We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
How do you respond to 2 Samuel 16:10?
David says of Shimei’s cursing him, “If he is cursing because the Lord said to him, ‘Curse David,’ who then shall say, ‘Why have you done so?’”
Some compatibilists cite this text to suggest that David regarded evil deeds, including cursing, as taking place in accordance with the sovereign will of God. If we accept this usage of this text, we should also accept David’s conclusion that nothing should be done about it (see How do you respond to Genesis 45:5, 50:20?). If this conclusion is unacceptable, so is the deterministic interpretation of this passage which gives rise to it.
In point of fact, this text does not support compatibilism. Abishai, who tended to have a hot temper (1 Sam. 26:8–9; 2 Sam. 3:30, 39), wanted to respond to Shimei’s cursing by killing him (v. 9). David rather “takes this moment of cursing to reflect on his position before God and his trust that it is God’s grace and not Abishai’s sword that can counter Shimei’s cursing.”* If God is in fact against David—if Shimei is speaking truth—killing Shimei will accomplish nothing. On the other hand, if God is on David’s side, killing Shimei is not necessary. David’s hope is that God is on his side and that his fortune would be reversed in the near future (v. 12). The text does not warrant the conclusion that God controls all cursing, and thus (thankfully) the implication that we should be passive in the face of evil.
Note
* L. Keck, ed. The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. II (Nashville, TN: Abindon, 1998), 1326.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Q&A, Responding to Calvinism
Topics: Providence, Predestination and Free Will, Responding to Objections
Verse: 2 Samuel 16
Related Reading
Isn’t Faith Inherently Irrational?
Is Faith Inherently Irrational? Many people seem to assume that faith is giving credence to things that don’t make much sense and for which there is little or no evidence. Take the doctrine of the Incarnation, for example. This is the traditional Christian teaching that Jesus is “fully God and fully human.” Now, to many…
How do you respond to Ruth 1:13?
Because her husband and two sons had died, Naomi says to her two daughter-in-laws (Ruth and Orpah), “[I]t has been far more bitter for me than for you, because the hand of the Lord has turned against me” (1:13, cf. vs. 20). Some compatibilists cite this passage to support the conclusion that all misfortune is…
How do you respond to Proverbs 16:4?
“The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.” Calvinists often cite this verse to support the conclusion that some people are created wicked for the expressed purpose of being sent to hell. Since Scripture teaches that God is love (1 John 4:8, 16), that God loves all…
What’s the signficance of Judges 10:6-17
The Israelites rebelled against Yahweh and worshipped other gods. As a result, Yahweh withdrew his protection of them and “sold them into the hands of te Philistines and the Ammonites” (Judg. 10:6-7). The Israelites eventually acknowledged their sin and cried out to God (vs. 10) but Yahweh, perhaps perceiving that their repentance wasn’t genuine, told…
Doesn’t Psalm 139:16 refute the open view of the future?
One of the passages most frequently cited in attempts to refute the open view of the future is Psalm 139:16. Here David says that God viewed him while he was being formed in the womb (vs. 15) and then adds: “[Y]our eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in…
What about the thief on the cross?
Question: You hold that most people who are saved will nevertheless have to go through a “purging fire” to have their character refined and fit for heaven. Whatever is unfinished in our “sanctification” in this epoch must be completed in the next. But how does this square with Jesus telling the thief on the cross,…