This week we
will continue the study of the Book of 2 Samuel in the Old Testament.
Mephibosheth:
(1) How did Mephibosheth demonstrate his loyalty to David?
(2) Why did David question Mephibosheth for not fleeing with him, even though he knew he was lame? (See 16:3)
(3) What was Mephiboseth’s explanation?
(4) Did David believe him? Did David come to recognize the hasty mistake he made? Did he really rectify his mistake?
(5) How did Mephibosheth take David’s decision?
(6) Do you have any comment on Mephibosheth? What about David?
Barzillai:
(7) Read 17:27-29 to recall what Barzillai did for David and his men as they were fleeing from Absalom.
(8) How did David wish to reward such loyalty and kindness?
(9) Why did Barzillai send Kimham (whom some commentators believe with good reason that he was Barzillai’s son based on 1 Ki. 2:7) instead to go with David?
Quarrels among the tribes:
(10) Why did “all the men of Israel” (meaning their representatives) take exception to the tribe of Judah?
(11) Was their complaint justified? Why or why not?
(12) Was the answer given by the men of Judah valid? Why or why not?
(13) To whom did the men of Israel take their complaint? (v. 41)
(14) Why didn’t David even try to answer or step in to bring peace among his people? (See 19:11-14)
(15) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“Soon, all the men of Israel were coming to the king and saying to him, ‘Why did our brothers, the men of Judah, steal the king away and bring him and his household across the Jordan, together with all his men?’.” (2 Sam. 19:41)
We have seen that the men of Israel were not the most loyal subjects. Once they perceived that Absalom might have the upper hand, they flocked to join him to rebel against David (15:10-12). Then, upon the death of Absalom, they shamelessly switched their allegiance back to David again (19:9-10).
Now the tribe of Judah was the first to welcome the king back, by sending a large contingent to escort the king back from across the river Jordan. The men of Israel should not have any grounds to complain: for one, they were the traitors and also, “half of the troops of Israel had taken the king over” (19:40), albeit, they probably arrived later than the men of Judah and were made to follow them in the procession back to Jerusalem.
The interesting thing to note is that, the men of Israel took their complaint to David (19:41), and he made no attempt at all to appease them. How could he? David was the culprit in the whole matter.
After the defeat of Absalom, instead of simply marching back to retake Jerusalem, he demanded that the people make a gesture to invite him back, as if he would not return as their king without their invitation, and to play it safe, this was what he did:
- He appealed only to the people of Judah through the priests, Zadok and Abiathar: He knew they were loyal to him, and that they had great influence over the people (19:11).
- However, in order to sway any fence-sitters, he even appealed to Amasa who also betrayed him by becoming the commander of Absalom’s army. Instead of executing him for his rebellion, he appointed him to replace Joab as his commander. Later on, we read in chapter 20 that David did not really think too highly of Amasa and basically ignored him when he appeared not to be fulfilling his assignment (20:5).
In other words, for a change, instead of consulting the Lord and depending on him, David resorted to using political maneuvers to regain control of his power over Israel, and it backfired right before his face. He had caused divisions and strife among his people. It is such an important warning to all of us in that we need to heed the words of Proverbs: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight” (Prov. 3:5-6; italics mine).
(1) Why did the men of Israel respond to the call of Sheba to desert David so readily?
(2) Why did the men of Judah choose to stay with David?
(3) What could David have done to avoid this division? Why didn’t he?
(4) Do you think how David treated the ten concubines was an act of honor and kindness? Why or why not?
(5) Now, David had to deal with the rebellion of Sheba and he acted on his promise, making Amasa his commander, except Amasa had to gather the rest of the men in Judah (which was the likely reason why David appointed him in the first place). The Bible does not explain why Amasa took longer than the three days set by the king:
a. Were three days enough for him to call his men and gather them back to Jerusalem (i.e. 1½ days to summon them across Judah and 1½ days to march back to Jerusalem)?
b. Why didn’t David wait?
(6) Now David asked Abishai (Joab’s brother) to take his “master’s men”, meaning Joab’s own men, to pursue Sheba. What kind of game was David playing? Should he? Why or why not?
(7) Why did Joab murder Amasa, again in cold-blood (as he did Abner in 3:26-27)? Whose fault was it? Why?
(8) In spite of David’s maneuver, who was actually leading the army?
(9) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“When David returned to his palace in Jerusalem, he took the ten concubines he had left to take care of the palace and put them in a house under guard. He provided for them but had no sexual relations with them…” (2 Sam. 20:3)
Since Absalom had dishonored his father by violating the concubines of his father, it would be an abomination if David continued to sleep with them (according to the Law of Moses in Lev. 20:11). Therefore what he did to these ten concubines was indeed an act of kindness and honor:
“Jewish writers say that the widowed queens of Hebrew monarchs were not allowed to marry again, but were obliged to pass the rest of their lives in strict seclusion. So are the wives of the emperor of China. On the death of the reigning sovereign all these women are transferred from the palace to a separate mansion, where they live in seclusion during the rest of their lives (Macartney, p. 375). David treated his concubines in the same manner, after the outrage committed on them by Absalom. They were not divorced, for they were guiltless; but they were no longer publicly recognized as his wives; nor was their confinement to a sequestered life a very heavy doom, in a region where women have never been accustomed to go much abroad.”
(JFB, Vol.1, p. 266)
(1) Sheba was able to gather the men of Israel to follow him, all the way to the very northern end of Israel —Abel Beth Maacah. This also meant that he was far away from his home base in Benjamin (you may want to look at a biblical map of the time). What mistake did he make in using the city of Abel Beth Maacah as his fortified city to fight against Joab?
(2) What does it tell you about the strength of Joab’s army, being able to march such a long way to besiege the city?
(3) The “wise woman” was most likely a female leader of the city, like Deborah. While scholars cannot trace any history behind the saying, “Get your answer at Abel and that settled it” (v. 18). What does the saying tell us about the history of this people and their city, and their status in Israel?
(4) How did this woman caution Joab in his attempt to attack the city?
(5) What compromise did Joab make?
(6) What does this tell us about this sometime “cold-blooded” warrior?
(7) While David appeared to be trying to demote or sideline Joab, Joab remained the commander “over Israel’s entire army” (v. 23): Do you think David should be afraid of Joab (3:39)? Why or why not?
(8) What is the main message to you today and how can you apply it to your life?
“While they were battering the wall to bring it down, a wise woman called from the city...” (2 Sam. 20:15-16)
While not much is known about the city of Abel, and even less is known about this “wise woman” of the city, this account given by the Scriptures serves to reinforce God’s desire of peace and His displeasure with bloodshed.
Given the short account in the Bible, we know at least the following things about the city of Abel and its people:
1. It was situated at the northern end of Israel, in the land of Naphtali: Sheba was very unwise to choose this city to fight against Joab’s army, because he was far away from his home base of Benjamin, and obviously he was not supported by the people of the city of Abel who, likely, were forced to accommodate him and his rebels.
2. They were the “peaceful and faithful” in Israel: The city and its people were not known for their might and power, but for their love for peace and loyalty to the king.
3. But more importantly, the saying, “Get your answer at Abel and that settled it” shows “that Abel had formerly been celebrated for the wisdom of its inhabitant [sic]” (K&D, 674). It appeared that since the city was so far away from any capital city, whether in Saul’s or David’s time, people in the more northerly region would bring their disputes to the city and their leaders were so full of wisdom that their words would settle any dispute.
4. Such wisdom was epitomized by this “wise woman who, like Deborah, was probably a judge or governess of the place” (JFB, 208). In particular, she reminded Joab that his action potentially would wipe out “that [which] is a mother in Israel”— a well-respected and beloved city of Israel; and would “swallow up the Lord’s inheritance”— a peaceful and faithful people that belonged to the Lord.
Such words of wisdom were powerful enough to dissuade the hardest warrior in Joab, and it reminds me of this saying in Ecclesiastes: “Wisdom makes one wise person more powerful than ten rulers in a city” (Eccl. 7:19).
But I find Matthew Henry’s remark in this respect most interesting: “Souls know difference of sexes. Though the men be the head, it does not therefore follow that he has the monopoly of the brains…” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary, 472)
Here is an account that does not appear to follow any chronology. The author of the book appears to insert this in toward the end of David’s reign to make his account complete:
(1) Why did David feel the need to seek the face of the Lord because of the famine?
(2) How special or unexpected was God’s answer?
(3) The bloodshed was the crime of Saul and his household (and they were no more), so why should the famine be upon David and his people?
(4) What does it say about how God looks upon the breach of promise and the guilt of bloodshed? (See Note below)
(5) In their answer to David, the Gibeonites said the following: (i) they saw that blood-guilt could not be recompensed with silver or gold; (ii) neither could it be recompensed through the life of innocent people; (iii) but only from the descendants of the guilty party — Saul, the Lord’s chosen one; and (iv) have them killed in Gibeah — Saul’s hometown and capital!
a. What do you think about their response?
b. Was it justified under the Law of Moses? (Num. 35:31)
c. Strictly speaking, David did not have to comply with their request, but what if he did not? (See 21:14)
(6) While David spared Mephibosheth for obvious reasons, he offered the two sons of Rizpah (Saul’s wife who slept with Abner) and the five sons of Merab (whom Saul first offered to David in marriage, which he later rescinded).
a. How do you feel about their death — these men as substitutes for Saul’s own sin?
b. How would you feel if you were their mothers?
(7) How did Rizpah feel and what did she do?
(8) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
Note:
Nothing is known about this blood-guilt of Saul except what was being said in v. 2 that “Now the Gibeonites were not a part of Israel but were survivors of the Amorite; the Israelites had sworn to spare them, but Saul in his zeal for Israel and Judah had tried to annihilate them”. Keil and Delitzsch opine that the death of the seven descendants was by crucifixion, only that they were killed first before being hanged.
“As for the man who destroyed us and plotted against us, so that we have been decimated and have no place anywhere in Israel, let seven of his male descendants be given to us to be killed…” (2 Sam. 21:5-6)
We come across here a passage about the avenging of blood that is not only troubling to the mind of the modern, but also seemingly against God’s own law in the Old Testament.
The Law of Moses clearly stipulates that “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin” (Deut. 24:16). Why then would God permit the killing of seven of Saul’s descendants for the sin Saul had committed? In fact, it was God who reminded David of the guilt of Saul that had yet to be dealt with through three years of famine, and at the killing of the seven descendants of Saul, the famine ended as “God answered prayer in behalf of the land” (21:14).
Matthew Henry very much sums up the defense put up by commentators on God’s behalf concerning this matter in general:
“But this case of the Gibeonites was altogether extraordinary. God had made Himself an immediate party to the cause and no doubt put it into the heart of the Gibeonites to make this demand, for He owned what was done (v. 14) and His judgments are not subject to the rules which men’s judgments must be subject to. Let parents take heed of sin, especially the sin of cruelty and oppression for the poor children’s sake, who may be smarting for it by the just hand of God when they themselves are in their graves. Guilt and a curse are a bad entail upon a family. It should seem, Saul’s posterity trod in his steps, for it is called a bloody house; it was the spirit of the family, and therefore they are justly reckoned with for his sin, as well as for their own.”
(Matthew Henry’s Commentary, 473)
Burial of the bones of Saul and his descendants:
(1) Read again what Rizpah did to protect the honor of her dead sons:
a. When do you think God “answered prayer on behalf on the land” and sent rain to come down?
b. What prompted David to gather even the bones of Saul and Jonathan together with the bones to these killed descendants to give them a proper burial?
Four Battles with the Rephaites:
Like the account of the famine, these four battles appeared to have taken place not necessarily toward the end of David’s reign, but rather formed a collection of battles between the four descendants of Rapha (i.e. Rephaites) in Gath and David, and they were presumably known for their gigantic stature.
(2) The battle with Ishbi-Benob:
a. Compare the spear of this man with that of Goliath who was killed by David when he was a “boy” (1 Sam. 17:7).
b. Now that David was far better equipped, was he able to kill this giant? Why or why not?
c. Who came to his rescue?
d. Why did David’s men make him swear not to go battle again? What reason did they give? What did they mean?
e. What do you think was their inner motive?
(3) The next three battles were also recorded in 1 Chronicles 20:4-8:
a. What was the common theme among these battles?
b. What does the Biblical author intend to tell us?
(4) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“But Abishai, son of Zeruiah came to David’s rescue; he struck the Philistine down and killed him.” (2 Sam. 21:17)
The biblical author chooses to record how David and his men defeated four descendants of the family of Rapah in Gath, presumably this family produced some of the most famous and feared warriors in Philistine. However in the description of the battle between David and Ishbi-Benob, we learn that David was almost killed.
The biblical author appears to highlight the similarities between this battle and the battle David had with Goliath when he was just a boy (or a young man):
a. Both Goliath and Ishbi-Benob were from Gath;
b. While Goliath was a giant over nine feet tall, we have no idea how tall Ishbi-Benob was, except that he also carried a very heavy spear with its head weighing 300 shekels, i.e. almost 8 pounds — not quite as heavy as Goliath’s which was 600 shekels.
However, the similarities appeared to end here, because the boy David wore no armor and carried only his sling and stones while this king David now obviously was well suited with armor and sword and yet was exhausted. He almost got killed by Ishbi-Benob. But when you think about it, the similarities did continue, because the outcome was the same — the Philistines were slain and David was preserved, and they were both the works of God.
We tend to attribute our success to God only when something miraculous happens along the way. But when things do not work out smoothly, although the final outcome is still for our good, we tend not to attribute it to the hand of God. But this was not the way David looked at his battles: Whether it was the battle with Goliath or the battle with Ishbi-Benob, David said of the Lord, “You have delivered me…you have preserved me as the head of nations” (2 Sam. 22:44/Ps.18:43).
Chapter 22 is a song sung by David and is repeated in Psalm 18 (with minor variations). Both give us the same occasion and that was when “the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul” (2 Samuel 22:1, and the Superscription of Psalm 18). Since the reference was also to the deliverance from Saul which happened in the very early part of his adult life, this song might not be necessarily written toward the end of David’s life, but when he had firmly established his reign of Israel. Let’s consider this song/psalm by dividing it into meaningful parts (suggested as follows):
2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18
Vv. 2-4 Praise to God vv. 2-3
Vv. 5-7 Lament/plight vv. 4-6
Vv. 8-16 God’s mighty appearance vv. 7-15
Vv. 17-20 God’s deliverance vv. 16-19
Vv. 21-25 Self-Innocence/righteousness vv. 20-24
Vv. 26-28 God’s righteous way vv. 25-27
Vv. 29-37 Confidence vv. 28-36
Vv. 38-46 God gave victory vv. 37-45
Vv. 47-51 Vow to Praise vv. 46-50
Today, we shall consider vv. 2-25
Vv. 2-4 Praise to God
(1) How does David describe his enemies?
(2) Who might be your enemies?
(3) Reflecting on who God is to him, David uses three sets of triplets. Do list or highlight all three sets in your Bible.
(4) What kind of a picture does David wish to paint of God through these triplets?
(5) Who is God to you? Can you also describe Him in three sets of triplets?
Vv. 5-7 Lament/plight
(6) What metaphor does he use to describe his plight?
(7) How similar was his metaphor to the real life experience of Jonah (see Jon. 2)?
(8) Whose plight was more terrifying and deadly?
(9) Have you ever experienced anything close to David’s plight?
Vv. 8-16 God’s mighty appearance in answer to his prayer
(10) Although it was unlikely that David actually “saw” God’s appearance in such an awesome way, he is portraying how God did appear to His people in the past, especially in Exodus. Compare David’s poetic rendering of God’s appearance here with that at Sinai (Exod. 19:16-19). What are their similarities?
Vv. 17-20 God’s deliverance
(11) David believes that it is the same God with the same awesome power that has delivered him. Should such a realization give you strength and hope today? Why or why not?
(12) What is the reason given by David for his deliverance by God?
Vv. 21-25 Self-Innocence/righteousness
(13) Do you think David penned these words before or after his sin against Uriah? Why?
(14) Read Psalm 103:10. If you were David writing in his older years, how would you have written vv. 21-25 in this poem or psalm?
(15) Read 1 Kings 14:8 and 15:5.
(16) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“The Lord has dealt with me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands He has rewarded me.” (2 Sam. 22:21)
Basically all the commentaries I have read come to the defense of David opining that he did not really claim self-righteousness for God rewarding him with His deliverance and favor.
I think there are two issues here: (1) Whether David could claim that he was blameless, that he had kept the ways of the Lord and that he had kept himself from sin; and (2) whether such “righteousness and cleanness” was the reason for God’s deliverance and favor as his reward?
(1) Was David righteous?
We are all bothered by David’s sin against Uriah (which involved both the sin of adultery and the sin of murder), and wonder how David could claim his righteousness and cleanness, especially with the words he used in vv. 21-25? Well, let’s take a look at how the Bible itself renders the verdict on his life:
“I tore the kingdom away from the house of David and gave it to you (Jeroboam, king of Israel), but you have not been like my servant David, who kept my commands and followed me with all his heart, doing only what was right in my eyes.” (1 Ki. 14:8)
“For David had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord and had not failed to keep any of the Lord’s commands all the days of his life — except in the case of Uriah the Hittite” (1 Ki. 15:5, when God rebuked Abijah, king of Judah)
In other words, the Bible does declare David’s righteousness in spite of his sin, because even his sin against Uriah has been taken away from him (2 Sam. 12:13). Thus the basis of his righteousness is not really what he did, but how he trusted and followed the Lord “with all his heart”. His keeping of God’s commandments and doing what was right in the eyes of the Lord issued out of his right standing with the Lord through faith — faith that enabled him to receive full forgiveness of his sin. Faith in the Lord is still the basis of his righteousness (Phil. 3:9).
(2) Was it a reward for his righteousness?
Since his righteousness came through faith, God’s favor and deliverance came as a reward of his faith in Him, and not of his works.
Personally, I believe that this was a psalm David probably wrote before he had committed the horrible sin against Uriah. Not that he would not have the same understanding of God’s favor or deliverance, but he would probably use wordings more similar to that of Psalm 103 in which he said:
“He does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities… But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord’s love is with those who fear Him, and His righteousness with their children’s children — with those who keep His covenant and remember to obey his precept.” (Ps. 103:10, 17, 18)
Although David had kept His covenant and remembered to obey His precept, he would have made it clearer that it was “His righteousness”, not his!
Vv. 26-28 God’s righteous ways
(1) Here, David shares from his own experience the ways of the Lord. Is that what you have experienced or observed too?
Vv. 29-37 Confidence in the Lord
Because of his faith in God and his personal experience in the ways of the Lord, David now expresses his confidence in the Lord that can be experienced by everyone:
(2) Who will be able to share his experience in the Lord according to v. 31?
(3) Which of the following acts of grace mean the most to you? And why?
a. God is a lamp that turns your darkness into light.
b. God is your help that enables you to advance against a troop and scale a wall.
c. God arms you with strength.
d. God makes your way perfect.
e. God makes your feet like the feet of a deer (with spring in your steps).
f. God enables you to stand on the heights (i.e. with no fear).
g. God trains you for battle (i.e. spiritual battle in your case).
h. God gives you a shield of victory.
i. God “stoops” down to make you great.
j. God broadens the path beneath you so that your ankles do not turn. (What does that mean?)
Vv. 38-46 God gave victory
(4) What are the words David uses to denote “total” victory in the Lord? (Try to underline those words.)
(5) Have you experienced similar “victories” in your life? Can you? Why or why not?
Vv. 47-51 Vow to Praise
(6) We know that David’s life was actually full of turmoil ever since he was anointed or chosen by the Lord. From this “vow” to praise, why is he able to commit to praise God in spite of all his calamities?
(7) What about you? Can you commit to praise God in spite of all your calamities?
(8) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“Therefore I will praise you, among the nations; I will sing praises to your name.” (2 Sam. 22:50)
In reading this magnificent psalm of David, we might easily forget that David in fact went through a life of constant struggles, calamities and strife. Some of his troubles, indeed, were self-inflicted, but most came because of his position as God-anointed. To say that his life was one of constant battles is not an over-exaggeration, and yet most of his psalms were marked by praises, including this one in 2 Samuel 22 (repeated in the Psalter as Ps. 18).
If we read carefully the words of this psalm, we will be able to see some of the troubles encountered by David:
V. 3 “from violent men you save me”: I am often reminded that whatever trouble I might be facing, my plight cannot be compared with David’s. He faced “real” enemies who were bent on taking his life.
Vv. 5-6: David did not only face “violent” men, he was almost at the point of death, many times. His metaphors of being swirled by the waves of death, overwhelmed by torrents of destruction or coiled by the cords of grave were as real as the drowning faced by Jonah (see Jon. 2).
Vv. 17-18: David also acknowledged that by himself, he was doomed, because his foes were “too strong” for him and that his enemy was indeed very powerful. If we were David, we would have lived constantly in fear.
And yet, most of his psalms were full of praises. No wonder the Bible calls “praise” a “sacrifice” (Heb. 13:15). It is easy to praise God when everything goes our way; but to praise God in the midst of trouble, it is a sacrifice — as Webster Dictionary puts it; it is a “surrender” — a surrender to the sovereignty of God.