II SAMUEL 23:8-39

 As a reader gets toward the end of II Samuel, he can be excused for speed reading the final verses of Chapter 23, with its lists of famous warriors. But there are some gems hidden in this passage which take a little effort to dig out.

One of the first things to note is that this is more than just an appendix for material which doesn't seem to fit any place else in the story. In fact, it is part and parcel of the overall plan of the book, a portion of which is shown below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The Structure of I Samuel 1-I Kings 11

IA. Samuel (I Sam. 1-7)

IIA. Saul's Reign (I Sam. 8:1-21:9)

IIIA. David Hides from Saul (I Sam. 21:10-II Sam. 1:27)

IVA. David the King (II Sam. 2-12)

IIIB. David Hides from Absalom (II Sam. 13-20)

IIB. Echoes of Saul's Reign (II Sam. 21-24)

IB. Solomon (I Kings 1-11)

Similarity                                                          Section IIA                 Section IIB

Massab (“garrison”)                                         6x                                II Sam. 23:14

“Honored” men                                                 I Sam. 9:6                   II Sam. 23:19,23

Only combination of “muster” and “battle”     I Sam. 17:1-2               II Sam. 23:9

Battles take place in valleys                             I Sam. 17:2-3,19          II Sam. 23:13

“Took his stand”                                               I Sam. 17:16                II Sam. 23:12

Lion killed single-handedly                             I Sam. 17:34-37           II Sam. 23:20

Hand-held weapons                                         I Sam. 18:10                 II Sam. 23:21

Then within II Samuel 21-24 itself, there is a definite symmetry, as demonstrated in Figure 2 below. Bratt notes, “This section in Samuel follows the account of trouble in David's household. Without this final series, David would have been presented as an utter failure. Yet this dischronoligized finale reminds the readers of the benefits David brought to Israel and the blessings offered through his permanent dynasty.”

                                       Figure 2. Echoes of Saul’s Reign (II Sam. 21-24)

A. Nation afflicted with famine because of blood-guilt;

Curse removed by Gibeonites hanging Saul’s sons (21:1-14)

B. David’s mighty men: battle with Philistines (21:15-22)

C. David’s song of praise (22:1-32)

C'. David’s royal psalm (23:1-7)

B'. David’s mighty men: battles with Philistines (23:8-39)

A'. Nation afflicted with pestilence because of census;

Curse removed after offerings to God are made (ch. 24)

Childs proposes the very same six-part symmetrical structure for these chapters and adds, “In sum, the final four chapters, far from being a clumsy appendix offer a highly reflective, theological interpretation of David's whole career adumbrating the messianic hope, which provides a clear hermeneutical guide for its use as sacred scripture.”

Sections A and A' are both labeled “David Intervenes” by Bratt.

Sections B and B' are specifically tied together verbally by the following parallels:

    “They fought against the Philistines, and David grew weary” (21:15b) //

    “He struck down the Philistines until his hand grew weary.” (23:10)

“spear” – 21:19; 23:8, 21 (3x)

Abishai, son of Zeruiah (21:17) // Joab, son of Zeruiah (23:37)

Sibbecai the Hushallite (21:18) // Mebunnai the Hushallite (23:27)

Elhanan son of Joasre-oregim (21:19) // Elhanan son of Dodo (23:24)

Jonathan son of Schimei (21:21) // Jonathan son of Shammah (23:32-33)

                                          Figure 3: Symmetry within II Samuel 23

    1. The Three (23:8-17)

            2. Those who did not attain to the Three

                    a. Abishai, commander of the Thirty (23:18-19)

                    a'. Benaiah, David's bodyguard (23:20-23)

    1'. The Thirty (23:24-39)

The parallelism between 2a and 2a' is particularly strong given the fact that both are summarized in the much the same words: ”He was the most renowned of the Thirty...but did not attain to the Three.”

Section 1 above can even be further parsed into the symmetrical arrangement shown below:

                                                        Figure 4: II Samuel 23:8-17

        a. The Three are named (vv. 8-12)

                b. David's request (vv. 13-15)

        a'. The action of the Three (vv. 16a)

                b' David's noble reaction (v. 16b-17)

Within section a above, “it is explicitly stated more than once that God Himself was responsible for their achievements.” (Payne) See 23:10, 12.

“Few of the names [in vv. 24-39] are given elsewhere in the Old Testament. The first is Asahel (24), killed by Abner during the war with Ishbosheth, [see 2:12-3:1], which implies that the Thirty must have existed very early in David's reign. I Chr. 11:42-47 adds a few further names.” (Porter)

In keeping with the emphasis on multiples of three in this chapter, one would expect there to be a total of 36 warriors in sections 1 and 1' instead of the number 37 given in v. 39. McKenzie says, “It is uncertain how the count of thirty-seven is achieved. The list in vv. 24-39 has thirty names in it. The addition of the “Three” plus Abishai and Benaan brings the number to thirty-five. Joab may have been counted as a member of this elite group, though his name is not specifically mentioned. There are textual variations in vv. 24-39 where an additional name may have been read.”

The one name which for me stands out above all the rest in this listing is that of Uriah the Hittite, given the important concluding place in v. 39, perhaps to remind the reader how this loyal soldier was so badly treated by David, who first stole his wife and then, with the help of Joab, arranged for him to be killed in battle. This same sad event may possibly also explain why the author purposely omitted Joab's name from verses 24-39 (though he is indirectly mentioned in verses 14, 24 and 37) so as to pointedly reduce the total number of names to only 35 instead of the expected 36 (3x3x4).

There is some agreement from the scholarly literature on the above supposition coming from Payne, who says, “Hertzberg considers it intentional and significant that the last name is that of Uriah, who was to be betrayed by the very man he supported so nobly.”

However, Merrill has a more mundane explanation for Joab's absence from the list. “Significant by its omission is any reference to Joab...Neither the author of Samuel nor that of the Chronicles felt it necessary, perhaps, to list Joab since he was commander of the whole army throughout most of

David's reign (20:23)...The longest list consists of 32 men but might have a few more or less and still be known as 'the 30,' a technical term for a small military contingent known in Hebrew as hasselosim ('the 30'). Or perhaps two men had died in battle (including Uriah the Hittite, 2 Sam 11:14-17) and were replaced.”

Rosenberg also notes the pointed omission of Joab's name and states, “This omission is an appropriate emblem of David's long and troubled association with Joab, who eventually dies by David's deathbed command given in I Kgs 2:5-6 and carried out in 2 Kings 2:28-34.” Rosenberg also perceptively mentions, “Uriah's behavior as a devout Israelite, in the manner of a simple footsoldier, is again highlighted by this incongruity [i.e. of his name appearing last in this enumeration of warriors] and becomes all the more moving in retrospect.”

By the way, note the purposeful emphasis on the number “3” and its multiples throughout this text. Most commentators will even point out that the number “800” found in II Samuel 23:8 is replaced by “300” in the parallel passage I Chronicles 11:11.

II SAMUEL 23:1-7

 In considering the particular poetic forms employed below, it should be noted that both verses 1 and 2-3a consist of what is called identical parallelism in which each separate line of poetry basically repeats the same idea. But this form is replaced with what is called progressive parallelism in verses 3b-4 in which the closing thought of one line begins the next line. Then both 23:5 and 23:6-7 bring the series of poems to a sort of conclusion through their concentric ABBA formats.

    “The last words of     David

    The oracle of             David, son of Jesse

    the oracle of              the man whom God exalted

    the anointed of                             the God            of  Jacob

    the favorite of                               the Strong One of Israel.” (23:1)

Freedman weighs in on the authenticity of this psalm by saying, “There is no reason to doubt either the date of the poem or its attribution to the royal court...The central claims and affirmations of the monarchy and specifically the Davidic dynasty are made succinctly but emphatically. David is the anointed of the God of Jacob, the beloved of Israel's protector (v. 1). Both Mosaic and patriarchal traditions are tied to David and his house.”

And J.J.M. Roberts confirms, “It is clearly monarchic probably pre-Deuteronomistic, and perhaps even Davidic as its designation claims.”

As Porter notes, “The last words of David follow the royal psalm just as the blessing of Moses follows the song of Moses, and the texts have evidently been put together thus on purpose.”

Merrill sees a clear progression here in that David is first described only as “the humble son of a Bethlehamite commoner” but ends up as “the poetically gifted king of Israel, a development which David attributed to his having been chosen and anointed by the Lord.”

There is a possible translation issue in the final line of 23:1. As Propp says, “'Israel's sweet singer'[as in KJV] is not impossible” though he personally prefers “favorite of the Strong One.”

    “The spirit of the LORD speaks through me

    His word                         is upon my tongue

    The God of Israel           has said to me.” (23:2-3a)

“David claims that Yahweh has spoken with him and therefore David's tongue will be uttering Yahweh's word (v. 2). What David will pass on is nothing but what the God and Rock of Israel has declared (v. 3a)...We should pick up on David's insistent repetition. He wants us to understand unmistakably that what he announces is not David's guess but Yahweh's dogma, not a piece of human insight but a clip of divine decree. And if it is God's word, then it is a sure word and can be depended upon.” (Davis)

Tsumura: “The sentence [i.e. v. 2a], which is in parallel with his word is on my tongue, shows that David represents himself as a prophet (see Matt. 22:43; Acts 1:16; 2:30; 4:25, Heb. 4:7) rather than simply as a poet who was thought to be divinely inspired.”

    “One who rules over people justly

                    ruling in the fear of God

                                    is like the light of                            morning

                                       like the sun rising on a cloudless morning

                                                          gleaming from the rain on the grassy land.”

                                                         (23:3b-4)

J. Baldwin “Such a ruler, says the Lord, is to be compared with three lovely experiences common to mankind everywhere: the early morning, when light dawns, the warmth of the sun on a cloudless morning, and rain that enables grass to sprout even after long drought (cf. Ps. 72:6). All three elements are necessary for healthy growth of plants, without which all life would cease; and for society the righteous ruler has an equally vital part to play...”

“The meaning of the metaphor. as I understand it...is that a just king, ruling in accordance with religious principles, is like the sun on a cloudless morning, which by its light causes the rain-drenched earth to turn green. There is an implicit connection between the grass (dese', 'verdure'), which sprouts in response to the sun's rays, and the loyal subjects of the king who flourish under his rule. This is shown by the contrasting example of the disloyal subjects of vv. 5-7, who will not 'sprout' and 'grow'; for them the sun, i.e., the king, will bring death rather than life when in the 'fire,' the blaze of the sun, 'they will be burned up' (cf. Mal 4:1]....” (McCarter)

    Is not my house like this with God?

            For he has made with me an everlasting covenant

            ordered and in all things secure.

    Will he not cause to prosper all my help and my desire? (23:5)

“David says that his house is 'certainly legitimate (l' ken) with God' (II Sam 23:5). As an attribute of royalty, ken connotes reliability as well as validity.” (Andersen and Freedman)

“The text pays less attention to the content of the contract between God and David than to the claim that the contract was legally binding because it was thoroughly executed and officially filed, but the reference to David's house and the characterization of the covenant as being eternal suggests that the covenant formalized the elevation of David as the anointed king of the God of Jacob as an enduring appointment that would be passed on in perpetuity to David's descendants.” (Roberts)

Schnittjer wraps up the thought in verses 3-5 with the following comparison: “Jeremiah uses the permanence of creational structures to signify the enduring election of God's people...(Jer 31:35-36). David likewise uses dependable cosmic events to speak of the fidelity of God to uphold his covenantal word (2 Sam 23:3-5).”

    But the godless are like thorns that are thrown away

            for they cannot be picked up with the hand.

            To touch them one uses an iron bar or spear

    and they            are                               consumed in fire. (23:6-7)

Payne summarizes the meaning of these two verses as follows: “Dangerous men require very careful handling, but there are nevertheless ways of dealing with them and destroying them.”

And Baldwin writes that “just as the farmer had to clear his land of thorn bushes, and contrive, without injuring himself, to make a fire of them, so David saw the implications of judgment for those who opposed God's cause. Like thorns, they were not only useless but dangerous, choking the growth of all that was good (Mt. 13:7, 22; cf. Is. 33:12; Heb. 6:8). In the light of God's word to him, David saw clearly in his old age how people's destiny becomes polarized either for or against God. This poem is David's 'last word', his final legacy.”

One could alternatively combine verses 5-7 as a single poem taking the form of antithetical parallelism in which David's fate in v. 5 is purposely contrasted with that of the godless in verses 6-7. For example, see McCarter's comments above.

MATTHEW 7:13-28

A five-part organization of the Gospel of Matthew first proposed by B. W. Bacon in 1930 is perhaps the most popular. It begins by recognition of five similar statements in the book, each of which directly follows a block of discourse material.

“And when Jesus finished these sayings...” (7:28)

            “And when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples...” (11:1)

            “And when Jesus had finished these parables...” (13:53)

            “Now when Jesus had finished these sayings...” (19:1)

            “When Jesus had finished all these sayings...” (26:1)

The discourses which precede these pronouncements are well recognized to be arranged topically and to cover subjects that are, respectively, ethical, missionary, kergymatic, ecclesiastical and eschatological. (Nixon) But Brown notes, “Although each major discourse has a different focus, the theme of God's reign is accented in each of them.” Also, each of the discourses ends on a note of judgment. (Snodgrass)

And Cahill summarizes the contents of these verses as follows: “The warnings not to be taken in by false prophets in sheep's clothing (7:15), or by trees that do not bear good fruit (7:16-20), or by those who perform showy works in Jesus' name (7:22-23), or to build one's house on 'sand' by not actually living up to Jesus' words (7:24-27) suggest choice, responsibility, difficulty, and the possibility of delusion in the life of would-be discipleship. The allusions to the 'narrow gate' (7:13-14) and the Lords's repudiation of 'evildoers' on the 'last day' (7:22-23) are explicit references to judgment.”

With that as a starting point, let us consider in more depth the passage concluding the first of these five “sermons” of Christ. It consists of four pithy teachings of Jesus, each one involving a sharp contrast in behavior and having a definite literary structure designed to make it memorable and easy to remember.

Ryken says, “As He concludes His discourse (7:13-27), Jesus sharpens the issues and begins to force a response from His listeners. He leaves His audience with a challenge, urging them to make sure that they are members of God's kingdom. In order to make His point with impact, Jesus used three memorable contrasts – the narrow gate that leads to life vs. the wide gate that leads to destruction (vss. 13-14), true prophets vs. false prophets (vss. 15-23), and the wise man who builds his house on a rock vs. the foolish man who builds on the sand (vss. 24-27).”

Before proceeding, I should point out that Blomberg, for one, combines verses 15-20 and 21-23 into one example and says concerning the 'three examples,' “In each case the first category refers to those who hear, obey, and are saved; the second, to those who only hear and so are destroyed. In each case eternal life and judgment are at stake.” Few commentators follow his lead.

The Narrow and Wide Gate (Matthew 7:13-14)

Enter the narrow gate

        1. The gate is wide

                2. and the way is easy

                        3. that leads to destruction

                                4. there are many who take it

        1'. The gate is narrow

                2'. and the road is hard

                        3'. that leads to life

                                4'. and there are few who find it

“This is the second command. Cf. Luke xiii 24...The Lukan version is more emphatically eschatological in context than is the exposition here. But it is likely that we are to see this verse against the context of vss. 22ff. In this case, Go in by the narrow gate will be understood as meaning that entrance into the Kingdom --- whether the Kingdom of heaven or the Kingdom of God – is through a narrow gate.” (Albright and Mann)

Overman says, “For the frequent metaphor of the two roads, see e.g., Prov 7.27; 15.24; Jer 21.8.” And Tilden adds Luke 13:23-24; Psalm 1; Deuteronomy 30:19; John10:7 and John 14:6 to that list.

Boice warns that “we may imagine a man who has agreed with the bulk of this teaching [so far in the Sermon] but who thinks he can put it into practice merely by exerting a little more effort while continuing in the same general direction in which he is going. To such a man these verses are a reminder that the Christian life must begin with an about-face and that it cannot be carried on without a personal commitment to the Lord Jesus.”

Hill feels that the translation 'hard' in section 2' “is rather misleading. The Greek tethlimmene means 'pressed together', i.e. not spacious and roomy; it is not the road for everybody; only the few (cf. the antithesis of 22.14) will find and follow this path.”

Good and Bad Trees (Matthew 7:15-20)

Beware of false prophets

        1. You will know them by their fruits

                2. Every good tree bears good fruit

                        3. The bad tree bears bad fruit

                2'. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit

                        3'. nor can a bad tree bear good fruit

                2''. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and burned

        1'. You will know them by their fruits.

“The unbelieving world itself is like a wolf in its hostility to disciples of Jesus (Mt 7:15, 10:16; Lk 10:3).” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

France: “These false prophets are described as 'coming to you,' and so apparently as people from outside the disciple group who nonetheless wish to represent themselves as on the same side. The contrast between their appearance and what they are 'inside' makes it clear that, unlike the self-deluded charismatics of vv. 22-23, they are consciously putting on an act...The instruction to 'beware' of them implies the same need for discrimination on the part of God's people as we saw in v. 6. People cannot always be taken at their face value, and the more so when they claim to speak for God.”

“What a man is in his inner being comes to expression outwardly, especially in words and deeds. Says Luke (6:45) in a similar context (see 6:44), 'The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil (treasure) produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.' Character reveals itself.” (Hendricksen)

Saying and Doing (Matthew 7:21-23)

        1. Not everyone who says,”Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven

                2. but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven

        1'. But on that day, many will say, Lord, Lord

                2'. did we not do works in your name?

        1'. But I will say, “I never knew you”

                2''. Go away from me, you evildoers.”

Note the regular alternation of the concepts of saying and doing.

Beale and Gladd ask, “What is the precise meaning of the phrase 'mysteries of the kingdom'?...The phrase...should probably be rendered as 'mysteries belonging to the kingdom of heaven'...Mark and Luke render this idea as 'mystery / mysteries of the kingdom and God ' (Mark 4:11; Lk 8:10), whereas Matthew renders it 'mysteries of the kingdom of heaven' (cf., e.g., Mt 3:2; 4:17; 5:3,10,19-20; 7:21; 8:11; 10:7)...Jesus even says in Matthew 7:21-23 that those who were regarded as teachers of the church will be judged as false teachers at the final judgment.”

Payne explains that the promise given in Matthew 7:21 “is not simply life after death, as it may be elsewhere (cf. II Tim 4:18...); for the context is that of the final judgment, contrast vv. 19, 22-23...on the wicked.”

“This is the first use in Matthew of 'Lord,' kyrie, as an address to Jesus. God has been referred to frequently, both in OT quotation and in Matthew's own editorial style, as ho Kyrios...The vocative in itself carries no necessary theological connotation, but simply recognizes a superior social status...But in Matthew's narrative, addressed to Jesus as a Galilean villager of no social prominence, and frequently in the context of expecting miraculous help, kyrie clearly carries more weight, and the fact that Matthew uses it substantially more than the other Synoptic evangelists indicates that he was well aware of this more than purely social dimension.” (France)

Tale of Two Houses (Matthew 7:24-27)

        1. Everyone who hears and acts upon my words

                2. will be like the wise man

                        3. who built his house upon a rock

                                4. the rains, flood and wind came

                                        5. but it did not fall

                                                6. because it had been founded on a rock

        1'. Everyone who hears but does not act upon my words

                2'. will be like the foolish man

                        3'. who built his house upon the sand

                                4'. the rains, flood and wind came

                                        5. and it fell – and great was its fall

Myers says, “Instructions on how to really understand the Bible are given over and over again in both Old and New Testaments. 'He who does what is true comes to the light' [John 3:21]. The wise man – the one who built his house on the rock – differs from the foolish man in that he acts upon the word [Matthew 7:24-29]. The power of Jesus' words is known in the doing of them.”

“In the NT, flock is still used for Israel, described by Jesus as lost (Mt 15:24) as well as weakened and exhausted (Mt 9:36). Mostly, however, it refers to the remnant band of disciples he is gathering (Lk 10:3; Jn 10:1-16). On account of its smallness, Jesus talks of this as his 'little' flock. Its members are commanded not to fear on that account, even with the danger of deceptive attacks from within and overt attacks from without (Mt 7:15; 10:16) and the certainty of its undergoing great tribulation in the future (Mk 14:27), because it is God who is giving it the kingdom (Lk 12:32).” (DBI)

 

ACTS 21:13

The prophet Agabus warns Paul that if he goes to Jerusalem, he will be arrested or worse. Despite that warning, Paul persists in his plan. The main question that arises from that decision is whether or not Paul is thereby purposely disobeying a word from God. Here are the thoughts of several noted Bible scholars regarding the above verse:

Trenchard: “The symbolic and vocal prophecy of Agabus (v.11) is very much in the style of OT prophetic ministry, and gave rise to renewed appeals that Paul should spare himself bonds and imprisonment. But his witness before governors and kings must needs be fulfilled...”

Witherington notes that the word kyrios ('Lord') occurs in Acts in conjunction with the name Jesus or the phrase Jesus Christ exactly 14 times in Acts, a highly symbolic number representing perfection. One of these occurrences is found in Acts 21:13.

“In spite of Paul's own awareness of coming trouble (20:22-23), he continues his journey to Jerusalem. Strangely enough, “Christians of Tyre, who have been 'warned by the Spirit (21:4)', try to deter him. Moreover, his future problems are stressed by the symbolic message given to him by Agabus (21:10-11). Yet in the face of all such premonitions, Paul's resolve remains firm 'for the sake of the name of the Lord Jesus' (21::13)...Paul is stirred by the emotion with which the counsel is being given, but he is determined not to be deterred by it.” (Fitzmyer)

Green says, “Luke develops the content of salvation along five related lines. First, salvation entails incorporation and participation in the christocentric community of God's people. These are people whose unity is emphatic in the narrative; who together 'call upon the name of the Lord [Jesus]' and are baptized in his name..; who heal...and preach...in his name; and who suffer for his name (Acts 5:41; 9:16; 21:13).”

Toussaint: “After the people heard that prophecy, they pleaded with Paul not to go to Jerusalem (cf. v. 4) Even Luke joined in the plea, as indicated by the use of 'we' here. But the apostle would not be dissuaded.”

Haarbeck writes, “In secular Gk. klaio ['weep'] does not express remorse of sorrow, but physical or mental pain which is outwardly visible,..klaio is similarly used in the NT, i.e. to express violent emotion, e.g. at parting (Acts 21:13)...”

“We empathize with the tenderness of Paul's beloved friend and admire his tough directness. The account seems to contrast the two qualities sharply, but it shows us how both can be blended by the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit.” (Ogilvie)

I am reminded of the somewhat similar occasion when Jesus revealed His coming death and was opposed strongly by Peter, who tried to prevent it. As Neil says, “Paul refuses to be deflected from the path which he believes to be the will of God (cf. Lk. 22:42) and, as his Master had done, 'set his face to go to Jerusalem' (Lk. 9:51).”

Stott wrestles with what appears to be a contradiction in Acts 20:12-13 and 21:4. “Paul is urged not to go to Jerusalem 'through the Spirit,' and yet Paul ignored both messages.” Stott resolves this problem by saying, “The better solution is to draw a distinction between a prediction and a prohibition. Certainly Agabus only predicted that Paul would be bound and handed over to the Gentiles (21:11); the pleadings with Paul which followed are not attributed to the Spirit and may have been the fallible (indeed mistaken) human deduction from the Spirit's prophecy.”

“If Agabus did not interpret his prophecy to mean that Paul should not go on to Jerusalem, Paul's companions and the Casesarean Christians drew that conclusion, and entreated him with tears not to proceed...Not that he was unmoved by their weeping; he felt his determination weakening under it, and entreated them in turn to desist. He could not turn aside from the path of obedience and sacrifice, and he was prepared, if necessary, not merely to be imprisoned but to give up his very life in Jerusalem for his Master's sake.” (Bruce)

 

"HERE I AM" IN THE BIBLE

There are five pivotal moments in the Bible in which a person or group of people respond to God's call with the above statement. I would like to briefly recount each of them.

Exodus 3:4

This is the story of Moses seeing the burning bush in the wilderness and hearing God's voice issuing from it.

Durham: “Theophany and call are brought together in the narrative dealing with Moses for the same reason they are brought together in the narrative dealing with Israel at Sinai. Theophany describes the advent of God's presence; call describes the opportunity of response to that presence. Theophany provides both stimulus and authority for response; response, despite a choice, is virtually inevitable following theophany.”

Knight adds, “God accosts Moses on a working day, not at a festival, not at a moment of worship within the cult. So the God of whom ex[odus] writes is the god of secular human experience, of a working man, of life lived without ecstatic abnormal insights or visions.Thus, instead of this being a shocking and traumatic experience when the 'other world' suddenly impinges on his consciousness, Moses is not at all upset.”

“The whole concept of Christian calling derives from the belief that God has communicated with us personally, and has called us by name. If we forget this, the doctrine of election can become unrelated to our obedience, and so impersonal, abstract and forbidding.” (Cole)

I Samuel 3:4,6,8

When the boy Samuel is sleeping in the temple, he keeps being awakened by a voice calling his name. He assumes it is Eli summoning him, but Eli knows better and informs Samuel that it is the LORD instead, and that Samuel should listen to what He has to say.

Here are some insights by Francesca Murphy into what is going on here:

“Samuel begins to be the person God intends by being called and responding...But why is a classic prophetic call narrative used to characterize Samuel, who was hardly a classic prophet, like Isaiah, and what is it doing here, at the outset of Regum, when Samuel was not a king?”

“In fact, 1 Samuel sees the rise of the monarchy in Israel in the context of theological ethics.”

“In order to become a moral individual, a person, Samuel must be called out of the familial collective and enter a direct relationship to God. God does not, here, just call an individual to effect a change in Israel's culture: he creates an individual so to do.”

“The idea here, which enabled Israel to begin to rise above the tribal or collectivist principle, is that God's call separates a person from his or her culture, and this break with the internal social dynamic of a culture gives them the spiritual wherewithal to found a genuine community, spreading from and embedded in the work or task that is named in the divine call.”

Isaiah 6:8

The setting of this verse is when Isaiah sees a vision of God on His heavenly throne surrounded by seraphim. One of them touches Isaiah's tongue with a live coal followed by God's voice asking whom He should send to proclaim His word to the people. At that point, Isaiah volunteers by saying, “Here am I. Send me.”

Blenkinsopp notes, “The purification of the lips prepared Isaiah for his prophetic mission, which he accepted eagerly, unlike Moses (Ex 3.11), Jeremiah (Jer 1.6), and Jonah (Jon 1.3).”

“Now, for the first time, God speaks. It is as if Isaiah was not ready to hear before this moment, as if the possibility of service could not be appreciated until this time. But for whatever reason, God makes it plain that while spiritual experience is never merely a means to an end, neither is it an end in itself...It is very possible, in the light of 1 K. 22:19, that who will go for us is an address to the heavenly host, either visibly present or implied. That Isaiah is neither directly addressed nor coerced is suggestive. Perhaps it is so because Isaiah does not need coercion, but rather needs an opportunity to volunteer.” (Oswalt)

Acts 9:10

In this verse, a disciple named Ananias is contacted by God, at which point he responds, “Here I am, Lord.” Ananias is then commissioned to seek out the recently blinded Saul and preach the Good News to him.

“Ananias' response is magnificent. 'Here I am, Lord.' That's how to react on the Way. Here I am; here is my mind, my heart, my willingness, my guidable disposition. We can't get very far on the Way without that. Prayer is not lofty rhetoric; it's availability, reporting in for duty, expressing readiness for anything.” (Ogilvie)

Fitzmyer reminds us that “he [i.e. Ananias] would actually have been among those whom Saul intended to cart off to prison in Jerusalem. The Lord uses an opponent of Saul as a instrument in the latter's conversion.”

Acts 10:33

A minor variation of this phrase even appears a chapter later when the Gentile Cornelius receives a vision from God telling him to contact Simon Peter. Cornelius assembles his family and friends and tells Peter, “All of us are here.”

Stott says, “It was a remarkable acknowledgement that they were in God's presence, that the apostle Peter was to be the bearer of God's word to them, and that they were all ready and open to listen to it. No preacher today could ask for a more attentive audience.” In this, he is probably echoing F.F. Bruce's earlier words: “Did ever a preacher of the gospel have a more promising audience than this?”

LUKE 14: OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND

Luke 14:1-6 Nolland says, “Although the setting and important details are quite different, the argument in Luke 14:1-6 is...broadly equivalent to that in Matthew 12:9-14. A Sabbath meal in the home of a leading Pharisee is yet more provocative than the synagogue as a setting for healing (Lk 14:1). And this time Jesus initiates the confrontation by putting the question of the lawfulness of Sabbath healing (Lk. 14:3). Now, rather than a sheep, we have an ass or an ox (or possibly a son or an ox – the text is slightly uncertain) (Lk 14:5). Either could...echo Deuteronomy 5:14.”

Luke 14:3 One glaring omission committed by the Pharisees was in purposely ignoring the Old Testament teachings on the subject. As Fitzmyer explains, “The attitude presupposed by Jesus in that second question reflects Deut 22:4, the Mosaic injunction to help a brother whose ox or ass falls by the way.”

Luke 14:3-13 As Ellis says, “The churchmen display a thoroughly false standard of values. Not only are they hard-hearted toward the sick man (ff. 3f.) but both guests (v. 7) and host (v. 12) are status-seekers and social climbers. The principles (vv. 5, 10, 13) that Jesus enunciates were known and approved by all. The sting of his words is their utter candor...He undresses their concealed and half-forgotten motives and lays them naked on the dinner table. Most embarrassingly, he applies the principles to the churchmen's relation to God.”

Luke 14:6 “Conscious of modernity's anthropocentrism, Christians are noticing Jesus' background assertion that God attends to the death of each sparrow (Matt. 10:29). And they are noticing that Jesus rightly presumes that even his theological opponents will not dare to deny that it is good to break the Sabbath in order to rescue a sheep or an ox from a pit (Matt. 12:11; Luke 14:5).” (Greenway)“

Craddock notes, “It is significant that following the Jerusalem conference, which Luke reports in Acts 15, the Gentile churches are asked to show deference to Judaism only in matters of idolatry, unchastity and foods (Acts 15:20). No mention is made of the Sabbath. Either the matter had already been settled, or it was not a critical issue, or it was left to the convictions of different Christian communities to observe or not observe the Sabbath...One suspects, however, in Luke's time and place, that...Sabbath observance still generated a great deal of tension.”

As a result of such actions and teachings of Jesus, “the extreme (and potentially legalistic) forms of refraining from work that prevailed under the law are softened and set within the context of God's new redemptive work...Given this NT modification we are left with a picture of the sabbath as a day of doing good as well as a day of worship and cessation from ordinary work.” (DBI)

Luke 14:8-10 Soards notes a parallel between this teaching and Proverbs 25:6-7.And Pao and Schnabel similarly feel that Luke was thus “adapting sapiential advice for court etiquette to a banquet setting.”

Luke 14:11 “God acknowledges the 'humble,' and he judges those who seek honorable status. Jesus' aphorism alludes to Ezek. 21:26 ('Exalt that which is low, abase that which is high...'). The source of honor...in God's kingdom is derived not from the social order described by affluent friends, siblings, relatives, or rich neighbors (cf. 14:12), but from the judgment of God...” (Pao and Schnabel)

Luke 14:12-14 This advice to invite to dinner those who cannot repay you comes from Proverbs 22:9.

Luke 14:15-24 Pao and Schnabel have much to say regarding the OT background of this teaching of Christ. Here are just a few of their thoughts:

“It has been suggested that the excuses of the invited guests as described in 14:18-20 allude to Deut. 20.”

“The excuse of the third guest in 14:20...has been said o recall Deut. 20:5-7; 24:5...recognizing the status of newlyweds.”

“The suggested links with Deut. 20 depend in a large measure on the question whether Luke's central section corresponds to the contents and themes of Deut. 1-26. If this is indeed the case, then the parable of the Great Supper can be interpreted in terms of protesting and challenging abuses of Deuteronomy's theology and ethic of election...”

“Another question relates to 'the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame' (14:21) who are invited instead of the original, evidently wealthy and respectable guests. Some have suggested a link with Lev. 21:17-23, where such people are described as being unqualified for and therefore excluded from priestly service, even if they were Levites...”

“Some commentators relate the list of the disadvantaged to the OT tradition of Yahweh's mercy for the downtrodden, the oppressed, the ill, and the weak...with reference to Isa. 35:5-6a: 'Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the speechless sing for joy').”

“Traditions in the OT of the eschatological banquet help us to understand the parable. Note, for example, Isa. 25:6-10...Granted that the OT tradition of the eschatological banquet scene reverberates through the parable, one cannot preclude the possibility that Gentiles might be included...”

Luke 14:17 Interestingly, in the story two invitations to the banquet are sent out. Porter quotes Creed as writing, “It was a recognized custom to send a servant to repeat the invitation at the appointed time; cf. Est. 6:14.” In addition, according to Edersheim, there is an ancient Jewish commentary on Lamentations 4:2 which stated that the custom in Jerusalem was to only attend a feast if the invitation was repeated.

Luke 14:20 One of the excuses made for not attending a banquet is that the person invited says he has just gotten married. It is just possible, according to Tilden, that that newlywed is citing quite out of context Deuteronomy 24:5, which teaches that one in his situation should not begin a new business venture or join the army.

Luke 14:26-27 poses a problem for many readers since it talks about hating your family. But this should not cause difficulties if one realizes that the words love and hate in OT vernacular really imply love more and love less, respectively. See passages such as Genesis 29:31ff and Deuteronomy 21:15ff, etc. F.F. Bruce says that “it is natural for men and women to make what provision they can for their nearest and dearest. Jesus' emphasis lay rather on the necessity of treating the kingdom of God as nearer and dearer still. Because of the natural resistance on the part of his hearers to accepting this necessity with literal seriousness, he insisted on it in the most arresting and challenging language at his command.”

Pao and Schnabel note: “The first part of this stipulation alludes to the commandment: 'Honor your father and mother' (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16). Some scholars argue that 14:26 constitutes the annulment of the fourth commandment of the Decalogue.., while others point out that this is unlikely in light of 16:17 and that the rabbis were well aware of the fact that the Torah sometimes presented conflicting claims, a situation that did not entail a 'deconstruction of Torah but the subordination of one commandment to another (Allison..). Jesus' requirement has been explained as echoing Deut. 33:9, where Levi's devotion to the Torah is highlighted...Levi is reported to have said of his father and mother, 'I regard them not,' because 'he ignored hid kin,and did not acknowledge his children; for they observed your word, and kept your covenant.' The fact that Deut. 33:9 is quoted in Jewish texts suggests that Jesus' stipulation does not contradict Torah...”

Luke 14:28-32 This wise advice about carefully considering your actions first before proceeding is paralleled in Proverbs 24:6.

Lane points out: “This story emphasizes that the unfinished tower draws a crowd of curious onlookers who turn into those who mock and jeer. In the Genesis event [11:1-9] the erection of the tower starts out as a project, part of whose aim is to mock God. But the roles are reversed, and God turns in derision upon the people and confuses their language. Here the spectators become the deriders.”

JEREMIAH 31:31-34

This is an extremely important passage since it foretells the coming of the New Covenant, or as Christians would call it, the New Testament. But first, let us see the semi-symmetrical manner by which similar words and phrases are arranged:

                                                         Key Words in Jeremiah 31:31-34

The days are coming

    says the LORD (31a)

        I will make with the house of Israel (31b)

            a new covenant (31c)

                not like the old covenant (32a)

        in the days of their ancestors (32b)

                the covenant they broke (32c)

    says the LORD (32b)

            this covenant (33a)

       I will make with the house of Israel (33b)

---------

    says the LORD (33c)

                    no longer (34a)

    says the LORD (34b)

                    no more (34c)

Without going into too much detail regarding the details of each verse, below is what a number of scholars have to say regarding this passage as a whole:

Childs: “Older commentators...have observed the unusual way in which threats and promises are formulated in both an absolute and a conditional form (cf. chs. 7; 18). This observation is not to suggest that the fulfillment of the divine promises in the theology of Jeremiah must await Israel's fulfilling of certain conditions. The unconditional formulation (31:1ff) runs directly in the face of this interpretation. Nevertheless, the language of a covenant, indeed of a new covenant (31:31ff), implies a loyalty from the side of Israel. God's commitment to Israel is as fixed as the orders of the stars (31:35ff). In sum, the oracles...did not serve to engender passive waiting in the generations who looked for the promise, but functioned to order the life of the community who lived in expectation toward righteousness.”

Biddle: “This unit, like the others in this chain of eschatological texts with their characteristic introductory formulae...presumes and interweaves the language of ancestral apostasy (31.32...), an allusion to Judah's hardened heart (31.33...), and references to the failure of the knowledge of God in all strata of society (31.34...) into a promise of restored relationship. Opposing what was an increasingly limited concept of the Sinai covenant, the eschatologist affirms that God will make a new covenant (32.38-40) inscribed in the hearts of his people.” That last promise is also spelled out in 31:33.

Thompson: “This is the only reference to a new covenant in the OT. The short passage which develops from the simple announcement in this verse is one of the most important in the book of Jeremiah. Indeed it represents one of the deepest insights in the whole OT. It was taken up in later centuries by two different groups. The sectarians of Qumran understood themselves to be the men of the New Covenant. But the New Covenant for them was nothing more than the Mosaic Covenant with strong legalistic tendencies. The other group was the Christians, who saw the fulfillment of Jeremiah's words in the emergence of the Christian church, which was comprised of those who confessed Jesus as Lord (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:15; Heb. 8:8-9:28).”

D.R. Jones: “This is presented in prose of the tradition. This renders it intrinsically impossible that the passage can be a late contribution of a learned scribe for whom the new covenant is the dispensation in which all Israel will be learned scribes knowing the Torah by heart! (Duhm) Nor is this the most natural meaning of the words, which set the personal knowledge of God and forgiveness as the climax. It is difficult to imagine a learned scribe writing so ambiguously that the comparatively banal should be capable of so revolutionary a meaning.”

Bright states that this passage is “deservedly famous. It describes the new covenant that God would one day give his people, forgiving their sins and writing his law on their hearts so that all of them know him. As regards its authenticity, one can only say that it ought never to have been questioned. Although the passage may not preserve the prophet's ipsissima verba, it represents what might well be considered the high point of his theology. It is certainly one of the profoundest and most moving passages in the entire Bible.”

Bullock: The covenant that had been so peripheral for Israel would become a vital organ of existence. Written formerly on tablets of stone, the new age would be characterized by a covenant written on the heart of Israel (31:31-34). Nothing short of that could erase the sin that was written with an iron stylus upon Israel's heart (17:1-4). The sin and apostasy that had blackened her past would be outdistanced by God's grace, which would distinguish her future.”

Chisholm: “The new era to come would be highlighted by the inauguration of a new covenant with Israel and Judah (v. 31). It would differ from the old covenant, the Mosaic code, not in its demands, but in its effectiveness. The Mosaic law demanded allegiance to the Lord, demonstrated through obedience to its regulations. But it had no power, in and of itself, to make the people obey. Despite the Lord's love and care, the people violated the covenant (v. 32). The new covenant would operate differently. It would make the same essential demands on the people, but this time God's law, rather than being recorded on stone tablets, would be inscribed on the hearts and minds of God's people (v. 33). The point of the metaphor is that the people would have an inherent capacity and desire to obey God's demands. There would be no more need for exhortations to 'know the LORD,' for the people would automatically 'know' him as they experienced the forgiveness of sin (v. 34).”

 

GOD OF THE GAPS, REVISITED

 God-of-the-Gaps Theory Updated

About one year ago I wrote a post titled “God of the Gaps.” An update is in order since recently (10/7/26) it was announced that the Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded to Henri Kagan and Kenso Soai for providing a possible chemical mechanism for how life on earth could turn out naturally to be almost exclusively composed of one-sided molecules (i.e., Imagine two molecules which are mirror-images of one another but not superimposable on one another, like your left and right hands). Because homochirality was long cited as a major hurdle for purely materialistic explanations of the origin of life, this issue involves some major implications regarding why the basic building blocks of life as we know it on earth are (almost) exclusively composed of “left handed” rather than “right-handed.” molecules.

As I said earlier, the main practical problem with any God-of-the-gaps approach has been pointed out by atheists and Christians alike:

Atheist Neil deGrasse Tyson states: “If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then your God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on.” You might expect that comment from an atheist, but...

Dietrich Bonhoeffer: “How wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of our knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.” And if Bonhoeffer is too liberal a Christian to be trusted., consider the following:

Henry Drummond: “There are reverent minds who ceaselessly scan the fields of Nature and the books of Science in search of gaps – gaps which they fill up with God. As if God lived in gaps! What view of Nature or of Truth is theirs whose interest in Science is not in what it can explain but in what it cannot, whose quest is ignorance not knowledge?”(1908), quoted in Dictionary of Christianity and Science, p. 333. Drummond was author of The Greatest Thing in the World and a colleague of revivalist Dwight Moody.

Getting back to the recent Nobel Prize for Chemistry, the recipients' work is certainly worth such recognition since it should prove to be of great benefit to medical researchers who are investigating new cures for diseases. However, if you read news reports, some of them may in addition give the erroneous impression that another such “gap” in the Theory of Evolution has now been completely filled in, excluding God from yet another part of our universe. And I am just as sure that there are plenty of preachers out there who will cite this work (assuming they even find out about it) as yet another glaring example of how all scientists are atheists hell-bent on destroying Christianity through any dishonest trick they can muster..

I myself am a PhD organic research chemist who wrestled unsuccessfully for over two years, using all the modern tools available at the time, to carefully control all my reaction conditions, in attempts to carry out a much more simple but somewhat related task in chemical synthesis, the stereospecific derivatization of n-alkanes at the terminal carbon. But even my rather pathetic results caught the attention of Dr. Ron Breslow, who cited one of my patents as an early example of the new field of biomimetic catalysis, attempts to mimic synthetically the action of enzymes in living creatures.

Getting back to the present day, in the box sections below is what Google AI says in regard to how this recently Nobel Prize-winning research result could be understood by those of differing philosophies. My personal perspective, based on my experiences in research would grade the three possibilities below as follows:

I would judge View 1 as being incredibly naive, highly improbable, and often prompted by an unspoken desire to give themselves a ready excuse to ignore the possibility of a personal God..

The second perspective fits in well with those of a Deistic mindset who picture a remote God who wound up the universe and then sat back and watched it develop without his further involvement. It also ignores the vast number of individual processes and conditions that needed to be separately and simultaneously present in order for life to begin in such a manner.

For me at least as a trained chemical researcher and devoted Christian, Option 3 is by far the best way to picture the process of life beginning, one in which God was intimately involved in every single step, just as He remains directly involved in the fate of His creation today.

There is even one additional view not represented. It is that of the rather ignorant Christians who simply dismiss as purposeful lies everything with which they personally disagree. That is generally accompanied by a scathing personal denunciation of those scientists who dare to propose anything which does not fit into their neat limited prior worldview. I have unfortunately run into a number of these self-righteous and self-appointed defenders of orthodoxy in past churches I have attended.

1. The Naturalistic View: Spontaneous Self-Organization

For secular scientists and proponents of a purely naturalistic origin of life (abiogenesis), the Soai reaction bridges a massive explanatory gap.

The Implication: It demonstrates that the absolute structural purity required for life does not require a miracle, a supernatural creator, or an incredibly rare cosmic accident.

The Argument: Instead, the laws of chemistry naturally possess built-in mechanisms to amplify total chaos (a random 50/50 molecular mix) into perfect order. It shows that life's molecular symmetry could have been triggered by nothing more than a tiny, random statistical fluctuation on the early Earth.

2. The Theistic Evolution View: An Elegant, Ordered Creation

For religious individuals and theologians who believe that a creator operates through the laws of nature, this chemistry is viewed as a testament to divine design.  

The Implication: Rather than disproving a creator, the work is seen as revealing the brilliant "programming" within the universe. 

The Argument: From this perspective, a creator did not need to step in and manually orient every molecule to be left- or right-handed. Instead, the creator established elegant, finely-tuned physical laws—like asymmetric autocatalysis—that allow matter to beautifully organize itself into the building blocks of life

.3. The Intelligent Design View: The Role of the Chemist (i.e. God)

Proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) or Creationism interpret the laboratory success of these reactions differently, focusing on the specific environment required to make them work. 

 The Implication: They argue that the reaction actually highlights the necessity of intelligent guidance to achieve homochirality. 

The Argument: Critics from this viewpoint point out that the Soai reaction requires highly specific, purified starting materials (like organozinc compounds) and precisely controlled laboratory conditions that are highly unlikely to exist in a chaotic, unguided primordial soup. They argue that the experiment proves that a high degree of intelligence (the chemist) is still required to set up the system for order to emerge.

II SAMUEL 12 AS A DRAMATIC PLAY

This episode of the prophet Nathan confronting King David for his sin of having Uriah killed so that he could take Bathsheba just cries out to be treated as a play. But unfortunately, the words in the text itself are sometimes inadequate in conveying how the actors should play their parts so as to do justice to what the playwright had in mind. That is why the manuscript of most modern plays sometimes contain as many stage directions as actual dialogue. And the lack of such guidance is older plays such as those by Shakespeare is practically an open invitation for today's directors' artistic license to interpret and stage them in a variety of innovative ways, some probably in quite a different manner than Will had envisioned.

So you may be surprised to learn that this particular dramatic OT chapter in some of our earliest available manuscripts contain non-verbal clues as to how the words themselves should be delivered by the actors and pondered by the audience. Rendsburg and Richelle in a recent BAR article discuss the importance of one of these non-verbal clues embedded in the chapter.

As they explain, “One who looks at an ancient Hebrew manuscript, such as any of the Dead Sea Scrolls [which may date as early as the third century B.C.], or even a Torah scroll up to the present day, is immediately struck by the lack of what scholars refer to as paratextual material – the marks and annotations that guide one in how to read a text...The only exception to this general rule is the occasional white space that appears in ancient Hebrew manuscripts. These white spaces, just as they are used today, constitute paragraph breaks.”

They go on to say, “These white spaces are not random. They typically occur at expected places, where one story or episode ends and another one commences. Jewish tradition instructs the reader to pause in such places, to take a second (or two or three) before proceeding to the next section of text.” And then there is the example they cite which appears in two early manuscripts of 2 Samuel in which the list of David's sons and their mothers in verses 3:2-5 is set apart from the surrounding text by a space at its beginning and end, much in the way a set of parentheses would be used today.

But an even more important use of such white spaces within a text is to highlight sections which are especially dramatic in nature. That is where II Samuel 12 comes in. Two of the most complete and ancient Hebrew manuscripts of II Samuel we possess are the Aleppo Codex (about 920 AD) and the Leningrad Codex (1009 AD), both the product of a long line of Jewish scholars who were entrusted with faithfully preserving the OT for centuries. And these manuscripts may be favorably compared with the readings of the Dead Sea Scrolls which date as early as the third century BC.

With that necessary background, it is now appropriate to look at where blank spaces in the text of II Samuel 12 appear in the two codices dating to around 1000 AD. They are employed to set apart both Nathan's dramatic accusation against King David (“You are the man!”) in verse 7 and David's sad recognition response (“I have sinned against the Lord.”).

And this is not the end of the literary devices present which work together to enhance the impart of the story on the reader. As Rendsburg and Richelle go on to say, “Rather than directly rebuking the king, Nathan decides to proceed carefully, by way of a masterfully orchestrated speech [of the rich man stealing the only lamb of a poor man just so he can host a feast]..Nathan's rhetorical strategy works: By telling David a poignant story that seemingly concerned entirely different people, he makes him look at the situation from an external perspective and react with the full weight of his indignation. But David now needs to understand that he acted in the same way as the man whom he has just judged.”

Then regarding v. 13b, Rendsburg and Richelle explain, “The same holds true for the king's reply to the prophet...The reader is asked to ponder David's admission of guilt, by pausing, before proceeding with the story.”

And the above does not exhaust the strategy of the narrator as it is employed in bringing out even more dramatic possibilities in the event. Thus Dale Ralph Davis writes, “Verse 9 specifies the king's sin but with an interesting emphasis. “The Hebrew text places special stress on the direct objects by placing them before the verbs:

    Uriah the Hittite you struck down with the sword;

    wife you took as your own wife;

    But him you killed with the sword of the sons of Ammon.

In this way the text emphasizes that David not only committed iniquity but destroyed persons. He sinned against Yahweh and ruined people.”

Tsumura points out another subtle literary tactic present in this chapter in that the three verbs “eat, drink and lie” employed earlier by Uriah in 11:11 demonstrating his refusal to do all three as long as he was on military duty are now repeated in the same order in Nathan's fictionalized story in 12:3....The rich man took (lqh) the poor man's lamb, just as David took Bathsheba (11:4). It was especially heinous because he had plenty of sheep of his own.”

There is another interesting contrast present in David's angry words in v. 5 when he says, “As the LORD lives, the man who did this deserves to die!”

An even more subtle contrast is pointed out by Joyce Baldwin in that David fully admits to his sin when confronted with it by a prophet from God whereas King Saul in I Samuel 13:12; 15:13; and 15:20 staunchly refused to admit his wrongdoing in Samuel's presence. She also notes the inclusio (i.e. literary bookends to the episode) formed by the movement of Nathan toward (v. 1) and then away from (v. 15) David. One could note a similar inclusio tying together verses 15b and 25, a passage starting and ending with a reference to the LORD as well as the contrasting illness and death of one son followed by the birth of another one.

In another subtle touch, it has been suggested by Coxon that there is a wordplay in v. 6 between “sevenfold” (sibatayim) and the name “Bathsheba.” Whether or not that is true, it should be kept in mind that throughout the Bible “seven” is utilized symbolically as a perfect or complete number, in this case indicating ”complete restitution.”

Rosenberg has another interesting take on the events in this chapter: “David shows himself capable of a rich range of feeling which, for the most part, does not compromise the proportion and restraint in his political behavior. Toward his parents, however, we have already noted the text's silence on David's feelings, and much the same narrative inhibition governs David's relations with spouses in general, and with his children in 2 Samuel 13-14 – leaving us with a sense of David's coldness or inaccessibility to those closest to him. Some of this reserve may stem from the trauma of loss David has already experienced in the death of his first child by Bathsheba, recounted in chapter 12. Once David is informed of this loss, he breaks the fast he has been observing the infant's illness. When his puzzled servants ask him why he now eats, David's answer is quite revealing [see vv. 22-23]...These numb and dispirited words are our first indication that David's energies as parent and ruler are beginning to flag and that he has a newly tangible sense of his own mortality. This awareness, however, has perhaps begun at the end of chapter 11, where David's self-anesthetizing over the death of Uriah signals the extent to which the kingly office has truncated his humanity; significantly, there eating is also a motif: 'Let not the matter be evil in your sight, for the sword eats this way and that. Strengthen your battle!'' (v. 25).”

Pratt: “Old Testament writers demonstrated remarkable honesty in characterization. They did not fabricate qualities for their characters. Their figures often present faults as well as virtues...Nathan called David to account for his adultery (2 Samuel 12:1-14)...The honesty of Old Testament writers heightens our sense of confidence in their characterizations. When human failure played an important role in their stories, they did not hide it. ...In the light of their frank disclosures, we can be assured that Old Testament characterizations are true.”

And although Pratt is totally correct in the above assessment of the historical worth of the biblical accounts, we as Christians must not merely stop there. I once met a man who was quite adamant that we need to accept every single statement in the Bible as the literal truth whatever the immediate context was. However, in attempting to apply the implications of those same words to his daily life, he was not in the least interested. The strong impression he gave others was that as long as he held tight to that one fundamental mantra, he was head and shoulders above most other believers.