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.   

David's Song (part 2 of 2)

It is in response to this knowledge, along with the word that he had received in his inquiry from the Lord, that David summons the Gibeonites and says to them, “What can I do for you, and how can I make amends so that you will bless the Lord’s inheritance?” (21:3)  Before going on, we must take note of the explicit connection to the Abrahamic covenant that David is shown to be making.  David, of course, is referring to Israel when he speaks of the “Lord’s inheritance.”  By speaking of “blessing” that inheritance, David invokes the promise to Abraham, which must have been well understood by the Gibeonites (because they lived and served among Israel, and presumably, would have known the story of Israel quite well), that Israel’s God would bless those who blessed Abraham (and by extension, Israel). 

Here, David is seizing on an opportunity.  He is using the famine in a calculated manner for the sake of his own kingship and that of his progeny.  Additionally, he knows that the Gibeonites are motivated by revenge, so in calling to mind the blessings promised (in the Abrahamic covenant) for those that bless Israel (with the king representing Israel in such a way that by their serving the king they bless him, the nation as a whole, and themselves in turn), he is going to turn that mindset of vengeance in his own favor.  After being asked this extraordinarily calculated question by David, “The Gibeonites said to him, ‘We have no claim to silver or gold from Saul or from his family, nor would we be justified in putting to death anyone in Israel.’” (21:4a)  Feigning ignorance of where all of this was leading, “David asked, ‘What then are you asking me to do for you?’” (21:4b)  “They replied to the king, ‘As for this man who exterminated us and who schemed against us so that we were destroyed and left without status throughout all the borders of Israel---let seven of his male descendants be turned over to us, and we will execute them before the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, who was the Lord’s chosen one.’” (21:5-6a)  In what must have been a considerable exercise of self-restraint in the midst of jubilation, David says, “I will turn them over” (21:6b). 

Once again, let us not forget the calculated measures 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), along with the issue of Sheba.  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 from the family of Saul.  Indeed, we see evidence of David being inclined to think in such ways, if we look 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).  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, we see David’s willingness to believe such a thing and the ongoing threat of reprisal from Saul’s family implied therein, as he says, “Everything that was Mephibosheth’s now belongs to you” (16:4a).  Now, the presence of Saul’s old enemies provide the means to end this looming threat once and for all.  So we read 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.  However, drawing attention to what could truly have been viewed by the people as a rather despicable, 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, to be buried in the tomb of Saul’s father in the land of Benjamin.  Thus, David is then seen to be honoring these men.  Most likely, he does this so that he will not simply be viewed as being responsible for their execution though they had done no wrong, especially in light of the fact that 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.   

Repeating Sinai (part 2 of 2)

David tells Mephibosheth, “Don’t be afraid, because I will certainly extend kindness to you for the sake of Jonathan your father” (9:7a).  The grandson of King Saul hears words that are far removed from the continuation of vengeance that he might have been expecting.  This is akin to what Israel would hear from God, though the mountain before which they stood was shrouded in the fire that they had to believe could only signify wrath and divine judgment.  David would add to this: “I will give back to you all the land that belonged to your grandfather Saul, and you will be a regular guest at my table” (9:7b).  Here, we remember that the promise of land was the essence of exodus.  The promise of land was the foundation of God’s act of covenant faithfulness that had begun with Abraham.  Mephibosheth was being given the promise of land, by the one that could make that promise. 

When God brought His people out to Him, he did so because of His promise of land and blessings, both for them and for all nations.  God was going to bring His people to His land of promise, though like Mephibosheth, they had done nothing to require this of Him, and indeed, were even unable to do so, having been crippled under the crushing weight of Egypt’s oppression.  Mephibosheth’s amazing and heartfelt and thankful response, which should be the response of each and every person to ever experience the extended hand of God’s mercy and grace, when dragged out of exile into the light of the world of exodus, was “Of what importance am I, your servant, that you show regard for a dead dog like me?” (9:8b)  This is reminiscent of David’s response when God spoke to him about establishing him and his kingdom forever, as well as that of King Saul, when he was first anointed as king. 

Unfortunately, we do not see such a response emanating from Israel when exodus comes to them, which should render us un-surprised at their rapid descent into idolatry, complaints, and rebellion at the first sign of difficulties following their deliverance.  Following this penetrating statement from the one experiencing a costly act of sacrificial love, David “summoned Ziba, Saul’s attendant, and said to him, ‘Everything that belonged to Saul and to his entire house I hereby give to your master’s grandson.  You will cultivate the land for him---you and your sons and your servants.  You will brings its produce and it will be food for your master’s grandson to eat.  But Mephibosheth, your master’s grandson, will be a regular guest at my table’.” (9:9-10)  Naturally, this causes us to think about the promises concerning the land of promise, and of its bounty and its fruitfulness, and of its being a land that flowed with milk and honey.  It was a land that God intended His people to cultivate, so that it might produce food for His people, and ultimately, for the nations.  This is not unlike what we see in Genesis, with a creation that provides bountifully, along with a telling reminder of the loss of that abundance when Adam rebelled, losing that blessing for all that would follow from him. 

Ziba responds to the instruction by saying “Your servant will do everything that my lord the king has instructed his servant to do” (9:11a).  Ironically, it is with these words that Ziba actually steps in to the place occupied by Israel, as the history of the people would show.  When Israel received the Lord’s instruction through Moses, what was their response?  They said “We are willing to do all the words that the Lord has said” (Exodus 24:3b).  To this they would later add, “We are willing to do and obey all that the Lord had spoken” (24:7b).  Obviously, a quick scan of the pages of the Scriptures reveal that these words were patently untrue, especially in their coming from the group of people whose bodies would be strewn in the wilderness because of their faithless rebellion against Moses and against their God. 

When we move further into the story of the life of King David, we find that the Ziba corresponds with Israel quite well, in that when give the opportunity, he actually rebels against this instruction, and rebels against David, as he bring a false and slanderous report about Mephibosheth to David during the temporarily successful coup of Absalom.  This would not be unlike the unfavorable report of the spies that returned from the promised land, which amounted to nothing more than a false and slanderous report concerning that which God had promised to do for His people, which then led to the previously referenced wilderness-wide strewing of the bodies of Israel’s faithless doubters. 

Most importantly, it must be said that, “Mephibosheth lived a life of exodus, though “both his feet were crippled” (9:13b), as a “regular guest at David’s table, just as though he were one of the king’s sons” (9:11b).  This is the story of the nation of Israel.  This is the story of all that would come to bear the name of Israel.                

Repeating Sinai (part 1 of 2)

In the ninth chapter of the second book of Samuel, we encounter one of the most endearing Biblical stories concerning King David, that being the story of David and Mephibosheth.  Mephibosheth was the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul.  This makes him a grandson of King Saul, who had been responsible for David’s life of exile, and from whose subjugation God had entered in so as to rescue David and set him over Israel---delivering David so that he could be a deliverer of God’s people. 

Having been well established on the throne, David asks “If anyone still left from the family of Saul, so that I may extend kindness to him for the sake of Jonathan?” (2 Samuel 9:1)  David knows that Saul’s house is in exile.  As David asks this question, he very much finds himself in the role of Israel’s God, who previously looked upon His people in Egypt and desired to show them kindness for the sake of the promises that had been made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  God looked upon Israel, showing them kindness so that they might fulfill God’s covenantal promise to bless the whole world through Abraham.  In this instance, perhaps surprisingly, it is Saul and Jonathan that stand in the role of the patriarchs, while Mephibosheth stands in the role of Israel.  This point is made even more poignant as we move forward when David is informed that “One of Jonathan’s sons is left; both of his feet are crippled” (9:3b). 

When Israel was in Egypt, in bondage and in servitude, it must truly be said that the nation to whom God refers as His “son” and “firstborn” (Exodus 4:22), lay crippled, unable to provide deliverance for themselves, and unable to return to the land that had been promised to their forefathers.  Concerning Mephibosheth, David asked where he might be found, and the response came that “He is at the house of Makir son of Ammiel in Lo Debar” (9:4b).  The fact that Mephibosheth is in Lo Debar is incredibly fascinating.  As if the connection between his situation and that of Israel in Egypt was not clear enough, this mention of the place in which he was residing, wedges his story even more tightly into the overall Scriptural narrative. 

Lo Debar is generally translated as “no pasture,” which is terribly significant in relation to the theme of exile.  Indeed, not only is it thought of as a place of no pasture, but as the lack of pasture, or land, is considered within the framework of Israelite hope, along with the tremendous importance of land in relation to God’s promises to His people, Lo Debar has also come to be thought of as a place of no pasture, and no hope, and as a place of total desolation.  Is that not exile?  Is that not the situation in which Israel was living in Egypt?  Is that not what is presented by the promised curses of Deuteronomy twenty-eight, and their presentation of exile?  Could the exile of God’s people not be described as being devoid of hope and rife with desolation?  Absolutely, they could, and this is where Mephibosheth is to be found, with crippled feet, and as far as he would have been concerned, awaiting the judgment of David to fall upon him because he was a member of Saul’s house. 

King David, in act of mercy and grace towards a member of Saul’s house that posed zero threat to him, in accordance with promises made to Jonathan, reaches into the life of Mephibosheth and “had him brought from the house of Makir son of Ammiel in Lo Debar” (9:5), to be made to stand in his presence.  So too did the God of Israel, in an amazing act of mercy and grace, in accordance with promises made beginning with Abraham, reach into Egypt, gathering His people to bring them up from their desolation and subjugation, so as to stand before Him at what came to be referred to as the mountain of God (Mt. Sinai). 

In a replay of what took place at Mt. Sinai (before that pesky golden calf incident), “Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, came to David, he bowed low with his face toward the ground” (9:6a).  There, he spoke to the king and said “at your service” (9:6c).  As we might imagine, Mephibosheth was trembling in fear, unsure of the reason for which he was standing before the king, just as Israel stood before Mt. Sinai in fear, unsure of what lay before them following their exodus (redemption, rescue, deliverance, salvation, vindication, resurrection, restoration).  Mephibosheth might have believed that he now stood before David so that David might bring his exile to its full consummation, by execution.  David, however, looked upon Mephibosheth with compassion, desiring to provide him with exodus (redemption, rescue, deliverance, salvation, vindication, resurrection, restoration). 

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.