Shocking Verses from the Bible

Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
2 Kings 2:23-24

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.
Deuteronomy 23:1

Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.

Genesis 38:8-10

Then Saul said, “Thus shall you say to David, ‘The king desires no bride-price except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, that he may be avenged of the king’s enemies.’” Now Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king’s son-in-law. Before the time had expired, David arose and went, along with his men, and killed two hundred of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law. And Saul gave him his daughter Michal for a wife.

Samuel 18:25-27

Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions.

Ezekiel 23:19-20

If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

These are just a few I came across. Are there any preachers out there preaching this stuff. Some of these verses are hard to interpret. I am sure there are more verses as vulgar as these. Just don't have anymore time to indulge myself into the bible. I am not a Christian.

I'm not a Christian either....and haven't seen all of these quotes.
A bit disturbing if you ask me.

Thanks for posting these

Judaism. This is simply Judaism. and I do not want to get Judaism and Hebrew religious faith confused. Although the same, Hebrew is far earlier than the Davidic line which corrupted many hearts. Yes, I blame a lot of it on David the king. Somewhere around 900 B.C. all these books (Genesis, exodus) and historical accounts were created into the bible that you know today.

Majority of the laws in deuteronomy were conceived by priest and those who are/were considered holy men, elite and prophets. The interesting thing was during this era the "Jews" were all about psychological warfare when yeilding their powerful G-d. Remember, no news, no net, the formal media was books. What better way to scare a gentile and put the fear of the lord in him than the Tanakh? Which interesting enough, in the bible you have some disturbing accounts to create fear among those who are Gentiles.

Is this shocking? No... This was ancients man answer to their problem. What was their problem? They wanted more power and control. Thing got distorted and change.

reply to post by Jordan River


Clearly things got distorted. I personally cannot go into detail about the history of these verses. I just know that if these verses were knowledge to me they would be knowledge to someone else.

Originally posted by Bokaforo
reply to post by Jordan River

 

Clearly things got distorted. I personally cannot go into detail about the history of these verses. I just know that if these verses were knowledge to me they would be knowledge to someone else.

when you barely have weapons and an army, psychology is your weapon. Nothing in the Tanakh is shocking, more so to those who have read it. If you pick a verse and believe the things as they are then you are mistaken.
Many girls were taken at the age of 12, which is normal in ancient standards, but to a modern man you will call it pedo!

remember, it has been 3,000 years ago since these works were created. How can you judge someone in the past like that?

reply to post by Jordan River


I am not judging anyone. I only stumbled upon these verses. I cannot judge the way I would or anyone else would have interpreted these writings. I can read them today though and decide that these people were maybe sick because of the time and era. If these were the thoughts and writings from so long ago then what about everything else ever written down. Its for no one to judge.

Originally posted by Bokaforo
If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

If there is one verse in the bible that conclusively proves that the bible was written by men, then this is it.

No one that I know of is preaching these scriptures as they are not doctrine....they are not the basis for guidance in a Christian walk of faith.

What these scriptures are, and there are many more like these, they are life examples or traits of characters or examples of things that happened from the Bible. They are more reflective of the cultures and traditions of the times and peoples that were recorded.

For instance, the reference to the prostitute is pretty much what a prostitute and sexually aggressive person..male or female does... past or present.

The reference to David bringing Phillistine foreskins to prove his prowess is no more repulsive than Native Americans collecting scalps or Rebel Bushwackers collecting ears from dead Yankees to prove their bravery in battle. Same idea, different time and culture.

As for the bear mauling the youths...That was punishment for the youths mocking Elisha as he traveled after his mentor Elijah was carried up to heaven.

Again, these are stories...you may take them literally or as analogies or as simple illustrations ofthe time. Most preachers I know of usually do NOT preach on these things. They tend to stick with the story of Christ, salvation, and sories that illustrate the life and challenges of the Christian path.

That being said, I have taught these scriptures in my Sunday School class to generate some interest in the less travelled books of the Bible. Always funny to see the looks and expressions of the students when they read what is really in the Bible....even funnier when they tell me that they educated their parents....and yes, it is in the Bible.

Then we look at things in their proper context, do some research into the times...what was going on, etc. A lot of the old Judaic Laws simply don't apply to Christians as Christians are followers of Jesus christ and He said He was the new covenant and the new law....and thus did away with the old laws.

How? The old laws were set up to obtain salvation through a religious following of the Laws...Ten Commandments and Judaic/ Levitical law. Jesus taught that by following Him and following His teachings as shown in Matthew 5-6-7...the Sermon on the Mount...that we attained salvation. No need for the 10 Commandments because as a Christian, you would not kill or cheat or steal or lie anyway.

Originally posted by Bokaforo
reply to post by Jordan River

 

I am not judging anyone. I only stumbled upon these verses. I cannot judge the way I would or anyone else would have interpreted these writings. I can read them today though and decide that these people were maybe sick because of the time and era. If these were the thoughts and writings from so long ago then what about everything else ever written down. Its for no one to judge.

I do not consider them "sick". So you are calling all of Judaism sick? I am going to believe that you are not and I am taking your paragraph outta context.

Many mythologies (I don't consider the bible a myth) include stories of beastiality and incest

Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
2 Kings 2:23-24

Elisha was mocked for being bald, and, in anger, he cursed the "youths" teasing him. Consequently, two bears mauled 42 of these "youths". Did God send bears to maul children? Or did Elisha curse the "youths" (which, in Hebrew, could mean anything from young boys to young men), and, as a result of this curse made in God's name, the bears mauled them? Because there is a difference.
In fact, Elisha, himself, was a "youth"...likely not much older than they were.
Also, we have to consider that this took place near Bethel, which specialized in blasphemous pagan practices. In insulting Elisha, the "youths" were, in fact, insulting his God, and, as such, the bears very graphically represented God's judgement on all who blaspheme Him and His people.

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.
Deuteronomy 23:1

This was a matter for the Law, which was given TO the Israelites and FOR the Israelites. Why is this an issue?

Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.
Genesis 38:8-10

This was a long time ago, and cultures have changed a lot since then. I know we enjoy sitting back and judging the practices of ancient cultures from our pedestals, but we have to realize that times have changed. And, besides, this was one man telling another to do something that we find objectionable. Obviously, they didn't find it objectionable. What was objectionable, to God, was that Onan failed to do what was commanded of him - he "wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother."

Then Saul said, “Thus shall you say to David, ‘The king desires no bride-price except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, that he may be avenged of the king’s enemies.’” Now Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king’s son-in-law. Before the time had expired, David arose and went, along with his men, and killed two hundred of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law. And Saul gave him his daughter Michal for a wife.
Samuel 18:25-27

What's the issue with this passage?

Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions.
Ezekiel 23:19-20

Again, what is the issue with this? This passage describes the nature of a woman by the name of Oholibah, and, in fact, it calls her "wicked". The Bible does not condone her actions... it reports and rebukes them.

If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.
Deuteronomy 25:11-12

Again, this a matter of the Law given to the Israelites. What's the issue with it?
Or is it just because it mentions the word "genitals" that you find it objectionable? Because I'm starting to get the idea the your main objection with these passages is that they dare to mention things that our society views as private and vulgar. If that's the case, then I have to ask... how is the Bible supposed to speak out against such vulgarities if it's not allowed to mention them by name?

Well said. Matthew Henry commentary can put the context in all these verses. For instance:

Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
2 Kings 2:23-24

"II. Here is a curse upon the children of Bethel, which was effectual to destroy them; for it was not a curse causeless. At Bethel there was another school of prophets. Thither Elisha went next, in this his primary visitation, and the scholars there no doubt welcomed him with all possible respect, but the townsmen were abusive to him. One of Jeroboam’s calves was at Bethel; this they were proud of, and fond of, and hated those that reproved them. The law did not empower them to suppress this pious academy, but we may suppose it was their usual practice to jeer the prophets as they went along the streets, to call them by some nickname or other, that they might expose them to contempt, prejudice their youth against them, and, if possible, drive them out of their town. Had the abuse done to Elisha been the first offence of that kind, it is probable that it would not have been so severely punished. But mocking the messengers of the Lord, and misusing the prophets, was one of the crying sins of Israel, as we find, 2 Chron. 36:16. Now here we have, 1. An instance of that sin. The little children of Bethel, the boys and girls that were playing in the streets (notice, it is likely, having come to the town of his approach), went out to meet him, not with their hosannas, as they ought to have done, but with their scoffs; they gathered about him and mocked him, as if he had been a fool, or one fit to make sport with. Among other things that they used to jeer the prophets with, they had this particular taunt for him, Go up, thou bald head, go up, thou bald head. It is a wicked thing to reproach persons for their natural infirmities or deformities; it is adding affliction to the afflicted; and, if they are as God made them, the reproach reflects upon him. But this was such a thing as scarcely deserved to be called a blemish, and would never have been turned to his reproach if they had had any thing else to reproach him with. It was his character as a prophet that they designed to abuse. The honour God had crowned him with should have been sufficient to cover his bald head and protect him from their scoffs. They bade him go up, perhaps reflecting on the assumption of Elijah: “Thy master,” they say, “has gone up; why dost not thou go up after him? Where is the fiery chariot? When shall we be rid of thee too?” These children said as they were taught; they had learned of their idolatrous parents to call foul names and give bad language, especially to prophets. These young cocks, as we say, crowed after the old ones. Perhaps their parents did at this time send them out and set them on, that, if possible, they might keep the prophet out of their town. 2. A specimen of that ruin which came down upon Israel at last, for misusing God’s prophets, and of which this was intended to give them fair warning."

Originally posted by Jordan River

Originally posted by Bokaforo
reply to post by Jordan River

 

Clearly things got distorted. I personally cannot go into detail about the history of these verses. I just know that if these verses were knowledge to me they would be knowledge to someone else.

when you barely have weapons and an army, psychology is your weapon. Nothing in the Tanakh is shocking, more so to those who have read it. If you pick a verse and believe the things as they are then you are mistaken.
Many girls were taken at the age of 12, which is normal in ancient standards, but to a modern man you will call it pedo!

remember, it has been 3,000 years ago since these works were created. How can you judge someone in the past like that?

Beating this horse again I see...


So what's your point? God is a vengeful jealous God. Dont you think that those who worship him doesnt already know this?

Cmon, it's not much diffrent than what people say our own HUMAN government did to us on 9/11/01


At least give something of worth from the post itself. Everyone knows this. Why is this posted as something new? It's no diffrent than what some people in other countries do to their own children today for not marrying who they want or changing faiths.

So... God chooses to destroy people he considers a plague on the "worthy". We do the same thing to countries who attempt to corrupt our democracy. *Sigh* Leave this horse alone already... It's not even interesting.

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord. Deuteronomy 23:1

Matthew Henry

"Interpreters are not agreed what is here meant by entering into the congregation of the Lord, which is here forbidden to eunuchs and to bastards, Ammonites and Moabites, for ever, but to Edomites and Egyptians only till the third generation. 1. Some think they are hereby excluded from communicating with the people of God in their religious services. Though eunuchs and bastards were owned as members of the church, and the Ammonites and Moabites might be circumcised and proselyted to the Jewish religion, yet they and their families must lie for some time under marks of disgrace, remembering the rock whence they were hewn, and must not come so near the sanctuary as others might, nor have so free a communion with Israelites. 2. Others think they are hereby excluded from bearing office in the congregation: none of these must be elders or judges, lest the honour of the magistracy should thereby be stained."

reply to post by theRhenn


This information was new to me. My intentions were not to beat a dead horse only to get more information about these writings. I apologize if this is old news for you.

Originally posted by Bokaforo
I only stumbled upon these verses.

Sure you did, LOL! Let me guess, you were spending some quality time reading the Bible and became completely perplexed when you ran across these passages and decided to ask for help, right? These verses are paraded across all kinds of atheist web sites as anti-Christian propaganda, I'm sure you just did a quick copy/ paste from one of those sites. There's no harm in that, but at least be honest about it. If you're so inclined, you can search the Internet and you'll find Christian web sites that explain each of these passages in depth and "justify" them. But personally, I feel that due to passages like these there is ample reason to believe that the Bible is told through the lens of men, and that their personal opinions and biases crept into the telling. I think that God's overall message is present and evident, but you have to sort through some chaff to get to the wheat. Another reason I think this is because of the simple reason that no two people have exactly the same interpretation of the Bible. Most Christians would agree that "God is not the author of confusion", so if the Bible is indeed God-breathed, then why is there so much confusion about its meaning? To me the simple answer is that God was not the author of the Bible. Yes He inspired it, but men authored it.

If you want some really good stuff read Isaiah where he compares Israel and Judah to twin harlots... or read the story of Hosea who married a prostitute... or read in Kings and chronicles the story of Ahab and Jezebel.

One thing to take into consideration... if all the stories fo the "heroes" of the Bible were false, why would all of their imperfections and human traits be portrayed? If it was all propaganda, surely the "heroes" would be far more perfect and omnipotent.... not the hesitant warrior of David, the doubting Thomas, the hesitant Moses, ....

or perhaps consider the first thing Noah did after the boat landed... he established an orchard...and then later he got drunk. If I had spent that much time on a boat with a few thousand animals...all of my children and the inlaws....and my wife....I can't say I wouldn't have done the same either.

Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.

"Here is, 1. Judah’s foolish friendship with a Canaanite-man. He went down from his brethren, and withdrew for a time from their society and his father’s family, and got to be intimately acquainted with one Hirah, an Adullamite, Gen. 38:1. It is computed that he was now not much above fifteen or sixteen years of age, an easy prey to the tempter. Note, When young people that have been well educated begin to change their company, they will soon change their manners, and lose their good education. Those that go down from their brethren, that despise and forsake the society of the seed of Israel, and pick up Canaanites for their companions, are going down the hill apace. It is of great consequence to young people to choose proper associates; for these they will imitate, study to recommend themselves to, and, by their opinion of them, value themselves: an error in this choice is often fatal. 2. His foolish marriage with a Canaanite-woman, a match made, not by his father, who, it should seem, was not consulted, but by his new friend Hirah, Gen. 38:2. Many have been drawn into marriages scandalous and pernicious to themselves and their families by keeping bad company, and growing familiar with bad people: one wicked league entangles men in another. Let young people be admonished by this to take their good parents for their best friends, and to be advised by them, and not by flatterers, who wheedle them, to make a prey of them. 3. His children by this Canaanite, and his disposal of them. Three sons he had by her, Er, Onan, and Shelah. It is probable that she embraced the worship of the God of Israel, at least in profession, but, for aught that appears, there was little of the fear of God in the family. Judah married too young, and very rashly; he also married his sons too young, when they had neither wit nor grace to govern themselves, and the consequences were very bad. (1.) His first-born, Er, was notoriously wicked; he was so in the sight of the Lord, that is, in defiance of God and his law; or, if perhaps he was not wicked in the sight of the world, he was so in the sight of God, to whom all men’s wickedness is open; and what came of it? Why, God cut him off presently (Gen. 38:7): The Lord slew him. Note, Sometimes God makes quick work with sinners, and takes them away in his wrath, when they are but just setting out in a wicked course of life. (2.) The next son, Onan, was, according to the ancient usage, married to the widow, to preserve the name of his deceased brother that died childless. Though God had taken away his life for his wickedness, yet they were solicitous to preserve his memory; and their disappointment therein, through Onan’s sin, was a further punishment of his wickedness. The custom of marrying the brother’s widow was afterwards made one of the laws of Moses, Deut. 25:5. Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet, to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife that he had married, and of the memory of his brother that was gone, he refused to raise up seed unto his brother, as he was in duty bound. This was so much the worse because the Messiah was to descend from Judah, and, had he not been guilty of this wickedness, he might have had the honour of being one of his ancestors."

yes many questionable scribings

Jeremiah8
How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

which is why

this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Galatians 3

Hebrews8
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

1
in these last days [He has] spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds

John5
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Acts17
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth

God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
John 3
www.biblegateway.com...

Then Saul said, “Thus shall you say to David, ‘The king desires no bride-price except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, that he may be avenged of the king’s enemies.’” Now Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king’s son-in-law. Before the time had expired, David arose and went, along with his men, and killed two hundred of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law. And Saul gave him his daughter Michal for a wife. Samuel 18:25-27

"Saul had now, in effect, proclaimed war with David. He began in open hostility when he threw the javelin at him. Now we are here told how his enmity proceeded, and how David received the attacks of it.

I. See how Saul expressed his malice against David. 1. He was afraid of him, 1 Sam. 18:12. Perhaps he pretended to be afraid that David would do himself mischief, to force his way to the crown. Those that design ill against others are commonly willing to have it thought that others design ill against them. But David’s withdrawal (1 Sam. 18:11) was a plain evidence that he was far from such a thought. However, he really stood in awe of him, as Herod feared John, Mark 6:20. Saul was sensible that he had lost the favourable presence of God himself, and that David had it, and for this reason he feared him. Note, Those are truly great and to be reverenced that have God with them. The more wisely David behaved himself the more Saul feared him, 1 Sam. 18:15; and again 1 Sam. 18:29. Men think the way to be feared is to hector and threaten, which makes them feared by fools only, but despised by the wise and good; whereas the way to be both feared and loved, feared by those to whom we would wish to be a terror and loved by those to whom we would wish to be a delight, is to behave ourselves wisely. Wisdom makes the face to shine and commands respect. 2. He removed him from court, and gave him a regiment in the country, 1 Sam. 18:13. He made him captain over 1000, that he might be from under his eye, because he hated the sight of him; and that he might not secure the interest of the courtiers. Yet herein he did impolitely; for it gave David an opportunity of ingratiating himself with the people, who therefore loved him (1 Sam. 18:16) because he went out and came in before them, that is, he presided in the business of his country, civil as well as military, and have universal satisfaction. 3. He stirred him up to take all occasions of quarrelling with the Philistines and engaging them (1 Sam. 18:17), insinuating to him that hereby he would do good service to his prince (be thou valiant for me), and good service to his God (fight the Lord’s battles), and a kindness to himself too, for hereby he would qualify himself for the honour he designed him, which was to marry his eldest daughter to him. This he had merited by killing Goliath, for it was promised by proclamation to him that should do that exploit (1 Sam. 17:25); but David was so modest as not to demand it, and now, when Saul proposed it, it was with design of mischief to him, to make him venture upon hazardous attempts, saying in his heart, Let the hand of the Philistines be upon him, hoping that he would some time or other be the death of him; yet how could he expect this when he saw that God was with him? 4. He did what he could to provoke him to discontent and mutiny, by breaking his promise with him, and giving his daughter to another when the time came that she should have been given to him, 1 Sam. 18:19. This was as great an affront as he could possibly put upon him, and touched him both in his honour and in his love. He therefore thought David’s resentment of it would break out in some indecency or other, in word or deed, which might give him an advantage against him to take him off by the course of law. Thus evil men seek mischief. 5. When he was disappointed in his, he proffered him his other daughter (who it seems had a secret kindness for David, 1 Sam. 18:20), but with this design, that she might be a snare to him, 1 Sam. 18:21. (1.) Perhaps he hoped that she would, even after her marriage to David, take part with her father against her husband, and give him an opportunity of doing David an unkindness. However, (2.) The conditions of the marriage, he hoped, would be his destruction; for (so zealous will Saul seem against the Philistines) the conditions of the marriage must be that he killed 100 Philistines, and, as proofs that those he had slain were uncircumcised, he must bring in their foreskins cut off; this would be a just reproach upon the Philistines, who hated circumcision as it was an ordinance of God; and perhaps David, in doing this, would the more exasperate them against him, and make them seek to be revenged on him, which was the thing that Saul desired and designed, much more than to be avenged on the Philistines: For Saul thought to make David fall by the Philistines, 1 Sam. 18:25. See here, [1.] What cheats bad men put upon themselves. Saul’s conscience would not suffer him, except when the evil spirit was actually upon him, to aim at David’s life himself, for even he could not but conceive a horror at the thought of murdering such an innocent and excellent person; but he thought that to expose him designedly to the Philistines had nothing bad in it (Let not my hand be upon him, but the hand of the Philistines), whereas that malicious design against him was as truly murder before God as if he had slain him with his own hands. [2.] What cheats they put upon the world. Saul pretended extraordinary kindness for David even when he aimed at his ruin, and was actually plotting it: Thou shalt be my son-in-law, says he (1 Sam. 18:21), notwithstanding he hated him implacably. Perhaps David refers to this when (Ps. 55:21) he speaks of his enemy as one whose words were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart. It is probable that Saul’s employing his servants to persuade David to enter into a treaty of a match with his daughter Michal (1 Sam. 18:22) arose from an apprehension that either his having cheated him about his elder daughter (1 Sam. 18:19) or the hardness of the terms he intended now to propose would make him decline it.

II. See how David conducted himself when the tide of Saul’s displeasure ran thus high against him.

1. He behaved himself wisely in all his ways. He perceived Saul’s jealousy of him, which made him very cautious and circumspect in every thing he said and did, and careful to give no offence. He did not complain of hard measure more make himself the head of a party, but managed all the affairs he was entrusted with as one that made it his business to do real service to his king and country, looking upon that to be the end of his preferment. And then the Lord was with him to give him success in all his undertakings. Though he procured Saul’s ill-will by it, yet he obtained God’s favour. Compare this with Ps. 101:2; where it is David’s promise, I will behave myself wisely; and that promise he here performed; and it is his prayer, O, when wilt thou come unto me? And that prayer God here answered: The Lord was with him. However blind fortune may seem to favour fools, God will own and bless those that behave themselves wisely.

2. When it was proposed to him to be son-in-law to the king he once and again received the proposal with all possible modesty and humility. When Saul proposed his elder daughter to him (1 Sam. 18:18) he said, Who am I, and what is my life? When the courtier proposed the younger, he took no notice of the affront Saul had put upon him in disposing of the elder from him, but continued in the same mind (1 Sam. 18:23): Seemeth it a light thing to you to be a king’s son-in-law, seeing that I am a poor man and lightly esteemed? He knew Michal loved him, and yet did not offer to improve his interest in her affections for the gaining of her without her father’s consent, but waited till it was proposed to him. And then see, (1.) How highly he speaks of the honour offered him: To be son-in-law to the king. Though this king was but an upstart, in his original as mean as himself, in his management no better than he should be, yet, being a crowned head, he speaks of him and the royal family with all due respect. Note, Religion is so far from teaching us to be rude and unmannerly that it does not allow us to be so. 1581 We must render honour to whom honour is due. (2.) How humbly he speaks of himself: Who am I? This did not proceed from a mean, abject, sneaking spirit, for when there was occasion he made it appear that he had as high a sense of honour as most men; nor was it from his jealousy of Saul (though he had reason enough to fear a snake under the green grass), but from him true and deep humility: Who am I, a poor man, and lightly esteemed? David had as much reason as any man to value himself. He was of an ancient and honourable family of Judah, a comely person, a great statesman and soldier; his achievements were great, for he had won Goliath’s head and Michal’s heart. He knew himself destined by the divine counsels to the throne of Israel, and yet, Who am I, and what is my life? Note, It well becomes us, however God has advanced us, always to have low thoughts of ourselves. He that humbleth himself shall be exalted. And, if David thus magnified the honour of being son-in-law to the king, how should we magnify the honour of being sons (not in law, but in gospel) to the King of kings! Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us! Who are we that we should be thus dignified?

3. When the slaying of 100 Philistines was made the condition of David’s marrying Saul’s daughter he readily closed with it (1 Sam. 18:26): It pleased David well to be the king’s son-in-law upon those terms; and, before the time given him for the action had expired, he doubled the demand, and slew 200, 1 Sam. 18:27. He would not seem to suspect that Saul designed his hurt by it (though he had reason enough), but would rather act as if Saul had meant to consult his honour, and therefore cheerfully undertook it, as became a brave soldier and a true lover, though we may suppose it uneasy to Michal. David hereby discovered likewise, (1.) A great confidence in the divine protection. He knew God was with him, and therefore, whatever Saul hoped, David did not fear falling by the Philistines, though he must needs expose himself much by such an undertaking as this. (2.) A great zeal for the good of his country, which he would not decline any occasion of doing service to, though with the hazard of his life. (3.) A right notion of honour, which consists not so much in being preferred as in deserving to be so. David was then pleased with the thoughts of being the king’s son-in-law when he found the honour set at this high price, being more solicitous how to merit it than how to obtain it; nor could he wear it with satisfaction till he had won it.

4. Even after he was married he continued his good services to Israel. When the princes of the Philistines began to move towards another war David was ready to oppose them, and behaved himself more wisely than all the servants of Saul, 1 Sam. 18:30. The law dispensed with men from going to war the first year after they were married (Deut. 24:5), but David loved his country too well to make use of that dispensation. Many that have shown themselves forward to serve the public when they have been in pursuit of preferment have declined it when they have gained their point; but David acted from more generous principles.

III. Observe how God brought good to David out of Saul’s project against him. 1. Saul gave him his daughter to be a snare to him, but in this respect that marriage was a kindness to him, that his being Saul’s son-in-law made his succeeding him much the less invidious, especially when so many of his sons were slain with him, 1 Sam. 31:2. 2. Saul thought, by putting him upon dangerous services, to have him taken off, but that very thing confirmed his interest in the people; for the more he did against the Philistines the better they loved him, so that his name was much set by (1 Sam. 18:30), which would make his coming to the crown the more easy. Thus God makes even the wrath of man to praise him and serves his designs of kindness to his own people by it."

Matthew Henry

reply to post by SavedOne


You can assume what I was doing that is fine with me. I have valid interest in this topic in general. And yes there is a website called stumbleupon and guess what I clicked a button and wala something interesting. Do I own a bible? No. Have I read out of the Bible? Yes. I never asked for help only ideas and history.