|
Hushed was the evening hymn;
The temple courts were dark;
The lamp was burning dim
Before the sacred ark;
When suddenly a voice divine
Rang through the silence of the shrine.The old man, meek and mild,
The priest of Israel slept;
His watch the temple child,
The little Levite kept;
And what from Eli’s sense was sealed,
The Lord to Hannah’s son revealed.O give me Samuel’s ear,
The open ear, O Lord,
Alive and quick to hear
Each whisper of thy word,
Like him to answer at thy call
And to obey thee first of all.O give me Samuel’s heart,
A lowly heart, that waits,
Wherein thy house thou art
Or watches at thy gates,
By day and night a heart that still
Moves at the breathing of thy will!O give me Samuel’s mind,
A sweet unmurmuring faith,
Obedient and resigned
To thee in life and death,
That I may read with childlike eyes,
Truths that are hidden from the wise!”
(Hymns [1948], no. 252.)
There is the challenge, for Saul of old and for us today. The contrast between Samuel and Saul is a major focus of this section of the Old Testament. What seems to be the chief difference between Samuel the prophet and Saul the king?
Instructions to Students
1. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study 1 Samuel 1–15.
2. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual study students should complete all of this section.)
When Elkanah took his wives and their families to Shiloh (where the tabernacle had been located after the tribes conquered Canaan) to offer sacrifices, a peace offering was made. After the fat, kidneys, and other parts were burned, the priest customarily received the breast and right shoulder. The rest of the sacrificial animal was given back to the offerer to be eaten in a special feast. From his part, Elkanah gave portions of the meat to his family. Hannah received either more than the others or else a more choice portion because of Elkanah’s love for her (see Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:206).
Peninnah, the other wife, “was constantly striving to irritate and vex her, to make her fret—to make her discontented with her lot, because the Lord had denied her children.
“As the whole family went up to Shiloh to the annual festivals, Peninnah had both sons and daughters to accompany her [see v. 4], but Hannah had none; and Peninnah took this opportunity particularly to twit Hannah with her barrenness, by making an ostentatious exhibition of her children.
“She was greatly distressed, because it was a great reproach to a woman among the Jews to be barren; because, say some, every one hoped that the Messiah should spring from her line.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:207.)
In the ancient Middle East, it was customary for certain officials to place a stool or seat in a courtyard or near the gate of the city where they could sit in judgment, hearing cases or complaints. These seats usually had no backs and were placed near a wall or post to provide a backrest. This circumstance would explain why Eli was sitting near a post. It was probably on such a backless seat that Eli was sitting when he heard the news of the death of his sons and fell over backwards, killing himself (see 1 Samuel 4:18).
Hannah’s covenant with the Lord that, if she were given a child, “no razor” would come upon his head seems to be a promise to raise Samuel as a Nazarite, one under a special vow to God never to cut his hair. In Samuel is a great contrast to Samson, the former keeping his Nazarite vows throughout life, becoming a powerful man of God, and the latter violating all his vows, becoming a wretched example of failure to serve God.
When Hannah protested to Eli that she was not a “daughter of Belial” she meant a “worthless or profane person.” Belial means “worthless, someone of evil affiliation.” It is capitalized by the English translators as if it were a title for Satan and is sometimes so used in later books of the Old Testament (see Rasmussen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1:161).
The name Samuel means, in Hebrew, “heard of God” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:25). The name was meant to serve as a lifelong reminder to both Hannah and Samuel of the special circumstances and commitments attendant on his birth.
 |
| Hannah presented her firstborn son to Eli. © Quebecor World Inc. |
“Weaning took place very late among the Israelites. According to [2 Maccabees 7:27], the Hebrew mothers were in the habit of suckling their children for three years. When the weaning had taken place, Hannah would bring her son up to the sanctuary, to appear before the face of the Lord, and remain there forever, i.e. his whole life long. The Levites generally were only required to perform service at the sanctuary from their twenty-fifth to their fiftieth year [see Numbers 8:24–25]; but Samuel was to be presented to the Lord immediately after his weaning had taken place, and to remain at the sanctuary forever, i.e. to belong entirely to the Lord. To this end he was to receive his training at the sanctuary, that at the very earliest waking up of his spiritual susceptibilities he might receive the impressions of the sacred presence of God.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:26.)
Hannah’s prayer shows her to have been a woman with great faith and love for God. The horn (see v. 1) symbolized power and strength. God had given her the power to bear a child. The rock (see v. 2) was a representation of protection. Jesus Christ is the rock or stone of Israel, the protector from evil (see Matthew 21:42–44). In 1 Samuel 2:10 both allusions are combined into one: the Messiah is “the anointed one” who will break all adversaries of the Lord in pieces (the Greek word for Messiah, Christos, also means “the anointed one”). He it was, Hannah said, who would be given strength in that his horn (power) would be exalted before men. This passage is a choice Old Testament reference to the future Messiah and shows that Hannah was blessed with the gift of prophecy.
The people of Hannah’s day did not think the world was flat and sitting on pillars, as some suppose. That superstition was the invention of the Middle Ages. Hannah was using poetic language to show the power of Jehovah.
“Of these offerings, the portion which legally fell to the priest as his share was the heave-leg and wave-breast. And this he was to receive after the fat portions of the sacrifice had been burned upon the altar [see Leviticus 7:30–34]. To take the flesh of the sacrificial animal and roast it before this offering had been made, was a crime which was equivalent to a robbery of God. . . . Moreover, the priests could not claim any of the flesh which the offerer of the sacrifice boiled for the sacrificial meal, after burning the fat portions upon the altar and giving up the portions which belonged to them, to say nothing of their taking it forcibly out of the pots while it was being boiled [see 1 Samuel 2:12–17]. Such conduct as this on the part of the young men (the priests’ servants), was a great sin in the sight of the Lord, as they thereby brought the sacrifice of the Lord into contempt.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:35–36.)
The poor example of the priests caused others in Israel to abhor “the offering of the Lord” (v. 17). But these actions were not all, for the sons of Eli seduced women and engaged in adulterous acts at the very door of the tabernacle, evidently by misusing their office of priest to entice the women (see v. 22). Under the law of Moses, willful disobedience to parents was punishable by death, and the parents were obliged to see that the punishment was carried out (see Reading 20-9). Hophni and Phinehas compounded their already serous sins by disobeying their father, and Eli failed in his parental responsibility as well as in his office as the presiding priest. Although he rebuked his sons, he took no action to see that the abomination in his family and at the tabernacle was corrected. Therefore, “a man of God” (some unnamed prophet) came to Eli and pronounced the Lord’s curse upon Eli’s house because “[thou] honourest thy sons above me” (vv. 27, 29). That is, Eli’s relationship with his sons was of more value to him than his relationship with God.
The word precious as used here means “scarce.” The word of God was seldom heard in all the land. Elder Harold B. Lee explained why as follows: “The story commences with a significant statement.
“‘And the child Samuel ministered unto the Lord before Eli. And the word of the Lord was precious in those days; there was no open vision.’ (I Samuel 3:1) . . . That means that there was no prophet upon the earth through whom the Lord could reveal his will, either by personal experience, or by revelation. And it came to pass that Eli was laid down in his place and his eyes were dim, and Samuel the boy also lay down to his sleep, and you remember through that night there came a call, ‘Samuel,’ and thinking that Eli had called him he went to Eli’s room to be told that Eli had not called him. And he lay down the second time again to be called, and yet the third time. And by this time Eli, sensing the fact that he was being spoken to by an unseen speaker, said, ‘The next time that you hear, then you shall answer, “Here I am Lord, speak to me.”’ And so the next time when the call came, Samuel answered as he had been directed. Now it says, ‘Samuel (up to this time) did not yet know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord revealed unto him.’ And after he had recognized the Lord and said, ‘Thy servant heareth,’ then he was told that the Lord was to proceed to ‘do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of everyone that heareth it, shall tingle.’ And then he explained the reason why Eli could not receive further messages from the Lord. ‘His sons make themselves vile, and he restrained them not,’ or in other words he allowed his sons to curse God and therefore were leading the people of Israel astray.” (“But Arise and Stand upon Thy Feet”—and I Will Speak with Thee, Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year, Provo, 7 Feb. 1956, p. 2.)
“You need have no fear that when one of the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ delivers a prophecy in the name of Jesus Christ, because he is inspired to do that, that it will fall by the wayside. I know of more than one prophecy, which, looking at it naturally, seemed as though it would fall to the ground as year after year passed. But lo and behold, in the providences of the Lord, that prophecy was fulfilled.” (Grant, Gospel Standards, p. 68.)
These chapters deal with Israel’s loss of the ark of God to the Philistines. (See the accompanying map to locate most of the places mentioned in these chapters.) The Israelites viewed the ark as the visible symbol of the presence of God, but bringing the ark from Shiloh on this occasion was a demonstration of Israel’s state of spiritual wickedness rather than a demonstration of their faith.
 |
| The loss and return of the ark of the covenant [click for scalable version] |
“They vainly supposed that the ark could save them, when the God of it had departed from them because of their wickedness. They knew that in former times their fathers had been beaten by their enemies, when they took not the ark with them to battle; as in the case of their wars with the Canaanites, [see Numbers 14:44–45]; and that they had conquered when they took this with them, as in the case of the destruction of Jericho, [see Joshua 6:4]. From the latter clause they took confidence; but the cause of their miscarriage in the former they laid not to heart.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:219.)
Great disaster followed the appearance of the ark among the troops because of Israel’s wickedness. Israel suffered a resounding defeat, Hophni and Phinehas were slain, and the ark was captured. News of the capture of the ark and of the death of his sons caused Eli such consternation that he lost his balance on his seat (see Reading 24-4), fell over backwards, and died, thus fulfilling the prophecy that his house would come to a tragic end (see 1 Samuel 2:27–36).
Dagon was one of the gods of the Philistines (see Reading F-7). Since the Philistines believed that Dagon had given them victory over Israel, the ark was brought into Dagon’s temple and deposited at his feet as a war trophy.
 |
| Thought to be Dagon, the fish god |
Because the word translated emerod means “an inflamed tumor,” many have assumed that the Philistines were smitten with hemorrhoids and thus were motivated to send the ark back to Israel. The description of the effects of the emerods on the Philistines suggests something far more serious than hemorrhoids, however, although that ailment can be very painful. Many died, and those who did not seem to have endured great suffering (see 1 Samuel 5:10–12).
Josephus indicated that it was “a very destructive disease” involving dysentery, bleeding, and severe vomiting (see Antiquities of the Jews, bk. 6, chap. 1, par. 1). Josephus also mentioned a great plague of mice that accompanied the disease. Although no direct mention is made of the plague of rodents, when the Philistines sought to placate Jehovah’s wrath upon them by returning the ark, they sent five golden emerods and five golden mice as well (see 1 Samuel 6:4).
The severity of the disease and the fact that rodents were involved lead many scholars to conclude that what smote the Philistines was bubonic plague. Bubonic plague gets its name from the buboes, or tumorous swellings, in the lymph glands. These tumors settle particularly in the area of the groin. This fact would explain the “secret parts” mentioned in 1 Samuel 5:9. It is well known that rats and mice are the main carriers of this disease, for the fleas that transmit the disease to man live on rodents. The disease is accompanied by great suffering and pain, and the fatality rate may run as high as 70 percent in a week’s time. (See Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, s.v., “medicine,” p. 598; Douglas, New Bible Dictionary, s.v. “emerods,” p. 368.) Small wonder that the Philistines were anxious to return the ark to Israel.
The ancient Philistines were very superstitious. They, like many others during the world’s history, believed that an image made to represent an actual object might be used to ward off evil powers. Such appears to have been their thinking in making golden images of the emerods and the mice and sending them as a “trespass offering” (v. 8) with the ark back to Israelite territory.
“Concerning the men of Beth-shemesh who were smitten for sacrilege, the Hebrew account says, ‘And he smote among the people seventy men, fifty thousand men. . . .’ It is not a proper Hebrew expression for 50,070. The ‘fifty thousand men’ appears to be an added phrase, or gloss. The septuagint and Josephus both have merely ‘seventy men.’” (Rasmussen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1:163.)
Exactly what they did to bring the curse upon them is not clear. If it was merely looking upon the ark, then one wonders why all were not smitten. Bible scholars have indicated that the Hebrew word translated looked actually means “to look upon or at a thing with lust or malicious pleasure” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:69). Remembering that the lid of the ark with the cherubim on it was solid gold and the ark itself was covered with gold plating (see Exodus 25:10–18), it is possible that these residents of Beth-shemesh looked upon the ark with covetous eyes, or at least upon the golden emerods and mice that were sent with it.
But whatever the specific reason for the deaths, the lesson was clear. The ark of the covenant was a physical symbol of the living presence of Jehovah. Any unholiness, whether Philistine or Israelite, was not to be tolerated.
Here again the remarkable contrast between Samuel and Samson is evident. Both were born of barren women through miraculous intervention; both were to be Nazarites for life. Samson, despite tremendous physical strength, did not throw off the power of the Philistines because he did not dedicate himself to the Lord. Samuel, on the other hand, did free Israel from the oppression of the Philistines because he had great spiritual strength and power.
“Thearchy or theocracy is government by the immediate direction of God through his ministers and representatives. A state governed in this manner is called theocracy. This was the original earthly government, Adam serving as the great presiding high priest through whom the laws of the Lord, both temporal and spiritual, were revealed and administered. This type of government apparently continued among the righteous portion of mankind from the days of Adam to Enoch and the taking of Zion to the Lord’s bosom.
“The great patriarchs after the flood—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and others—appear to have had this type of government. Righteous portions of the Jareditish peoples were undoubtedly governed on this system. Certainly ancient Israel in the days of Moses and the judges operated on a theocratic basis, and the same system prevailed among the Nephite portion of Lehi’s descendants during most of their long history. When Christ comes to reign personally on earth during the millennial era, a perfect theocratic government will prevail. (D. & C. 38:20–22; 58:20–22.)” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 789.)
This type of government was the ideal. During the reign of the judges, however, the wickedness of the people in general and of certain leaders in particular largely invalidated the theocratic form of government.
Samuel’s sons set a poor example to the people. They turned aside from the religious truths they had learned in their youth. They used their judgeships to seek monetary gain, betraying their sacred trusts by taking bribes and giving perverted judgments. But, even more than this, the Israelites as a people had become weak and sinful and were envious of surrounding kingdoms, even though their governments were wicked and oppressive. So they used Samuel’s sons as an excuse to justify their desire to be governed by the same system as the gentile nations.
“The people of Israel traced the cause of the oppression and distress, from which they had suffered more and more in the time of the judges, to the defects of their own political constitution. They wished to have a king, like all the heathen nations, to conduct their wars and conquer their enemies. Now, although the desire to be ruled by a king, which had existed in the nation even from the time of Gideon, was not in itself at variance with the appointment of Israel as a kingdom of God, yet the motive which led the people to desire it was both wrong and hostile to God, since the source of all the evils and misfortunes from which Israel suffered was to be found in the apostasy of the nation from its God, and its coquetting with the gods of the heathen. Consequently their self-willed obstinacy in demanding a king, notwithstanding the warnings of Samuel, was an actual rejection of the sovereignty of Jehovah, since He had always manifested himself to His people as their king by delivering them out of the power of their foes, as soon as they returned to Him with simple penitence of heart.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:78.)
The Lord Himself said to Samuel, “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them” (v. 7).
Samuel warned the Israelites of three principal evils of a kingly form of government: excessive taxation (see vv. 15, 17), conscription of the labor force (see vv. 11–13, 16), and seizure of private lands (see vv. 14–15). In discussing the matter, Elder Bruce R. McConkie said:
“The system of kingly government itself, no matter how talented or noble an individual occupant of the throne may be, does not make the best form of government, one in which the instinctive and automatic concern of government is to look after the best interests of the body of the people. It is inherent in the nature of even the best and most ideal kingly systems that special privilege and questionable adulation be heaped upon those in the ruling class. . . .
“It is true that the Lord on occasions, in the pre-Christian Era, administered righteous and theocratic government through kings, but no such approved kingly government has existed among men for some 2000 years. Such a system, in which the king is the Lord’s representative, is patterned after the true kingdom of God and is proper government, but even then the moment an unrighteous king gains the throne, the blessings and freedoms of such a system die out. As King Mosiah said, ‘Because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you. For behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction!’ (Mosiah 29.) Pending the day in which He shall again reign, whose right it is, the saints are obliged to be subject to the powers that be.” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 414–15.)
The scriptures indicate that “there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he” (v. 2). The word goodly seems to indicate many of the qualities that made Saul a logical candidate to be Israel’s first king. All that the Bible reveals indicates that Saul was honest, reliable, considerate of his parents, and altogether a very promising person for the great task ahead.
Goodly also described Saul’s physical attributes. In this regard, Saul was potentially the hero and man of valour all Israel sought. He was about a foot taller than those of his generation. Yet subsequent events show that the Lord was teaching Israel a lesson about people and about kings when He chose Saul. For the Lord certainly knew the end of this thing from the beginning, as He does in all things. Though Saul had, at first, a great regard for the law of Moses and for God, yet “the consciousness of his own power, coupled with the energy of his character, led him astray into an incautious disregard of the commands of God; his zeal in the prosecution of his plans hurried him on to reckless and violent measures; and success in his undertakings heightened his ambition into a haughty rebellion against the Lord, the God-king of Israel.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:79.)
A seer is one who has the ability to see the future—he is literally a “see-er.” As explained in the Book of Mormon, seers are men who possess the power to “know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come” (Mosiah 8:17). They do this in some cases with the aid of the Urim and Thummim. The possession of these instruments in ancient times made a righteous man a seer (see Mosiah 8:13–18; 28:10–16). It is in this connection, then, that a seer is greater than a prophet (see Mosiah 8:15). The means by which Samuel identified Saul is evidence of Samuel’s gift of seership. Members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are sustained and ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators.
This verse may be taken to mean that Saul, as the king-to-be, was the embodiment of what Israel desired even though as yet they did not know he would be their king. It also could mean, however, that his size, comeliness, and other qualities were well known and that his name was being talked about as one possibility for king.
Anointing with oil in priesthood service is as old as Adam. And, since the Lord set up the kingdom of Israel and revealed the laws that were to govern their kings, it was altogether fitting that these kings be anointed with oil.
“Anointing with oil was a symbol of endowment with the Spirit of God; as the oil itself, by virtue of the strength which it gives to the vital spirits, was a symbol of the Spirit of God as the principle of divine and spiritual power [see Leviticus 8:12]. Hitherto there had been no other anointing among the people of God than that of the priests and sanctuary [see Exodus 30:23–38; Leviticus 8:10–36]. When Saul, therefore, was consecrated as king by anointing, the monarchy was inaugurated as a divine institution, . . . through which henceforth the Lord would also bestow upon His people the gifts of His Spirit for the building up of His kingdom. As the priests were consecrated by anointing to be the media of the ethical blessings of divine grace for Israel, so the king was consecrated by anointing to be the vehicle and medium of all the blessings of grace which the Lord, as the God-king, would confer upon His people through the institution of a civil government. Through this anointing, which was performed by Samuel under the direction of God, the king was set apart from the rest of the nation as ‘anointed of the Lord.’” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:95.)
But Samuel anointed Saul to be “captain” even though he was later called king (see 1 Samuel 10:1). This title should have served as a reminder that the Lord was still king.
Several books are mentioned in the Old Testament which are not a part of the present canon of scripture. Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote:
“Reference is made in both the Old and New Testaments to books and epistles which are not now available. These include: Book of the Covenant (Ex. 24:4, 7); Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); A Book of Statutes (1 Sam. 10:25); Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41); Books of Nathan and Gad (1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29); Prophecy of Ahijah and Visions of Iddo (2 Chron. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); Book of Shemaiah (2 Chron. 12:15); Book of Jehu (2 Chron. 20:34); Acts of Uzziah, written by Isaiah (2 Chron. 26:22); Sayings of the Seers (2 Chron. 33:19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); an epistle of Paul to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); an epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16); Epistle of Jude (Jude 3); and the Prophecies of Enoch (Jude 14).” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 454.)
Certainly the standard works do not contain all that God has ever spoken to His children, and those who say that the Bible is all there is are mistaken. The Book of Mormon itself does not contain “even a hundredth part” of all that Mormon had at his disposal to make his abridgment (3 Nephi 5:8; see also vv. 9–11).
Nahash, king of the Ammonites, and his army attacked the tribes on the east of the Jordan. No doubt he intended to enforce the claim to a part of Gilead asserted by his ancestor in the time of Jephthah (see Judges 11:13). In desperation, the men of Jabesh-gilead appealed for help from the tribes west of the Jordan. Even though Saul had been officially appointed king, the tribes seem still to have remained in their independent and self-governed state. Some even seem to have rejected Saul as king (see 1 Samuel 11:12). At this critical time Saul was at his finest. He slew his oxen and sent the pieces thereof to every tribe to dramatize that this crisis called for a united Israel (see v. 7). He joined his authority with that of Samuel in the message. Under this leadership, the armies of Israel dealt a stunning defeat to the Ammonites, and Saul gave all credit to the Lord (see v. 13). The victory provided the catalyst for uniting the tribes into one nation for the first time. So strong was the support for Saul that some suggested that those who had earlier questioned his right to rule be put to death. Saul rejected this proposal.
The ceremony at Gilgal was a wise move on Samuel’s part and helped formalize the popular acceptance of Saul after his great victory.
 |
| Saul’s campaign [click for scalable version] |
This chapter contains Samuel’s testimony of the manner in which the Lord had blessed Israel from the first. Samuel reminded the people that the Lord had always been just in His dealings with them and told them that they should likewise deal justly with one another. He then recalled the times when Israel had forgotten the Lord and experienced great calamity. He urged them to serve the Lord lest an even greater calamity overtake them.
The Bible says that there were thirty thousand chariots, but this figure is believed to be an error in transcription. One prominent Bible scholar discussed the problem and gave the opinion that the correct figure is three thousand (see Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:247). Errors of this sort arose out of translation problems and perhaps also the exaggeration of later scribes who took it upon themselves to add to the record, thinking that they were adding to the glory of Israel. (For further information, see Enrichment Section E, “The Problem of Large Numbers in the Old Testament.”)
It was not long before Saul began to have an exaggerated opinion of his power and importance. This tendency is natural to men who forget the Lord and trust in themselves. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion” (D&C 121:39). It is true that this was a time of great crisis. The Philistines were amassed in great strength and the people were deserting from Saul’s army (see 1 Samuel 13:6). When Samuel was late in coming, Saul took things into his own hands and offered the sacrifices. This action was a great sin.
“Think also of Saul who had been called from the field to be made king of the nation. When the Philistines were marshalled against Israel in Michmash, Saul waited for Samuel, under whose hand he had received his kingly anointing and to whom he had looked in the days of his humility for guidance; he asked that the prophet come and offer sacrifices to the Lord in behalf of the people. But, growing impatient at Samuel’s delay, Saul prepared the burnt offering himself, forgetting that though he occupied the throne, wore the crown, and bore the scepter, these insignia of kingly power gave him no right to officiate even as a deacon in the Priesthood of God; and for this and other instances of his unrighteous presumption he was rejected of God and another was made king in his place.” (Talmage, Articles of Faith, pp. 184–85.)
The circumstances were critical, but one of the purposes of mortality is to demonstrate that one will remain faithful and obedient under all circumstances (see D&C 98:14–15). Saul failed that test and thereby lost his right to be God’s representative of the people.
Scholars believe that at this time the Israelites did not know how to work with iron. The Philistines guarded the secret carefully to maintain superiority in weapons over the softer brass weapons of the Israelites. As a result, the Israelites did not have the superior chariots of iron, nor could they manufacture swords and spears of iron. The other instruments mentioned, “share,” “coulter,” “axe,” “mattock,” and “goad,” had to be taken to the Philistines for sharpening. A share was a metal instrument used to plough the ground, and a coulter was a small garden hoe used to loosen the earth and weed the soil. A mattock was an Egyptian hoe or grubbing axe, and a goad was a sharp rod about eight feet long used to prod stubborn animals.
In the armies of ancient times, certain men were assigned to go out and destroy crops, homes, barns, cattle, and so forth. Their prime purpose was not to take human life, but to make living difficult for the civilian population who supported the military (see Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:249).
These verses give insights into the character of Jonathan, son of Saul, a young man of great faith in God (see vv. 6, 10). The venture into the Philistine camp was not foolhardy but was based on faith and courage.
Saul again foolishly sought to win a battle against the Philistines by attempting to gain the Lord’s intervening power in an unapproved way. The courageous attack of Jonathan and his armor-bearer on the camp of the Philistines suddenly altered the circumstances of the battle. The Philistines were thrown into disarray, and even the men who had hid themselves came forth now to join the battle (see v. 22).
In the heat of the battle, Saul had compelled his men to swear with an oath that they would fast all that day. This restriction put the men in distress, for their fasting added the weakness of hunger to the fatigue of battle. (See v. 24.)
“This command of Saul did not proceed from a proper attitude towards the Lord, but was an act of false zeal, in which Saul had more regard to himself and his own kingly power than to the cause of the kingdom of Jehovah, as we may see at once from the expression . . . ‘till I have avenged myself upon mine enemies.’” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:142.)
Two unfortunate incidents resulted from Saul’s command to fast. First, Jonathan, who had been in the camp of the Philistines at the time Saul made his army swear not to eat, violated the oath by partaking of some wild honey (see vv. 25–27). When told about the oath, Jonathan frankly said that his father had done a foolish thing. Since his own strength had been revived by the food, he wondered aloud how much greater the victory would have been if the people had been allowed to eat instead of fighting in a state of physical exhaustion (see vv. 28–30).
The second unfortunate incident occurred later that same day when the people, faint with hunger, fell upon the animals captured from the Philistines and “did eat them with the blood” (v. 32). The animals were not properly killed to drain out their blood, which violated the Mosaic law (see Leviticus 17:10–14).
Saul immediately sought to make atonement for this violation by offering sacrifices to the Lord (see vv. 33–35). But when he sought revelation from the Lord about whether to go against the Philistines, no answer came (see vv. 36–37). Saul concluded that some other sin of the people was the cause of the lack of response from the Lord. He then directed that all the people be gathered together to meet him and Jonathan, swearing with an oath that the guilty party would be put to death. To dramatize his determination to carry through with his threat, Saul indicated he would even put his own son to death if he were proven guilty (see v. 39), quite unaware that it was indeed Jonathan who would be facing death.
“What Jonathan had done was not wrong in itself, but became so simply on account of the oath with which Saul had forbidden it. But Jonathan did not hear the oath, and therefore had not even consciously transgressed. . . . In the present instance, Saul had issued the prohibition without divine authority, and had made it obligatory upon the people by a solemn oath. The people had conscientiously obeyed the command, but Jonathan had transgressed it without being aware of it. For this Saul was about to punish him with death, in order to keep his oath. But the people opposed it. They not only pronounced Jonathan innocent, because he had broken the king’s command unconsciously, but they also exclaimed that he had gained the victory for Israel ‘with God.’ In this fact (Jonathan’s victory) there was a divine verdict. And Saul could not fail to recognise now, that it was not Jonathan, but he himself, who had sinned, and through his arbitrary and despotic command had brought guilt upon Israel, on account of which God had given him no reply.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:146–47.)
The Amalekites were old Israelite enemies, and their punishment had long been foretold (see Exodus 17:8–16; Deuteronomy 25:17–19). Saul’s failure to carry out the word of God with exactness and honor caused the Lord to reject him as the king of Israel (see vv. 11, 26). (Note: The references to the Lord’s repenting [vv. 11, 35] were corrected by the Prophet Joseph Smith; see JST, 1 Samuel 15:29.) Saul’s excuse that he had saved the best to sacrifice was simply not acceptable, even if it were true. As Samuel said, “To obey is better than sacrifice. . . . For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry” (2 Samuel 15:22–23). The root of Saul’s problem is here revealed (see v. 17). Saul had been called because of his humility (“thou wast little in thine own sight”; v. 17); now he trusted in his own wisdom and did not look to God.
Saul’s repentance (see vv. 24–25) was too late and very short-lived. This second violation was essentially the same sin of disobedience he had been guilty of before (see 1 Samuel 13:8–14). Had Saul’s repentance been deep and sincere, the second incident would never have happened. As the Lord warned in modern times, “But unto that soul who sinneth [after the Lord has forgiven him] shall the former sins return” (D&C 82:7).
(24-36) The Old Testament provides many remarkable contrasts and practical lessons. Answer the following questions as you consider the lives of the people discussed in this part of the Old Testament:
1. Peninnah, the other wife of Elkanah, probably sensed her husband’s special love for Hannah and resented it. Perhaps that is why she kept reminding Hannah of her barrenness and “provoked her” (1 Samuel 1:7). One can sympathize with Peninnah’s jealousy, but could she have been in any way responsible for the situation with her husband? Would it have been easier to love Hannah or Peninnah? Have you ever been guilty of blaming someone else for problems that lie at least partly within yourself? What kind of counsel would you have given Peninnah in this situation?
2. What are the first indications that Eli had lost the power of discernment? (see 1 Samuel 1:12–14). Is it unfair to suppose that Eli should have been able to discern that Hannah was not a drunken woman? Read Doctrine and Covenants 46:27 before answering. As high priest, Eli was the equivalent of the Presiding Bishop today. Does this modern-day scripture apply to him?
3. King Benjamin taught that if one seeks to repay the debt he owes to God by living righteously, one is further blessed for his obedience and thus can never repay God (see Mosiah 2:23–24). How was this principle true of Hannah? (see 1 Samuel 1:24–28; 2:21).
4. In modern times, the Lord warned some leaders of the Church that certain problems in their spiritual lives were traceable to their family problems. Read Doctrine and Covenants 93:38–50. How does this counsel apply to Eli?
5. How was Eli’s sin in tolerating the wickedness of Hophni and Phinehas compounded by the fact that he was both their father and the high priest? Read Leviticus 21:9–23; Deuteronomy 21:18–21.
6. It is obvious that Eli did not condone the evil behavior of his sons (see 1 Samuel 2:22–24). What, then, was his problem and why did the Lord curse him and his family? (see 1 Samuel 2:29; 3:13).
7. Have you ever asked yourself, Why Samuel? Why not Eli? Eli was also in the house that night when the Lord spoke, as undoubtedly were Phinehas and Hophni. Would they have understood the voice if they had heard it? How is this situation similar to that of Laman and Lemuel? (see 1 Nephi 17:45).
8. Elder Harold B. Lee reminded us that a certain amount of spiritual preparation is necessary before we can receive divine communications. He said, “The Lord will bring us his blessings to that extent that we have diligence in keeping his commandments. Each of you, in other words, must stand on your own feet if you will receive the great blessings which the Almighty has in store for you. . . .
“Stand upon your own feet, so the Lord can speak to you. In humility be prepared to say with Paul, ‘Lord, what wilt thou have me do?’ And with dauntless courage say with the boy Samuel ‘Speak, Lord, thy servant heareth.’ Be humble, be prayerful and the Lord will take you by the hand, as it were, and give you answer to your prayers.” (“But Arise and Stand upon Thy Feet”—and I Will Speak with Thee, Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year, Provo, 7 Feb. 1956, pp. 7, 11.)
What evidence do you find in 1 Samuel 3–8 that Samuel did more than just hear the Lord that night in the tabernacle? Note Elder Lee’s first sentence. Do you find that requirement in Samuel’s life? (see 1 Samuel 12:1–5).
9. How were Saul and Samuel alike in their early years? (see 1 Samuel 9:2, 21; 10:6, 9–13). What made the difference later? (see especially 1 Samuel 13:13–14; 15:17).
 |
Who’s on the Lord’s side? Who?
Now is the time to show;
We ask it fearlessly:
Who’s on the Lord’s side? Who?
(Hymns, no. 260.)
David’s actions showed that his answer to such a question would have been a hearty “I am!” Arriving at the battlefront at a time when the haughty giant Goliath had openly challenged Israel to send a man to fight him, David boldly volunteered to accept Goliath’s challenge. When accused of pride, the future king of Israel asked his oldest brother, “Is there not a cause?” (1 Samuel 17:29).
Many young people of today are great joiners. They attach themselves to this or that organization or group because they wish to make the world a better place. They need a purpose for living, a reason to be—they need a cause.
Young David, shepherd boy of Israel, had a cause. And this cause was emphasized when Samuel, the Lord’s prophet, anointed David to be a future king of Israel. Throughout his early life, David stayed close to the Lord. In all his military ventures, in the face of threats against his life, and despite numerous opportunities to slay Saul, David was true to his chosen cause. “And David behaved himself wisely in all his ways; and the Lord was with him” (1 Samuel 18:14).
And what of today? Have we a cause? Indeed we have! We found that cause when we gained our testimonies of the true gospel and of the value of citizenship in the kingdom of God.
“I declare with all my soul—there is a cause! It is a cause worth giving one’s life for. It is the cause of righteousness. It is a cause that every youth in this Church should rally to as he declares war on Satan and his legions. As David said to Goliath, so each youth should declare to Satan, ‘Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield; but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.’ (1 Sam. 17:45.)” (Victor L. Brown, “Is There Not a Cause?” Ensign, Nov. 1974, p. 104.)
There is a cause! That cause is the Lord’s!
Instructions to Students
1. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study 1 Samuel 16–31.
2. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual study students should complete all of this section.)
There verses contain the Lord’s directions to His prophet in the selection of a new king. Note the Lord’s special counsel in verse 7. Mortals tend to see the outward appearance, but the Lord has the power to look to the very depths of men and things. The “horn of oil” was probably a ram’s horn filled with olive oil and used to anoint those chosen of the Lord (v. 13; see also v. 1).
Evil spirits are not sent by God, nor does God give revelations through the evil spirits which sometimes trouble men. He cast these evil spirits out of heaven long ago for their rebellion against Him. The Joseph Smith Translation corrects this passage to say, “An evil spirit which was not of the Lord troubled him” (JST, 1 Samuel 16:14; emphasis added). Recorded here are the first effects of Saul’s rejection of the Lord. More and more Saul failed to find peace with himself until at last he became a miserable, guilt-ridden man.
 |
| The Valley of Elah |
Descending from the hill country of Judah toward the Mediterranean Sea are numerous valleys or wadis. One of these is the Valley of Elah, in which David’s battle with Goliath occurred near Azekah in the Shephelah or low-lying hills (see 1 Samuel 17:1). The accompanying map shows the Valley of Elah almost directly west and a little south of Jerusalem.
 |
| Azekah in the Valley of Elah [click for scalable version] |
“Our word champion comes from campus, the field; . . . ‘Champion is he, properly, who fights in the field; i.e., in camps.’ A man well skilled in arms, strong, brave, and patriotic.
“But is this the meaning of the original . . . ish habbenayim, a middle man, the man between two; that is, as here, the man who undertakes to settle the disputes between two armies or nations. So our ancient champions settled disputes between contending parties by what was termed camp fight; hence the campio or champion.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:261.)
Although it seems peculiar in this day of modern warfare, in ancient times it was not unusual for opposing armies, which were generally quite small, to select one representative from each side to fight a personal contest. The outcome of that contest determined the winner of the battle. (Compare this verse with 2 Samuel 2:12–17, in which is recorded a similar choosing of representatives to battle for each side.
According to this passage, Goliath’s height was six cubits and a span. The most widely accepted opinion of the length of a cubit is about eighteen inches or, roughly, the distance from the elbow to the tip of the extended middle finger. A span is said to be one-half the distance from the thumb to the end of the little finger when the fingers are spread as wide as possible. These measurements would make the height of Goliath approximately nine feet, nine inches! It is not too surprising that the Philistines would have picked such a champion or that no man in Israel wanted to be Saul’s champion.
It is unusual that anyone today is over seven feet tall, but it is commonly believed there were men in ancient times whose height far exceeded seven feet. There are references in the scriptures to giants in the earlier periods of history: in the time of Enoch (see Moses 7:15), in the days of Noah (see Moses 8:18; Genesis 6:4), and in the time of the Israelites (see Numbers 13:33; Deuteronomy 2:10–11; Joshua 15:8). Called Anakim (meaning “long-necked” or “tall” in Hebrew) by the Israelites, this race of giants seems to have been virtually destroyed in the conquest of Canaan under Joshua (see Joshua 11:21). In fact, it is recorded that none of the Anakim were left except in Gaza, Ashdod, and Gath (see Joshua 11:22), which was Goliath’s hometown (see 1 Samuel 17:4).
Experts have estimated the weight of Goliath’s armor to be about 150 pounds (see Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:261). A weaver’s beam is a strong, thick piece of wood on which thread is strung in preparation for weaving. The weight of Goliath’s spearhead has been estimated from twelve to twenty-six pounds, depending on which authority is consulted and what weight he selects for a shekel. (See the table on weights and measures in Maps and Charts.) A greave is a protective piece of armor that fits on the front of the leg and extends from just below the knee to the ankle.
These verses are a brief flashback that bring young David into the story once again. Even though he was Saul’s armor-bearer, young David, unlike the fighting men, was evidently permitted to leave the battlefield and return home from time to time.
The ephah was a dry measure roughly equivalent to three fifths of a United States bushel, or about 22 liters. (See the table on weights and measures in Maps and Charts.)
The story of David and Goliath is so well known that some readers take David’s courage for granted. But his courage was not born of self-confidence alone, although he did believe in his own skills in battle. As a young shepherd, he had much practice at slinging stones. It was an effective way both to keep wolves and other vicious animals away from the sheep and to attract the attention of straying sheep and drive them back to pasture. As a result of his experience, David had confidence in his skills, but the true source of his courage was faith in the power of the living God. In fact, the contrast between David and the other Israelites was as great in terms of faith as in courage. David was incensed that “this uncircumcised Philistine [one not of the covenant but of the world] . . . should defy the armies of the living God” (v. 26). There was no similar anger in the men of Israel, only a quaking fear because of Goliath’s size and strength. And David’s answer to Goliath’s laugh of derision at the unprotected boy who came out to accept the challenge provides a classic study in faith as well as in courage. “Thou comest to me,” he said to Goliath, “with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts. . . . This day will the Lord deliver thee into mine hand, . . . that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel. . . . for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give you into our hands” (vv. 45–47).
Shepherds of David’s time carried a sling and a small leather or woolen wallet or bag in which food or stones could be carried to the place where the sheep grazed. In the King James Version of the Bible, this bag is called a scrip. When Jesus sent His disciples forth without purse or scrip (see Luke 10:4), they went without a bag in which to keep money or food. David used his shepherd’s scrip to hold the stones he obtained from the brook.
Slings were made from various materials, the most common being leather. Hair, wool, animal sinews, or rushes were used to make the pouch that held the stones. The pouch had strings attached on each side and was whirled until a certain speed was reached. When one string was released, the stone was hurled from the pouch toward its mark. Any variation from perfect roundness affected the accuracy of a stone. Uniform weight and size of the stones were also important. Anciently, slingers, particularly shepherds with time on their hands, developed great accuracy and skill in slinging stones. When not in use, the slings were carried by shepherds around their foreheads or waists.
Slings were used fairly commonly in the ancient Near East. The Israelites, who did not often use chariots in war, employed many trained slingers. The same was true of peoples from surrounding areas.
These verses might lead the reader to conclude that Saul, who had met David before, did not know who he was. Saul’s inquiry of Abner about who David was merely means, “Who is this lad of such skill and courage? Obviously, he does more than play the harp. Who is his father? From what kind of family did he come? Where did he get such courage? Is this really the boy who has been with us all this time?”
Once again weaknesses in Saul’s character began to manifest themselves. He was jealous of David’s newly won popularity (see vv. 6–8, 16). Verse 10 in the Joseph Smith Translation again makes it clear that the evil spirit Saul possessed was not from God.
Saul tried two ways to do away with David (see vv. 10–11; 21–25). But although Saul was jealous of David’s growing popularity with the people, there was no indication yet that he knew that David had been anointed to be his successor.
Although the people of Israel celebrated the prowess of David in warfare, the Lord later indicated that because of his great wars, David was not allowed to build the temple. The privilege was given to his son, Solomon (see 1 Chronicles 22:8).
Jonathan, Saul’s son, was one of the most noble men of ancient Israel. He could have seen David as a threat, as Saul did, since the oldest son generally succeeded to the kingship. But instead, Jonathan assisted David, even helping him to escape from Saul. Truly Jonathan loved David “as his own soul” (1 Samuel 18:1).
A bolster is a long pillow or cushion used to prop the head or back while a person sleeps. This bolster was stuffed with or made from goat’s hair.
After David escaped from Saul through the help of his wife, Michal, Saul sent messengers to kill him. But David had sought refuge with Samuel in what scholars called “Schools of the Prophets” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:199).These scholars showed that such prophets as Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha conducted special schools that were called here “the company of the prophets” (v. 20). Elsewhere, the men who attended these schools were called “sons of the prophets” (1 Kings 20:35). This fact is of interest to Latter-day Saints because Joseph Smith set up a similar school in Kirtland, Ohio, to help teach priesthood holders their special duties.
When the messengers from Saul and finally Saul himself came, they came under the influence of the Spirit, and thus David’s life was spared. The fact that the people said, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” (v. 24) is explained this way:
Saul “threw off his royal robes or military dress, retaining only his tunic; and continued so all that day and all that night, uniting with the sons of the prophets in prayers, singing praises, and other religious exercises, which were unusual to kings and warriors; and this gave rise to the saying, Is Saul also among the prophets? By bringing both him and his men thus under a Divine influence, God prevented them from injuring the person of David.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:274.)
This remarkable event has a parallel in latter-day Church history. During his mission to Great Britain, Elder Wilford Woodruff was delivered from the hands of government authorities through the influence of the Spirit.
“When I arose to speak at Brother Benbow’s house, a man entered the door and informed me that he was a constable, and had been sent by the rector of the parish with a warrant to arrest me. I asked him, ‘For what crime?’ He said, ‘For preaching to the people.’ I told him that I, as well as the rector, had a license for preaching the gospel to the people, and that if he would take a chair I would wait upon him after meeting. He took my chair and sat beside me. For an hour and a quarter I preached the first principles of the everlasting gospel. The power of God rested upon me, the spirit filled the house, and the people were convinced. At the close of the meeting I opened the door for baptism, and seven offered themselves. Among the number were four preachers and the constable. The latter arose and said, ‘Mr. Woodruff, I would like to be baptized.’ I told him I would like to baptize him. I went down into the pool and baptized the seven. We then came together. I confirmed thirteen, administered the Sacrament, and we all rejoiced together.
“The constable went to the rector and told him that if he wanted Mr. Woodruff taken for preaching the gospel, he must go himself and serve the writ; for he had heard him preach the only true gospel sermon he had ever listened to in his life. The rector did not know what to make of it, so he sent two clerks of the Church of England as spies, to attend our meeting, and find out what we did preach. They both were pricked in their hearts, received the word of the Lord gladly, and were baptized and confirmed members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The rector became alarmed, and did not venture to send anybody else.” (In Cowley, Wilford Woodruff, p. 118.)
David needed to know Saul’s disposition toward him before he could safely remain at court as Saul had ordered (see 1 Samuel 16:22; 18:2). A sacrifice and a feast at every new moon (see v. 5; Numbers 10:10; 28:11) afforded Jonathan a perfect opportunity to inquire into the matter. Jonathan’s brotherly love for David remained firm, even in the face of his father’s wrath.
Saul’s reference to David’s possible uncleanness refers to the requirement in the Mosaic law that one be ceremoniously cleansed, if needs be, before attending a holy feast. He assumed David was absent because he had not been able to meet the ceremonial requirements.
In his anger Saul cursed his wife as being responsible for Jonathan’s rebellious disloyalty in being faithful to David rather than being faithful to his own father. Saul was falling deeper and deeper into evil and withdrawing further and further from the Spirit. Even his own children, first Michal and then Jonathan, supported David because they knew their father’s hatred was unjustified.
Anciently, artillery was any weapon that cast a projectile, in this case, an arrow. Jonathan handed his servant his bow and arrows and told him to return to the city.
Both men were tearful at their parting, but David’s distress exceeded that of Jonathan. Saul had taken David’s wife Michal and given her to another (see 1 Samuel 25:44), and David was now banished from access to the tabernacle and the rituals of sacrifice because he was forced to hide from Saul. He had to live among the Philistines and send his parents to live among the Moabites for protection (see 1 Samuel 22:3–4). Thus, “David’s distress must, in the nature of things, be the greatest. Besides his friend Jonathan, whom he was now about to lose for ever, he lost his wife, relatives, country; and, what was most afflictive, the altars of his God, and the ordinances of religion.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:277.)
These chapters recount the flight of David from King Saul. The map given here shows the locations to which David went seeking safety.
 |
| David eluding Saul [click for scalable version] |
David’s partaking of the shewbread, which was reserved only for the priests (see Reading 13-7), was technically a violation of the Mosaic law. Jesus, however, used this incident to show that in times of dire necessity a breach of the ritual law was not a sin (see Matthew 12:1–8). As Paul said, “the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life” (2 Corinthians 3:6).
 |
| Possible site of the cave of Adullam where David hid from Saul |
The constant desertion from Saul to David eventually reached such proportions that David’s army became “a great host, like the host of God,” or Saul’s army (1 Chronicles 12:22; see also 12:1–7, 16–21).
Although the king of Moab was no particular friend to Israel, his primary hatred was of Saul. Thus, the Moabite king gave refuge to David’s parents. David’s arrangement for the safety of his parents was simply a precautionary step in case Saul decided to punish them or torture them into revealing their son’s whereabouts.
Again Saul evidenced weakness, his greatest to date. He murdered innocent persons who knew nothing of his problems with David.
This chapter exhibits an aspect of David’s character that is much to be admired. Although anointed by God’s prophet to be king of Israel, and although Saul constantly sought his life, this chosen servant of the Lord still would not lift his hand against Saul so long as Saul lived (see vv. 5–6). David understood an important priesthood principle, that is, that one has loyalty to those called by the Lord to preside even when they may not function perfectly in their calling. Saul was failing miserably, but David knew that it was the Lord’s responsibility to remove Saul, not his.
The phrase used by David when he threatened the destruction of Nabal is shocking to modern readers. Today the word is used only in profanity, but such was not the case when the King James Version was translated. The phrase was a Hebrew idiom used several times in the Bible that meant “every male” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:242). Thus, David threatened not only to kill Nabal himself but also to destroy completely all that was his. The same idea occurs in modern revelation but without the offensive expression (see D&C 121:15).
Abigail used beautiful images here, one having to do with a bundle and the other with a sling. Abigail was simply saying that David’s life, bound up as it was with God, was precious and would be spared, while the lives of his enemies would be flung from David and from God as a rock is flung from a sling.
This statement was a way of saying that Nabal was terrified to think of what he had narrowly escaped only because David heeded his wife’s plea. He may have suffered a stroke or heart attack because of the shock.
David married two women about this time, Saul having given Michal, David’s first wife, to another man (see v. 4). Although Abigail is mentioned here before Ahinoam, the latter was the mother of David’s oldest son, Amnon, and is always listed first when his wives are named (see Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:291).
This chapter details David’s second refusal to kill King Saul, although it would have been a simple thing to do. As proof, David took the king’s spear and bottle of water, carried them to the other side of the ravine, and then chided Abner, the king’s captain, for his failure to protect the king. Once again the character of David shone forth. When David said, “The Lord render to every man his righteousness and his faithfulness” (v. 23), he was asking the Lord to judge his works as compared to Saul’s works.
“There is a vast deal of dignity in this speech of David, arising from a consciousness of his own innocence. He neither begs his life from Saul, nor offers one argument to prevail upon him to desist from his felonious attempts, but refers the whole matter to God, as the judge and vindicator of oppressed innocence. Saul himself is speechless, except in the simple acknowledgment of his sin; and in the behalf of their king not one of his officers has one word to say! It is strange that none of them offered now to injure the person of David; but they saw that he was most evidently under the guardian care of God, and that their master was apparently abandoned by him. Saul invites David to return, but David knew the uncertainty of Saul’s character too well to trust himself in the power of this infatuated king. How foolish are the counsels of men against God! When he undertakes to save, who can destroy? And who can deliver out of his hands?” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:294.)
From this time on Saul stopped hunting David to seek his life (see 1 Samuel 27:4).
“Whither have ye made a road today” is another way of saying “Where have you been today?” It seems likely that David had been out among the enemies of Israel (see v. 8) and had taken spoils from them to support his army who were with him at Ziklag. Although many commentators condemn this action by David, it should be noted that he was fulfilling God’s commandment given to Moses and Joshua to utterly destroy the Canaanites when Israel first came to the promised land (see Reading 19-15 for the reasons this destruction was required by the Lord).
Mention has been made before of what it meant in ancient Israel to have a familiar spirit (see Reading 16-5). Saul, now devoid of spiritual sensitivity because of his wickedness and unable to get an answer from the Lord “neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets” (v. 6), sought out a medium, a witch, one who claimed to be able to communicate with those in the world of spirits. It was the act of a desperate man.
“Those religionists who attempt and frequently attain communion (as they suppose) with departed spirits are called spiritualists. Their doctrine and belief that mediums and other mortals can actually hold intercourse with the spirits of the dead is called spiritualism. Such communion, if and when it occurs, is manifest by means of physical phenomena, such as so-called spirit-rappings, or during abnormal mental states, such as in trances. These communions are commonly arranged and shown forth through the instrumentality of mediums. . . .
“. . . No matter how sincerely mediums may be deceived into thinking they are following a divinely approved pattern, they are in fact turning to an evil source ‘for the living to hear from the dead.’ Those who are truly spiritually inclined know this by personal revelation from the true Spirit; further, the information revealed from spirits through mediums is not according to ‘the law and to the testimony.’
“. . . In ancient Israel, spiritualistic practices were punishable by death. ‘A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death.’ (Lev. 20:27; Ex. 22:18.)” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 759–60.)
“The Witch of Endor, . . . instead of being a prophetess of the Lord, was a woman who practiced necromancy; that is, communication or pretended communication with the spirits of the dead; but she was led by a familiar spirit. In other words, she was a spiritual medium, similar to those modern professors of the art, who claim to be under the control of some departed notable, and through him or her to be able to communicate with the dead. It should be observed that in the seance with the king of Israel, Saul did not see Samuel or anybody but the medium or witch. She declared that she saw an old man coming up and that he was covered with a mantle. It was she who told Saul what Samuel was purported to have said. Saul ‘perceived that it was Samuel’ through what the witch stated to him. The conversation that ensued between Samuel and Saul was conducted through the medium. All of this could have taken placed entirely without the presence of the prophet Samuel. The woman, under the influence of her familiar spirit, could have given to Saul the message supposed to have come from Samuel, in the same way that messages from the dead are pretended to be given to the living by spiritual mediums of the latter days, who, as in the case under consideration, perform their work at night or under cover of darkness.
“It is beyond rational belief that such persons could at any period in ancient or modern times, invoke the spirits of departed servants or handmaidens of the Lord. They are not at the beck and call of witches, wizards, diviners, or necromancers. Pitiable indeed would be the condition of spirits in paradise if they were under any such control. They would not be at rest, nor be able to enjoy that liberty from the troubles and labors of earthly life which is essential to their happiness, but be in a condition of bondage, subject to the will and whims of persons who know not God and whose lives and aims are of the earth, earthy.” (Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:107–8.)
“It has been suggested that in this instance the Lord sent Samuel in the spirit to communicate with Saul, that he might know of his impending doom; but this view does not seem to harmonize with the statements of the case, made in the scripture which gives the particulars. If the Lord desired to impart this information to Saul, why did he not respond when Saul enquired of him through the legitimate channels of divine communication? Saul had tried them all and failed to obtain an answer. Why should the Lord ignore the means he himself established, and send Samuel, a prophet, to reveal himself to Saul through a forbidden source? Why should he employ one who had a familiar spirit for this purpose, a medium which he had positively condemned by his own law?
“‘But,’ it is argued, ‘the prediction uttered by the spirit which was manifested on that occasion was literally fulfilled. Israel was delivered into the hand of the Philistines, and Saul and his three sons and his armor bearer and the men of his staff were all slain. It was therefore a true prophecy.’ Admitting that as perfectly correct, the position taken in this article is not in the least weakened. If the witches, wizards, necromancers and familiar spirits, placed under the ban of the law, did not sometimes foretell the truth there would have been no need to warn the people against consulting them. If the devil never told the truth he would not be able to deceive mankind by his falsehoods. The powers of darkness would never prevail without the use of some light. A little truth mixed with plausible error is one of the means by which they lead mankind astray. There is nothing, then, in the history of the interview between Saul and the woman of Endor which, rationally or doctrinally, establishes the opinion that she was a prophetess of the Lord or that Samuel actually appeared on that occasion.” (Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:108–9.)
David’s use of the ephod here almost certainly involved the use of the Urim and Thummim. The breastplate of the high priest, which held the Urim and Thummim, was attached to the ephod (see Exodus 28:26–30; Reading 13-13). Thus, David asked the high priest to inquire of the Lord through the Urim and Thummim, and he got an immediate answer (see 1 Samuel 30:8).
See Enrichment Section F, “Idolatry: Ancient and Modern,” especially Reading F-7.
(25-38) The section of the Old Testament containing the story of Samuel, David, Jonathan, and Saul is so full of modern-day applications, so replete with lessons that span all time, that it is not surprising that modern prophets have returned to it again and again as they speak to Israel today. The following excerpts should be read and pondered carefully as you look for lessons in your own life. You may wish to note things in your journal that are of particular worth to you.
“By referring to Samuel’s experience while choosing a king, we may get a better understanding of the fact that man is not qualified to judge. The Lord had rejected Saul as king of Israel and instructed the prophet Samuel to choose a new king. He told him to go to the house of Jesse, who had eight sons, and that while there the anointed one would pass before him and Samuel would know who was to be chosen. When the first son, Eliab, came before him, Samuel thought he was the chosen one, but the Lord refused him and then gave the prophet Samuel the key as to how to judge:
“‘Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.’ (1 Sam. 16:7.)
“Each of the seven sons then passed before Samuel and was rejected. Then David, the youngest, was sent for and was approved by the Lord.
“The reason, therefore, that we cannot judge is obvious. We cannot see what is in the heart. We do not know motives, although we impute motives to every action we see. They may be pure while we think they are improper.
“It is not possible to judge another fairly unless you know his desires, his faith, and his goals. Because of a different environment, unequal opportunity, and many other things, people are not in the same position. One may start at the top and the other at the bottom, and they may meet as they are going in opposite directions. . . . How can we, with all our weaknesses and frailties, dare to arrogate to ourselves the position of a judge? At best, man can judge only what he sees; he cannot judge the heart or the intention, or begin to judge the potential of his neighbor.” (N. Eldon Tanner, “Judge Not That Ye Be Not Judged,” Ensign, July 1972, p. 35.)
“Remember that every David has a Goliath to defeat, and every Goliath can be defeated. He may not be a bully who fights with fists or sword or gun. He may not even be flesh and blood. He may not be nine feet tall; he may not be armor-protected, but every boy has his Goliaths. And every boy has his sling, and every boy has access to the brook with its smooth stones.
“You will meet Goliaths who threaten you. Whether your Goliath is a town bully or is the temptation to steal or to destroy or the temptation to rob or the desire to curse and swear; if your Goliath is the desire to wantonly destroy or the temptation to lust and to sin, or the urge to avoid activity, whatever is your Goliath, he can be slain. But remember, to be the victor, one must follow the path that David followed:
“‘David behaved himself wisely in all his ways; and the Lord was with him.’ (1 Sam. 18:14.)” (Spencer W. Kimball, “The Davids and the Goliaths,” Ensign, Nov. 1974, p. 82.)
The wise person arms himself as David did, not with sling or stone, necessarily, but with faith. While David was trained in stone slinging, his confidence lay in the Lord of Hosts, the God of the armies whom Goliath defied. Just so, we too must arm ourselves for our battles.
“I am suggesting that each individual put on the whole armor of God. He will then become an example to others, and many will follow in his footsteps. As each individual does this, he helps form the army that will win the great victory and ultimately prepare the world for the second coming of the Savior.
“In putting on the whole armor of God, we must become acquainted with the Savior. At 14 Joseph Smith, in his quest for knowledge and wisdom, sought the Lord in prayer. God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ appeared to him in a vision. He saw two personages, one saying of the other, ‘This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!’ [Joseph Smith—History 1:17.] This was the beginning of the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth. If we have faith, we can prepare ourselves through prayer and study and gain the same assurance Joseph Smith had that God lives and that he and his Son are separate personages. Jesus of Nazareth then will become the center of our lives. With this assurance, our cause cannot be hindered. Without it, we have no cause.” (Victor L. Brown, “Is There Not a Cause?” Ensign, Nov. 1974, p. 104.)
“Now if a man is not the anointed of the Lord we may have a fellow feeling for him, that feeling which human nature teaches, but when a man is the anointed of the Lord, we feel like David did with Saul. David would not lift his hand against Saul, because, said he, he is the anointed of the Lord, but how could they move hand in hand and be one, when they were of a different spirit? There was an opposite spirit in Saul, but yet David would not put forth his hand and slay him, although he had him in his power; he had a respect for him because he was the Lord’s anointed. A man may move on the same car or in the same kingdom, and yet be of a different spirit from another man, and he may pass quietly along for a time, because he is the Lord’s anointed, but still he will not exert himself for the carrying out of the principles of the kingdom, he lies dormant all the time. How can he who is filled with the principles of righteousness and with the love of Jesus love that man? He cannot do it as he desires. We have got to be inspired by the same Spirit and by the same kind of knowledge, in order that we may love one another and be of one heart and one mind.” (Lorenzo Snow, in Journal of Discourses, 4:156.)
 |
“If the Latter-day Saints ever hope to make any headway with the Jewish people, they must stop talking about King David as a tragic, sinful figure, for we view him as one of the great figures of our history.” So spoke a Jewish youth to his Latter-day Saint neighbor.
“Was David a good man?” Ask this question among Old Testament scholars, and you will likely be immediately embroiled in a vigorous debate.
Under David Israel reached its golden age, the zenith of its power. For the first time, under his direction the chosen people controlled the whole land promised to Abraham’s seed nearly a thousand years earlier. Israel had not achieved such heights before, nor did they ever again.
Do we emphasize the David who killed Goliath, or the David who killed Uriah? Should we view him as the servant who refused to lift his hand against the Lord’s anointed, or as the Lord’s anointed who lifted his hand against a faithful and loyal servant? Was his life a tragedy, or a triumph?
If a triumph, why, then, has “he fallen from his exaltation” (D&C 132:39) and lost “the greatest of all the gifts of God”? (D&C 6:13). If a tragedy, why is the Messiah prophesied to sit “upon the throne of David” (Isaiah 9:7), and be called “David their king”? (Jeremiah 30:9; see also 23:5–6; 30:15–17; Ezekiel 37:24–25). Why are we told that Jesus shall receive “the throne of his father David” (Luke 1:32) and that He has “the key of David”? (Revelation 3:7).
In this chapter we read of David as king of Israel. We have already seen him as the shepherd boy turned warrior and as the king’s armor-bearer turned king’s outlaw by Saul’s own madness. Then Saul was dead, and David was king in fact as well as name.
Study his life carefully in this chapter and the next to see if you can answer these questions. Is it an injustice to treat David as a tragedy? How shall we view this great man of history?
Instructions to Students
1. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study 2 Samuel 1–12.
2. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual study students should complete all of this section.)
A careful reading of 1 Samuel 31:1–6 and 2 Samuel 1:1–16 shows two different accounts of Saul’s death. The man who came to David and reported that he had killed Saul at Saul’s insistence was not Saul’s armor-bearer. When the armor-bearer refused to kill his master, Saul fell upon his sword rather than fall into the hands of the Philistines. His armor-bearer then followed suit and also died.
“The whole account which this young man gives is a fabrication: in many of the particulars it is grossly self-contradictory. There is no fact in the case but the bringing of the crown, or diadem, and bracelets of Saul; which, as he appears to have been a plunderer of the slain, he found on the field of battle; and he brought them to David, and told the lie of having despatched Saul, merely to ingratiate himself with David.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:308.)
That David understood the Amalekite’s motives is clear from 2 Samuel 4:10. David’s lamentation over the death of Saul was sincere and deep. Instead of being grateful for the death of his most violent enemy, he truly mourned for the tragedy that had befallen Israel.
After Saul died, the tribes of Israel did not immediately flock to David and accept him as king. Abner, the captain of Saul’s host (his commanding general), set up one of Saul’ sons as the new king (see vv. 8–9). The tribe of Judah accepted David as king, but for seven years there was no unity, and two opposing kings reigned (see v. 11). David may have refused to take action against Ishbosheth because he had covenanted with Jonathan not to retaliate against Saul’s family when he came to power (see 1 Samuel 20:14–16).
The contest between the men of Abner and the men of Joab at the pool of Gibeon was more than a simple grudge match. Abner was the leader of the forces of Ishbosheth, Saul’s son. Joab was David’s commander. Thus, in the clash between the two kingdoms, champions were chosen to determine the winner (see Reading 25-5). The challenge to let the young men “play before us” (v. 14) meant to let the twelve representatives battle for each side.
When the twelve from each side had killed each other, no clear winner was shown, so both sides erupted into a furious battle, which David’s men won. When Asahel, Joab’s brother, gave chase to Abner, Abner yelled back that Asahel should content himself by taking the armor of one of the younger men, but Asahel refused.
“It seems Asahel wished to get the armour of Abner as a trophy; this also was greatly coveted by ancient heroes. Abner wished to spare him, for fear of exciting Joab’s enmity; but as Asahel was obstinate in the pursuit, and was swifter of foot than Abner, the latter saw that he must either kill or be killed, and therefore he turned his spear and ran it through the body of Asahel. This turning about that he might pierce him is what we translate ‘the hinder end of his spear.’ This slaying of Asahel cost Abner his life.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:313.)
 |
| The pool of Gibeon |
The war between the two kingdoms grew more intense as David’s army slowly gained the upper hand (see v. 1). It was at that point that Ishbosheth accused Abner of having an affair with one of Saul’s wives (see v. 7). To approach the royal concubines was tantamount to claiming the throne. It is little wonder Ishbosheth was concerned. Abner’s question, “Am I a dog’s head of Judah,” meant, “Am I a traitor?” (v. 8). This he soon proved to be.
Enraged, Abner retaliated against Ishbosheth by turning the hearts of the rest of the people to King David (see vv. 17–19), and then he himself deserted to David’s camp (see v. 20). Joab used this opportunity to avenge the death of his brother (see v. 27).
David went to great lengths to demonstrate to the people that he had had nothing to do with Abner’s death (see vv. 28–38). This move was important politically, for those whom Abner had persuaded to change their loyalty to David could easily have gone back to Ishbosheth at the news of Abner’s death.
Again, David showed great wisdom and judgment by executing the two men who killed Ishbosheth. Although he was at war with Ishbosheth, David did not condone the treachery of the assassins and put them to death. His wisdom and goodness finally united the tribes into one kingdom loyal to David.
The origin of the city of Jerusalem is lost in antiquity. The first biblical reference to the city may be in Genesis, which states that “Melchizedek king of Salem” (Jerusalem) and “priest of the most high God” met Abraham returning from his battle with the kings and blessed him (Genesis 14:18). He was the one to whom Abraham paid a tithe of all he possessed. When Joshua crossed the Jordan the Jebusites, a Canaanite tribe, possessed the city. This people held Jerusalem until David captured it about 1000 B.C., although Israel may have temporarily conquered the city soon after their invasion of the land of Canaan (see Joshua 10).
David wisely chose this city as his capital, for Jerusalem was a city between the northern and southern tribes of Israel but it belonged to neither of them because it was still held by the Canaanite Jebusites. The manner of conquering the city has been much discussed because of the problematical word rendered “gutter” (2 Samuel 5:8). The word most likely designates a channel or a shaft, as it is similarly used in Mishnaic Hebrew. The shaft running up perpendicularly from a water conduit cut into the rock fifty feet west from Gihon, discovered by Sir C. Warren in 1867, would have given people inside the city walls access to water in time of siege and would have made a possible avenue for invaders to enter and open the gates of the city from within. Joab is said to have accomplished that initial entry (see 1 Chronicles 11:6).
The sarcasm of the Jebusites’ saying David would have to overcome “the blind and the lame,” as if such would have been sufficient to defend the city, was returned to them by David, who thereafter scathingly referred to all the Jebusite defenders as “the blind and the lame” (vv. 6, 8).
About midway between present-day Beirut and Haifa in Israel was the port city of Tyre, one of the ancient and most important cities of the Phoenicians. The name Hiram appears to have been the family name for a king or series of kings of Tyre who were contemporaries of David and Solomon. Best known of these Hirams is he who sent masons, carpenters, and cedars from Lebanon to build David’s palace in Jerusalem (see 2 Samuel 5:11; 1 Chronicles 14:1). Later, Solomon was greatly assisted in the building of the temple in Jerusalem by this same Hiram, or another of the same name (see 1 Kings 9; 2 Chronicles 2).
If the war with the Philistines occurred prior to the capture of Jerusalem, the “hold” (v. 17) to which David went for safety was probably the cave of Adullam (see 1 Samuel 22:1–4). If, however, the war occurred after Jerusalem’s seizure, the hold may refer to Jerusalem itself (see 2 Samuel 5:7, 9). David did not count his men, meaning to rely on the size of his army, but rather he relied on the Lord.
The ark of the covenant was a sacred vessel that housed some of the holiest objects in Israel’s history. To touch the ark or its contents was strictly forbidden by the Lord. Only authorized Levites, and they only under certain specified conditions, could handle the sacred instruments (see Numbers 4:15). Uzzah may have exhibited some bold presumption when he sought to touch that which God had forbidden to be touched. Even if Uzzah’s intention was simply to keep the ark from falling, it should be remembered that God was fully capable of steadying His own ark had He wished to do so. While much of the story is not known, it is an excellent example that the commands of God are sacred and must be observed precisely as the Lord decreed. There are many modern-day implications (see Reading 26-23).
“When the ark came (i.e. was carried) into the city of David, Michal the daughter of Saul looked out of the window, and there she saw king David leaping and dancing before Jehovah, and despised him in her heart. . . . Michal is intentionally designated the daughter of Saul here, instead of the wife of David, because on this occasion she manifested her father’s disposition rather than her husband’s. In Saul’s time people did not trouble themselves about the ark of the covenant [1 Chronicles 13:3]; public worship was neglected, and the soul for vital religion had died out in the family of the king. Michal possessed teraphim, and in David she only loved the brave hero and exalted king: she therefore took offence at the humility with which the king, in his pious enthusiasm, placed himself on an equality with all the rest of the nation before the Lord. . . .
“. . . The proud daughter of Saul was offended at the fact, that the king had let himself down on this occasion to the level of the people. She availed herself of the shortness of the priests’ shoulder dress, to make a contemptuous remark concerning David’s dancing, as an impropriety that was unbecoming in a king. . . . With the words ‘who chose me before thy father and all his house,’ David humbles the pride of the king’s daughter. His playing and dancing referred to the Lord, who had chosen him, and had rejected Saul on account of his pride. He would therefore let himself be still further despised before the Lord, i.e. would bear still greater contempt from men than that which he had just received, and be humbled in his own eyes [see Psalm 131:1]: then would he also with the maidens attain to honour before the Lord. For whoso humbleth himself, him will God exalt [Matthew 23:12].” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:336–38.)
David’s motivation for wanting to build a permanent house for the Lord (the tabernacle built by Moses in the wilderness was then about three hundred years old) was proper and good, but the Lord, through Nathan, denied him permission to do so. No specific reason was given here, only a blessing on David’s house. In the account in Chronicles, however, David told Solomon that it was revealed to him that he had seen too much war and bloodshed to build the house of the Lord (see 1 Chronicles 22:8).
This verse is an example of a dualistic prophecy, that is, a prophecy with a double meaning (see Reading G-5). It promised that David’s lineage would continue on the throne, and unlike Saul’s lineage, would not be overthrown after his death. But it is clearly a Messianic prophecy as well. Jesus, the Messiah, was called David, He would hold the key of David, and He would sit upon the throne of David (see Reading 26-1). Clearly, only one person can sit upon the throne of David (that is, rule over the house of Israel) forever and ever, and that one is Christ. He came into mortality as a descendant of David and as an heir to his throne both physically and spiritually. Elder James E. Talmage explained the significance of the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and Luke as establishing Jesus’ right to the throne.
“At the time of the Savior’s birth, Israel was ruled by alien monarchs. The rights of the royal Davidic family were unrecognized; and the ruler of the Jews was an appointee of Rome. Had Judah been a free and independent nation, ruled by her rightful sovereign, Joseph the carpenter would have been her crowned king; and his lawful successor to the throne would have been Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” (Jesus the Christ, p. 87.)
 |
| Military campaigns of David [click for scalable version] |
Under David’s leadership the kingdom expanded to the extent of God’s promise to Abraham (see Genesis 15:18).
Once David was secure on the throne, he sought to heal old wounds. His desire was to be kind to any of the house of Saul. The only person left was Mephibosheth, whom David took in and treated nearly as a son. This action fulfilled his promise to Jonathan made years before (see 1 Samuel 20:14–16).
The ill treatment of David’s ambassadors, who were deliberately humiliated and degraded by the exposure of their faces and lower bodies, brought on full-scale war that only served to expand David’s domain. Truly it could be said, “The Lord preserved David whithersoever he went” (2 Samuel 8:6).
Many homes in the Holy Land, both then and now, had flat roofs. In the heat of the Middle East, much of the people’s time was spent walking or sitting on their roofs in the refreshing cool of evening or in the day to catch a daytime breeze. The roof of David’s palace was probably high enough that he could have looked into the inner courts of a number of homes nearby.
“Things were getting too easy for David; he had leisure to stay at home while Joab and his men were out fighting Ammonites and Syrians. In his leisure he looked from his rooftop at his neighbor’s wife. Leisure and lust led to adultery and then to murder, which sins had eternal repercussions, as well as tragic earthly results. It is one of the shocking and serious warnings of the Old Testament that a man may be ever so good and great and eminent and still have weaknesses which can lead to deeds that entirely overshadow and defeat the better self!” (Rasmussen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1:185.)
“As happens too frequently, it is only when a sinner knows that his sin is known that he begins to repent! The figure of Nathan boldly accusing the king to his face by an allegorical parallel is impressive, though not as surprising in Bible stories as it would be in accounts of other peoples where the will of God was not such a recognized factor in determining the morality of men and in specifying the results. Nathan’s allegory was skillfully drawn, and his climatic ‘Attah ha ish!’ (‘Thou art the man’) must have crashed in upon the conscience of David like the harbingers of doom’s day.
“His repentant feelings were no doubt sincere, but he could not repent enough to restore the life of his friend, Uriah, nor the virtue of his wife. Though he later hoped and prayed that his soul would not be left forever in hell (the spirit prison), yet the eternal destiny of doers of such twin sins does not look good. (See Psalms 16 and 51; then see Hebrews 6:4–6; Revelation 22:14–15; D&C 132:27; 76:31–37; 29:41 and 42:18, 79.)” (Rasmussen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1:185.)
“The child born of their illicit union did not live, but there is no reason to look upon that as ‘punishment’ of the child for the sins of the parents. Removal from this earth by the hand of the Lord must come at one time or another and can be a blessing to an individual, brought about for his best interest at whatever time the Lord sees it to be optimum. The parents did suffer remorse over it. After David knew that the baby was dead, he ceased mourning, however, and philosophically and hopefully explained, ‘I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.’
“It appears that David promised Bathsheba that her next son would be his royal heir, for actions later were taken upon such an assumption. (See verse 24 and I Kings 1:17, also, I Chronicles 22:9.)” (Rasmussen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1:185–86.)
The Joseph Smith Translation says, “The Lord also hath not put away thy sin” (JST, 2 Samuel 12:13).
Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, commenting on David’s sin, said: “David committed a dreadful crime, and all his life afterwards sought for forgiveness. Some of the Psalms portray the anguish of his soul; yet David is still paying for his sin. He did not receive the resurrection at the time of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Peter declared that his body was still in the tomb, and the Prophet Joseph Smith has said, ‘David sought repentance at the hand of God carefully with tears, for the murder of Uriah; but he could only get it through hell: he got a promise that his soul should not be left in hell.’ Again we ask: Who wishes to spend a term in hell with the devil before being cleansed from sin?” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 1:74.)
(26-22) Let us now return to the questions raised in the introduction to this chapter. Should we view David’s life as a triumph or as a tragedy? The answer is not a simple yes or no for either alternative.
Certainly David must be viewed as one of the greatest royal administrators. He never took to himself authority that was not his nor practiced unrighteous dominion. He never lost his perspective, as Saul did. His refusal to lift his hand against Saul because he was the Lord’s anointed is one of the finest examples of loyalty anywhere in the scriptures.
Perhaps Jesus, in His office of Messiah, is constantly tied into David and his reign because David did three things for temporal Israel that typify what Christ will do for spiritual Israel. David united the twelve tribes into one nation under the ultimate leadership of God. For the first time in history, David succeeded in winning the whole extent of the promised land for the covenant people (see Reading 26-14). And David established Zion or Jerusalem as the spiritual and political center of Israel.
Nevertheless, no success can compensate for failure in our personal lives or in our families. Consider that David was destined for exaltation, destined to rule in heaven forever and ever as a Creator and a God to his future children. As the Lord said, there is no greater gift that He could offer a man than eternal life (see D&C 6:13). David had it within his grasp, and then, in a foolish attempt to hide his sin, sent a man to his death. Had he even come to himself after his transgression with Bath-sheba and sought repentance as sincerely and earnestly as he did after Nathan’s parable, there is every indication that he could have come back and received forgiveness. It would have been difficult, but not impossible. But he did the very thing of which so many are guilty—he compounded his sin by trying to cover it up. Elder Spencer W. Kimball indicated that there is no restitution possible for murder.
“As to crimes for which no adequate restoration is possible, I have suggested . . . that perhaps the reason murder is an unforgivable sin is that, once having taken a life—whether that life be innocent or reprobate—the life-taker cannot restore it. He may give his own life as payment, but this does not wholly undo the injury done by his crime. He might support the widow and children; he might do many other noble things; but a life is gone and the restitution of it in full is impossible. Repentance in the ordinary sense seems futile.
“Murder is so treacherous and so far-reaching! Those who lose their possessions may be able to recover their wealth. Those defamed may still be able to prove themselves above reproach. Even the loss of chastity leaves the soul in mortality with opportunity to recover and repent and to make amends to some degree. But to take a life, whether someone else’s or one’s own, cuts off the victim’s experiences of mortality and thus his opportunity to repent, to keep God’s commandments in this earth life. It interferes with his potential of having ‘glory added upon [his head] for ever and ever.’ (Abraham 3:26.)” (Miracle of Forgiveness, pp. 195–96.)
Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained the limits of David’s eternal inheritance:
“Murderers are forgiven eventually but only in the sense that all sins are forgiven except the sin against the Holy Ghost; they are not forgiven in the sense that celestial salvation is made available to them. (Matt. 12:31–32; Teachings, pp. 356–357.) After they have paid the full penalty for their crime, they shall go on to a telestial inheritance. (Rev. 22:15.)” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 520.)
From celestial to telestial—that is tragedy. Although David was brave and had great intellect, administrative ability, and faithfulness early in life, he failed in one important thing—to endure to the end.
David was a great example in his fulfillment of his calling as king, and a tragic example in his falling from glory. We can learn from both aspects of his life.
(26-23) The account of Uzzah being smitten dead while attempting to save the ark of the covenant from toppling over (see Reading 26-10) raises questions in the minds of many readers. It seems so harsh, when all he was doing was trying to save a holy object from being harmed. Or so it seems on the surface. But reflect for a moment on the incident. The ark was the tangible object that symbolized the presence of God, His throne, His glory, His divine majesty (see Reading 13-5). When first given to Israel, the ark was placed in the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle, and not even the priest was allowed to approach it. Only the high priest (a type of Christ) could approach it and then only after going through an elaborate ritual of personal cleansing and propitiation for his sins (see Reading D-6). The holiness of God is clearly taught in scripture. No unclean thing can dwell in His presence (see Moses 6:57). His presence is like a consuming fire (see Hebrews 12:29). Those who bear the vessels of the Lord must be clean (see D&C 133:5).
However well-meaning, Uzzah approached casually what could only be approached under the strictest conditions. He lacked faith in God’s power. He assumed that the ark was in danger, forgetting that it was the physical symbol of the God who has all power. What man can presume to save God and His kingdom through his own efforts?
“Uzzah’s offence consisted in the fact that he had touched the ark with profane feelings, although with good intentions, namely to prevent its rolling over and falling from the cart. Touching the ark, the throne of the divine glory and visible pledge of the invisible presence of the Lord, was a violation of the majesty of the holy God. ‘Uzzah was therefore a type of all who with good intentions, humanly speaking, yet with unsanctified minds, interfere in the affairs of the kingdom of God, from the notion that they are in danger, and with the hope of saving them.’” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:333.)
In modern revelation, the Lord made reference to this incident to teach that very principle (see D&C 85:8). The Lord is in His heavens and does not need the help of men to defend His kingdom. Yet in our own time we see those who fear the ark is tottering and presume to steady its course. We hear of those who are sure that women are not being treated fairly in the Church, of those who would extend some unauthorized blessing to those not yet ready, or of those who would change the established doctrines of the Church. Are these not ark-steadiers? The best intentions do not justify such interference with the Lord’s plan. President David O. McKay applied this lesson to modern Saints:
“It is a little dangerous for us to go out of our own sphere and try unauthoritatively to direct the efforts of a brother. You remember the case of Uzzah who stretched forth his hand to steady the ark. [See 1 Chron. 13:7–10.] He seemed justified when the oxen stumbled in putting forth his hand to steady that symbol of the covenant. We today think his punishment was very severe. Be that as it may, the incident conveys a lesson of life. Let us look around us and see how quickly men who attempt unauthoritatively to steady the ark die spiritually. Their souls become embittered, their minds distorted, their judgment faulty, and their spirit depressed. Such is the pitiable condition of men who, neglecting their own responsibilities, spend their time in finding fault with others.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1936, p. 60.)
President John Taylor taught:
“We have more or less of the principles of insubordination among us. But there is a principle associated with the kingdom of God that recognizes God in all things, and that recognizes the priesthood in all things, and those who do not do it had better repent or they will come to a stand very quickly; I tell you that in the name of the Lord. Do not think you are wise and that you can manage and manipulate the priesthood, for you cannot do it. God must manage, regulate, dictate, and stand at the head, and every man in his place. The ark of God does not need steadying, especially by incompetent men without revelation and without knowledge of the kingdom of God and its laws. It is a great work that we are engaged in, and it is for us to prepare ourselves for the labor before us, and to acknowledge God, his authority, his law and his priesthood in all things.” (Gospel Kingdom, p. 166.)
 |
The price of David’s sin of murder and adultery was high. He spent the rest of his life regretting it. In one psalm he expressed his mental torment and pleaded for forgiveness.
“Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving kindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. . . .
“Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.” (Psalm 51:1–3, 10–11.)
Eventually, David received the assurance that his soul would be “delivered . . . from the lowest hell” (Psalm 86:12–13). But this assurance could not restore the blessings he had lost. They were gone forever (see D&C 132:39).
David paid another price, too, an earthly one, which haunted him until the day he died. “The sword shall never depart from thine house,” the prophet Nathan told him, “because thou hast despised me [the Lord], and hast taken the wife of Uriah” (2 Samuel 12:10). This prophecy was literally fulfilled.
This section of your study of the Old Testament depicts the sorry story of how David’s earthly kingdom began to fall apart through inner contention and strife. David lived to mourn his sins in mortality as well as in eternity.
Instructions to Students
1. Use Notes and Commentary below to help you as you read and study 2 Samuel 13–24.
2. Complete Points to Ponder as directed by your teacher. (Individual study students should complete all of this section.)
Tamar was the lovely daughter of David by his wife Maacah and was the half sister of Amnon. Amnon was the eldest of David’s sons, having been born to Ahinoam while David was at Hebron. He was the crown prince and the natural heir to David’s throne.
The love Amnon felt for Tamar was not the love of a brother for a sister. It was a consuming lust, which drove reason from his brain. The parallel between David and Amnon is evident. David had set an example in not having the spirit control the body when he gave in to his lust for Bath-sheba. He also had set an example of plotting ways to cover up his sins.
Amnon did not really love Tamar. Once he had gratified his lust, he despised her. How often is such gross unfairness toward women demonstrated by evil men? They exploit women and then despise the women rather than themselves. Amnon would not save Tamar from disgrace by making her a part of his household as a wife or concubine. Knowing that she had been disgraced and would therefore be deprived of a husband, Tamar mourned in the manner of a widow (see v. 19; note especially v. 20). David was furious because of the way Amnon had treated Tamar, but what could he do or say? His own conduct with Bath-sheba had left him without a basis for condemnation. Here was another result of sin. Because of his own guilt, David did not act to correct this great abomination in his own household. David learned the sad lesson that a man’s sins can often visit him even to the third and fourth generation (see Exodus 34:7).
Absalom concealed his hate and rage for two years. At the end of this time he invited King David and all of his sons to come several miles north to the mountains of Ephraim where his sheep were being sheared. It was customary at shearing time to have a feast, since this time usually involved a gathering of the family. David declined the invitation, fearing the entire court would be “chargeable,” that is, a burden on his son, but he sent his eldest son, Amnon, the apparent heir to the throne (v. 25). As the feast progressed, Amnon became “merry with wine” (v. 28). Absalom gave the signal, and his servants swept down and killed Amnon. Absalom escaped to his grandfather’s home in Geshur.
Here is the pathetic account of the deepening tragedy in David’s household. Once again David was caught in a trap of his own making. Enmity between himself and his son Absalom drove them far apart, so far, in fact, that Absalom would not even visit his father at the court. Joab tried to reconcile the king and prince and employed a stratagem to do so. The woman conspiring with Joab was very careful to keep her real intent sufficiently disguised until she had committed the king to a benevolent course of action. Only then was she willing to suggest that David should be as merciful to his own son as he would be to her son.
“A man and his descendants or successors are often termed in Scripture a lamp or light. . . . And to raise up a lamp to a person signifies his having a posterity to continue his name and family upon the earth: thus, quench my coal that is left means destroying all hope of posterity, and extinguishing the family from among the people.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:344–45.)
“Revengers of blood” were those next of kin who were obligated to avenge the death of their relative (v. 11; see also Numbers 35:19–29).
David allowed Absalom to return but did not restore him to the court and his princely prerogatives. Absalom demanded either death or his former position (see v. 32). David reconsidered, and Absalom was restored to favor, a position he then exploited to plot against his father.
To poll means “to thin” by means of combing or cutting. Thus, when Absalom’s hair became either too thick or too long, he had it polled. Evidently, Absalom’s hair was extremely thick, and this information was probably introduced into the narrative here because Absalom’s hair seems to have played a part in his death (see 2 Samuel 18:9–17). Exactly how much weight is meant by two hundred shekels is not completely clear; this number may either be incorrect or an exaggeration of the total weight for literary purposes.
Once restored to his position in David’s court, Absalom began to capitalize on his return to princely status by developing a careful plan to overthrow his father. He began to act like a king, with a full royal procession (see v. 1), but more serious than that, he undertook a deceitful campaign to gain favor with the people. He arose early and sat in judgment at the gates of the city (see v. 2). A city gate was the normal location for giving judgment in ancient times and was the place where the people came to present grievances. Absalom ingratiated himself by telling the people that their causes and complaints were just, but that no one from the king’s court was willing to hear them. While this assertion may have been a lie, it is more likely that David’s court was not functioning properly and that the people were being neglected. Absalom took advantage of the disgruntlement of the people, but he refused to let them bow down to him. Instead, he raised them up, kissed them, and treated them as equals—highly unusual behavior from royalty (see v. 5). And in this way “Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel” (v. 6). Absalom then lied to his father, telling him that he needed to go to Hebron to fulfill a vow when, in fact, it was his intention to raise an insurrection against David.
Several reasons have been suggested why “the conspiracy was strong” and “the people increased continually with Absalom” (v. 12):
“It is very difficult to account for this general defection of the people. Several reasons are given: 1. David was old or afflicted, and could not well attend to the administration of justice in the land. 2. It does appear that the king did not attend to the affairs of state, and that there were no properly appointed judges in the land; [see v. 3]. 3. Joab’s power was overgrown; he was wicked and insolent, oppressive to the people, and David was afraid to execute the laws against him. 4. There were still some partisans of the house of Saul, who thought the crown not fairly obtained by David. 5. David was under the displeasure of the Almighty, for his adultery with Bath-sheba, and his murder of Uriah; and God let his enemies loose against him. 6. There are always troublesome and disaffected men in every state, and under every government; who can never rest, and are ever hoping for something from a change. 7. Absalom appeared to be the real and was the undisputed heir to the throne; David could not, in the course of nature, live very long; and most people are more disposed to hail the beams of the rising, than exult in those of the setting, sun. No doubt some of these causes operated, and perhaps most of them exerted less or more influence in this most scandalous business.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:349–50.)
David’s immediate call for flight from the city was so out of character that the reader cannot help but wonder what prompted this response. His words (see v. 14) indicate that he wanted to avoid a massacre, but his actions suggest that it was not fear that motivated the flight.
“This . . . was the first time that David turned his back to his enemies. And why did he now flee? Jerusalem, far from not being in a state to sustain a siege, was so strong that even the blind and the lame were supposed to be a sufficient defence for the walls. . . . And he had still with him his faithful Cherethites and Pelethites; besides six hundred faithful Gittites, who were perfectly willing to follow his fortunes. There does not appear any reason why such a person, in such circumstances, should not act on the defensive; at least till he should be fully satisfied of the real complexion of affairs. But he appears to take all as coming from the hand of God; therefore he humbles himself, weeps, goes barefoot, and covers his head! He does not even hasten his departure, for the habit of mourners is not the habit of those who are flying before the face of their enemies. He sees the storm, and he yields to what he conceives to be the tempest of the Almighty.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:350.)
Some believe Psalm 55 was written by David to express his feelings over Absalom’s revolt. Note especially verses 12–14 and 20–21 of this psalm.
 |
| David quelled revolt. [click for scalable version] |
David’s spies were those who were completely loyal to him. His choice of Hushai was particularly good because he not only had inside information but was able to offset counsel given by the sagacious Ahithophel.
“Note the rationale behind David’s humbly choosing to endure the curses of Shimei of the house of Saul: (1) any dishonor was considered negligible compared to the dishonor of his own son taking his kingship and seeking his life; (2) if he suffered his afflictions patiently, perhaps the Lord would have mercy upon him and requite him later; (3) perhaps the Lord Himself had commanded Shimei to curse him; (4) since the sons of Zeruiah (Abishai and Joab) were such men of violence, David countered as usual with more moderate action.” (Rasmussen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1:187.)
“Lying with the king’s concubines was an appropriation of the royal harem, and, as such, a complete usurpation of the throne . . . which would render any reconciliation between Absalom and his father utterly impossible, and therefore would of necessity instigate the followers of Absalom to maintain his cause with all the greater firmness. This was what Ahithophel hoped to attain through his advice. For unless the breach was too great to be healed, with the affection of David towards his sons, which might in reality be called weakness, it was always a possible thing that he should forgive Absalom; and in that case Ahithophel would be the one to suffer.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:428.)
Ahithophel clearly understood David’s vulnerability at this stage of the revolt. Had his counsel been followed, the result would have been critical for David. Twelve thousand men against the small band who had fled with David would have been a disaster for David. Hushai saved the situation for David, first, by convincing Absalom that a delay while he gathered more strength to his army would be wise, and, second, by warning David to flee in case Ahithophel’s counsel was followed.
Ahithophel knew his only hope lay in Absalom’s success. Since he was a traitor to King David, if David won, his fate was sealed. Understanding perfectly that a delay meant the ultimate defeat of Absalom and David’s return to the throne, Ahithophel returned to his home and, after putting things in order, committed suicide.
Absalom’s delay to gather a larger army provided David with enough time to prepare for the coming battle. He gathered the people who were loyal to him into a formidable army of his own, received supplies from those east of the Jordan (see 2 Samuel 17:27–29), and chose a site where the terrain would work in his favor (see 2 Samuel 18:8).
In spite of Absalom’s treachery and rebellion, David still entreated his generals to deal kindly with him if they caught him. Joab, as usual, took matters into his own hands and ignored David’s request.
“It appears that Ahimaaz, the priestly son of Zadok, wished to cushion the blow of the bad news to the king that his son was dead; but it was to no avail, for tragedy had been in the making for a long time in the lives of David and Absalom and the climax had to come one day in one way or another. What David would have given at the climax to have voided the process would have been needed much sooner. How pathetic that lament:
O my son Absalom
My son, my son Absalom,
Would God I had died for thee!
O Absalom
My son,
My son!”
(Rasmussen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1:188.)
David bore the tragedy so bitterly that he nearly lost the kingdom by insulting those who had defended him. He insisted upon lamenting the death of one against whom his loyal subjects had fought in order to save their king. Joab’s harsh words brought David around. Though Joab’s counsel was needed and justified, his words were harsh and disrespectful and probably contributed to David’s decision to replace him as commanding general.
In his attempts to reconcile the unrest in the kingdom, David not only accepted the repentant spirit of all the tribes (see vv. 9–10) but sent emissaries to Judah, among whom the rebellion had first broken out, and promised them forgiveness, pledging that Amasa, Absalom’s general, would replace Joab (see vv. 11–13).
“So far as the fact itself is concerned, it was certainly wise of David to send to the members of his own tribe, and appeal to them not to be behind the rest of the tribes in taking part in his restoration to the kingdom, lest it should appear as though the tribe of Judah, to which David himself belonged, was dissatisfied with his victory, since it was in that tribe that the rebellion itself first broke out; and this would inevitably feed the jealousy between Judah and the rest of the tribes. But it was not only unwise, but unjust, to give to Amasa, the traitor-general of the rebels, a promise on oath that he should be commander-in-chief in the place of Joab; for even if the promise was only given privately at first, the fact that it had been given could not remain a secret from Joab very long, and would be sure to stir up his ambition, and lead him to the commission of fresh crimes, and in all probability the enmity of this powerful general would become dangerous to the throne of David. For however Joab might have excited David’s anger by slaying Absalom, and by the offensive manner in which he had reproved the king for giving way to his grief, David ought to have suppressed his anger in his existing circumstances, and ought not to have rendered evil for evil, especially as he was not only about to pardon Amasa’s crime, but even to reward him as one of his faithful servants.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:445–46.)
It is almost as though after his sin with Bath-sheba and the murder of Uriah the light that gave David his political genius went out. His actions during this extreme crisis were of blind loyalty to an evil son and of one foolish decision after another.
As David and his armies returned to Jerusalem after paying tribute to Barzillai (see 2 Samuel 19:31–40), a violent quarrel broke out between the leaders of Judah and the leaders of the other tribes, who felt that Judah was monopolizing David. As a result of this conflict, the leaders of the other tribes of Israel stormed off in high vexation, leaving Judah alone to escort David back to Jerusalem. This incident portended a whole new round of revolution.
The revolt of Sheba (see 2 Samuel 20:1–2) could scarcely have been a real threat to David’s rule, but once again the animosity of the other tribes was manifested against Judah and resulted in the eventual division of the house of Israel (see 1 Kings 12).
According to the Mosaic law (see Leviticus 18), married women once defiled could not once again enjoy the married state. A Bible scholar explained David’s actions:
“He could not well divorce them; he could not punish them, as they were not in the transgression; he could no more be familiar with them, because they had been defiled by his son; and to have married them to other men might have been dangerous to the state: therefore he shut them up and fed them—made them quite comfortable, and they continued as widows to their death.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:364.)
This account is somewhat difficult to follow since it is not always clear to which person certain pronouns refer. David commissioned Amasa to gather his forces and pursue Sheba, the leader of the new rebellion. For some reason Amasa tarried (see v. 5), so David sent Joab’s men after Sheba. Amasa and Joab met at Gibeon. Although the King James Version makes it sound as though Amasa had on Joab’s clothing, the narrator was really describing what Joab was wearing:
“It appears that this was not a military garment; and that Joab had no arms but a short sword, which he had concealed in his girdle; and this sword, or knife, was so loose in its sheath that it could be easily drawn out. It is thought farther, that Joab, in passing to Amasa, stumbled, (for so some of the versions, and able critics, understand the words it fell out,) and that the sword fell down when he stumbled; that he took it up with his left hand as if he had no bad intention; and then, taking Amasa by the beard with his right hand, pretending to kiss him, he, with his sword in his left hand, ripped up his bowels. This seems to be the meaning of this very obscure verse.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:364–65.)
Joab then appointed a soldier to stand by Amasa’s body and charge the people who passed by to join with Joab in support of David and pursue the rebel Sheba. Amasa was, evidently, not instantly killed by Joab’s blow, and the people were so shocked at the sight of him that the soldier finally rolled him off the road and covered him with a sheet so that the people would not tarry.
“This terrible episode must have been done in [the] days of David’s spiritual deterioration. The law would have not permitted sons to be put to death for the guilt of a father or a forefather (Deuteronomy 24:16 is explicit on that; see another Numbers 35:33). It cannot have been a revelation from the Lord that either required or approved this deed done ‘to avenge the Gibeonites’—some of whom Saul had slain in spite of the ancient promise of Joshua that they might live in Israel.
“It is a pathetic picture to envision the innocent mother of innocent sons guarding their bodies from the birds and beasts; and it is repulsive to read that after all this was done ‘God was entreated for the land.’ This is apostate theology, comparable to that of the Canaanite-Baal religions.
“The text is somewhat corrupted too, and the name Michal must be a mistake for Merab, for it was Merab who married Adriel. If it is indeed Michal, David’s wife and Saul’s daughter, who is meant, this is a very bitter ending to their relationships as man and wife.” (Rasmussen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 2:40.)
David by now was in his sixties, an old man so far as military service was concerned. Nevertheless, he personally led his forces against the Philistines. In the midst of this battle David found himself confronted by one of the sons of the giants, perhaps even a son of Goliath. He apparently was very large and immediately began bearing down on the man who was famous for killing Goliath. For David this was a life and death struggle, and the scripture states that “David waxed faint” (2 Samuel 21:15). Fortunately, David’s friends were near by, and Abishai stepped in and slew the giant.
After the battle was over, David was told, “Thou shalt go no more out with us to battle, that thou quench not the light of Israel” (2 Samuel 21:17). As king, David was like a lamp or guide to his people, and they did not want that lamp extinguished. David undoubtedly reflected on the days of his youth and remembered his victory over Goliath, but now he realized he must be content with the less active affairs of state because of his old age.
These verses contain a psalm of David’s in which he praises God for all His goodness to him. In many respects the poetic statement here resembles the Eighteenth Psalm, which was apparently written about the same time. David used the occasion to reaffirm his allegiance to and love for the Lord. Note his brief but powerful summary of what constitutes good political leadership (see 2 Samuel 23:3).
The exploits recorded here were probably taken from various times in David’s life and placed together at this point. It appears that David’s request for water from Bethlehem (see v. 16) had jeopardized the lives of these three in carrying out his request. In contrition for his thoughtlessness, he denied himself the fruit of their labor.
“God could not be angry with David for numbering the people if he moved him to do it: but in the parallel place [see 1 Chronicles 21:1] it is expressly said, Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. David, in all probability, slackening in his piety and confidence toward God, and meditating some extension of his dominions without the Divine counsel or command, was naturally curious to know whether the number of fighting men in his empire was sufficient for the work which he had projected. . . . He therefore orders Joab and the captains to take an exact account of all the effective men in Israel and Judah. God is justly displeased with this conduct, and determines that the props of his vain ambition shall be taken away, either by famine, war, or pestilence.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:377.)
In an attempt to appease the Lord and stay the plague that was smiting Israel, David purchased the threshing floor (a large open area where the rock base is flat and the grain could be threshed and winnowed without getting mixed with dirt) from Araunah and there built an altar to the Lord. This site later became the place where Solomon built his temple (see Fallows, Bible Encyclopedia, s.v. “Araunah,” 1:140).
(27-28) We have now finished our study of the life of David, king of Israel. It was a life of greatness, greatness of triumph and greatness of tragedy. As a final study of David’s life, review 1 Samuel 17 to 2 Samuel 24 and complete either A, B, or C below. (Note: This review can be done quickly by looking at the chapter summaries in the Bible or by reviewing the subheadings for chapters 25 to 27 in this manual.)
A. Make a teaching outline of the major events and decisions in David’s life. In other words, assume you were going to give a lesson on the life of David. What kinds of things would you include? How would you organize your lesson?
B. Using the following statement by Elder Sterling W. Sill, draw illustrations of the principle of the law of the harvest from the life of David. How did he reap what he sowed? Was this process true of good things as well as bad? Show how each item you choose is related to what Elder Sill has said.
“One of the distinguishing characteristics of our world is that it is a place of law and order, and the basic law of creation is God’s fundamental law of compensation. It says that all work must be paid for, that we can no more do a good thing without sometime, in some way receiving a reward, than we can do an evil thing without suffering a penalty. In everything that we do, including the very thoughts that we think, we are subject to this interesting, undeviating eternal law. It is just as universal in its operation as are the laws of gravity, electricity, light or heat. It is never set aside, it is never suspended or restricted, and it governs in every department of human activity. Nothing is ever denied to well-directed effort and nothing is ever achieved without it.
“The Lord himself gave this law its clearest expression when he said, ‘There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.’ (D&C 130:20–21) It is a thrilling challenge, that we may have any blessing that we are willing to live for. And the primary law of the universe is this immutable, inexorable, irrevocable law of the harvest that says, ‘Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.’ (Gala. 6:7)” (The Law of the Harvest, p. 11.)
C. Write a short paper of no more than two pages entitled “What a Latter-day Saint Can Learn from the Life of David the King.”
 |
| (Psalm 78:5–19) |
Psalms is included in that part of the Old Testament known as the wisdom literature or the poetic books. The books usually included in this classification are Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. (Note: Joseph Smith indicated that “the Song of Solomon is not inspired scripture”; Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Song of Solomon.” It will therefore not be treated in this manual.) But it would be a serious misconception to think that there are no poetic or literary passages elsewhere in the Old Testament. There are whole passages of poetic songs in the historical books (for example, see the song of Moses in Exodus 15 and the song of Deborah and Barak in Judges 5). The prophetic writings, especially Isaiah, are also replete with passages of poetic quality and form. While this Hebrew literature is as commonly spoken of as poetry, this name is misleading, for it is greatly different from Western poetry, whether rhyming verse or blank verse. It is beneficial to the study of Psalms for one to understand some of the basic elements of the ancient Israelite literary styles before studying the actual writings. Four important characteristics are of note: parallelism, chiasmus, figurative imagery, and dualism.
“The chief characteristics . . . of Hebrew poetry are found in the peculiar form in which it gives utterance to its ideas. This form has received the name of ‘parallelism.’ Ewald justly prefers the term ‘thought-rhythm,’ since the rhythm, the music, the peculiar flow and harmony of the verse and of the poem, lie in the distribution of the sentiment in such a manner that the full import does not come out in less than a distich [a poetic form containing two lines; a couplet].” (Fallows, Bible Encyclopedia, s.v., “Poetry, Hebrew,” 3:1357).
“The word ‘poetry’ may suggest to us a highly specialized branch of literary art, produced by the few for the few. But this would be a misleading term for any part of the Old Testament. A closer modern equivalent would be the measured oratory of, for instance, a Winston Churchill—
We shall fight on the beaches,
We shall fight on the landing-grounds,
We shall fight in the fields and in the streets
—in which reiteration (or other devices) and rhythm join to make a passage doubly memorable and impressive.
“Reiteration was a favourite Canaanite technique, and is also a mark of some of the earliest biblical poetry:
Spoil of dyed stuffs for Sisera,
Spoil of dyed stuffs embroidered,
Two pieces of dyed work embroidered for my neck as spoil (Judges 5:30).
“The rhythm, though tighter than this in the original, is a flexible matter of stresses, or beats, not of fixed numbers of syllables. Most often there will be three stresses to a line, matched by another three in the following line which pairs with it to form a couplet. But this pattern may be varied by an occasional longer or shorter couplet, or by a triplet, in the same passage; or again the predominating rhythm may be of couplets in which a three-beat line is answered by another of two beats:
How are the mighty fallen
in the midst of the battle!
“This last rhythm, with its touch of fading or drooping, is often used for taunts or laments (as in the book of Lamentations), and this had suggested the name Qinah (lament) for it, although its use is not confined to such themes.
“What is almost the hallmark of biblical poetry, in contrast to our own, is parallelism: the echoing of the thought of one line of verse in a second line which is its partner:
Has he said, and will he not do it?
Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it?
(Numbers 23:19).
“There are many varieties of this, from virtual repetition to amplification or antithesis. It has a dignity and spaciousness which allows time for the thought to make its effect on the hearer, and often also the opportunity to present more than one facet of a matter:
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord
(Isaiah 55:8).
“Bishop Lowth, whose lectures on Hebrew poetry in 1741 first introduced the name ‘parallelism’ for this poetic style, pointed out that this structure, based as it is on meaning, survives translation into the prose of any language with remarkably little loss, unlike the poetry that relies on complex metre or a special vocabulary.” (Derek Kidner, “Poetry and Wisdom Literature,” in Alexander and Alexander, Eerdmans’ Handbook to the Bible, p. 316; emphasis added.)
“Lowth distinguished three chief types of parallelism: a. Synonymous parallelism. This is a repetition of the same thought with equivalent expressions, the first line or stich reinforcing the second, giving a distich or couplet:
‘He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord will have them in derision’ (Psa. 2:4).
b. Antithetic parallelism consists of the repetition of a contrasting thought in the second line to accentuate the thought of the first:
‘The young lions do lack and suffer hunger:
But they that seek Jehovah shall not want any good thing.’ (Psa. 34:10).
c. Synthetic parallelism is a building up of thought, with each succeeding line adding to the first:
‘And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water,
That bringeth forth fruit in its season,
Whose leaf shall not wither
And whatsoever he doeth shall prosper’ (Psa. 1:3).
This basic pattern of Hebrew poetry conveys thoughts pleasing to the mind and produces a musical cadence pleasing to the ear. There are numbers of variations in parallelism discovered since Lowth’s day, such as inverted parallelism (Psa. 137:5, 6; Psa. 30:8–10). This occurs in a quatrain when the first line is parallel to the fourth instead of the second and the intervening lines are parallel.” (Unger, Bible Dictionary, s.v. “poetry, Old Testament,” p. 874.)
The last form mentioned above has also been called chiasmus, from the Greek letter chi (which resembles the letter X), because lines connecting the parallelisms form an X. For example, note the diagram of the parallels in Psalm 124:7:
Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers:
The snare is broken, and we are escaped.
In other words, chiasmus is inverted parallelism.
“Chiasmus was first noticed by a few nineteenth century pioneer theologians in Germany and England, but the idea had to wait until the 1930s before it found an ardent exponent, Nils Lund, who was able to lay the principle before the eyes of the world in a convincing way. . . . Today, articles on the subject are quite common.
“What is it that has drawn this attention? To see this for ourselves, we had best begin with an example of chiasmus, and a convenient one is to be found in Psalms 3:7–8, which reads (translating literally from the Hebrew):
“7. Save me, O my God, for thou has smitten all my enemies on the cheek-bone;
“8. The teeth of the wicked thou has broken; to Jehovah, the salvation.
“What’s so odd about that? Well, a careful look at these verses reveals something that at first glance is not altogether obvious: namely, that the words occur in a peculiar sequence. Everything gets said twice, and in the repetition everything gets said backwards, back to front, or in a reverse order. Consider what happens when we rewrite these verses by arranging them in the following way:
a Save me,
b O my God
c for thou has smitten
d all my enemies
e on the cheekbone;
e The teeth
d of the wicked
c thou hast broken;
b to Jehovah,
a the salvation.
It now becomes quite clear to us that the repetition in these verses is not just a haphazard redundancy. It is an ordered reversal of the original sequence of the psalmist’s thoughts.
“Scholars in fact find that many passages follow this same pattern of inverted repetition, and when they do, they call them chiastic. . . .
“Some chiasms are relatively straightforward, such as the example in Genesis 7:21–23 (translating literally from the Hebrew):
a There died on the earth
b all birds,
c cattle,
d beasts and creeping things,
e man;
f all life
g died
g and was destroyed.
f Every living thing
e both man,
d creeping things,
c cattle,
b birds,
a were destroyed from the earth.
Other chiasms, as we shall see, are much more complex.
“It is also important for us to notice that chiasmus is not just a simple repetition; it also involves an intensification or an aspect of completion in the second half. Compare, for example, the more powerful ideas of Psalms 3:8 over 3:7: the strength of the teeth over the passive nature of the cheekbone; or getting broken vis-a-vis getting smitten; being wicked instead of just being an enemy. Quite consistently, therefore, a shift can be seen to occur at the center of a chiasm so that the bigger, more powerful, or more intense ideas will appear in the second half of chiastic passages.
“Chiasmus is not limited to short passages. It may also be used to give order, emphasis, and completeness to longer passages, such as is the case in the 58th Psalm:
a Do ye indeed O gods speak righteousness?
Do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?
b Nay in the heart ye work wickedness,
Ye weigh out the violence of your hands in the earth.
c The wicked are estranged from the womb . . .
d Their poison is like the poison of a serpent . . .
e O God
break
their teeth in their mouth;
e the great teeth of the young lions
break out
O Jehovah
d They shall melt away like waters, like a
snail will melt as it goes along . . .
c Abortions of a woman that have not beheld
the sun . . .
b The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance;
he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
a And men shall say, there is a reward for righteousness.
Surely there is a God that judgeth the earth.
“By comparing each emphasized word in the first half of this psalm with the corresponding emphasized word in the second half, you can see the interesting chiastic order and the contrasting intensifications that have been written into this psalm. Chiasmus makes this poem harmonic, complete, and brilliant. No end is left untied. No thought is left unbalanced. And yet it flows freely and naturally from one point to the next and back again. To an ancient Israelite this was beautiful, this was metrical, this was inspirational.
“A further phenomenon that we can see in the structure of the 58th Psalm is the importance of the chiastic turning point. Notice how the short prayer at the center of this psalm is marked and spotlighted. The prayer is set in the center for the very purpose of showing how prayer to the Lord God can turn everything completely around. After the prayer the strength of the wicked melts away like the slime of a snail, while the requests of the righteous are granted.
“Needless to say, the discovery of chiasmus has given us plenty to think about. It has led us to think about the nature of our sacred literature and to reevaluate the skill and deliberation with which it was written. By it many passages that were previously obscure have now become clear. Other places that once seemed disorganized have now regained their original orderliness. Above all, we have learned once again that, if we are to judge the literature of another culture, we must not judge it according to our likes and dislikes. The fact that chiasmus was a unique and prevalent form of Hebrew writing requires us to take it into account when we consider the literary accomplishments of ancient Israel.” (John W. Welch, “Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon; or, the Book of Mormon Does It Again,” New Era, Feb. 1972, pp. 6–7.)
As explained in Enrichment Section C, the use of symbolic language is characteristic of Old Testament writings. Figurative language and rich imagery abound, especially in the poetic books. Every rhetorical device is used, including alliteration, hyperbole, simile, metaphor, personification, and metonymy. Sidney B. Sperry used an interesting analogy to illustrate a fundamental difference between the Eastern and Western ways of using language:
“Rudyard Kipling was certainly right when he said: ‘Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.’
“As Latter-day Saints, we should keep Kipling’s saying in mind when we read the scriptures. We ofttimes read our Bible as though its peoples were English or American and interpret their sayings in terms of our own background and psychology. But the Bible is actually an Oriental book. It was written centuries ago by Oriental people and primarily for Oriental people. . . .
“It may be of interest to contrast the speech of modern and ancient Palestinians with our own. In thought and speech the Oriental is an artist; the Occidental, on the other hand, may be thought of as an architect. When speaking, the Oriental paints a scene whose total effect is true, but the details may be inaccurate; the Occidental tends to draw diagrams accurate in detail. When our Lord spoke of the mustard seed as ‘less than all the seeds that be in the earth,’ and the plant as ‘greater than all herbs’ (Mark 4:31–32), he was speaking as an Oriental. Any good botanist knows that the mustard seed (sinapi) of which Jesus spoke, though small, is not the smallest of all seeds, nor is the plant greater than all herbs.” (“Hebrew Manners and Customs,” Ensign, May 1972, pp. 29–30.)
Another scholar wrote: “Nowhere is the genius of Hebrew poetry more apparent than in its imagery. It lays heaven and earth under tribute. It steals music from the morning stars, and light from the bridegroom who needs no virginal lamps. Its eternal summer fades not, and its snows are undefiled. It rules the raging of the sea, it drives on the clouds, and rides on the wings of the wind. It makes the royal gold richer, the myrrh more fragrant, and the frankincense sweeter. The offerings it takes from the shepherd suffer no death, and his flock is folded in evergreen pastures. The bread of its harvest will never waste, the oil from its press never fail, and its wine is for ever new. So long as men can breathe, its eternal lines will form the litany of the praying heart. The strings it touches are the strings of the harp of God.
“The rhythm of Hebrew poetry is not the measured beat of the earth-locked body. It is the majestic rhythm of the soaring spirit, felt only by him who has the music of heaven in his soul. It rises above the metrical to a loftier plane and to a new dimension—the dimension of the spirit, where they who worship God worship Him in spirit and in truth.
“Its proper object is the Highest, the God of heaven and earth; its source and fount, the depths of the God-hungry heart. Its great theme is the personal encounter with the living God.” (Douglas, New Bible Dictionary, s.v. “poetry,” p. 1008.)
One difficult aspect of Hebrew literature is the frequency with which certain writers use figures or images or write of things that have a dual meaning. Such dualism is similar to esoteric language, which is “designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone,” that is, language “restricted to a small group” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1979 ed., s.v. “esoteric”). For example, suppose a person in a crowd of strangers wants to determine if there are any Latter-day Saints present without openly asking. He stands on a bench and begins to sing, “Come, come, ye Saints, no toil nor labor fear” (Hymns, no. 30). He is using esoteric language. Members of the Church would recognize the words instantly, but everyone else would assume that the was only singing a song unfamiliar to them.
The same technique was often used in Old Testament writings. Special messages of spiritual importance were placed in apparently mundane or spiritually insignificant passages. But to the spiritually initiated, the spiritually sensitive, the second and more important meaning leaps out clearly. Isaiah wrote a “proverb” (a taunting or judgmental speech) against the “king of Babylon” (Isaiah 14:4). It is a masterful condemnation of the ruler of the empire that would shortly become Israel’s primary enemy and eventual destroyer. In the midst of the prophecy of this downfall is this passage: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12).
Most scholars simply conclude that Lucifer, which in Hebrew means “brilliant star” or “morning star”, was a poetic name for the king of Babylon, since kings and other important personages were sometimes referred to as stars (Wilson, Old Testament Word Studies, s.v. “Lucifer,” p. 261). And indeed the whole passage (Isaiah 14:4–22) makes perfect sense if applied to the head of the Babylonian government. But Satan’s name was Lucifer and the falling from heaven represented his being cast out of God’s presence after his rebellion led to the war in heaven (See D&C 76:25–28; Moses 1:1–4). In addition, Babylon came to refer to the world and Satan’s dominions (see Revelation 17:5; D&C 1:16; 133:14). Read the passage again in light of the other meanings for Babylon and Lucifer. A whole new meaning, equally valid and meaningful, becomes apparent. Which is the correct interpretation? The answer—and one key to understanding Hebrew literature—is that both are correct. The passage was written in literary style.
Prophecies concerning Zion provide another example of dualism. Zion was a common title for the city of Jerusalem, and by extension, the covenant people (just as one says Washington or Moscow to mean the United States or Russia). Most scholars interpret Zion references as referring to ancient Israel, and undoubtedly they did. But to Latter-day Saints, Zion has modern implications, which give deeper significance to such passages (see Isaiah 2:1–4). Old Jerusalem (Zion) has again been set up in the tops of the mountains of Israel, and many Jews from all over the world have flowed unto it. But the establishment of the restored Church in Salt Lake City and in other places in the tops of the mountains has also fulfilled this prophecy. So here is another classic example of prophetic and literary dualism.
Still another example is the prophecies concerning the scattering and gathering of Israel. These prophecies have been fulfilled several times in different ways. The Jews were carried away captive by Babylon and returned seventy years later. They were scattered again by the Romans and are now returning to the land of their forefathers. The Lamanites, another branch of Israel, have been scattered and are now returning to the Church. Israelites from all over the world are gathering to the true Church.
The key to understanding such literary styles is the Spirit. Elder Bruce R. McConkie said the following:
“In the final analysis, there is no way—absolutely none (and this cannot be stated too strongly!)—to understand any Messianic prophecy, or any other scripture, except to have the same spirit of prophecy that rested upon the one who uttered the truth in its original form. Scripture comes from God by the power of the Holy Ghost. It does not originate with man. It means only what the Holy Ghost thinks it means. To interpret it, we must be enlightened by the power of the Holy Spirit. As Peter said, ‘No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.’ (2 Pet. 1:20–21.) Truly, it takes a prophet to understand a prophet, and every faithful member of the Church should have ‘the testimony of Jesus’ which ‘is the spirit of prophecy.’ (Rev. 19:10.) Thus, as Nephi says, “The words of Isaiah’—and the principle applies to all scripture, all inspired writing, all Messianic prophecies—‘are plain unto all those that are filled with the spirit of prophecy.’ (2 Ne. 25:4.) This is the sum and substance of the whole matter and an end to all controversy where discovering the mind and will of the Lord is concerned.” (The Promised Messiah, p. 44.)
 |
“Music is part of the language of the Gods. It has been given to man so he can sing praises to the Lord. It is a means of expressing, with poetic words and in melodious tunes, the deep feelings of rejoicing and thanksgiving found in the hearts of those who have testimonies of the divine Sonship and who know of the wonders and glories wrought for them by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Music is both in the voice and in the heart. Every true saint finds his heart full of songs of praise to his Maker. Those whose voices can sing forth the praises found in their hearts are twice blest. ‘Be filled with the Spirit,’ Paul counseled, ‘Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.’ (Eph. 5:18–19.) Also: ‘Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.’ (Col. 3:16.)
“Unfortunately not all music is good and edifying. Lucifer uses much that goes by the name of music to lead people to that which does not edify and is not of God. Just as language can be used to bless or curse, so music is a means of singing praises to the Lord or of planting evil thoughts and desires in the minds of men. Of that music which meets the divine standard and has the Lord’s approval, he says: ‘My soul delighteth in the song of the heart; yea, the song of the righteous is a prayer unto me, and it shall be answered with a blessing upon their heads.’ (D&C 25:12.)
“In view of all that the Lord Jesus Christ has done for us, ought we not to sing praises to his holy name forever?” (McConkie, The Promised Messiah, p. 553.)
The psalms in Hebrew are called Tehillim, a word coming from the Hebrew word halal, “to praise” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 3:199). The same root forms the word hallelujah, meaning “praise to Yah” (Jehovah). Unlike some modern songs that tend to depress the spirit, the psalms have the power to lift one toward God. The psalms are a collection of some of the very finest of the world’s inspirational literature.
Instructions to Students
Because of the large number of psalms, no specific reading assignment is given in the book of Psalms. The objective of this chapter is to introduce you to the book of Psalms so that you can beneficially study it on your own. To do this you should—
1. Read Enrichment Section G, “Hebrew Literary Styles,” if you have not already done so.
2. Read Notes and Commentary below, which will provide background information on the psalms. (Note: No specific interpretive commentary is provided in this chapter for any of the psalms.)
3. Select fifteen psalms and study them carefully. At least three of these psalms should be from Psalm 22, 51, 119, 122, or 137.
4. Complete any one of the three exercises in Points to Ponder in connection with your study of the psalms. (Individual study students may be asked by their instructor to complete more than one of the exercises.)
Anciently the Jews divided the Old Testament into three main sections: the Law (the first five books of Moses), the Prophets, and the Writings. The Psalms constituted the major portion of the third division.
The Hebrew name for Psalms was Tehillim, or songs of praise. Our title comes from the Greek psalterion, which is formed from the root psallo, meaning “to sing” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 3:199).
Anciently the Hebrews divided the one hundred and fifty psalms into five separate books that included, in today’s Bible, Psalms 1 through 41, 42 through 72, 73 through 89, 90 through 106, and 107 through 150. At the end of each division, the break is marked with a doxology, or formal declaration of God’s power and glory (see Psalms 41:13; 72:19; 89:52; 106:48). Psalms 150 is itself a doxology, using the Hebrew Hallelujah, “praise ye the Lord,” at its beginning and end, as well as the word praise eleven other times. It is a fitting conclusion to the Tehillim, “songs of praise.”
There is a great debate among biblical scholars about the authorship of the Psalms. Superscriptions on many of the Psalms themselves attribute them to various ancient authors:
|
“Although modern critics . . . customarily deny the Davidic authorship of the Psalms, there is ample internal evidence that David, the great poet and musician of Israel, was the principal author of the Psalter. This position, despite the contention of negative criticism, is indicated by the following reasons: (1) David’s name is famous in the O. T. period for music and song and is closely associated with holy liturgy (II Sam. 6:5–15; I Chron. 16:4; II Chron. 7:6; 29:30). (2) David was especially endowed by the Holy Spirit (I Sam. 23:1, 2; Mark 12:36; Acts 2:25–31; 4:25, 26). (3) David’s music and poetical gifts appear indelibly interwoven on the pages of O. T. history. He is called ‘the sweet psalmist of Israel’ (II Sam. 23:1). He was a skilled performer on the lyre (I Sam. 16:16–18). He was the author of the masterful elegy written upon the death of Saul and Jonathan (II Sam. 1:19–27). He is referred to as a model poet-musician by the prophet Amos (Amos 6:5). (4) Much internal evidence in the psalms themselves point to David’s authorship. Most of the songs attributed to him reflect some period of his life, such as Psa. 23, 51 and 57. In line with this evidence of Scripture, a number of the psalms indicate Davidic authorship. (5) Certain psalms are cited as Davidic in Scripture in general. Acts 4:25, 26 so cites Psalm 2. Acts 2:25–28 so cites Psalm 16. Romans 4:6–8 cites Psalm 32. Acts 1:16–20 thus refers to Psalm 69. Also, Rom. 11:9, 10. [See also] Acts 1:20 with Psalm 109; Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36, 37; Luke 20:42–44; Acts 2:34 with Psalm 110.” (Unger, Bible Dictionary, s.v., “Psalms,” pp. 898–99.)
In addition to the superscription indicating the author of the psalm, there are often instructions which contain words transliterated from the Hebrew and left untranslated. Generally, they seem to have been specific instructions to the singer or the musicians, or to have served as a note about the nature of the particular song.
“Of the terms left untranslated or obscure in our Bible, it may be well to offer some explanation in this place, taking them in alphabetical order for the sake of convenience. . . .
“(1) Aijeleth Shahar, Hind of the Morning, i.e. the sun, or the dawn of day. This occurs only in [Psalm 22], where we may best take it to designate a song, perhaps commencing with these words, or bearing this name, to the melody of which the psalm was to be sung. . . .
“(2) Alamoth [Psalm 46], probably signifies virgins, and hence denotes music for female voices, or the treble. . . .
“(3) Al-taschith, Destroy Thou Not, is found over [Psalms 57–59, 75], and signifies, by general consent, some well-known ode beginning with the expression [compare Isaiah 65:8], to the tune of which these compositions were to be sung.
“(4) Degrees appears over fifteen Psalms [120–34], called Songs of Degrees, and has been explained in various ways, of which the following are the chief. (a) The ancients understood by it stairs or steps, . . . and in accordance with this, Jewish writers relate . . . that these Psalms were sung on fifteen steps, leading from the court of Israel to the court of the women. This explanation is now exploded. . . . (b) Luther, whom Tholuck is inclined to follow, renders the title a song in the higher choir, supposing the Psalms to have been sung from an elevated place or ascent, or with elevated voice. (c) Gesenius, Delitzsch and De Wette think the name refers to a peculiar rhythm in these songs, by which the sense advances by degrees, and so ascends from clause to clause. (d) According to the most prevalent and probable opinion, the title signifies song of the ascents, or pilgrim song, meaning a song composed for, or sung during the journeying of the people up to Jerusalem, whether as they returned from Babylon, or as they statedly repaired to the national solemnities. . . . Journeys to Jerusalem are generally spoken of as ascents, on account of the elevated situation of the city and temple [see Ezra 7:9; Psalm 122:4]. This explanation of the name is favored by the brevity and the contents of these songs.
“(5) Gittith appears over [Psalms 8, 81, 84], and is of very uncertain meaning, though not improbably it signifies an instrument or tune brought from the city of Gath. . . .
“(6) Higgaion is found over [Psalm 9:16], and probably means either musical sound, according to the opinion of most, . . . or meditation according to Tholuck and Hengstenberg.
“(7) Jeduthun is found over [Psalms 39, 62, 67], and is generally taken for the name of choristers descended from Jeduthun, of whom we read in [1 Chronicles 25:1, 3], as one of David’s three chief musicians or leaders of the Temple music. This use of the name Jeduthun for Jeduthunites is perhaps like the well-known use of Israel for the Israelites. It is most probable that in [Psalm 39] Jeduthun himself is meant, and not his family. The Psalm may have been set to music by Jeduthun or set to a theme named for him. . . .
 |
| Dove |
“(8) Jonath-elem-rechokim, the silent dove of them that are afar, or perhaps the dove of the distant terebinth, found only over [Psalm 56], may well denote the name or commencement of an ode to the air of which this psalm was sung.
“(9) Leannoth in the title of [Psalm 88] is quite obscure. It is probably the name of a tune.
“(10) Mahalath occurs in [Psalms 53 and 88], and denotes, according to some, a sort of flute. . . . Upon Mahalath Leannoth [Psalm 88] is perhaps a direction to chant it to the instrument or tune called mahalath.
“(11) Maschil is found in the title of thirteen psalms. Delitzsch supposes it to mean a meditation. According to Gesenius, De Wette, Ewald, and others, it means a poem, so called either for its skillful composition or for its wise and pious strain. The common interpretation makes it a didactic poem, . . . to teach or make wise.
“(12) Michtam is prefixed to [Psalms 16, 56–60], and is subject to many conjectures. Many, after Aben Ezra, derive it from the Hebrew word meaning gold, and understand a golden psalm, so called probably on account of its excellence. . . .
“(13) Muth-labben [Psalm 9] presents a perfect riddle, owing to the various readings of MSS., and the contradictory conjectures of the learned. Besides the common reading upon death to the son, we have the same word that is used in [Psalm 46] (see above Alamoth). Some explain it as the subject or occasion of the song, but most refer it to the music (“set to Muthlabben” R.V.). Gesenius, in his last edition, renders it—with virgins’ voice for the boys, i.e., to be sung by a choir of boys in the treble.
“(14) Neginoth [Psalm 4; 61]. . . . This name, from the Hebrew word meaning to strike a chord, . . . clearly denotes that the Psalm was to be sung to the accompaniment of stringed instruments.
“(15) Nehiloth [Psalm 5], comes most likely from the Hebrew word meaning to perforate, and denotes pipes or flutes.
“(16) Selah is found seventy-three times in the psalms, generally at the end of a sentence or paragraph; but in [Psalms 50:19 and 57:3] it stands in the middle of the verse. . . . most authors have agreed in considering this word as somehow relating to the music. . . . Probably selah was used to direct the singer to be silent, or to pause a little, while the instruments played an interlude or symphony. In [Psalm 9:16] it occurs in the expression higgaion selah, which Gesenius, with much probability, renders instrumental music, pause, i.e. let the instruments strike up a symphony, and let the singer pause.
“(17) Sheminith [Psalms 6 and 7] means properly eighth, and denotes either, as some think, an instrument with eight chords, or, more likely, music in the lower notes, or bass. This is strongly favored by [1 Chronicles 15:20–21], where the terms alamoth and sheminith clearly denote different parts of music: the former answering to our treble, and the latter to the bass, an octave below.
“(18) Shiggaion [Psalm 7], denotes, according to Gesenius and Furst, a song or hymn; but Ewald and Hengstenberg derive it from a Hebrew word meaning to err or wander; and hence the former understands a song uttered in the greatest excitement, the latter after the manner of dithyrambs, or to dithyrambic measures.
“(19) Shushan [Psalm 60] and in plural shoshannim [Psalms 45, 69, 80]. This word commonly signifies lily, and probably denotes either an instrument bearing some resemblance to a lily (perhaps cymbal), or more probably a melody so named. Eduth is joined to it in [Psalms 60 and 80], giving the sense lily of testimony, the name of a tune.” (Fallows, Bible Encyclopedia, s.v. “Psalms,” 3:1406–7.)
In addition to these headings, Psalm 119 is divided into twenty-two sections corresponding to the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Each section is titled with the corresponding name of the Hebrew letter and its English transliteration. This designation shows that in the Hebrew the psalm forms an acrostic. (An acrostic is a poem or work of prose in which the initial letter of each line forms its own word or a particular pattern.) In Psalm 119 each of the twenty-two sections has eight lines. Every line in each section begins with the same letter of the Hebrew alphabet. In other words, verses 1–8 all start in the original with aleph, verses 9–16 with beth, and so on. In an age when literature was often memorized and transmitted orally, such devices were a valuable aid to memory. Psalms 25 and 34 also form acrostics with each new line beginning with a successive letter, but this design is not evident in the English translation.
“Christians reading the psalms are bound to come across two special problem areas. One is the self-justification of the psalmists. The other is their tendency to call down and spell out the most terrible vengeance. We cannot simply discard the offending passages. They are part of God’s word, alongside passages no one would question. Nor will it do to excuse the psalmists on the grounds that they did not possess the teaching of Christ. Because they did possess the law. They knew as well as we do that no man is perfect by God’s standards; and they were taught to behave in a loving way to others (Leviticus 19:17–18), even their enemies (Exodus 23:4–5). The law did not license retaliation, it set limits to it (an eye for an eye, and no more).
“Self-justification. Two comments may help. First, the psalmist is claiming comparative, not absolute righteousness (i.e. in comparison with other people, not measured by God’s standards). ‘A good man may sin and yet be a good man.’ There is all the difference in the world between those who endeavour to do right and those who deliberately set aside the common laws of God and society. David, in particular, was well aware of his shortcomings before God (see Psalms 51 and 19:11–13). Deep repentance features alongside self-justification in the psalms.
“Second, the psalmist is very often picturing himself as ‘the indignant plaintiff’ putting his case before God the Judge. And, however much we dislike his self-righteous tone, from this point of view he is unquestionably ‘in the right’.
“Cursing and vengeance. Before we rush to condemn these passages as utterly ‘unchristian’, there are a few points worth bearing in mind.
“The first concerns God’s holiness. In emphasizing God’s love we tend today to be over-sentimental about rank evil. But the psalmists knew God as One ‘whose eyes are too pure to look upon evil’, who cannot countenance wrongdoing. And this is what motivates their call for vengeance on the wicked. God’s own character—his good name—demands it.
“Second, the psalmists are realistic in recognizing that right cannot triumph without the actual overthrow of evil and punishment of wrong. We pray ‘Thy kingdom come’. But we are often horrified when the psalmists spell out what this means—perhaps because we are less in love with good, less opposed to evil than they were; or because many of us have never known real persecution for our faith; or because we value life more than right.
“However, if the psalmists are guilty of actually gloating over the fate of the wicked, if personal vindictiveness creeps in under the cloak of concern for God’s good name, we are right to condemn it—and beware. We can ourselves so easily be guilty of the same thing. But in the psalmist’s case the wrong thinking (if wrong thinking there is) never carries over into wrong action. There is no question of him taking the law into his own hands. . . . Vengeance is always seen as God’s province, and his alone.” (Alexander and Alexander, Eerdmans’ Handbook to the Bible, p. 339.)
“The Hebrew Psalter is the most ancient collection of poems in the world; and was composed long before those in which ancient Greece and Rome have gloried. Among all the heathen nations Greece had the honour of producing not only the first, but also the most sublime, of poets: but the subjects on which they employed their talents had, in general, but little tendency to meliorate the moral condition of men. Their subjects were either a fabulous theology, a false and ridiculous religion, chimerical wars, absurd heroism, impure love, agriculture, national sports, or hymns in honour of gods more corrupt than the most profligate of men. Their writings served only to render vice amiable, to honour superstition, to favour the most dangerous and most degrading passions of men, such as impure love, ambition, pride, and impiety. What is said of the Greek poets may be spoken with equal truth of their successors and imitators, the Latin poets; out of the whole of whose writings it would be difficult to extract even the common maxims of a decent morality. . . . The Hebrew poets, on the contrary, justly boast the highest antiquity: they were men inspired of God, holy in their lives, pure in their hearts, labouring for the good of mankind; proclaiming by their incomparable compositions the infinite perfections, attributes, and unity of the Divine nature; laying down and illustrating the purest rules of the most refined morality, and the most exalted piety. God, his attributes, his works, and the religion which he has given to man, were the grand subjects of their Divinely inspired muse. By their wonderful art, they not only embellished the history of their own people, because connected intimately with the history of God’s providence, but they also, by the light of the Spirit of God that was within them, foretold future events of the most unlikely occurrence, at the distance of many hundreds of years, with such exact circumstantiality as has been the wonder and astonishment of considerate minds in all succeeding generations; a fact which, taken in its connection with the holiness and sublimity of their doctrine; the grandeur, boldness, and truth of their imagery; demonstrates minds under the immediate inspiration of that God whose nature is ineffable, who exists in all points of time, and whose wisdom is infinite.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 3:208.)
“Although the Psalter is largely composed of devotional hymns, heartfelt praise and personal testimonies of praise and thanksgiving to the Lord, yet many of these poetic gems give far-reaching predictions and are prophetic as well as devotionally didactic. Psalm 2 is a magnificent prophetic panorama of Messiah’s redemptive career and His return as King of Kings. Psalm 22 is an amazingly detailed prophecy of the suffering and death of Christ in His first advent. Psalm 110 is a far-reaching prophecy of Christ as a perpetual Priest. Psalm 16 heralds His future resurrection; Psalm 72 envisions the coming millennial kingdom. Psalm 45 brings into view a vast prophetic perspective. In all the O. T. there is no more practical, instructive, beautiful or popular book than the Psalms.” (Unger, Bible Dictionary, s.v. “Psalms,” p. 899.)
Another scholar stated it this way:
“The primary meaning of the psalms is always to be sought first of all in their immediate, historical context. But this does not exhaust their significance. No one can read the psalms without becoming aware that certain psalms and individual verses have a deeper, future significance beyond the simple meaning of the words. The Messiah is not mentioned by name, but his figure is foreshadowed, as later generations of Jews came to realize. And the New Testament writers are quick to apply these verses to Jesus as the prophesied Messiah.
“Some psalms, particularly the ‘royal psalms’ (of which 2, 72, 110 are the most striking) picture an ideal divine king priest judge never fully realized in any actual king of Israel. Only the Messiah combines these roles in the endless, universal reign of peace and justice envisaged by the psalmists.
“Other psalms depict human suffering in terms which seem far-fetched in relation to ordinary experience, but which proved an extraordinarily accurate description of the actual sufferings of Christ. Under God’s inspiration, the psalmists chose words and pictures which were to take on a significance they can hardly have dreamed of. Psalm 22, the psalm Jesus quoted as he hung on the cross (verse 1, Matthew 27:46), is the most amazing example.” (Alexander and Alexander, Eerdmans’ Handbook to the Bible, p. 329.)
Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained in detail some remarkably prophetic utterances:
“‘All things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me,’ the risen Lord said to the assembled saints in the upper room. (Luke 24:44.) To Cleopas and another disciple, on the Emmaus road, the resurrected Jesus said: ‘O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.’ (Luke 24:25–27.) Surely those things we shall now quote from the Psalms—pointed, express, detailed utterances about his sufferings, death, and atoning sacrifice—were included in those things which he expounded unto them.
“The Holy Ghost, through David, said: ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ (Ps. 22:1)—thus revealing aforetime the very words Jesus would speak on the cross in that moment when, left alone that he might drink the dregs of the bitter cup to the full, the Father would entirely withdraw his sustaining power. And so Matthew records: ‘And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, la ma sabach tha ni? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ (Matt. 27:46.)
“The same Psalm says: ‘All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.’ (Ps. 27:7–8.) The fulfillment, as Jesus hung on the cross, is found in these words: ‘The chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, he saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.’ (Matt. 27:41–44.)
“Next the Psalmist speaks of our Lord’s birth, of his reliance on God, of his troubles, and then coming back to the mob at the foot of the cross, he says: ‘They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion.’ Then the record says: ‘I am poured out like water’ (Ps. 22:9–14), an expression akin to Isaiah’s that ‘he hath poured out his soul unto death’ (Isa. 53:12).
“‘Thou hast brought me into the dust of death,’ the Psalmist continues, ‘For dogs have compassed me, the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet,’ which is exactly what transpired on the gloomy day of crucifixion. Then this: ‘They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture’ (Ps. 22:15–18), of which prediction Matthew says, ‘And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots’ (Matt. 27:35). John gives this more extended account of the fulfillment of this promise: ‘Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.’ (John 19:23–24.)
“After this the Psalmist has the Messiah say, in words applicable to his Father, ‘I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee,’ a course that our Lord pursued with diligence during his whole ministry. And then this counsel: ‘Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.’ Following this is the promise that the Lord shall be praised ‘in the great congregation,’ and that ‘all the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. For the kingdom is the Lord’s: and he is the governor of the nations.’ Clearly this has reference to the final millennial triumph of truth, a triumph that is to be when the gospel brought by the Messiah is restored again and carried according to his will to all men. Finally, in this Psalm, it is of the Messiah that the account speaks in these words: ‘A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation’; that is, the Seed of David, generated by the Father, shall serve in righteousness, with this result: ‘They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this.’ (Ps. 22:22–31.) And in harmony with this prophetic assurance, we now declare unto all people born after Messiah’s day, the righteousness of the Father in sending his Son and the righteousness of the Son in doing all things for men that needed to be done to bring to them both immortality and eternal life.
“Other Psalms also revealed, before the events, additional specifics that would attend or be associated with the cross of Christ and the agonizing death he would suffer thereon. With reference to the conniving and conspiring plots incident to our Lord’s arrest and judicial trials the prophecy was: ‘They took counsel together against me, they devised to take away my life.’ (Ps. 31:13.) As to the role of Judas in those conspiracies, the Psalmist says: ‘Mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.’ (Ps. 41:9.) On that occasion when he washed their feet, Jesus spoke in laudatory terms of the twelve, but, said he, ‘I speak not of you all,’ for a moment later he was to say, ‘one of you shall betray me.’ ‘I know whom I have chosen,’ he continued, ‘but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.’ After a few more words, he dipped the sop and gave it to Judas, thus identifying the traitor in their midst. (John 13:18–30.)
“‘The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up,’ is the Messianic word which foretold the driving of the money changers from the temple and caused Jesus to say, ‘Make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise,’ and which caused his disciples to remember the words of the Psalm. (John 2:13–17.) But the full Messianic statement, which forecasts more than the cleansing of the then-polluted temple, says: ‘The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. . . . Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, and there was none; and for comforters, but I found none.’ (Ps. 69:9, 20.) Who can fail to see in these words our Lord’s piteous state as, hailed before the rulers of this world, he found none to comfort him, but instead was reproached for testifying of that Father whom his Jewish persecutors had rejected?
“After these words comes the Psalmic declaration: ‘They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.’ (Ps. 69:21.) Their fulfillment is noted by Matthew in these words: ‘They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink. And they crucified him.’ Also: After Jesus had, as they supposed, called for Elias, the account says: ‘And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.’ (Matt. 27:34–35, 47–48.) John’s account of this same occurrence ties the act at the crucifixion in with David’s prediction by recounting: ‘Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.’ It is as though advisedly and with deliberation, though he was in agony beyond compare, yet he consciously continued to the last moment of mortal life, with the avowed purpose of fulfilling all of the Messianic utterances concerning his mortal Messiahship. ‘Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar,’ John’s account continues, ‘and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.’ (John 19:28–30.)
“Viewing in advance, as it were, this last awesome moment of the Messiah’s mortal life, David wrote: ‘Into thine hand I commit my spirit.’ (Ps. 31:5.) Recording after the fact what took place as the last breath of mortal air filled the lungs of the Man on the cross, Luke said: ‘And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.’ (Luke 23:46.)
“With our Lord’s last breath, all things were fulfilled which pertained to that period when the breath of life sustained his life and being.” (The Promised Messiah, pp. 530–34.)
(28-8) Of the fifteen psalms you selected to study (see Instructions to the Student, no. 3), choose one (or two, if they are both short) and write your own Notes and Commentary on that psalm. Use the Bible Dictionary, the Topical Guide, and the footnotes in the text to help you in this project.
(28-9) The book of Psalms is quoted more often by New Testament writers than any other Old Testament book—over 115 times. Examine the following list of places in the New Testament where the psalms are quoted. How did the writers use the psalms? What can you conclude from the way they quote them? Do you get further insight into the psalm by how it was used?
(28-10) In the October 1973 general conference Elder Bruce R. McConkie said:
“I think the Lord’s people should rejoice in him and shout praises to his holy name. Cries of hosannah should ascend from our lips continually. When I think of the revealed knowledge we have about him whom it is life eternal to know, and of the great plan of salvation which he ordained for us; when I think about his Beloved Son, who bought us with his blood, and who brought life and immortality to light through his atoning sacrifice; when I think of the life and ministry of the Prophet Joseph Smith, who has done more save Jesus only for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man who ever lived in it, and who crowned his mortal ministry with a martyr’s death—my soul wells up with eternal gratitude and I desire to raise my voice with the choirs above in ceaseless praise to him who dwells on high.
 |
| Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote a psalm of praise to the Lord. |
“When I think that the Lord has a living oracle guiding his earthly kingdom, and that there are apostles and prophets who walk the earth again; when I think that the Lord has given us the gift and power of the Holy Ghost so that we have the revelations of heaven and the power to sanctify our souls; when I think of the unnumbered blessings—the gifts, the miracles, the promise that the family unit shall go on everlastingly, all the blessings that are poured out upon us, and offered freely to all men everywhere—my desire to praise the Lord and proclaim his goodness and grace knows no bounds. And so in this spirit of praise and thanksgiving, which is the same spirit that attended the expressions made by President Romney this morning, I shall conclude with these words of my own psalm:
Praise ye the Lord:
Praise him for his goodness;
Praise him for his grace;
Exalt his name and seek his face—
O praise ye the Lord.Blessed is the Lord:
Bless him for his mercy;
Bless him for his love;
Exalt his name and seek his face—
O blessed is the Lord.Praise ye the Lord:
Praise him who all things did create;
Praise him who all things did redeem;
Exalt his name and seek his face—
O praise ye the Lord.Seek ye the Lord:
Seek him who rules on high;
Seek him whose will we know;
Exalt his name and seek his face—
O seek ye the Lord.”
(In Conference Report, Oct. 1973, p. 57; or Ensign, Jan. 1974, p. 48.)
In the spirit of that counsel, write a psalm (a song of praise) of your own. You may wish to try to incorporate some of the elements of Hebrew parallelism (see Reading G-3), or just write a simple hymn of praise to the Lord.