2 Samuel 11

2 Samuel 11:11

Uriah said to David, "The ask and Israel and Judah are staying in temporary shelters, and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are camping in the open field.  Shall I then go to my house to eat and to drink and to lie with my wife?  By your life and the life of your soul, I will not do this thing."

Here was a man who was too good for his ruler.

Uriah was a Hittite.  As I understand it, Hittites were not descendants of Abraham.  They were foreigners, not Jews, not God's chosen people.  How Uriah came to be in service of David, we do not know.  But he obviously had at some point fully embraced Judaism, since he refers to the Ark here.  I don't think he did that just to score points with David or any such.

Uriah here showed the highest qualities, and utmost devotion to duty.  His comrades are out on the field of battle, but he has been summoned to give a report to the king.  He does so, but even when commanded specifically to go home, he will not indulge in any of the comforts of home life when his comrades cannot.

However, despite his noble deeds and proper mindset, he is not spared from David's treachery.  In this is also an important point:  just because you do everything right, it doesn't mean that you will be spared hardship.  In Uriah's case, that hardship was his own death in battle, through the treachery of his commander and his king.  He was innocent, but still had to face a penalty for David's sin.

2 Samuel 10

2 Samuel 10:5

When they told it to David, he sent to meet them, for the men were greatly humiliated.  And the king said, "Stay at Jericho until your beards grow, and then return."

I'll admit to being curious on how this exactly played out.  How did David find out what had happened?  Did one of their number come ahead to give the bad news, accepting his shame as part of the duty?  Or did they send a messenger ahead; and if so, did they do it because they were embarrassed, or just to get the news to David faster?

As in the previous chapter, David again shows kindness to those who he could lord over.  He could have made them come report in person, regardless of their shame.  He could have gone to see them personally, which would also embarrass them.  But instead he sent word that they could stay away until their beards had grown, restoring their dignity.  He knew what he needed to know, and he didn't need to hear it from them personally to know what needed to be done, nor because his vanity demanded a direct report.

2 Samuel 9

2 Samuel 9:7

David said to him, "Do not fear, for I will surely show kindness to you for the sake of your father Jonathan, and will restore to you all the land of your grandfather Saul; and you shall eat at my table regularly."

This is obviously a great act of mercy by David.  He still remembers his friend Jonathan well, and seeks to have his line maintained.  He is happy to find any descendant of Saul, and here is his friend's son, crippled in a childhood accident, fearing for his life before his grandfather's almost-usurper.  Instead of having him killed, to completely destroy the possibility of a return to the throne, David instead gives him back all that his family had lost, and essentially makes him part of his own family.

One small item forms a question in my head, and that's of logistics.  Did David just take land away from anyone?  If so, did he compensate them for it, or was it just seized?  Or had Saul's property and lands fallen to him as the new king, and he is simply turning them back to the previous owner's heir?

2 Samuel 8

2 Samuel 8:11

King David also dedicated these to the LORD, with the silver and gold that he had dedicated from all the nations which he had subdued:

This is one area where David did very well.  When he defeated an enemy, he took at least some of the plunder, and dedicated it to God.  He did not keep it all to enrich his treasury, or as spoils for his troops.  He gave God the reward for his victories, at least in part.  We don't know how much overall he dedicated, whether it was a percentage or the entirety.  But when tribute was given him for his victories, this he appears to have dedicated in full.

One thing I wonder, and this is somewhat random:  what does it mean to dedicate this stuff to God?  Was metalwork displayed in the tabernacle, to proclaim God's sovereignty over the vanquished?  Was it melted down and used to make new instruments for the tabernacle?  Was it turned into money, to enrich the tabernacle's treasury?  I wonder...

2 Samuel 7

2 Samuel 7:7

Wherever I have gone with all the sons of Israel, did I speak a word with one of the tribes of Israel, which I commanded to shepherd My people, saying 'Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?'"'

This is one of those verses that really puts God's priorities in perspective for me.  He is the creator and ruler of all that has ever been created, and all that ever will be known.  He has the right to every cubic nanometer of the cosmos, to do with as He pleases.  He could have however amazing a temple He chooses.  He could arrange all the galaxies in the universe, and all the systems in those galaxies, to each spell out "God made this.  It is his."

But he doesn't.  He's perfectly content for his point of temporal manifestation to be around a metal-covered box, kept inside a tent where no one sees it.  In the modern context, He doesn't care about a huge, ornate building, where everyone can come in a gawk.  He cares about how we connect with Him, not where we do it, or what the connection location looks like.  Such things will disappear, but our connection to Him will last forever.  Try to have a good connection point, one that is not anchored in this world in any way.

2 Samuel 6

2 Samuel 6:8

David became angry because of the LORD'S outburst against Uzzah, and that place is called Perez-uzzah to this day.

I'm not sure why David became angry here.  I see two possibilities.  The first is that he was angry at Uzzah for doing something wrong, namely touching the Ark.  But if this was the case, then David was at least partially angry with the wrong person, because the Ark should never have been on that cart to begin with.  No cart, no problem, no dead guy.

The other possibility is that he was angry with God, for striking Uzzah down.  If this is the case, then David was still wrong.  God makes the rules, and Uzzah broke them.  If h expects God to be holy and perfect, he can't tolerate anything impure being near him.  Uzzah contaminated the Ark, and had to go.

Come to think of it, there is a third possibility.  David could have been angry at the land itself, for being in such poor shape that is caused the cart to have troubles.  If so, God renounced that curse, quickly, and blessed the one who lived there when Ark was interesting.

2 Samuel 5

2 Samuel 5:13

Meanwhile David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came from Hebron; and more sons and daughters were born to David.

Power corrupts.

Here is, in my opinion, the true beginning of David's downfall.  He already had several wives at this point, but that was not unusual for men of authority in the time.  However, here we begin to see the start of David's insatiable sexual appetite.  Wives could be explained as a means to have more children, and further enlarge his family (now dynasty).  But when concubines are thrown in, this points to David having a sexual hunger that is not to be contained.  He can basically have sex with his pick of women, whenever he wants.

This is the flaw that will lead the the Bathsheba incident later, and the first cracks in that flaw are now showing.

2 Samuel 4

2 Samuel 4:11

How much more, when wicked men have killed a righteous man in his own house on his bed, shall I not now require his blood from your hand and destroy you from the earth?"

David had already shown his requirement for the evildoers to pay for their crimes, when he had executed the man who had claimed to kill Saul.  Here he shows that the new king has not changed in this regard.  To kill a man in battle is one thing, but to assassinate an man who is not doing anything against you currently is not acceptable.

Also, it is interesting that David labels Ish-bosheth to be a righteous man.  He was the son of Saul, who David has partially succeeded as king.  But Ish-bosheth has a better claim in secular terms, since he is Saul's heir.  He was doing what he thought was right, to hold the kingdom together and maintain the royal line.  David does not fault him for that, and in fact commends him.

2 Samuel 3

2 Samuel 3:7

Now Saul had a concubine whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah; and Ish-bosheth said to Abner, "Why have you gone in to my father's concubine?"

I'm a bit confused about what's happening here.  I see two major possibilities.  First, Abner did take Saul's concubine, which could be seen as a maneuver to lay claim to the throne.  Take the late king's wife, you take some of his prestige.  In that case, Ish-bosheth is asking a serious question, and Abner gets defensive.  If this is true, then Abner is really just a scheming opportunist in going over to David.

The other possibility is that nothing happened, and Ish-bosheth is making false accusations.  I'd assume that he would do this because he is fearful of Abner's rising influence, and is resorting to a tactic that he hopes will force Abner to back down, or at least lose face among the people.  If this is true, then Abner now knows that he can't trust Ish-bosheth, and therefore goes to David as someone who has dealt honorably.

2 Samuel 2

2 Samuel 2:27

Joab said, "As God lives, if you had not spoken, surely then the people would have gone away in the morning, each from following his brother."

I'll admit, I'm confused by this.  What Abner had said made sense, that this pursuit couldn't end well.  The way things were going, Joab's people were going to annihilate Abner's.

But what is Joab saying here?  It sounds like he's saying Abner's wasted his breath, that the chase would've ended in the morning anyhow.  But he then goes and ends it now, so what's the point?

I only have one guess on the reason here:  Joab is actually saying that Abner's force would not have survived the night, and Joab's people would have gone home after a very bloody victory, having killed their kinsmen.  By speaking when he did, Abner saved his people.

2 Samuel 1

2 Samuel 1:16

David said to him, "Your blood is on your head, for your mouth has testified against you, saying, 'I have killed the Lord's anointed.'"

David does not see this man's being killed as a murder.  Rather, it is a lawful execution.  He has confessed to regicide, and David carries out sentence.  No guilt, or particular anger.  His life was forfeit, and that was that.

Except, he lied about the whole thing.  The last chapter of 1 Samuel says Saul fell in battle, not by someone's hand on his own side to spare him.  And the way this is phrased, I wonder if David may have known or suspected that?  Might he have known that Saul would not turn to a stranger to kill him (he did to his armor bearer, though)?  Or maybe the man tried to recant, but it was too late?

Either way, I would term it a "bad shoot," though I don't know if it would then be murder.  My mental jury's still out on that one, assuming I'm guessing correctly that David knew or suspected.