Mark, A Meal, A Leper & The Kingdom of God (part 2)

In the same chapter, when Jesus stands before the Sanhedrin, Mark writes that “Some stood up and gave this false testimony against Him: ‘We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this Temple made with hands and in three days build another not made with hands.’” (Mark 14:57-58)  The author punctuates this with “Yet even on this point their testimony did not agree” (14:59), but He is clearly cognizant of and counting on an awareness of what must have been the well-known Jesus tradition recounted in the Gospel of John (not relying on John, as Mark came first, but what would have been the oral and possibly written Jesus tradition), in which Jesus says, “Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up again” (2:19).  Shortly thereafter, John helpfully provides the gloss on Jesus’ words by informing the reader that “Jesus was speaking about the Temple of His body” (2:21). 

When all of this is taken together, the reader sees a widow giving all that she has (which is an almost worthless amount) to a Temple that is going to fall, which is ultimately a wasteful action, whereas the woman with the alabaster box gives something of immense value in recognition of the One that is the eternal Temple, causing the onlookers to refer to this as a wasteful action.  Jesus makes it clear that it is the former (the widow’s gift) that was wasteful (and tragic), whereas the latter was “a good service” (14:6b), and therefore not wasteful. 

Because the stories in the Gospels demand to be heard within Jesus’ pronouncement that the kingdom of the Creator God is at hand, one must ascertain what this has to do with Jesus’ kingdom understanding.  It is by this that Jesus addresses the prevalent and apparently incorrect understanding that the kingdom of His God would be centered in Jerusalem, with all nations coming to its Temple to offer worship to Israel’s God.  Jesus makes it quite clear that even though they were correct in believing that all nations would in fact come to worship the Creator God by means of the Temple, that Temple by which this God would be worshiped, in recognition of His kingdom, would be Himself (Jesus).     

To go along with the interesting theological Temple dynamic that has been inserted into the narrative here in chapters twelve and fourteen of Mark’s Gospel, the place of the meal in which Jesus is engaged and at which He is anointed, as He says, “for burial” (14:8), is the house of “Simon the leper” (14:3).  Yes, Jesus is dining at the home of a leper, and therefore dining at the home of one whose entire existence is one of impurity in relation to Jewish law and custom.  Simon would definitely have found himself at the lower end of the honor and shame social spectrum, if not outside of it altogether as one unable to even compete for honor. 

As a leper, Simon would stand almost completely outside the social order, as he would translate ritual impurity to those who came into contact with him.  In the eyes of those that were in a position to observe this meal, Jesus Himself would have fallen into ritual impurity, and amazingly, within Mark’s narrative, Jesus can be seen doing this immediately before Passover.  Though He is looked upon as a respected rabbi within Israel at this point in time, Jesus apparently finds Himself unconcerned with the perceptions. 

All The Saints (part 16)

He says “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated with strictness under Gamaliel according to the law of our ancestors, and was zealous for God just as all of you are today” (Acts 22:3).  Talk of being a Jew, raised in Jerusalem, trained under Gamaliel, who honors ancestors, and is zealous (this is a specific term for a way of life and approach to the law and the covenant), would be quite satisfactory. 

Furthermore, Paul says “I persecuted this Way,” that being the belief in a crucified man by the name of Jesus being the Messiah, “even to the point of death, tying up both men and women and putting them in prison, as both the high priest and the council of elders can testify from me.  From them I also received letters to the brothers in Damascus, and I was on my way to make arrests there and bring the prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished” (22:4-5).  As the crowd listens, they can begin to realize that not only are these not the words of a person that would bring a Gentile into the Jerusalem Temple, but that they are not the words of somebody who “teaches everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this sanctuary” (21:28b). 

Paul’s audience remains respectful until such time as he touches what was obviously the rawest of raw nerves.  When he reports the words of the one that he now calls Lord, telling the crowds that the command of the one called Messiah, who was being worshiped as the physical embodiment of the Creator God of Israel by a small and growing group of believers that were composed of both Jew and Gentile, was that “He said to me, ‘Go, because I will send you far away to the Gentiles’” (22:21), the crowd resumes its earlier disposition. 

To that end, Luke reports that “The crowd was listening to him until he said this.  Then they raised their voices and shouted, ‘Away with this man from the earth!  For he should not be allowed to live!” (22:22)  No longer is the issue the content of Paul’s teaching nor the possible defiling of the Temple.  The lone issue is the extension of the covenant to the Gentiles, and the idea that the title of “saints of God” would no longer be reserved for national Israel and those that had adopted the covenant marks of national Israel alone.  This is representative of part of the mindset of the world into which Paul delivers letters such as the letter to the Colossians.    

Returning to Colossians then, having effectively made the point that it is highly probable that Paul had Gentiles and the Temple in mind when he pens words that refer to them as “holy, without blemish, and blameless before Him” (Colossians 1:22b), and doing so against the well-established background of difficult Jew/Gentile relations and a hesitance to grant Gentiles an unlimited and unchecked entrance upon the covenant and the language of the elect people of the Creator God,  an exploration of the inclusive language of the letter can be resumed. 

Now being more carefully attuned to the underlying concerns of the Apostle, this church, the churches of Asia Minor, and the church-at-large, it is possible to grasp the monumental scope of the kingdom project and hear it being referenced when Paul writes “This Gospel has also been preached in all creation under heaven, and I, Paul, have become its servant” (1:23b).  The “all” of “all creation” resounds with theological and eschatological gravity!  It is with such gravitas, as he willingly, in the manner of His Lord, adopts the position of servant to the previously unwashed masses of Gentiles, that Paul writes “I became a servant of the church according to the stewardship from God---given to me for you---in order to complete the word of God, that is, the mystery that has been kept hidden from ages and generations, but has now been revealed to His saints” (1:25-26).  These “saints” now include Gentiles. 

All The Saints (part 15)

With the riot conditions in Jerusalem, sparked by the thought that Paul may have taken a Gentile into the Temple, having gotten the attention of the commanding officer of the squadron of soldiers responsible for the security of the Temple area, “He immediately took soldiers and centurions and ran down to the crowd” (Acts 21:32a).  This crowd, which was about to experience the force of the Roman military machine (all Gentiles, by the way), was clearly not eager to embrace Gentiles as equal members of the covenant.  This continues to reinforce the world-altering (for a Jew) nature of the new covenant boundaries emphasized by Jesus and preached by Paul. 

In a way, this intervention was fortunate for Paul, as “When they saw the commanding officer and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul” (21:32b).  This is new information, elaborating on the seizing and dragging of Paul.  For his “crime,” Paul is being beaten by the crowd.  When Luke writes in verse thirty-one that they were trying to kill Paul, it is more than just a way of expressing a strong sentiment of anger or rage.  They were beating Paul because they were intent on killing him.  Truly, the message he preached was revolutionary, and it serves to explain some of the motivating factors behind the successful effort that saw Jesus put to death at the hands of the Romans. 

Paul was taken into something resembling protective custody (which would be his lot for the remainder of the record of his life as presented by Acts), as the commanding officer sought to take measure of the situation.  He inquired “who he was and what he had done” (21:33b), and the crowd, still agitated by this supposed usurpation of Israelite privilege and position, offered little help, as “some in the crowd shouted one thing, and others something else” (21:34a).  The disturbance continued (the expansion of the covenant to encompass all peoples being the greater and continuing disturbance, ironically) in such a way that “Paul had to be carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the mob” (21:35b).  Indeed, “a crowd of people followed them, screaming ‘Away with him!’” (21:36), in a scene terribly reminiscent of that which had been experienced by Paul’s Lord.  

Paul’s subsequent and brief examination by this same commanding officer is an echo of the examination of Jesus by Pilate.  However, as Jesus remained largely silent, offering very few words (according to Luke’s record of Jesus’ time before Pilate), Paul is given and accepts the opportunity to speak to his accusers and to those that are calling for his death, having been prevented from carrying out that intention themselves. 

As Paul spoke, the crowd appears to have listened patiently.  Undoubtedly, this was owing to multiple factors.  The first factor is that “he addressed them in Aramaic” (21:40b).  Luke informs the audience of as much, writing “When they heard that he was addressing them in Aramaic, they became even quieter” (22:2a).  Having quieted the crowd, the second factor comes into play, as Paul begins offering them certain assurances that effectively relieves them of the fear that he would have taken a Gentile into the Temple. 

All The Saints (part 14)

It is impossible to dismiss the drama that unfolds here in Jerusalem.  The roots of the drama run deep, portending an ideological, theological, and eschatological divide that is, as revealed in Paul’s constant attention to it, more than a little bit difficult to bridge.  For centuries, Jews stood on one side of that divide, with their covenant and their Temple that so epitomized and represented that covenant and its heretofore exclusive limitation to Israel. 

On the other side of that divide stood Gentiles---outside of the covenant unless they were willing to become Jews.  Even then, they would be excluded from full access to the Temple, and by logical extension, from full participation in the covenant.  In the middle stood the Christ, arms out-stretched to bridge that divide.  It would be part of the mission of His church, as understood by men such as Peter and Paul and others, to represent the all-embracing Christ of the Creator God, to bring it to pass that when one spoke of “all the saints,” that this was no longer the exclusive domain of national Israel, but was a phrase that was being spoken of a kingdom of all peoples. 

Clearly, the journey to bring such a thing about was going to be long, as even some that participated in the church, conceivably thinking of themselves as components of a new Temple and as citizens of that new kingdom, found it difficult to allow that bridge to be built in such a way as to allow Gentiles and Jews to meet in the middle, figuratively standing upon Jesus alone, and the Gospel claim about Him, as both the bridge and its underlying support. 

Opposition to Gentile participation within the covenant was not restricted to Jews that rejected the messianic status of Jesus.  Many believers, from national Israel, presumably along with other Gentiles that had previously Judaized and subsequently became believers in Jesus, accepted Jesus as the bridge and the foundation of that bridge, while also believing it to be necessary for Gentiles to cross that bridge to the side of the Jews as they had, taking upon themselves and placing themselves under the marks of the covenant, so as to participate in the long-awaited and greatly anticipated blessings promised to Abraham. 

So yes, the passions ran deep.  In fact, as Luke speaks with all of the fitting hyperbole that the situation required, it is said that “The whole city was stirred up, and the people rushed together.  They seized Paul and dragged him out of the Temple courts, and immediately the doors were shut” (Acts 21:30).  It doesn’t end there.  “While they were trying to kill him,” theoretically for bringing Gentiles into the Temple and thereby polluting the Temple, “a report was sent up to the commanding officer of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion” (21:31).  

All The Saints (part 12)

Verse twenty-two poses a rhetorical question to which the Jerusalem elders have what takes the appearance of a ready-made response.  That question, following up on the not-entirely-accurate suggestion that Paul teaches “all the Jews now living among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to their customs” (Acts 21:21b---note the use of the word “custom” rather than “law”---a subtle reminder that the then-employed covenant markers were more custom than law perhaps?), was “What they should we do?” (21:22a)  Coupled with the lack of accuracy in the statement that leads to the question, one is tempted to hear the prepared response as little more than the feigning of concern, as they say “They will no doubt hear that you have come” (21:22b). 

Now, it does exist as a possibility that the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, with whom Paul is here dealing, are simply reporting what they have heard, and that they are simply relaying the general tenor of the grumblings about Paul that they hear around the Temple and in Jerusalem.  However, though again there is no desire to here dwell on it (as it is not the primary issue at hand), this exchange takes on the appearance of an honor competition for position within the church, with the Jerusalem elders seeking to shame Paul.  Knowing Paul through his letters and through Acts, and knowing his demeanor in the lead-up to his return to Jerusalem, which he expected to be fraught with troubles, this potential attempt at shaming would probably not have much of an effect on him.

So a suggestion is offered.  Paul is told that “We have four men who have taken a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved” (21:23-24a).  Is this talk of Paul needing to purify himself a subtle jab that stems from the fact that he spends the vast majority of his time with Gentiles (echoes of Galatians two ringing in one’s ears)?  The rejoinder to the suggestion, which is “Then everyone will know there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself live in conformity with the law” (21:24), indicates that it is a veiled insult. 

What they have in mind when speaking about “conformity with the law” is revealed in what follows, as they make reference to an earlier event, saying “But regarding the Gentiles who have believed, we have written a letter, having decided that they should avoid meat that has been sacrificed to idols and blood and what has been strangled and sexual immorality” (21:25).  This serves as something of a modified version of the prevalent covenant markers, setting forth the still-underlying position that Gentiles should be required to, in some way, become Jews in order to have the privilege of participation in the blessings of Israel’s God as members of the covenant people.  Submission to the God of Israel and to the crucified and resurrected Messiah of Israel was simply not going to be enough. 

Paul, who, according to what can be found in the twentieth chapter and the first part of the twenty-first chapter, has an inkling as to where all this might be headed and has already embraced the possibilities, does not argue with the elders.  Because he could look upon this activity as being relatively meaningless in the great cosmic, kingdom picture with which he was concerned, and because he had no desire to create disharmony or dissent in the church, “Paul took the men the next day, and after he had purified himself along with them, he went to the Temple and gave notice of the completion of the days of purification, when the sacrifice would be offered for each of them” (21:26).

All The Saints (part 10)

In addressing this question, it is necessary to revert to the Levitical code.  In the twenty-first chapter of Leviticus, restrictions are placed upon the priesthood, who are those that could serve in the Temple.  Beginning in verse sixteen one reads: “The Lord God spoke to Moses: ‘Tell Aaron, “No man from your descendants throughout their generations who has a physical flaw is to approach to present the food of his God.”’” (Leviticus 21:16-17) 

Notice the use of “present,” which also shows up in the key verse in Colossians that could very well be alluding to the Temple.  Continuing, “Certainly no man who has a physical flaw is to approach: a blind man, or one who is lame, or one with a slit nose, or a limb too long, or a man who has had a broken leg or arm, or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or one with a spot in his eye, or a festering eruption, or a feverish rash, or a crushed testicle.  No man from the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a physical flaw may step forward to present the Lord’s gifts; he has a physical flaw, so he must not step forward to present the food of his God.  He may eat both the most holy and the holy food of his God, but he must not go into the veil-canopy or step forward to the altar because he has a physical flaw.  Thus he must not profane My holy places, for I am the Lord who sanctifies them” (21:18-23). 

Certainly, it is with little difficulty that one can compare the language here with Paul’s insistence that Jesus has presented those that were previously looked upon as completely unworthy, as described here in the Leviticus passage, as “holy, without blemish, and blameless.”  Of course, this is also the language of animals offered in sacrifice, which can lead to an equally valid discussion of the sacrificial nature of the Christian life and of unity in purpose with the one sacrificed. 

However, as the context deals with the inclusion of people under the covenant, the application can and should be here restricted to people and their entrance upon the covenant (their justification).  Importantly, in a period of time in which Gentiles (unholy, blemished, blameless) were not allowed to enter into the Temple proper, Paul is insistent (via Ephesians), that they not only enter into the Temple, but that they are a fundamental component of the Temple of the Creator God itself.   

To effectively make the point about the way of thinking then in play about the entrance of Gentiles into the Temple in the time of Paul, one can once again venture to the book of Acts.  As stated before, though Acts would have been composed after the time of the writing of the letter to Colossians or Ephesians, as a historical work with a deep and abiding theological concern, it does provide relevant information concerning the period, especially in terms of the general attitude of Jews towards Gentiles.  This was well demonstrated by the previous look at chapters thirteen and fifteen of Acts.  For purposes of this study at this point, it is necessary turn to Acts twenty-one. 

Here one finds the story of Paul’s return journey to Jerusalem.  To adequately appreciate the service provided by this chapter to the Temple-related assertion from Colossians, it is necessary to quote it at length.  Beginning in verse seventeen Luke writes, “When we arrived in Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us gladly.  The next day Paul went in with us to see James, and all the elders were there.  When Paul had greeted them, he began to explain in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry” (21:17-19).  

All The Saints (part 3)

The fifteenth chapter of Acts, which is often headlined as “The Jerusalem Council,” is predicated on the Gentile question.  The chapter opens with “Now some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’” (Acts 15:1)  This took place in Antioch, which was a major center of the church.  “When Paul and Barnabas had a major argument and debate with them, the church appointed Paul and Barnabas and some others from among them to go up to meet with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this point of disagreement” (15:2). 

Luke goes on to report that “When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were received by the elders, and they reported all the things God had done with them.  But some from the religious party of the Pharisees who had believed,” in Jesus, and therefore were part of the church, “stood up and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and to order them to observe the law of Moses.’” (15:4-5)  Effectively, this circumcision and observance of the law of Moses, which would be an adherence to the marks of the covenant as evidence of inclusion in the people of the Creator God, would make these Gentiles into Jews. 

Peter would stand and declare that “some time ago God chose me to preach to the Gentiles so they would hear the message of the Gospel and believe” (15:7b).  It is here worth remembering that the use of “gospel” was not to be disconnected from its use by Rome and by Caesar, as announcements about Caesar (particularly in connection with his cult and his worship) were said to be “gospel.”  It was a term with which all the people of the empire would have been familiar, so the announcement of a “gospel” was not a novelty in the least.  The novelty was that it was being used in reference to Jesus and His kingdom---the new, true King of a new, true kingdom. 

With that in mind then, as it would have been in the minds of his hearers and in the minds of those that would later hear Luke’s account of the church (Acts), Peter continues, saying “God, who knows the heart, has testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us, and He made no distinction between them and us, cleansing their hearts by faith” (15:8).  This “faith” was the confession of Jesus’ lordship, as demonstrated by the close of his statement, which was “we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way we are” (15:11). 

This was remarkable, in that Peter, as a Jew, was devaluing the marks of the covenant, elevating faith in Jesus, which could only come about by what was considered to be the gracious act of the Creator God via His Spirit (who would believe that a man that was crucified by the Romans was the resurrected Messiah and Lord of all?), as the means by which a person, be it Jew or Gentile, enters in upon the covenant that this God first made with Abraham. 

The point being made, and it is the point upon which Paul would seize with great tenacity, was that Gentiles were to be accepted into the covenant as Gentiles, and that the covenant was being extended to Gentiles, rather than still being limited to those who were Jews by birth or who had become Jews via Judaizing (by circumcision and adoption of the covenant markers). 

All The Saints (part 1)

We always give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, since we heard about your faith in Christ Jesus and the love that you have for all the saints. – Colossians 1:4-5  (NET)

Are these words really read when these words are read?  Is it possible that so many have grown so accustomed to the use of “spiritual” language, that readers miss some of the more radical assertions to be found in what, at first glance (and beyond), appears to be part of a nice greeting from Paul to another body of believers?  That may indeed be the case when it comes to the Colossian letter. 

Paul’s world was not the world of a struggle to maintain a monolithic orthodoxy within the church.  It was a world in which the church was struggling to come to terms with what it meant to take shame and suffering upon itself, as those that were faithful to Jesus attempted to view the world through the lens provided by the cross and the empty tomb.  There were no Gospels to lead and to guide, providing an accepted and uniform look at the life of Jesus.  There were the stories about Jesus and there was the Gospel claim, which was that “Jesus is Lord.” 

By extension then, and this cannot be overlooked, if Jesus was Lord, then Caesar was not.  This implied conflict cannot be diminished in the least, especially as the church began appropriating many of the things that were then being said of Caesar, and applying them to Jesus.  Most certainly, this was a source of tension for the church (people) of the Creator God.   

A significant component of this struggle was the integration of the church.  Israel was the elect people of the God that had revealed His nature and had made Himself physically manifest in His creation through the person of Jesus of Nazareth.  To underscore this election, the events of that singularly important life took place in Israel, culminating in Jerusalem.  Though Christians twenty centuries removed from these events think of Israel and Jerusalem with a sense of awe and as a place of pilgrimage, with this undergirded by the fact that events in Israel are constantly in the news, this could not be said of the land and its capital in the times of Jesus and of Paul. 

Then, Israel was an insignificant province, and Jerusalem was the often troublesome capital city of an insignificant province.  In the big scheme of things, it was a place of little consequence.  When compared to the glory of Rome and the other gleaming cities of the Greco-Roman world (Corinth, Ephesus, Athens, Alexandria, etc…), Jerusalem had no place at the table.  Speaking of tables, if one was to rate the city on the scale of honor and shame, and seat the cities of the world around a proverbial meal table, Rome and others would occupy the places of honor (the protoklisian), whilst Jerusalem, as far as large cities go in terms of importance, would occupy the lowest place (the eschaton), or perhaps not be afforded a seat at all.  Of course, Jesus did say something about the last being first and the first being last, and what He had accomplished in Jerusalem certainly changed things.

Acts, Jealousy & Honor (part 3)

With that in mind, the rehearsal of the Acts narrative to this point encounters the fifth chapter, which begins with the story of Ananias and Sapphira.  That story (which is probably less about their lies and more about their actions that diminished the church and Jesus’ public honor, and the potential shame that could have been brought upon the community by supposed followers not living out its principles) is immediately followed by “Now many miraculous signs and wonders came about among the people through the hands of the apostles” (Acts 5:12a). 

From there, the reader goes on to hear an echo of an earlier statement, when reading “By common consent they were all meeting together in Solomon’s Portico” (5:12b).  That echo is from chapter two, where one would have previously found that “Every day they continued to gather together by common consent in the Temple courts” (2:46a).  As was seen, this was appended by “the Lord was adding to their number every day those who were being saved” (2:47b), which is mirrored in the fifth chapter by “More and more believers in the Lord were adding to their number, crowds of both men and women” (5:14).  Quite obviously, the repetition is important, and one must be cognizant of the fact that Luke’s story consistently builds, moving the reader or hearer along with a climax in mind.

Between the reports about the miraculous signs, of meeting with common consent, and of believers being added to the ever-growing group of Christians in Jerusalem, Luke writes that “None of the rest dared to join them, but the people held them in high honor” (5:13).  This, as should be well known, is more than simple respect or admiration.  Honor was a functional component of society.  Honor was important.  Honor was everything.  Luke makes the point that the disciples were being held in “high honor.”  This must not be overlooked. 

This high honor put the disciples in the position of becoming potential patrons to a sizable number of people---able to provide benefits to a large client base.  Now, bear in mind that the disciples and the church did not seek to become patrons, as this was not the motivation behind the signs and wonders.  The signs and wonders were designed to point beyond the disciples to the King and the kingdom that they dutifully proclaimed in word and deed, as they sought to raise the public honor of Jesus by touting His Resurrection in the face of His shameful crucifixion. 

One sees evidence of the movement by the people to elevate the disciples as patrons when reading “Thus they even carried the sick out into the streets, and put them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by at least his shadow would fall on some of them” (5:15).  This is classic client behavior, as they sought to honor a patron or potential patron so as to gain benefaction.  Furthermore, “A crowd of people from the towns around Jerusalem also came together, bringing the sick and those troubled by unclean spirits.  They were all being healed” (5:16).  With this record, one sees a replay of the stories about Jesus as recorded in the Gospels---the church thus carrying on the work of its Lord.  Against all odds, public honor was coming the way of the church.    

Acts, Jealousy & Honor (part 1)

Now the high priest rose up, and all those with him (that is, the religious party of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy. – Acts 5:17  (NET)

The Book of Acts tells a wonderful story.  The opening chapters, especially, are fast-paced and action-packed, detailing the movement of the Spirit of the Creator God and the way in which the kingdom of that God (as revealed in Jesus) came to be manifested on earth and began to spread, bringing new and renewed creation in its inspirational wake.  In chapter one, the disciples are given a promise by Jesus, they watch Him ascend, they return to Jerusalem, and appoint another man to take the place of Judas. 

Chapter two begins in the same breath, as Pentecost brings with it the reversal of the language confusion of the tower of Babel, with people from many nations able to exclaim “we hear them speaking in our own languages about the great deeds God has done!” (Acts 2:11b)  With an ironic nod to the story of the ill-fated tower and the astonishment and confusion that no doubt took place when the languages were confounded, Luke writes “All were astounded and greatly confused, saying to one another, ‘What does this mean?’” (2:12)  It is upon this occasion that Peter delivers what is looked to as the first “sermon” of the church (post earthly life of Jesus), explaining the coming of the Spirit and the kingdom, saying “let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ” (2:36). 

What was an immediate effect of the announcement of the advent of the kingdom of the Creator God, as it was ensconced within the proclamation of Jesus’ Resurrection?  The author writes: “Reverential awe came over everyone, and many wonders and miraculous signs came about by the apostles.  All who believed were together and held everything in common, and they began selling their property and possessions and distributing the proceeds to everyone, as anyone had need” (2:43-45).  This was a significant mark of the worshipers of Jesus, and this significances leads to a repetition in the fourth chapter, where one can read “The group of those who believed were one of one heart and mind, and no one said that any of his possessions was his own, but everything was held in common.  With great power the apostles were giving testimony to the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was on them all” (4:32-33). 

What was the testimony to the Resurrection and the kingdom it portended?  What was the evidence of the great grace?  The next verse provides the answer: “For there was no one needy among them, because those who were owners of land or houses were selling them and bringing the proceeds from the sales and placing them at the apostles’ feet” (4:34-35a).  What was the purpose and result of this testifying, grace-evidencing and manifesting activity?  “The proceeds were distributed to each, as anyone had need” (4:35).  The apostles didn’t simply sit on the proceeds or allow the proceeds to pile up, going un-used.  They were distributed to each, as anyone had need.  It is key to note that the sharing of goods led to needs of the people being met---the needs of the people being met.    

David & The Gibeonites (part 2 of 2)

Putting aside a tendency to paint a rosy picture of King David, one should not overlook the calculated measures that are here taking place.  According to the history presented here in this book, David had recently experienced Absalom’s rebellion (with his own temporary deposition from power).  Together with that, there were other potential problems and rebellions with which to be dealt, and the most natural direction from which those problems would come would be the family of Saul.  Indeed, there is ample evidence of David being inclined to think in such ways. 

Looking back to his flight from Jerusalem, when he was met by Ziba the servant of Mephibosheth (the son of Jonathan to whom David had extended grace and seated at his table, treating him as one of his own sons---2 Samuel 8), when David sees that Ziba alone has come to him, without Mephibosheth, bringing him bread, raisin cakes, summer fruit, and wine (16:1), he says, “Where is your master’s grandson?” (16:3a).  Ziba replies by saying, “He remains in Jerusalem, for he said, ‘Today the house of Israel will give back to me my grandfather’s kingdom” (16:3b). 

Though this makes no sense at all, as it was Absalom, David’s son, that was supported by the people and taking the throne, one here sees David’s willingness to believe such a thing and the ongoing threat of reprisal from Saul’s family implied thereby, as he says “Everything that was Mephibosheth’s now belongs to you” (16:4a).  Now, with the famine and the appearance of the Gibeonites, the presence of Saul’s old enemies provide the means to end this always looming threat once and for all. 

So it is reported that “The king had mercy on Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, in light of the Lord’s oath that had been taken between David and Jonathan son of Saul” (21:7), though before he had been willing to quickly write off Mephibosheth and toss him aside as a traitor and conspirator.  Additionally, because Mephibosheth was crippled in his feet, not only would he not be able to rise up to lead an army, but David would also have been confident that the people of Israel would certainly not support one such as him as king. 

Sparing Mephibosheth, the king took seven sons and grandsons of Saul and “turned them over to the Gibeonites, and they executed them on a hill before the Lord.  The seven of them died together” (21:9a).  To go along with that, the Gibeonites left those men there to rot.  For David, problem solved.  Potential rivals to the throne have been eliminated.  However, drawing attention to what could truly have been viewed by the people as a rather despicable, unjust, unjustifiable, and clearly politically calculated action on David’s part, a woman named Rizpah, the mother of the sons of Saul that had been executed, “took sackcloth and spread it out for herself on a rock.  From the beginning of the harvest until the rain fell on them, she did not allow the birds of the air to feed on them by day, not the wild animals by night” (21:10). 

This was an unforeseen nuisance, and when David is told that this was taking place, he ordered their bodies to be taken, along with the bones of Saul and Jonathan, and to be buried in the tomb of Saul’s father in the land of Benjamin.  Thus, David can then seen to be honoring these men, when such could not have been further from his mind.  Most likely, keeping in mind the fact that David has just perpetrated a despicable act, he does this so that he will not be viewed as being responsible for the execution of the sons of Saul, though they had in fact done no wrong.  Of course, this must also be considered in light of the fact that the Creator God’s law clearly stated that a son was not to be put to death because of the actions of his father, though this was precisely what David allowed to take place because it was a furtherance of his own ends.   

A Tradition Of Wells (part 11 of 11)

The Jeremiah narrative happens upon a well on two occasions.  In the sixth chapter, as Jeremiah verbally depicts the destruction that is going to come upon Jerusalem due to its idolatry, he shares some of the Lord’s thoughts concerning the city.  The God of Israel can be heard to say “Cut down the trees around Jerusalem and build up a siege ramp against its walls.  This is the city which is to be punished.  Nothing but oppression happens in it.  As a well continually pours out fresh water so it continually pours out wicked deeds.  Sounds of violence and destruction echo throughout it.  All I see are sick and wounded people” (6:6-7). 

This is, of course, a reflection upon Israel’s covenant failures.  For this, the Creator God brings His curse against His covenant people.  Death is coming to them.  It is against this that Jesus can be heard speaking, when He says “whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become a fountain of water springing up to eternal life” (John 4:14).  This eternal life is so much more than a one-way ticket to heaven upon death.  Rather, it is an entrance into the covenant people of the Creator God, in which one shares in the covenant blessings promised by the God of Israel (Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28), and presumably the resurrection of the righteous at the end of the age. 

Not long thereafter, the Samaritan woman questions Jesus about whether Jerusalem is the appropriate place to offer worship.  Might this be a reflection on what the Creator God says about Jerusalem in Jeremiah (a well that pours out wicked deeds rather than fresh water)?  Jesus responds by telling her “a time is coming… when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth” (4:23a).  Further on in Jeremiah, the prophet laments over that which he speaks, saying “I wish that my head were a well full of water and my eyes were a fountain full of tears!  If they were, I could cry day and night for those of my dear people who have been killed” (9:1). 

Hosea is the next prophet to be heard, as he spoke to the situation of the northern kingdom of Israel.  Referring to the judgment of the Creator God that was coming upon that portion of His people, Hosea says “Even though he flourishes like a reed plant, a scorching east wind will come, a wind from the Lord rising up from the desert.  As a result, his spring will dry up; his well will become dry.  That wind will spoil all his delightful foods in the containers in his storehouse” (13:15).  Beyond the natural fact that water is necessary for life for all peoples everywhere, wells had been a source of life for Israel, stretching back to Abraham as a place of marriage and ultimately offspring that continued their God’s covenant purposes.  Here, their God speaks of a well that would become dry.  Specifically, this is directed against Samaria (13:16), which is the setting for Jesus well meeting.  This provides added color to Jesus’ talk of “living water” (4:10) and “a fountain of water springing up to eternal life, as well as Jesus’ directing of the woman’s attention away from either Samaria or Jerusalem as the center of worship. 

In a similar instance, to round out and wrap up this study, is to be found in the prophetic work of Micah.  Here, it is possible to readily identify informative points of contact with the Johannine well story, as Micah speaks of the Creator God’s judgment that comes “because of Jacob’s rebellion and the sins of the nation of Israel” (1:15a).  Not unlike the woman’s question to Jesus about the proper place of worship, and being mindful of Jesus’ response, Micah can be heard to rhetorically inquire “How has Jacob rebelled, you ask?  Samaria epitomizes their rebellion!  Where are Judah’s pagan worship centers, you ask?  They are right in Jerusalem!” (1:15b).  As Micah goes on to describe the tribulation that will come their way, he is heard saying “Therefore you will have to say farewell to Moresheth Gath.  The residents of Achzib will be as disappointing as a dried up well to the kings of Israel” (1:14).  

A Tradition Of Wells (part 4)

Leaving Abraham, this study moves on to the next of Israel’s patriarchs, whose story will be part of the grand tale told by Israel about itself, and comes face to face with Isaac.  Not only is his wife discovered in connection with a well, but Isaac has his own well dealings.  Not surprisingly, since his life mimics that of his father in a number of ways (movements based on famine, deceptions about his wife, growing wealthy based on these deceptions, a wife that was initially childless, etc…), it is discovered that Isaac, like his father, is involved in disputes concerning wells. 

There is no need to retrace the exact course of the disputation found in the twenty-sixth chapter of Genesis, as it shall suffice to say that it looks quite similar to that which was experienced by Abraham.  Surely these disputes play into and informs the historic sensibilities that must be brought to any attempt to enter into the mindset of Jesus and that of the Samaritan woman when they engage in a partially disputative conversation at the well. 

This may prove to be especially so when considering what took place once Isaac was able to dig a well over which there was no dispute.  Isaac’s response to the digging of this undisputed well was “now the Lord has made room for us, and we will prosper in the land” (26:22b).  “From there Isaac went up to Beer Sheba.  The Lord appeared to him that night and said, ‘I am the God of your father Abraham.  Do not be afraid, for I am with you.  I will bless you and multiply your descendants for the sake of My servant Abraham.’  Then Isaac built an altar there and worshiped the Lord” (26:23-25a).  This is rounded out in a not unexpected way, as the story goes on to say that “He pitched his tent there, and his servants dug a well” (26:25b). 

Here, a well (actually two wells) is connected with a place of worship, prompting thoughts of worship and the act of worship itself.  Of course, hearkening back to yet another connection to his father, one must consider that Beer Sheba is also the place that Abraham dug a well and the place at which he made the treaty with Abimelech (Isaac also deals with an Abimelech) following the initial disputes about a well.  So naturally, Isaac’s venturing to that place is an explicit reminder of Abraham’s story (as is much of Isaac’s story in and of itself), and by extension the Creator God’s covenant with Abraham.  So perhaps one should not think of wells, especially in Scripture, without also retaining the idea of the Creator God’s covenant and His covenant faithfulness to go along with it? 

Staying with Abraham, it is recorded that he “planted a tamarisk tree in Beer Sheba” (21:33a), which was the place that he dug the well, and “There he worshiped the Lord, the eternal God” (21:33b).  Why go back to Abraham after having moved on to Isaac?  Why mention the covenant that was begun with Abraham, which would be extended to Isaac, to Jacob/Israel, and then on to the nation of Israel?  Why speak here of worship?  Because it attunes an observer to the words of the Samaritan woman, as she responds to Jesus.  “The woman said to Him, ‘Sir, I see that you are a prophet.  Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you people say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem” (4:19-20).  Here is a well, a dispute, and talk of worship, which accords nicely with the well stories that participate in shaping and defining the collective mindset of the people of Israel.   

Jesus & The Finger Of God (part 2)

Working backwards through the Scriptures, the “finger of God” is encountered in the book of Daniel, when “the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the royal palace wall” (5:5b), with this occurring during a great banquet being hosted by King Belshazzar of Babylon.  In an era in which the book of Daniel commanded a great deal of attention, and which was quite obviously on Jesus’ mind, owing to His constant reference to Daniel’s Son of Man, this instance of usage is quite worthy of the attention of all eager students of Jesus and Scripture. 

In the story, Daniel is called upon to interpret what the finger has written, eventually informing the king that it pronounced his doom.  Daniel informed the king that “God has numbered your kingdom’s days and brought it to an end… you are weighed on the balances and found to be lacking… your kingdom is divided and given over to the Medes and Persians” (5:26b,27b,28b). 

Now, it cannot be overlooked that at this banquet “Belshazzar issued an order to bring in the gold and silver vessels---the ones that Nebuchadnezzar his father had confiscated from the Temple in Jerusalem---so that the kings and nobles, together with his wives and concubines, could drink from them…  As they drank wine, they praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone” (5:2b,4).  The writer reports that it was “At that very moment the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote.” 

It must be noted that Belshazzar was drinking from that which had been plundered from the Temple, doing so as a strong man, fully armed, guarded in his own palace, and seemingly safe with all of his possessions.  However, it was “in that very night Belshazzar, the Babylonian king, was killed.  So Darius the Mede took control of the kingdom” (5:30-31a).  A stronger man attacked him and conquered him, surely plundering all of Belshazzar’s once safe possessions.  Might this very story have been on Jesus’ mind as He spoke of and acted out the finger of God?   

The finger of God is also referenced in conjunction with the delivery of the Ten Commandments.  In Deuteronomy, Moses reports that “The Lord gave me the two stone tablets written by the very finger of God, and on them was everything He said to you at the mountain from the midst of the fire at the time of that assembly” (9:10).  Likewise, in Exodus, it is recorded that “He gave Moses two tablets of testimony when He had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, tablets of stone written by the finger of God” (31:18).  By making mention of the finger of God in reference to Himself, Jesus brings the hoped for and ultimately inevitable comparisons to Moses into play. 

Though Matthew’s presentation of Jesus as the new Moses is quite explicit, Luke’s is more subtle.  Where Matthew has Jesus referencing a commandment by saying “you have heard that it was said, and then adding the rejoinder of “but I say unto you,” Luke’s Jesus is less forceful and less overt.  A perfect example from Matthew has Jesus saying “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your enemy’” (5:43), before offering up His response of “But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you” (5:44).  In Luke, Jesus says “But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, pray for those who mistreat you” (6:27), omitting the “you have heard that it was said.”  The “you have heard that it was said,” making reference to the Mosaic law and the interpretation of that law, is implied. 

Seeing God (part 3)

This, however, should not trouble or dissuade kingdom-seekers, as Jesus says that “the kingdom of heaven belongs” (Matthew 5:10b) to those that endure such things.  They should take heart and be encouraged, “rejoice and be glad… for they persecuted the prophets before you in the same way” (5:12).  Not only can one see this worked out in the early church, as demonstrated by Luke’s historical treatment in the book of Acts and as Matthew undoubtedly has the widespread persecution of Jesus-followers (at the direction of the Temple authorities in Jerusalem) in mind as he delivers Jesus’ words, but one can also see that Jesus, though He does nothing more than live out His teaching on mercy, purity of heart, and the making of peace, is most certainly persecuted for the sake of the way that He insists upon demonstrating the Creator God’s covenant faithfulness---insulted and persecuted for the way in which He speaks on behalf of and represents His God.     

Having laid out His premise, Jesus essentially goes on to explain what He means by His Moses-and-Abraham-mindful introductory statement, with His treatments of anger and murder, adultery, divorce, the taking of oaths, retaliation, love for enemies, giving, prayer, proper fasting, true and lasting treasure, worry, and judging.  It is through His explanation that it is possible to go on to learn what it means to be poor in spirit, to rightly mourn, to be meek, to hunger and thirst for righteousness, to be merciful, and to be peacemakers.  Most importantly, for the purposes of this study, here it is also possible learn what Jesus means when He speaks of being “pure in heart.”  Since it must be the burning and overwhelming desire of the heart to “see God,” rightly assessing this statement could not be more crucial. 

So if one understands that Jesus is going to take the time to explain what He means by His pronouncements in the beatitudes, then it is going to be necessary to look to the remainder of the sermon in order to discover Jesus’ ideas concerning purity of heart.  Such is a relatively simple process, as one must merely look to instances of the use of “heart.”  The first that to be encountered is later on in the fifth chapter.  There Jesus is heard saying “You have that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’  But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (5:27-28). 

Though Jesus speaks here of the heart, it seems to be more along the lines of a prevailing condition of the heart, rather than instruction that would reveal what it is that He means by being pure of heart.  So though it is certainly instructive, and though it certainly informs denizens of the Creator God’s kingdom that more is expected of them (especially in light of the Resurrection, through which one would naturally view Matthew and the whole of Scripture), it does not truly assist a believer in learning how one can go about becoming pure in heart. 

One does not achieve purity of heart, which is probably something that can be outwardly demonstrated in a tangible ways, by simply avoiding adultery or lustful desire.  At the same time, avoidance of adultery is something that is completely expected, and nobody is congratulated for not committing adultery, whether it be physical or mental.  One should not expect to get to see the Creator God simply because one did not travel that path.  There must be something more. 

Absalom (part 19)

To this point, the portrayal of David as being similar to Pharoah, David’s removal as being similar to Pharaoh’s loss of power over Israel, and Absalom’s exodus from his own exile as akin to Israel’s exodus from Egypt under Moses, was effective, and perhaps, knowing what is known about David, even appropriate.  However, it is at this point that Absalom, for some unknown reason, though he was receiving advice to do this, departs from the epic narrative that he has been creating for himself. 

As one thinks back to the story of Israel’s exodus, one thing that is not be found in that story is Moses taking it upon himself to raise his hand against the one from whom Israel was being delivered.  Remember, Moses had attempted to start the revolution in Egypt on behalf of Israel, with his killing of the Egyptian taskmaster.  This failed to accomplish the goal that Moses had in mind, and he was sent into his own personal exile.  When he returned, he was gifted with the ability to lead an exodus that was peaceful, at least as it related to the actions of the people.  As has been seen, Absalom has effectively mirrored this.  Though he was not, as far as the story goes, attempting to start a revolution through his killing of Amnon, it was that killing that resulted in his own exile away from Jerusalem.  It was during that time, no doubt, that the seeds of a plan to take the throne began to germinate, perhaps primarily because he was treated unjustly due to his execution of justice. 

Returning to the exodus story then, it is clear that Israel conducted no demonstrations of violence against Egypt.  The Egyptians, on the other hand, experienced the violent power of Israel’s God, which serves as a reminder of the fact that Moses left it to the God of Israel to bring judgment and destruction in the way that He saw fit.  Then, after the death of the firstborn, which saw Pharaoh finally relent from his stubborn stance and practically demand that Israel depart from Egypt, the last thing Moses was going to do was turn around and attempt to kill Pharaoh. 

In that case, the Creator God had already judged Pharaoh, so what good would that do?  What would that prove?  Even after Pharaoh came out after Moses and Israel, Moses did not send men to confront Pharaoh and his army.  Rather, he continued to trust the God that delivers to fight on behalf of His people.  Had Moses and Israel raised their hands against Egypt in any way, things might have turned out quite differently, as it would have been an indication that they did not fully trust that their covenant God was able to rescue them from their foreign subjugation. 

Absalom would have been wise to heed this example.  Instead, because he was convinced to believe that it was incumbent upon him to go out after his father, he essentially forsook the power of the Creator God to solidify his kingship and to carry out His promises to David through Absalom.  Israel did not turn back and fight against Egypt, rather, they looked forward, preparing themselves to face the enemies to come.  Absalom should have done the same, looking forward as well, in a spirit of thankfulness, rather than allowing for the entrance of a spirit that has to be described as nothing more than vengeful.  Had he not been vindicated already?  Had he not been exalted?  Had Israel’s God not fought his battles for him?  Absalom should never have turned back so as to bring further suffering on his deposed father.  It is this that would ultimately bring David vindication through suffering (with his own story of exile to exodus), while bringing suffering to Absalom in the wake of what had been his own vindication, and sending Absalom from exodus to exile.   

Absalom (part 16)

Everything was going well for Absalom.  He had taken the throne.  He had secured the support of one of his father’s chief advisors.  His efforts at fostering a sense of justice and peace through brotherhood with the people seemed to have been effective, as Absalom had “won the loyalty of the citizens of Israel” (2 Samuel 15:6b).  The narrative of exile and exodus that he had been creating for himself had paid off, as “the people were starting to side with Absalom” (15:12b).  Even his father had been told that “The men of Israel are loyal to Absalom!” (15:13b). 

Due to this loyalty and support, Absalom entered Jerusalem peacefully (15:37b), apparently encountering no resistance.  To go with all of this, Hushai the Arkite, another one of his father’s servants, came to Absalom in Jerusalem and said “I will be loyal to the one whom the Lord, these people, and all the men of Israel have chosen.  Moreover, whom should I serve?  Should it not be his son?  Just as I served your father, so I will serve you” (16:18b). 

                          

Now, Absalom did not know that Hushai had attempted to go with David, and had gone back to Jerusalem at David’s request for the expressed purpose of countering the advice that Ahithophel would provide to Absalom (15:34).  So as far as Absalom would have been concerned, these words from Hushai, that were actually words of deception that were put in Hushai’s mouth by David, were simply further evidence that his plan had been successful, and that the God of Israel was favoring him in his efforts. 

As one reads through this story (which seems to have a place of importance in the life of David and the history of Israel), it would be easy to conclude that even David himself seems to have been resigned to the possibility that Absalom’s exodus to kingship, and his own exile from the throne, was part of the Creator God’s will, as again, the promise to David was that he would have a dynasty on the throne.  The rule of Absalom most certainly fit within that framework.  To go along with that, David would have been none too surprised that this was part of his God’s judgment upon him for his failures as king (Uriah, Amnon).  Witness to this is that he has taken only mild measures to retain his position, involving Zadok, Abiathar, and Hushai in that effort. 

Thinking about this for a moment, when David employs Zadok and Abiathar (along with their sons) as spies, it is a bit of a perversion of their role (as priests) to represent the people before their God.  Nevertheless, this resignation is partly indicated (among other things that have already been explored) by the fact that David sends the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem, and his saying “If I find favor in the Lord’s sight He will bring me back and enable me to both see it and His dwelling place again” (15:25b).  That was said together with “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” (15:26).  Additionally, the words that David spoke in the wake of being cursed and assaulted (rocks thrown) by Shimei, only points to his understanding that all of this might very well have been his God’s will. 

So as was said, everything was going swimmingly for Absalom.  He had led his peaceful insurrection, and it has been accomplished by winning the hearts of the people.  In essence, according to the historic narrative of Israel, he was Moses and he was leading Israel in a new exodus movement with the Lord of Israel on his and their side.  Indeed, Absalom, if he would have been so inclined, could have stood before the people and said “just as the Lord fought for Israel in Egypt, rescuing a people by the acts of His mighty hand, so He has again fought for Absalom and Israel, delivering me to the throne of His people, by the singular working of His powerful, saving might.” 

Reinforcing such a thought, he has now even heard it said, by one of his father’s trusted servants, that he (Absalom) was anointed by both Israel’s Lord and the people.  To that point, any such mention of anointing (in the mold of Saul and David) had been completely absent from the narrative.  Upon this, his revolution was complete.  Absalom was king.  The covenant God was going to fulfill the promises to David through him.  Then, in the midst of this, the tide turned.  Everything changed.  Events began to unfold that would unravel Absalom’s victory.        

Absalom (part 14)

Surely, the curses and stones being hurled at David from this man served as a vivid demonstration of the Deuteronomic curses and the exile in which those curses are enfolded.  Thus, this man, as David rightly surmised, was being used by Israel’s God (at that point), to bring David’s failures to mind.  One could also think of Goliath uttering curses at David and Israel, along with David’s felling him with a stone from his slingshot. 

Additionally, Abishai’s use of the term “dead dog,” which the author was sure to mention here in the telling of this story, had to have been a reminder to David of Mephibosheth’s response to him, when David restored Mephibosheth to his lands and gave him a place at the king’s table.  Mephibosheth referred to himself as a “dead dog” that was undeserving of such treatment by the king.  That event, perhaps more so than any other in the life of David, saw him demonstrating the compassion of the covenant God of Israel in a way that would most definitely have served to allow him to shine as a light to the nations and to reflect the glory of his God into the world, as he lifted up the grandson of his enemy. 

If that was a consideration, David could not then help but be reminded of the way he had honored his God and his kingship before he began robbing (wives and lives and justice) from his people.  Yes, to return to an issue previously raised, which was that of David himself going into exile, in light of a later promise to Israel that the sign of their exile would be the eternal rule of a Davidic king, David was eventually returned to Jerusalem and re-established as king.  If David himself could go into exile and be exodus-ed from that exile and restored to the kingship, then so too could Israel (Judah) be later exiled to Babylon and subjected to a foreign nation, while trusting in their God’s promise to return them to their land.  

Now after Absalom entered Jerusalem, he sought the counsel of Ahithophel, saying “Give us your advice.  What should we do?” (2 Samuel 16:20b)  Ahithophel provides a two part answer.  The first part of his answer is “Have sex with your father’s concubines whom he left to care for the palace” (16:21a).  Absalom, quite pleased with this suggestion (for obvious and perhaps not so obvious reasons), seizes on the idea and follows through on it.  The author reports that “they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and Absalom had sex with his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel” (16:22).  Why does Ahithophel suggest this?  Why does Absalom do it?  It is suggested and undertaken because of what it was that the prophet Nathan had said to David after David’s taking of Uriah’s wife and life. 

Through Nathan, the Creator God had said to David, “you have despised Me by taking the wife of Uriah the Hittite as your own!” (12:10b)  Though it does not provide a direct correlation, it would not be too far-fetched to suggest that this despising of Israel’s God by David bears very little difference from Israel’s forsaking of their God and their worship of idols, by which they most assuredly despised Him.  If this is correct, then it is only right that David experience what his God promises to His people for idolatry, which is cursing (exile).  So Nathan continues, saying “This is what the Lord says: ‘I am about to bring disaster on you from inside your household!’” (12:11a)  Certainly the Absalom situation, which has been created and fueled by the Tamar and Amnon situation and the resulting fall-out, could be described as disaster from inside the household.  Furthermore, the covenant God says, “Right before your eyes I will take your wives and hand them over to your companion.  He will have sexual relations with your wives in broad daylight!” (12:11b)  Why?  Because “Although you have acted in secret, I will do this thing before all Israel, and in broad daylight” (12:12).  This is obviously fulfilled.

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 12)

This exile that David was experiencing had several of the marks of the curses promised in Deuteronomy.  The author reports: “As David was going up the Mount of Olives, he was weeping as he went; his head was covered and his feet were bare.  All the people who were with him also had their heads covered and were weeping as they went up” (2 Samuel 15:30).  Does this not sound like the way that slaves would be carried off by a conquering foe?  Is it possible to find this paralleled in Deuteronomy?  There one reads of “hunger, thirst, nakedness, and poverty” (28:48a). 

David, with all of his riches, was fleeing Jerusalem with nothing.  In fact, this is evidenced by the fact that shortly thereafter, “Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth… had a couple of donkeys that were saddled, and on them were two hundred loaves of bread, a hundred raisin cakes, a hundred baskets of summer fruit, and a container of wine” (16:1b), so as to provide for the king and his people during their journey into exile for lack of faithfulness to their covenant responsibilities. 

In the midst of the travel of his travail, David, having begun to recognize where his faults had been and what it was that had brought him to this horrible predicament, begins to strategize.  He has already sent the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem for good reason, and implores the Creator God to turn the advice of one of his chief advisers, Ahithophel, who was now supporting and advising Absalom, into foolishness.  In addition, he employed the priests, Zadok and Abiathar, to serve as his spies within Jerusalem. 

As David begins to remember the God of Israel and His faithfulness, he also begins to be fully cognizant of the exilic nature of what is happening to him, and vice versa.  No doubt this experience is going to serve him well, if in fact his God does restore him to the throne, which at this point was certainly not a foregone conclusion.  Remember, even if David is removed from the throne, the promise is that the God of Israel would make a dynasty of his house, which he could very well do through Absalom, who, at this point, has carried out a successful rebellion and insurrection without shedding any blood. 

In considering that, it is worth once again making note of the strategy which might very well have been being employed by Absalom.  Absalom has, quite possibly, positioned himself as a new Moses that is leading a new exodus for Israel, with a delivery from a new Pharaoh, that being David, who had become an oppressor in Israel.  Remember, Israel began to suffer oppression in Egypt when a Pharaoh came to power that did not know Joseph. 

Naturally, it was not so much that said Pharaoh did not know Joseph,  but more that he had forgotten what had been wrought on behalf of Egypt, with Egypt gaining an empire through the power and deliverance of the God of Joseph and Israel.  In making his case, Absalom could certainly point to David’s less than just actions and point out that David had forgotten the faithful, powerful, delivering, kingdom giving God of Israel---the very God that had delivered David from Saul and from his own earlier time of exile and oppression.          

Furthermore, as one examines the potential of Absalom positioning himself as a new Moses and leading a new exodus, it should be remembered that Israel’s Egyptian exodus was carried out with no bloodshed.  Moses had attempted such and failed, earning only a personal exile which eventually resulted in his calling by the covenant God.  Israel did not rise up en masse to overthrow and defeat Egypt by means of violence.  They did not have to resort to war.  Rather, their God worked for them.  The Creator God brought Egypt low through plagues and the eventual death of the firstborn.