“So the king and all the members of his royal court set out on foot” (2 Samuel 15:16a). This is Israel’s exodus from Egypt, but applied in reverse. It is the oppressive king that is fleeing, rather than the people. This is the king of Israel, who represents the people, going into exile, rather than leaving them to and in their promised land. David, whether directly or indirectly, through the situation that he created by not dealing with Amnon, and by not dealing with Absalom, is delivering the people that are loyal to him, into exile. Their march is not one of exodus, in power and glory, but rather, one of fear and shame. Not all of the members of the royal household left Jerusalem however, as “the king left behind ten concubines to attend to the palace” (15:16b). This becomes significant later on, as this allows for the fulfillment of a prophecy that had previously been given to David.
Like Israel, but again in reverse, “The king and all the people set out on foot, pausing at a spot some distance away” (15:17). This should cause us to reflect upon Israel’s flight from Egypt, in that they paused at the Red Sea, and then again, at the mountain of God. It should also serve as a contrast to what it is that is happening with the two events. Drawing attention to the fact that he knew that he was going into exile, “the king said to Ittai the Gittie, ‘Why should you come with us? Go back and stay with the new king, for you are a foreigner and an exile from your own country… Today should I make you wander around by going with us?’” (15:19,20b) David asks Ittai, who already lives in a state of exile, why he wants to continue in exile, and then uses the language of wandering, which present thoughts of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness after their faithless response to the call to enter the land of promise. Ittai, however, refused to leave David, saying “As surely as the Lord lives and as my lord the king lives, wherever my lord the king is, whether dead or alive, there I will be as well!” (15:21) Clearly, not all is lost for David. This response from Ittai seems to boost David’s spirits a bit. Perhaps he began to think that if this man would not forsake him, then perhaps the Lord had not completely forsaken him either.
We must take note of a startling fact. That fact is that the first mention of the Lord, related to David’s situation, in the midst of Absalom’s insurrection, comes from this foreigner Ittai, who is living in exile. It seems that David had forgotten about the Lord. To make the point, the author does not have David mentioning the Lord since the twenty-second verse of chapter twelve, in connection with the death of the first child that was born to he and Bathsheba. As we can be sure that these books of Samuel are both historical and theological treatises, this mention of the Lord by Ittai is quite striking. It seems to jar something within David.
After this reminder of the Lord, we learn that “All the land was weeping loudly as all these people were leaving. As the king was crossing over the Kidron valley, all the people were leaving on the road that leads to the desert” (15:23). This is understandable. Jerusalem, after all, is the capital of the country. Many that lived there would have served the king in official government positions. With David fleeing and a new king on the way, it would not be unreasonable for these people to believe themselves, at the least, as out of a job, and at the worst, as liable to be put to death by Absalom, so that he can appoint his own people into government positions---people that he can trust to be loyal to him and to serve him well. Along with that, “Zadok and all the Levites who were with him were carrying the Ark of the Covenant of God” (15:24a). For some reason, they were taking the Ark of the Covenant with them, as if somehow it was only David that could legitimate its presence there in Jerusalem, rather than the other way around, with the Ark serving to legitimate the rule of God’s people by its presence near the throne.
Does David get a sense of this? Did he realize that the Ark was being treated as a talisman and an idol? This had happened once before, during the time of the judges, when Hophni and Phinehas, the corrupt sons of Eli, brought the Ark into the presence of the Israelite army, as they were being threatened by and were fearful of the army of the Philistines. What happened to the Ark in that instance? It was captured by the Philistines. Israel fell to the Philistines in battle, Hophni and Phinehas were killed, Eli fell over and broke his neck when he heard the news of the Ark’s capture, and Phinehas’ wife gave birth to a son and named him Ichabod, saying that “The glory has departed from Israel, because the Ark of God has been captured” (1 Samuel 4:22). Understandably, David did not want to be on any side of that issue. He did not want to treat the Ark as an idol. He did not want to leave the people in a vulnerable position, without the presence of God, and thereby effectively in exile. He did not want to be thought of as somebody who had captured the Ark, and therefore caused the glory of the Lord to depart from Israel, nor did he want to experience the exile-like curses that came upon the Philistines because they presume to possess the Ark of the Covenant God. So “the king said to Zadok, ‘Take the Ark of God back to the city. If I find favor in the Lord’s sight He will bring me back and enable me to see both it and His dwelling place again. However, if He should say, “I do not take pleasure in you,” then He will deal with me in a way that He considers appropriate’.” (15:25-26) This represents a turning of the tide for David. Once he actively recognizes the Lord’s hand in all of these things, matters begin to turn out better for him and worse for Absalom.
No comments:
Post a Comment