The Field is the World (Matt. 13:38)

With a father like Abijam, a grandfather like Rehoboam, where did Asa's devotion to the Lord come from? What a an indication of God's grace that his reign lasted 41 years.

The story of the unnamed prophet of Judah in 1 Kings 13 is amazing, but also confusing. Why did he listen to the lying Israelite prophet? Did he seek counsel of the Lord but ask the wrong question? (Is the man a prophet?) Why does God speak true prophecy through the man who had been the deceiver? Why is judgment against this prophet so swift and sudden when the prophecy against the idolatrous altar causing the whole land to apostasize takes about 350 years to fulfill? (2 Kings 23:15-20) For me it is a warning about uncritically receiving someone else's "word from the Lord" for my life.

Did Rehoboam choose (1 Kings 12:8) to answer the people roughly at the advice of his peers, or did God ordain that he do so? (1 Kings 12:15) Both, it seems. I don't see things like this as a "You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who has ever resisted his will?'"  situation (Romans 9:19) as both descriptions really are true. It's always our free choice to resist God's prescriptive, revealed will; never by our own independent desire that we have a will to do His good pleasure. (Philippians 2:13)

With all his fabulous wealth and understanding, does Solomon have any grasp of the fact that in doing business with the canaanites, in taking a wife from Egypt, in multiplying horses to himself and bringing them from Egypt, he's doing what the king is expressly forbidden to do in Deuteronomy 17:14-20? As he's beautifying Israel, building alliances, gaining fame and wealth, he's also laying a trap for himself.

From whence comes Solomon's boldness to ask for so much forgiveness and mercy from the God who slew Nadab and Abihu, the rebellion of Korah, the unfaithful at Ba'al-Peor, the breach of Uzzah, and even the catastrophic circumstances that led to his own reign? It is prophetic and can only have been inspired by the God who would fulfill all these requests and so prove that the Old Testament, like the New, is saturated with grace.

There is a consistent vocabulary in the Garden of Eden, (Genesis 2), the Tabernacle, (Exodus 24-27), and the Temple (1 Kings 5-7). Flowers, trees, cherubim guardians. Why were the tabernacle's instructions so exacting, so obviously by divine revelation, and the Temple's conveyed by narrative: "this is what Solomon did"? Israel is in a period of unique grace during this time.

  By the time 1 Kings is written, the practice of sacrificing in the high places is repeatedly noted as a qualification on any king’s zeal for the Lord (2 Kings 12:3; 14:3-4; 15:4,14,35; 22:43). Leviticus 17 forbade the practice of offering sacrifices anywhere besides the Tabernacle. (Lev. 17:2-6) It had been the practice of the heathen nations they drove out to sacrifice in high places and they were commanded to destroy them, (Numbers 33:52, Deuteronomy 12:3). And yet in the city of Gibeon (possibly named after the high place, 1 Kings 3:4) Solomon offers an extravagant sacrifice and the Lord is pleased. (1 Kings 3:5-14) More is going on in the story of the Gibeonites than meets the eye, apparently. In Nehemiah 3:7, they return to the land after captivity with the Israelites and help to build the wall. How could God be so pleased with a sacrifice in a high place undoubtedly formerly dedicated to a Hive deity in a city inhabited by a people the Lord had commanded Israel to exterminate,

The conspiracy and intrigue in 1 Kings  1-2 are disturbing. Was everything described justified? I doubt it. But it's a reminder that, despite David's powerful personality, despite how beloved (the meaning of his name) he was (2 Samuel 23:1), the 40 years of his reign, and the 40 years of Saul's reign before him, (Acts 13:21), were tumultuous ones, and were not too far removed from the chaotic time of the Judges. David's kingdom laid a good if flawed foundation, despite the civil war with Absalom, and Solomon's actions, right or wrong, are recorded so that we know neither man is the King Israel longs for.

In any such narrative in which the anger of? Let all God's people during this dark time seek mercy from the Father of mercy and God of all comfort, (2 Corinthians 1:3), whose seat of mercy is between the cherubim (Isaiah 37:16) and is "The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin" ( ‭‭Exodus‬ ‭34:6-7‬) Israel's present unbelief creates the opportunity for the reconciliation of the rest of the world (Romans 11:16), and, like the Gibeonites, Gentiles have been grafted in and enjoy the new covenant, we can count on God's faithfulness even though there is no example of human faithfulness.

 Part of God's stated intent in His covenant with Abram was to judge the Amorites. (Genesis 15:16-21) Yet the rash treaty the invading Israelites made with the Gibeonites in Joshua 9 was upheld because they swore by the LORD. (Joshua 9:18) After the big mistake, they did not compound their mistake by another; and here, some 400 years later, God is still enforcing that agreement. As difficult as this passage is, does that not give us great comfort, knowing that God swore to His covenant with Abraham by Himself (Genesis 22:16, Hebrews 6:13)? Yes, this is said to be our sure and steadfast anchor for the soul, as Christ is already in the heavenly Holy of Holies, ensuring our place with God. (Hebrews 6:18-20)

David's kingdom is restored to him, but is it ever the same again? In addition to losing two sons, there is division and infighting. As Joab did to Abner, so he does to Amasa. Is the issue of Ziba and Mephibosheth solved? Unity is precious. Once a leader who has captured the hearts of his people has become tarnished, how can that unity be restored?

 After a long struggle with passivity, how does David now so effectively differentiate between what to passively accept as God’s chastisement (the cursing of Shimei, 2 Samuel 16:10) and work against (his prayer against the counsel of Ahithophel which God answered—2 Samuel 15:31-32)? We don’t have to wonder in the dark about David’s thought process, even if the narrative doesn’t provide it. Psalms 38 and 51 reveal the brokenness David feels. He begged God not to take His Holy Spirit from him, as He did from Saul - he knew it was possible, and that God had even sent an evil spirit to harass Saul. I tried to imagine the enormous pressure on Saul. Imagine the pressure David is under here. He’s being confronted with opportunities that could be help or hindrance; he has to make rapid decisions about thorny issues. He entrusts himself to the Lord. What else can he do?

Even after the well-taken rebuke from God through Nathan and Joab, does David still lack objectivity? What is making him so passive that for the second time, it takes a story to get him to make a decision? The woman of Tekoa brings up the Avenger of Blood. That's essentially the role Absalom played, though it was against his own half-brother. David seems to be seeing it from the other side, that Absalom was guilty of manslaughter against Amnon, and he was likely to lose two of his sons. To avoid that point at which she was driving, he's forced again into the better of two difficult decisions. Then Joab himself was forced into a difficult decision when Absalom burns his barley field. It was too late to recover Absalomby that time. Still, as he goes into exile, David asks God to use the counsel of Hushai to defeat the counsel of Ahithophel, who was Bath-Sheba's grandfather.

David's sin had been in secret. Wasn't it his desperation to keep it secret that led to compounding treacherous adultery against a faithful subordinate (2 Samuel 11:11) with a treacherous conspiracy to murder him? God exposes the secret and ensures the judgment against David is public and far more shameful. David's idleness led to his sin, and he seems to accept the rebuke of Joab in 2 Samuel 12:28; yet in 2 Samuel 13:7 he is absent again and "sending" Tamar to Amnon instead of going with her. Balancing his responsibility to his kingdom, his responsibility to his family and his enjoyment of the rest God had provided does not come easily to David. He was closer to God while on the run.

How often do we receive an answer to prayers (2 Samuel 7:1) then eventually use the requested blessing in sin against God? David's kindness to Mephibosheth is a beautiful picture of God's kindness to us (see parallels between 2 Samuel 9 and Psalm 23), but in the next 2 chapters David is shown to be a passive "sender" of messages rather than the active defender of the kingdom he is in chapter 8. His idleness brings him the temptation of Bath-Sheba, and the deep, treacherous conspiracy to cover it up.

  So much in these three chapters is rich with potential for application for me and my family. First is the joyful dancing David exhibits while bringing the Ark to Jerusalem. I’ve read this passage many times, and understand that the Uzzah passage is a common sticking point. It was for David!  David was angry about Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:8)  "And David was afraid of the LORD that day, and said, How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?" (2 Samuel 6:9 KJV) So the way it’s rendered, it says “David was afraid.”  Are there two ways to read this text?  You could also read the (proper) fear of the LORD into this passage. Either one works, to be honest. Where did the “new cart” (2 Samuel 6:3) come from? Not from the Law; that’s the Philistine way to transport the Ark. (1 Samuel 6:7) David and the people were being careless of how they transported the Ark of the Covenant. But then asked how he could get the Ark to him. (2 Samuel 6:9) It doesn’t formally say that the priests told him to

Is David the king who can unite Israel? (2 Samuel 3:17-18, 36) The writer of Samuel is careful to detail these events playing out in such a way that David's opposition is removed but David himself does not have to act in violence. As David himself puts it, "the LORD… has redeemed  my soul out of all adversity." (2 Samuel 4:9) Although there are factions among the tribes, Israel as a whole wants unity,  of war and division. David endured the jealous aggression of Saul for years without going on the offensive and now God is loosing, ransoming him from the tribulation he's been through while David stands still to see the deliverance of the LORD. (Exodus 14:13)

In addition to being Saul's general, Abner is his cousin. (1 Samuel 14:50) in taking ish-bosheth to a city of Benjamin, Abner is leveraging an old division that was the cause of an earlier civil war in Israel (Judges 20). Ephraim, likewise had grievances reaching back to the days of the Judges (Judges 8). David's kindness to the men of Jabesh-Gilead who buried Saul (1 Samuel 31:16, 2 Samuel 2:5-6) was genuine. Is it not likely that the careful recording of it before this division was strategic?

If the book of Judges ended with a big question mark as to whether a king could unite the nation and get them to observe the Law, the book of 1 Samuel certainly seems to extend that question. Samuel, the last of the judges, has died leaving no suitable successor (1 Samuel 8:5). Saul and his 3 oldest sons have just been killed. David has defected to the Philistines and only recently returned. As far as the people know, the priesthood has been exterminated. Hasn't the whole idea of a monarchy been a disaster? Saul has spent years pursuing the captain of his own army while acting like a madman, and even seeking guidance in necromancy. But things aren't all as they seem. The High Priest's son is still alive, effectively serving as High Priest, giving counsel to David. Even the king of Philistia swears by the LORD's name, while Saul has named a younger son after Baal. (1 Chronicles 8:33)

The extent to which Saul will go in his own desperation is astonishing. Even knowing that David will be king (1 Samuel 24:20, 26:25), even after having repented of pursuing David once, he does so again. Why engage in such a hopeless pursuit? It gets increasingly hopeless, and Saul gets increasingly desperate, as the story continues, to the point at which he is violating his own law (Romans 2:1) and consulting with one who has a familiar spirit because God has abandoned him. At this point Sauls actions mirror the vain efforts of the Devil, while David continues to believe that God is a faithful rewarder of those who who seek Him. (Hebrews 11:6)

In 1 Samuel 24:5, David shows unbelievable restraint that leaves vengeance entirely to the LORD (Deuteronomy 32:35), trusting to His good plan, despite all the adversity he was facing. (See Psalm 57) Then in chapter 25, when David is provoked and is about to take vengeance for himself, God uses Abigail to stop him (1 Samuel 25:33-34) teaching David that when we take matters into our own hand, even against the actions of the fool, innocents suffer. It's a lesson kings greatly need to learn. Do these stories' inclusion in this order hint that David had instructed the writer of the books of Samuel to drive at that point?

Is there no limit to how far Saul will go in rebellion against the Lord? He killed the lineage and family of the High Priest just because he gave food, shelter and a weapon to David. The outcome is that the escaped son of the High Priest becomes the new High Priest and travels with David, giving David a way to inquire of the Lord. Saul's jealous ambition has made him a tyrant worse than those of the surrounding enemy nations. We should fear when we go against the Lord's revealed will: what will be the end of this decision? With nothing to restrain Saul, it got as bad as it could be.

How unstable is Saul at this point? It is shocking when he first attempts to murder David in 1 Samuel 18:11. He tries it again in 1 Samuel 19:9-10. He has his own daughter  afraid to tell him the truth in 1 Samuel 19:17 and makes an attempt to murder his own son in 1 Samuel 20:33, all in an effort to thwart the revealed will of God, compare 1 Samuel 13:14 and 1 Samuel 15:26-28 with 1 Samuel 20:31. There is no one to restrain him and the evil spirit has gained the upper hand over his tormented soul at this point. When he admits he has "played the fool and erred exceedingly" in 1 Samuel 26:21, it is a great understatement. Comparing Saul and Solomon again: "For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere." (James 3:16-17)

Was shepherding a flock better preparation for the battle with Goliath than being a man of war from his youth? In this case, yes. David was a wise interpreter of what had actually happened (1 Samuel 17:37) and did not credit himself for the strength or cunning to defeat the animals. Yet it convinced him that God would deliver him from Goliath; so much so that he predicted what would happen. Saul, by contrast, misinterpreted the people's exaggerations of both his and David's exploits as undervaluing him, ignoring the fact that God was the one who wrought salvation, as he had once observed (1 Samuel 11:13).

What really happened to Saul? In chapters 10 & 11, the Spirit of the Lord came upon him. He prophesied, (1 Samuel 10:9-11);  he acted decisively and courageously (1 Samuel 11:6-7). He was magnanimous in victory. (1 Samuel 11:13) But then he presumptuously offered the sacrifice Samuel was to offer, he made a rash vow that almost resulted in Jonathan's death, and he fell short of full obedience in victory over the Amelekites. Amalek is said to be symbolic of the flesh, a grandson of Esau, (Genesis 36:12), who despised the spiritual birthright, (Genesis 25:34, Hebrews 12:16). God vowed to utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven, Exodus 17:14, and called Saul to be the executor of this judgment. Sauls incomplete obedience is complete disobedience, and shows just how protective we are of the flesh, which we're to make no provision for (Romans 13:14). As 2 Peter 2:20 says, the latter end of someone entangled again and overcome by the flesh is worse than the b

Can you feel the pressure on Saul? I know these stories are meant to build a case against Saul, but to wait for Samuel a week while 30,000 chariots and 6,000 horsemen are gathering against your poorly armed and trembling 3,000 men would be difficult. And Samuel himself was not High Priest (1 Samuel 14:3), although perhaps Samuel brought Ahiah with him. Saul had one wife, (1 Samuel 14:50), in contrast to David's 8+ wives and Solomon's hundreds. Did he write himself a copy of the scriptures as he was commanded? It's hard to forget the great confusion out of which the monarchy arose. The rash vow in 1 Samuel 14:24 and willingness to slay his own son over it is another example of his self centeredness.

What is different between the humility of Saul and the humility of Solomon? Saul protested that he was from the least of the houses of Benjamin, smallest of the tribes, (1 Samuel 9:21) and hid himself among the stuff (1 Samuel 10:22) rather than be anointed king. But God gave him a new heart and changed him into another man. (1 Samuel 10:6). Solomon confessed he felt like a little child and didn't know how to rule, but asked for wisdom, that God's purpose might be fulfilled. God is displeased when our self-doubt causes us to doubt his purposes. It's not a virtuous but a self centered move to hide and resist God's call. It's how Moses angered the Lord in Exodus 4:13.

The people's desire for a king is a rejection of the LORD, (1 Samuel 8:7), but a king was anticipated in the Law (Deuteronomy 17:14-20). Were the people aware of this passage? Was Samuel? God's foreknowledge and previously revealed will against a specific situation He would not have preferred became the avenue of the monarchy out of which Christ was born King of the Jews. (Matthew 2:2)

Do the Philistines have a more authentic understanding of the nature of God than the Israelites at this point? They are ignorant and confused, but Israel thought "it", (not "He"), would save them (1 Samuel 4:3).

 A list of High Priests in 1 Chronicles 6:1-15 does not contain Eli’s name. Is this because of the judgment? Why is the Tabernacle called the Temple (1 Samuel 1:9, 3:3; Tabernacle in 2:22). It's still the period of the Judges. Is Eli serving as both High Priest and Judge? Samuel, as his adopted son, though of Ephrathite heritage, (1 Samuel 1:1), takes over. Samuel will become the last Judge and the first prophet. Is he also High Priest after Eli? What about his biological parents, Elkanah and Hannah? Hannah’s act of faith in giving Samuel to the Lord and her prayer of praise mark her out as unique in this dim period of Israel’s history when there was little new revelation being given. (1 Samuel 3:1) Elkanah’s name means “God has possessed.” The names of his lineage get progressively more meaningful with each generation. Contrast the godly but barren Hannah, accused of drunkenness, with the privileged spiritual leader who allows his progeny to disgrace the office and extort the peop