JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES Books VI-VIII, David - Solomon, SOLVED

[rakovsky]

*Note: the OP did some cleanup and moved nos. 12-24 to a new thread, so some answers will show 2 nos: the original and the new.


(Question 1: SOLVED) Since David is seen as a prefigurement of the Messiah, is his battle against Goliath also a Messianic prefigurement?

In terms of Messianic prophecy, it's remarkable that Saul gave David his kingly armor, but David rejected it, because the Davidic Messiah is considered a kingly figure. Here is Josephus' description of David's preparations for battle:

But David was weighed down by this armour, for he had not been trained nor taught to wear armour, and said, "Let this fine apparel be for thee, O King, for thou indeed art able to wear it, but suffer me, as thy servant, to fight just as I will." Accordingly he laid down the armour and, taking up his staff, he put five stones from the brook into his shepherd's wallet, and with a sling in his right hand advanced against Goliath. The enemy, seeing him approaching in this manner, showed his scorn, and derided him for coming to fight, not with such weapons as men are accustomed to use against other men, but with those wherewith we drive away and keep off dogs.

(Antiquities VI, Lines 184-187.)

Could Goliath represent paganism or the devil, Saul's armor represent the outward accoutrements of a king that Jesus gave up in coming as a heavenly leader, and the five stones representing the five wounds of Christ, and the brook representing death (like the Jordan can metaphorically)?



(Question 2: SOLVED) How would you answer the moral dilemma of whether it can be morally right to lie in order to achieve a greater purpose?

In the story of Melcha voluntarily saving David from King Saul, Melcha lied to her father Saul that she helped David because David forced her to.

Here is Josephus' account of Melcha's lie:

But when her father rebuked her for having saved his enemy and tricked himself, she resorted to a plausible defence ; her husband, she declared, had threatened to kill her and so, by terrifying her, had secured her aid in his escape, for which she deserved pardon, seeing that she had acted under constraint and not of her own free will.

(Antiquities, Book 6)

The story brings to my mind Mark Twain's injunctuons against lying, as well as against telling hurtful truths, like:

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything."



"I have a higher and grander standard of principle than George Washington. He could not lie; I can, but I won't."



"An injurious truth has no merit over an injurious lie. Neither should ever be uttered. The man who speaks an injurious truth, lest his soul be not saved if he do otherwise, should reflect that that sort of a soul is not strictly worth saving."

But these maxims don't give a clear answer to the dilemma of what to do when interrogated about a targeted person like David. Twain refuses to lie, but he also refuses to tell hurtful truths.

It brings to mind the moral dilemma that abolitionists faced when they secretly harbored runaway slaves on the underground railroad and slave catchers questioned them about the runaways' whereabouts. The abolitionists harbored the slaves out of their morals and beliefs, as well as their desire for a good society, yet lying, especially to the authorities is dishonest and contradicts society's unity.

In referencing Rahab's protection of the Israelite scouts from the Canaanites who searched for them, James writes in his epistle, "Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?"(Jas. 2:25)



(Question 3: SOLVED) I can see a challenge for a king like the one that David faced if he thinks that his own son is building up forces against him. What would be the best thing for the king to do, when the son is not in open opposition?

The story of David fleeing from Absalom seems strange in the history of monarchies. A major part of a kingdom rarely in history supports a king's son in a war against his own father. I can't think of any good examples.

In this story, David's son Absalom had smoothed over a conflict with his father, but told lots of people that as king, he (Absalom) would have supported the peoples' causes and court cases that David had rejected. Absalom then went to Hebron, where he started to built up a following. Then, David, supposedly out of fear, fled Jerusalem the capitol. David's decision to flee could have been a tactical move in order to make the conflict open, and then using the occasion of the conflict's openness to return and conquer the rebels. Had the king stayed in Jerusalem and kept control of the capitol and the son secretly plotting in Hebron, it would be hard to make the conflict so clear to the people.



King Herod's decision in a situation of intrigue was to claim that his sons were plotting against him, which may or may not have been true, and then to kill them as plotters. Tsar Ivan IV, in a different circumstance, did flee his own capitol when the boyars supposedly rebelled against him. The Tsar openly resigned his rule, effectively compelling people to come to him to ask him to be Tsar again, which he used to his advantage to impose a crueler rule, unfortunately.

(Question 4: SOLVED) What episodes, if any, in David's life might the Psalmist have referred to when making the Psalms about the king's death and resurrection? (Psalms 21-22 & 40, with the "mirey clay" being a metaphor for death) In Psalm 3, concerning the Psalmist sleeping and waking up despite the rebellion, the occasion for the Psalm is said in its prologue to be David's fleeing from Absalom. Could David's conflict with Absalom parallel in some way Christ's rejection by or conflict with the Jewish religious leadership, since David is seen as a Messianic prefigurement?

If David's conflict was a Messianic prefigurement, David crossing the Jordan could be a reference to Christ's crossing the barrier of death. The Jordan in the Pentateuch, by analogy, is used as a crossing point of the Israelites into the Promised Land. Achitophel's hanging suicide or Absalom's head being caught in the tree could have relation to Judas's death. Or perhaps Absalom's hair getting stuck in the tree resembles the crown of thorns, and Joab's arrow in Absalom represents a spear wound. The women hiding the messengers for David in the well could have a relation to the women seeing angels at Jesus' tomb. David's wish to have died in his son's place recalls the atoning theology in Christ's death.

(Question 5: SOLVED) How would you resolve the potential confusion between 2 Samuel 14:27 and 2 Sam. 18:18 over whether Absalom had children. Maybe the three sons had gotten killed in the chronological interim between the narratives in the two verses?

2 Samuel 14:27 says: "And unto Absalom there were born three sons, and one daughter, whose name was Tamar: she was a woman of a fair countenance."

But later, 2 Samuel 18:18 says: "Now Absalom in his lifetime had taken and reared up for himself a pillar, which is in the king's dale: for he said, I have no son to keep my name in remembrance: and he called the pillar after his own name: and it is called unto this day, Absalom's place."

In Antiquities VII, Josephus takes the view that Absalom did have children:

He [Absalom] dwelt, however, in Jerusalem two years and became the father of three sons and of one very beautiful daughter, whom Solomon's son Roboamos " married later and by whom he had a son named Abias.**



[Absalom set up] a marble column, two stades distant from Jerusalem, which he named Absalom's Hand, saying that if his his children should perish, his name would remain in connexion with the column. He had, in fact, three sons and one daughter, named Thamara, as we have said before.



THACKERAY'S FOOTNOTE:

Josephus, in attributing to Absalom the fear that his children might die before him, disposes of the difficulty caused by the contradiction between 2 Sam. xiv. 27, referred to in § 190, and the present verse, 2 Sam. xviii. 18, which reads, " for he said, I have no son to keep my name in remembrance." A rabbinic tradition has it that Absalom's sons died before him as a punishment for having set fire to Joab's field ; another tradition states that Absalom left sons " but they were so insignificant that Scripture speaks of them as though he died childless"

(Question 6: Solved) Does David's use of instruments suggest that it is proper to use instruments in singing the Psalms, or else in the course of liturgy? Are there modern recordings that reflect what the Psalms' melodies sounded like when accompanied by the instruments?

Josephus describes David's melodies and instruments this way:

David, being now free from wars and dangers, and enjoying profound peace from this time on, composed songs and hymns to God in varied meters— some he made in trimeters, and others in pentameters. He also made musical instruments, and instructed the Levites how to use them in praising God on the so-called Sabbath day and on the other festivals. Now the forms of these instruments were somewhat as follows: the kinyra had ten strings stretched on it, which were struck with a plectrum ; the nabla, which had twelve notes, was plucked with the fingers ; and the kymbala were large, broad plates of brass.



FOOTNOTE

Josephus, in characterizing Hebrew poetry, which is accentual, uses terms familiar to Greek readers, who knew only quantitative poetry. These terms may stand if taken to mean lines of three beats (trimeters) or three plus two beats (pentameters).

Later, in Book VIII Chapter 3, Josephus relates how Solomon made musical instruments for playing the Psalms:

of the musical instruments devised for singing psalms, which are called nablai and kinyrai, he made forty thousand of electrum.

Here are some Psalms in Hebrew with accompaniment that I found online:



Psalm 1: www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pSe4xLNMmI

Psalm 3: www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSe_IpIZcXc

Psalm 4: www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmHALcm3yXk

Psalm 8: www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZTx1vIpksc

Psalm 51: www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpHy77S-ITs

Psalm 95: www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKW53eBWKGw

Psalm 95: www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEfF8fr5stY

Psalm 104: www.youtube.com/watch?v=--UABwqW9Sg

Psalm 121: www.youtube.com/watch?v=if7-qkhGY5I

Psalm 147: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHX1yFIaV_4

Psalm 150: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvng2arR0SM



In addition, some modern Western composers imagine that they have found lost melodies based on the Hebrew letters of the Psalm, but their method of reconstruction seems not very reliable.



(Question 7: SOLVED) Why was David's census-taking sinful or deserving of punishment?

Exodus 30:12 prescribes tithing the population if the rulers count their number: "When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them."

In Book VII, Josephus suggests that David's census was sinful in forgetting to tithe the people for the census:

Then King David, desiring to know how many tens of thousands there were of the people, forgot the injunctions of Moses ^ who had prescribed that, when the populace was numbered, half a shekel should be paid to God for every person * ; and he ordered Joab, his commander, to go out and take a census of the entire population. And, though Joab told him that there was no need to do this, he did not listen to him, but ordered him to proceed without delay to the numbering of the Hebrews.



THACKERAY'S FOOTNOTE:

Cf. Ex. XXX. 12 f. This explanation of David's sin in numbering the people is also found in rabbinic tradition.

Scripture, while not explaining why the census was sinful, gives two different accounts of its origin, 2 Sam. "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel and he incited David against them, saying. Go, number Israel and Judah " ; 1 Chron. " And Satan stood up against Israel and incited David to number Israel."

However, the Biblical account doesn't specify that God or Satan incited David to fail to pay the shekels, only that God or Satan incited David to take the census itself. Likewise, when the Bible says that the census failed to include the Levites and Benjamin, the Bible explains this by saying that Joab failed to number them because the king's order was abominable to Joab, not because the failure to pay the shekels was wrong. (1 Chronicles 21:6: "But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them: for the king's word was abominable to Joab.")

Someone suggested to me that the moral problem with the census was that it served a military purpose and could be part of building up an empire and fueling a ruler's greed.

(Question 8: Solved) Does the Temple location's former status as a threshing floor hold a mystical or spiritual meaning?

God agreed to stop the pestilence that served as punishment for David's census and He commanded David to make a sacrifice at Araunah the Jebusite's threshing floor in Jerusalem. Araunah has his equipment, threshing floor, oxen and plough sacrificed there. Josephus relates about the location:

As it happened, it was to this very place that Abraham brought his son Isaac, to sacrifice him as a burnt-offering, and, as he was about to slaughter him, there suddenly appeared beside the altar a ram, which Abraham sacrificed in place of his son, as we related earlier.

This location became the Temple Mount, as Josephus records:

Then, when David saw that God had hearkened to his prayer and had accepted the sacrifice with favour, he resolved to call that entire place the altar « of all the people, and to build a temple to God... he came close to foretelling what was later to happen, for God sent a prophet to say that in this place a temple would be built by the son who was destined to succeed him on the throne.

One meaning for the threshing floor could relate to Jesus' allegory of separating the wheat from the chaff during the Last Judgment. It's noteworthy in this regard that the Yom Kippur/ Day of Atonement sacrifice was a key Temple ritual involving placing the blood of a sacrificed goat onto the Ark of the Covenant, which held the Ten Commandments.



(Question 9: SOLVED) How common was the idea in ancient Judaism that after death, "no one can ever return to learn what is happening among the living"?

Samuel the prophet learned of King Saul's fate after Samuel's own death in the incident when the witch of Endor called up Samuel's spirit. In Josephus' telling of the story (I think that Josephus is probably correct), the ghost whom the witch called up was really Samuel's and not just a demon pretending to be Samuel.

But later in Book VII, Josephus has David say to Solomon before dying:

"I am now, my son, going to my destiny and must depart to my fathers and travel the common road of all men now alive or yet to be, from which no one can ever return to learn what is happening among the living."

Still later, the prophet Elijah raised a deceased youth.



(Question 10: Solved) Did Solomon desecrate the Temple's altar by killing Joab there?

Before dying, King David tells Solomon:

Remember also the crime of Joab, the commander, who, because of envy, killed two just and brave generals, Abenner, the son of Ner, and Amasa, the son of Jethras, and, in whatever way you may think best, avenge their deaths ; for Joab, being stronger and more powerful than I, has until now escaped punishment.

When Solomon kills his own brother Adonias, Joab runs to the Temple for protection and grabs the altar for protection. Solomon orders him to the court, but Joab refuses, saying he would prefer to die there at the temple, so Solomon has him killed there.

1 Kings 2 says:

Then tidings came to Joab: for Joab had turned after Adonijah, though he turned not after Absalom. And Joab fled unto the tabernacle of the LORD, and caught hold on the horns of the altar. ... And Benaiah came to the tabernacle of the LORD, and said unto him, Thus saith the king, Come forth. And he said, Nay; but I will die here. And Benaiah brought the king word again, saying, Thus said Joab, and thus he answered me. And the king said unto him, Do as he hath said, and fall upon him, and bury him; that thou mayest take away the innocent blood, which Joab shed, from me, and from the house of my father.

Josephus notes in Book VIII:

When Banaias reported his answer to the king, Solomon ordered his head to be cut off there, as Joab wished it,-this being the penalty exacted for the two generals whom he had impiously slain-and his body to be buried, in order that his sins might never leave his family (in peace), while Solomon himself and his father should be blameless for Joab's death.



Loeb's Footnote:

According to Scripture, Solomon... only implies that he is also blameless for Joab's death, 1 Kings ii.32



Whiston's Footnote:

This execution upon Joab, as a murderer, by slaying him, even when he had taken sanctuary at God's altar, is perfectly agreeable to the law of Moses, which enjoins, that "if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor to slay him with guile, thou shalt take him from mine altar that he die," Exodus 21:14.

I am very skeptical of Whiston's interpretation that killing Joab at the sanctuary is agreeable to the , because the verse that Whiston cites says that the murderer must be taken from the sanctuary. to be killed.



(Question 11: Solved) Did the Temple have an upper level or a second story, and if so, what was there?

It was neat to read in Book VIII (below) about how Solomon built the Temple with a second story that was accessible by stairs. Maybe some priests and Temple workers stayed there?:

And the king contrived a stairway to the upper story through the thickness of the wall, for it had no great door on the east as the lower building had, but it had entrances through very small doors on the sides.

Thackeray cites 1 Kings 6:8: "The door for the middle chamber was in the right side of the house: and they went up with winding stairs into the middle chamber, and out of the middle into the third."



Citing Josephus, the Jewish Encyclopedia on Herod's Temple notes that the Second Temple that succeeded Solomon's also had an upper story:

The Temple building had an upper story similar in size to the lower ("B. J." v. 5, § 5). Side-structures, as in Solomon's Temple, afforded space for three stories of chambers on the north, south, and west sides of the Temple. These chambers were connected by doors; and trapdoors afforded communication from those of one story to those of the story immediately above or below.

(Question 12) In addition to the Ten Commandments, did the Ark also hold Aaron's rod that had budded or the manna from the desert?



In Numbers 17:10,

The LORD said to Moses, "Put Aaron's staff back in front of the Testimony, to be kept as a sign for the rebellious, so that you may put an end to their grumbling against Me, lest they die."

1 Kings 8:9 says: "There was nothing in the ark except the two stone tablets that Moses had placed in it at Horeb, where the LORD had made a covenant with the Israelites after they had come out of the land of Egypt."



2 Chronicles 5:10 says similarly: "There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets that Moses had placed in it at Horeb, where the LORD had made a covenant with the Israelites after they had come out of Egypt."



However, later in Hebrews 9:4, Paul, who had been trained as a pharisee and was very familiar with the Temple rituals, wrote: "Inside the ark were the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant."



On the other hand, Josephus wrote in Book VIII, "And the ark held nothing but the two stone tablets which preserved the ten commandments spoken by God to Moses on Mount Sinai inscribed upon them."

Perhaps the Ark may have held different objects at different times?



(Question 13) Is there a connection between the number of talents of gold brought to Solomon for the Temple's construction (666) being the same as the number of the beast or AntiChrist in Revelation? Maybe there is some underlying meaning in the number 666 that is shared between the two usages?

In describing the building of the Temple, Josephus says: "The weight of the gold that was brought to Soiomon him was six hundred and sixty-six talents, not including what was brought by the merchants or the gifts which the governors and the kings of Arabia sent to him."(Book VIII)

Similarly, 1 Kings 10 says:

14. Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred threescore and six talents of gold,



15. Beside that he had of the merchantmen, and of the traffick of the spice merchants, and of all the kings of Arabia, and of the governors of the country.

Revelation 13:17-18 says, "And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is six hundred threescore and six."

So whereas Solomon received 666 gold talents annually, in the prophecy of Revelation, in order to buy or sell, a person would need to have the number of the beast's name, 666.



JTaum on Hermeneutics Stack Exchange theorizes:

If we look back at the law for kings in Deuteronomy 17, It prohibits the king from multiplying horses and chariots, wives, and wealth. This is exactly what Solomon is doing in 1 Kings 10-11. Chapter ten begins by commending his great wisdom, but then steps through his decline - that is, he begins violating the rules for kings by multiplying gold (666 talents a year), multiplying horses and chariots, and finally multiplying wives who turn his heart away from following YHWH. He sets up centers of false worship for all the foreign gods of his wives. So, the number 666 is associated with Solomon in his fall, his abuse of power, and his turning away from true worship of YHWH.

Julian Farrington theorized on the Quora website:

The link with Solomon, I believe is that Solomon was accounted as the wisest man on Earth, yet Jesus said ‘the Queen of Sheba traveled from the uttermost part of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and yet ONE GREATER than Solomon is here”. It’s in the same passage that Jesus was referring to the Queen of Sheba’s travels, that we learn Solomon was paid 666 talents of Gold in a year. It’s pretty likely that some of that would have come from Sheba for hearing his wisdom. Jesus also said that ‘The flowers of the field don’t work for money or make their own clothes, but that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these”.



Solomon has wisdom, but he ended up using his wisdom to make money, and that (according to Jesus) is NOT wisdom. Jesus taught that we should not work for money, but work for God (Matthew 6:24), and if we do this, God will feed and clothes us (Matthew 6:25–34). The mark of the beast relates directly to this, we’re either going to work for God, and live by faith, or we’re going to (as Solomon did), place our faith in money, and take the mark.

[alon]

Note: the OP did some cleanup and moved nos. 12-24 to a new thread, so answers will show 2 nos: the original and the new.
 

(Question 12/1) Since David is seen as a prefigurement of the Messiah, is his battle against Goliath also a Messianic prefigurement?

The Jordan can also represent life. You could make a good case for the battle between David and Goliath being a Messianic prefigurement, but not based on Josephus.


(Question 13/2) How would you answer the moral dilemma of whether it can be morally right to lie in order to achieve a greater purpose?


Remember I’ve told you before there is a heirarchy to the mitzvoth? And the preservation of life is almost always the higher mitzvah.


(Question 14) I can see a challenge for a king like the one that David faced if he thinks that his own son is building up forces against him. What would be the best thing for the king to do, when the son is not in open opposition?


Your explanation here sounds plausible.

[rakovsky]

*For Question 1 (the battle of David vs. Goliath as a Messianic prefigurement), Damasus Winzen writes in his article "David: Prototype of Christ" that the battle served as a prefigurement:

Faith and spirit had left the Israelites and their king Saul. They did not dare to answer the giant’s blasphemies. Then David jumped into the breach, without armor, a true soldier of his God, knowing that “not with sword or spear does the Lord deliver, for the battle is the Lord’s” (1 Samuel 17:47). With a sling, a stone and a stick, David overcomes all the most up-to-date might of Goliath (17:5). Who would not be reminded of Christ, the one who jumped into the breach to give his life for the whole people and conquered the power of Satan with the cross on his shoulder?

The idea is that Yeshua served as a mediator who achieved victory with what would normally be a weak instrument to do so, the Cross.

Adrian Warnock writes in "How King David reminds us of Christ Jesus":

We certainly see this comparison between David and Jesus in the account of his battle with Goliath. Our enemy is great and powerful. No one dare stand up against him, for he is far stronger than us. He mocks us and our God constantly. The people are full of fear and have no hope.



In 1 Samuel 17:8 the enemy urges them to choose themselves a representative. Meanwhile God has chosen for himself a representative who will stand for his people. Like David, in his human form Jesus was not particularly impressive. While David faced what seemed like certain death and was delivered, Jesus was delivered through death. What seemed like an impossibly insignificant strategy, a small stone, the death of a single man, won the victory in each case.



And in both cases the whole people of God share in the benefits of the victor of our champion!



And of course this story should inspire you and I. If God can use a shepherd boy or a carpenter to save many, perhaps he can use us!

Since David was trained as a Shepherd and used a shepherd's tools of a staff and sling, he reminds us of the Messianic image of the Good Shepherd.
Whereas Adrian Warnock sees David's stone (actually 5 stones) as relating to Yeshua's death, it looks to me that the stones represent the 5 stone/metal weapons used on Yeshua, the 4 nails and the spear (although in the Latin tradition there were only 3 nails, the Latins still refer to the 5 Wounds of Christ).
Adrian Warnock compares David's unimpressive form and his representation of the Israelites as correlating with Yeshua's unimpressive human form and his standing in to represent God in the fight with Satan. 

Jason Miller in "Discovering the Hope" notes that in general, the Bible sees the Messiah as associated with David. He sees Goliath as prefiguring the Adversary in the story for trying to enslave Israel, and he implies that there is no clear reason why the writer specifies 5 stones, so Miller seeks other explanations, like the numbers of books in and Yeshua's 5 wounds:

Goliath is the enemy of Israel, bent on terrorizing, defeating and ultimately enslaving the people of God. While these qualities do not make him unique in the Old Testament, he is certainly the epitome of evil in this story. Goliath prefigures the Adversary.



David attacks and defeats Goliath with two weapons: a sling, and Goliath’s sword. As David approaches Goliath in the field of battle, 1 Samuel 17:40 tells that he put “five smooth stones” into his pouch for use with his sling. There is nothing in the immediate context to indicate why the writer gives this unusual detail of the number of stones.
... From a Hebraic numerological perspective, the five stones could represent the five books of the Law. Other Old Testament parallels of five include the number of several materials used in the building of the Tabernacle (e.g. Exodus 36:10, 16, 31-22, etc.).

For this essay, viewing the Old Testament through the lens of the Gospels, let us look to the life of Christ, more specifically, the five wounds suffered at his crucifixion: two in the hands, two in the feet and one in the side. The wounds of Christ, signifying his death, were certainly the means by which Christ defeated Satan on the Cross. As five smooth stones were gathered by David to conquer Goliath, so five wounds were suffered by Jesus as he defeated Satan.



The second element of David’s victory over Goliath was Goliath’s own sword, which David uses to cut off Goliath’s head. The prefiguring continues: just as David used Goliath’s own weapon to completely defeat, so Christ used Satan’s own weapon to completely defeat him: by death he destroyed death.

He makes an interesting observation that Goliath's own weapon defeated Goliath, like the cross would defeat Satan.
He continues:

In 1 Samuel 17, the three oldest brothers are part of the army of Israel facing Goliath and the Philistines. They react with anger at David’s appearance at the battle (1 Samuel 17:28), even though David is only there following the bidding of his father, bringing them gifts of food (Caesarius of Arles sees in Jesse a type of God the Father sending his Son).
Let us consider David’s brothers as prefiguring the religious leaders of Jesus’ day. They would have been considered the presumptive favorites for leading Israel, just as David’s brothers. Just as David’s brothers saw themselves rejected in the anointing of David as king, so the Pharisees would have seen themselves passed over at the baptism of Jesus (for which they were present, and which clearly signified God's favor upon Jesus). The Pharisees and Sadducees then respond in anger and jealousy to the Son who had simply been bringing them gifts from the Father. David’s brothers, in their presence, rejection and anger and jealousy, prefigure the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus’ day.

I could perceive the three older brothers as being allegorically Herod, the Chief Priest, and Pilate. Next, he writes:

Saul’s importance to the story comes in 16:31. He has heard that David is questioning why Israel allows Goliath to speak about Israel the way he does, and sends for him. When he finally allows David to go fight Goliath, he clothes him in his own armor, which David cannot use. David instead needs to fight Goliath on his own terms, not as an armored warrior, but as a shepherd. The people of Israel try to clothe Jesus in their own conception of what a Messiah should look like, seen especially in the disciples’ numerous queries about when Jesus will restore Israel, as well as the shouts of Hosanna to the Son of David at the Lord’s entrance to Jerusalem. Saul, the King of Israel representing the people of Israel, also prefigures the people of Israel in the time of Jesus.

This comparison of Saul's expectations of an armored warrior vs. the appearance of a Shepherd with Yeshua coming as a spirtual leader rather than a Judean political warrior rebel also makes sense.

Next, he sees the Israelites routing the fleeing Philistines as the community of believers in Yeshua mopping up the adversary. How would you explain this comparison? What would the mopping up of the fleeing Philistines represent? I am not sure. Maybe the spiritual conversions of the pagan world? Here is what Miller writes:

However, there is another interesting applicative layer, for which we go to the verses of 1 Samuel 17 immediately following the slaying of Goliath—the decapitation does not end the story. The Philistines see that Goliath is dead, they flee, and the Israelites, with a shout, take chase and pursue the Philistines as far as Gath and Ekron.
Here is where the believer can take great courage today. It is clear in the New Testament that Israel prefigures the Church. Just as the battle with the Philistines was won by David conquering Goliath, so the battle with sin, evil and death was won by Jesus conquering Satan and the grave in the Crucifixion and Resurrection. We, the Church, are like Israel routing the Philistines—we’re in the mop-up of the battle against evil. Let us never retreat from a defeated foe; let us remember that the battle has been won, the victory has been secured by Christ’s victory on the Cross.

Sandra Gravett in "David vs. Goliath: the Campaign Ad" suggests that the story of David killing Goliath is apocryphal:

More critical readers recognize the apocryphal nature of this tale. Not only is it one of two accounts of how David came into the service of Saul (the other being as a musician, 1Sam 16:18-23), it also conflicts with 2Sam 21:19, which states that a fighter named Elhanan defeated Goliath in a different battle. In order to depose a successful sitting king and all of his heirs, David needed a compelling biography. Here, he gets it by demonstrating prowess in the art of war (see 1Sam 18:5-8, 1Sam 18:30 also). Further, he wins the right to marry into the family of the king (1Sam 17:25, 1Sam 18:17-29).
For the biblical writers, David becomes not only the first true king but also the model for what all kings should be and what the Messiah will be. The backstory they create underscores that role by showing that David, like Israel, can slay giants against all odds.

If she is right and the Bible is implicitly showing that David did not actually kill Goliath, but someone else did, then does this mean that the story is actually something like a parable or hagiography that is allegorically true like the story of Jonah and the Fish could be, or like some of the depictions in the Psalms could be (like God gouging ears for David)? That is, David slew Goliath in some spiritual or indirect way (like by convincing Elhanan to fight Goliath), and so the story really has some different, greater meaning than a historical record, ie. it is a Messianic parable?
I am skeptical of her suggestion, because the story of David and Goliath seemed at face value to be meant as a real historical record.

[rakovsky]

*Also regarding Question 1, David Guzik makes an outline, "David and Goliath", that shows major elements of the story that can relate to the Gospel story:

Notice that David is said to be the youngest of eight sons of Jesse; yet Psalm 89:27 calls David God's firstborn, demonstrating that "firstborn" is as much a title and a concept as a description of birth order (see Colossians 1:15)

This brings to mind that Yeshua is God's firstborn.
1 Samuel 17 says that David went with his brothers to the battle, "15 But David went and returned from Saul to feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem.
16 And the Philistine drew near morning and evening, and presented himself forty days." Guzik notes: "Forty days (or years) is used in the Scriptures rather consistently as a period of judgment and/or testing (Noah, Israel, Jesus)"

In 1 Samuel 17, Goliath's challenge went:

8 And he stood and cried unto the armies of Israel, and said unto them, Why are ye come out to set your battle in array? am not I a Philistine, and ye servants to Saul? choose you a man for you, and let him come down to me.
9 If he be able to fight with me, and to kill me, then will we be your servants: but if I prevail against him, and kill him, then shall ye be our servants, and serve us.
10 And the Philistine said, I defy the armies of Israel this day; give me a man, that we may fight together.

[David replies:] What shall be done to the man that killeth this Philistine, and taketh away the reproach from Israel? for who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?

[Goliath says back, since David had a staff with him for the battle:] Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods.

He is defying the Israelite armies, challenging them to give someone in a duel, and then he reproaches David. I don't really see this as reproaching God, at least not directly.

Also, maybe Favid's brothers are not representing Herod, Pilate, and the pharisees, but are Jesus' own brothers, who at least at the beginning of Jesus' ministry seem to have been reproaching him for his ministry in some of the gospels, calling for him to come back home.

Guzik lists:

Examples of how David's victory over Goliath prefigures Jesus' victory on our behalf

1. Goliath wanted to be a representative of his people; whatever happened to him would happen to the Philistine nation; whatever happened to the representative of God's people would happen to God's people
2. The battle took place on ground that rightfully belonged to God's people, ground that they had lost
3. Goliath was able to dominate the people of God through fear and intimidation alone
4. Who sent David to the battle ground? He was sent by his father (1 Samuel 17:17)
5. David was scorned and rejected by his own brethren
6. David fought the battle without concern with human strategies or conventional wisdom
...
F. (55-58) Saul meets a victorious David
1. Why didn't Saul recognize David, when David had played for him in the palace? Four possible solutions:
a. He did recognize him, but wanted to know his family background for the sake of marriage
b. He could not recognize David because he is, or was, too mentally and emotionally unstable
c. Perhaps Saul never really saw David, because David played behind a curtain
d. Perhaps David had matured greatly (had he grown a beard?) in his time away from Saul
e. Young man in verse 56 means one who is fully grown, mature, and ready to marry

Saul's inability to recognize David reminds me of the Sanhedrin's and pharisees' inability to recognize Yeshua as the Messiah.

Matt Hereema, in his essay "The Rise of David, the Flawed Messiah", see the Israelites running after the Philistines as comparable to believers routing remaining unbelief What do you think of this comparison?:

Just as David faced down the giant, Goliath, the enemy of Israel, and killed him, and Israel got to run behind David and totally route the Philistine army; Jesus faced down the giant: sin and death, and destroyed it, and we get to run behind him and route out our remaining unbelief. David gave Israel victory over the Philistines. Jesus gives us victory over sin and death.

My guess is that if Goliath represents Satan, then the Philistines running away would be the demons. I am not sure though because it is rather angels who are to route demons. So maybe they represent the wicked. 
Goliath was from the city of Gath, and as Guzik noted in his list, this was where the Anakim giants lived in Joshua's time. I think that this might mean that he was descended from the Nephilim, as if he were partly descended from some angel. Depending on whether you see the nephilim angels who mated with women as bad, one might also see him as descended from a bad angel.

Dr. Lewis Johnson, in his sermon on "David, Goliath, and David's Greater Son," notes a theological aspect to the battle:

But, also, you’ll notice he says that “He should taunt the armies of the living God.” And so he recognizes the fundamental fact that the Philistines gods are the gods that are made by the Philistines. They are the dead gods. But the God of the children of Israel is the living God. So in David’s case, instead of thinking of Goliath, he’s thinking about the honor of the Lord God, and he’s thinking, also, about the fact that this incident will take place in order that men may know that YHWH is the true God.

Lewis explains the types that he sees that the story serves of Yeshua:

David came forward when everything else had failed. Here is Goliath standing out in front of the children of Israel, the covenant people of God, and he is shouting out, “Give me a man. Give me a man.” And there is no man.
Saul and Israel are immobilized; shuddering, shivering, slaves. ...  The Lord, Jesus Christ, comes in his incarnation, all things having failed, as the root of David, and as John the Apostle, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the last book of the Bible says, “That he has prevailed. He has won his victory. He has purchased a people out of every tribe, kindred, tongue and nation. He has made them priests to God and they shall rule and reign upon the earth forever.”
Isn’t that interesting, too, that when David came his brothers rejected him? Eliab rejects him. And, when our Lord came, his brethren rejected him, too.
“He came unto his own, and his own,” the Apostle says, “And his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he the power to become the children of God, even to those that believe in his name: who were born, not of the will of man – or the will of the flesh – or of bloods, but were born of God.”
David’s victory was won by apparently foolish means. The Cross is a foolish means, apparently. Who could ever think of an individual overcoming by dying? But, it’s by the Cross that our Lord overcomes. It’s by death that he overcomes death. It’s by what apparently is more foolish than the sling and the stones that David had. And so David’s equipment and his victory, in which he slays Goliath and slays him with his own sword, suggests that our Lord overcomes, ultimately, by the very thing that Satan had delegated in his power, the power of death.
Isn’t it interesting? I think that when David has his sling and his stone and it struck Goliath in his forehead, stunned him, he fell on the ground, I’m not sure he was really dead. But David rushed up, drew his sword out of its sheath and killed him with his own sword. That’s what our Lord has accomplished on Calvary’s cross. He has overcome the wicked one. He has overcome Satan and sin by that which was and is regarded as the power and the weapon of the wicked one, death.
As we often sing, he death, by dying, slew. You think immediately of the crushing of the serpent’s head in the first preaching of the gospel in Genesis chapter 3. The first preaching of the gospel, the woman’s seed shall crush the serpent’s head.

I see the stone hitting Goliath in the head as representing the crushing of the serpent's head promised in Genesis 1. 
Also, Dr Johnson says that he isn't sure if the stone slew David or if the sword did. 1 Samuel 17 also seems confusing about this because it uses the term slew in both cases:

49 And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.
50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.
51 Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

I guess what it means that both methods caused him to die, ie. he was dying from the blow to the head, and then the sword killed him with finality.
The Israelites were not able to overcome Goliath or Satan on their own, they needed David and Yeshua to do so.

[rakovsky]

Numbers 7,10,11, and 13 look like they are going to be the hardest questions.

[rakovsky]

*"The Typology of David’s Riseto Power: Messianic Patterns in the Book of Samuel", by James M. Hamilton, Jr., is a really interesting essay. It begins by trying the lay out a strategy of interpreting the Bible typologically to see what it calls "Old Testament Christianity" (ie. the portrayals and stories of Yeshua in the TaNaKh):

this presentation willconsider whether we are limited to the examples of typological interpretation seen in the Old andNew Testaments,6 or whether, taking our cuesfrom those examples, we can build upon them.The theory that we can learn to interpret the Bibletypologically from the authors of the New Testa-ment and apply the method to passages they them-selves do not specifically address will then be testedagainst the narratives of David’s rise to power in the book of Samuel.
At stake [is] the correctness or incorrectness of a later interpretation of the words of earlier texts.Did the earlier texts actually mean what at a laterstage they had been said to mean? … Were the New Testament writers correct or not when they used the Old Testament texts as evidence for theNew Testament’s own historical truth claims?

He makes an interesting observation in a subsequent section about whether the OT writers realized that they were effectively giving stories that served as types or prefigurements, especially in the underlined part:

Retrospective or Prospective?
There is a dispute among those who read the Bible typologically over whether types are only retrospective or whether they also function prospectively, that is, predictively. On one side, R. T. France writes: “There is no indication in a type, as such,of any forward reference; it is complete and intelligible in itself.” On the other side, G. K. Beale states that “the πληρόω [fulfillment] formulas prefixed to citations from formally non-prophetic OT pas-sages in the gospels decisively argue against this.” In between these two options, Grant Osborne writes,“It is likely that the solution lies in the middle. The OT authors and participants did not necessarily recognize any typological force in the original, but in the divine plan the early event did anticipate the later reality.” The fulfillment formulas do indicate that the NT authors understand the Old Testament types to be pointing forward, but Osborne is correct to point out that more needs to be said about how and when these types would have been understood as pointing forward.

I think that at least some times the OT authors did think that they were making prefigurements, like in the story of the granting of Hezekiah's names (eg. "Almighty God"), with its divine attributes and promises.
Hamilton quotes another writer who gives clues as to when a type is being used by an OT writer:

Michael Fishbane lists several phrases that are characteristically used to signal typological interpretations in the Old Testament. He writes:
• “the clause ןכ…רשאכ ‘just as…so’ and its variants are particularly frequent”
• “In a similar way, the prophet Jeremiah juxtaposes old and new events with a fixed rhetorical style, as can be seen by a comparison of his statement in 31:30-2 that the new covenant will ‘not be like’ (… כ אל) the older one ‘but rather’ (יכ תאז [v.33]) of a different type”
• “Apart from these instances, there is another broad category wherein the typologies are indicated by non-technical idiosyncratic usages, employed by the speaker for the situation at hand. A good example of this technique may be found in Isa. 11:11, where YHWH states that ‘he will continue ףסוי’ to redeem Israel in the future, a ‘second timeתינש’, just like the first. The language used here marks the typological correlation very well, and explicitly indicates its two vital features, the new moment and its reiteration.”
• “In addition, there are many other cases of inner-biblical typology which are not signaled by technical terms at all. To recognize the typologies at hand, the latter-day investigator must be alert to lexical co-ordinates that appear to correlate apparently disparate texts… or to various forms of paratactic juxtaposition. Sometimes, moreover, motifs are juxtaposed, sometimes pericopae, and sometimes recurrent scenarios.”

So there can be lexical coordinates (as I think that you mentioned, Dan, when we were talking on the thread about prefigurements in the stories of Yael and Jotham), and recurrent scenarios.

I don't get what Hamilton is saying in this part of his essay. I think that he means that you can't just say that a figure in the OT is only a symbol (cipher) for something else that it represents (the antitype), and that you need to fit the symbol in a story somehow:

It is important to stress that it is precisely the historical nature of a type that is essential to it being interpreted typologically. This is a universally acknowledged methodological control articulated by those who differentiate between typology and allegory. Thus, if the type becomes merely a cipher for its antitype, the interpreter has begun to lean in the direction of allegory. As Fishbane writes, “the concrete historicity of the correlated data means that no new event is ever merely a ‘type’ of another, but always retains its historically unique character.”48 But it is not only history that matters, there must also be a genuine correspondence.

He makes a good point when he writes:

Moreover, several pas-sages in the New Testament invite readers to con-clude that the Old Testament is fulfilled in Jesus and the church in more ways than are explicitly quoted in the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:25-27;John 5:39-46; Acts 3:24; 17:2-3; Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11; 2 Cor 1:20; Heb 8:5; 10:1; 1 Pet 1:10-12).53 The text that is particularly relevant for the exami-nation of Samuel below is Acts 3:24, “And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days.”54 Could the proclamation in view be typological?

He mentions a way that Goliath could be seen as representing Satan:

Just as David delivered God’s people from the Philistines, Jesus saved his people from their sins (Matt 1:21) by casting out the ruler of this world (John 12:31), and the New Testament promises that he will come again and defeat the enemies of his people (e.g., 2 Thess 1:8; Rev19:11-21).

Hamilton's essay did not say much about David's battle with Goliath except for some things that could be found in the other essays that I cited. Specifically, he wrote about this in his section, "SEED OF THE WOMAN, SEED OF THE SERPENT" Generally he looks for different coincidences. In this case, he sees David and Jesus as booth "Seed of the Woman":

On a broader scale, opponents of the people of God seem to be regarded as seed of the serpent,and no opponent of Israel is more prominent in Samuel than the Philistines. The particular Philistine seed of the serpent who receives the most attention in Samuel is the giant Goliath. Goliath presents himself as the representative Philistine.He stands for his tribe. And he calls for Israel to send out a representative Israelite to settle the dispute between Philistia and Israel (1 Sam 17:4-11).Israel does just that, but the representative Israelite they send out is a shepherd boy unarmed but for a sling and five stones. This particular shepherd boy comes from a particular line. This line has been carefully traced back to Judah’s son via the genealogy in Ruth 4:18-22. Judah descends from Abraham, whose line was carefully traced back to Noah’s son in Genesis 11:10-27. Noah descends from a line that is carefully traced back to the son of Adam in Genesis 5:6-29. This means that the representative Israelite who goes out to meet the representative Philistine is the seed of Judah, seed of Abraham, seed of Noah, seed of the woman.In the conflict between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, the seed of the woman crushes the head of the seed of the serpent, smiting Goliath with a stone from the sling (1 Sam 17:49).79 Sending out a virtually unarmed shepherd boy to fight the mighty Philistine looks like certain defeat. But the shepherd boy knows and proclaims that “the Lord saves not with sword and spear.For the battle is the Lord’s” (17:47). The victory that comes through the seed of the woman is a victory snatched from the jaws of defeat.

So basically the answer to Question 1 is that Yes, the battle with Goliath is a Messianic prefigurement because the Bible sees David as a Messianic figure and also because of coincidences between the battle and Jesus' story.

[rakovsky]

You gave the right answer for Question 2 when you wrote:

there is a heirarchy to the mitzvoth? And the preservation of life is almost always the higher mitzvah.

Another answer that comes to mind is the Defense of Necessity and Self-Defense. If someone is going to attack you, you can, and probably should fight back in a commensurate way to protect yourself (ie not using excessive violence depending on the threat). And if that is true in the case of using violence for self defense, then it must also be true as using lying for defence. If instead of hitting someone or kidnapping them who was looking to find and attack you or a loved one (like David in this example), you could lie to them about your location or that of your beloved, then this option would be even better since it would be less violent.

[rakovsky]

For Question 3, (What could a king do if he thinks that his own son is building up forces against him?
) I think that the best thing would be to reconcile with his son and develop such a close bond of loyalty with his son that the son would be strongly against a rebellion against his father, would try to protect his father, and would oppose other potential rebels. A king has in his favor the history and political reality that a nation is very unlikely to support a son becoming king and overthrowing his own father, in part because the son's legitimacy traditionally derived from his father's own legacy as a birthright.

Msgr. Charles Pope, in his article "King David – A Great King, but with a critical flaw that is all too common today", theorizes that David himself had some part in his son Absalom's rebellion. In particular, Absalom wanted David to punish David's oldest son Amnon for raping Absalom's sister Tamar. But David refused to do anything, so Absalom killed Amnon, developed resentment to David, fled abroad, and only later became reconciled with David. Pope lists and describes factors and events in the rebellion:

Resentful Son – Hence, due to David’s inaction, one of David’s other sons (and full brother of Tamar), Absalom, grew furious at what was done to his sister. He thus plotted, and eventually killed Amnon, and then fled to the Land of Geshur. David now had lost two sons and had a daughter who had been raped.



For indeed, though eventually pardoned by his father, King David, Absalom had grown bitter against David and raised an effective rebellion against him. In the war that ensued, Absalom and his rebellion were put down, and Absalom killed.



David seemed well aware of his role in Absolom’s rebellion and demise. He had said earlier, when one of Absolom’s followers came cursing him: If he is cursing because the Lord said to him, ‘Curse David,’ who can ask, ‘Why do you do this?’” David 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, then, this Benjamite! 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 cursing I am receiving today.” (2 Sam 16:10-12)

So if David himself bore part of the responsibility for the rebellion, it seems that he has a chance, by trying to undo his mistake, to end the rebellion in a way that reconciles himself better with his son. He had made a reconciliation with Absalom, but perhaps he could have done more to reconcile more deeply. This is not to say that he would have succeeded, but it would be an ideal outcome.

Two other articles that focus on David's share of responsibility for the rebellion are:

2 Sam. 14-15: “David Allows Absalom To Return To Israel However Absalom Tries To Take The Kingdom Away”
By
Jim Bomkamp
and
"Setting nuts on fire to get attention (2 Samuel 14:28-33): An Apology in Defense of Absalom" by Ben Christian

[alon]

Nov 8, 2019 16:04:56 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

For Question 1 (the battle of David vs. Goliath as a Messianic prefigurement), Damasus Winzen writes in his article "David: Prototype of Christ" that the battle served as a prefigurement:

Faith and spirit had left the Israelites and their king Saul. They did not dare to answer the giant’s blasphemies. Then David jumped into the breach, without armor, a true soldier of his God, knowing that “not with sword or spear does the Lord deliver, for the battle is the Lord’s” (1 Samuel 17:47). With a sling, a stone and a stick, David overcomes all the most up-to-date might of Goliath (17:5). Who would not be reminded of Christ, the one who jumped into the breach to give his life for the whole people and conquered the power of Satan with the cross on his shoulder?

The idea is that Yeshua served as a mediator who achieved victory with what would normally be a weak instrument to do so, the Cross. Wow, very catholic phraseology there (small "c" for the universal church- includes many Prods). What Yeshua did was the equivalent to throwing Himself on a grenade, giving His life for many. Human sacrifice was (and is) both illegal and abhorent in Judaism. However ere is noagainst sacrificing oneself for others. Yeshua went quietly and willingly to the Cross for us. And the spirit world stood witness, just as the Philistine army on one side and the Hebrews on the other representing the forces of ha'satan and those of the Most High God. But remember when I said analogies have their limits? The forces of God were probably as angry as they ever had been. But they were not afraid, as the Hebrews were. 

Adrian Warnock writes in "How King David reminds us of Christ Jesus":

We certainly see this comparison between David and Jesus in the account of his battle with Goliath. Our enemy is great and powerful. No one dare stand up against him, for he is far stronger than us. He mocks us and our God constantly. The people are full of fear and have no hope.

There are many ways: David was humble. How many would have been able to resist the urge to wear the kings' armor? The honor and prestige! But had he worn them he probably couldn't have fought as effectively. And this way God got the glory, not the king. 

In 1 Samuel 17:8 the enemy urges them to choose themselves a representative. Meanwhile God has chosen for himself a representative who will stand for his people. Like David, in his human form Jesus was not particularly impressive. While David faced what seemed like certain death and was delivered, Jesus was delivered through death. What seemed like an impossibly insignificant strategy, a small stone, the death of a single man, won the victory in each case.

Again, the analogy breaks down a bit. Goliath the wicked giant died in one instance, Yeshua as God Himself died in the other. Evil died in one, absolute good in the other. However we can also look at it that in both cases evil was decisively defeated.

And in both cases the whole people of God share in the benefits of the victor of our champion!

True.

And of course this story should inspire you and I. If God can use a shepherd boy or a carpenter to save many, perhaps he can use us!

He also used a donkey once, so maybe He can use me! Seriously, He has a plan for each of us, and obedience is the better course of action. (1 Sam 15:22) Some are called to great things, others to relative obscurity. But you never know what effect your actions may have. But He does.

Since David was trained as a Shepherd and used a shepherd's tools of a staff and sling, he reminds us of the Messianic image of the Good Shepherd.
Whereas Adrian Warnock sees David's stone (actually 5 stones) as relating to Yeshua's death, it looks to me that the stones represent the 5 stone/metal weapons used on Yeshua, the 4 nails and the spear (although in the Latin tradition there were only 3 nails, the Latins still refer to the 5 Wounds of Christ).

Likely there were 3 spikes used if there were a cross member, 2 if just a stake. We aren't really told. Regardless here were 5 major wounds piercing His body. However just saying "5 wounds" discounts the beating, whiping/scourging, and the crown of thorns. It is likely He was beaten and whiped so bad He was barely recognizable as human. Probably why He died so quickly.

Adrian Warnock compares David's unimpressive form and his representation of the Israelites as correlating with Yeshua's unimpressive human form and his standing in to represent God in the fight with Satan. 

Jason Miller in "Discovering the Hope" notes that in general, the Bible sees the Messiah as associated with David. He sees Goliath as prefiguring the Adversary in the story for trying to enslave Israel, and he implies that there is no clear reason why the writer specifies 5 stones, so Miller seeks other explanations, like the numbers of books in and Yeshua's 5 wounds:

Goliath is the enemy of Israel, bent on terrorizing, defeating and ultimately enslaving the people of God. While these qualities do not make him unique in the Old Testament, he is certainly the epitome of evil in this story. Goliath prefigures the Adversary.

True.

David attacks and defeats Goliath with two weapons: a sling, and Goliath’s sword. As David approaches Goliath in the field of battle, 1 Samuel 17:40 tells that he put “five smooth stones” into his pouch for use with his sling. There is nothing in the immediate context to indicate why the writer gives this unusual detail of the number of stones.
... From a Hebraic numerological perspective, the five stones could represent the five books of the Law. Other Old Testament parallels of five include the number of several materials used in the building of the Tabernacle (e.g. Exodus 36:10, 16, 31-22, etc.).

I'd go with the 5 books of Moses; . was the Word of God. And Yeshua was also called the Word:

John 1:1-3  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Heb. 1:1-3  God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power... 

For this essay, viewing the Old Testament through the lens of the Gospels, let us look to the life of Christ, more specifically, the five wounds suffered at his crucifixion: two in the hands, two in the feet and one in the side. The wounds of Christ, signifying his death, were certainly the means by which Christ defeated Satan on the Cross. As five smooth stones were gathered by David to conquer Goliath, so five wounds were suffered by Jesus as he defeated Satan.

Viewing only through the NT lens is ALWAYS a mistake! The New and Old are all interwoven, and to understand either fully you must consider both in their totality.

The second element of David’s victory over Goliath was Goliath’s own sword, which David uses to cut off Goliath’s head. The prefiguring continues: just as David used Goliath’s own weapon to completely defeat, so Christ used Satan’s own weapon to completely defeat him: by death he destroyed death.

And here is a good example of what I just said. He's right. But in his NT zeal he overlooked the obvious and most relevant reference:

Genesis 3:15  I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your seed and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”

He makes an interesting observation that Goliath's own weapon defeated Goliath, like the cross would defeat Satan.
He continues:

In 1 Samuel 17, the three oldest brothers are part of the army of Israel facing Goliath and the Philistines. They react with anger at David’s appearance at the battle (1 Samuel 17:28), even though David is only there following the bidding of his father, bringing them gifts of food (Caesarius of Arles sees in Jesse a type of God the Father sending his Son).
Let us consider David’s brothers as prefiguring the religious leaders of Jesus’ day. They would have been considered the presumptive favorites for leading Israel, just as David’s brothers. Just as David’s brothers saw themselves rejected in the anointing of David as king, so the Pharisees would have seen themselves passed over at the baptism of Jesus (for which they were present, and which clearly signified God's favor upon Jesus). The Pharisees and Sadducees then respond in anger and jealousy to the Son who had simply been bringing them gifts from the Father. David’s brothers, in their presence, rejection and anger and jealousy, prefigure the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus’ day.

He's wrong. David's brothers were not in line to lead. Leaders in the time were chosen by God, not by any birthright. They were anointed by the prophets. 

He is also wrong about "the Pharisees" being present. Mat 3 (the only account that mentions them) just says in vs 7 "that when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming." How many? Relatively few! There were thousands upon thousands of Pharisees in Israel at the time, and most believed! That's a huge problem in Christianity. You always say "the Pharisees" like there were only a handful of them and they followed Yeshua around trying to kill Him! In truth it was always only a few, mostly different, and usually doing what they were supposed to be doing. Any time a Rabbi gathered a large following, emissaries were sent to listen to him teach, observe, and report back to the Sanhedrin. Then if he was important enough to warrant it some of the leadership themselves would go, listen, and question him. This was especially true when he might be the Messiah! And calling them a brood of vipers was common within your own sect. Jews tend to be a bit rude, even today.    

I could perceive the three older brothers as being allegorically Herod, the Chief Priest, and Pilate. Next, he writes:

I don't see it, but ok.

Saul’s importance to the story comes in 16:31. He has heard that David is questioning why Israel allows Goliath to speak about Israel the way he does, and sends for him. When he finally allows David to go fight Goliath, he clothes him in his own armor, which David cannot use. David instead needs to fight Goliath on his own terms, not as an armored warrior, but as a shepherd. The people of Israel try to clothe Jesus in their own conception of what a Messiah should look like, seen especially in the disciples’ numerous queries about when Jesus will restore Israel, as well as the shouts of Hosanna to the Son of David at the Lord’s entrance to Jerusalem. Saul, the King of Israel representing the people of Israel, also prefigures the people of Israel in the time of Jesus.

That is insightful.

This comparison of Saul's expectations of an armored warrior vs. the appearance of a Shepherd with Yeshua coming as a spirtual leader rather than a Judean political warrior rebel also makes sense.

The Jews have always thought of shepherding as training for leadership and for kings.

Next, he sees the Israelites routing the fleeing Philistines as the community of believers in Yeshua mopping up the adversary. How would you explain this comparison? What would the mopping up of the fleeing Philistines represent? I am not sure. Maybe the spiritual conversions of the pagan world?

Har Meggido.

Here is what Miller writes:

However, there is another interesting applicative layer, for which we go to the verses of 1 Samuel 17 immediately following the slaying of Goliath—the decapitation does not end the story. The Philistines see that Goliath is dead, they flee, and the Israelites, with a shout, take chase and pursue the Philistines as far as Gath and Ekron.
Here is where the believer can take great courage today. It is clear in the New Testament that Israel prefigures the Church.

Absolutely false! Israel still IS the so called "church," itself a lie. The word translated church is in the OT "assembly." And that assembly is Israel, into which yu are either grafted or not: saved or unsaved. If our "church" is not grafted into Israel, they are leading you down the primrose path to Hell.

Just as the battle with the Philistines was won by David conquering Goliath, so the battle with sin, evil and death was won by Jesus conquering Satan and the grave in the Crucifixion and Resurrection. We, the Church, are like Israel routing the Philistines—we’re in the mop-up of the battle against evil. Let us never retreat from a defeated foe; let us remember that the battle has been won, the victory has been secured by Christ’s victory on the Cross.

Again, I disagree, though not completely. You as a believer should ALMOST always stand your ground. But unless you are called to it, there are times to retreat. One is when in the presence of a demon. Another would be if in vastly outnumbered in the presence of a massive evil such as one of the extreme leftist mobs running amok in America today. But again, if you must make a stand and there are believers, but of a different faith (obviously a faith based in the God of Israel alone), then you need to get past this "Church is the heir" nonsense. Jews,  Messianics, other denominations- all need to get past our differencs and start acting like we represent he Most High and not Rabbi Whositz or pastor Howzitz. 

Sandra Gravett in "David vs. Goliath: the Campaign Ad" suggests that the story of David killing Goliath is apocryphal:

More critical readers recognize the apocryphal nature of this tale. Not only is it one of two accounts of how David came into the service of Saul (the other being as a musician, 1Sam 16:18-23), it also conflicts with 2Sam 21:19, which states that a fighter named Elhanan defeated Goliath in a different battle. In order to depose a successful sitting king and all of his heirs, David needed a compelling biography. Here, he gets it by demonstrating prowess in the art of war (see 1Sam 18:5-8, 1Sam 18:30 also). Further, he wins the right to marry into the family of the king (1Sam 17:25, 1Sam 18:17-29).
For the biblical writers, David becomes not only the first true king but also the model for what all kings should be and what the Messiah will be. The backstory they create underscores that role by showing that David, like Israel, can slay giants against all odds.

If she is right and the Bible is implicitly showing that David did not actually kill Goliath, but someone else did, then does this mean that the story is actually something like a parable or hagiography that is allegorically true like the story of Jonah and the Fish could be, or like some of the depictions in the Psalms could be (like God gouging ears for David)? That is, David slew Goliath in some spiritual or indirect way (like by convincing Elhanan to fight Goliath), and so the story really has some different, greater meaning than a historical record, ie. it is a Messianic parable?
I am skeptical of her suggestion, because the story of David and Goliath seemed at face value to be meant as a real historical record.

2 Sam 21 tells of several battles with Philistines, all of which have giants, all of which wre killed by different men. Could have been a different Goliath killed in that battle, or a descendant of David's Goliath, or maybe the writer just got the names of the Giants mixed up. (Now, how can I blame this one on Josephus? ...  ).

Dan C

[rakovsky]

Dan,
You wrote in response to my perception of the three brothers:

I could perceive the three older brothers as being allegorically Herod, the Chief Priest, and Pilate. Next, he writes:

I don't see it, but ok.

In Zechariah 11, the Good Shepherd is rejected by three Shepherds of the flock and they hate eachother. I take the three Shepherds to be three leaders of Judea who rejected Yeshua- Pilate, Herod, Caiaphas.

In the story of David, three older brothers rejected him, so I thought that they might prefigure those three first century leaders, especially because they were three. On the other hand, David's brothers loved David and Yeshua's brothers loved Yeshua, so I am not sure that the analogy works comparing David's brothers to hateful leaders.

I could see chasing the Philistines being like Har Megiddo, except chasing the Philistines was more like the epilogue to a battle without real back and forth fighting like at Har Megiddo.

You wrote:

2 Sam 21 tells of several battles with Philistines, all of which have giants, all of which wre killed by different men. Could have been a different Goliath killed in that battle, or a descendant of David's Goliath, or maybe the writer just got the names of the Giants mixed up. (Now, how can I blame this one on Josephus? ... ).

CARM's answer is that the place in Tanakh that says Elhanan killed Goliath was a copyist's error:

(2 Sam. 21:19)- "And there was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam."

The answer lies in two areas. 1 Chronicles 20:5 says, "And there was war with the Philistines again, and Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam." This is the correct answer; namely, that Elhanan killed Goliath's brother.

Second, it appears there was a copyist error in 2 Samuel 21:19. According to Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties on page 179, it says,

* - The sign of the direct object, which in Chronicles comes just before "Lahmi," was '-t; the copyist mistook it for b-t or b-y-t ("Beth") and thus got Bet hal-Lahmi ("the Bethlehemite") out of it.

* - He misread the word for "brother" ('-h) as the sign of the direct object ('-t) right before g-l-y-t ("Goliath"). Thus he made "Goliath" the object of "killed" (wayyak), instead of the "brother" of Goliath (as the Chronicles passage does).

* - The copyist misplaced the word for "weavers" ('-r-g-ym) so as to put it right after "Elhanan" as his patronymic (ben Y-'-r-y'-r--g-ym, or ben ya 'arey 'ore -gim -- "the son of the forests of weavers" -- a most unlikely name for anyone's father!). In Chronicles the 'ore grim ("weavers") comes right after menor ("a beam of ") -- thus making perfectly good sense.

I think that if you took CARM's viewpoint, and still believed in Inerrancy, you could say that the Bible was written with the right words, but then a later copyist, eg. a Masorete, made an error.

Josephus just told the story of defeating Goliath in a straightforward way, not suggesting it was an allegory. I feel like Carm's response does a good job suggesting that it wasn't an allegory.

[alon]

Nov 6, 2019 13:26:28 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Note: the OP did some cleanup and moved nos. 12-24 to a new thread, so some answers will show 2 nos: the original and the new.


(Question 4) What episodes, if any, in David's life might the Psalmist have referred to when making the Psalms about the king's death and resurrection?

I think it is easy to get carried away with analogies of types and prefigurements.

(Question 5) How would you resolve the potential confusion between 2 Samuel 14:27 and 2 Sam. 18:18 over whether Absalom had children. Maybe the three sons had gotten killed in the chronological interim between the narratives in the two verses?

My guess is they had died. However the theory of their insignificance could be true as it would relate to the thinking of the time.

(Question 6) Does David's use of instruments suggest that it is proper to use instruments in singing the Psalms, or else in the course of liturgy? Are there modern recordings that reflect what the Psalms' melodies sounded like when accompanied by the instruments?

Many of the references to instruments are in the superscriptions. Statements at the beginning of a psalm are called superscriptions, and they were later additions to the original text taken from tradition. The Masoriques (sp?) were the final compilers of the Hebrew Bible, between the 7th and 10th cen CE. They added these superscriptions.


“The Tanakh (Hebrew: תַּנַ”ךְ, pronounced [taˈnaχ] or [təˈnax]; also Tenakh, Tenak, Tanach) is a name used in Judaism for the canon of the Hebrew Bible. The Tanakh is also known as the Masoretic Text or the Miqra. The name is an acronym formed from the initial Hebrew letters of the Masoretic Text’s three traditional subdivisions: The (“Teaching”, also known as the Five Books of Moses), Nevi’im (“Prophets”) and Ketuvim (“Writings”)—hence TaNaKh. The name “Miqra” (מקרא), meaning “that which is read”, is an alternative Hebrew term for the Tanakh. The books of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) were relayed with an accompanying oral tradition passed on by each generation, called the Oral .” Donald Miller’s Journal.

Being from the Oral Tradition, I’d say they have some validity. Regardless, I see no problem adding music to these psalms. If poetry makes something easier to remember, then adding music and making it a song would make it even more memorable.

And we know David was himself a musician, as that is what initially got Saul’s attention on him.

(Question 7) Why was David's census-taking sinful or deserving of punishment?

They were God’s people, not David’s. Rulers like to think they are in control, but in Israel God was in control. So when God tells you to number the people, you do so. But when He tells you not to do so, you don’t.

David was anointed king, chosen by God to do a job. He ultimately answered to the God of Israel and was not as most monarchs are a law unto himself. In fact, a king of Israel was supposed to write for himself 2 copies of Trah. One he kept at the palace, the other accompanied him on campaign or other travels. This was so he could refer to it for any decisions, meditate on it and obey.

[alon]

Nov 6, 2019 13:26:28 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Note: the OP did some cleanup and moved nos. 12-24 to a new thread, so some answers will show 2 nos: the original and the new.

Understand that I am giving my opinion here in these replies. I am not infallible by any means, nor am I an authority on anything. Just a guy prayerfully looking for the truth, like everyone else here.


(Question 8) Does the Temple location's former status as a threshing floor hold a mystical or spiritual meaning?

Mysticism has more pagan connotations, so no on that.

I suppose you could equate it somehow to separation of wheat and chaff. Israel at the time was primarily an agrarian society, so many of their analogies were agricultural in nature. And because of the mountainous nature of the terrain the location of the Temple would have been chosen for the same qualities that might have made it a good location for a threshing floor. So it could have been merely coincidental.

However I am of the opinion that God chooses the right people at the right time and the right place to show His glory. These threads and analogies are woven all through scripture, and meditating on them helps place us in the right mindset to understand the more important things revealed in His word. So as long as we don’t get hung up on these minor things and miss the major points, I think searching them out is a good thing.

(Question 9) How common was the idea in ancient Judaism that after death, "no one can ever return to learn what is happening among the living"?

Ecclesiastes 9:4-6 (ESV)  But he who is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion.  For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.  Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun.

People like to quote Eccl 9.5, but they often lose sight of the context. This talks about the corporeal existence of all men. “All” however doesn’t necessarily mean every single man. In Hebrew it was common to say “all” meaning most, or all you know of, or even just all of us. It’s the same in most languages even today. But biblically when it says “all the world was taxed,” did that mean the Armenians, Parthians, or Arabians were being taxed? They were known as they bordered the empire just east of Israel. No, all meant all the Romans held, not he rest.

Likewise we must use common sense when talking about things like death and a temporary resurrection in this life. “Forever” in Ecc 6 doesn’t mean the speaker denied the resurrection or the afterlife. He was talking in terms of this life. And even so it doesn’t mean there cannot be incidents where the dead are brought back. It’s just those are so rare they are unremarkable in the context of what is being said.

I’ve heard there were those Jews who held the extreme view here, and that is not surprising. The Sadducees didn’t even believe in the resurrection. But I don’t think either view (no one back from dead nor no resurrection) was ever the predominant one.

(Question 10) Did Solomon desecrate the Temple's altar by killing Joab there?

Good question. He was not sacrificed, even though he held the horns of the altar where a sacrificial animal was tied.

Since the blood carries life, and his was not innocent blood I’d say it is a possible desecration. And in Judaism it is what comes out of a body that defiles.

On the other hand, the reason for the purity rituals in Judaism were so that uncleanness, or defilement would not be transferred to the Temple. If much were transferred there then the Shekhinah would depart. This did not happen with this incident.

 While the biblical account doesn’t specifically say he was killed at the altar, it certainly reads like that was the case. But the only alternative I can think of was Solomon’s men could have forcibly removed him and killed him elsewhere.

(Question 11) Did the Temple have an upper level or a second story, and if so, what was there?

As I understand it, the Jewish Encyclopedia is the best information on how the Temple was laid out. However they cite Josephus. It had rooms on 3 sides, and there were 3 stories in this part of the structure. There was nothing above the Temple proper, which was apparently almost 2 times as high as those 3 stories.


(Question 12) In addition to the Ten Commandments, did the Ark also hold Aaron's rod that had budded or the manna from the desert?

Those items which accompanied the ark may have been placed inside while it was with the Philistines. Or possibly later. We are not told. However I’d believe Paul before Josephus. Not that Paul couldn’t be wrong, just that he is much more reliable. And his remarks are in scripture, Jo's are not

[alon]

Nov 6, 2019 13:26:28 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Note: the OP did some cleanup and moved nos. 12-24 to a new thread, so some answers will show 2 nos: the original and the new.


(Question 13) Is there a connection between the number of talents of gold brought to Solomon for the Temple's construction (666) being the same as the number of the beast or AntiChrist in Revelation? Maybe there is some underlying meaning in the number 666 that is shared between the two usages?

That number certainly has repeated down through history. And whenever there is a similarity in terms in scripture there is the very real probability the lessons learned are related.

The “Mark of the Beast” is one of the most speculated about things in the Bible. We’ve all heard many versions, I’m sure. But the location of these marks were very familiar to the first century Jews for whom this was first written. They are the places they laid tefillin, placing God’s words upon their hands and foreheads.

Contemporary Jews place the words on their forehead and upper arm, however evidence from Qumran suggests they were on the hand and forehead. I make 1st cen tefillin for our synagogue, and they are very different to todays, but based on a set found at Qumran.

Binding God’s word thus marks us as His, and keeping His words thus bound symbolically binds us to do as He said. Obedience and our daily actions are what sets us truly apart for HaShem. The actions of the unsaved sets them apart as well. So the mark of the Beast may be something physical representing his instructions, or it could simply be our own actions. How we treat each other, and how we relate to a Holy God. I’ll leave the speculation to the commentators and preachers and priests that depend on such things fo their livelihood.

Dan C

[alon]

Oct 27, 2019 22:01:03 GMT -8 mosheli said:

May 7, 2019 16:25:22 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

(Question 23/12) In addition to the Ten Commandments, did the Ark also hold Aaron's rod that had budded or the manna from the desert?

In Numbers 17:10, 1 Kings 8:9 says: "There was nothing in the ark except the two stone tablets that Moses had placed in it at Horeb, where the LORD had made a covenant with the Israelites after they had come out of the land of Egypt."

2 Chronicles 5:10 says similarly: "There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets that Moses had placed in it at Horeb, where the LORD had made a covenant with the Israelites after they had come out of Egypt."

However, later in Hebrews 9:4, Paul, who had been trained as a pharisee and was very familiar with the Temple rituals, wrote: "Inside the ark were the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant."

On the other hand, Josephus wrote in Book VIII, "And the ark held nothing but the two stone tablets which preserved the ten commandments spoken by God to Moses on Mount Sinai inscribed upon them."
Perhaps the Ark may have held different objects at different times?

A possible discovery of mine a year or so ago was that the ark may be a symbol of Yeshua/Jesus. So this might help with the question of who was right about what the ark contained inside of it. Consider what each item symbolizes.

Mod note: post was moved, so has my avatar. But originally posted by mosheli

[rakovsky]

Regarding Question 3, Jim Bomkamp in his essay, "2 Sam. 12: 'David Is Restored To The Lord But Still Suffers The Consequences Of His Sin'", highlights these parts of 2 Sam. 12 wherein Absalom's revolt is seen as punishment for David's sin against Uriah and Bathsheba:

‘Why have you despised the word of the Lord by doing evil in His sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon. 10 ‘Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ 11 “Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 ‘Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.’

3.4.1. ‘The sword shall never depart from your house.’

3.4.1.1. The rest of David’s days would be filled with the worst of domestic strife. He would never again have peace and his life would forever be filled with great heartache.

3.4.2. ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 ‘Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.’

3.4.2.1. This will be fulfilled when David’s son Absalom rebels and tries to take the kingdom away from David, and then lays with David’s concubines in public sight so that all would not about it.

Jim Bomkamp, in his essay "2 Sam. 13: 'David’s Son Ammon Rapes His Daughter Tamar, Then His Other Son Absalom Murders Ammon'” writes that David's own past sins led to the conflict between Amnon and Absalom that led to Absalom's conflict with David:

Now, the difficulties that David is going to reap in his life are actually just the “natural consequences” of his actions. David’s sons are going to follow the example that their dad set when he committed adultery and murder, and the result will be great and continual grief in the heart of David.


2.5.1. I remember as a young parent realizing many times that there were things that I had let slide in my own life which were not pleasing to the Lord, and yet they really only began to truly bother me when I began to see them acted out by my son or daughter. My wife would help me out during those times when I would complain about my son’s or daughter’s behavior by saying something like, “Gee, I wonder where he got that from?” or “How are you going to tell him not to do that when you aren’t willing to stop doing it yourself?”
...
2.6.2. Ammon is just following the actions of his dad. David, acting as king over Israel, used his power as king to obtain Bathsheba so that he could lay with her, even though he knew all along that she belonged to another man. In like manner, Ammon forced himself upon his sister Tamar to lay with her.

2.6.3. David had used deception in arranging for Joab to murder Uriah the Hittite, the husband of Bathsheba, and now with the help of his cousin Jonadab and Jonadab’s suggestion to Ammon, Ammon now uses deception to lure Tamar to his bed so that he could lay with her.

Bomkamp theorizes that not punishing Amnon is a factor in Absalom's revolt:

Because David did not punish his son Ammon for this crime of rape, he ends up becoming a party to Absalom’s murder of Ammon.

4.3.1. Not disciplining Ammon will cause David to reap further consequences of his sin.

4.4. But, why did David not discipline his son Ammon for committing this horrible crime?

4.4.1. David had excused his own sin regarding his taking advantage of Bathsheba thus in the same fashion he excused the sin of his son.
...
Another consequence of David’s sin is seen here [verses 13:23-29] in that just as David used trickery and scheming to arrange the murder of Uriah the Hittite, the husband of Bathsheba, so now Absalom uses trickery to carry out the murder of his brother Ammon.


5.3. In Israel in this day the yearly time of sheapshearing was a big festive event for the communities. Absalom thought that he would not arouse any suspicion if he planned to have all of his brothers come to his house during this time. Then, he could have opportunity to have Ammon murdered.

5.4. David now becomes a party to the murder of Ammon by allowing Ammon to go to Baal-hazer to Absalom for a sheapshearing. Absalom strongly urges David to allow Ammon to come with the rest of his brothers to this sheapshearing, and though David was initially suspicious that something might be up he eventually gives in and allows Ammon to go to Absalom for this get together.

5.5. There is yet another consequence of David’s sin here in that David lacks discernment and allows Ammon to go to Absalom for a sheepshearing.

But I am skeptical that David should be considered a party for allowing Absalom to invite Amnon. A deceiver could still trick a good person.

I am also skeptical of his theory that David was sinful in taking multiple wives, although I get the idea that he shouldn't have taken a wife from an enemy tribe. Bomkamp writes about this:

VS 13:37-39 - “37 Now Absalom fled and went to Talmai the son of Ammihud, the king of Geshur. And David mourned for his son every day. 38 So Absalom had fled and gone to Geshur, and was there three years. 39 The heart of King David longed to go out to Absalom; for he was comforted concerning Amnon, since he was dead.”
- Absalom flees to Talmai, the king of Geshur and David mourns for his son



8.1. There is seen in these verses a consequence of David’s sin in multiplying wives to himself. In 2 Sam. 3:1-5, we read about the sons of David and who among his harem they were born to and we discovered then that Absalom, the son that will be such a thorn in David's side when he tries to take away the kingdom from his father, was born from a wife taken by David named Maacah, the daughter of Talmai, King of Geshur. She was a wife taken in an attempt at making a political alliance with one of the enemies of Israel, yet this was forbidden in Deut. 7:3 and 17:17.

8.2. Now, we see that Absalom has fled to the home and people of his mother, to Geshur. There, he knows that he will be safe from the blood avenger for his brother’s murder.

In this essay, he gives advice that could be applied to how David could have acted during Absalom's revolt:

As we look at the huge consequences that David had to pay for his sin of committing adultery and murder, each of us ought to learn to flee any potential temptation to fall into sin. We should never want to have to suffer the heartache and grief that David experienced the rest of his life after his affair with Bathsheba.

9.3. If we find ourselves reaping one thing after another that we have sown walking in the flesh in disobedience to God, to get out of that cycle we’ve simply got to repent of our sins and re-submit our lives to the Lord and put Him back upon the throne of our life. Only then will the process begin to reverse and we will begin in time to reap good things for our actions.

Bomkamp, in his essay, "2 Sam. 14-15: 'David Allows Absalom To Return To Israel However Absalom Tries To Take The Kingdom Away'”
, sees David's conflict with Absalom being a spiritual consequence of his sins:

In our previous study, we saw David doing lots of reaping of the consequences of his sin, both in his character and in the circumstances he found himself in, and we discussed reaping and sowing and how to live for the Lord in the midst of reaping the past failures you have sown.


* - 1.2.1.1. We saw that the apostle Paul wrote for us the following about reaping and sowing in Galatians 6:7-9, “7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.” Note that there are reapings to the flesh and reapings to the Spirit, as well as an encouragement to continue doing good.

1.2.3. In this study, we are going to see David in his darkest hours. David’s son Absalom is going to instigate an insurrection to oust David from power so that he (Absalom ) can now reign over Israel. David knows that the Lord has promised him that from his own household one will rise up against him, and also that the sword will never depart from his house.

Next, Bomkamp theorizes that David doesn't react against Absalom's gathering a revolt because he know that it is God's will for punishment, but I am very skeptical, because it seems more like how David did not punish his oldest son Amnon, and plus, eventually David did fight Absalom.
He also theorizes that David sinned in not punishing Absalom:

what is happening to him is not just occurring because of his reaping the consequences of his sin of adultery with Bathsheba, and the subsequent murder of her husband Uriah. David encounters these trials partially because he makes yet another sinful choice and allows his son Absalom to return to Israel and not have to receive the justice due him for the murder of his brother Ammon. There is no excuse for David glossing over the sin of murder in Absalom’s life.

But I am skeptical that David sinned in not punishing Absalom, since Absalom was avenging his sister, and for that matter, Absalom had acted because David hadn't punished Amnon. What do you think?
Bomkamp theorizes:

We see here though that since David knew that Absalom really deserved justice for having committed murder that David tells Joab that Absalom may return to Jerusalem however he shall not see the king’s face. This attempt at showing his displeasure of Absalom’s actions and this being a form of justice just ends up back-firing for King David however, and Absalom becomes consumed in bitterness towards David, leading to his revolution to overthrow David as king.

He also quotes Absalom's words to Joab:

’ Now therefore, let me see the king’s face, and if there is iniquity in me, let him put me to death.” 33 So when Joab came to the king and told him, he called for Absalom. Thus he came to the king and prostrated himself on his face to the ground before the king, and the king kissed Absalom.” - Absalom set Joab’s field on fire in order to get Joab to bring him to the palace and see his father

Bomkamp comments: 

Note that in saying this that Absalom’s heart is revealed, for this reveals that he really did not believe that he had done anything wrong in murdering his brother Ammon.

I can see how the killing of Uriah could play a role in Absalom's revolt, because Bomkamp notes:

Ahithophel who had been David’s counselor ( and prime minister ) had been in cohorts with Absalom and was ready at Absalom’s word to come and join him in his rebellion against David.


7.6.1. We shouldn’t be too surprised at Ahithophel turning against King David for we can deduce from 2 Sam. 11:3 and 23:24 that he was the grandfather of Bathsheba, and thus he surely resented what David had done to his granddaughter and her family.

Bomkamp again theorizes that David's decision to flee would have been from his understanding that the revolt was from God:

Notice here [in VS 15:13-17] that when David hears of the insurrection raised against him for the throne by Absalom that David does absolutely nothing about it. He doesn’t rally his army together to defend Jerusalem, He doesn’t close the gates of Jerusalem, He doesn’t warn his guard, He doesn’t do any of this. We then have to ask the reason why David did nothing at this point ?

8.1.1. David realized that the Lord had told him that he was going to have trouble in his family for the rest of his life and he was now accepting these events as coming from the hand of the Lord.

8.1.2. David appears to have had a prolonged sickness during this period of time when Absalom had declared himself king, and thus David did not react as he could and should have.

8.1.2.1. Psalms 41 and 55, and perhaps also 39, were penned by David during this period of time when he was sick and Absalom was trying to wrest the kingdom from him :

If this is the case, then David should have tried to make up for his sin against Bathsheba that is seen as a real, spiritual cause of the revolt.


So my main uncertainty about Bomkamp's essays are what events following David's sin with Bathsheba and Nathan's prophecy to David about Absalom's revolt caused Absalom's revolt, other than the factor of his sin with Bathsheba (eg. David's failure to punish Amnon over Tamar and Absalom over Amnon's death)?