2 Samuel 21

2 Samuel 21:4

Then the Gibeonites said to him, "We have no concern of silver or gold with Saul or his house, nor is it for us to put any man to death in Israel."  And he said, "I will do for you whatever you say."

I'm not sure I'm reading this correctly, because I can't match what this says with what the Gibeonites ask for shortly afterwards.  How I see this, it appears that they are saying that they don't hold a grudge against Saul or his family for what happened to them.  I would interpret "no concern of" to be roughly "no interest in," and this matches the fact that they don't ask for any money from David.

What doesn't match so well is them saying that it's not for them to kill anyone, and then ask for seven men to be hung.  Are they saying they do not hold the power of life or death, and that is what David offers them?  If so, it's not obvious to me.  I read it as meaning they don't want to kill anyone, that they don't feel it's their place to take lives for the lives of their kinsmen.  Perhaps I'm wrong, and my earlier wondering is correct.

2 Samuel 20

2 Samuel 20:21

Such is not the case.  But a man from the hill country of Ephraim, Sheba the son of Bichri by name, has lifted up his hand against King David.  Only hand him over, and I will depart from the city."  And the woman said to Joab, "Behold, his head will be thrown to you over the wall."

I have to admit I'm somewhat confused by this exchange.  The woman wants to know why an army from Judah is besieging her city.  She doesn't know why?  Sheba publicly denounced the king, got all the other tribes to turn their backs on David, then flees to this town.  This army shows up and starts attacking the wall, and the people don't know why?

Is he in hiding so deep that they didn't know he was there?  If so, how did they find him to kill him?  If he's not hiding, is he so much a nobody that he was just another anonymous person?  If so, how was he important enough to draw attention in the first place?  I wouldn't think that just anyone can say "let's go" and almost the entire nation would.

I guess another possibility is that she thought that because they had harbored Sheba, the army had come to punish the entire city.  She came to plead for mercy, and when she learned they were not all doomed, they "extradited" him as requested.

2 Samuel 19

2 Samuel 19:30

Mephibosheth said to the king, "Let him even take it all, since my lord the king has come safely to his own house."

Mephibosheth is a very interesting fellow.  He started the grandson of the king, but because of an accident as a baby was crippled.  He grows up lame, unable to walk, and then his entire family is killed in battle.  I'm not sure what the succession would be, but he could very well have been the legal heir.  However, he would never have been able to hold the throne in that time, unable to walk.  Yet David does not purge the house when he is given the kingdom.  Instead, he raises Mephibosheth up to be virtually a member of his family.

Then comes the flight from Jerusalem, and David learns that Mephibosheth has betrayed him.  He thinks Absalom will restore him to his former dignities.  One servant is still loyal, and brings David supplies along with the news, to which David rewards the man by giving all Mephibosheth's property to him.  But when the fight is over and David returns, he learns the servant may have been lying.  Now David doesn't seem to know who to believe, so he orders the property divided between the two.

I personally think Mephibosheth was telling the truth, for two reasons.  First, he was in mourning the entire time David was away.  He did not care for his feet, or hair, or clothes while David was gone.  Second, he is willing to let cede everything, since David is safe.  He valued David over his own property.  Sounds like a loyal guy to me.

2 Samuel 18

2 Samuel 18:29

The king said, "Is it well with the young man Absalom?"  And Ahimaaz answered, "When Joab sent the king's servant, and your servant, I saw a great tumult, but I did not know what it was."

When Ahimaaz asked to run and deliver the news, Joab told him no, because the Absalom was dead.  He knew David would not like this news, and sent another to deliver it.  I guess Ahimaaz was favored by the king, and Joab feared this news would sour that relationship?  But that's a side note.  What's interesting here is that Ahimaaz lied to David.  Or at least, hid the truth as he had been told it.

Ahimaaz had been told by Joab that Absalom was dead.  He knows the answer to David's question.  Yet he dodges the question.  Ahimaaz probably hadn't been personally there to see Absalom was dead, so he probably didn't lie.  He says there was a great commotion, but didn't know exactly what caused it.  Yet he knew a consequence of the tumult.  He lied (by omission at minimum) to the king, and that must be noted.

2 Samuel 17

2 Samuel 17:8

Moreover, Hushai said, "You know your father and his men, that they are mighty men and they are fierce, like a bear robbed of her cubs in the field.  And your father is an expert in warfare, and will not spend the night with the people.

This is an interesting piece of reverse psychology by Hushai, to use Absalom's own respect for David's capabilities against him.  Absalom's doubtless grown up hearing about the amazing things David did.  He fought battles where he bested opponents single-handed, and also led armies.  He was also cunning enough to evade Saul when he had tried to kill David.  So of course David's most loyal men would not run in fear when outnumbered, and he would not be caught unawares by a surprise attack.  This all makes perfect sense to Absalom.

However, it appears he's wrong on most of those assessments.  From what happens later, it appears that David was staying with his men, or at least very close to them.  He certainly appears he wasn't holed up in a defensible cave.  So with that having been disproven, was Hushai also lying about teh courage of David's remaining followers?  Would they have broken when confronted with overwhelming odds?

2 Samuel 16

2 Samuel 16:32

The advice of Ahithophel, which he gave in those days, was as if one inquired of the word of God; so was all the advice of Ahithophel regarded by both David and Absalom.

So, whose side is Ahithophel on here?  It sounds like he's definitely transferred his loyalty to Absalom.  However, he's giving wise council, just like he did to David.  Does this mean that he is just wise to the king, whoever that may be?  Or is he being used by God?

If he's being used by God, why would God give Absalom good advice?  David is the proper king, and God should guide him as such.  Absalom is a usurper, and should not have God's favor.  Yet here is an adviser giving the same advice regardless of who's on the throne.  Does this mean that God actually did favor Absalom?  Did He not care?  Or did He simply allow Ahithophel to carry on, knowing that it would all come to nothing?

2 Samuel 15

2 Samuel 15:1

Now it came about after this that Absalom provided for himself a chariot and horses and fifty men as runners before him.

This man has gone gone from being exiled, to allowed to return home but estranged from his father, to just having been allowed into his father's presence.  Now, having just been through all that, he's decided that he's going to make a big display of himself.  Not content to return things to how they were, he now starts acting like a ruler himself.

I can understand why he would think David isn't fit to rule, if he was supposed to have punished Amnon but didn't.  However, he's just had a brush with ignominy.  He should either be dead, or at least exiled for life.  He's brought back by his father's grace, and now he's making a play for the throne.  He has learned nothing from all that has transpired, especially about mercy.

2 Samuel 14

2 Samuel 14:14

For we will surely die and are like water spilled on the ground which cannot be gathered up again.  Yet God does not take away life, but plans ways so that the banished one will not be cast out from him.

Several interesting things happening in this verse.  First, we have what I think of as the "life is short" statement.  We don't live long, and once we've done something, you can't take it back.  But then it contrasts that with God's ability, and how He doesn't want us to do wrong, and does whatever He can to bring us back to Him.  This is an excellent pre-reference to Christ, and how he would enable us to return.

Also, I find it interesting that God here is not the LORD (Yahweh) that might otherwise be used.  I don't know which term is used here, but it makes me wonder if this woman was an Israelite.  Given how the text is missing the capitals, she is obviously using a different word.  Is it just one of the other words for God, that fits the situation better?  Or is it a term for a god in general, and not the God?  I don't know, and it makes me curious.

2 Samuel 13

2 Samuel 13:39

The heart of King David longed to go out to Absalom; for he was comforted concerning Amnon, since he was dead.

I'm confused by this verse.  It sounds like David wanted Amnon dead already, but didn't/couldn't.  Now that he is dead, he is willing to forgive the murderer.  Am I missing something?  If that is the case, why didn't he deal with Amnon himself?

Is this the love of a father, no matter what the son has done?  Or is this him feeling guilty for not handling the matter himself?  I guess it could also be relief that the disturbing family incident was resolved, in the only matter it could ultimately be resolved.  Maybe he was comforted because he hadn't had the resolve to have one of his own sons executed--for raping his daughter--and now justice had been done.  I'll admit, I don't have a clue what was going through David's head at this time.  I don't have the frame of reference to base an analysis on.

2 Samuel 12

2 Samuel 12:6

He must make restitution for the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing and had no compassion."

This verse is fairly well-known in the story, because it signifies how angry David was at the rich man in the story.  He not only had to pay back the lamb, but there was what we would now call "punitive damages" because of how much he had, how little the poor man had, and how much the poor man loved the lamb.

But let's put the story into the real events.  How could David have paid back Uriah's death?  He can't give something, for a human life is not a specific value.  He could not give himself, because he already had what he wanted (Uriah's wife).  So what could he have done that would have been worth that fourfold restitution?

In the end, God decided the life of the child was forfeit.  This does bother me, for it's not the child's fault he was born to unfaithful parents.  Yet the child had to be the one to pay.  I guess this does kind of mirror the way I've always been...not uncomfortable with Chrit's death for us, but I can't think of a better word right now.  Yet I think there are differences, given one is the "illegitimate" son of a king, and the other is part of the Trinity that made all creation.  But it still doesn't seem right to me that the child pays the price.