2 Samuel 4
Notes
Transcript
Handout
Sermon Tone Analysis
A
D
F
J
S
Emotion
A
C
T
Language
O
C
E
A
E
Social
Introduction
Introduction
We are in tonight, which is a shorter chapter … only 12 verses.
It’s also a pivotal chapter in this book.
It’s also a pivotal chapter in this book.
So, let’s take a few minutes to review where we’ve been before we continue on.
With the death of Saul, David’s circumstances changed dramatically.
With the death of Saul, David’s circumstances changed dramatically.
He was no longer a fugitive on the run from Saul.
He was no longer a fugitive on the run from Saul.
With the death of Saul, David’s fortune changed. He was no longer a fugitive, and was quickly acknowledged as king by the southern tribe of Judah, his own tribe. In the north Ish-Bosheth, a surviving son of Saul, was propped up as king by the military leader, Abner.
And he was quickly acknowledged as king by the southern tribe of Judah.
----
Judah was, of course, David’s own tribe.
Judah was, of course, David’s own tribe.
We know from our modern experience that it is beneficial to a state and region when a president is elected from that state.
The same was true for kings back then.
It was good for the tribe of Benjamin when Saul was king.
It was good for the tribe of Benjamin when Saul was king.
And so, even though some or many of them may have been aware by now of David’s anointing by Samuel to be the next king, they hung onto the house of Saul and his son, Ish-bosheth.
And Saul’s military commander, Abner, was propping up Ish-bosheth as king.
Abner saw Ish-bosheth as a puppet king because he was weak.
Abner gladly manipulated him, having his own eyes on the throne.
And David, being of the tribe of Judah, was quickly received by them as their king.
That made him at this point more of a tribal king than anything.
In the north Ish-Bosheth, a surviving son of Saul, was propped up as king by the military leader, Abner.
Saul’s military commander, Abner, was propping up Ish-bosheth as king in the north.
Saul’s military commander, Abner, was propping up Ish-bosheth as king in the north.
Abner saw Ish-bosheth as a puppet king because he was weak.
Abner saw Ish-bosheth as a puppet king because he was weak.
Abner gladly manipulated him, having his own eyes on the throne.
So, there were essentially 2 kingdoms among the Israelites at this time.
There was, in the north, the larger kingdom which was ruled by Ish-bosheth under the hand of Abner.
And then in the south, there was Judah which was ruled by David.
----
Over the next years there were minor skirmishes between the two kingdoms.
Over the next years there were minor skirmishes between the two kingdoms.
But David’s strength showed itself … and Ish-Bosheth’s weakness showed, too.
But David’s strength showed itself … and Ish-Bosheth’s weakness showed, too.
In chapter 3, Abner made a power play toward Ish-bosheth by taking one of Saul’s concubines for his own.
In chapter 1,
In chapter 1,
This was essentially an act of treason as it would have represented a move to take the throne from Ish-bosheth.
Ish-bosheth discovered what Abner had done and confronted him about it.
Abner took a “How dare you accuse me” approach to Ish-bosheth.
And realizing that his goal to steal the throne from Ish-bosheth was no longer a secret, he sent messengers to David.
Abner wasn’t giving up on his plan to take Ish-bosheth’s throne, but was putting part 2 of his plan into play.
He had his eyes on David’s throne as well.
I believe based on the textual evidence, that his plan was to eventually control both thrones himself and consolidate both thrones into one over all Israel.
It’s not explicitly stated, and for that reason I want to caution us … to say absolutely that was his plan is on the verge of eisegesis.
Eisogesis is imposing one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto a Biblical text.
I don’t want to do that, so I caution that such is my own thought based on what the Bible hints at but doesn’t explicitly say.
----
So, Abner sent word to David saying that he would be willing to defect and use his influence to consolidate the kingdom under David’s rule.
So, Abner sent word to David saying that he would be willing to defect and use his influence to consolidate the kingdom under David’s rule.
And the two went back and forth using mediators before meeting face to face.
And the two went back and forth using mediators before meeting face to face.
When they did meet, they made an agreement for peace between one another and Abner claimed allegiance to David and said he would gather all Israel under David as king.
However, David already had a military commander … Joab.
And in chapter 2, Abner had killed Joab’s brother, Asahel in battle.
Just after David’s meeting with Abner, Joab returned from leading the military in a raid.
And he was told that Abner had met with King David and had left in peace.
And disturbed by this, Joab said to David in verses 24-25:
Then Joab came to the king and said, “What have you done? Look, Abner came to you; why is it that you sent him away, and he has already gone? Surely you realize that Abner the son of Ner came to deceive you, to know your going out and your coming in, and to know all that you are doing.”
2 Samuel
Joab then having left the presence of David, sent messengers to Abner to bring him back.
Because Hebron was a city of Refuge, when Abner returned, Joab took him aside outside the gate and killed him.
While Joab did the actual killing, it is likely that his brother, Abishai was in on the plans.
Upon hearing about it, David was hard pressed to take any sure action.
Joab was avenging the death of his brother, and Abner had been killed outside of the city.
At the same time, Joab’s brother was killed by Abner in battle, which was not the same as a cold blooded murder.
And so, David expressed that he and his kingdom are guiltless before the Lord for the death of Abner.
And he also pronounced a curse on the house of Joab.
Joab would continue to serve David and would even be the one to kill Absalom, the rebelling son of David and the commander of Absalom’s army and David’s nephew, Amasa.
Joab would continue to serve David and would even be the one to kill Absalom, the rebelling son of David and the commander of Absalom’s army and David’s nephew, Amasa.
After Absalom was killed by Joab against a direct order from David not to, David pardoned Amasa and replaced Joab with him ().
After Absalom was killed by Joab against a direct order from David not to, David pardoned Amasa and replaced Joab with him ().
And Joab then assassinated Amasa.
And Joab then assassinated Amasa.
It was also Joab who arranged for the death of Uriah so that David could take Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba.
David asked his son Solomon to deal with Joab, and he did (, ).
David asked his son Solomon to deal with Joab, and he did (, ).
At the end of David’s reign, Joab supported the conspiracy of Adonijah and Abiathar against the throne.
And when David died, Solomon chose to deal with Adonijah, Abiathar, and Joab.
Solomon’s officer Beniah found Joab at the altar seeking refuge and killed him there.
Therefore, upon his father’s death, Solomon pursued the conspirators Adonijah (2:23), Abiathar (2:26), and Joab (2:28). Solomon’s officer Beniah found Joab at the altar seeking refuge and killed him there (2:28–35)
----
How different history would have been had Abner lived, it is difficult to tell. Certainly Joab held unusual power over David, particularly after he assisted the king in his murderous plot against innocent Uriah (11:14ff). Note, however, David’s godly conduct in the matter of Abner’s death.
So that brings us up to where we are today in chapter 4.
So that brings us up to where we are today in chapter 4.
Abner is dead, but Ish-bosheth still sits on the throne.
Abner is dead, but Ish-bosheth still sits on the throne.
The death of Abner left Ish-bosheth exposed, as Abner was the real power behind the throne.
This chapter is another turning point for the rule of David over all Israel to come to fruition.
i
In this chapter, Ish-bosheth is assassinated.
And as we have seen with David before, he responds to the death of Ish-bosheth in a way that most people would not expect.
This was the turning point: when Ishbosheth died, the way was wide open for David to rule over the entire nation. However, it must be noted that David did not approve of the method the sons of Rimmon used, and he had the murderers slain because of their crime. David knew that God was able to elevate him to the throne; he would not do evil that good might come from it (). These three murders are evidence that David’s road to the throne was a bloody one. What a contrast to our Savior who shed His own blood, and not the blood of others, to gain His throne!
It is an interesting contrast that while David’s road to the throne was stained with the blood of others, our Savior shed His own blood to gain His throne.
Wiersbe, W. W. (1993). Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the Old Testament (). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
Prayer: Heavenly Father, we thank You for everyone here this evening. Thank You that You know each of us by name and have caused us to walk with You. Lord, we open up Your word desiring to hear from You ... not man's word or wisdom, but Your Words and Wisdom. Please soften our hearts to receive from You.
v1
v1
After the death of Abner, resistance to David’s rule began to collapse.
After the death of Abner, resistance to David’s rule began to collapse.
In that regard, Joab’s killing of Abner was a benefit to David … however, as we saw from the last chapter, David pursued peace with Abner.
In that regard, Joab’s killing of Abner was a benefit to David … however, as we saw from the last chapter, David pursued peace with Abner.
Once Abner was dead, the end of resistance to David’s rule came swiftly, and to that extent Joab’s initiative had benefited David. Ishbosheth had depended, albeit unwillingly, on Abner’s ability, and without him found he could not maintain his position as king.
And Abner was very influential with the leaders of the tribes of Israel and had begun to work toward David taking the throne.
That being said, Abner had his designs on the throne and would probably have behaved the same way toward David as he had toward Ish-bosheth.
How that would have played out we don’t know.
Chapter 2 had informed us that it was Abner who had placed Ish-bosheth on the throne and consolidated the support of the tribes around him.
So, Ishbosheth had unwillingly depended on Abner, and without him found he could not maintain his position as king.
Our text says that when Ish-bosheth heard of Abner’s death, he lost heart … literally, “His hands dropped.”
In other words, he lost his strength.
Abner was Ish-bosheth’s only hope of holding onto the throne, and he knew it.
So then, the thought was probalby in his mind that David would treat him as a rebel and deal terribly with him.
However, we know that David would have treated him well … he probably would have honored him and given him a place in his family.
----
And the text says that Israel was troubled.
And the text says that Israel was troubled.
Literally, Israel was alarmed by the death of Abner.
Literally, Israel was alarmed by the death of Abner.
It was a blow to the people’s sense of security and confidence in the future.
It’s not that they were concerned with Ish-bosheth so much as they were counting on Abner to unite the kingdom under David.
Remember from verses 17-19 that Abner had already been talking David up with the elders of Israel.
Do not read below:
Now Abner had communicated with the elders of Israel, saying, “In time past you were seeking for David to be king over you. Now then, do it! For the Lord has spoken of David, saying, ‘By the hand of My servant David, I will save My people Israel from the hand of the Philistines and the hand of all their enemies.’ ” And Abner also spoke in the hearing of Benjamin. Then Abner also went to speak in the hearing of David in Hebron all that seemed good to Israel and the whole house of Benjamin.
Now, with the murder of Abner, they had to be wondering … what kind of people are this king David and the people around him?
Would they seek vengeance on anyone else who supported Ish-bosheth?
----
As far as David is concerned, if he thought that his position was weakened by the behavior of Joab, not nearly so much as Ish-bosheth.
As far as David is concerned, if he thought that his position was weakened by the behavior of Joab, not nearly so much as Ish-bosheth.
At least David was a great warrior and gifted in leadership.
At least David was a great warrior and gifted in leadership.
Ish-bosheth had just been a puppet of Abner.
The people expected a swift invasion by David and his army.
A vacuum of power is often an opening for ruthless people.
But they didn’t truly know David’s intentions or of his recent meeting with Abner.
v2-3
v2-3
Okay … so here we are introduced to two soldiers in the employ of the Israelite king: Baanah and Rechab.
Baanah means “Son of Oppression.”
Rechab means “Band of Riders.”
we are introduced to two soldiers in the employ of the Israelite king: Baanah and Rechab, experienced leaders of guerrilla bands, and, as Benjamites, trusted supporters. The details concerning Rimmon, their father, from the town of Beeroth on the northern border of Benjamin/Ephraim, have every appearance of being a contemporary note, prompted by the need to explain that the original Canaanite inhabitants fled from Beeroth to Gittaim (site unknown, but in view of the fact that Gittaim is the plural of Gath, it may have been in Philistia), to avoid harassment. In the time of Joshua, Beeroth had been allied to Gibeon, and therefore Joshua permitted the Canaanite inhabitants to remain unharmed (). It would not have been surprising if the non-Israelite inhabitants had murdered Ishbosheth, but the writer includes a reminder that this was not the case. The tribe of Benjamin had taken over the place, and at the time of this event it was a couple of Benjamites who had risen against their own leader.
They were the sons of Rimmon and were experienced leaders of raiding forces, and, as Benjamites, trusted supporters.
They were the sons of Rimmon and were experienced leaders of raiding forces, and, as Benjamites, trusted supporters.
Beeroth was one of the Hivite cities of Gibeon that deceived Joshua (back in ).
What is in parenthesis may be original to the text, but many scholars think this was probably added later as a note.
That note informs us that the Hivite population fled to Gittaim, apparently leaving Benjaminites as the sole population in Beeroth.
Otherwise it would be confusing that we are finding Benjamites living in what we know from Joshua to be a Canaanite town.
The details concerning Rimmon, their father, from the town of Beeroth on the northern border of Benjamin/Ephraim, have every appearance of being a contemporary note, prompted by the need to explain that the original Canaanite inhabitants fled from Beeroth to Gittaim (site unknown, but in view of the fact that Gittaim is the plural of Gath, it may have been in Philistia), to avoid harassment.
It would not have been surprising if the non-Israelite inhabitants had murdered Ishbosheth, but we are given this note to remind us that was not the case.
It would not have been surprising if the non-Israelite inhabitants had murdered Ishbosheth, but we are given this note to remind us that was not the case.
Instead, as we will see, it was a couple of Benjamites who rose up against their own leader.
The Hebrew implies that these two were close to Ish-bosheth, which is why they were able to approach his bedroom.
v4
This chapter is concerned with Saul’s successors, so it’s no surprise that we have a note about his grandson put in here.
This chapter is concerned with Saul’s successors, so it’s no surprise that we have a note about his grandson put in here.
Although it’s not clearly spelled out in the Biblical account, it is believed by most that the battle at Mount Gilboa in which Saul was killed led to Philistine control of the entire central region.
the battle at Mount Gilboa in which Saul was killed led to Philistine control of the entire central region.
If that is true, the Philistines would have probably sacked Saul’s capital at Gibeah.
That would explain the frantic retreat of Saul’s household and the tragic injury to Mephibosheth.
It would have been too soon for there to be any concern about David bringing an army against the household of Saul.
It had to have been fear of the Philistines that caused them to flee.
The nature of Mephibosheth’s injury, we don’t know.
We do know from chapter 9 that he was lame in his feet.
Then the king said, “Is there not still someone of the house of Saul, to whom I may show the kindness of God?” And Ziba said to the king, “There is still a son of Jonathan who is lame in his feet.”
2 Samuel 9
His name means “Dispeller of Shame.”
As for the injury that resulted in his being lame in the feet, a neck or spine injury could have done it, but in that time it didn’t have to be something as severe as that.
Something as simple as a drop or crush that broke bones in the leg or feet could have done it.
Splinting to set bones was a practice known in the ancient world
Broken legs or ankles improperly set or poorly treated could likewise lame him.
And compound fractures were often beyond any help.
----
One reason that this detail may have been inserted here is because we might have expected that a grandchild would have inherited the throne after Ishbosheth.
One reason that this detail may have been inserted here is because we might have expected that a grandchild would have inherited the throne after Ishbosheth.
But the only other survivor of Saul’s family was Mephibosheth who was considered unfit to reign because of his injury.
But the only other survivor of Saul’s family was Mephibosheth who was considered unfit to reign because of his injury.
So then, the coming death of Ish-bosheth would be the end of the reign of the house of Saul.
We will meet Mephibosheth again later in 2 Samuel.
We will meet Mephibosheth again
v5
v5-8
v5-8
It was and still is common in some of the hottest places in the world for people to retreat indoors for a nap during the hottest part of the day.
And so Ish-bosheth was doing just that.
It seems that Ishbosheth had no idea that he might have traitors among his troops.
The easy access these two men had to the person of the king is astonishing.
They were either very close to the king or the king was just that inept.
Now, there are textual differences concerning the details which might give us some insight about how they gained access to the king.
In verse 6 the Revised Standard Version reads this way:
And behold, the doorkeeper of the house had been cleaning wheat, but she grew drowsy and slept; so Rechab and Baanah his brother slipped in.
The NLT also mentions a doorkeeper.
Meanwhile the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV and about most other translations leave out the detail of the doorkeeper.
This is not a problem, as the RSV and NLT follows the LXX here.
follows the lxx
The other translations follow the Hebrew version.
It could be that the translators of the LXX added this to clarify that they did not just waltz into Ish-bosheth’s bedroom, but they had to sneak in.
Either way, the result is the same … they went into the inner part of the house as if to get some wheat, and they stabbed him.
whereas the av, rv and niv, following the Hebrew, make no mention of the sleeping doorkeeper: They went into the inner part of the house as if to get some wheat, and they stabbed him …’ (niv). The niv makes good sense of the following verse by making it explanatory: ‘They had gone into the house … After they stabbed and killed him, they cut off his head.’ Even so, the text does appear repetitive, though Hebrew style favours such expansive additions. The motive for the murder is obscure, unless it was to curry favour with David, who was clearly going to be king of all Israel. The two men hastened to carry their trophy, dead Ishbosheth’s head, to David at Hebron, travelling by way of the Arabah, the dry rift valley of the Jordan and Dead Sea, to avoid meeting other travellers. Their claim, The Lord has avenged my lord the king, was presuming on God’s approval of their deed, as though they had acted on the Lord’s express orders.
This killed him.
Then, as verse 7 further explains they took his head and escaped.
If the murder of Abner was a terrible crime, this murder was even worse.
If the murder of Abner was a heinous crime, this murder was even worse; for the man’s only “crime” was that he was the son of Saul! He had broken no law and injured no person, and he wasn’t given opportunity to defend himself.
Ish-bosheth’s only “crime” was that he was the son of Saul.
He had broken no law and injured no person, and he wasn’t even given the opportunity to defend himself.
----
Now, the motive for their actions is not spelled out here for us.
The motive for their actions is not spelled out here.
However, it is likely that their motive was the same as it was for the Amalekite in chapter 1 … fame and reward.
They got the fame … we’re reading about them here … actually, it’s more like they are infamous.
Also like the Amalekite, their reward will not be what they were expecting.
So, these guys hastened to carry their trophy, Ishbosheth’s head, to David at Hebron.
So, these guys hastened to carry their trophy, Ishbosheth’s head, to David at Hebron.
They travelling by way of the Arabah, the dry rift valley of the Jordan and Dead Sea.
They probably took this route to avoid meeting other travellers with such a heady possession in their hands.
When they were given an audience with David, their announcement sealed their fate.
Their claim, The Lord has avenged my lord the king, was presuming on God’s approval of their deed.
It was as if they wanted David to presume that they had acted on the Lord’s express orders.
v9-12
v9-12
In chapter 1, the Amalekite claimed that Saul had made an impassioned plea to him for a mercy killing.
In chapter 1, the Amalekite claimed that Saul had made an impassioned plea to him for a mercy killing.
And yet, the Amalekite was guilty of murder.
And yet, the Amalekite was guilty of murder.
He had come to David expecting a hero’s welcome and a large reward.
But what he had received was condemnation and execution.
And again here we find these two guys coming to David, having murdered the son of Saul, the king … and expecting to be received as heroes and rewarded.
They will receive the same reward the Amalekite received.
Joab, we might argue should also have been put to death for killing Abner.
But he could at least claim that Abner was outside the protection of Hebron and had murdered his brother Asahel.
These 2 assassins had no justification at all for what they did.
It was simply for selfish pursuit of glory and reward.
----
David immediately disowned them.
David immediately disowned them.
They had completely misread the policy of David, who immediately disowned them. His opening words, As the Lord lives, assert not only his commitment to the Lord but also his faith in the Lord’s direct involvement in the outcome of daily events. David implicitly rejects the hypocrisy of Rechab and Baanah in claiming to be the Lord’s executioners; he testifies that the Lord has redeemed [his] life out of every adversity, for David had not taken the initiative to rid himself of Saul, and he had not permitted others to do so. If these two were after a reward, they should know that David rewarded with death the one who carried the news that Saul was dead, and their cold-blooded murder deserved at least the same sentence. Ishbosheth he describes as a righteous man, for though he was Saul’s son he was not personally involved in his father’s guilt, and had done nothing to deserve death. The two men are punished by death, mutilation, and public exposure as a warning to others. The head of Ishbosheth is given a suitable burial in the grave of his general, Abner.
David’s made it clear that at he had never broken God’s commandment by murdering somebody in order to accomplish his purposes.
David’s made it clear that at he had never broken God’s commandment by murdering somebody in order to accomplish his purposes.
In fact, David had been presented with 2 separate opportunities to take Saul’s life.
And each time he had chosen not to.
The Lord had watched over him and protected him during about ten years of exile and now more than seven years as king in Hebron.
And now, as when Saul and Abner died, David made it very clear that he was not involved in any way.
It would have been very easy for David’s enemies to start rumors that he had orchestrated both deaths in order to clear the way for him to take the throne of Israel.
His opening words, As the Lord lives, assert not only his commitment to the Lord but also his faith in the Lord’s direct involvement in the outcome of daily events.
Look at David’s opening words.
“As the Lord lives.”
It asserts not only his commitment to the Lord but also his faith in the Lord’s direct involvement in the outcome of daily events.
David had not taken the initiative to rid himself of Saul.
And when others had said they would, he had not permitted them to do it.
They would receive the same reward that the Amalekite had received … a death sentence.
They would receive the same reward that the Amalekite had received … a death sentence.
----
It’s interesting that in verse 11, David describes Ishbosheth as a righteous man.
It’s interesting that in verse 11, David describes Ishbosheth as a righteous man.
And this despite the fact that he was possessing the throne that was to be David’s.
And this despite the fact that he was possessing the throne that was to be David’s.
Ishbosheth had done nothing wrong … he had merely assumed the throne that his father’s death had left vacant.
He defended it, but that was to be expected.
He had not
Even though he was Saul’s son he was not personally involved in his father’s guilt, and had done nothing to deserve death.
So, at the king’s command, his guards killed the two murderers, cut off their hands and feet, and hung their corpses up as evidence of the king’s justice.
To mutilate a corpse in this way and then expose it publicly was the ultimate in humiliation ().
At the king’s command, his guards killed the two confessed murderers, cut off their hands and feet, and hung their corpses up as evidence of the king’s justice. To mutilate a corpse in this way and then expose it publicly was the ultimate in humiliation (). David had the head of Ish-Bosheth buried in Hebron in the sepulchre of Abner, for they were relatives.
The punishment was measure for measure.
David cut off the hands that had committed the crime and the feet that had ran to him to seek reward for their evil works.
The public exposure as a warning to others.
The two men are punished by death, mutilation, and public exposure as a warning to others.
The two men are punished by death, mutilation, and public exposure as a warning to others. The head of Ishbosheth is given a suitable burial in the grave of his general, Abner.
And then David had the head of Ish-Bosheth buried in Hebron where Abner was buried because they were relatives.
The head of Ishbosheth is given a suitable burial in the grave of his general, Abner.
As we will see in the next chapter, now David’s kingdom would extend to all Israel.
Yet the outcome was to make possible the extension of David’s kingdom to all Israel. Evidently David was cleared of any suspicion in connection with the death of Ishbosheth and, in the absence of any suitable survivor of the house of Saul, David was the obvious choice for king.
----
In , Paul wrote about sins that were certainly active in these chapters we have read about.
Verse 21 says that, “Sin reigned.”
Do not read below:
so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
In these chapters, sin reigned with men lying to one another, hating one another, and destroying each other.
i
also speaks of death reigning:
For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
Romans
Asahel, Abner, Ish-bosheth and nearly 400 soldiers died in the last few chapters, not to mention the Amalekite, Baanah, and Rechab.
But God’s grace also reigned.
so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
He protected David and overruled men’s sins to accomplish His divine purposes.
says, “Where sin abounded, grace abounded much more.”
Do not read below:
Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more,
But God’s grace also reigned (5:21), for He protected David and overruled men’s sins to accomplish His divine purposes. “Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound” (5:20 kjv). But David “reigned in life” (5:17) and let God control him as he faced one emergency after another. He was a man empowered by God, and God brought him through each crisis and helped him to succeed.
But David, “reigned in life” (5:17) and let God control him as he faced one emergency after another.
For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
David was a man empowered by God.
He was a man empowered by God, and God brought him through each crisis and helped him to succeed.
But David “reigned in life” (5:17) and let God control him as he faced one emergency after another. He was a man empowered by God, and God brought him through each crisis and helped him to succeed.
And as he depended on God’s grace, God brought him through each crisis.
In the midst of all of our troubles and trials, we can likewise “reign in life by Jesus Christ” if we will surrender to His grace.
The problem is much of the time we want to try to impress God with our works rather than depend on His work of grace.
Prayer: Lord Father we thank You for this time we’ve had together studying Your Word and we ask that You would make it fertile in our lives to do what You desire. Work in us what is well pleasing in Your sight through Jesus Christ. Lord, help us to depend ever more on Your grace.