Date: 31 Jul 2000
Time: 14:11:35
Greetings all
Because last Sunday was children Sunday, I did not preach on this important incident in the Deuteronomist's history, showing that when we do right, God is pleased, when we do wrong, God is not pleased. This was important as the Jews came out of exile. I want to look at this from a 21st century spiritual need. Of course much will remain the same, but knowing now the importance of every person, and their equal involvement, I want to equally look at David, Bathsheba, Uriah and Nathan. The title is Choice and power(or preference and potential)
Shalom
Pasthersyl
Date: 01 Aug 2000
Time: 16:42:17
For anybody preaching on this passage and who can make use of video in your service, I highly recommend the Veggie Tale video "King George and the Ducky". There is a segment in which the prophet tells the story Nathan tells, by singing it. (It's also a great salute/poke regarding flannelgraphs.)
Date: 01 Aug 2000
Time: 19:15:41
I did something last week I rarely do: I left my congregation, with David, entrapped in his sinful plan. Now, this week, I'll preach "the rest of the story!" This series from II Samuel provides a rare opportunity to contrast the snare of sin with the freeing power of God's grace. Ken in WV
Date: 01 Aug 2000
Time: 21:16:03
In some ways this text is more difficult to preach about than last week's! We don't get very far into David's repentance or the consequences of his sin, but we do catch a glimpse of a rare moment - that moment when someone sees the truth about him/herself. Most of the time we don't see our sinfulness, our participation in corporate/institutional sin, our own pettiness and prejudices. It is a terrible moment, but I guess it's also a moment of grace when God allows us to see ourselves as we are: for in seeing the truth about ourselves, we begin to see our helplessness and our own need for repentance and change. Sometimes grace is a little uncomfortable.
CSS
Date: 02 Aug 2000
Time: 14:51:46
My sermon last week on the David passage also left people with the truth of David's sin... and essentially the message was that we are all one choice away from going down the road David did.
I must agree that this is a great opportunity to emphasize that moment of realization of sin. And it's not only realizing that we have sinned, but recognizing that we have sinned against God. My message this week will be emphasizing that ultimate question in sin is whether or not we choose to love, obey, and serve our God.
We can try to give all sorts of nice-sounding justifications to our sin, but it is still sin. It hurts us, it hurts others, and it hurts our relationship to the God who made us. (Sorry if I'm starting to sound like I'm preaching. That's a danger of contributing when my sermon is still this early in the formative stages.)
I'm considering doing this as a first-person narrative from Nathan's perspective. I think that could work very well.
Date: 02 Aug 2000
Time: 22:48:24
If you want a more dramatic scripture reading, I've discovered that the 2 Samuel pericope makes a great intercalation with Psalm 51:1-12. Just do this . . . Reader One: 2 Sam. 11:26-12:8; Reader Two: Ps 51:1-3; Reader One: 2 Sam. 12:9a; Reader Two: Ps 51:4-5; Reader One: 2 Sam. 12:9b-12; Reader Two: Ps. 51:6-11; Reader One: 2 Sam 12:13a; Reader Two: Ps 51:12. MTSOfan
Date: 03 Aug 2000
Time: 04:49:54
Last Sun. I preached about the choices we make and whether we make God based or self centered choices. A God based will keep us in God's will or purpose for our lives and a self centered ie. David's will lead us through temptation searching for God in our lives. This Sun. I will continue that line with Nathan helping David see his justification (killing Uriah) as a self centered, fear based decesion and now searching for God and forgivness. Tying in the gospel with Jesus saying to the people you are not looking for me but for the bread you ate. We should be looking for Christ and not a loaf of bread but the bread of life! It is the bread of life that brings us into unity and friends/prophets like Nathan that often help us on earth seek that unity. SL in AL
Date: 03 Aug 2000
Time: 14:24:45
Hi all,
A couple of things I've come across in my reading and thinking. Nathan's parable is like a trojan horse. Normally, we would never let an enemy army inside the gates. Our defenses are up, ready to fight off any encroachment. But somehow,the trojan horse is cute enough, it grabs our attention, we open the gate and bring it in. But then we discover that the enemy has cleverly hidden themselves inside and now we are helpless against the onslaught.
When a prophet tells the truth, he is able to somehow penetrate the defences that we have so carefully constructed against outside intrusion. We all delude ourselves in numerous ways. We all have dark corners where the truth doesn't shine. In those dark places, a direct assault does nothing. Logical arguments, denominational position papers, boatloads of scripture, these are insufficient to break through the walls we have constructed. It takes a Nathan with a trojan horse to bring us back to our best selves and to God.
Shalom, Larry cny
Date: 03 Aug 2000
Time: 21:50:50
Hi all, I am considering doing a first person sermon from the eyes of David. I want to talk about David's love for God and strong desire to do what was right in the sight of God and of how this sin crept in, like a previous poster said, "like the Trojan horse." Even in killing Uriah, David was trying (in his own warped since of reality) to do the right thing by marrying the mother of his child. He just kept getting trapped in his own web. I think most, if not all, can identify with trying to live a good and just life but getting side tracked and maybe the greatest sin is thinking that our behavior is consistant with our Christian belief. The recognition of his own sin may have been the greatest gift of grace David received.
My initial struggle with this first person idea is that I am female, and if I am consistant with the text, it may sound like a lesbian relationship and distract my congregation from hearing the true points that I am trying to convey. Any suggestions? JRinBigD
Date: 04 Aug 2000
Time: 00:43:41
to JRinBigD - i, too, am female, and have done a number of first-person narratives from the perspective of men in the scriptures. all it takes is a clear identification of yourself, early on, as David, and the story can unfold from there. it may also help to let a few folks - deacons? - in on what you are doing before sunday morning, especially if this is the first time you've tried it. just like david, people in the pews often hear "stories" told to them in the first person much more clearly than they hear traditional "preaching." God bless! nwolc/ct
Date: 04 Aug 2000
Time: 01:05:41
I've been in the background reading for several months. My preaching has improved with the help of you grand preachers!
Sunday my sermon title is What You Deserve. If I got what I'd deserve I would be very unhappy. David didn't get what he deserved - Thank God! I hope to focus in on the thought that we deserve nothing. Every thing we have is a free gift from God. Simple and straight forward. It will be communion so the gift of salvation and forgiveness will be front and center. mcp
Date: 04 Aug 2000
Time: 03:20:17
Hey. I'm first time and like it. Great points. Go for the first person sermon or even a dramatic monologue by dressing the part.
What are you going to do with the curse that God gives David? Just let it speak for its self. Sin cost more that we want to pay and carries us farther that we want to go.
Dan (boxflash@hotmail.com)
Date: 04 Aug 2000
Time: 04:16:50
I think I'm going to start (at least thinking about it this late end of the week) with the idea that this was a serious "growing up" moment for King David. He repented and grew in taking the consequences. That's what's spinning around. Sara from Canada
Date: 04 Aug 2000
Time: 14:15:26
Good Morning
The questions is asked, why did God take Bathsheba's child to punish David. Is it that we really don't know what Bathsheba felt at the lost of her child? What do you think?
Shalom
Pasthersyl
Date: 04 Aug 2000
Time: 15:22:23
Pasthersyl,
Bathsheba is a very shadowy figure here. She says nothing. Obviously a victim of sexual abuse in a patriarchal society. Or maybe not. Later on, she is quite forthright in making sure that Solomon is the next king. Maybe Bathsheba is a Jebusite. Maybe this is a political marriage extending political opportunities for both David and Bathsheba. We don't know how she felt about Uriah's death. In the Richard Gere movie, "King David", we are led to believe that she was glad to be rid of him. But that's Hollywood.
I'm not sure I understand your question, but it is clear that David suffered horribly from the death of the child. Are you questioning whether it is fair for Bathsheba to suffer the same punishment since she is not the guilty party here?
Larry cny.
Date: 04 Aug 2000
Time: 15:52:02
Larry
Thank you for responding back. I recently read a commentary asking the question whether Bathsheba was unfairly treated by Yahweh in the effort to punish David. So thought I would just share that concern with the rest of the DPSers. It is relevant to my own hermeneutics for this Sunday because I will be looking at the role of all four participants (David, Bathsheba, Uriah and Nathan). I am looking at Bathsheba as the silent partner in the affairs of the court. I know it is only speculative, but I wonder could she have a twinge of anger toward God (whether she followed Yahweh or not). Incidently, I'm looking at Uriah's allegiance to his military career, his patriotism, and Nathan's round-a-bout confrontation of David. This is not a criticism of any, but a critique of relationships both familial and spiritual. My effort is not to put down any of them, but to objectively see how I've experience similar actions and attitudes in my life. By seeing where their actions happen in my life, I can then move under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to a new place. I know this is probably more than you wanted to know in response to your query, but this helped me to examine my own hermeneutics.
Thanks
Shalom
Pasthersyl
Date: 04 Aug 2000
Time: 18:24:17
I can't believe that Bathsheba is completely innocent of the affair, but David was probably the instigator. She possibly might have set him up, but probably not. We just don't know. I think she could have said no at some point. But it was interesting to think of it as a sexual harassment situation. Power does strange things to men. I think probably she enjoyed the attention of the king through.
Date: 05 Aug 2000
Time: 00:58:52
Again, there is so much that we don't know, but it's fun to speculate. I have generally looked at this as a straightforward case of David the king, middle aged, bored, looking for something new to liven up his life. All the other kings have whatever and whoever they want, why not him? Also, I don't think it's a big secret. The palace messengers know about it, so probably the whole palace knows about it. According to this view, Bathsheba has no say.
But lately, looking at Bathsheba's role in the succession narrative in 2 Kings, she's not a helpless victim. She has a mind of her own and brings her influence to bear upon public affairs.
It's worth noting that Jerusalem was conquered in a peaceful palace coup. The city was not burned to the ground. The inhabitants were not slaughtered. Instead, it became David's personal crown property. The administration that was in place continued in place. Certainly Araunah of 2 Sm 31 was an important Jebusite who continued on. Was Uriah the Hittite also a holdover from the previous administration who then became one of David's 30 mighty men? In the ancient near east, marriage was often a political act, cementing an alliance with another king. Maybe, (to put it bluntly) David is interested in Bathsheba for more than her body. Maybe he is also interested in her political connections. Maybe Bathsheba has more say in this than the average woman of her time. Perhaps she is interested in David because he is the new regime and their children will be kings.
Larry cny
Date: 05 Aug 2000
Time: 16:12:42
Some of the conversation about Bathsheba's involvement makes me think of "Blame the Victim" explainations. We can make up stories of what she might have done, but from the Scripture it appears that she was not involved, but sent for. If this is the first time David sees her, how can she be involved? I find it hightly unlikely she was trying to suduce anyone. I think we must be careful not to weave a story that white washes the terrible things that David did. If we do, we run the risk of harming women in our congregations who have been raped and abused.
If she was angry with God after being raped and taken to King David, it can be a healing process for women today. God can take our being angry about things that happen to us that seem outside of God's control, or even worse, sent by God. We as preachers need to clearly say that abuse of any kind is inappropriate! mcp
Date: 05 Aug 2000
Time: 20:21:05
Re the question about how to deal with the curse: In the wider context of the overarching story of David, his descendants, and Judah, I don't see this as God pronouncing a curse on the house of David, but as God prounouncing the "fruit" of David's actions. I.E., the consequences of our sin have far reaching effects. This is a good point to bring out in preaching this text. Ken in WV. P.S. May all have a good Sunday and for the next 2 weeks after. I'm goin' to the beach! Grace & Peace
Date: 05 Aug 2000
Time: 20:35:31
I know this is late but I really wanted to respond. I think the questions regarding Bathsheba, and whether she seduced David or was willing detracts from the intent of the passage, and incorporates the same denial that David used in taking her, then covering up by murder. David and David alone was responsible. David and David alone committed the sin, yet David's whole family and indeed all of Israel suffered the harsh consequences. I even wonder if David had any guilty feelings about it until Nathan's bringing the mirror of truth to his face. We cannot deny or diminsh the sin of David without diminishing the grace offered by God.
KD TX
Date: 06 Aug 2000
Time: 00:02:42
mcp, yes of course this certainly seems like a clear cut case of abuse. And our preaching tomorrow would be a good opportunity to talk about sexual abuse. I hope I didn't come across as trying to justify David's actions. We certainly should not sugar coat David's sin. It does look like abusive relationship. But my point is that there's lots of room for speculation, since the Deuteronomist is writing several hundred years after the fact.
Happy preaching tomorrow, Larry cny