oppressive man should die for doing this, even though the law does not say this was deserving of death (unlike what David did according to Leviticus 20:10 and 24:17). Then David reigned in his temper and said the rich man has to pay four lambs to the poor man, which is what Exodus 22:1 says. It is curious that four of David’s sons died, Bathsheba’s first son (2 Samuel 12:18), Amnon (2 Samuel 13:28-29), Absalom (2 Samuel 18:4-5), and later in Solomon’s time Adonijah (1 Kings 2:25).
After Nathan called him out, David responded with “I have sinned against the Lord”, not “let’s execute Nathan.”
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.468, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.391, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.947, and The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.367 for more info.
4. In 2 Sam 12:8, why did God give David multiple wives, if polygamy was [allegedly] a sin?
A: Polygamy was not a sin. Some things were practiced in Old Testament times, but we have a higher standard since Jesus came. In Old Testament times, Jesus said God permitted some things (such as divorce) because their hearts were hard. I think polygamy is another of these things. However, the Bible did say that a king must not have too many wives, and that Solomon sinned in having so many wives (Nehemiah 13:26; 1 Kings 11:2-11).
The Old Testament gives the example of monogamy (Adam and Eve but not Lisa too), and shows the problems that occurred with polygamy with Abraham, Jacob, Solomon, etc., but the Bible does not actually prohibit polygamy. However, if a man is polygamous, then he is disqualified from being an elder in 1 Timothy 3:2.
By the way, there are about 50,000 cultists in the United States who are polygamous today; they are called Fundamentalist Mormons. They are breaking Romans 13:1, which says we are to obey the governing authorities. Many of them live in southern Utah, northwestern Arizona, and Nevada.
When I witness to Mormons, there are many things one
can talk about with them, but not all of them are equally profitable. The most
important
points relate to
a) Believing the True, Most-High God
b) Believing the True Jesus
c) Believing the truth about salvation
d) Believing the right scripture.
If a person is wrong about those
three things, it does not matter what they are right about. Rather than talking
about polygamy with Mormons, I would rather talk about why they believe in a
lesser god, why Joseph Smith, when he married his second wife, kept it a secret from his first wife. Since the anti-black
doctrine in their scripture was changed in 1978, and
the LDS changed their doctrine to ban polygamy, what other doctrines are there
in Mormonism that should be
thrown out.
For anyone, it makes a difference whether one reads
the Bible in order to answer, “what is the most I can get
away with” vs. reading it to answer, “what is God’s perfect will for me.” If
someone in Old Testament times read the
Bible the first way,
they would see that divorce and other things are OK.
On the other hand, someone in Old Testament times could
read Malachi 2:16: “God hates divorce.” Likewise, polygamy is not God’s perfect
will but was permitted.
5. In 2 Sam 12:9, David basically gave Uriah to God’s enemies. Are there times today when a believer might see gain in giving something to their enemies or the enemies of God?
A: Sometimes people give money, permission, or credibility to an evil person to achieve an end for themselves. Other times people give up their integrity, reputation, family, and other relationship to achieve an evil end for themselves. The effect of what David did was to despise God’s command and bring dishonor upon God’s truth.
A slang term for making a bargain with the devil is called a “Faustian” in English, and “Faustich” in German. This is named after Faust, a real German alchemist and astrologer. This legend was later made into a book, then a French opera. A Faustian bargain is a bad deal where the person pays a high price for what looks enticing short-term.
Another slang term for being cunning is “Byzantine”. The Byzantines would do things like make peace with their enemies (such as the Bulgars), and then secretly pay money to enemies of the Bulgars (the Pechenegs) to get them to attack the Bulgars.
God broke David’s heart with the death of his children. David wrote about his sin in Psalm 51.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.390 for more info.
6. In 2 Sam 12:13, what is significant about David’s reaction?
A: David was fasting to move God’s heart. God already had decided what He was going to do, and when the baby died, David knew there was no point in asking God for what God had determined otherwise.
7. In 2 Sam 12:15-23, why did God have the first child of David and Bathsheba die?
A: This was not the child’s punishment but the punishment for the guilt of David and Bathsheba. God will make everything just in the end, and we have to wait until then until we see complete justice on earth.
Some Calvinists say that since babies die, this “proves” that babies are guilty of Adam’s sin. This is false reasoning, because suffering consequences does not prove guilt. Otherwise, the fact that kittens die would “prove” that they also are guilty for Adam’s sin. However, the truth of the matter is that all of Creation was subjected to the Fall, as Romans 8:19-22 says.
Conclusion:
1. All Christians agree that newborn babies have no personal sins of their own.
2. All Christians agree that all are born with a sinful nature.
3. Unfortunately, all Christians do not yet agree that suffering consequences does not prove guilt.
See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.185-186, 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.115-116, and the New International Bible Commentary p.382 for more info.
8. In 2 Sam 12:20, why did David worship God just after his son died?
A: You should worship God when you are right with God. You should also worship when you have been disobedient and now you want to get right with God. In David’s running from Saul, hearing the rebuke from Nathan, and in seeing his child die, David was not resentful or bitter towards God at all. David prayed that God would saved Him from this blow, and when God did not, afterwards David still worshipped God.
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.336, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.220, and The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.948 for more info.
9. In 2 Sam 12:21, what does this say about the Catholic practice of praying for the dead?
A: This says that David did not see any point to praying for his son who had died. Catholics believe in praying for the dead because of a passage in the Catholic and Orthodox apocryphas (2 Maccabees 12:46), which is not in Protestant or Jewish Bibles. But David only prayed for the child while the child was still alive.
10. In 2 Sam 12:21-23, did David and Bathsheba’s first son go to Heaven, or not?
A: Nothing suggests that he did not, and he probably did. However, 2 Samuel 12:21-23 does not actually prove that he did. When David said he would go where his son was, he meant to the grave (Sheol), not necessarily Heaven. In Mesopotamia the grave was termed “the land of no return”.
See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.222-223, When Critics Ask p.174-175, and The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.948 for more info.
11. In 2 Sam 12:23, what did David mean when he said the child will not return to him, but that he would go to the child.
A: The Bible speaks frequently of Sheol, which was in the Greek Septuagint and the New Testament in Greek call “Hades”. It mean the grave, and everyone went to that. Jewish people taught that there were two compartments to Sheol: paradise where godly people went, and prison, where evil people went. Some think David is saying the child is in paradise now and David will go to Paradise with him. However, this verse can only prove that the child went to Sheol, and David would eventually be in Sheol too.
12. In 2 Sam 12:28, why did Joab speak to David this way?
A: Joab and David had known each other a long time. Joab knew he could not command David, but he really wanted to David to come and look like he was doing something. So Joab made a fake threat that we wanted to rename the city after himself to motivate David to come. Joab above all of loyal to himself. But given that he was not threatened, Joab was loyal to David too, and he wanted David to come because Joab knew it would look best for his king, and Joab was looking out for David’s best interests.
Joab was looking out for David’s interests, but without complete respect here. It is almost like Joab is saying, “David, I don’t want to know what you were doing back in Jerusalem but you need to get over here like a proper king now.” However, this mild disrespect of an old friend is nothing compared to how others would disrespect David later.
See the New International Bible Commentary p.382 for more info.
13. In 2 Sam 12:30, how heavy was this crown?
A: It was about 75 pounds or 34 kg. Obviously a man could not wear this crown without a supporting stand. But the crown was likely not for wearing but for showing off.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.221 for more info.
14. In 2 Sam 12:31, did David kill some Ammonites by putting them under saws, axes, and in the brick kiln?
A: Probably not. Rather, David forced the captives to use saws and axes to cut, and to make bricks in the brick kiln. The New International Bible Commentary p.383 says the latter is the dominant view.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.468 and the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.336 for more info. See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.395-396 and The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.368-369 for the view that they were killed this way.
2 Samuel 13 Partial Forgiveness does not work well – some brief answers
1. In 2 Sam 13:1-22, what is the structure of this chapter?
A: This is arranged in a deep chiasm.
13:1-2 Amnon was lusting after Tamar
- 13:3-5 Jonadab advises Amnon to rape Tamar
- - 13:6-9a Tamar comes to cook for and feed Amnon
- - - 13:9bAmnon order his servants to all leave
- - - - 13:10-14a Amnon commands Tamar to come to bed with him; she refuses
- - - - - 13:14b-15a Amnon rapes Tamar and his lust turns to hatred
- - - - 13:15b-16 Amnon commands Tamar to leave, despite her pleas
- - - 13:17 Amnon commands his servant to return and kick Tamar out
- - 13:18-19 Tamar leaves
- 13:20 Absalom tells Tamar not to worry; Absalom will take care of it
13:21-22 Absalom hates Amnon
In the middle of this, 2 Samuel 13:15 is a chiasm.
Amnon hated her
- With a hatred
- - Great
- - - Exceedingly
- - - Indeed
- - Great
- Was the hatred
with which he hated her.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.955,962 for more info.
2. In 2 Sam 13:5,7-8, Jonadab suggested Amnon use David, unwittingly, to advance his evil plan. Are there cases since then where an evil person has used an unsuspecting person to advance their evil?
A: Here are a few examples.
The most common scenario is “lawfare”, where someone uses the law or contracts, signed in good faith by one side, to unjustly get somebody. It might not be that the evil person is trying to be unjust; it might be that they have no concept of what is just.
A second example, with David, Uriah, and Joab, is to send a message to do evil through an unsuspecting person.
A third example is what has been called the Hindawi affair. This occurred April 17, 1986, when Nezar Hindawi, a Jordanian, was traveling with his 32-year old five-month pregnant Irish girlfriend, Anne-Marie Murphy from London to Tel Aviv. He broke up with her when he found out she was pregnant, then he got back together with her and said he wanted to marry her. He found her a job as a made at the Holton Hotel in Bethlehem. He told her he would have to travel on a later flight because his visa would take longer. Hindawi, whom Mike Royko called “that noble Muslim warrior” gave his pregnant girlfriend a suitcase with a bomb in it, so that it would go off in flight, killing everyone. The suitcase made it through British Security, but an El-Al security guard was suspicious; there was no Hilton Hotel in Bethlehem, and did a manual secondary search to see why when the emptied suitcase was still heavy, and he found the bomb. Hindawi was sentenced to 45 years in prison.
See https://www.timesofisrael.com/35-years-after-el-al-bomb-plot-security-staff-recount-stopping-unwitting-bomber/ for more info.
A fourth example is that one time a person was caught taking illegal drugs on an airplane flight and they had no idea. A friend of theirs loaned them a suitcase, and they were going to pick it up eventually at the destination. The traveler did not know that there were illegal drugs sown into the lining of the suitcase.
A fifth example is that in Pakistan someone was leaving for a while and asked a Christian to store their things. The Christian said “sure”. Unknown to the Christian the person had a gun among their things. The police were tipped off to this and arrested the Christian for a gun being present in the person’s belongings. The Christian had to pay money to be let go.
As an aside, Jonadab turned his name into a bad joke. His name means “The LORD is Noble”.
3. In 2 Sam 13:6, how did Amnon make himself sick?
A: Amnon only pretended to be sick. While a person can make themselves sick by eating or drinking things that could cause nausea, there is no indication that Amnon did that here; he faked being sick. When he physically forced Tamar, he seemed healthy enough, physically, though not spiritually. David was blinded by lust with Bathsheba, and now David got to observe the actions, and later consequences of his son being “sick with lust”. It probably made David feel sick though.
See The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.333 for more info.
4. In 2 Sam 13:6-7, what can we learn from David about parenting here?
A: Someone who loved God, like David, can still be a lousy parent, if they do not take parenting seriously enough. David’s first mistake was not they he failed to punish Amnon. Prior to that David’s discipline was so lax that Amon thought he could get away with that.
David both loved his kids and liked his kids. But when a parent does not love their kids enough to discipline them, then perhaps they are loving the feeling of the relationship more than the son of daughter.
David loved his kids emotionally, especially when he lost them to death. However, we have no evidence that he demonstrated his parental care. He did not discipline Amnon; he did not comfort Tamar, and he did not even speak with Amnon. David was distant from Absalom. Tamar saying that David would let her marry her half-brother suggests she had a lack of training in God’s Word. David loved God’s Law, and he loved his children. Unfortunately, David apparently never figured out that he had a responsibility to teach his children God’s Law, and that would be a demonstration of His love.
See the New International Bible Commentary p.383 for more info.
5. In 2 Sam 13:6-7, what are some ways today that a person can “love the relationship” more than they love the person?
A: When I was in high school I know of a boy who had a girlfriend and a nice car. But one day he wrecked the car, so the girlfriend broke up with him. Someone might say that they love their spouse, but if the spouse does anything wrong, like get older or poorer, then the love appears to be lost. But perhaps the love was not actually lost, because it was never really there in the first place. If you say you love someone, but then something happened, such as they got in a bad accident, burned in a fire, or had a very serious stroke, would you still love them? God calls us to love other people, and sometimes we think we are doing that but we are not; we are really only loving the relationship. Examine your feelings towards your family and friends. Do you really love them, or just love the relationship and how they make you feel?
One way of knowing is that if the other person was doing things that were wrong, or destructive to themselves and others, would you be want to have an uncomfortable conversation and tell them, or would you just let it go by? True love cares, even at the risk of the person not liking you anymore.
6. In 2 Sam 13:11-17, why did Amnon’s feeling toward Tamar turn from lust to hate so rapidly?
A: Amnon’s “love” evaporated so rapidly because there was never any love in the first place, only lust. He had treated her as a thing and not a person. While love and hate are opposites, lust and hate are not necessarily incompatible. Once Amnon was satisfied, he realized that he would probably face dreadful consequences for what he did. As the oldest son he just jeopardized his becoming the next king. It seemed as though Amnon projected his feelings of guilt on to Tamar. It was now clear to Amnon, Tamar, and eventually everyone that Amnon’s lust for Tamar’s body did not mean he had any love for Tamar whatsoever.
When Absalom orders his servant to shut the doors and seal Tamar out, in a sense the door is shut on Amnon too. His fate is sealed.
See The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.333, the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.336-337, the New International Bible Commentary p.383, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.369, and The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.964 for more info.
7. In 2 Sam 13:13, what are three possible reasons Tamar said to ask the king and he would let them be married?
A: First of all, incest is forbidden in Leviticus 18:9,11; 20:17; Deuteronomy 27:22. Tamar might have said this for one of two reasons and possibly a third complementary reason too
1) Tamar was ignorant of what the Torah said about incest. This is the most likely answer. Marrying sisters and half-sisters was fairly common among Egyptian royalty and later Persian royalty. Their ancestor Abraham married his half-sister Sarah in Genesis 20:12.
2) Tamar know but she was lying, trying to say anything in order to get away from Amnon by any means possible.
3) A third possible reason is that while Tamar was an innocent victim in all this, it would look very bad for her; how could people be sure that she was unwilling if she had a lapse of good judgment when she agreed to be alone with Amnon? She was desperately trying to save her reputation after it would be dragged through the mud though no fault of her own.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.398-399, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.961, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.469, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.369, and the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.221 for more info.
8. In 2 Sam 13:16-17, why would Tamar think Amnon sending here away would be a greater wrong?
A: The way Amnon had her cast out and the door locked would imply that she was the one trying to seduce him. Here was pure women, obeying her father, who had her reputation and honor suddenly stripped from her in just a few minutes through no fault of her own. 2 Samuel 13:19-20 shows that she was crushed. It is not that Amnon was doing a totally separate sin here. Rather, he was making things worse by compounding his first sin. David had done the same after taking Bathsheba, when he decided to kill Uriah.
But as much as Amnon now hated Tamar, Absalom would hate Amnon even more.
See The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.333-334 and the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.399 for more info.
9. In 2 Sam 13:20, why did Absalom tell Tamar not to worry so much about getting raped?
A: There are two different views.
Insincere consolation: Absalom was trying to comfort Tamar by advising here not to dwell on it. However, Absalom was not genuine here, because he did not feel that way himself. Either at that time or sometime after Absalom hatched the plan to get revenge on Amnon by killing him.
Jonadab and Absalom conspiring together: A second view was that Absalom had long plotted to be king, and he was sacrifice anything, or anyone to get it; including his sister and half-brother. This view say that Jonadab was with Absalom to entice Amnon to rape his sister, so Absalom was not surprised when it happened. Absalom could then be viewed as having cause to kill the son in line for the throne. Then after the killing, Absalom fled to his grandfather’s kingdom and waited two years until David’s anger had died down.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.959,964,966 and The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.369-370 for more info
10. In 2 Sam 13:21, exactly why was David angry here?
A: There are probably three reasons. The first is that obviously he was angered that his own daughter was dishonored.
While David was angered that Amnon did this, David himself had committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband killed. David might have recalled what God spoke through Nathan, and David found out that God didn’t forget.
The third reason is more complex. Amnon was the first born, the next in line for the throne. Leviticus 20:17 says that incest should be punished with death, not to mention rape. Should David put obeying God’s law first, or put the love of his son Amnon first? God, and everyone else would see the answer. The answer was that David put his son first. Rebuking Amnon would have been such an uncomfortable conversation that we have no record that David even said a word to Amnon. As a reminder, when Reuben went into Jacob’s concubine, Reuben lost his right as the firstborn son in Genesis 35:22; 49:4. It did not say that David even did that to Amnon. David would not stand up for justice when it involved his own son.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.400-401, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.965, and the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.337 for more info.
11. In 2 Sam 13:21, how can this apply to some believers today?
A: David genuinely loved God; but we see here that he loved his son more. When we love your children more than we love God, it turns out we are not doing our children any favors.
12. In 2 Sam 13:24-25, why did Absalom ask David to go to the “killer party”?
A: Absalom was not trying to kill David or take over the throne at this time, as Absalom did not kill any of the king’s sons except Amnon. As there were a lot of sharp knives to take away sheep’s wool, they would take away Amnon’s life. Amnon ordered his men to kill Amnon; he did not kill him personally, no more than David killed Uriah personally.
Absalom probably knew David was unable to come. He asked David in order to divert suspicion and mislead David into thinking this was an innocent plan.
The rumor based only on speculation that all the king’s sons were killed might have started in part because all of Gideon’s sons were killed by Gideon’s son Abimelech in Judges 9:5.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.401, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.968, and the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.221 for more info.
13. In 2 Sam 13:29, why did Absalom flee with the rest of the king’s sons?
A: First of all, Absalom fleeing might give the false impression that Absalom was unaware of the assassination plot like the rest of the sons. Second, Absalom needed time to flee to Talmai in his grandfather’s kingdom of Geshur, east of the Sea of Galilee.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.403 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.469 for more info.
14. In 2 Sam 13:32-33, how did Jonadab know this so confidently?
A: Jonadab was the one in 2 Samuel 13:3-5 who suggested that Amnon pretend to be sick in order to rape his sister. Either Jonadab was speaking hopefully, to try to downplay the incident, or else Jonadab knew what Absalom would do in advance. Jonadab was not much of a friend to Amnon. One key question that we never asked, but should have been asked by David was, “Jonadab, how do you know this?” Perhaps Jonadab could have said he was just pointing out Absalom’s motive of revenge, to cover up the fact that he had actually suggested Ammon do this.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.402, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.370, and The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.970 for more info.
2 Samuel 14 The Consequences of Sin Keep Coming – some brief answers
1. In 2 Sam 14:1-20, what is the structure of this chapter?
A: This is a somewhat deep chiasm with the following organization.
14:1 Joab “knew”
- 14:2-3 Joab tell the wise woman what to say
- - 14:4-5aThe woman makes a request of the king
- - 14:5b-10 The woman’s first appeal
- - - 14:11She successfully requests for her son’s life
- - 14:12-17 The woman make her second appeal.
- - 14:18-19a The king asks the woman a question
- She admits that Joab coached her
14:20 The king “knows”
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.975 for more info.
2. In 2 Sam 14:1-9 and 13:21, what should David have done first to punish Absalom for rape and incest, and then later Absalom of murder, given that David himself had committed adultery and murder?
A: It was hard to David to do anything, given that he did not publicly repent of his sin and offer to take the consequences. Of course God had spoken through Nathan that David would not have to be executed for his sins. So to discipline Amnon without looking like a hypocrite, David should have confessed first. But given that he was not willing to do that, David probably thought he would have lost more respect for punishing his sons for things similar to what he did. Of course David taking no action lost respect for David too.
David at the least should have immediately disqualified Amon from the throne. Reuben lost the right of firstborn son when he slept with Jacob’s concubine in Genesis 35:22; 49:3-4. If David had publicly rebuked Absalom then it might have dimmed people’s expectations that Absalom would be the next king.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.221,222 for more info.
3. In 2 Sam 14:1-9, why did Joab use this strategy to get David to recall Absalom?
A: The Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.411 thinks that Joab had made a number of straightforward requests to David unsuccessfully. The court could probably tell that David longed for his son, but there was no way to get David to make the first move, without David fearing people down on him for pardoning Absalom. So Joab, a tactical genius, had an idea. It was similar to Nathan’s strategy, and Joab likely reasoned that if it worked once, it might work a second time for Joab. It did not work so well this time though.
The woman appealed to David’s sense of pity here. David was in mourning for Absalom and the woman too was in mourning, or at least appeared to be. Later David would see the result of his pity when Absalom rebelled and tried to have David killed. Of course, David did not show much pity to Uriah.
David stood strong for justice with others, but he was weak in standing up for justice when his children were at fault. Whether this was mainly Joab’s wisdom, the woman’s, or both, the woman had David boxed in a corner. Since he had the sentiment for the woman’s (fictional) son, he had to be consistent and bring his own son back.
Notice that after David vaguely said, “I will issue an order on your behalf” the woman from Tekoa was not satisfied. She wanted to “pin David down” toa public acknowledgement of forgiveness. That is what they were really after with Absalom too.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.469-470, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.974,975,978-979, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.370, and the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.406 for more info.
4. In 2 Sam 14:15-23, do we see any repentance on Absalom’s part?
A: None whatsoever. In fact, Absalom was now plotting to take over the throne. Rather than being repentant and submissive, Absalom was manipulative. David would be about 60 at this time, and Absalom about 30. Absalom was mature enough to be king right now, except that someone was standing in his way. Absalom determined that he would become king, and that he would make David pay for not punishing Amnon at all, and not really forgiving Absalom, when Absalom.
On one hand, Absalom says that if he is guilty of committing a capital offense he is ready to be put to death. On the other hand, a man who raped a woman was put to death, and Absalom was executing that punishment.
On David’s part he did not grant pardon to Absalom or call him innocent; he just said he would not be execute. When he called Absalom “a young man” he might have been thinking more of how he viewed Absalom, and his maturity, rather than him being about 30 years old.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.470, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.984,986, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.222, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.372, and the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.338 for more info.
5. In 2 Sam 14:15-23, when should we forgive and restore someone who has done wrong?
A: Jesus said we should always forgive, even if they don’t ask for forgiveness. But if someone has stolen money from you, and they show no repentance, should you give them access to your bank account? - of course not. If they do not admit wrong for what they did, if they do not ask for forgiveness and show any repentance you need to candidly realize that they are very likely going to do it again if they have the opportunity. Jesus said we are to be as shrewd as serpents but as innocent as doves in Matthew 10:16.
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.338 for more info.
6. In 2 Sam 14:24,28, was David right not to let Absalom see his face?
A: No. Half forgiveness does not work well. Partial forgiveness is not forgiveness at all, and the person being forgiven knows that. Grudging forgiveness is not well received and is bound to fail. David gave “partial punishment” to Absalom. It was not really a serious punishment, but it alienated Absalom from David. It embittered Absalom towards his father. David and Absalom did not see each other for even years.
Absalom was middle-aged at this point. David called him a “young man” in 2 Samuel 14:21 both as a compliment, the fact that he had not seen Absalom for three years, and perhaps a bit of David’s view of Absalom’s maturity.
If Absalom was likely the next in line for the throne, and Absalom cannot even be in Jerusalem or see his father’s face, that is not a setup for success. Joab knew that and sought to remedy the situation.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.411,413, the New International Bible Commentary p.384, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.221, the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.338, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.334-335, and The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.984 for more info.
7. In 2 Sam 14:26 how could Absalom’s cut hair weigh 200 shekels?
A: Even if this was a lighter, temple shekel, that might still put the eight at four or five pounds (1.8 to 2.3 kg), which is very high. The average person grows half an inch of hair per year, though there is a lot of variation; some people grow an inch per month. The world record is around 2 inches per month. If Absalom only cut it once per year that is a lot of hair, but even then it would not weigh four pounds (1.8 kg), unless he had kept his hair from previous years too. But in 1 and 2 Samuel there are many places where there are variations in numbers. In this case, we don’t have any other reference as to what the correct number is. Regardless though, the point is that Absalom was rather vain about his hair. Of course, later Absalom’s hair would do him in.
Absalom’s hair can be considered a cautionary tale of pride. His pride I his hair got him tangled up, and trapped where he could not leave, and ultimately was fatal. Sometimes when a person, especially a political leader, goes on a course that is eventually seen as wrong or foolish by everybody, they cannot do the obvious thing and change course because they are tangled up in pride. Ask a potential leader if they have ever made a mistake. If they have never made a mistake, that they can admit to, then you will be getting a leader who would rather “crash the car” rather than turn to avoid an accident. You can see this in Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin on not letting his troops retreat, and the French Marshall Philippe Pétain who was so sure the Germans could not invade through the impassible Ardennes forest, ignoring French military pleas for help when the Germans were doing it. In August 1945, Japanese military leaders Anami, Umezu, and Toyoda, half of the 6-person military council plus Prime Minister Tojo, argued that the Japanese should keep fighting after the atomic bombs. When Emperor Hirohito commanded them to accept surrender and made a radio address to his people. Major Hatanaka and four other military leaders had another leader killed another leader and staged a brief failed coup to keep that radio message from being sent. They were going to place the Emperor under house arrest and send a counterfeit message instead. However, the other generals did not go along with it, so the coup plotters committed suicide. In more recent times, when we look at the “stubborn tenacity” of Saddam Hussein, the Iranian guard, and Putin’s “special action” in the Ukraine, we might be surprised at their foolishness they did not admit defeat from an inevitable situation. But why should we be surprised that they are just as foolish as other leaders who lived before them? One leader who did throw in the towel, likely saving his own life, before things got worse as Bashir Assad, former leader of Syria, but he was an exception.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.413, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.470, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.985,1019, https://www.reddit.com/r/Naturalhair/comments/1ipt9ah/has_anyone_consistently_grown_23_inches_of_hair/, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident for more info.
8. In 2 Sam 14:27 did Absalom have three sons, or did he not have any sons by which to carry on his name, as 2 Sam 18:18 says?
A: Probably both. In ancient times roughly half of all children might have died before reaching adulthood. Keil and Delitzsch mention that the names of the sons are usually given, but they are not given in 2 Samuel 14:27. There would be no reason for this omission, except that they died young. When Critics Ask p.175-176 and The NIV Study Bible p.445 also says that the sons probably died in their youth.
Absalom built a monument to himself because of his sorrow over not having any sons that could be a memorial to him. Typically, a person who does not have any children would not be so sensitive of no one to carry on his name, as one who had children who died.
See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.184-185, Hard Sayings of the Bible p.222, 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.116, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.412, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.222, and Bible Difficulties & Seeming Contradictions p.157-158 for more info.
9. In 2 Sam 14:29-32, what does this show about Absalom?
A: Absalom was intelligent and manipulative. Absalom could not talk with Joab, because Joab would not come when invited. So Absalom made sure he got Joab’s attention. Sometimes things come back to bite you though. Little did Absalom know that this would set a course that would end in Joab personally killing Absalom, despite David saying to spare Absalom.
See the New International Bible Commentary p.384 and The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.372 for more info.
2 Samuel 15 When you are down because of your own sin – some brief answers
1. In 2 Sam 15:1-12, do we have any other examples of sons who wanted take the throne away from their father?
A: The king of Assyria was assassinated by his sons in 2 Chronicles 32:21. Also, while the details are not the same (the son was the rightful heir), the situation was similar.
In Ugarit (prior to David’s time) Prince Yassib challenged his father King Keret.
“Listen to me carefully!” Yassib threatens: If enemies had invaded the land while you were ill, They would have driven you out, Forced you into the hills. Your illness has made you derelict: You did not hear the case of the widow, You did not hear the case of the poor, You did not sentence the oppressor, You did not feed the orphan in the city, … nor the widow in the country… Step down from the kingship, Allow me to reign. Relinquish your power, Let me sit on your throne.” This is in Don C. Benjamin’s Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories From the Ancient Near East [Mahwah: Paulist, 1991] p.205. Quoted from The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.989-990.
2. In 2 Sam 15:6, how does somebody steal people’s hearts?
A: Like many politicians in later times, Absalom was proficient in promising people he could lead them capably, without actually doing anything. To convince people of this, Absalom lowered the esteem others had for David. Even today, people often try to make themselves look good by putting others down.
Absalom was handsome, and above all winsome. People often have “pictures” of what a leader should look like, and they tend to support people who fit those pictures, regardless of whether or not they would be a good leader. For example, in American presidential elections, the taller candidate wins the great majority of the time. More importantly, Absalom pretended to care for them and take their interests to heart. Absalom was patient; he did this phase of his plot for four years. When Absalom had the feast in Hebron, he invited 200 men who did not know anything about Absalom’s plot. Once they were there, they were backed into a corner; it would be very hard for them to publicly say, “No, I don’t think so. I am going to support David.”
See The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.335, the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.338-339, the New International Bible Commentary p.384-385, and The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.372 for more info.
3. In 1 Sam 15:7-12, what did Absalom do that others since then have done too?
A: Absalom used his religious practice to deceive others. Absalom mad that excuse that he was going to Hebron to pay a vow to God to do religious sacrifices. His pretended worship of God was a coverup for his treachery. Since then many have used religion (including but not limited to Christianity) to get people to go along with their evil plans.
In Islam soldiers were told that if they did fighting for Allah they could be certain, that whatever their past, they would make it to Paradise. Roman Catholicism, starting with Pope Urban II those who “took the cross” in the first crusade were promised remission of sins. Likewise, Pope Eugenius III issued the papal bull Quantum praedecessores on Dec. 1, 1145 promising remission of sins for all who completed the Second Crusade or died along the way.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.990, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/76jtys/i_gather_that_papal_indulgences_were_first_issued/, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_praedecessores for more info.
4. In 2 Sam 15:7, should it say 40 years, or 4 years?
A: It should say four years, which is more in keeping with the lifetime of Absalom. The Masoretic text says 40 years, but the Septuagint, Syriac, Arabic, Vulgate, Theodoret, and Josephus all say 4 years. See the NKJV, NIV, and NRSV footnotes, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.372, Bible Difficulties & Seeming Contradictions p.64, The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.991, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.415-416, and the skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.313 for the same answer.
5. In 2 Sam 15:7,20 how did Absalom make a vow to the Lord?
A: Absalom said this just to go to Hebron to be crowned king. Either Absalom was lying and did not make a vow, or perhaps Absalom was telling the truth. There are other cases in history where pretenders to the throne made a vow to their god if they became king. So, Absalom could have made a vow to God, but every vow made to God is not necessarily a good vow.
Absalom probably chose Hebron not just because he was born there, but because it was the older capital and some people might not have been happy that the capital was moved to Jerusalem.
Absalom used the worship of God as a “coverup” for the start of his rebellion. Later in history the Christian religion was use as a “coverup” by evil popes for enriching themselves and getting vengeance on their enemies. For example, Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) proclaimed a “crusade” against the Italian town of Palestrina to get back at the extended family of the previous pope, Celestine V. Boniface had the guilt of using the entire “machinery” of the Roman Catholic church for evil ends.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.416 and The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.372 for more info.
6. In 1 Sam 15:10, are there other examples where a son tried to take the throne from his father?
A: Yes. In Ugarit there is a poem about prince Yassib who challenged his father King Keret for the throne.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.989-990 for more info.
7. In 2 Sam 15:14, why did David flee Jerusalem, since Jerusalem was very strongly fortified?
A: David, being an experienced king, instantly realized that this was no minor discontent, but a direct challenge to take his kingship and his life. David had never suffered defeat in battle, but his knew this time could likely be different. David probably was wise to do flee Jerusalem here. At this point, he did not know whom in Jerusalem he could trust, and if there are just a few treacherous gatekeepers, even a well-fortified city is hard to keep. Don’t forget that one of David’s ancestors was Ruth.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.222 for more info.
8. In 2 Sam 15:19-20, why did David tell Ittai the Gittite he did not have to go with David?
A: David did not want anyone to go who only half-heartedly supported him. David gave Ittai an excuse to stay, and also would see his heart by his answer. Two situations similar to this were with Naomi and her daughters’-in-law in Ruth 1:11-18.
As an aside, A Gittite would be from the Philistine city of Gath. Archaeology has found one (or two) governors of the Philistine city of Ashkelon named Itiya and Witiya in the Amarna letters, a few centuries before David. The name Itai is very similar to this. See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.994,1017 for more info.
Today, when we lead a team that is about to undertake a task, it is OK to give people opportunities to back out. This way you might not have as many people, but you will have people who are committed to you.
9. In 2 Sam 15:31-34, why did David send his wisest counselor, Hushai the Arkite, back to the enemy?
A: David and Joab already knew what was best to do; and it was better for Hushai to make Absalom believe bad advice than for Hushai to give at most incrementally slightly better advice to David and Joab. Sometimes you don’t need to do clever or brilliant things to succeed; you just need to do fewer foolish things than others.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.423 for more info.
10. In 2 Sam 15:32-34, was David right to have Hushai lie for him?
A: The Bible is recording what Hushai did in a time of war. Christians have two views on this issue.
Some say Hushai was wrong to lie, and David was wrong to tell Hushai to lie.
Others say that it is OK to lie to an enemy during times of war, in order to save a life. Places where deception was used in 2 Samuel are 2 Samuel 15:25-29,3-36 (Zadok, Abiathar, and their sons), 2 Samuel 15:34 (Hushai the Arkite), 2 Samuel 17:17-18 (both), and 2 Samuel 17:17:18-21 (a man and woman in Bahurim).
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.427 for more info.
2 Samuel 16-17 The Results when Sin Festers – some brief answers
1. In 2 Sam 16:5-14, what is interesting about the structure of this passage?
A: This is arranged in a chiasm.
16:5a David flees towards Bahurim
- 16:5b-6 Shimei curses and throws stones at David and his men
- - 16:7-8 How Shimei cursed David
- - - 16:9 Abishai wants to kill Shimei
- - 16:10-12 David takes Shimei’s curses without reacting
- 16:13 David explains why he does not react to Shimei’s curses
16:14 David and his group arrive past Bahurim
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1000-1001,1003 for more info.
2. In 2 Sam 16:5-8, why was Shimei cursing David for executing Saul’s sons, when the execution only occurred later in the book, as Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.315-316 claims?
A: It does not specifically say Shimei cursed David for executing Saul’s sons. Rather, Shimei cursed David for his blood-stained house in general. There are two possible explanations for Shimei’s cursing.
Other reasons: Shimei might very well have been referring to the long war between the armies of David and Ish-bosheth. Shimei never really accepted that the kingship should leave Saul’s family.
Not chronological: Since 2 Samuel 21:1 says the execution of Saul’s sons occurred “during the reign of David”, it is not necessarily chronological. Thus Shimei cursing David might be chronological after the execution of Saul’s sons.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.414 for more info.
3. In 2 Sam 16:5-12, what is significant about David’s reaction not trying to repay Shimei?
A: Four points to consider in the answer.
1. Naturally speaking, a person in David’s place would probably feel a curious mixture of depression, anger against Shimei, and passive acceptance that he deserved what was happening to him. But we can read in depth how David felt because David wrote about it in Psalm 3. But Psalm 3 shows us that David had faith that God would pull David out of this. At this point David felt confident that his enemies would be killed. Later David would mourn that one of these slain enemies was his own son Absalom.
2. David had no idea which of his formerly loyal friends was with him, neutral, or for Absalom. It looked likely that this might be the end of the road for David. With most of his formerly loyal subjects turning against him, it would be a miserable end, and perhaps thought a fitting punishment for David’s adultery and murder against someone loyal to him. David knew that some of what Shimei was saying was true. There was civil war between Judah and Saul’s house for some years. David did not punish Joab for treacherously killing Abner. As verses 10-11 show, David thought that perhaps God had wanted Shimei to publicly denounce David.
3. Since David was feeling guilty of killing Uriah, David was not in the mood to have a man killed who was telling the truth.
4. Verse 12 shows that David was leaving this in God’s hands. If David killed Shimei, and God thought this not right, God might punish David for this, too. If David spared Shimei, and God thought it not right, God could still punish Shimei and God might reward David for his forbearance.
By the way, Shimei seemed to forget that Saul had a bloodstained house, killing Abimelech and wanting to kill anyone who supported David.
Conclusion: David did not know if it was right for Shimei to curse him at this time or not. Today, when we do not know if a wrong done to us is just, patience and waiting on God is a virtue.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1001-1002, the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.340, and the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.446 for more info.
4. In 2 Sam 16:7-14, what can we learn about David’s attitude here?
A: David did one good thing here and one bad thing later.
(good) Some things (like revenge) we should let go and let God handle it. David not only believed that God was present and could see everything, but David believed that God was active. Before, Saul should have been deposed and killed, but David knew that he was not supposed to be the one to do it. Perhaps Shimei should be killed too, but David knew he had been guilty, and so David thought he was not the one to kill Shimei. So David left this in God’s hands. After Absalom was killed, Shimei repented, or at least appeared to repent, and helped bring over David’s family in 2 Samuel 19:16-23.
(bad) Unfortunately, again, David’s forgiveness was not complete. He told Solomon to bring Shimei down to the grave in blood (i.e. kill him) in 1 Kings 2:8-9, and Solomon did so in 1 Kings 2:36-46.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.447 for more info.
5. In 2 Sam 16:15-17-29, what is the structure of this passage?
A: This is a complex structure; it is chiastic but not a chiasm.
16:15-19 Absalom is befriended by Hushai
- 16:20-22 Ahithophel advises Absalom
- - 16:23 Ahithophel is described as very wise
- 17:1-4 Ahithophel gives his counsel
- - 17:5-13 Hushai gives his counsel
- - - 17:14 Hushai’s advice is considered better than Ahithophel’s
- - 17:15-16 Hushai counsels Zadok and Abiathar
- 17:17-22 David crosses the Jordan River
- - 17:23 Ahithophel commits suicide
- 17:24-25 Absalom crosses the Jordan River
17:27-30 David is befriended in Mahanaim by Shobi, Makir, and Barzillai
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1006 for more info.
6. In 2 Sam 16:22, why did Absalom sleep with David’s ten concubines in broad daylight?
A: This was not Absalom’s idea but Ahithophel’s, the former trusty wise man of David. Absalom was with the concubines, one at a time, in a tent on the roof of the palace. The people could not see everything, but they could see what was happening, and with one concubine after another. This was not done to satisfy Absalom’s lust; it was about power, insulting his father, and claiming the throne. Absalom wanted to show that he was now the rightful king, and that by doing this there was no going back. He intended it to show there was no going back for the people’s new allegiance, but it turned out to be no going back for Absalom. As David “took” Uriah’s wife, the Lord would “take” David’s wives.
It was common in Middle Eastern culture for a king to inherit his father’s concubines. However, God says in Leviticus 18:8 says that you shall not have relations with your father’s wife, - even if she is not your mother.
Remember also that Ahithophel was Bathsheba’s grandfather, so there might have been some vengeful thinking here. After this offensive act, everyone would know that reconciliation between Absalom and David would be impossible. Absalom was wrong to do so, but here is a possible rationalization for his action. Many Israelites were favorable toward both David and Absalom, the apparently future king. After this altercation would blow over, these Israelites would stay with the winning side. Absalom’s action did not just mean that he was the king, but that David was now no longer king. People would publicly have to choose between the two. Since Absalom currently had the upper hand, the safest route for many would seem to be to choose Absalom. Ahithophel and Absalom probably did not remember that when Reuben did this in Genesis 35:22; 49:3-4 he lost his inheritance rights.
Not the answer: While Absalom having no sons (2 Samuel 18:18) could appear to be a motivation, this is unlikely. Sleeping with the concubines in broad daylight, at this time, would not be simply for that purpose
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.340, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.945,1007, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.472, the New International Bible Commentary p.385-386, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.373,375, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.428, and the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.223 for more info.
7. In 2 Sam 17:1-14, how can we tell Ahithophel’s advice was better than Hushai’s?
A: Ahithophel correctly saw that if David was dead, Absalom would completely win, as David’s men also saw in 2 Samuel 18:3. The goal was not to defat David’s soldiers necessarily, just to kill David. In the end, Absalom following Hushai’s advice worked out better for David, but how would Hushai know this? Scripture does not say, but we can speculate here. Here are six points to consider in the answer.
1. One cannot say this was merely because Hushai had more information from being with David in 2 Samuel 15:32-37, because Ahithophel even knew this advice was not good in 2 Samuel 16:17:1-3, 23.
2. Unless David were killed, the real battle was not on the battlefield, but for the hearts and loyalties of the Israelites. It would be easy for people who were loyal to David only a few years before to want to be loyal to him again.
3. While killing David would end the struggle, and scattering David’s troops would still help Absalom, doing that would be a risk, because suffering any defeat would be bad publicity. Would the risk be worth the potential gain?
4. Hushai’s advice assumed that all of Israel would rally around Absalom. If there was some to for people consider before going after David, they might have not wanted to rebel against David.
5. In this case it was worth the risk. While Hushai argued basically that Absalom should wait until he is ready, that would give David time to be ready, and both David and his army were not prepared at this point. Not following Ahithophel’s advice allowed the initiative and the element of surprise to slip from Absalom’s grasp.
6. There was no question of whether or not they would engage David’s army; the only question was when. Many times we can lose initiative through bad decisions. Our emotions can tell us to delay taking action, even though our wisdom can tell us delays will make the situation worse, not better.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.472, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.431, and The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.376 for more info.
8. In 2 Sam 17:1-14, can you see any examples of wise, experienced people who were not loyal?
A: Ahithophel was known to be very wise, and he had advised David as a counselor and presumably a friend for many years. But here Ahithophel was advising Absalom on the best way to kill David. -some friend. Ahithophel undoubtedly thought it was in his best interest to switch sides.
Today people might “switch sides” when it appears for personal gain. Or they can think that the future is inevitable either way, and they can either be in front of the train or on the train. You can think of Vichy France, loyal to the Nazis in exterminating Jews, during World War II. Philippe Pétain was the supreme head of Vichy France. He was a French war hero, fighting against the Germans, in World War I. In America there was Benedict Arnold, and later Aaron Burr.
9. In 2 Sam 17:7-14, was Hushai right to lie for David, by giving bad advice to Absalom?
A: Christians disagree. Some Christians say that lying to non-believers is OK in times of war and to save a life. Other Christians say that in those situations we should throw our reliance on God, not deception. All can agree though, that silence is not lying; without lying one does not have to volunteer sensitive information, or answer every question asked.
10. In 2 Sam 17:23, why would Ahithophel hang himself when his advice was not followed?
A: One can’t help but notice that Ahithophel had a very high opinion of his own wisdom. While scripture does not say, we can see both a rational direction and an irrational extreme here. Ahithophel wanted to serve someone who would be a success as a king. He probably saw that someone who listened to the easiest thing to follow rather than making strategic decisions would not last long as king, - nor would his advisors last long either.
The key flaw in Hushai’s advice and Absalom’s thinking is that all of Israel would immediately turn and follow Absalom. In his arrogance Absalom could only hope for that, but when he made this hope an essential part of his plan, Ahithophel might have seen that Absalom was doomed as long as Daid was alive.
Irrationally, sometimes when the advice of a person who is wise in their own eyes is not followed when they have presented a good case, they quickly feel that nothing else they say will be followed either. Ahithophel could have repented before God, come to David, God’s anointed king, begging for mercy, and trusting that God would forgive him regardless of whether David executed him or not. However, that option probably never even occurred to Ahithophel.
Beware when your self-identity is caught up in how smart, wise, or experienced you are, rather than our identity being a child of God who walks obediently with Him.
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.3440, the New International Bible Commentary p.386, and The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.338 for more info.
11. In 2 Sam 17:25 who was Amasa?
A: Nahash was a common name, so it was unlikely this was Nahash king of the Ammonites. Amasa’s father was an Ishmaelite according to 1 Chronicles 2:17. Amasa’s mother Abigail was the sister of Zeruiah the mother of Joab. So Amasa David’s nephew and Absalom’s cousin. Amasa was even a closer relative to Joab. But 2 Samuel 17:25 said that Amasa’s father, named Ithra, had “gone in” to Abigail, implying that they were never married. After the rebellion was over, David made Amasa the commander of David’s army in place of Joab in 2 Samuel 19:13. David was angry that Joab killed Absalom after David specifically told him not to. Having Amasa as the commander would also tend to heal the rift between Judah and the other tribes who rebelled. Joab treacherously fatally stabbed Amasa in 2 Samuel 20:9-10. From Joab’s perspective Joab saw that David was going to freely pardon Amasa for rebelling against David when Joab stayed loyal, and David was even going to replace Joab with Amasa, because Joab had killed a rebel that needed killing.
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.341, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.433-434,446 and The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1014 for more info.
2 Samuel 18 When you are down because of your own sin – some brief answers
1. In 2 Sam 18:6, where were the woods of Ephraim?
A: Today we are not sure of the location of the woods of Ephraim. There are two possibilities.
(probably not) West of Jordan River: The woods were within the territory of Ephraim, and the battle was fought there. However, since David and his men already fled east of the Jordan, why would that recross to go west?
(probably) East of Jordan River: What was called the woods of Ephraim was outside the original territory of Ephraim, and the battle was fought there.
2. In 2 Sam 18:6, why would David’s soldiers fight in the woods?
A: David’s armed professional soldiers were greatly outnumbered by Absalom’s army. The woods could neutralize the advantage of archers and of greater numbers. It would help the stronger soldiers in one-on-one combat.
3. In 2 Sam 18:17, was Absalom buried in the forest of Ephraim (far from Jerusalem), or did he build a memorial in the Kidron Valley (near Jerusalem) as 2 Sam 18:18 says?
A: Both events happened. Absalom built his own memorial in the Kidron Valley, but nothing ever said David’s men buried him there, or even that he intended to be buried there.
See When Critics Ask p.176 and Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.186 for more info.
4. In 2 Sam 18:17, why did they erect a large pile of stones aver Absalom?
A: A large pile of stones was not a monument. It was a way to commemorate something, and show were it happened, without any honor for the person buried there. Others who had a large pile of stones put over their body were Achan in Joshua 7:26 and the king of Ai in Joshua 8:29.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.439 for more info.
5. In 2 Sam 18:7, why did 20,000 men die as a consequence of the sins of David and Absalom?
A: We know exactly why they died: because of the lack of respect and loyalty many had after David’s sin with Bathsheba, and because of Absalom’s sin of rebelling against his own father. The real question here is why even godly people sometimes die because of the sins of others.
In this life, people often suffer because of the sins of others. Whether it a murder victim, civilian casualties in war, or babies born with decreased intelligence because their mother was alcoholic, much suffering in this world is inflicted upon those who were not directly responsible for it. Since the Fall of Adam and Eve, creation itself is not perfect (Romans 8:20-22) the entire world is under the influence of the evil one (1 John 5:19). Perfection, absence of suffering, or justice are guaranteed to us in this life. We all have to wait until the next life, and justice will be done on Judgment Day.
6. In 2 Sam 18:7, why did Joab want to stop Ahimaez from telling David that Absalom was dead?
A: Joab knew David well, and he liked Ahimaez. Joab was trying to do Ahimaaz a favor. The last time someone told David Saul was dead, because he killed him, David had him executed in 2 Samuel 1:9-16. Joab might have been afraid for Ahimaez.
Also David showed a lot of sentimentality towards Absalom. This was not a virtue, but rather weakness. His affection towards his son was greater than his love for God or having his children obey God’s law.
This proves that Joab already suspected beforehand that David would mourn for Absalom and demoralized the army.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.442, the New International Bible Commentary p.386, and the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.225 for more info.
7. In 2 Sam 18:16-18, why did Joab have the trumpet blown to stop the victory, since they were winning?
A: The point was not to kill the enemy, fellow Israelites, but to stop the rebellion. Once Absalom was killed there was nothing left for the revolt to coalesce around. So while David wanted to spare Absalom, Joab saw that killing Absalom would stop the fighting and spare the lives of many other Israelites. So Joab pitilessly killed the man he helped to reconcile with his father.
See The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.338, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.225, and the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.342 for more info.
8. In 2 Sam 18:19, how did Ahimaaz son of Zadok outrun the other messenger if they did not cross paths?
A: Ahimaaz was a fast runner. He took a different way, the plain, that was likely longer in distance but faster to run on. Also, remember that Ahimaaz was the one entrusted to bring news from Hushai to David in 2 Samuel 17:17.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.441 and The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.338 for more info.
9. In 2 Sam 18:30-33, how was Ahimaaz actually an unreliable messenger?
A: On one hand Ahimaaz was swift and arrived before the other messenger, and everything he told king Daid was truthful. But when David asked for specific information, Ahimaaz lied and said he did not know. One commentator thinks that Ahimaaz genuinely did not know, but since he heard the trumpet, and was with Joab, Ahimaaz probably knew.
Sometimes people today can be unreliable messengers, even if they only speak correct half-truths. When they speak the truth but leave out key points, or lie to keep out key points, they people will not trust them once they find out.
When we share God’s truth with others, we need to be careful to share with them all of the truth; even things we know they will not want to hear. While it is important for a ruler to have reliable messengers, how much more important is it for we to be reliable messengers of God.
See The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.339 for more info.
2 Samuel 19 How to Mess up as a Leader – some brief answers
1. In 2 Sam 19:1-7, what are some ways leaders communicate the wrong message, as David almost did?
A: David was going to communicate what he felt, regardless of how anyone would interpret it. Joab said, “don’t do that.” If David did, he would be communicated that he valued the lives of his sacrificially loyal soldiers less than the life of one rebellious man, who had caused some of them to die. When a company or boss communicates that he values one person, who has not made much of a contribution, more than others who have loyally done more, he should not be surprised when loyalty is lost and people leave.
This can happen, when, like David, someone loves well but not wisely.
See David C. Hester’s First and Second Samuel p.92, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.339, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1028-1029, the New International Bible Commentary p.387, and the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.442-443 for more info.
2. In 2 Sam 19:3-7, what are some ways that being sharply focused on just one thing can cause someone to be blind to big problems because of their tunnel vision?
A: In David’s case, it would look clear to everyone that he cared nothing for them compared to his son that had caused the deaths of many. He valued his private loss as more important than the national emergency.
The Lydian Empire ended in 546 B.C. The Persian army had besieged Sardis, the capital of King Croesus’ Lydian Empire for 14 days. One side of the city did not need to be guarded, because it was just vertical cliffs. However, a Persian soldier watched as a Lydian soldier accidentally dropped his helmet down the cliff. The Lydian soldier went down a narrow, zigzag path to retrieve his helmet and climbed back up. The Persian soldier remembered the path, and that night the Persian army secretly climbed up the vertical wall, surprised the Lydians, and conquered their empire. Maybe that Lydian soldier should not have been so hyper-focused in getting his helmet back!
In Great Britain, King George III and most of Parliament either treated the grievances of the 13 colonies as minor things, or else treated them as traitors to be crushed. Benjamin Franklin at one point led a delegation to England to try to address the matters and remain under Britain.
In France, King Louis XVI, when the Bastille was stormed on July 14, 1789, wrote the word “nothing” in his journal because he failed to catch anything on his hunting trip.
In Russia, the last Tzar, Nicholas II was a very good family man. He cared more about his family and especially his hemophiliac son than he did about Russia.
In China, Emperor Xuan Zhong and his court were forced to flee their capital during An Lushan’s Rebellion. The army refused to fight for the emperor, because they believed he cared more about his favorite concubine, Yang Gui Fei, than the empire. They refused to fight unless their demand was met; which was that the emperor execute Yang Gui Fei. So the Emperor very reluctantly did so, the soldiers fought, and the rebellion was crushed.
In our lives, it is important for us to pause “being so busy” sometimes, and take stock of what is of greater importance vs. lesser importance, and make sure we are addressing the things we need to. A very important lesson to learn in 2 Samuel 19:3-7 is the importance of having friends who will look out of you and bring to you your blind spots. Of course, friends who will never tell you when they see a potential blind spot aren’t very helpful here as friends. Do you lovingly bring up to your friends when you see they might have a blind spot?
See the New International Bible Commentary p.387 for more info.
3. In 2 Sam 19:6, what are some ways today you can communicate (intentionally or unintentionally) that they means next to nothing to you?
A: This might seem like a strange question, but we need to answer this to make sure that we don’t do this. We can do that by showing we value something insignificant more than them. We can do that by not taking to them when it is obvious that we should do so. We can do that by interrupting them every time they speak; we are showing that we no longer care what they say. We can do that by making fun of them, especially before others. The funnier the belittling is, the worse it is.
When you share with someone about Christ, or share something to help them grow in the faith, first make sure you communicate that you respect them, value them, and love them. And your should be sharing about Christ with everyone, whether Christian or not.
See the New International Bible Commentary p.387 for more info.
4. In 2 Sam 19:13, why would David mention Amasa’s family ties with David as a reason for him to be general, when Joab had even closer family ties?
A: David gave Amasa being David’s nephew as a pretext as a rationalization, because David did not want to say the three real reasons. David did not want Joab as the chief commander because Joab had a history of publicly flouting David’s orders. Emotionally, David was so sorrowful for Absalom, and he just didn’t want the man who disobeyed his orders and killed his son to remain in command. Finally, this would be an opportunity to help heal the rift with the rebels and appointing their commander as his commander.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1034, the New International Bible Commentary p.387 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.474 for more info.
5. In 2 Sam 19:18-23, why did David not punish Shimei at all?
A: Let’s answer this indirectly by looking at what if David hadn’t. Shimei had not actually tried to harm anyone. David, at least most of the time, had a sense of how his actions would look in the eyes of others, unlike Abishai. If David had executed Shimei, how do you think all the Israelites who were in an army that tried to kill David would feel? They would wonder when David was coming for them. There would probably be little hope of reconciling those in Absalom’s army if he had done so.
When David was in this situation, where the obvious and most natural thing to do was to get revenge; David realized that he had options. So David picked what was actually the best option. However, David might have done this more for appearance, than with integrity, because later he told Solomon to make sure he had Shimei executed in 1 Kings 2:8-9.
See the New International Bible Commentary p.387, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1036, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.446-447, and the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.225 for more info.
6. In 2 Sam 19:24-30, 16:3-4, do you think that Mephibosheth really thought he had a chance to be king, or was Ziba lying to get what David had given to Mephibosheth?
A: There are three views.
Mephibosheth thought he might become king. In the chaos that would follow, if something happened to both David and Absalom, Mephibosheth wanted to be present, but not cause any problems, just in case they needed a candidate that had not made any enemies. Mephibosheth was already in Jerusalem, and he did not have to flee anywhere. Indeed accompanying David would just be burden to David. Perhaps Mephibosheth never thought that David would need help with supplies and Mephibosheth could help him. Barzillai, who was 80 years old could come down from the town of Rogelim to be with King David and get supplies for him, but Mephibosheth, who was considerably younger but lame, could not leave Jerusalem.
Ziba was lying about Mephibosheth. Mephibosheth would realize that after all these years they would not go back to Saul’s house. Another son of David would become king before Mephibosheth. Mephibosheth was lame so he could not have left, unless someone who was also fleeing would have helped him. As to the people who did not flee, why would they help him? Whether Mephibosheth had intended to give all the help he could, or whether Mephibosheth did not think to lift a finer to help David is not known.
When David returned, Mephibosheth had not trimmed his hair tended his feet (toenails, etc.) nor washed his clothes. That could mean that Mephibosheth was genuinely grieved that Absalom rebelled, or else that he was just pretending to grieve. However, he would have had to have started these things immediately when David left, which indicates that it was genuine.
But the strongest support for this theory is Ziba’s word that he knew (for certain) that Mephibosheth stayed in Jerusalem so that he would be crowned king. How would Ziba know anything about this, either way, if Mephibosheth had not broadcast his views? It is always important to ask how someone would know what they claim to know; in order to better spot when things are just made up. But if Ziba had been in Jerusalem, then Ziba might have been the servant that betrayed Mephibosheth and left him behind.
The safest way was paramount. Mephibosheth was paralyzed with inaction. Mephibosheth could have found a few people in Jerusalem who could carry him to David. The holdup was not in finding someone, but in deciding what he wanted to do. The safest thing for Mephibosheth to do would be to stay in Jerusalem and lay low. That way whoever one in this struggle could not accuse Mephibosheth of helping the other side. Of course, since Mephibosheth did not take a stand, David could not know if Mephibosheth had been loyal or not.
David was not as wise as Solomon. Solomon probably would have figured out who was telling the truth, especially when at the end Mephibosheth said Ziba could keep everything. But David just split things in half instead of really deciding in 2 Samuel 19:29.
Most scholars think the second view.
See the New International Bible Commentary p.385, the New International Bible Commentary p.387, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1037, and the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.424,449,450 for more info.
7. In 2 Sam 19:29, was David right to have Mephibosheth and Ziba divide the land?
A: No. If Ziba was lying, David rewarded his lying as well as his help. If Ziba was telling the truth, and Mephibosheth was waiting to become king, David would be rewarding a traitor. David probably should have investigated this more. David was half-convinced and came up with a solution that would fully satisfy no one so that he did not have to investigate it more.
It seems likely that it was Ziba that was lying here. Perhaps David already suspected that, and would be in the difficult quandary of rewarding or punishing someone who gave him substantial help at a critical time, demonstrated his loyalty, and yet lied about the loyalty of another to do so.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.225, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.4447-449, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.474, and The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1037 for more info.
8. In 2 Sam 19:32-40, was Barzillai right to refuse the king’s offer?
A: Christians disagree on this, and whether David’s request was primarily a reward or a job offer. If it was a job offer for a counselor, to fill the opening left by Ahithophel, some Christians, such as J. Vernon Magee, see that Barzillai was wrong to turn down this opportunity for serving. However, most see that it was fine here for Barzillai to turn down a nice gift since it would be a burden to him.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.474, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.450, and the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.225 for more info.
9. In 2 Sam 19:41-43, why did this quarrel happen between the men of Israel and the men of Judah?
A: Both sides valued their own interests more than working together. We can see three reasons: past, present, and future.
Past: Many from both Judah and the rest of Israel had just rebelled and fought a battle against David. They were eager to show that they were loyal again, perhaps mistrusted the loyalty of others, but were sure that they were more loyal and had more of a right to be closer to the king than then other group. To look at it on the positive side they wanted to show their present loyalty despite their past rebellion. To look at it on the negative side, they wanted to have everyone overlook their past, and perhaps still continuing, fickleness.
Present: In this current awkwardness they wanted to be sure David noticed that they were loyal again.
Future: Both groups wanted to be David’s favorite going forward, and one thing to further that would be to be closer to David and more prominent in bringing the army back than the other group.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.451 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.475 for more info.
10. In 2 Sam 19:41-43, how do you handle it when two sides give the appearance of trying to come to an agreement, when actually neither side really wants agreement?
A: In this case, David did nothing, and in 2 Samuel 20:1-2 Sheba the Benjamite and many from the northern tribes had a full blown rebellion against David.
In 2 Samuel 19:41-43, the northern tribes wanted a higher profile in bringing David back, while the men of Judah say them as rebels who should not have that honor. So in chapter 20 many of the northern kingdom left. David was trying to bring harmony and forgiveness for all sides, but the men of Judah would not have it.
Remember that sometimes the only purpose of one side negotiating is nothing more than to stall for time. More commonly, a purposely tis to look good, maintain “honor”. When you are discussing or negotiating with someone, you should try to see things through their eyes. That does not mean necessarily agreeing with them, or thinking they are necessarily right, but understand how they view things. You might first try to do this optimistically “giving them the benefit of the doubt”. Then you might do this suspiciously, as a worst-case scenario. Sometimes doing nothing is exactly what one side wants; in preparation for their next move.
But what Sheba forgot about is that while he was trying to gather support among a war-weary populace, David had an already assembled army ready for battle.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.451-452, the New International Bible Commentary p.387, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.340, and The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1039-1040 for more info.
2 Samuel 20 – Handling rashness, in yourself and others – some brief answers
1. In 2 Sam 20:9-10, what can you say about Joab’s loyalty towards David?
A: One could argue that Joab had no loyalty towards David whatsoever, Joab was only loyal to himself, and preserving his position. His position meant fighting to keep David in power, and himself as the commander of David’s army, so it would appear that he was loyal to David, though he really wasn’t. When David as about to have public mourning for Absalom, Joab wisely counseled David to sit at the city gate instead if he still wanted the loyalty of his troops. So Joab’s ruthless loyalty to himself served David well in this case.
It is curious that Joab previously worked to reconcile Absalom and David; see that as a good thing. The same man who reconciled Absalom now killed him. In doing so he knowingly went against David’s clear, direct command.
Joab was unscrupulous, and would use any means to preserver his position. Joab was so loyal that he would not get anything get in the way; not David, David’s command, or even God. When someone demands your loyalty to them or their cause above everything and everyone else, you might quietly ask , “even God?”
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1020, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.225, and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.474 for more info.
2. In 2 Sam 20:1, was Sheba close to being successful?
A: At the point those who fought against David would have noticed that David was conciliatory, but they would have still had questions about their future after the revolt. The ten tribes saw that Judah had the presumption of being first, and they probably attributed Judah’s attitude to David. Sheba was sort of the “spark” that set ablaze their doubts. Sheba probably would have been successful in eventually luring the northern tribes away, except that told the northern tribes to go home. They were probably uncertain about rebelling against David a second time anyway. Sheba apparently neglected to think that David had a well-organized army ready to go to pursue him.
As an aside, the name Sheba is on a Hebrew seal and an ostracon from Samaria and a bulla (seal over a jar) in Jerusalem according to Avigad, Hebrew Bullae p.111. These would be different people named Sheba, but it shows that that name was not uncommon.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1048, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.225-226, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.452-453, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.340, and The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.378 for more info.
3. In 2 Sam 20:14, what archaeological evidence do we have of Abel Beth Maacah?
A: Prior to this time Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmose III listed this Canaanite town as Abel. It was also called Abel Maim, and the Aramaeans conquered it under Ben Hadad I. The Assyrians listed it as a city conquered by Tiglath-Pileser III, calling it Abilakka. Archaeologists think it was 25 miles north of the Sea of Galilee, north of the ruins of Hazor and four to five miles west of Dan. So Sheba was running as far north as he could
See the New International Bible Commentary p.388, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.340, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.475, The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1046,1048, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.226, and the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.345 for more info.
4. In 2 Sam 20:15-26, was Joab right to threaten to destroy the city of Abel?
A: Deuteronomy 20:10 says that if they go against a city they should make it an offer of peace first, and Joab did not do that. While Joab often used underhanded means, in this case Joab would have been right if he had had offered terms of peace first. He was supposed to catch the rebel Sheba, and the city of Abel should not be offering Sheba refuge. If the city of Abel would turn Sheba over to him, Joab had nothing against the city. However, if the city of Abel offered protection to a rebel, then the city would share in the rebellion too.
A point we can learn today is that if we help and aid people in their rebellion against God, then we are sharing in their sin also.
5. In 2 Sam 20:15, how do you know when you are about to do something rash, like Joab here?
A: Ask yourself if you have talked it over with anyone. If you do not even have any desire to talk it over with anyone, then you are probably about to do something foolish. Have you considered all the effects and side-effects? Have you considered the “consequences of the consequences”? Things can have negative consequences but still be worth doing. But are the negative consequences worth it?
6. In 2 Sam 20:15, what causes someone to be rash?
A: Rashness is a logical conclusion of the incorrect belief that doing something quickly is more important than doing it well or without injustice. It is almost as though someone thinks, “there is never enough time to do it right, but there is always enough time to do it over.” Sometimes people act rashly because they think their boss insists because of some deadline, either real or merely self-imposed. Sometimes people think “the ends justify the means”.
However, the opposite or rashness is “analysis paralysis”. There is a difference between looking at enough data to make a decision with confidence vs. certainty. Sometimes without certainty, someone will miss an opportunity because they won’t ever come to any decision at all. But if you think about it, deciding not to decide unless there is certainty is sort of a decision anyway.
7. In 2 Sam 20:15-26, was the advice of the woman from Abel right, to behead Sheba?
A: Three points to consider in the answer.
The Law: Deuteronomy 20:10 said that an army should make an offer of peace to a foreign city before destroying it. How much more should they do that to an Israelite city!
Pragmatism: The residents of the town would prefer that Sheba die than everyone be killed.
Righteousness: Sheba was a rebel to David, God’s anointed king. It was not right that they grant him asylum.
Conclusion: Sometimes believers must be willing to pay a great cost for righteousness. However, in some cases such as this, righteousness is the safest course as well as the best course of action.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.455-456 for more info.
8. In 2 Sam 20:16-21, what is the best way to reason with someone who is about to do something rash?
A: If it is an issue where you know that God wants them to do something different, then pray. After thing, try to understand them.
Many times, though not always, a person wants to do what they are planning to do. If you create enough doubt there they think there is only 50% chance sure you are right, and a 50% chance you are wrong, and the consequences are about the same either way, they will still go ahead and do it. To get them to change there is a three-pronged approach.
Knowledge: they need to be persuaded as well as you possibly can that what you are telling them is correct. If what you say has no credibility in their eyes, then they don’t really care what you are saying.
Desire: Even if something wrong, a person might not care if they have no investment if it is right or wrong. So give them a reason to change their mind.
a) Hope of reward: Maybe they can see a reward of a very good thing happening to them or their loved ones if they change their mind.
b) Fear of punishment: Or maybe they see a great loss that might occur if they pursue their original path.
c) To be viewed as better: Or maybe they know that others will think of them as a better person if they follow what you say. The wise woman was appealing to this.
Find common ground. Agree with them where you honestly can. Come up with a mutual solution that they would view as a win from their perspective.
9. In 2 Sam 20:19, what is interesting about calling the city a “mother”?
A: In an Old Syriac deed found at Dura that name mtrpwls is used. From mater-polis (or mother city) comes our word metropolis, according to M. O’Connor, “the Arabic Loanwords in Nabatean Aramaic JNES 45, 3 (1986) 228 n.94.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1048 for more info.
2 Samuel 21- Justice is Served – some brief answers
1. In 2 Sam 21:1, were famines common back then?
A: First of all, one-year famines were frequent, too frequent to mention, and people often had enough food or money stored up for a one or two year famine. But this famine was longer, so this was staring to get serious. Other famines are mentions in Genesis 12:10; 26:1; 41:54-57; Ruth 1:2; 2 Kings 4:38; and Acts 11:28 (during the reign of Claudius). We don’t know if this part of 2 Samuel is chronological or not, so it might have happened earlier in David’s reign.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1052 and the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.458,459 for more info.
2. In 2 Sam 21:1-9, why did God send famine so that Saul’s other sons would be killed?
A: David chose not to harbor any hatred of Saul in his heart. Consequently, he mistakenly thought that he should not punish the rebellion of Saul’s sons, and He was content to let matters lie. God sent a message, loud and clear, not just to David but to the people, that justice should be done here. David did not want justice for Amon, Absalom, Amasa, or Joab, but God wanted justice to at least be done here. Up until now, Saul had massacred the Gibeonites, with whom they had a 400-year old treaty (Joshua 9:15-20), with no consequences at all. When an evil person does something with no consequences at all, that teaches them an important lesson, - they can do it more! In history, when the Nazis were told not to invade Czechoslovakia, Iran was told not to do direct missile attacks on Israel, there were no immediate consequences when they did so.
See The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.380 and The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1053-1054 for more info.
3. In 2 Sam 21:1-7, did David have Saul’s sons killed for the security of his own reign, and then blame it on God, as Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.308 says?
A: No. If David had wanted to do so, he would have come up with a pretense way before this and not waited so long. Other kings used secret assassinations, and if David had been evil, he easily could have done the same. He did this to bring justice on Saul’s sons, where were probably grown men who supported their father when he killed Gibeonites, Israel’s allies. God brought a drought to tell David he had to do this.
4. In 2 Sam 21:1-7, did God have Saul’s sons put to death for the sin of Saul, contrary to Ezek 18:4,17-20 and Dt 24:16?
A: No. Ezekiel 18 had not been revealed until centuries after 2 Samuel, but that is not relevant to the answer. There are two points to consider in the answer.
1. 2 Samuel 21:1 does not say the sin was just Saul’s, but rather “Saul and his blood-stained house”. Saul did not put all those Gibeonites to death single-handedly, and the princes likely had a role in killing the Gibeonites.
2. In 2 Samuel 3:1-6, previously there was a long war between Saul’s sons and David. It was these sons that fought David for a long time.
See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.225-226 and 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answers p.116 for more info.
5. In 1 Sam 21:1-9 why did God have David allow the Gibeonites to execute seven of Saul’s sons, since David swore to Saul he would not kill his descendants in 1 Sam 21:21-22?
A: First what is not the answer, and then two points in the answer.
Not the answer: If we were to promise something that was wrong, and God directly commanded us to not do what we promised, we should obey God. However, David did not promise something wrong, and David did not break his promise either, as the first point of the answer shows.
The answer:
1) David did not seek to have them killed, but he allowed the Gibeonites to determine what was just, and then the Gibeonites executed them. As an example, if the king promises not to kill person A for any perceived disloyalty to the king, but person A kills family of person B, the king can allow person B to go after them, not for anything they did against the king, but for killing family of person B.
2) However, it was not Saul the Gibeonites were executing, but rather Saul’s sons. It is likely the sons were of legal age and consented or even participated in the slaughter of the Gibeonites. Saul’s son Mephibosheth, who was just a child when Saul was killed in battle, was spared.
6. In 1 Sam 21:4-6, why did the Gibeonites ask for seven sons?
A: Scripture does not say. Saul certainly killed much more than seven Gibeonites, but seven was generally considered a number of completeness, and these would be Saul’s own sons. As an aside, you read about rebellions of the tribe of Benjamin, Absalom, Sheba, Jeroboam, Ishmael assassinating Gedaliah, etc., but you never read of any rebellion by the Gibeonites.
See The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.341 for more info.
7. In 2 Sam 21:6, why did the Gibeonites bring up that Saul was the chosen of the Lord?
A: They could have communicated their desires without bringing this up if they had wanted to. But they deliberately brough this up, in almost a sarcastic way, to emphasize that it was someone who was said to be the chosen to God who broke the treaty that God said to honor.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.461 for more info.
8. In 2 Sam 21:8, did Merab or Michal have children here, since Michal had no children according to 2 Sam 6:23?
A: Merab and Michal were two different people, and while Michal did not have any children by David, 2 Samuel 21:8 specifically says she did not have any children, at all, until the day of her death. There are two answers:
Merab, Copyist error: Two Hebrew manuscripts, some Septuagint, and the Syriac say Merab, while most Hebrew manuscripts and other Septuagint manuscripts say Michal. 1 and 2 Samuel have relatively more copyist errors than other books of the Bible. See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament 476 and the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.461-462 for more on this view.
Michal, adoption: It is possible that it was Michal. Michal did not bear any children, but she could have adopted the children of her sister Merab and brother-in-law Adriel. Leah and Rachel seemed to have something like this in mind in Genesis 30:4-24. See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.314 for more on this view.
9. In 2 Sam 21:16-17, why was David almost killed here?
A: David apparently was getting old. He still had the desire to lead, but there comes a time when you need to let younger people lead some of the battles.
10. In 2 Sam 21:19, why did the Philistines have a number of giants?
A: If there had been basketball in ancient times, Philistia would be the place you would want to select your draft picks. It would be more likely the Philistines had a number of giants than just one giant. If they had just one giant, who had children, since size is in large part a function of a person’s genes, they would be expected to have a number of giants.
Archaeologists have found some metal weapons of unusually large size. Thy had wear on them, like they had been used. See https://www.cbrl.ac.uk/research-blog/middle-bronze-age-daggers-from-the-levant-lethal-weapons-or-symbols-of-power/ for more info.
11. In 2 Sam 21:19, did Elhanan kill Goliath, or did David kill Goliath the Gittite as 1 Sam 17:50 says, or did Elhanan kill Lahmi the brother of Goliath as 1 Chr 20:5 says?
A: While it is possible there was more than one giant named Goliath, this is improbable. Our preserved versions of 2 Samuel 21:19 apparently have a copyist error, where they left out the phrase “Lahmi the brother of”. The skeptical Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.288 also mentions this.
1 Chronicles 20:5 says that Elhanan killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath.
This copyist error is easy to trace, according to Hard Sayings of the Bible p.212-213, which gives a full Hebrew analysis.
See also Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.178-179, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1060, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.466, the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.709, When Critics Ask p.163-164, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.341, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.227, and The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.382 for more info.
12. In 2 Sam 21:20, were six-fingered individuals common?
A: They are very uncommon, like today. However, writing much later, Pliny the Elder tells of the poet Volcatius and the daughters of Horatius all had six fingers on each hand in Natural History book 9 ch.43.
See https://claudemariottini.com/2008/08/07/sedigiti/ and the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.347 for more info.
2 Samuel 22 Will your life have a victory song, despite the setbacks? – some brief answers
1. Why is 2 Sam 22:1-51 almost the same as Ps 18?
A: 1 Samuel has Hannah’s thanksgiving song at towards the beginning and 2 Samuel has David’s thanksgiving song towards the end. It is appropriate that David’s psalm be included here as a summary David made of his life, ending with a crescendo of praise to God. They are almost the same. Either David had an earlier version and a later version, or at least one was a paraphrase of the other.
The doctrine of inerrancy means that God originally communicated the truth to us with no error, and it has been preserved without significant error. One can look at this in light of inerrancy from two perspectives.
1. Perhaps both 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18 inerrantly preserve two different versions of David’s exact words.
2. Regardless of whether these are the exact words or not, they both preserve the same truths about God, and show David’s heart toward God.
3. While copyist errors might have been involved in the differences, it was not necessarily so. The originals could be different; accurately paraphrased truth is still inerrant truth.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.227, David C. Hester’s First and Second Samuel p.98, The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.382, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1066, David C. Hester’s Interpretation Bible Studies: First and Second Samuel p.101-102, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.341-342, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.477, and the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.347 for more info.
2. In 2 Sam 22:2-5, what is the meanings of each metaphor of God being a rock, fortress, deliverer, shield, horn of my salvation, stronghold, and savior?
A: This list acts as a brief summary of the rest of the chapter. While these are overlapping, each is a distinct characteristic of God and our relationship with Him. The first four highlight God’s “immovable” attributes, and the last three highlight God’s “active, moving” attributes.
Rock (and Deuteronomy 32:4; 1 Samuel 2:2): We can rely on God, we can stand on God’s promises instead of shifting sands, and we can build on what God’s faithfulness.
Fortress; God is our protection from evil forces, and what life throws at us. While an army might lose to a larger army, an army in a fort can hold off an army two or three times larger. Not that God will necessarily take us out of difficult situations, though He can do that too, but God will take us through difficult situations. Both the fort at Jerusalem and the cave of Adullam were called fortresses.
Deliverer: When we are in the battle, or even losing the battle, God is powerful and can deliver us from that.
Shield: As part of the armor of God, a shield protects us from blows and the arrows “fiery darts” of the enemy.
Horn of my salvation (and 1 Samuel 2:1): Horns are hard, and for protection animals use those as an offensive weapon. Hannah’s song in 1 Samuel 2:1,10 also emphasizes “horn”.
Stronghold: A stronghold is a defensible place or hideout a group could go to for protection. It could be the top of a mountain, or it could be a hidden place such as one of the many caves David might have hidden in.
Savior: If we are already defeated, already sold into slavery, God can save us from that. Whether the slavery is to addiction, or to sin in general, God can save His children from that.
We can be grateful for what God did in the past, rely on Him in the present, and trust and hope in Him for the future. We don’t know what the future holds, but we know Who holds it.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1066, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.227, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.342, and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.477,480 for more info.
3. In 2 Sam 22:5, why is the metaphor of waves apt here?
A: When you look at waves from the shore, waves appear like they try to go beyond the bounds of the sea, and they never stop trying. But they never succeed.
4. In 2 Sam 22:6, Ps 91:3, and Ps 116:3, how is death like a hunter that sets snares?
A: The picture is that death is setting fatal traps for someone to fall into. These could be physical traps that bring physical death, or more subtle traps that destroy your spiritual life and witness.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.4671-472 for more info.
5. In 2 Sam 22:7, will God always save believers from distress?
A: In short, no, no, and yes.
No, David was fearful for His own life with the rebellion of Absalom. David had great heartbreak to see his children, Bathsheba’s first child, Amnon, and Absalom die. David was in distress as a consequence of his sin, as Nathan prophesied in 2 Samuel 12:1-14.
No, David was in great distress running from Saul, even though this was not due to any sin on David’s part.
Yes, God was with David through all of this, and God saved David. Nothing will happen to a believer except what God allows. Even when believers are tortured and martyred, and their children taken away, God will be there, working in those difficult situations.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.477 for more info.
6. In 2 Sam 22:8-16, why and how did David use all these anthropomorphic metaphors here?
A: David knew that he was not literal, but these metaphors of fighting and battle held a lot of meaning for David and people in Israel in his time. It is OK to think about God anthropomorphically, as long as you realize, that God is much more than just a man. It is thrilling to realize that God is no less eager to save and deliver us than these word pictures show. This strong trust in God to save David from situations where it would be hopeless otherwise is an exciting contrast to a commitment-less, courageous-less Christianity that some practice at today. If you don’t need God to achieve your plans, and it looks like all you aspire to an be successful without God doing anything, then perhaps your plans are way too small. Drop your plans, and pick up God’s plans for you. Some of them could be what you had before, and some might be surprising to you.
God thundering is not anthropomorphic here though. God did send thunder against the Philistines in 2 Samuel 7:10-11.
See The MacArthur Bible Commentary p.383 and The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.342 for more info.
7. In 2 Sam 22:21,25, does God do things to reward people according to their righteousness?
A: Apparently God did not consider David a murderer and an adulterer. God considered David as a repentant, and forgiven, ex-murderer and ex-adulterer.
If David can be forgiven and cleansed from his great sins, then there is hope for us. David repented and lost his desire to sin in those areas, and through God there also is hope for all who come to Him.
8. In 2 Sam 22:21-27, what is this saying about the David’s works?
A: While God was with David long before David slew Goliah, most of these thing happened then or afterwards. David is recounting God’s blessings towards Him not as prerequisites to salvation but as benefits of salvation. Once you are saved, are you getting the benefits of salvation, now on earth? It is not for certain; it depends. You will if you stay close to God and faithfully obey Him. But it is up to you to follow God’s leading for your life, or not. David, as a believer, still had to call upon God in 2 Samuel 22:7; so do we.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.480 for more info.
9. In 2 Sam 22:22-23, why did David say he did not depart from God, since David did depart?
A: Two points to consider in the answer.
David never did depart, in the sense that he always believed in God and wanted to serve God.
David did fall away from God in his affair with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah, but David repented and returned. God forgave him, and though David did not escape the discipline and consequences, God considered him righteous and as having not sinned. In a similar way, when a believer falls away from God and later repents, he or she is completely forgiven. However, there can still be discipline and consequences.
We should learn the costly lesson from David’s mistake of how a much evil a king and servant of God can do when they are out of touch with God. David might not have been arrogant, but David was just proud enough to think that God’s rules did not apply to him anymore.
David was loyal to God, except for that one time he was treacherous. In the last part of David’s life, when most of the people rebelled against David with Absalom, after Absalom was killed, and the people returned to having David as king, David too could look at the many of the people around him, and his subjects, and realize that they were all treacherous against him one time too.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.228 for more info.
10. In 2 Sam 22:26-27, why does God show Himself as both merciful and shrewd?
A: God is both merciful and shrewd. God is merciful to those who repent and come to Him. To others, God catches the wise in their own craftiness, as Job 5:13; Luke 20:23, 1 Corinthians 3:19, and 2 Corinthians 12:16 show. We are to be shrewd as serpents, yet as innocent as doves, as Matthew 10:16 says.
11. In 2 Sam 22:28, why does God want to bring down the proud?
A: We can see two reasons.
1. The pride of man is a sin (1 John 2:16), and God hates sin. However, why would God specifically focus on pride here, and not other sins?
2. Pride is not so much a single action, but a chronic attitude that keeps people form God. God is merciful when He takes away people’s pride, because pride can keep people from trusting in God, as Proverbs 30:8-9 show.
12. In 2 Sam 22:38-43, is this an appropriate attitude for believers in New Testament times?
A: In a personal way no, but in a spiritual way, yes. David used about every word he could in Hebrew to describe destroying his enemies. We should be just as fierce with our enemies; but our enemies are not people. Are enemies are sin, in ourselves and others, and evil forces. As for people, Jesus commanded us to love our enemies and pray for (not against) those who persecute us.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1075 for more info.
13. In 2 Sam 22:45 and Ps 18:44 what should the order of the phrases be?
A: Both verses have exactly the same two phrases except that the order is swapped. However, in Hebrew poetry symmetry and chiasms are often used. While it is possible that David had two different versions of this praise psalm, it is more likely that they should be the same, the order in Psalm 18:44 is correct.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1076 for more info.
14. In 2 Sam 22:51, how do we sing our victory song (or not)?
A: We should sing our victory song of our life too, every day. Our singing ability does not matter, and even if someone is mute they can still sing their victory song just as well. We sing our victory song by how we express out love for God staying close to Him, loving him, and obeying Him. As believers in the Lord, God has empowered us through the Holy Spirit to be victors, conquering sin, disappointment, fear, and meanness in our lives. We also battle and defeat evil forces when we share the gospel, bringing people to the Lord, making disciples of them, and guarding the flock.
So how is your singing going?
2 Samuel 23 Do you have a “Three and Thirty”? – some brief answers
1. In 2 Sam 23:1-7, what is interesting about these verses?
A: These verses form a special kind of symmetry in Hebrew poetry called a chiasm.
2 Sam 23:1b-e David speaks of himself as “he”
— 2 Sam 23:2-3ab David speaks of himself as “I”
— — 2 Sam 23:3cd-4 The Lord speaks
— 2 Sam 23:5 David speaks of himself as “I”
2 Sam 23:6-7 David speaks of evil men as “they”
As an aside, David also spoke of himself in third person in 2 Samuel 7:20.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1081,1082,1083 and the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.468 for more info.
2. In 2 Sam 23:1-7, how different would David’s life have been if he had never been anointed king or never killed Goliath?
A: David is in wonder at the direction God guide David’s life, and how God was with David through the years. David was a faithful, worshipful shepherd boy. He was following God, but in a “lower-impact way”. After being elevated to king, David served in a very influential, high-impact way. The good things he did were magnified, and he was a great witness among the people for God. But David’s mistakes were magnified too; and many people lost respect for David after he took Uriah’s wife and had Uriah killed. God might not want some of His servants in high impact roles, because their sins and flaws would cause too many problems. Work with the Holy Spirit to try to eradicate from your life anything and everything that would make you unsuitable for God using you more.
David knew you could look back on his life and see someone who was flawed and made some big mistakes. But God could look back on someone who always repented and came back to God.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.480, The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.342, and The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1081 for more info.
3. In 2 Sam 23:8-39, how come these were David’s “three and thirty” when there were actually 37?
A: This is not some miscount, as 2 Samuel 39 specifically says it was 37. Thirty might have been a term for David’s top pick of honored soldiers, but as one fell in battle another was added, such as Asahel in 2 Samuel 23:24 and Uriah in 2 Samuel 23:39. Similarly in later times the Persians had 10,000 “immortals”, infantry who appeared immortal because they appeared arrow-proof when they went into battle covered in light tunics. The tunics hid the armor underneath. When an immortal was killed, another was picked to take his place.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.479 and Believer’s Bible Commentary p.347 for more info.
4. In 2 Sam 23:8-39, who is conspicuously missing from this list and why?
A: Joab was missing; and deliberately so. Abishai was in the list in 2 Samuel 23:18, and Asahel was in the list in 2 Samuel 23:24, and both were specifically called Joab’s brother, even further highlighting that Joab was not there. Even Eliam the son of Absalom’s counselor Ahithophel is in the list. But Joab himself, though he did many mighty things too, was not honored as being in this list. Joab directly disobeyed David by killing Abner, then David’s son Absalom, and then later treacherously killing Amasa. Joab valued a good outcome over an honorable way of achieving this outcome, so it is fitting that Joab was not honored here.
See The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.342-342 and the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.347 for more info.
5. In 2 Sam 23:8-39, is it good to honor believers who have served well or not?
A: One could argue that it is good to encourage them, and encourage others to follow in their footsteps. On the other hand, one could argue that it might give them a temptation to have pride; and they should not be doing it for the honor anyway. So just let everyone be as anonymous as possible. However, while there are some valid points on both sides, God answers this question in Philippians 2:28, where Paul tells the Philippian church to honor people like Epaphroditus, who almost died of sickness in serving God. The apostle John also honored Demetrius in 3 John 12.
6. In 2 Sam 23:8, did the Tachmonite kill 800 men, or did the Hachmonite kill 300 men in 1 Chr 11:11?
A: This one letter difference in the name is likely a copyist error. While the error could be in either 2 Samuel or 1 Chronicles, it is likely in 2 Samuel, as it has the most copyist errors of any book in the Old Testament. The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.604 says that in Hebrew 300 and 800 look similar.
See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.17 for more info.
7. In 2 Sam 23:11, were the Israelites delivered in a field of lentils, or a field of barley as 1 Chronicles 11:13 says?
A: There are two possibilities.
1. There could have been two different events.
2. It is likely there was only one event and there is a copyist error here. According to When Critics Ask p.177, the Hebrew words for barley and lentils are very similar.
8. In 2 Sam 23:16, why did David pour out the water?
A: David wanted to demonstrate that he valued the sacrifices of his troops more than quenching his own personal thirst. This is a mark of a leader which commands respect and loyalty. Centuries later, when Alexander of Macedon led his army through modern-day Iran, he did the same.
9. In 2 Sam 23:20, what are lion-like men?
A: Arabs and Persians called brave warriors “Ariel”, or lions of God.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.497 for more info.
10. In 2 Sam 23:25-32, have any of these names been found by archaeologists?
A: Yes, though these were most likely other individuals with the same name. The names Helez in 2 Samuel 23:26 and Eliahba, which means “God Conceals [the newborn infant]) in 2 Samuel 23:32 were found on Hebrew Bullae according to Avigad, Hebrew Bullae p.57,53)
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.3 p.1091,1092 for more info.
11. In 2 Sam 23:39, why is Uriah the Hittite mentioned here, since Uriah was killed in 2 Samuel 11:17,24?
A: This is a list of all who had been David’s officers, not just those his officers where were currently alive.
2 Samuel 24 When you look over your life: with Pride – some brief answers
1. In 2 Samuel 24:1, when was this census taken?
A: 2 Samuel does not say, and some parts of 2 Samuel are not in chronological order. However, 1 Chronicles 21 indicates the census was taken very late in David’s reign, just before David giving instructions to Solomon on building the Temple.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.481 for more info.
2. In 2 Sam 24:1, how big was David’s empire at its largest?
A: It was about 30,000 square miles, or about the size of the U.S. state of Maine. It was smaller than the Egyptian, Hittite, Assyrian, and Babylonian empires at earlier and later times. During the time of David though, all of these other countries were militarily weak or divided
3. In 2 Sam 24:1, why was God angry with Israel over the census in counting the fighting men?
A: Scripture does not say why God was angry; but it is very likely because of the tendency for pride and self-exaltation. Just one generation ago, the Israelites were a loose collection of tribes subjugated by the Philistines. Now, for a brief period of time, they were one of the strongest Mideast powers east of Egypt. As 2 Samuel 22:28 shows, God wants to bring down the proud. The census here might be a clue that they had pride in themselves, their numbers, and their military power.
Note that a census was used in ancient times for military service and taxes. Also, Larry Richards in 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.117 observes that a national leader cannot make choices that do not affect their people.
See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.319-320, the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.4500-502, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.229, Hard Sayings of the Bible p.240-242, and The Tony Evans Bible Commentary p.343 for more info.
4. In 2 Sam 24:1, why did God move David to number Israel?
A: 2 Samuel 24:1 says that God was angry with David and Israel, probably because of their pride in their military successes. So, for Israel's sake God would have them humbled. What was the means God used? - God specifically had Satan tempt David to count Israel, even though people such as Joab recognized that this wrong (2 Samuel 24:1; 1 Chronicles 21:3-4) being done out of pride and not from faith. After David fell for the temptation, God gave David a choice of punishment by famine, by plague, or by running from his enemies (1 Chronicles 21:12). We can see that it would not be so helpful for God to punish them for their pride in themselves if they had no idea what they were being punished for. David's action, which was probably representative of the national self-confidence of many of the Israelites, illustrated to all what the punishment was for.
Today, sometimes Christians who are obedient to God can still sin by having pride in themselves instead of gratitude for the mercy and grace of God. We do not have any good thing, ability, or talent, except what God has given to us,
5. In 2 Sam 24:1, did God move David to number Israel in a census, or did Satan move David as 1 Chr 21:1 says?
A: Both are correct. Satan was the immediate cause, and God allowed Satan to tempt David this way to show the pride David and the nation had. God could have told David not to start this; but God did not; He was testing what David would do. David apparently did not pray to ask God for direction.
Some people think that once you become a Christian demons can’t affect you anymore. That is not true. Demons cannot possess believers, but they can still tempt believers and oppress believers. – Just ask Job.
The Hebrew word for “move” in both verses is the same. God and Satan were working in concert here. In order to understand this, one must understand the doctrine of concurrency. First we will discuss the doctrine in general, and then how it applies in this case.
Five Points of the Doctrine of Concurrency
1. God weaves all things together as a part of His plan (Ephesians 1:11; Proverbs 16:4).
2. Some things, such as sinful things, God does not desire. (Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; Matthew 23:37).
3. Even the evil men plan and do, God often not only allows, but even intends to be used for good (Genesis 50:18-20; Romans 8:28), and for His glory (Romans 9:17-18).
4. What’s more, God even has an active role in enabling men to do the evil they would like to do. For example, when someone deliberately disobeys God and hardens their heart, sometimes God further hardens their heart, as He did to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:13; 8:19; 9:7, 9:34-35; 10:20,27; 14:8).
5. God never does evil or tempts people (James 1:13), but God uses various tools, even Satan himself, to accomplish His ends (2 Chronicles 18:18-22).
In 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1, God decided to have David and the Israelites reveal their pride so that God would deal with it. God was ultimately responsible for “moving” David to number Israel, by delegating to Satan the immediate responsibility to move David. Since God works all things according to His plan, as one Christian quipped, ultimately Satan is only the unwilling servant of the Most High God.
Finally, if you do not like the fact that God uses all means, not just good means, to accomplish His ends, you can take that up with God. The point of this discussion is not to say how God “ought to behave” in our own minds. Rather, it is to briefly lay out what God has chosen to show us about Himself in His word.
See Today’s Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties p.390-391, the Complete Book of Bible Answers p.53, When Critics Ask p.177, Bible Difficulties & Seeming Contradictions p.158, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.186-188, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.229, and the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.349 for more info.
6. In 2 Sam 24:1-10, David appeared to be unaware that he had sinned and given into his pride before he completed the ensues in verse 10, even despite Joab warning him beforehand. Why is it the people can do things out of pride or arrogance, and yet be totally unaware that they are doing so?
A: It boils down to one word: rationalization. David could easily justify the need for a census, both for taxation and in order to get an equivalent percentage of fighting men from each place. Of course this was a time of peace, so there were not any wars right now. This was a time of prosperity, with other nations giving tribute; so why did David need to tax people more?
But the fact that good reasons could be offered up for doing this does not negate the fact that it could feed his pride. Always remember that, without God, our heart is naturally evil and usually prideful. When we can feel that pleasant “rush” when our pride would be fed, consider if you can avoid doing it at all.
Remember, our highest aspiration is to be a child and servant of God, worshipping Him in heaven for ever. We should always desire that all glory go to Him, and not to ourselves.
7. In 2 Sam 24:9, was the result of the census 800,000 in Israel and 500,000 in Judah, or was it 1,100,000 in Israel and 470,000 in Judah as 1 Chr 21:5-6 says?
A: There are two different answers, and either could be true.
Copyist error: One verse could have a copyist error.
Both are correct: Alternately, both are correct, because the totals referred to different groups. The numbers in 1 Chronicles 21:5-6 do not include the Levites and Benjamites. The numbers in 2 Samuel 24:9 might also include the 288,000 in the standing army mentioned in 1 Chronicles 27:1-15 and the 12,000 in Jerusalem and the chariot cities (2 Chronicles 1:14). Also, 1 Chronicles 6:1 mentions the standing army of Judah, 30,000 men. One solution is that 1,100,000 - 288,000 - 12,000 = 800,000, and 500,000 - 30,000 = 460,000.
The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.188-189, 221-222 gives both viewpoints. See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.482, When Critics Ask p.178, Bible Difficulties & Seeming Contradictions p.158-159, and 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.117-118 for more info.
8. In 2 Sam 24:10-12, why did God kill the Israelites for David’s sin, instead of killing David?
A: David apparently wondered the same thing in 2 Samuel 24:17. While Scripture does not say, there are a number of possible reasons, which can be combined.
David still needed to learn the consequences of his pride in his earthly power, even though he had already repented.
The people had a similar pride, and they too needed to learn.
Future generations would have the opportunity learn from this the severity God attaches to the sin of pride.
Perhaps some of David’s soldiers were actually angels in disguise, and Satan wanted them numbered to either reveal they were not regular people or force God to eliminate them. God eliminated them by having them “die” in the plague.
As an aside, an epidemic of disease in an area never lasts a mere three days, if it is just a natural plague.
A lesson we can learn from this is that God can punish as He wishes, and it not required to tell us why He chose one form of punishment over another.
9. In 2 Sam 24:13, were there seven years of famine, or were there three years of famine according to 1 Chr 21?
A: There are two possible answers.
God relented: First of all, God never said there would be seven years of famine. Rather, God first asked David about the option of seven years of famine. Later, God presented David with the option of shortening it to three years. See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.189-190 for more info on this view.
Copyist error: A more likely answer is that there was a copyist error. When Critics Ask p.179 points out that some manuscripts have three years in 2 Samuel 24:13.
10. In 2 Sam 24:14, why would David choose to fall into God’s hands, since Heb 10:31 says it is a very fearful thing?
A: David, a believer, chose God’s punishment of plague rather than sword or famine. Hebrews 10:31 speaks of a different situation, of the final judgment, and it will be very fearful for unbelievers.
See When Critics Ask p.179 for more info.
11. In 2 Sam 24:16, how did God repent?
A: God revealed will towards us can look different when we change and repent. See the discussion on Genesis 6:6 and Genesis 20:3-6 for the answer.
12. In 2 Sam 24:16-17, was the destroying angel visible?
A: 2 Samuel 24:17 specifically says that David say the angel of the Lord at the threshing floor of Araunah. However, in 2 Samuel 24:20 Araunah saw David and his officials and ask, mystified, why they came to his threshing floor. So Araunah must not have been able to see the Angel of the Lord. Scripture does not say who else could see the angel of the Lord or not.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.509 for more info.
13. In 2 Sam 24:24, did David pay Araunah 50 shekels of silver for the oxen and threshing floor, or did David pay Araunah 600 shekels of gold for the entire place?
A: Both are true. The 600 shekels of gold were for the property, (not including the oxen and threshing floor), and the 50 shekels were for the oxen and threshing floor. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.190 points out that a threshing floor usually was not large, and a threshing floor and the oxen would not be worth much more than 50 shekels of silver. By the way, a shekel of gold was worth about twelve times a shekel of silver.
See also When Critics Ask p.179, Hard Sayings of the Bible p.242, Bible Difficulties & Seeming Contradictions p.159-160, and the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.2 part 2 p.511 for more info.