Absalom (part 17)

Absalom appears to be enjoying the Creator God’s favor upon his life and his kingship.  He has suffered in exile, and now he has been vindicated from that suffering.  He has been delivered to the kingship of the covenant people of the covenant God.  Much like Israel, it could be said that he had “taken the land.”  The demonstration of that ongoing Scriptural theme of exile and exodus has been well demonstrated, and above all things, it shows that he is not only now of kinship with Moses, but also Israel itself (from Egypt to the Promised Land), of Jacob (to Haran and back to Canaan), and Abraham (from Ur to Canaan, and from Egypt to Canaan).  It cannot be emphasized enough that he can consider himself to have been vindicated by his God, with evidence of such, following his long ordeal, that he is hailed as Israel’s king.  It must be further emphasized, quite strenuously, that his ascension to the throne (the completion of his personal exodus journey) has been accomplished without resort to military operations. 

As has been previously pointed out, he has not had to raise his hand against Israel’s anointed king.  The people can freely support him in good conscience, knowing full well that David appears to have abdicated willingly.  If indeed the Bathsheba/Uriah incident has been made public knowledge, which seems like a reasonable proposition because of Absalom’s actions with David’s concubines (wives) in sight of the people, that was meant to be a demonstration of the judgment pronounced against him by the Creator God through the prophet Nathan, then David’s peaceful abdication would have seemed altogether appropriate, with Absalom’s peaceful taking of power (in this context) completely understandable. 

Then, the unraveling begins.  Absalom quickly moves from the place of apparent favor and blessing of Israel’s God, with an implicit sanction of his kingship (because of his role in delivering prophesied and embarrassing judgment for David) with David slinking quietly away into the background, into the opposite situation.  Almost immediately upon becoming secure upon the throne, Absalom begins to see his station slipping from him.  To a point, he had been growing in favor with man (and apparently) with God, but this now turns.  Absalom starts to fall into the Creator God’s disfavor, and David begins to regain in favor. 

This can’t simply be because David had been anointed by God to replace Saul and lead the covenant people, as the Creator God is free to work through Absalom (according to the promise to David) to cause His people to be a light to the nations and to reflect His glory into the world, so there must be a signal reason why this takes place.  Did Absalom have his own Bathsheba situation?  Not as far as the Scriptures report.  Did he fail to execute justice as did David in the situation with Amnon and Tamar.  Again, not as far as is known.  So what was it?  Why is the Creator God’s blessing suddenly removed from him?  What is it that causes the people to slowly begin to turn from Absalom and reinstitute their support of David? 

The answer is found in the first few verses of the seventeenth chapter of the second book of Samuel.  What does this passage say?  There it is reported that, “Ahithophel said to Absalom, ‘Let me pick out twelve thousand men.  Then I will go and pursue David this very night.  When I catch up with him he will be exhausted and worn out.  I will rout him, and the entire army that is with him will flee.  I will kill only the king and will bring the entire army back to you.  In exchange for the life of the man you are seeking, you will get back everyone’.” (17:1-3a)  What was Absalom’s response to this?  In what should be a surprise, based on how things have gone and what has been accomplished to that point, it is said that “This seemed like a good idea to Absalom and to all the leaders of Israel” (17:4).  Though Absalom would also seek out further advice and eventually act upon advice contrary to what was offered by Ahithophel, the point is that this seemed like a good idea to Absalom. 

Absalom (part 15)

In the Deuteronomic curses, Moses informs the Creator God’s people that one of the curses that will come upon them for their failure to obey their God’s commands (of which David was certainly guilty) would be that “You will be engaged to a woman and another man will rape her” (Deuteronomy 28:30a).  This is not strictly analogous to what Nathan has told David, or to what it has been suggested that Absalom do, as neither this God’s threat through Nathan nor Ahithophel’s suggestion to Absalom carries with it (at least on the surface) the connotation of violence or force, but it can probably be thought of as being connected closely enough to drive home the point to David that he has violated his God’s commands. 

Additionally, Ahithophel apparently sees a close enough connection in that it will play well into Absalom’s ongoing effort to show himself as a true deliverer in the mold of Moses, thereby allowing Absalom to continue co-opting the most powerful story of Israel’s history for his own purposes.  Furthermore, it adds to Absalom’s claim to be a just man and the one that is used by the covenant God to deliver justice to Israel.  This is especially and strikingly so if Absalom is the means by which the prophecy (judgment) related to cursing that had been delivered to David by Nathan is fulfilled. 

This merely cements the notion that David is no longer fit to be king, while also pointing to the fact that the story of Bathsheba and David, and the oppression and injustice that the story entails, has been made known in Israel.  If it has not, then there is no real point in Absalom engaging in sexual relations with his father’s concubines, unless it is also being used to indicate that just as David has forsaken these wives of his, that he has also forsaken his care of the people of Israel as well. 

The second part of Ahithophel’s response to the request to provide advice to Absalom is to say that “All Israel will hear that you have made yourself repulsive to your father.  Then your followers will be motivated to support you” (2 Samuel 16:21b).  Yes, Ahithophel suggests that this will be viewed by the people as Absalom being willing to be cursed by his very own father, if it indeed means justice for Israel.  This is powerful symbolism.  Absalom will be seen to be willing to bear that pain and shame on behalf of the people, with this becoming a messianic role.  In a society based upon honor and shame, this is a calculated move (though also prophetically fulfilling) to win further sympathy from the people. 

Does this aid Absalom in his desire to be seen as Moses?  Absolutely!  Moses was willing to forsake his father’s (Pharoah’s) house so as to identify himself with the people suffering under the oppression of the king.  Thinking beyond that however, this might also be an attempt to entice David to retaliate against Absalom, who up to this point has not lifted up his hand (nor asked anybody else to lift up their hand) against his father. 

David has left willfully.   He has abandoned his throne and fled from Jerusalem and Absalom has peacefully entered to take that throne.  There has been no bloodshed, violence, or loss of life (except Amnon many years prior, but that has only tangential bearing on the events at hand at that time).  If David now turns and raises sword and spear against Absalom and his supporters, then David is most certainly to be likened to Pharaoh, who allowed Israel to depart from Egypt and from his oppression peacefully, but then had a change of heart and set out to recover the Israelites (and his power) by violent means.    

Absalom (part 10)

“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 leading them to and then 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 a reflection 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.  H 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 God of Israel had not completely forsaken him either. 

One must take note of a startling fact.  That fact is that the first mention of the Lord God of Israel in relation to David’s situation and in the midst of Absalom’s insurrection, comes from this foreigner Ittai who is living in exile.  It seems that David had forgotten about his Lord.  To make the point, the author does not have David mentioning his Lord since the twenty-second verse of chapter twelve, as he does so in connection with the death of the child that was born to he and Bathsheba.  As one can be sure that these books of Samuel are both historical and theological treatises, this mention of Israel’s God by Ittai is quite striking.  It seems to jar something within David. 

After this reminder of the Lord, it is said 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 the Creator God’s people by its presence near the throne. 

Absalom (part 8)

In the case of both Saul and David, the case could be made that both were attractive in appearance, but it was not their physical appearance that drew the people to them, but rather their leadership.  A grave injustice is done to the people of Israel in Absalom’s day when they are treated as creatures of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, who are bombarded with images of beauty on a daily basis and asked to follow the leadership (in various areas of concern) of those that are thought of as “the beautiful people”.  Absalom’s culture was not one of mass media.  Indeed, one can imagine that Absalom would have been unknown, by appearance, to the majority of the people over which he desired to rule. 

With that said, there must have been something far more substantial to Absalom’s position and to his claims that would enable him to win the allegiance of so many within Israel.  An appeal to their history, set against the possibilities of sharing in either the blessing or cursing of their God, and presented within the context of Israel’s great story of redemption from Egyptian bondage---if Absalom could successfully make the desired exile and exodus connections in the hearts and minds of the people---would have a powerful effect within the nation.  An additional benefit is that this would enable a revolution that could consist of very little bloodshed, with their God acting on behalf of them and their new leader, just as He had done against Egypt and Pharaoh.   

Moving forward then to David’s response to Absalom’s proclamation as king at Hebron, it is interesting to look at it in the light which has been created for it by Absalom, while also looking at it from the perspective of the God that had anointed David as king over His people.  Immediately after learning that the people were siding with Absalom, it is said that “a messenger came to David and reported, ‘The men of Israel are loyal to Absalom!” (2 Samuel 15:13)  What is David’s response to this news?  Does he assert that he is king?  Does he attempt to derail the coup that is taking place?  Not at all.  Rather, “David said to all his servants who were with him in Jerusalem, ‘Come on!  Let’s escape!  Otherwise no one will be delivered from Absalom!’” (15:14a)  This would play nicely into the narrative that Absalom is attempting to both build upon and create.  His father, when challenged, flees. 

This would be a clear sign to Absalom’s supporters that the protective and supporting hand of Israel’s God had been removed from David and was being transferred to Absalom, though he, unlike Saul and David (and every other previous leader of Israel since Moses) had not been anointed to the position of king.  Absalom could point to this response and make the point that exile was coming to David.  This would have been poetic justice for Absalom, in that it was he who was previously forced to flee from Jerusalem.  At the same time though, it should not be forgotten that his flight was not altogether unfortunate, as his being able to tell a story which included fleeing must have been quite important in his gaining influence and favor with the people. 

David is clearly fearful.  Perhaps he too feels that rule is being stripped from him, as the Bathsheba incident would certainly have never been far from his mind.  Indeed, if Saul had been rejected as king for not following out the Creator God’s orders and executing all of the Amalekites (along with their animals), then should David be surprised if he ultimately comes to be rejected as king because of his oppressive and high-handed actions against Uriah?  Yes, the prophet Nathan had informed David that God had forgiven him and that he would not die as a result of what he had done, but nothing had been said about his own kingship in that incident.  He had received the promise that the Lord God of Israel would build him a dynastic house (7:11), but that was before he had Uriah murdered.  Besides, Absalom was his very own son, so the Creator God could very well be faithful to His promise in that regard by showing favor to Absalom and removing David as king. 

Absalom (part 7)

It would not be difficult to imagine that, along with the telling of his own story of what he considered to be poor treatment at the hands of his father, that Absalom also “went public” with the Bathsheba incident in order to continue the efforts towards painting his father as an oppressive ruler in the mold of a Pharaoh that needed to be defeated by Israel’s God, doing so through the agency of another Moses. 

After receiving the approval of his father to go to Hebron to offer the aforementioned sacrifice, “Absalom sent spies through all the tribes of Israel” (2 Samuel 15:10a).   Here again there is another allusion to Moses and the exodus of Israel, in that Moses sent spies into the promised land.  Yes, it has become readily apparent that Absalom wanted to be seen as a great deliverer within Israel, raised up by their God to liberate from oppression and servitude.  This sending of spies would play very well into the narrative that he was attempting to create.  Not only that, but this sending of spies might also very well cause the people to remember the other famous sending of spies, which would have been to Jericho before that city was defeated.  This, of course, would invoke thoughts of Israel’s great general Joshua, and the people’s actual entering into and conquering of the promised land under his leadership. 

Remember, Absalom has been quite patient.  It has been at least four years since his coming before the king, at least six years since his return to Jerusalem, at least nine years since his flight to Geshur, and at least eleven years since his brother raped his sister.  With such a patient demeanor on display, without a doubt he must also have been considered as an astute observer of the people and of Israel’s history. 

His time spent at the gates, as he was gaining the respect of the people, would have put him in a position to ascertain what types of symbols and symbolism would resonate with the people when the time came for him to lead another exodus of sorts.  If such was his mindset, then part of his interaction with the people---if he was indeed positioning himself as a Moses/Joshua type of leader, with his increasingly out-of-touch father as a new Pharaoh---would have been an insistence that, under David, Israel was in something of another exile (or at least heading that way), with all of the curses of exile that would be sure to follow if the people failed to rally around him and support his leadership, while encouraging others to do the same.  So the spies were sent through the land and instructed “When you hear the sound of the horn, you may assume that Absalom rules in Hebron” (15:10b). 

The breadth of Absalom’s influence is further demonstrated in that he “sent for Ahithophel the Gileonite, David’s adviser, to come from his city, Giloh” (15:12b).  Ahithophel was a highly respected adviser to David, and if he has been convinced that Absalom is the one to follow, then one can well understand the words that followed, which report that “The conspiracy was gaining momentum, and the people were starting to side with Absalom” (15:12c). 

What was it about Absalom that attracted the people to him and away from David?  Was it because “in all Israel everyone acknowledged that there was no man as handsome as Absalom,” and that “From the sole of his feet to the top of his head he was perfect in appearance” (14:25)?  While this is an “attractive” option, it is unlikely.  David himself, when first introduced into the Scriptural narrative, is said to have “attractive eyes and a handsome appearance” (1 Samuel 16:12b).  When Saul is introduced as king of Israel, he is described as standing “head and shoulders above them all” (1 Samuel 10:23b).  Further, Samuel says, “Do you see the one whom the Lord has chosen?  Indeed, there is no one like him among all the people!” (10:24b)  

Solomon's Early Struggles (part 2 of 2)

Effectively, Abishag becomes one of David’s concubines, and this is the woman that is being requested by Adonijah.  Bathsheba sees no harm in this, so she passes the request on to her son.  Solomon, somewhat surprisingly, responds by saying “Why just request Abishag the Shunamite for him?  Since he is my older brother, you should also request the kingdom for him” (2:22a).  Solomon goes on to say, “May God judge me severely, if Adonijah does not pay for this request with his life!  Now as certainly as the Lord lives… Adonijah will be executed today!” (2:24a,c)  This can be looked at in at least two ways.  The first way is to see it as Adonijah’s attempt to again partially emulate Absalom (who had sex with ten of his father’s concubines as part of his securing himself as king and reminding the people of his father’s shameful act and the prophecy of Nathan that Absalom fulfilled by this act), as part of his ongoing schemes to gain the throne.  Such thinking is supported by Adonijah’s prefacing his request with “You know that the kingdom was mine and all Israel considered me king.  But then the kingdom was given to my brother, for the Lord decided it should be his” (2:15).  Taking Abishag for himself could possibly give the appearance of Davidic sanction of kingship for Adonijah. 

On the other hand, this can be looked at as a bit of a black mark on Solomon’s early reign, with him following in the not-so-glorious footsteps of his father, and not initially trusting in the faithful and exodus-providing (rescue and deliverance from enemies, both real and potential) God, by seizing upon a relatively harmless request (the request for a beautiful, young virgin that was part of David’s royal harem) as the grounds to carry out a politically calculated execution that would remove a potential challenger to the throne and serve as a warning to the rest of David’s sons that any uprising would not be tolerated, and would be punished severely. 

For good measure, Solomon takes the additional steps of removing Abiathar as priest, while also having Joab executed.  This is another overtly political calculation, as both had supported Adonijah, and because Joab commanded the allegiance of the army.  In his dealings with Joab, Solomon is merely carrying out the dying wishes of his father, who justifies the need to execute Joab by recounting that “he murdered two commanders of the Israelite armies” (2:5b).  David told Solomon that Joab, during peacetime, “struck them down like he would in battle; when he shed their blood as if in battle,” and that by this, “he stained his own belt and the sandals on his feet” (2:5c).  Owing to this, therefore, Solomon is instructed to “Do to him what you think is appropriate, but don’t let him live long and die a peaceful death” (2:6).  How terribly ironic these words must be seen to be as they come from David, who had used Joab as his instrument to murder Uriah, and had used the Gibeonites, during a time of peace and under the pretext of a famine, to murder seven sons and grandsons of Saul.  Solomon is commencing his exodus (entrance into God’s purposes for him) by delivering exile to those that could be perceived as able to thwart those purposes.  He is eliminating potentially subjugating powers.        

Now, we do not want to be too down on Solomon, just as we do not want to be too down on David.  Both were men prone to corruption and failures, as evidenced by the Biblical record that is unflinching and unswerving in its criticism of those that find themselves deserving of such.  We can however, lay bare the lives of both, but the faithful God of Israel is not diminished in the least.  With our first look into the life of Solomon, we find him following what would seem to be the less-than-noble path that had been previously traveled by his father.  Any examination of Solomon would, of necessity, include an examination of the idolatrous, exile generating practices into which he would fall.  However, what we will also find is that Israel’s God, viewed through the life of Solomon, continues to stand undiminished.  To quote the Apostle Paul, albeit slightly out of context as we consider the lives of men that God raised up and anointed, but who often failed and fell, we say “What then?  If some did not believe, does their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God?  Absolutely not!” (Romans 3:3-4a)  God’s redemptive plan, of rescue and deliverance for His image-bearers and His creation, will continue its inexorable and indefatigable march towards its consummating eschatological climax! 

So quickly looking again at Solomon, so as to “rescue” him from consignment to the realm of politically calculating tyrants, we can revisit our analysis of what Solomon had actually undertaken in the executions that he had ordered near the commencement of his reign.  We decided that Solomon began his journey on to the exodus path of God’s purposes for him, and for Israel through his leadership, by bringing about a state of exile (death) for those that might be able to thwart the purposes that had been determined by God; and that he took it upon himself to eliminate those that were potential rivals to his power that could either subjugate him, or alternately, lead God’s people down a path not purposed by the Lord, which could then lead to their subjugation.  Solomon’s “rescue” is accomplished by our acknowledging that in this area, Solomon becomes something of a mimicking forerunner of Jesus.  No, Jesus did not put his political opponents to death, but rather, dealt with the power that stood behind any and all opposition to His purposes (and the purposes of God---recognizing that Jesus, as Messiah, was the embodiment of the Creator God).  That power to which Jesus delivered exile, to which He stood up to eliminate, to which He would not be subject, to which He would ultimately not allow God’s people to be subject, was death itself. 

Solomon's Early Struggles (part 1 of 2)

As first Kings commences, we read that “Adonijah, son of David and Haggith, was promoting himself, boasting, ‘I will be king!’” (1 Kings 1:5a)  Along with this, he attempted to partially emulate Absalom’s eminently successful approach to taking the throne, as “He managed to acquire chariots and horsemen, as well as fifty men to serve as his royal guard” (1:5b).  Additionally, “He collaborated with Joab… and with Abiathar the priest, and they supported him” (1:7), which is also reminiscent of Absalom’s efforts.  Though there are parallels here, they are slight, as Adonijah is merely taking advantage of his father’s age and deteriorating condition, rather than pointing out the injustices (and therefore the increasingly illegitimate and possibly exile inducing rule) of his father, as had Absalom.  Adonijah, though seizing upon the covenantal promise to David, is not doing so within the exile and exodus narrative, and therefore his efforts, unlike Absalom’s, with had actually served to secure the throne in what temporarily appeared to be within the will of God (until he agreed to raise his hand against David after God had already clearly vindicated him), proved to be futile. 

Like both Absalom and Adonijah, we will find that Solomon also relied upon the promise that Israel’s God is reported to have made to David, expecting his kingship to be established, strengthened, and extended, based upon that promise and a record of divine faithfulness.  This extended beyond Solomon himself, as in the midst of the power struggle that commenced with Adonijah’s attempt to establish himself as king, we hear David speaking to Bathsheba (Solomon’s mother), saying “I will keep the oath I swore to you by the Lord God of Israel: ‘Surely Solomon your son will be king after me; he will sit in my place on the throne.’” (1:30)  Now Scripturally, this is the first we are hearing of this promise concerning Solomon as king, though its recitation here seems to signify that it is supposed to be relatively well known.  If it is known, then it serves to explain Adonijah’s efforts to elevate himself as king in the eyes of the people before David’s death and the natural handing over of the throne that would take place at that point.  Up until now, all we know of Solomon is that “the Lord loved the child” (2 Samuel 12:24), which does not provide any direct indication that he is to be king, unless we connect this statement with the promise to David and the “loyal love” of the Lord in connection with the permanent dynasty that God is establishing through David and his sons.

Adonijah, as he is seeking something of an exodus for himself (in a very loose analogy), eventually receives exile for his troubles.  David summons the appropriate individuals and tells them to “Take your master’s servants with you, put my Solomon on my mule, and lead him down to Gihon.  There Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet will anoint him king over Israel; then blow the trumpet and declare, ‘Long live King Solomon!’  Then follow him up as he comes and sits on my throne.  He will be king in my place; I have decreed that he will be ruler over Israel and Judah” (1 Kings 1:33-35).  This directive is carried out, generating quite the great stir.  Adonijah hears about what has happened and quite rightly fears for his life.  He had not won the hearts of the people as Absalom did, knowing full well that the vast majority of the people were going to follow in the direction in which they were led by David.  The result was that “Adonijah feared Solomon, so he got up and went and grabbed hold of the horns of the altar” (1:50), which was an established method of pleading for mercy. 

Solomon’s response to the plea to which Adonijah gave voice while also signifying with his actions, was “If he is a loyal subject, not a hair of his head will be harmed, but if he found to be a traitor, he will die” (1:52).  This was reported to Adonijah, so “He came and bowed down to King Solomon” (1:53b).  Now, the exile that would come to Adonijah would be the ultimate exile of death at the hands (figuratively speaking) of Solomon.  The proximate cause of his death was a request by Adonijah, to Solomon, that was relayed to Solomon by Bathsheba.  That request was “Please ask King Solomon if he would give me Abishag the Shunamite as a wife, for he won’t refuse you” (2:17).  Abishag came onto the Scriptural scene when David, though covered with blankets, could not get warm (1:1).  To rectify this situation, it was decided that “A young virgin must be found for our master, the king, to take care of the king’s needs and serve as his nurse” (1:2a).  It was said to David that “She can also sleep with you and keep our master, the king, warm” (1:2b).  This resulted in Abishag being brought to David.  We learn that “The young woman was very beautiful; she became the king’s nurse and served him, but the king did not have sexual relations with her” (1:4). 

Upsetting The Lord (part 1 of 2)

The life of David most certainly has positives and negatives.  The low-light for King David comes when he had sent out Joab and the army to do battle with and ultimately defeat the Ammonites.  It is then that David enters in to his adulterous affair with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, who was one of David’s trusted servants and soldiers.  The story is familiar, so it needs only a brief recapitulation before we examine it in relation to our overall project so as to connect it with exile and exodus and the all-encompassing faithfulness of God. 

David does not go out to battle, but rather, stays back in Jerusalem.  There, he sees Bathsheba and determines that he must have her for himself, at least temporarily.  He summons her to him during her period of ovulation (of which she is well aware), they engage in intimate activity, she returns home, she finds that she is pregnant, and she sends words of such to David.  So as to cover up his regrettable actions, and perhaps also to spare Bathsheba from the shame of accusations of harlotry, David summons her husband home from the battle, so that he and his wife might engage in the activity in which married couples generally engage after long periods of separation from each other.  Naturally, this would then be able to account for her pregnancy.  As we know, Uriah, strangely enough (though he does offer up what appear to be legitimate and honorable reasons) did not act as David expected, even after David’s repeated attempts to get him to do so.  At this point, David feels as if he has no choice but to make arrangements to have Uriah killed in battle, which is precisely what occurs. 

After Bathsheba goes through a requisite period of grieving for her husband “David had her brought to his palace.  She became his wife and she bore him a son” (2 Samuel 11:27b).  Now, even though we are informed that Uriah had “not gone down to his house” (11:10b), and that, rather, “in the evening he went out to sleep on his bed with the servants of his lord” (11:13b), we could posit the possibility of a relative disbelief amongst anybody that knew that he had returned to Jerusalem, that he did not engage in any type of sexual relations with his wife.  After all, his house was near David’s residence.  Furthermore, the fact that his wife was pregnant would have been clear evidence to a relatively disengaged and disinterested observer that he had in fact visited her.  So when he is killed, Bathsheba now gains sympathy from the surrounding community, rather than scorn and shame.  David, by taking the pregnant widow of a deceased warrior into his royal harem, is viewed by the people as something of a savior for Bathsheba and her child, as well as being the king who desires to honor the fallen dead.  The epithet to this marriage, however, is that “what David had done had upset the Lord” (11:27c). 

Such an interesting statement.  David “had upset the Lord.”  What was it that upset the Lord?  As we glance through the Biblical record, what do we find in David’s behavior that would have upset the Lord?  Was it not going out to battle?  Lust?  Adultery?  Betrayal?  Pre-mediated murder?  As the story is presented, we have quite the list from which to choose.  Beyond the surface of the text, there is, quite possibly, pride and hubris on the part of David, as he may very well have enjoyed a bit of basking in the adulation of his people, through taking in the pregnant widow and offering to raise the son of his servant as the son of the king.  So what upset the Lord?  Naturally, it was all of those things.  More importantly though, it was what all of those things represented, which was oppression and injustice. 

When the prophet Nathan comes to David, he tells him a story of a rich man and a poor man.  The rich man had a great many flocks and herds, while the poor man had only a single lamb, for which he provided a tender and loving care.  Nathan goes on to tell David a story of oppression, in which the rich man, in need of food to provide hospitality to a visitor, takes the one and only lamb of the poor man, and provides it as food to his guest.  David, as he had been in the case of the abusive treatment of his men at the hands of the king of Ammon, is rightly indignant.  He expresses outrage at this act of oppression and exclaims “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this deserves to die!” (12:5)  David referred to the actions of the rich man in the story as a “cold-hearted crime” (12:6).  Nathan responds to this correct and insightful declaration by the king by informing him that “You are that man!” (12:7b). 

Following this assertion, Nathan recounts God’s faithful actions towards David, beginning with his being chosen as king (evocative of Israel’s being chosen by God), and his rescue from Saul (evocative of Israel’s rescue from Egypt).  To that, Nathan adds talk of David being given his master’s house and wives and the “house of Israel and Judah” (12:8).  This is not at all dissimilar to what the Lord had done for Israel as a whole, bringing them into the promised land, with fields that they did not plant, and houses that they did not build.  What’s more, says Nathan, as we are clearly now ensconced in a mindful polemic against Israel for which David is a proxy (though he is most assuredly guilty), “And if all that somehow seems insignificant, I would have given you so much more as well!  Why have you shown contempt for the word of the Lord by doing evil in My sight?” (12:8b-9a)  Yes, this is what God effectively asks of Israel, as this is the story of Israel, as they waver between exile and exodus, inexplicably choosing exile and its curses over exodus and its blessings on a regular basis.  This story is now being embodied by David, which is appropriate, as the king of Israel does stand as the representative for the people.  David is choosing the path of exile.  Though he is embodying the larger story of Israel, he is also embodying Egypt, the oppressor of God’s people.  Though we are dealing with a specific instance related to a specific individual, we are being reminded of the grand framework and plan of God.