Come Follow Me : 2 Samuel 5-12, 1 Kings 3-11 -- Part 1 : Dr. Michael Goodman

[@naomichild3393]

Brother Goodman is one of my favorite professors ever! I am so excited to hear his insights on this iconic Bible story!

[@lorigudmundson2011]

I hope you have him come back in the future. So many insights and points of view that I needed.

[@catherinefadian-lewandowsk8851]

Top of the morning is a British/Irish saying to wish a good morning/ good day

[@happyknittingmom]

And the correct response is "and the rest of the day to you.". It is not, "Thanks, same to you." I had an Irish teacher who was adamant about this

[@happyknittingmom]

Thoughts on David and Bathsheba (“daughter of the covenant”), based on a conversation with my nephew, who has studied Hebrew. When David is walking on the roof of his house, the word is not “strolling.” He is pacing, or walking with anticipation. This implies that he is waiting for Bathsheba to comes bathe herself. He knows she is coming. Likely his has seen this before. She is finishing her ritual 14-day purification, the 14 days beginning on the first day of her period. Since women ovulate 14 days before their next period, if Bathsheba has a 28-30 day cycle (normal), she is at her most fertile. (The Law of Moses is designed for “raising up seed.”) David asks after Bathsheba. He calls her to him. The word for the sex used for their encounter is not the “know” usually used for an intimate act. It implies force. This was not consensual, not the mutual passion Hollywood likes to depict. Regarding Uriah (“Jehovah is my Light” or “the Light of Jehovah”), he was one of David’s “mighty men” (1 Chronicles 11:41), his Special Forces. The ones who can do what no one else can do. These are men who are tremendously loyal to David and each other. It would be a gasp-producing level of betrayal that Uriah brought his own death instructions to his commander if he were a regular soldier. But he wasn’t. He was a super-loyal, super-capable soldier. And the Joab then sent, not just Uriah, but a group of men that included Uriah, close to the walls to be killed, so as not to arouse suspicion. David thought he was in the clear, which shows a rather gross lack of awareness and deadening of conscience, until Nathan came and gave him the parable of the poor man’s sheep.

[@stacyhuss9454]

More sad news about David, but a good lesson that we can never let our guard down.

[@caguas97]

Don't Steady the Ark "While that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning." (D&C 85:8) What does it mean to "steady the Ark"? I think there are many lessons to be learned in the story of Uzzah and the Ark. Some say that it teaches that we, as lay people, should not attempt to correct those in authority above us. Some argue that God wouldn't have let the Ark fall, and so taking it upon himself to steady the Ark was presumptuous of Uzzah, and lacking faith, he attempted to correct something that didn't need correction. Those might be valid points. Though I don't know that I agree with the belief that God wouldn't let the Ark fall. He let the Ark get taken captive by pagan Philistines, and I know that they didn't take care of the Ark after the prescribed fashion. So I think that the Ark could have actually fallen. But here's the thing we overlook: The way to carry the Ark was prescribed by revelation and written in scripture. The Levites were supposed to carry the Ark on their shoulders (Exodus 25:12-15; Numbers 7:9). They knew that. Everyone knew that. But King David ignored the proper procedure. He told them to bring the Ark in a cart pulled by oxen, like it was some common commodity. In fact, when the Philistines captured the Ark and wanted to return it after suffering plagues and curses, they put the Ark in a cart pulled by oxen and sent it back to Israel. That's how it ended up in Uzzah's care to begin with. He knew that. The Ark came to his house by means of the Philistines in a cart pulled by oxen. And everyone knew it. Because it stayed there for 20 years before David decided to move it. David was treating something incredibly sacred in a most profane way.... against proper procedure, against Priesthood direction, against the rules. And when Uzzah reached out to steady the Ark and was struck dead, King David was responsible... and he knew it (1 Chronicles 15:12-13). King David moves the Ark properly later, as does Solomon (1 Kings 8 ). But Uzzah knew the rules too. He and his family were sanctified to keep the Ark at their home for 20 years (1 Samuel 7:1). So when David commanded that the Ark be brought to him in such a profane way, Uzzah knew better. And he did not stand up to David and demand that things be done properly. David was the King, but he was not the Presiding High Priest. David held political power, not Priesthood. And in this case, Uzzah acquiesced to the political, instead of insisting on the higher authority of the priesthood. Furthermore, some interpreters point out that when the oxen stumbled and the ark tipped, this was not an accident but might well have been a sign that the Lord was NOT happy with the move: remember how earlier cattle knew exactly where the Lord wanted the ark moved back in 1 Sam 6:7-12. The cattle may have been trying to get the ark to stop moving. Since the 1 Sam 6 story describes how the ark ended up at Uzzah’s home. Uzzah could hardly have been ignorant that story or therefore of how when cattle move the ark, the cattle might be under divine influence. So his second error is, possibly, missing the hand of the Lord in the behavior of the oxen. Instead of listening to the scriptures Uzzah seeks to carry out the will of his leader, that is, to keep the ark moving to its new home, despite the incorrect nature of the transport. To meet this leader-imposed goal, he naturally reaches out to keep the ark from resting or falling. Touching the ark was prohibited by anyone but Levites, on pain of death (Num 4:15). Uzzah knew this, but maybe felt that following the commandment of his king was more important at the time. At Uzzah’s touching the sacred ark, the Lord’s anger bursts out against the touching, and possibly the moving process, and Uzzah is killed. (Perez-uzzah means “the outburst against Uzzah”.) This was a surprise to David, who did not previously understand that such an action was worthy of death, and so the move is halted. David’s surprise, anger, and fear - and later admission of error and change of behavior - provide strong evidence that the Lord’s outburst was not just against Uzzah but against David as well. Importantly, the idea that Uzzah was being punished for David’s guilt is supported by the story told in 2 Sam 24, where 70,000 innocent people die because of David’s sinful decision to conduct a census. Many times in the Old Testament, kings are held responsible for leading their people astray into sin, and in 2 Sam 24 the sins of a king are directly the cause of the death of many people, by the hand of the Lord. Uzzah’s death may be one more example of this principle: David, after all, is the responsible adult here, not Uzzah, but 2 Sam 24 shows that David’s culpability doesn’t necessarily mean David directly suffers for his sins. By the converse, Uzzah’s death doesn’t mean he is the only one at fault, or even the principal one at fault. And so... Some additional lessons to be learned here: This story was possibly committed to Israel as a warning that God’s commandments and ordinances cannot be changed or abrogated by anyone’s “good intentions” whether it be king, priest, or lay member. The principle of covenant being communicated is a message that had the leaders and the priesthood steadied the Ark of the Covenant according to the commandments and instructions of God, disaster would have been averted. This story is a charge to all of us to study and know God’s commandments and ordinances. While it is still the leaders' and the priesthood's responsibility to carry out God's instructions in exactness, it is also our responsibility to know what God's commandments say, and to speak up when those instructions may not be considered, possibly due to ignorance of the law.

[@Ksee89]

One day we'll get to read the brass plates with the better account of the old testament our book of Mormon prophet's had access to that we don't today.

[@stacyhuss9454]

If I remember right David and Michal had a complicated relationship. She was give by Saul to David, then given to another man. Eventually David had her taken from that husband (who wept as she was taken away) and returned to David. Maybe she preferred being the one loved wife of her second husband over just being one more woman in David’s house. Being a woman, she apparently wasn’t consulted on the matter.

[@happyknittingmom]

That is what I think too. If David was on the run from Saul for 7 years (or more), and king of Hebron for 7 years before becoming king of all Israel, Michal had been the wife of another man for 15 to 20 years, and of David for only 6 months. She had a life with her second husband.

[@janeenhall7490]

Isn’t possible to come from both Solomon and Nathan if somewhere along the way someone from each of their posterity married each other? I have cousins that married in my pioneer line and so one of my lines traces back one brother and another traces to the other brother. I can totally imagine that happening in Old Testament times where marrying a close relative was extremely common.