In 2 Samuel 12:23, David says about his deceased infant son: >*"But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." (ESV)* Many Christians interpret this as David expressing confidence that he would see his child again in the afterlife. This is often cited as evidence that infants who die are in God’s care and go to heaven. - Does it imply that children who die before reaching an age of moral accountability are saved? - Is David speaking about the afterlife or merely about joining his son in the grave? I'd appreciate perspectives from different theological traditions, especially Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox interpretations.

**Royal Regulations** When God reluctantly gave permission for Israel to have kings, He laid down several stipulations: (1) Only a fellow "brother" Israelite could be chosen; no foreigner, (2) He shall not multiply horses, nor purchase horses from Egypt, (3) Neither is a king to "multiply wives" lest his heart be seduced by them, and (4) He shall not amass silver and gold in abundance, and (5) The king is to write out a copy of the Book of the Law, and read it continually! (Deuteronomy 17:15-20) David seemed to comply with these requirements...except for one! He multiplied wives and concubines. Abigail, Ahinoam, 1 Samuel 25:42-43
Maacah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, 2 Samuel 3:3
Concubines and more wives, 2 Samuel 5:13. To these women were born over a dozen sons, as well as daughters. (And then, of course, there was Bathsheba and Solomon, with her other children.) **Flaunting and Flouting** Was this flaunting and flouting of the Royal Code an example in the conduct of David that indelibly impressed the thought life of his son Solomon so that he could not resist the same temptation? A Temptation that became the Fatal Flaw and downfall of the vast Solomonic Empire? What could have been done different by Solomon, in spite of David's example, that would have kept him on the straight and narrow? Maybe #5 in the Royal Code? Or was the stigma of being the son of an illegitimate marriage by his father too much for his psyche to handle? Solomon grew up, no doubt, knowing his mother's husband was murdered. And he gave up on ever being a holy person himself? Does Christian psychology have anything to speak into this situation? What could have broken this "cycle of abuse" and put Solomon back on to a righteous trajectory?

> **[2 Samuel 7:11-16](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%207:11-16&version=ESV)** (ESV) > 11 from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house. 12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.'" It doesn't seem that it can be just Solomon since Solomon's kingdom didn't last forever. It also doesn't seem like it can be a reference to the Messiah/Jesus because this bit doesn't fit with what I know of the Christians believe that Jesus, being God, could not do wrong: > **[2 Samuel 7:14](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%207:14&version=ESV)** (ESV) > 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When **he commits iniquity**, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, So who is being referred to in this passage? I'm interested in an overview of what is commonly believed. Quotes and references from any respected commentators are welcome.

In 1 Samuel 22:20-23, we see that Ahimelech was killed by the order of Saul and his son Abiathar escaped: > 20 But one son of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped > and fled after David. 21 Abiathar told David that Saul had killed the > priests of the LORD. 22 Then David said to Abiathar, “I knew on that > day, when Doeg the Edomite was there, that he would surely tell Saul. > I have brought about the death of every person in your father’s > household. 23 “Stay with me; do not be afraid, for he who seeks my > life seeks your life, for you are safe with me.” However, in 2 Samuel 8:17, Ahimelech is referenced as one of David's priests, and the *son* of Abiathar: >17 and Zadok the son of Ahitub and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar were priests, and Seraiah was secretary, Obviously both can't be true, but I can't seem to find any compelling information that would explain this reversal of names.

In 2 Samuel 24:15 a destroyer angel come and strike Jerusalem with the Plague. If I understand correctly, the accepted name for this angel is Azrael in Islam and Samael in Judaism. What is his accepted Christian name ? I know he is never named in the bible itself, but perhaps later Christian literature have agreed on a name for him or perhaps you can help me have an educated guess as to who he might be.

In 2 Samuel 21:1-14 , we see that Saul committed an awful crime, and this caused famine in Israel. David then goes to Gibeonites and asked to make amends. They agree to the death of seven of Saul's descendants. Why were two of Saul's sons and five of Saul's grandsons killed for a crime they didn't commit? Is there something I'm missing?

Why does the bible say that David kept all the commands of the Lord when he so clearly didn't? > **1 Kings 15:5 NIV** - For David had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord and had not failed to keep any of the Lord’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite. Yes, there was the episode with Uriah the Hittite. But there was also the matter of David taking a census of the fighting men of Israel: > **2 Samuel 24:10 NIV** - David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the Lord, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, Lord, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing.” And that's just what's written down. Other biblical figures like Isaiah, Jesus, Paul, and even David himself says there is no one who is good, so certainly David would have been guilty of other sins.

> David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan > said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not > die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the > Lord, the child who is born to you shall die.” Then Nathan went to his > house. I've been trying to wrap my head around this part of scripture for a while now. How can a just God kill an innocent child for the sins of David? Most of the explanations I've been getting online have been incredibly unsatisfying, ranging from "It was an act of mercy for the child to die, he would have had a terrible life!" to "It's OK for God to punish innocents for the sins of the guilty." All of these feel inadequate. To me, the one thing that sticks out to me is that Nathan says that God "[P]ut away David's sin", which seems to contradict the child's death being a punishment for sin. Is there an actual satisfying answer to this problem?

The following verses about David and Jonathan's relationship have lead some to say their relationship was more than platonic. Is there any reason to think that was the case? > Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself. (1 Samuel 18:1, NASB) > > Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. (1 Samuel 18:3, ESV) > > I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women. (2 Samuel 1:26, NIV)

One of the most influential works which convinced people to support the American Revolution was a pamphlet by Thomas Paine called "Common Sense". (I first heard about it on Liberty's Kids!) "Common Sense" is famous for Paine's first-principles account of the purpose of government, and how the British monarchy has fallen short of that ideal. Less well-known, however, is chapter 2 of the pamphlet, where Paine lays out a Biblical case against monarchy: > Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of that transaction is worth attending to. > >The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon marched against them with a small army, and victory thro' the divine interposition decided in his favour. The Jews, elate with success, and attributing it to the generalship of Gideon, proposed making him a king, saying, "Rule thou over us, thou and thy son, and thy son's son." Here was temptation in its fullest extent; not a kingdom only, but an hereditary one; but Gideon in the piety of his soul replied, "I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you. THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU." Words need not be more explicit: Gideon doth not decline the honour, but denieth their right to give it; neither doth he compliment them with invented declarations of his thanks, but in the positive style of a prophet charges them with disaffection to their proper Sovereign, the King of Heaven. > >About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again into the same error. The hankering which the Jews had for the idolatrous customs of the Heathens, is something exceedingly unaccountable; but so it was, that laying hold of the misconduct of Samuel's two sons, who were intrusted with some secular concerns, they came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to Samuel, saying, "Behold thou art old, and they sons walk not in thy ways, now make us a king to judge us like all the other nations." And here we cannot observe but that their motives were bad, viz. that they might be LIKE unto other nations, i. e. the Heathens, whereas their true glory lay in being as much UNLIKE them as possible. "But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, give us a King to judge us; and Samuel prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord said unto Samuel, hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, THAT I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other Gods: so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice, howbeit, protest solemnly unto them and show them the manner of the King that shall reign over them," i.e. not of any particular King, but the general manner of the Kings of the earth whom Israel was so eagerly copying after. And notwithstanding the great distance of time and difference of manners, the character is still in fashion. "And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people, that asked of him a King. And he said, This shall be the manner of the King that shall reign over you. He will take your sons and appoint them for himself for his chariots and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his chariots" (this description agrees with the present mode of impressing men) "and he will appoint him captains over thousands and captains over fifties, will set them to clear his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots, And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers" (this describes the expense and luxury as well as the oppression of Kings) "and he will take your fields and your vineyards, and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give them to his officers and to his servants" (by which we see that bribery, corruption, and favouritism, are the standing vices of Kings) "and he will take the tenth of your men servants, and your maid servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work: and he will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants, and ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shell have chosen, AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY." This accounts for the continuation of Monarchy; neither do the characters of the few good kings which have lived since, either sanctify the title, or blot out the sinfulness of the origin; the high encomium of David takes no notice of him OFFICIALLY AS A KING, but only as a MAN after God's own heart. "Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and they said, Nay, but we will have a king over us, that we may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles." Samuel continued to reason with them but to no purpose; he set before them their ingratitude, but all would not avail; and seeing them fully bent on their folly, he cried out, "I will call unto the Lord, and he shall send thunder and rain" (which was then a punishment, being in the time of wheat harvest) "that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord, IN ASKING YOU A KING. So Samuel called unto the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel. And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we die not, for WE HAVE ADDED UNTO OUR SINS THIS EVIL, TO ASK A KING." These portions of scripture are direct and positive. They admit of no equivocal construction. **That the Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchical government is true, or the scripture is false.** And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of kingcraft as priestcraft in withholding the scripture from the public in popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the popery of government. My question is, how well-accepted is Thomas Paine's interpretation of these Biblical passages? Is it a minority view among scholars, or is the mainstream view that the Bible is speaking out against monarchy in these passages?

After David committed adultery with Bathsheba, David began to contact her husband, Uriah. >2 Samuel Chapter 11 Verse 6 [New Living Translation] > >6 Then David sent word to Joab: “Send me Uriah the Hittite.” So Joab sent him to David. 7 When Uriah arrived, David asked him how Joab and the army were getting along and how the war was progressing. 8 Then he told Uriah, “Go on home and relax.[b]” David even sent a gift to Uriah after he had left the palace. 9 But Uriah didn’t go home. He slept that night at the palace entrance with the king’s palace guard. > >10 When David heard that Uriah had not gone home, he summoned him and asked, “What’s the matter? Why didn’t you go home last night after being away for so long?” > >11 Uriah replied, “The Ark and the armies of Israel and Judah are living in tents,[c] and Joab and my master’s men are camping in the open fields. How could I go home to wine and dine and sleep with my wife? I swear that I would never do such a thing.” > >12 “Well, stay here today,” David told him, “and tomorrow you may return to the army.” So Uriah stayed in Jerusalem that day and the next. 13 Then David invited him to dinner and got him drunk. But even then he couldn’t get Uriah to go home to his wife. Again he slept at the palace entrance with the king’s palace guard. I might not know the best course of action to take after doing what David did, but I can't understand why David would choose to send Uriah back to his home. If Uriah did go back home, wouldn't he learn that his wife became pregnant? Why send him back now?

In [2 Samuel 7](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+samuel+7&version=ESV) , King David seems to have a heart to build a temple for God. However, he seems to be disqualified for some reason, but his son is identified as the one who will build it instead. What was it about David that disqualified him in particular from building the temple? He was a man of war, of course, but why would that preclude his involvement in the building of a place of worship? > After the king was settled in his palace and the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies around him, 2 he said to Nathan the prophet, “**Here I am, living in a house of cedar, while the ark of God remains in a tent.”** > >3 Nathan replied to the king, “Whatever you have in mind, go ahead and do it, for the Lord is with you.” 4 But that night the word of the Lord came to Nathan, saying: > > 5 “Go and tell my servant David, ‘This is what the Lord says: **Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in?** 6 I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. 7 Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, “Why have you not built me a house of cedar?”’ 2 Samuel 7:1-7

> **6** When they came to the threshing floor of Nakon, Uzzah reached out > and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. **7** The > Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; > therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God. After reading those verses, I often think this was over-reacted. Maybe Uzzah wasn't thinking badly, maybe was he just taking care of the ark of God ? So what are the deep/fundamental reasons God killed him ? What's your opinion ?

So David's son had some pretty awesome hair: > **2 Samuel 14:25-26 ESV** Now in all Israel there was no one so much to be praised for his handsome appearance as Absalom. From the sole of his foot to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him. And when he cut the hair of his head (for at the end of every year he used to cut it; when it was heavy on him, he cut it), he weighed the hair of his head, **two hundred shekels** by the king's weight. 200 shekels is about 5 pounds . That's crazy. It's also crazy that Absalom could get suspended from tree branches by his hair apparently long enough for Joab to have a conversation and then kill him. > **2 Samuel 18:9,14 ESV** And Absalom happened to meet the servants of David. Absalom was riding on his mule, and the mule went under the thick branches of a great oak, and his head caught fast in the oak, and he was suspended between heaven and earth, while the mule that was under him went on ... Joab said, “I will not waste time like this with you.” And he took three javelins in his hand and thrust them into the heart of Absalom while he was still alive in the oak. Is this possible? Can hair get that heavy and strong? This has bothered me for a while because I've wondered if this could be some figure of speech even though it's written so plainly. I feel like the best and most obvious way to answer this would be to just *find* someone with equivalent hair structure. Whether through an article or picture or anything else.

These two passages appear to be contradictory: > So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him. (1 Samuel 17:50) > > In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod. (2 Samuel 21:19) How can these be reconciled?

After the death of Saul, David asks God where he should Go. God indicates he should to to Hebron, where David is soon anointed king. > **2 Samuel 2:1 (NIV):** In the course of time, David inquired of the Lord. “Shall I go up to one of the towns of Judah?” he asked. The Lord said, “Go up.” David asked, “Where shall I go?” “To Hebron,” the Lord answered. Why did God chose the town of Hebron? What does the Bible say is special about it?

We read in 1 Samuel 17: "David killed Goliath" > And as he talked with them, behold, there came up the champion, the > Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the ranks of the > Philistines, and spake according to the same words: and David heard > them. **1 Samuel 17:23 ASV** (...) >Then David ran, and stood over the > Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, > and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines > saw that their champion was dead, they fled. **1 Samuel 17:51 ASV** But we read in 2 Samuel 21: "Elhanan killed the giant Goliath" > And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the > son of Jaareoregim the Beth-lehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the > staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. **2 Samuel 21:19 ASV** So, who killed Goliath?