Absalom (part 13)

The only blood that was shed throughout the entirety of the time in which the plagues of Egypt ran their course was that of the lambs that were shed on behalf of the households of Israel.  The only bloodshed that preceded deliverance and exodus was that of sacrifice.  What bloodshed can be seen in the run-up to Absalom’s insurrection?  Only that of sacrifice---when Absalom offered sacrifices in Hebron (2 Samuel 15:12).  Quite rightly, if one desires to take a step here to make a connection to Jesus, Jesus could have spoken to a people that considered themselves to be a people in exile, under oppression, and reminded them that their God delivered their nation and gave them exodus without the people having to rise up in rebellion in order to cast off that yoke.   

Following the death of the firstborn in Egypt, Pharaoh sent Israel out of the land.  Their exodus was begun through the intervention of the Creator God alone.  Israel did not have to resort to the force of arms for even a single moment.  Neither did Absalom.  David departed from Jerusalem, going into exile much like Pharaoh, his army, and the land of Egypt (which was soon to be over-run by the Amalekites), and Absalom entered into Jerusalem without having to physically raise his hand against his father (15:37). 

Absalom could use this fact to point out that yes, Israel’s God was showing favor upon him, and by extension showing favor to Israel---delivering a kingdom into his hand.  This could have been used as evidence that he had, in fact, been raised up like Moses, and that David had been deposed from the position of power, much like Pharaoh.  Beyond that, Absalom could make it very clear that he did not lift up his hand against the Lord’s anointed, following the noble example that had been set by his previously non-oppressive father, who, when given the opportunity to act otherwise, had refrained from striking out against Saul. 

Back to David and back to his exilic experience, this study meets up with him as he “reached  Bahurim” (16:5).  “There a man from Saul’s extended family named Shimei son of Gera came out, yelling curses as he approached.  He threw stones at David and all of King David’s servants, as well as all the people and the soldiers who were on his right and left.  As he yelled curses, Shimei said, “Leave!  Leave!  You  man of bloodshed, you wicked man!  The Lord has punished you for all the spilled blood of the house of Saul, in whose place you rule.  Now the Lord has given the kingdom into the hand of your son Absalom.  Disaster has overtaken you, for you are a man of bloodshed!’” (16:5b-8) 

Those that were with David, quite understandably, did not appreciate being cursed at and having stones thrown at them.  One of them, Abishai, who was ever the loyal fellow, said “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king?  Let me go over and cut off his head!” (16:9b)  Not only did David not allow him to do this, he said “If he curses because the Lord has said to him, ‘Curse David!’, who can say to him, ‘Why have you done this?’” (16:10b)  To that David added, “Leave him alone so that he can curse, for the Lord has spoken to him.  Perhaps the Lord will notice my affliction and this day grant me good in place of his curse” (16:11b-12).  With his final remark, and its mention of affliction, the reader is offered a small glimpse of David’s insight into this exile. 

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)  

Absalom (part 6)

David, it would seem, could not muster such feelings towards Absalom.  David was not this kind of father.  Perhaps Absalom hoped he could be so?  “When someone approached to bow before him” (2 Samuel 15:5a), he did not treat that person as his own father had rather disdainfully treated him, without acknowledging the righteous behavior of his son that had prompted the exile that had now been brought to something like exodus. 

Rather, “Absalom would extend his hand and embrace him and kiss him” (15:5b), no doubt recounting the tale of his appearance before the king, the lack of the extension of a loving and compassionate hand, and the absence of a loving embrace.  Without those things, the kiss could be positioned as little more than an insult---a customary and expected greeting that one might even offer to an enemy, if that enemy ever happened to reach the place of bowing. 

“Absalom acted this way toward everyone in Israel who came to the king for justice” (15:6a).  They were coming to the king for justice and Absalom made sure that they received so much more.  He gave them himself.  “In this way Absalom won the loyalty of the citizens of Israel” (15:6b).  They were going over to the side of the son that had been exiled simply because he had attempted to defend his sister’s honor (within an honor and shame society) by punishing an evildoer. 

Yes, Absalom was even willing to raise his hand against his own brother in the defense of righteousness and in response to shameful acts.  In the eyes of the people, that was probably to his credit.  Accordingly, he was going to be their Moses, who had been raised in the royal house of Egypt but was willing to take an Egyptian life if necessary.  Just as Moses had killed for the sake of the honor of his countrymen and was forced to flee to the wilderness, so too had Absalom acted, at least it could be seen as such in the eyes of the people that were becomingly increasingly loyal to him. 

It is possible that the people of Israel were coming to believe in his exile, Absalom had obviously met Israel’s God, and the people experienced the obvious result of his meeting of their God when they experienced his warmth, his handshake, his embrace, and his kiss.  His return to Jerusalem was a mirror of Moses’ return to Egypt, and accordingly he was there to lead the people of the Creator God.  To this end, for Absalom and his supporters, David had become the new Pharaoh---oppressing the people of God just as he had oppressed his very own son---and he was rightfully going to be removed from his place of authority. 

As before, Absalom was patient.  He had waited two years from the rape of his sister before acting on her behalf.  He had spent three years living apart from his people, in Geshur.  He had spent two years in Jerusalem, living apart from the face of the king.  “After four years” of winning the loyalty of the people “Absalom said to the king, ‘Let me go and repay my vow that I made to the Lord while I was in Hebron.  For I made this vow when I was living in Geshur in Aram: “If the Lord really does allow me to return to Jerusalem, I will serve the Lord”’” (15:7-8). 

One cannot help but notice the similarities to Moses’ encounter with Pharaoh.  Moses, upon his return to Egypt from a long time of exile (remembering that in the case of Absalom it has now been eleven years since Tamar was raped, which was the catalyst to all of these events), went to Pharaoh and spoke to him of letting Israel go into the wilderness to make a sacrifice to the Lord.  How does David respond to a similar plea from Absalom?  “The king replied to him, ‘Go in peace.’  So Absalom got up and went to Hebron” (15:9). 

Can the Moses/Pharaoh analogy be here continued?  Absolutely it can, as it was when Pharaoh’s power had been completely broken that he eventually gave the command for Israel to go up out of the land to sacrifice.  Absalom, if he was indeed positioning himself as a new Moses and casting his father in the position of Pharaoh (and ruling the Creator God’s people unjustly), would use this to further his ongoing campaign to cement the validity of his own leadership in the eyes of the people. 

He had been enduring his father’s disdainful treatment long enough.  He had spent years gaining the hearts of the people.  This has all been well-calculated.  He had built his grassroots support and his coup was effectively rooted in the grand story of Israel’s flight from Egypt and their God’s conquering of those that had become enemies of the people of the Creator God.  Yes, Absalom was attempting to lead his own exodus, and with his departure to Hebron, the place where his father had initially been crowned and ruled, that effort had now begun.   

Movement (part 3 of 3)

In the twenty-third chapter of Genesis, we have the record of the death of Sarah, wife of Abraham.  She dies in Hebron, and it is there that Abraham desires to bury her.  So the man that bears the covenant promise of the Creator God---the one that is to exemplify divine blessing---speaks to the men of the area, and in the process of asking for a place in which he can bury his departed wife, says “I am a temporary settler among you” (23:4a).  Though he considered himself to be a temporary settler, the response of the men reveals that they considered him to be so much more---“a mighty prince among us!” (23:6a)  Abraham, the man that God tasked for the purpose of bringing Him glory, did not need anything remotely resembling a permanent dwelling place to gain this reputation and this honor.  Does this tell us anything in relation to David and Solomon and the construction of the Temple of Jerusalem?  Does this shed any light on God’s words to David about building a temple for Him: “Do you really intend to build a house for Me to live in?  I have not lived in a house from the time I brought the Israelites up from Egypt to the present day.  Instead, I was traveling with them and living in a tent.  Wherever I moved among all the Israelites, I did not say to any of the leaders whom I appointed to care for My people Israel, ‘Why have you not built Me a house made from cedar?’” (2 Samuel 7:5b-7)  We go on.   

In the following chapter, Abraham is concerned with finding a wife for his son, Isaac.  To accomplish this, he sends his chief servant to “my country and to my relatives to find a wife for my son” (24:4).  Abraham does not go there himself.  Is this because he is “old, well advanced in years” (24:1a)?  Not likely.  Rather, it is more likely the case that he himself is not going to go there because Abraham is not going to return to the place from where he had been exodus-ed by the Lord.  Because it seems that we are asked to understand and view the Bible (that by which we are led into the knowledge of God) through the prism of Israel’s Egyptian exodus and the events by which the exodus is surrounded (as Israel was constantly asked to understand their God’s dealings with them through the same prism), there is an equation to be made. 

In the wilderness, before they achieved the fulfillment of the blessing of their land of promise, the desire to return to Egypt was a sign of Israel’s distrust in the covenant faithfulness of the God Who had provided their miraculous deliverance.  So a return by Abraham to his homeland could be construed, in that light, as a breach of trust in the Lord.  This is especially so as the story of Abraham is told as part of the story of Israel---a story dominated by the history of their exodus and of a God that consistently defines Himself by that series of events.  When it came to the issue of whether or not Isaac should go to Abraham’s homeland, Abraham is even more adamant, saying “Be careful never to take my son back there… you must not take my son back there!” (24:6a,8b)  This probably takes us a bit off track, and it may be stretching the analogy a bit, but much later in the history of Israel, during the period of time that saw Judah threatened by the Babylonians (as God delivered the curses that He promised in connection with His people’s idolatry---Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28), there was a movement amongst some of the people to take refuge in Egypt.  How did the Lord respond to this?  What was God’s reaction to the idea that His people could somehow save themselves by running to the land in which their God had put His power on display, so as to find protection and refuge there?  The Lord says, “I will see to it that all the Judean remnant that was determined to go and live in the land of Egypt will be destroyed” (Jeremiah 44:12a). 

Why such a strong response?  There were a number of reasons, not the least of which was their engagement in idolatry both before and during their time in Egypt, but because Israel (and Judah) defined themselves by their deliverance from Egypt and the power of their covenant God in connection with that deliverance from Egypt, does not their running to Egypt so as to gain protection from Babylon not make a mockery of that same God?  It was not as if they were going down into Egypt so that they could groan out to God and implore God to re-enact the events of the exodus.  There, they sought the favor of the gods of Egypt, turning their backs on their God of covenant. 

Naturally, when it comes to the Gospel record of Jesus’ flight into Egypt in the arms of His parents, we have an entirely different situation.  For Jesus, it actually does become something of a re-enactment of Israel’s exodus---He goes into Egypt, exits that land to return to Israel, is baptized in the Jordan (equivalent to Israel’s sea crossing), goes into the wilderness for a period of time, and then embarks on His mission of establishing the kingdom of God.  As it relates to Isaac, and according to the Scriptural pattern (remembering that Genesis is presumed to have been at least partially composed by Moses following the exodus) we can understand Abraham’s emphatic insistence that he not be allowed to go to Abraham’s homeland.  Perhaps more importantly, what we see take place is God bringing a wife to Isaac from out of that place to which Isaac was not allowed to go.  Isaac’s wife, Rebekah, experiences her own exodus.  The one that will give birth to Esau and Jacob (Israel) is moved out and moved along (fitting the Scriptural pattern), wooed by the riches that have come to Abraham (and by inheritance to Isaac) according to the covenant promises of the Lord of heaven and earth.              

Establishing His Rule

As he reigns as king In Hebron (over Judah) before being king over all of Israel, it is there that David begins to experience the reversal of his exile, as “sons were born to David in Hebron” (2 Samuel 3:2a), with the blessings of children representing the blessings of God for faithfulness to His commandments and covenant obligations.  At the same time, David’s enemies began turning towards him, as Abner (Saul’s general), insulted by Ishbosheth (Saul’s son), looks favorably towards David in recognition of the promises of God upon David’s life, telling Ishbosheth, “God will severely judge Abner if I do not do for David exactly what the Lord has promised him, namely, to transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul and to establish the throne of David over Israel and over Judah” (3:9-10a).  Abner, sensing the growing strength of the house of David, did not want to share in the exile that was surely coming to Ishbosheth, instead wanting to participate in David’s exodus, as the Lord firmly entrenched him as king over all of the land of Israel and over all of the people of God.  Furthermore, “Abner sent messengers to David saying, ‘To whom does the land belong?  Make an agreement with me, and I will do whatever I can to cause all Israel to turn to you’.” (3:12)  Naturally, David, responding to Abner’s reminder of the promises given to him when he was anointed as king, is favorably inclined to Abner, striking an agreement with him. 

Abner does not stop there.  He goes on to offer counsel to the elders of Israel, saying “Previously you were wanting David to be your king.  Act now!  For the Lord has said to David, ‘By the hand of my servant David I will save My people from the Philistines and from all their enemies’.” (3:17b-18)  With these words, Abner firmly inserts himself in the overall Biblical narrative, utilizing the words of exile and exodus, of rescue from foreign subjugation, and of deliverance from enemies in connection with David’s being established as king over all of Israel.  With these words, Abner, before the elders of Israel (as if David needed assistance from man in his being elevated), raises David to the status of Moses, causing both his listeners and us to hear the voice of God appointing first Moses and every subsequent appointed leader of Israel, as deliverers for their people and combatants of oppression. 

Moving forward a bit, eventually we come to read that “All the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron saying, ‘Look, we are your very flesh and blood!  In the past, when Saul was our king, you were the real leader in Israel.  The Lord said to you, “You will shepherd My people Israel; you will rule over Israel.”’” (5:1-2)  Whether or not this was born of sincerity, is left to debate.  Nevertheless, David is finally acclaimed by all of Israel as the one who is to be their king and leader and shepherd, and the one who will lead them against their enemies, to rescue them from subjugation.  We go on to read, “When all the leaders of Israel came to the king at Hebron, King David made an agreement with them in Hebron before the Lord.  They designated David as king over Israel” (5:3).  It is here that the author makes the point to mention that David was thirty years old when he began to reign (5:4), and the fact that Jesus was thought to have been the same age when He began His ministry is not lost upon us. 

Having been acclaimed as king, “the king and his men advanced to Jerusalem against the Jebusites who lived in the land” (5:6).  These were a portion of the difficult thorns and thistles with which Israel had to constantly deal because they had not fully redeemed the land of promise for themselves.  These were the lions that made it impossible for the lambs to lie down.  It was against this group that David was going up, so as to take Jerusalem.  Still pursuing his exodus, his going up to Jerusalem is a reflection of Israel’s crossing the Jordan and finally going up to their promised land, after forty long years of waiting in the wilderness, as God purged from their midst those who faithlessly looked to Egypt.  For David, those that looked to Saul had been finally purged from Israel, allowing him to begin his stewardship over God’s land and people. 

Like both Israel and David, Jesus would eventually set his face towards Jerusalem, after a period of acclaiming Himself and being acclaimed as Son of God and Son of Man (king of Israel), to enter in upon that mission towards which His life had been directed, which was to end the long exile of His people, doing so through His own exile and exodus.  We note with interest that it was “all the tribes of Israel” that “came to David at Hebron” and “designated David as king over Israel” (5:1a,3b), which was followed shortly by David attempting to take Jerusalem.  This is noted because Jesus was also hailed as the King of Israel, and the Blessed One Who comes in the Name of the Lord (John 12:13), as He approached Jerusalem, with His kingship ultimately sealed by what would take place within and just outside the walls of that city.  Having reached that point, “David’s power grew steadily” (5:10a), as would the power of Jesus, in that He would be appointed the Son of God in power (Romans 1:4) when raised from the dead.  It is also said that “Even more sons and daughters were born to David” (5:13b), and of course, Jesus would figuratively give birth to an innumerable number of offspring, sons and daughters the world over and for all time.    

Beginning An Exodus (part 2 of 2)

In what would appear to be an exodus-ing of the Davidic narrative, we hear David, following his lament for Saul and Jonathan, saying “Should I go up to one of the cities of Judah?” (2 Samuel 2:1b)  David was going up into that which had been prepared for him, again, departing from the exilic state in which he had been hunted by the very same king against whom he would not extend his hand, and whom he mourned upon his death.  David was going up to Judah, much like Israel went up out of Egypt---called out of exile, and much like Jesus, at a young age, who would also go up out of Egypt.  David was going up to the kingship, having consistently experienced the rescuing hand of his God upon his life, but he was not entering fully upon the kingship. 

When David made his initial inquiry as to whether or not he should go up to one of the cities of Judah, the Lord’s reply was “Go up” (2:1c).  “David asked, ‘Where should I go?’  The Lord replied, ‘To Hebron.’” (2:1d)  David followed this instruction and went to Hebron, where “The men of Judah came and there they anointed David as king over the people of Judah” (2:4).  At this point, it is only a partial going-up.  It is only a partial exodus, as David is not crowned as king over all Israel, but rather, only over Judah (his tribe).  This is not unlike the experience of Israel as a whole, in that though they had experienced the Egyptian exodus, it is only partial, as they had not yet entered in to that which was promised to them.  Furthermore, even upon their entering, their exodus remained only partial, because they would fail to drive out the peoples that were dwelling in and defiling the land, as God had clearly instructed them to do.  Here, we can see David’s exodus as a partial re-enactment of the experience of his people. 

Having been established as king over Judah, in Hebron, David begins the long process of consolidating the kingdom.  Once again, this is not going to be unlike Israel’s entrance into the promised land, as even though they were entering in upon that for which they had been specially chosen and anointed, the process of consolidating their dominion over the land was long.  Ultimately, it was incomplete, as the history of their “conquest” is replete with only partial completions of their task, and numerous reports of foreign peoples not being driven out, and as a result, dwelling alongside Israel in the land.  It could be said of David, as well, that even though he would eventually take the throne of Israel as a whole, that his attempts at consolidating power remained incomplete, as he dealt with internal conflicts and the rebellion of his own son in his attempts to take his father’s throne.  To be sure, history, in the case of Israel (and truly the whole of the world), must be said to be a mirror that is reflective of what it is that has gone before.  To know what is coming, we must know what has already come. 

As Israel would deal with the various peoples of the land as they embarked upon its subjugation, so too would David find himself dealing with Abner, the general of Saul’s army.  Abner “had taken Saul’s son Ishbosheth and…appointed him king over… all Israel” (2:8-9).  Ishbosheth would maintain this illegitimate rule over Israel for two years, while the people of Judah looked to David as their legitimate and rightful king (2:10).  This could not have been a happy time for David or for Israel.  Most certainly, Israel was not being a light to the nations throughout these days of conflicting monarchies, as civil war and civil strife effectively prevented them from reflecting their God’s image into the world in a way that would cause the surrounding peoples to look to the God of Israel in worship and honor.  It was a time of intra-national exile, as one part of the people attempted to subdue the other part of the people.  Indeed, we find that “the war was prolonged between the house of Saul and the house of David” (3:1a); and even though it was the case that “David was becoming steadily stronger, while the house of Saul was becoming increasingly weaker” (3:1b), it was the still the case that this prolonged conflict prevented Israel from being for their land, and for the wider world, what it was that God had intended them to be. 

David’s exodus to the kingship saw some fruits of exile, just as Israel’s exodus towards the covenantal land of promise saw them dwelling outside that land, in an exodus-oriented exilic condition, for forty long years.  We should not be surprised to find such congruity, especially as we consider that the wilderness wandering took place because the people of Israel, by and large, continued to look to Egypt, questioning Moses and thereby questioning the Lord Himself.  This runs parallel with the situation in Israel, as a majority of the people continued to look to Saul and his house, questioning David’s claims, and thereby questioning the work of the Lord.  The prolonged war in Israel is emblematic of Israel’s wilderness experience, as Israel found itself in the wilderness of discontent, awaiting deliverance into that which God had promised them through His promises to Saul of a kingdom torn from him, and His promises to David, to whom a kingdom had been granted.      

Beginning An Exodus (part 1 of 2)

The second book of Samuel begins with the report of Saul’s death being brought to David.  This is followed by David’s lament over both Saul and Jonathan.  He mourns their death at the hands of Israel’s enemies, utilizing the words of exile to highlight the pain and the shame involved, even though Saul’s death means the end of his own exile and the beginning of David’s exodus into the kingship for which he had been anointed.  Speaking of Saul and Jonathan, David sorrowfully exclaims, “How the mighty have fallen!” (1:19b).  With full knowledge that the news of the deaths of Saul and Jonathan would serve as victorious rallying cries for the Philistines, and that they would most likely attempt to take advantage of the situation in order to further oppress God’s people, having already occupied Israelite cities (1 Samuel 31:7), David adds, “Don’t report it in Gath, don’t spread the news in the streets of Ashkelon, or the daughters of the Philistines will rejoice, the daughters of the uncircumcised will celebrate!” (1:20)  Of course, David’s men would have been just as likely as the Philistines to celebrate Saul’s death, as they had long suffered the pain and oppression of exile right along with David. 

David, however, saw no reason for rejoicing.  Employing those previously mentioned words of exile, to illustrate the poignancy of the death of the Lord’s appointed deliverer at the hands of Israel’s enemies---which was a new thing in Israel---David says “O mountains of Gilboa, may there be no dew or rain on you, nor fields of grain offerings!” (1:21a)  Gilboa, of course, is where Saul and Jonathan fell slain, and owing to that, David pronounces something of a curse on the mountain, indicating a desire that its fields be stricken.  Speaking to this, David says, “For it was there that the shield of warriors was defiled; the shield of Saul lies neglected without oil” (1:21b). 

In that day, pronouncing a curse related to agricultural production would have been a common practice, but when we hear such words used, in the context of the long-running narrative of the Scriptures, it is impossible to give them meaning that is separate from that overall theme.  For Israel, Gilboa (because it was the place of Saul and Jonathan’s death), has become a place that is representative of oppression, as the death of an anointed one, regardless of how far he had fallen, is not to be celebrated, but rather, deeply lamented.  That death, and the resulting defeat of Israel, has brought a measure of foreign subjugation, as the victorious Philistines are occupying towns of Israel.  By extension then, the curse that David speaks forth can be safely rooted in the covenant-related curses of Deuteronomy, which speak to a withholding of rain and a cursing of the produce of the soil, especially in light of the foreign domination that is being experienced again within Israel. 

David continues on to say, “O daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet as well as jewelry, who put gold jewelry on your clothes” (1:24).  David insists that Saul, as the anointed king of Israel, and as the one chosen by God to rule over His people and to deliver them from their enemies, despites his failings and mis-steps and David’s very obvious personal conflicts with him, was a blessing to the people of Israel, which is what one should expect from Israel’s anointed king.  David conjures up images of God’s blessings upon His people, and of His faithfulness to His covenant promises, recalling the rescue from foreign subjugation that was wrought at Saul (and Jonathan’s) hands through battles of deliverance against the enemies of God’s people, by stating “How the warriors have fallen in the midst of battle!... How the warriors have fallen!” (1:25a,27a) 

Now, it is incumbent upon David to take up the role to which he has been charged, which is to lead and to shepherd and to wisely and justly rule over God’s people.  As he ends his exile from that for which he had been anointed, and now experiences his own exodus into the fulfillment of God’s purpose for him, he does so by entering into a situation in which God’s people are now experiencing some of the curses of exile, with a foreign power attempting to consolidate its rule over the people and the land.  So David comes to the kingship with the charge of doing battle so as to continue Israel’s exodus.  Like Moses, David embarks upon his leadership at a time of a defeated people.  Like Moses, David will deal with internal struggles for power and position, as the exodus that he is set to provide takes root.  Like Israel under Moses, Israel under David will experience a time of wandering, unsure of its direction, as David does not immediately take a place of kingship over all the people, but instead, goes up to Hebron, becoming king first over Judah for seven and a half year, while having to deal with the kingly aspirations and claims of Saul’s surviving sons, along with the natural allegiance to them that have been engendered throughout Saul’s long and generally prosperous reign. 

Saul had been a popular king.  As we learn from David, he had been acclaimed as a warrior.  There would be a natural inclination on behalf of the people to continue his rule through his sons.  Indeed, though David had been instrumental in bringing deliverance from the Philistines, credit for such things, despite the songs that the people might sing, ultimately goes to the king, so why make a wholesale change of dynasties?  This is not the first time that Israel has been in this position.  In all reality, the desire to continue with things as they were, which was partly responsible for David not becoming king over all of Israel until more than seven years after the death of Saul, even though he had long been the Lord’s anointed and appointed king, it not at all dissimilar to what we see with Israel following the Egyptian exodus.  When faced with difficulties, Israel was ready to forsake Moses and return to Egypt.  So likewise, when faced with the current situation, and the difficulties presented therein by the resurgence of Philistine power, on the whole, Israel was comfortable with forsaking the one anointed as deliverer, so as to continue to dwell in and with the house of Saul.