Subscribe to receive each blog post via email:

Bookmark and Share

May 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

Books for the Journey:

« May 28th readings | Main | May 30th readings »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

consequences of sin...David though forgiven had to bear painful consequences of his sins...it makes me wonder sometimes when he go through what we sometimes call wilderness experience,challenges...etc...could it not simply be that we're getting what we had sowed in the past?True God turns out everything for our good if we love him...but sometimes suffering makes us bitter and at war with God forgetting who the real enemy is.
God bless you all

2 Samuel 14:1-15:22


As a shepherd, there is one thing that David knew, protect the sheep. As king of Israel standing as the chief shepherd to God’s people, was David protecting the sheep of God’s pasture by bringing Absalom back to Jerusalem? Mike, I am going in the opposite direction that you have taken regarding the restoration of Absalom. And my premise is this: You cannot make peace with someone who has war in their heart I don’t care what the relationship is or with whom.


Clearly Absalom continued holding a grudge against his father (Hindsight is always 20/20), and David was operating out of his emotions and sentiment grieving for Absalom, not based on a godly or biblical principal. In the pattern of sacrificial offerings, there is a clear outline of the way to godly reconciliation/forgiveness and it is not by presenting a “Fellowship” offering first. What is offered up first is the Whole Burnt offering, and then the Sin offering, after that the Thanksgiving and Fellowship offering can then be presented. The pattern for establishing intimacy with people can be found in how God directs us to establish intimacy/restoration with Him. There is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood. Nothing like that was ever initiated by Absalom. Or if it was, then the “sacrifice” was one only in act and not heartfelt.

David’s relationship with Absalom was never broken David was always his father. What was broken or what needed to be established was their fellowship. Was there really ever any fellowship, true fellowship and intimacy with his children outside of Solomon?

Yesterday I spoke of the elephant being in the room and no one acknowledging it or speaking of it. What David did was to bring the elephant back into the room and that room was probably already crowded with a lot more of them all he did was increase the size of the heard.

Internal sores/abscesses must me lanced no matter how painful the procedure. When we leave them to fester inside the body, we cause more problems, possibly death, then if they were attended to. You can’t heal a would by saying its not there it must be attended too and that was not followed. Because Absalom could gather together an army of co-conspirators, including Bathsheba’ grandfather, shows how the internal wound festered inside the body of Israel.

If the son was to be brought back then the reason why he killed and ran should have been addressed with all the pain that would bring.

If a man willfully sheds the blood of a person [and keeps the guilt of murder upon his conscience], he is fleeing to the pit (the grave) and hastening to his own destruction; let no man stop him! (Proverbs 28:17 AMP)

Grace and peace,
Ramona

2Sam14

Mike,

A agree with Ramona.

David might have wanted to restore the relationship, and may have thought by bringing Absalom back it "was the right thing to do", but sending the boy to his room for two years is rather odd.

I agree that Absalom's resentment festered, because He did not believe he did anything wrong. Maybe because he had rationalized the murder of his brother in his own mind. (How many acts in our own life do we rationalize? In our own mind or to God?)

2Sam14:32b
"...Now then, I want to see the king's face, and if I am guilty of anything, let him put me to death."

There was never any repentance or sorrow from Absalom over his brother's murder. He came before not "David" nor his "father", but the "king". He bowed before the "king" which was a formality when approaching the "king". The "king" kissed him and that was that - no words spoken (or at least recorded), and all was supposed to be restored????.

Although different circumstances, this portrayal of relationship between David and Absalom is a far cry from the story of the prodigal son. The father was embracing and rejoicing and the son was humble and repentant.

Men with big careers often have trouble with the fatherly role. Traits that make them good leaders do not translate to the family. David consulted the Lord in so many instances, but it is never (at least I think so) recorded that David went to God about his family.


John 18

Random notes:

1)David took the same path to Mount of Olives (2Sam15) - David betrayed by his counselor (friend - Ahithophel), takes the same path that Jesus did and went up to the Mount of Olives with his faithful band.

2) Jesus crossed the Kidron valley probably passing by the Kidron brook. This is the brook where the runoff of blood from temple sacrifices was directed. It was Passover week, and the brook was probably already red with some of the prepatory sacrifices to Passover. I wonder what Jesus thought as he passed the red (bloody) waters?

3) "Gethsemane" means "olive press". Saw a film on Ancient Israel and the "press" has two parts. One is a large wheel like stone that is rolled over the olives in a circular basin to squeeze out juices. The second is a large conical stone that takes several men to place on the large bag of olives. The sheer weight of the stome pressed down on the olives, and the last bit of juices were squeezed out to flow into a cistern. Sounds a lot like the pressure on Jesus while He was in the Garden.

4) Jesus' supreme power - I disagree with bob Deffingbaugh on the result of Jesus saying "I AM". It is an exagerration, but Bob makes it seem like a "Three Stooges" pratfall kind of thing. I prefer John Macarhtur's comments:

"Jesus wanted us to know Judas was there to show that Judas had no power. All Jesus had to do was say His name and they all went down. The other Gospels dwell on Jesus' agony -- on His knees on the ground in anguish. But not in John's Gospel. Jesus is standing and the whole Roman army is on the ground."....

"...An interesting Bible study is the study of the concept of the word of His power. God created the world by His word, and He said, "Let there be light..." (Gen. 1:3a). And when Christ comes in judgment at the end of the age, the Bible says, "And out of His mouth goeth a sharp sword..." (Rev. 19:15a). It is the word of God that is powerful; it is the word of God that will judge and condemn men; and it is the word of God that is incisive. Jesus Christ is coming to judge (Mt. 13:37-43, 47-50; Ac. 10:42- 43; 17:30-31). So the Bible says He will judge by the word out of His mouth. And the mob tasted just a sample of His judgment power and they fell helpless at His feet. John is showing us that Jesus was no victim. This was the majestic Son of God displaying power."
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1570.htm

I also like this thought process:

"Jesus was born as a humble baby, yet heralded by angels. He was laid in a manger, yet announced by a star. He submitted to baptism, then heard the Divine voice of approval. He slept when He was exhausted, but awoke to calm the storm. Jesus wept at a grave, then called the dead to life. He submits to arresting troops, then declares His majesty and knocks them over. Jesus died on a cross, but in it He overcame sin and death and Satan." - David Guzik

No wonder the large crowd was willing to let the disciples go as Jesus requested. They were probably greatly relieved that this person was willingly going to go with them back to Annas.

John 18 (cont)

Random notes (cont)

5) Annas was the High priest from 6 AD to 15 AD. Ironic that he was High Priest when Jesus came to the temple, as a youth, and discussed scripture with the Priests. Do you think Annas came by the group during those three days, and had a different feeling toward Jesus?

"Annas was so powerful that when he was removed from office, seven of his successors were relatives: Five were his sons, one was his grandson, and Caiaphas was his son- in-law. So he may not have been high priest officially, but he was running the show."

"Now, in order to be high priest, all that one had to do was kneel on the ground and kiss Rome's hem, and come up with a lot of money. The office was bought...."

"...Evidently Annas was the biggest briber because he had the most money. He earned his money by being in charge of the Temple concessions. When he was removed from office in A.D. 15, he took control of the concessions in the Temple. Annas was the biggest cog in the ecclesiastical machine of Judaism. He was immensely rich and consequently could buy his way into all the important offices. So he remained the power behind the scene."

"The Talmud says of Annas: "Woe to the house of Annas! Woe to their serpent's hiss! They are High Priests; their sons are keepers of the treasury; their sons-in-law are guardians of the Temple; and their servants beat the people with staves." - all quotes by John Macarthur
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1571.htm

also referenced here:
http://www.bible-history.com/HighPriests/NTHIGHPRIESTSInternational_Standard_B00000013.htm

No wonder Annas was anxious to remove Jesus from the scene - Jesus had already disrupted his business in Temple at least once (probably twice).

6) Prophecy fulfilled??? (This I just ran across)

John 18:22
"When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. "Is this the way you answer the high priest?" he demanded." NIV

"Here is a typical henchman looking for a promotion from Annas. Now, the Greek word for "struck...with the palm of his hand," is "rhapisma", and can also be translated, "struck with a stick." Since it is evident that the Temple police carried sticks or clubs, it is more likely that he hit Jesus across the side of His face with a club. Again, this was not only unkind and ruthless, but illegal. Never was it legal for someone to strike a prisoner." - John Macarthur - ibid

Strong's lexicon has "rhapisma" as "a blow with a rod or staff or a scourge"

In Micah 5:1 it says:

Marshal your troops, O city of troops,
for a siege is laid against us.
They will strike Israel's ruler
on the cheek with a rod.

While this was symbolically filled in every siege of Jerusalem. Perhaps it is literally fulfilled here with the True King and Lord of Israel.

Perhaps it is a stretch, but I thought I would throw it out there. the siege is the strangling of the city by the officials of the temple???? Like I said - it might be a stretch.


"Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus. Because this disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the high priest's courtyard, 16but Peter had to wait outside at the door."
I can't help thinking...(Bob Deffingbaugh thinks this disciple is John as do a few other commentaries I read)this disciple if known to the high priest then it must have been common knowledge that he was a follower of Jesus who followed to the end inspite of the trouble ahead.He didn't seek to save his life,he just followed.He may have not understood why his teacher had to go through this but in his heart the vow"for better for worse"was engraved.In the gospel of John,love is often mentioned...this must have been a man after Jesus heart....
God bless you all

Mike asked: "We can make our plans, but the LORD determines our steps." Do you think this is true? We make our plans - but God determines our steps. Do you see this to be true in your own life? Have you made plans before, but then seen your steps somehow be guided in perhaps a different direction - perhaps a more godly direction?"

I have to say I can FULLY testify to this - after my husband died in 1998, and the Lord provided me with an awesome renewed relationship with Himself, I was led by incredible 'coincidences' along a path I could never have conceived for myself, but yet desired from the minute He planted the notion in my mind. From my experiences I can state that in my view, He provides us with the ideas that are in line with His Will for us, then we still have the choice as to whether or not to more forward into that Plan - if we are faithful in doing so, then he leads us through it, and we can move willingly. I used to think in my younger years that following God meant all sorts of dreadful things like being asked to give up my desires, or heading off to deepest darkest Africa to be a missionary, and I was actually quite fearful of that happening to the point that I often refused to really submit to His Will just in case. However, what He taught me through 2001-2003 is that His Will is perfect and so much better for me than anything I can conceive for myself, and so while I can contemplate plans and goals for my life, only those that He has ordained in His Will are going to be of value, but ultimately he will also provide me the joy in being obedient to Him. If I'd time/energy I'd have loved to share just how awesome those 2 years were for me, but suffice to say He provided for me to achieve something that nobody including myself thought remotely possible, but as I say, the most important thing for me was discovering how to truly hear His Voice and better understand what He wanted for me. I would urge everyone reading this to never fear His Will, "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." 2Tim 1:7.

Blessings to all, and thank you for your wonderful insights. I'm more often a 'lurker' at times, but that's only because typing is painful for me, and I wait until I really have something I want to share, before joining you all :)).

Amen.

The LORD bless you and keep you.

The LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you.

The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

---- and May the LORD do so in a rich and continuous fashion.

David

Nathan gives him a parable about the rich man and the poor man.

Joab sends the woman from Tekoa to give him a parable about her son.

I would think it would be humiliating for David when he recognized himself in those scenarios, particularly when he was so indignant in both cases about people he did not know, but had to acknowledge his own culpability.
___________________________

The MacArthur Study Bible indicates Ahithophel (Bathsheba's grandfather) instigated Absalom's rebellion and that his counsel to David was like "an oracle of God."
___________________________

I cannot help but think Absalom felt very entitled, much like a middle child in a family who was "not the first and not the last," so he felt overlooked because of his constellation in the family.

Something about Absalom bowing to David, his father, the king...was that a form of respect, or was it required, or was he grateful to finally have an audience with David, who then kissed him. We are not told if this was a kiss that expressed forgiveness, greeting, and we can really only speculate as to the significance.

Add to that, Absalom was manipulative (got what he wanted by strong-arming Joab into coming to see him), extremely handsome, and obviously people saw him as having "kingly attributes," much as Saul was viewed.

___________________________

John and Ramona, I think the "jury is still out" with regard to Absalom's lack of repentance. David clearly was an overly permissive parent.

The comments to this entry are closed.