2 Samuel 2; Psalm 107; Romans 11

 June 7: As Psalm 107 concludes, “Whoso is wise, and will observe these things, even they shall understand the lovingkindness of the LORD.” In the end, that’s the most important thing for me to glean from these three passages: that, in contrast to my desire to understand history as a way to better understand what’s coming, it’s better for me to understand history as a (another) way to understand God. It takes wisdom to see God’s mercy and wisdom in accounts that can sometimes appear to be brutal and senseless. I know that He is all-wise, all-powerful and merciful. I need HIs divine interpretation of events to help me see how the plan worked out according to that kindness.

2 Samuel 2: Things could’ve gone very differently in Israel’s history. What if Saul’s son Ish-bosheth had ultimately reigned over all Israel instead of David? What if tribes or groups of tribes had their own king, like David over Judah and Ish-bosheth over Gad, Asher, Ephraim, Issachar, (Jezreel), and Benjamin. The beginning of the end for Abner and Ish-bosheth is the battle in this chapter, in which David’s side loses only 19 and Abner loses 360, but the custom of meeting in a camp and getting the young men to “play before us” (v. 14) is strange. Was it meant to be a proxy battle? What went wrong: was it that everyone who participated died, and so it was indecisive, or was it supposed to be non-lethal wrestling that turned into each man stabbing his adversary? For me, a key part of the ongoing story of David is that he still has Abiathar, and still seeks the Lord’s counsel through him.

Psalm 107:23-43: How does today’s division of this Psalm differ from the previous half? It describes natural calamity that is possibly not connected to iniquity on the part of the seafaring businessmen. (vv. 23-32) Here’s another example to remind us to seek God, even if we’re not conscious of any sin; He invites us to appeal to Him and we should praise Him for deliverance. In situations where a fruitful land goes barren, we should first consider if there is wickedness He is punishing. He is willing to take care of the hungry and oppressed. He is able to pour contempt and bring confusion on the powerful and wealthy. One day when we have divine interpretation for all His acts in the world, the righteous will be made wise and rejoice, and the wicked will have nothing more to say.

Romans 11:17-36: In what sense are “the gifts and calling of God without repentance” if we see that not all Israel was ever Israel, the natural branches are broken off and set aside, judicial blindness is given to Israel, and it’s possible for the newly grafted-in branches to be cut off just as Israel was? Belief is the sign that the gift has been given, and at that point, it is irrevocable. The call is never retracted, though there are many who turn a blind eye to it. The severity of God to those who fell is corporate, not individual, as is the threat to cut off. As another analogy, we're surrounded by dead churches, which used to be vibrant, earnestly seeking the Lord. Did individuals lose their gift of salvation? Not at all, but they died natural deaths and were gradually replaced with apostates. Did God retract His call to salvation? Not at all: it’s still “let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely,” (Revelation 22:17).