Well, welcome again to this particular Thursday evening in this session. We are going to be spending a portion at least of the first session up to the break finishing off the books of Samuel. Second Samuel have a few more comments I wanted to make about them. Then I'll give you an opportunity to ask questions. And then we will begin on our main topic of the evening and that is a discussion of the book, The Art of Biblical History, by some unknown unnamed author. Before we do that, however, we want to begin with prayer and commit this time to the Lord. So would you pray with me please. Father, we thank you that you are here with us even as you are with us throughout the day and in every place in every way. We thank you that you are a God who has demonstrated love to us even before we love you and we pray that our hearts would respond in gratitude for the grace that you have shown us and that we would love you more each day as we learn to rest in that grace. Father, thank you for each student here. Thank you for the interest and enthusiasm for you and for your word that is demonstrated by the attendance of a student in a class like this which is certainly not mandatory. Lord, I pray that you would be with us tonight. Help us to learn from your word. Help us to be gripped anew with the truth of what you have to teach us and may you turn our hearts to you in a new way that we would want to obey and would respond to the work of your spirit in our lives. Lord, help us as we seek to learn further from the life of David in 2 Samuel and help us also as we consider matters relating to the history of the Bible and its historicity, matters of such singular importance. And we pray this in Jesus name, amen. Okay, when last we met we were into 2 Samuel, we were into the 2nd portion of 2 Samuel. If you recall we had begun on the outline in title 2 Samuel 11 to 24, David's sin and its consequences and that's where we want to pick up. We had already talked I think about sin and reconciliation, that is we had talked about 2 Samuel 11 and 12, 11 recounting sin, David's sin with Bathsheba and against her husband Yeraya against both of them really. And we had also seen the Lord's justice and his mercy in chapter 12 as Nathan confronted David with his sin. We come now to a section entitled sin and incomplete reconciliation and forgive me if we I don't think we got there last time, that's about where we stopped I think. So that's where we want to pick up and I want to begin by simply asking a question you know sometimes as we get older and older we find ourselves saying things like the old folk as such as the old folk is used to say when we were young what's wrong with kids these days. Sometimes I find myself asking that question that might be a title to chapters 13 to 18 this whole section that deals with the family life of David and with David's children. What's wrong with kids these days? Perhaps part of the answer might be to give these chapters another title that is the sins of the fathers visited on the children, the sins of the fathers visited on the children. I do think last time we mentioned that terrible scene in chapter 13 the rape of Tamar by her half brother Amnon. After that we noticed I believe I sometimes forget exactly what we know what we've talked about but I believe we also talked about David's reaction. How did David react in 2 Samuel 13 verse 21 you might want to turn there with me this may be actually where we finally concluded last time when King David heard all this he was furious. When King David heard what Amnon had done to Tamar he was furious and apparently did nothing. And so verse 22 of chapter 13 amps absolute never set a word to Amnon either good or bad this can only be interpreted as a stony silence he hated Amnon because he had disgraced his sister. Verse 23 two years later when Absalom's sheep her sheep herders were at Bail Hotsor near the border of Ephraim he invited all the King's sons to come and included in this was an invitation for Amnon. And it was on this occasion that Absalom found it possible to justify or to defend the honor of his sister by killing Amnon. Was this a right thing for Absalom to do? I don't think so but you can see in a way how he was in part driven to it by David's inaction. David was furious at Amnon's violation of Tamar and that is understandable that he took no action is certainly not understandable. As we go on as we move on into chapter 14 we will discover that this very inaction on David's part begins to compound the problem that had begun with his sin. Chapter 14 I have entitled doing wrong by halfway resolving it's not a very elegant title but doing wrong by resolving a conflict only halfway not a complete resolution. Absalom returned to Jerusalem after a time in exile but he was not restored to David in chapter 14 verses 23 and 24. We read this then Joab went to Geshear and brought Absalom back but the King said he must go to his house he must not see my face so Absalom went to his own house and did not see the face of the King. Now after a while this becomes rather unbearable for Absalom and so he demands to see the King in verse 32. Absalom said to Joab look I sent word to you and said come here so I can send you to the King to ask why have I come from Geshear? It would be better for me if I were still there now then I want to see the King's face and if I am guilty of anything let him put me to death. Now we don't know whether Absalom intended this sincerely as if he really felt he was guilty of nothing it may have been that he felt that he could defend himself or David to charge him with wrongdoing because he could say well well King father King should you not have done what I then ultimately had to do because you didn't do it I had to take the law in my own hands. We don't know what he would actually have said or that have to have been the case. Well Joab does engineer a meeting with the King in verse 33. Joab went to the King and told him this then the King summoned Absalom and he came in and bowed down with his face to the ground before the King and the King kissed Absalom. Now sometimes we learn in scripture something from what is not said as well as from what is said what do you find lacking here if indeed something is lacking? What would you expect to have taken place if you know obviously accounts are abbreviated in the scripture or each episode in an individual's life would take chapter after chapter to record all this that was said. But what is missing here yes. Confession or repentance on whose part either one of them the answer is what we're looking for some kind of confession repentance forgiveness given on the part of either David or Absalom preferably both because in fact both had been wrong and we look for some reconciliation some heart to heart talk some coming to an understanding and a mutual forgiveness of one another when they have both been wrong now we don't we don't hear any of that again arguments from silence are notoriously weak arguments we have to be very dangerous arguments at least. But I think in terms of the aftermath what begins to happen after this I think we can assume that David simply kissed Absalom and really didn't want to talk about it. And Absalom didn't have a chance to really go through it and to work it out verbally. Okay you want to see my face you want to come back you want to be able to be in the palace fine David gives him a kiss and with that as it were sweeps the whole thing under the rug. But stuff that we sweep under the rug makes a little lump and eventually can become very uncomfortable. It's always dangerous and that's in fact what happens in this particular instance in the next section as we get to second Samuel 15 to 18 which deals with Absalom's rebellion and death if you see on your outline. We see in Absalom's conspiracy toward David a man of God in trouble and I'm speaking not of Absalom but David David is a man of God he is now in trouble and notice what the issue is. What is it that is bothering Absalom so much what is the issue that he brings to the people who noticed in chapter 15 really in verses I think two and four and six that section right there. What does Absalom do? Yes okay he basically accuses the king of not taking care of business in terms of justice. Notice that justice is the issue that he really brings to the people in verse two he would he would get up early and stand by the side of the road leading to the city whenever anyone came with the complaint to the place before to be placed before the king for a decision that is for judgment. Some of your translations may say for judgment or for justice mishpot is the word from which we get it's a noun derived from the word to judge the complaint to be placed before the king for judgment. Absalom would call out to him what town are you from and he would answer your servant is from one of the tribes of Israel now that servants were not being evasive here this is a very interesting instance of the way in which historical accounts are told. The narrator rather than filling in a particular tribe as each of the different individuals addressed by Absalom would have done one would have said well I'm from Naftily and another one would have said well I'm from Zebulin another one would have said I'm from Simeon perhaps the narrator simply says that he would answer I'm from such and such a tribe. Okay and some of your translations may even say that I am from such and such a tribe and we mess ourselves up a little bit by putting all that in direct quotation marks in our English Bibles there it was not exactly the same kind of direct quotation in the Hebrew Bible. So they would answer well I'm from this or that tribe and then Absalom would respond in verse three look your claims are valid. Now we don't even know if he if he heard them yet but your claims are valid and proper but there is no representative of the king to hear you in other words you're coming to a king under whose authority justice is not done. Verse four in Absalom would add if only I were appointed judge in the land then everyone who has a complaint or case could come to me and I would see that he gets justice. Just remember what I did am not you know justice does not elude my grasp and so I think that David's failure and I do think it was a failure to be furious a wrong thing had been done. He was in a position to act as king and did not do so that contributed to the offenses of Absalom for which Absalom also is responsible. Now Absalom then launches a rebellion in this way and many come out to follow Absalom David is forced to free to flee from Jerusalem and even a hit the fell who had been one of David's advisors joins Absalom's conspiracy. Did anyone notice who a hit the fell is or did this is one of those curious little bits of Bible trivia why would a hit the fell possibly have sided with Absalom rather than staying with David does anyone have a clue on that one kind of interesting little bit of sleuth work you can do. Again the text doesn't tell us directly but we get some information in the text. Well look at chapter 11 verse 3 and chapter 23 verse 34. I heard someone say it okay Bathsheba's grandfather now let's let's look at this in 11 3 it says David sent someone to find out about her that is Bathsheba. The man said isn't this Bathsheba the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the hit type so we know that Bathsheba was the daughter of Eliam. Now look at chapter 23 verse 34 this is in the account of David's mighty men and among the 30 chapter 20 23 verse 34 we read. Eli fell at son of Ahas by the machhat bite who that's tough Eliam son of a hit the fell the Gila Knight. We don't know for sure but probably this is the same a hit the fell which would make a hit the fell Bathsheba's grandfather and so what David had done to Bathsheba and to Uriah having Uriah killed disrupting the family and so forth might have seemed indeed. Indeed an injustice to a hit the fell thus prompting him to side with Absalom yeah you're you're worried about justice think about me think what we've gone through and so a hit the fell joins in the rebellion as David is forced to flee from Jerusalem. Flea for his life a number of things happen he is cursed in chapter 16 by Shime David is now a man of God in trouble but notice how he responds look at chapter 16 verse 10. Shime is is cursing David and throwing stones at him and dust at him as he's coming out of the city and David's men want to want to kill him in verse 9. Why should this why should this dead dog curse my Lord the king let me go over and cut off his head how dare he but the king said verse 10. What do what do you and I have in common you sons of zero if he is cursing because the Lord said to him curse David who can ask why do you do that why do you do this. Then said to Abishai and all his officials my son who is of my own flesh is trying to take my life how much more than this Benjaminite leave him alone let him curse for the Lord has told him to it may be that the Lord will see my distress and repay me with good for the curse. Cursing I am receiving today David understands in a sense that though the specific charge that Shime is levelling against him is incorrect that David has been wrong has done wrong and thus he receives the curse he trusts God and simply makes a theological issue out of it. I'm saying I've got to defend myself go over and kill him he says it may be that the Lord will see my distress and in verse 11 leave him alone let him curse for the Lord has told him to do so. Yes Bill why does he ultimately counsel Solomon to kill him a very good question which comes up in first Kings chapter 2 which we will reserve for then we will address that question then but why does he and not only Shime but also Joab. A difficult individual in David's estimation look also at chapter 15 verse 26 as another example of how David responds to difficulty in verse 25 15 25 the king says to Zadok now Zadok has come out from Jerusalem carrying the ark of the covenant and they set down the ark of God and Abiyath are offered sacrifices until all the people had finished leaving the city. Then the king said to Zadok take the ark of God back into the city Zadok tried to rescue it and bring it so that David would have the benefit of the ark and that visible representation of the presence of God with him but David says to Zadok take the ark of God back into the city if I find favor in the Lord's eyes he will bring me back and let me see it and his dwelling place again. But if he says I am not pleased with you then I am ready let him do to me whatever seems good to him now what does that remind you of what individual and the books of Samuel said something similar to that Eli remember Eli said it is the Lord let him do what is right in his own eyes and at that time we talked about the fact that this is perhaps a pattern for how an individual should respond. How an individual should respond when God says you're disqualified from this particular role from this particular ministry you need to step aside the right response is to say it is the Lord let him do what is right in his own eyes or as David says here let him do to me whatever seems good to him it's his prerogative God is sovereign we're all sinful we don't deserve anything from his hand. Step aside then our right response is to say right Lord I'll step aside and let you rebuild my world in whatever way you may seem appropriate but if I am disqualified in some way I accept that from your hands we don't always see that in our world around us often we see people trying to reestablish themselves get back re-attained their ministry in Christian circles we need to be aware of that. It's also very important for the interpretation of the books of Samuel because we need to see how Eli responded and even more so how David responded in order rightly to assess how Saul responded we talked a lot about Saul's unwillingness to let go his continuing to hang on to what was no longer his defensiveness of himself and that's an indication that Saul's heart was not really in tune with God. David's is David has sinned grievously and he cast himself on the Lord he's a man of God in trouble but he cast himself on the Lord. Contrast with this as we move on in chapter 18 Absalom as you know dies by the way let that be a warning to you Absalom took great pride in what? Think about it took pride in his hair not a good idea speaking as one who knows not a good idea and his hair was his downfall you guys be careful those of you with the first stuff on top be careful the hair can be your downfall. His head was entangled in a tree and he was left dangling their helpless he used to weigh his hair when you get a haircut he was so proud of that stuff he would even weigh it up each year. It was ultimately his downfall and while he was hanging there helpless Joe ab killed him notice however what he left behind. If David was a man of God in trouble I would say that Absalom is a man without God and it's interesting to see what a man without God leaves behind look at chapter 18 verses 16 to 18. Then Joe ab sounded to trumpet and the troops stopped pursuing Israel for Joe ab halted them they took Absalom through him into a big pit in the forest and piled up a large heap of rocks over him. We saw him in the book of Joshua a number of heaps of rocks that almost stood as memorials for significant events in the history of Israel this may be another large heap of rock we doesn't say it's there to this day but they piled a large heap of rocks over him. Meanwhile all the Israelites fled to their homes now this is not the only rock that commemorates Absalom however during his lifetime Absalom had taken a pillar and erected it in the King's Valley as a monument to himself for he thought I have no son to carry on the memory of my name. He named the pillar after himself and it is called Absalom's monument to this day that is to the time at which this account is being written. A man without God seeks at best to leave behind monuments to himself this to kind of recalls something that Saul had done back in 1 Samuel 15 when Samuel was going out to try to find Saul. He was told well Saul has gone down to Gilgal and different Gilgal and has erected a monument there a monument to himself. And so we see that there's a great contrast between those who are really seeking to follow and submit their wills to God and those who are simply working their way through life trying to leave some mark behind. But God leave the mark let it be God's mark don't erect monuments to ourselves. Well that is a brief description of Absalom's rebellion and death when we come to chapters 19 and 20 we have the restoration of David's reign. He is after the death of Absalom though he laments Absalom's death almost to the point that he loses his men finally Joe have has to call him pull him up short and say look David if you keep if you keep lamenting the death of Absalom who was out to kill you what is that going to say to those men who risk their lives to defend you. And so he convinces David that he had better fix himself up and take charge again and not be so distraught forever and he does so and his reign is restored and have a comment in the back. Right what do we make of that when when Absalom has erected this monument saying I have no son to carry on the memory of my name the two theories that have been propounded relating to that are either that David had children which were in some way lost or as seems more likely he erected this monument prior to the birth of those children which then followed him. There's nothing more specific really that I think we can say to that other than that kind of thing would not have gone unnoticed by those who were the historiographers of Israel had they seen it as an out and out contradiction they would have been troubled as well by it and probably done something about it so I would say it's one of those two options yes. Right right the question I probably forgot to repeat the question a minute ago but the question was if I have some erect some monument because he had no children what do we make of the mention of the children which in fact he did have and the follow-up question is is it significant that the children were not named possibly possibly that would indicate that they died at a rather young age and thus never themselves made much of a mark and thus their names are not recorded. These kinds of things commentaries talk about and think about but I'm not sure that much more can be said than that yes another question right right okay if I can summarize that briefly I think the question was is it is it certain that I lost my train of thought here. What was your first point because I. Right okay I got you yeah the question was is it certain that David was not it was in general not. Doling out justice to the people or was it just absolute problem might that problem had been immediately rated if absent had been given some responsibility thus assured that yeah there's going to be a place for you in my kingdom absolute you are fully restored and so forth might he not have made so much trouble possibly I do think that this was absolute problem maybe more so than David's back in chapter 8 back before all this happened in David's life in 815 second Samuel 815 we had in the summary of David's reign to that point that David reigned over all Israel doing what was just and right for all his people so David was a good king who reigned justly and rightly at least at that stage and we can assume that he had the interest of the people at heart it does however seem that in the familial sphere with his family for whatever reason perhaps a sense of guilt that he continued to carry even though God had forgiven him for his sin as he sees his child doing something not unlike what he had done he was unwilling to maybe do what he should have done as not only as father but particularly as king and thus it became an issue with absolute this issue of justice so I don't think we want to broaden and say David was an unjust king far and wide but it certainly was a sore point with absolute and he used it to launch his rebellion. Well as David's kingdom is restored it might be of interest to just think over what this whole section leading up to the restoration David's back on the throne what is this all tell us well I think it tells us something about the debilitating effects of sin we talk a lot about being under God's grace and yes indeed we are if we're believers and those who trust him we are his children by adoption we didn't earn it we don't preserve it by our good
behavior or anything like that we are his unconditionally by his unconditional love does that mean that sin has no effect that there are not debilitating effects to sin I think not I think that our sins still wreak havoc in our lives it's not that sin is inconsequential it is there is no merit in good works because even if we've done our duty we are only only worthless servants to God we can never merit God's grace. However as those who are recipients of God's grace and recipients of his word we need to realize that he has given us commands and instructions for our good and so there are debilitating effects when we sin and we see this in Solomon in David's life with his sons we talked about M nun David was furious didn't intervene however Absalom his inability to reconcile fully with Absalom allowed Absalom then to launch this rebellion and then we will discover perhaps most striking of all when we come to first King's chapter one right at the beginning of that no anticipate a little bit at the beginning of that book we have another son of David by the name of Adonija who launches a bid for the throne it's not a rebellion because David is old and he's about to die and Adonija thinks well maybe this is my moment I will make a bid for the throne and so he does so and he gets his chariots and horses ready with 50 men to run ahead of him reminiscent of what Absalom had done and then in verse 6 the narrator in an unusual way breaks frame and tells us something parenthetically now there are no parentheses in Hebrew either but you can tell it's a parenthetical comment that the narrator is making and he says directly his father had never interfered with him by saying why do you behave as you do he was also very handsome and was born next after Absalom sort of an ominous association to be compared with Absalom and called him handsome which Absalom also was but notice how it says his father never interfered with him by saying why do you act as you do now what was the problem there again I think David must have felt somehow that he had lost the moral high ground and thus could not question Adonija either that or simply a weakness on his part that he was an absentee father and didn't really pay much attention to his children but be that as it may it was a it was a singular failure on his part not to take some kind of interest in his child and then not to offer some kinds of correctives in the lives of his children the lesson to us is don't look at our children see our weaknesses and our frailties and say because I'm weak and frail I'm not even going to be God's instrument of change and correction in your life too wrongs don't make a right because that's been a weakness for me is no reason that I should propagate that weakness in my child we need to ask God to make us adequate not overly strict not overly permissive to find the right balance that will discipline a child in love the way God disciplines us he doesn't he doesn't hammer us but he does take an active concern in what we're doing and where we are David I think had a problem partially stemming and again we're psychoanalyzing a little bit here which is always dangerous but possibly stemming from his own past and a little bit of a lack of ability to just say all right I did wrong but I'm not going to allow that to can make me continue to do wrong in the lives of my children now his house stood under a curse Nathan had said the sword will never depart from your house and what you have done in secret your son will do in broad daylight and absolute did and so there was that aspect as well that must have weighed heavily upon David but still even there David should have done what was right in each circumstance David was not only I think weak with his sons but I think he was weak as he himself admits in dealing with Joab Joab was responsible for the murder of Absalom in 1814 in direct contradiction to what David had instructed him to do David Joab was also responsible for the murder of Amasa in 20 chapter 20 verses 8 to 10 but David leaves it to Solomon to deal with these individuals if they needed to be dealt with David should have done it in chapter 3 verse 39 David makes sense that well known statement and today though I am anointed king I am weak and these sons of Zeroliah are too strong for me admits there to being weak perhaps overly gentle and these sons of Zeroliah are too harsh or too strong for me there were some debilitating effects even in the life of David of his son now we come to the epilogue I will talk a little bit about that and then we will stop and ask if there are some questions on these books of Samuel in the epilogue we have which comprises chapters 21 to 24 we have one of the more curious sections in the book and people have wondered what is going on here because these particular episodes don't seem to be chronologically arranged and yet there does seem to be some kind of conscious arrangement that is going on here let me write up on the board for you one way in which this section has been analyzed we have talked before about how in the biblical narratives there are what we call chiastic structures or inverse structures like A, B, C, C, B, A and that is really what we have here if you look I will just put it this way I will do the A, B, C, C prime B prime A prime that is the basic structure that we are going to find the first episode is a famine story which is the result of the sin of a king the king in that instance being Saul and we have this famine story in chapter 21 verses 1 to 14 paralleling that way down here at the very end of the book we have a plague story also resulting from the sin of a king but the king in this instance was not Saul but David and we have that in chapter 24 verses 1 to 25 now up here in the B element we have a short list of David's mighty men or David's warriors so I am going to just say short list of David's men and we have that in 21 verses 15 to 22 and then paralleling that down below we have a long list of David's men and that is found in 23, 8 to 39 now remember when we talked about these structures and have had opportunity to talk about them before we have stressed that like a picture frame these structures accentuate what is in the middle this is the frame this is the mat this is what is really a primary importance that which you most want to look at here we have two poetic compositions we have first of all a long poetic composition by David a long poem and then we have a short poem and this is in 22, 22 to 51 is the long poem and the short poem is in 23, 1 to 7 now what is it that we find then at the center of this chiastic arrangement you see it up there and you see that it does have some internal logic to it we want to focus in the middle and what we find there is first of all the long poem stresses a central theme and that is that the lord has been David's deliverer notice how it begins 22 verse 1 the lord is my rock my fortress and my deliverer my god is my rock in whom I take refuge my shield and the horn of my salvation where have we heard some of those images before Hannah song rock horn salvation deliverance those are the kinds of themes and images and terms that were introduced in that early poetic composition so in a nice fashion sort of framing the books of first and second Samuel you have Hannah song striking those themes and then David bringing those themes up again at the end of the book and really stressing them all over again so the first the long poem what is sometimes called David song of praise praises god as his deliverer now the second stresses the fact that god has made with David an everlasting covenant look at chapter 23 maybe verse 5 chapter 23 verse 5 is not my house right with god has he not made with me an everlasting covenant arranged and secured in every part will he not bring to fruition my salvation and grant me my every desire two things that really set David apart from Saul from others who were would would be destined to fail as kings not so much that David was less a sinner than Saul and perhaps that's the emphasis of the frame you know the the first problem the famine was brought on by a sin of Saul an offense with unspecified we don't know exactly what he had done to the Gibbianites remember the Gibbianites were those villagers whom Joshua had spared because he didn't pray about it and they're still around in the days of Saul and perhaps Saul didn't like them still being around in some way he did something wrong toward them and in punishment of that a famine came upon the land so Saul was a sinner but so was David now this this plague was brought about as a result of David's taking a census and again a very mysterious thing why did David take the census what was the point well it may have been there there various different theories but it may have been that David was thinking you know we we are now at the full extent of those boundaries that God has promised us we now occupy the promised land but I wonder how strong my military force really is I think I'd like to count up my soldiers maybe we could go a bit better maybe we could do a little more maybe we could capture some further territory so it may have been that kind of prideful ambition that God felt was inappropriate in the book of Chronicles instead of saying as we have in chapter 24 verse 1 that the anger of the Lord burned against Israel and he incited David against them book of Chronicles actually says the accuser Hassatan the Satan actually incited David very interesting perhaps theological discussion could emerge on that basis of primary and secondary causation and Satan being under God's ultimate sovereignty and only being able to do what he does with God's permission we can't get into that maybe a course in systematic theology will deal with that for you but the point here of this structure is both were sinners Saul and David so what made the difference the condition of the relationship between God and David David was God's elect king in a special sense he had a real relationship with God he was God's choice Saul was the people's choice really didn't have a relationship with God it was not the quality of their sin in terms of symptoms but the vast difference between a diseased and in fact dead heart in Saul a healthy heart in David even though David sometimes did the wrong kinds of things and so this central section stresses yes God is the one who has delivered David and he has made an everlasting covenant with him and those are two very important insights to be gleaned from the books of Samuel in particularly second Samuel and yet establishes then the Davidic throne which will then continue to be brought to the fore as you get into the books as we get into the books of kings he'll keep harking back to the promises God made to David now at this juncture let me stop for a moment and just ask if there are questions that you have I know in your reading you may have come across things and this can be first or second Samuel yes Dave yeah the question has to do with David's polygamy and the fact that the text remains silent about that in fact if I can make my problem even worse in trying to answer a question like that remember what what Joab had said to David in chapter 12 verse 8 in his judgment upon David for having gone and taken the one wife of Uriah that one who was represented as the one lamb of the poor man even though the rich man had all these sheep all these wives is what the image is supposed to be in verse 8 Nathan speaking for the Lord this is what the Lord the God of Israel says I had noted you king over Israel and I delivered you from the hand of Saul verse 8 I gave you your master's house to you and your master's wives into your arms I gave you the house of Israel and Judah and if all this had been too little I would have given you even more why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes it's a very very difficult question and particularly as strong as we feel about one man one woman monogamy as strongly as God feels about that as is clear from the creation account the question is how could this go on without God making that issue number one or at least issue number two in his dealing with his people I don't know that I have an answer to that other than you know there is such a thing as God's progressive unfolding of his will to his people and there is also the situation of what was common practice all around Israel I'm not saying that God doesn't you know that's not a satisfying answer because God doesn't generally accommodate himself to wrong behavior of other people but we do know that he has unfolded his will to us gradually and I guess the best I can do is in Jesus talking answering questions about divorce he said you know because of the hardness of your heart he allowed that then but from the beginning it was not so that's not what God wanted and the mosaic regulation about giving a certificate of divorce God allowed that and even gave a regulation for it because of the hardness of your heart and knowing that he needed to move you along and discipline you gradually maybe deal with an issue at a time so may you know I'm not satisfied with the answer particularly but that's about the best I can do fortunately God doesn't reveal to me the full plethora of my sins all at once you know he deals with me one at a time and I think he deals with all of us he'll point out one thing if he were to show us all the areas in which we are still in sin it might be overwhelming to us we really saw ourselves as he sees us so maybe that's if we put that on a societal level maybe he's saying all right look this is this is not ideal polygamy is not the plan from the beginning however we'll regulate it make it as just as we can and gradual work toward further clarity but at this early stage there are other issues I need to deal with first we may wish that he had dealt with that one earlier but we were in Uganda two summers ago my wife and I and polygamy is still widely widely practiced in Uganda and it's a very interesting question that's discussed among the Christian leaders there what do you do about it and I think most of them realize that once you're in that situation it's a case by case basis as to what's the best solution there's not an easy you know all right if you're in a polygamy situation you must immediately disband that because that could lead to even greater abuses where the husband might say well gee I've been wishing to get shed of these three wives and keep the one I like and let them go thin for themselves rather than thinking you're in this situation now what's the right thing to do here and what the only advice we could give was you know take those situations case by case but teach your children what God has said teach your children to do otherwise before they get into those situations so that they can establish more godly patterns on the basis of scripture sorry that's not a very good answer today other question yeah William yes okay all right the question it has to do with first Samuel chapter 14 verses 18 and 9 19 I'll add 18 in there and just what Saul meant when he said with draw your hand this is a specific question relating to just the procedure there let me say first of all that in verse 18 where Saul says to a hyge bring the arc of God at that time it was with the Israelites there is some question as to whether we are reading that a right whether he's actually talking about the arc or whether or not he is talking about the ephod let me just write on the board real quickly what how how similar those look now I know you guys didn't come to this class to look at Hebrew words but I think just from the appearance of them you can see how easily they would be confused the word for arc is is that and the word for ephod is this okay now they're not they're not exactly the same but they are quite similar in some respects particularly if I wrote down a little bit shorter they look this is this is art this is ephod what may be the case and by the way the Septuagin has the ephod if you look back at chapter 14 verse 3 you noticed that when a hyge is mentioned he is mentioned as wearing or bearing an ephod so it seems that probably what Saul has done is to say to a hyge bring the ephod because Saul wants to inquire as to what God's will is for the battle which is already underway and Saul wants to know what his involvement should be but because the battle keeps heating up Saul doesn't want to miss all the action he says withdraw your hand I think the idea is that in the ephod which the high priestly ephod would have been a would have been a breastplate which would have contained the oramin the thumem the lots that would be cast to determine the will of God apparently the priest has brought the ephod as asked he stuck his hand in there to get the lots and Saul says forget it you know withdraw your hand let's get on with it we don't have time to talk to God about this we're gonna miss the whole thing and so it fits in this interesting pattern of Saul having waited seven days at Gilgal but not quite waiting for Samuel now he's maybe waits seven minutes but really can't wait ultimately to hear what God has to say and then later in chapter 14 the priest will have to remind him shouldn't we consult God before we do this and Saul says oh yeah right okay go ahead and he even forgets to do that and that adds to the irony then when we came to chapter 28 and Saul was trying to find the instructions from God because he didn't know what to do and the time after time he had refused to wait to hear what God would have him do and so it's a sad irony but true to life now any other questions for them yes yeah right asking for the yeah the question is so in 2nd Samuel 21 when the the Gibbianites want to be avenged of this wrong that Saul had done to them and in verse 4 they say we have no right to demand silver or gold from Saul's family nor do we have the right to put anyone in Israel to death and David says what do you want me to do they answer the king as for the man who destroyed us and plotted against us so that we have been decimated and have no place anywhere in Israel and Israel let seven of his male descendants be given to us to be killed and exposed before the Lord had given of Saul the Lord's chosen one and the king said I will give them to you which he does the question is is there I think your question is is there a contradiction there and that they say we have no right to ask for the life of anyone in Israel then they ask for Saul's sons I think the way we would have to understand that is they're saying we do not have the right to put anyone in Israel to death in other words it's either saying we don't have a general grievance against Israel thus we're not going to just go out and generally avenge ourselves against any old Israelites or they may be more likely saying you know we don't have jurisdiction here we are essentially powerless we don't have the power of the sword so we can't put anyone to death and that's why we're coming to you and that's probably the way to understand it and David says okay well what do you need what do you want and they ask for the lives of Saul's sons now we have time for maybe one more we've got to take a break yes John yeah a character sketch of Joab I hesitate to attempt in the amount of time left I've seen my little white card so I have to stop in just a second I will just say that I have had students in the past who think Joab gets a bad rap that he's a better guy than sometimes I make him sound maybe that would be an interesting thing for someone to write a paper about the narrative portrait of Joab in scripture it's been done before by one student and done well so maybe it would be a good thing for someone to try we are going to take a break now and if you would come back then I didn't do that too smoothly if you would come back then can we be sophisticated and come back in ten minutes even though that's not really on a number can we pull off ten minutes let's try that