David & The Gibeonites (part 1)

He turned them over to the Gibeonites, and they executed them on a hill before the Lord. – 2 Samuel 21:9a  (NET)

It is said that “During David’s reign there was a famine for three consecutive years.  So David inquired of the Lord.  It is recorded that the Lord said, ‘It is because of Saul and his bloodstained family, because he murdered the Gibeonites.’” (21:1)  The Gibeonites, by way of recollection, were the group of people that came to Joshua and Israel, pretending to be from a faraway land, offering terms of peace.  Joshua and Israel made a treaty with them, and upheld the treaty (though they would become woodcutters and water-carriers for Israel) even when it was discovered that they had lied and misrepresented themselves. 

The author here takes step to cause a reader to remember these things (which are obviously closely connected with the exodus and the conquering of the promised land, calling to mind the Creator God’s actions on behalf of His people), by writing “The Israelites had made a promise to them” (21:2b); “but,” he goes on to write, “Saul tried to kill them because of his zeal for the people of Israel and Judah” (21:2c).   

It is in response to this knowledge, along with the word that he is said to have 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, one 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, blessed Israel). 

Here, David appears to be seizing on an opportunity.  He is using the fact of 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). 

Absalom (part 7)

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

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

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

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

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

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

In This Is Love (part 13)

What would Jesus do on the heels of crossing the Jordan and His forty wilderness days?  Mark reports that “Jesus went into Galilee and proclaimed the Gospel of God.  He said, ‘The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is near.  Repent and believe the Gospel!’” (1:14b)  Jesus embarked upon His kingdom establishing mission, doing so as Israel had done, though it would take on a different appearance. 

In the book of Joshua, Rahab informs the reader that the inhabitants of the land---presented as the defiling usurpers in Israel’s promised territory (much like death was a defiling usurper in the Creator’s good creation)---feared Israel greatly, knowing that they had already destroyed great kings and gained decisive victories over other peoples during their post-Egypt wilderness sojourn.  To this reported of Rahab can be equated the fearfulness expressed by the unclean spirits with which Jesus is said to have dealt, who would cry out with words such as “Leave us alone, Jesus the Nazarene!  Have you come to destroy us?” (Mark 1:24a)  Like it had also been said of Israel (son of God), Jesus (Son of God) is even referred to by these demons as “the Holy One of God” (1:24b). 

To accomplish the purpose of His mission, Jesus first went to Galilee?  Why?  Because just like Israel, who was to be a son of God that would shine as a light of the Creator God’s glory to the world, Jesus was a Son that understood that He was tasked with doing the same.  If He was indeed the Messiah, and according to His own messianic interpretation, He had to fulfill the messianic role as understood through the words of the prophets.  Matthew assists in informing the answer as to why Jesus would do this, quoting from Isaiah from a post-Resurrection-and-Jesus-mission-comprehension-position and saying “Galilee of the Gentiles---the people who sit in darkness  have seen a great light, and on those who sit in the region of the shadow of death a light has dawned” (Matthew 4:15b-16, Isaiah 9:1-2). 

Moving along, it can be seen that the analogous relationship between Jesus and Solomon is straightforward, but at the same time requires a bit of thoughtful application.  As son of God, Solomon was a king, and this comes to be understood to be true for Jesus as well.  Certainly, the promises of the Davidic covenant, while applicable to Solomon, can almost all be seen through to Jesus.  Because the son of God was purposed to serve, like Israel, as a light to the nations and as a destroyer of the works of the devil (in its most basic manifestation of idolatry, from which so much evil springs), one of the interesting ways to make a comparison between Solomon and Jesus through the lens of Israel’s and the Scripture’s understanding and presentation of the son of God (which, as always, must be the basis for any and all right understanding), is to be found in the first book of the Kings. 

There it is reported that “People from all nations came to hear Solomon’s display of wisdom; they came from all the kings of the earth who heard about his wisdom” (1 Kings 4:34).  It is said that “Solomon was wiser than all the men of the east and all the sages of Egypt” (4:30), while helpfully going on to list four prominent wise men of his day.  Relating this then to Jesus, one need merely consider the crowds that were said to have routinely flocked to Him and followed Him, presumably because of His displays of wisdom (among other things).  In Solomonic tradition, these crowds were composed of Jesus’ fellow countrymen, and would also include Gentiles from within the borders of Israel and the surrounding nations.  As was said of Jesus, which could also be fittingly said of Solomon, “No one ever spoke like this man!” (John 7:46)    

Only Son (part 16)

This scene first introduced into the Scriptural narrative through the Adam story, would repeat itself, on the whole, with Israel.  Primarily, the covenant people would repeatedly fall into idolatry.  Therefore, rather than perpetually enjoying the blessings of their God (though the record suggests that there were times of great blessing), times of cursing were their regular lot.  The cursing was exile, meaning they were relegated to a place outside of their God’s purposes for them.  This generally meant subjection to a foreign power (whether inside or outside of their promised land, though even in the exiles, the land was not emptied), which can be regularly seen from the time of the Judges (following the death of Joshua), right on through the entirety of their history that led up to Jesus. 

Their God’s cursing meant death, destruction, shame, and exile, which meant that Israel, which defined itself as a people according to their exodus, was in almost constant need of exodus.  Because shame and exile were the equivalent of death, Israel was constantly in need of resurrection.  They were in constant need of eternal life, which would mean rescue, deliverance, redemption, salvation, restoration, and new creation (not an endless eternity in heaven after death), all of which are well summed up in “resurrection.”  Their position however, because they did not trust a God that is shown forth as having continually proved Himself to be faithful in both blessing and cursing, was that of constant perishing. 

The Creator God’s intention for Israel was for it to be a light to all the world.  Not only does their history suggest that did they not achieve this, but by the time of Jesus, Israel is shown to have turned almost completely inward, choosing only to be a light for itself, to what would appear to be the exclusion of the rest of the world.  Clearly, this was not what the covenant God intended for His one and only son, be it Adam or Israel.  Thus, taking all of this into consideration, as would Nicodemus, it could be said that the Creator God of Israel loved the world that He had created so much, that He raised up Israel, His son (after the failure of Adam), and gave him a commission and an ordination to be the representative of His love and power into the world. 

This, of course, would be completely contingent on Israel believing in Him and in His covenantal promises.  Had they believed, then they, and the world through them, would have enjoyed eternal life.  However, they are shown to have not believed wholeheartedly in their God, so ultimately, the perishing of an almost continuous exile had been their experience.  Because of that, the world did not experience the Creator God’s glory and redemption, but remained in its perished condition as well.          

It has been demonstrated that both Adam and Israel were positioned as sons of God.  This has been done so that it would be possible to rightly comprehend the engagement between Nicodemus and Jesus, with its rooting in Jewish hope and expectation according to the history of the world and the history of Israel.  Both of those histories are related to the redemptive history that had been playing out according to the Creator God’s covenant faithfulness, and this is the framework that has been built for an understanding of Jesus and His mission. 

By using the language that is to be found in John 3:16, one can not only find that Jesus understands Himself along this historical-redemptive line, but that Jesus also wants Nicodemus to understand His purposes according to the historical-redemptive pattern set forth in the history of Israel as a nation, and in that of mankind as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures. 

Marching Up From Gilgal (part 2 of 2)

This marching up of Jesus and His brave warriors, from the place where death was given its own fatal blow, should provide the reader of Scripture with a fresh attunement to the words of the sixth chapter of Ephesians (remembering that the New Testament, with its reflections upon Jesus, only makes sense in light of the Hebrew Scriptures), and the Apostle Paul’s insistence upon taking up the armor of God, so as to do battle with the rulers, the powers, and the forces of evil that attempt their continued (and ultimately futile) stand to wreak havoc within Jesus’ kingdom of heaven that was inaugurated with His Resurrection. 

As the Lord commanded Joshua to be unafraid, in much the same way, Jesus commanded His first group of brave warriors (using the term loosely) to be unafraid of going out to preach the Gospel message of His kingdom, so as to unleash the very power of the spoken message itself (backed up by acts of self-sacrificial love) against the forces of death, informing them that “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me” (Matthew 28:18b), and reminding them that “I am with you always” (28:20b).  Because of that authority, and the power that stands behind it, it is presumed and believed to be the case that no enemy will be able to stand. 

Returning then to Joshua, one finds that “Joshua attacked them by surprise after marching all night from Gilgal” (Joshua 10:9), and that through this, “The Lord routed them before Israel” (10:10a).  Is it not possible to see much the same thing with Jesus?  Figuratively, Jesus marched from Golgotha to the grave.  With His Resurrection however, He figuratively attacked His surprised enemy, death, that had exerted its power and authority through the kings and rulers of this world (having been exerted against Him as well), swallowing it up in victory and relieving it of its sting (1 Corinthians 15:54-55). 

In this story in Joshua, it is said that “The sun stood still and the moon stood motionless while the nation took vengeance on its enemies” (10:13a).  During the three days and three nights of Jesus’ entombment, at the very moment when a new and transformative power for life animated His body, in the few moments following the Resurrection when the groaning creation itself began to take in what had been accomplished within it, in those first declarations of a risen Lord that sprung from a once-defeated band of disciples, and as in these things the kingdom of the Creator God took vengeance on its enemies, can heaven’s response not be imagined?  Exalted language, such as the standing still of the sun and moon, would be necessary to attempt to adequately convey the significance of such things. 

It was said in Joshua that “there has not been a day like it before or since.  The Lord obeyed a man, for the Lord fought for Israel!” (10:14)  As one considers the crucifixion and the Resurrection, it would more than appropriate to reiterate that statement, as those that cast their lot with Jesus are thankful for what was accomplished once and for all time at the cross, and for the new life that was accomplished and promised because the Creator God brought the man Jesus forth from the grave.  It is then possible to reverse what was said of Joshua, and declare that because of one Man’s obedience, the Lord did indeed fight for Israel---for His covenant people.        

Marching Up From Gilgal (part 1 of 2)

So Joshua and his whole army, including the bravest warriors, marched up from Gilgal. – Joshua 10:7  (NET)

Gilgal was the place to which the Israelite nation first came after crossing the Jordan River and entering into their land of promise, doing so under the leadership of Joshua.  According to the Scriptural narrative as reported in the book of Joshua, it was at Gilgal that the men of Israel were circumcised, with this done in accordance with the terms of the Abrahamic covenant that has been effectively

re-confirmed and substantially expanded upon, through Moses at Mount Sinai.  With the circumcisions having been undertaken, “The Lord said to Joshua, ‘Today I have taken away the disgrace of Egypt from you’.” (5:9a)  The follow-up to that statement is that “the place is called Gilgal even to this day” (5:9b). 

The root of the word “Gilgal” is “galal,” which expresses the idea of something round, or circular, or rolling.  Because of this, the phrase “taken away” is sometimes translated or considered as “rolled away.”  The same root is to be found in the word “Galilee,” with this said to be related to the fact that the cities of the Galilee were set around the lake, in something of a circuit. 

Another word that is closely related to Gilgal is “Golgotha.”  The close relations occurs because of a shared root word.  Golgotha, of course, was the place where Jesus was crucified.  In Aramaic, the word is “Gulgoltha,” which becomes “Golgotha” in Greek.  The sharing of the root word “galal” occurs because of the occurrence of galal in the Hebrew word for “skull,” which is “gulgoluth.”  The “galal” in “gulgoluth,” presumably, is connected to the roundness of the human skull. 

Because of the close connection between Gilgal and Golgotha, together with the fact that “Joshua” or “Yeshua” is the Hebrew form of the name “Jesus,” close parallels are able to be drawn between the events that occur in connection with the place called Gilgal, and the events that occurred in connection with the place that is called Golgotha.  The natural and immediate connection to make is that just as the Creator God is said to have rolled away or taken away the disgrace of Egypt from off of His covenant people at that place, so too, within the single continuous narrative that is communicated via the Scriptures in which the ministry of Jesus and the reflections upon His ministry make sense, did He remove (roll away, take away) the disgrace of sin (failure to bear the divine image---exile from His purposes for them) from off of the new covenant people by means of the cross. 

While this should certainly be a cause for rejoicing amongst those that find themselves joining the people of the covenant through belief in Jesus as Messiah, that is not the focus of this study.  Rather, this study looks to the tenth chapter of Joshua, where “Joshua and his whole army, including the bravest warriors” (10:7a), can be found marching up from Gilgal to do battle with the five Amorite kings.

There, it is said that “The Lord told Joshua, ‘Don’t be afraid of them, for I am handing them over to you.  Not one of them can resist you’.” (10:8)  So just as Joshua marched up from Gilgal, with brave warriors in tow, so too does Jesus march up from Golgotha, with His saints, to do battle with the forces of evil.  Yes, those that have cast their allegiance with Him as King and Lord of all, go forth in the power of the Resurrection, but do so on the basis of what took place at the cross.  

Measure Given, Measure Received (part 6)

By now, there should be a growing sense of where all of this talk from Jesus is heading, as He now says, “Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your possessions back from the person who takes them away” (Luke 6:30).  For His Jewish brethren, talk of “possessions,” as He has been speaking in a way that would have been reminding them of their occupation by Rome and thus creating the ongoing context in which His words are to be heard, would be quickly connected to their land. 

The Creator God’s promise and directive to Israel, dating back to the time of Moses and Joshua, was to possess the land.  This possessing of the land was a part of their God’s special blessings upon His people.  In their present situation, as has been pointed out, though they were living in their promised land, they did not possess the land.  Rome possessed their land.  Illegitimate rulers (the Herods) possessed their land.  On a secondary level, though it may have been the case that individuals were able to own pieces of land, in the legal sense, oppressive taxation would have forced many to either sell or turn over their land, to satisfy the tax obligation.  This would be yet another reason to despise their oppressors, their enemies, and those who cursed them, but Jesus follows up on this and says, “Treat others in the same way that you would want them to treat you” (6:31).  Again, these are not free-floating aphorisms, but rather, are thoughts connected to a foundational premise.   

Though the oppression was heavy, and though His people had plenty of reasons to complain, to demand more just treatment, or to look to Rome and to their provincial rulers and say, “We’ll begin respecting you when you begin treating us better,” Jesus puts the onus on His hearers.  This, of course, is His kingdom model.  Jesus says “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you… Give, and it will be given to you… For the measure you use will be the measure you receive” (6:27-28, 38a,c).  The words of giving and receiving come forth from within this flow of thought.   

Did the Romans deserve to be overthrown and driven from their land?  Probably so, but that appears to be irrelevant to Jesus.  Driving the Romans from the land would not usher in the kingdom of God.  This would not cause their God to return to His people and His place (the Temple).  This could actually be counter-productive to the Creator God’s desired end for His people, as repentance from their covenant failures (failure to be a light to the nations and to represent their God to His creation) is what was to bring about desired ends, rather than the raising of arms.  One can only imagine how the point would be driven home and made all the more poignant when it is considered that His hearers may have been able to look around them and see Roman soldiers.

Having talked about treating others in the same way that they desired to be treated, Jesus goes on and says, “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you?  For even sinners love those who love them” (6:32).  This brings up another question.  Who is Jesus talking about when He speaks of sinners?  This goes back to a consideration of who can be found in His audience.  Remember, He had drawn people from Judea, Jerusalem, Tyre, and Sidon---Jews and Gentiles.  So when “sinners” are mentioned, this should not be taken to be a general reference to people who are not “saved,” or who engage in the things that many are so quick to label as sin. 

“Sinners,” as opposed to “saints,” would be a reference to those that were outside of God’s covenant.  At the same time, care must be taken to not hear this as Jesus passing judgment on those outside the covenant, for Jesus would say that He came to call sinners into His covenant.  In that day, “sinner” was a term applied to those that did not live according to a strict interpretation of covenant obligations (circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, dietary laws, and perhaps even socializing), while also being another term for Gentile.  So when Jesus spoke of sinners, it was a simple matter of His Jewish listeners to look around them and see a number of sinners, with all of them eagerly listening to this man that might very well be the long-awaited Jewish Messiah. 

This Is My Covenant With You (part 2 of 2)

We find out in the book of Joshua that Israel failed to keep this covenantal requirement during their years in the wilderness.  They failed to continue their expression of gratitude to the grace shown them by their supreme patron, thus dishonoring themselves.  Should we not find this to be quite odd?  This was God’s covenantal requirement, and Israel had clearly seen their covenant God acting on their behalf, fulfilling His age-old promises, in both their deliverance and their time in the wilderness before re-entering their Promised Land.  Yet they failed to exercise this requirement that would have been quite basic to their honor-and-shame-defined world.  Perhaps they were waiting to see if the God that rained down plagues on the Egyptians, led them in pillars of cloud and fire, parted the Red Sea, delivered manna daily, and made water flow from rocks, could actually bring them into the place that He had for them?  If He managed that, then they could trust Him, and then, they would express their gratitude by re-engaging in this covenant requirement, showing their God that they were willing to once again trust Him and accept His covenant. 

It seems as if there might very well have been an underlying attitude that they were doing God a favor by fulfilling and then continuing the practice of circumcision as a sign of covenant.  That attitude appears to be well reflected in the fact that, rather than look to the requirement as a sign and symbol of gratitude to their God for His demonstration and extension of grace, mercy and faithfulness to them as children of Abraham, it became a source of pride and a basis for excluding other peoples from the blessings associated with the covenant.  God had told Abraham that through him, and then through his descendants as well, all nations would be blessed; and part of Israel’s charge was to be a light to the nations.  Israel, however, held up the very thing that symbolized a covenant that was designed to extend His blessings to all peoples, and pointed to it as the sign of their God’s favor on them and them alone.  They were not actively seeking to extend the honor of their patron by loudly sharing about His good deeds, which would be the standard practice of grateful clients. 

Israel, not unlike we find through the history of Christendom through this very day, took a gift of God and used it to build walls of separation, so as to keep God’s blessing all to themselves (as if the covenant God was ever going to bless Israel---or anyone else for that matter---in its maintaining of exclusionary practices).  Rather than seeking to expand their patron’s clientele and the implied kinship group of their patron, which would have been customary, they acted to limit the influence and honor of their patron, whilst limiting his roster of clientele.  The sign of the covenant became a tradition that basically served to indicate that they were graciously choosing to be God’s people, and by extension, that the God owed them His blessings.  It seems as if Israel accepted the premise that their God was limited, that the things with which He could bless them were a limited good, and that the honor that could be gained by being in His patronage was a limited good, so they had to protect their own interest by limiting who could participate in their God’s circle of grace.

Circumcision, the symbol of God’s covenant faithfulness, and the mark that served to indicate recognition of the Creator God as one’s patron, was also meant to consistently remind God’s people of their responsibilities in accordance with that covenant, which included extending the covenant family of their patron, and the associated blessings, to include all the peoples of the world.  If the responsibilities were forsaken, then the symbol itself was pointless.  The one that has been brought into the covenant, and then proceeds to shrink back from the covenantal duties to be the light that extends God’s blessings, instead throwing up walls and barriers and exclusionary principles, brings shame and dishonor to both himself and his patron, and might as well not even bear the marks of covenant.  God said to Abraham that “Any uncircumcised male…will be cut off from his people---he has failed to carry out My requirement” (Genesis 17:14).  This is very strong “shaming” language.   

Making an application then, if we find ourselves falling into patterns of separation that keep us from being covenantal people in line with God’s covenantal purposes, which is the continued extension of the Christ’s kingdom through the preaching of the Gospel that goes forth with Resurrection power for eternal life (here and now) for all who believe; but instead, find ourselves withdrawing into the walls of our churches in a supposed fostering of holiness as we await the “end times,” or making and keeping Christianity a private and eminently personal matter between us and God that is almost entirely concerned with getting and staying saved so that we can simply escape earth and spend eternity in heaven, or encouraging a mentality of “us against the world,” we dishonor our patron and fail as His clients.  It is likely that God would see that as nothing less than a failure to carry out what He requires from His chosen people, and a dishonoring slap in the face to Him.  God’s warning to us is that such a person is not part of His covenant people---they are cut off.      

God Of Tents (part 1 of 4)

When the boys grew up, Esau became a skilled hunter, a man of the open fields, but Jacob was an even-tempered man, living in tents. – Genesis 25:27  NET

At first glance, this simple statement doesn’t seem all that significant, and has all the appearances of a basic relaying of biographical information concerning Esau and Jacob.  When we read something like “When the boys grew up, Esau became a skilled hunter, a man of the open fields, but Jacob was an even-tempered man, living in tents,” it might seem like the natural course of action would be to focus on the first piece of information concerning both of these men, drawing analogies based on the fact that Esau is described as a “skilled hunter,” with Jacob referred to as “even-tempered,” and from that, making applications to how we are supposed to live as people of the covenant God. 

That may be a useful exercise, but is not that which we will be doing here and now.  The far more compelling information is found in the second part of the biographical statements, in which we are told that Esau is “a man of the open fields,” whilst Jacob was “living in tents.”  This becomes an important statement when considered within the light and context provided by the larger Scriptural narrative.  We must remember that the author of Genesis (presumed to be Moses---and we have no reason to argue that point, though it doesn’t really matter for our purposes) is here recounting the foundational history of man in general, and of Israel in particular.  The record of what are commonly known as the five books of Moses indicate that he was doing these things while Israel was living in the wilderness between Egypt and Canaan, following their exodus, during the forty years of wandering that was imposed upon them by God because of their basic lack of trust in Him.  At that time, Israel was dwelling in tents.  The Ark of the Covenant was housed in a tent.  Moses met with the Lord in a tent.  Because of the repeated filling of the tabernacle with the cloud of the presence of the Lord, it could be said that God Himself was also dwelling in a tent.  Looking further down the road, it will be said that in the Messiah, God would and did strike a tent in human flesh so as to tabernacle with His own creation.  In that context, it becomes singularly interesting that the trade of the Apostle Paul was that of tent-maker. 

As we can broadly reflect on Genesis and consider that tents are routinely mentioned inside and along with the stories of Abraham and Isaac, we can consider that there is something significant about tents.  Not only were the tents of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Israel instrumental in better facilitating their regular movement, that they might be better positioned to become a blessing to the multiplied peoples of the earth, but the tents would also serve as an ongoing reminder of their exile and their exodus.  For Israel, as the narrative that leads up to Exodus and the beginnings of Israel’s history as a distinct people is compiled, the tents of the Genesis narrative take on a particular importance.  This is especially so when we consider the yearly Feast of Tabernacles, when the nation is required to take up residence in tents, as an explicit reminder of their exodus and its associated time in the wilderness. 

It is simply amazing to consider how much importance is given to Israel’s Egyptian exodus within the history of the nation, with the reminder provided by the feasts of Tabernacles and the Passover, not to mention the regular recitation of the people’s history, and the near constant reference to Egypt in the mouths of Israel’s judges, and prophets.  Because Jacob is the immediate father of the nation of Israel, with the fact that his name is changed from Jacob to Israel providing witness to that fact, we are not left to wonder at the reason for this mentioning of Jacob as one who lived in tents.  For Israel, it would provide a sustaining and encouraging link to the past and to their forefathers, as they, though they were the covenant people and were in possession of a promise of a specific land of their own, dwelt in tents in a desert during the time of Moses’ leadership.  So this becomes a very useful connection in fanning the flames of hope amongst the people of Israel. 

Because the Biblical record presents us with relatively short and fleeting periods of time in which Israel is actually in controlling possession of the promised land (implicitly near the end of Joshua’s leadership; sporadically during the time of the judges;  consistently during the time of the united monarchy kingdom monarchy of Saul, David, and Solomon; and tenuously throughout the entire period of the divided kingdom), and that apart from the reign of Solomon, this control is always challenged by enemies on various sides, the tents serve a purpose well beyond the time in the wilderness, always reminding promised-land-occupying-Israel of possible exile and triumphant exodus, and ideally, of its responsibility to be a blessing to the nations in spite of its perceived difficulties.  

David & Amalek

In between Saul’s visit to the witch at Endor and the record of his death, we can find the story of David and his defeat of the Amalekites.  It is quite interesting that the author of the first book of Samuel saw fit to arrange the material in this way, whether or not the arrangement represents a precise chronological progression of events within Israel’s history (though the beginning of the second book of Samuel indicates that such is the case).  At Endor, Saul has Samuel tell him about his pending death and the re-subjugation of Israel, connecting both with his not carrying out the Lord’s “fierce anger against the Amalekites” (1 Samuel 28:18b).  From there, the story of the book progresses to the story of David being rejected and sent away by the Philistine leaders, which makes for a curious juxtaposition against Samuel’s declaration that Saul will be brought down by those same Philistines. 

After David had been sent away from the Philistines, as they were about to go to war with Israel, “David and his men came to Ziklag” (30:1a).  There, we find that “the Amalekites,” who had not been completely annihilated by Saul, “had raided the Negev and Ziklag.  They attacked Ziklag and burned it.  They took captive the women who were in it, from the youngest to the oldest, but they did not kill anyone.  They simply carried them off and went on their way” (30:1b-2).  Obviously, this only came about because Saul had failed in his duties.  The Amalekites had been left alive to complete (albeit on a smaller scale) that which they had attempted when they had encountered Israel on their way out of Egypt.  Here, David and his men, representative of Israel, were exodus-ing what could be referred to as their Philistine exile, when Amalek attacked.  This is somewhat congruent to Amalek’s attack of Israel while they were exodus-ing Egypt.  While we can see, in the raiding and the burning and the taking captive, something akin to the curses of Deuteronomy, it is clear that these are not being conducted at the hand of God against His wayward people.  What we should see is God providing David, as a deliverer within Israel, with a pretext for the continued efforts against a people that were destined for complete destruction. 

Moving on, we read that “When David and his men came to the city, they found it burned…  Then David and the men who were with him wept loudly until they could weep no more… each man grieved bitterly over his sons and daughters” (30:3-4,6c).  Even though David was suffering right along with his men, having had his two wives taken, “the men were thinking of stoning him” (30:6b), in a vivid reminder of the murmuring and complaining against Moses, by Israel, in the wilderness following the exodus.  Just as Israel wanted to return to their Egyptian exile and their subjugation, so David’s men wanted to subjugate him to death.  However, “David,” like Moses, when faced with this adversity, “drew strength from the Lord his God” (30:6d).  “David inquired of the Lord, saying, ‘Should I pursue this raiding band?  Will I overtake them?’” (30:8a)  The response that came to David was “Pursue, for you will certainly overtake them and carry out a rescue” (30:8b). 

When David did indeed catch up with this group of Amalekites, “They were eating and drinking and enjoying themselves because of all the loot they had taken from the land of the Philistines and from the land of Judah” (30:16b).  Though this could easily have been viewed in accordance with the Deuteronomic curses that stressed Israel’s loss of “loot,” David clearly saw it as an opportunity to enter into the blessings commensurate with faithfulness to God’s covenantal commands, so he attacked.  “David struck them down from twilight until the following evening” (30:17a).  It is said that “None of them escaped, with the exception of four hundred young men who got away on camels” (30:17b).  Not only does this remind us of the promised blessing that Israel’s enemies would flee before them (Deuteronomy 28:7), but it also speaks to the woeful inadequacy of Saul’s striking down of Amalek, especially if there were so many Amalekites that even after experiencing being struck down for an extended period of time, there were still so many men to escape, and so many camels on which to escape, even as it is said that “None of them escaped.”  This speaks to there being a significantly large number of Amalekites with which David had to deal, as he attempted to complete Saul’s mission.  

Among other things, this should bring to mind Israel’s conquest of the Promised Land under Joshua, and the ongoing (yet never completely successful) attempts to rid the land of the people by which it was inhabited, and which God had commanded His people to drive out.  Just as Amalek became this ongoing source of problems for Israel, so too would the people of the land be an ongoing source of frustration---not just by their presence, but through the deleterious effects that they would have upon God’s people and upon what had been ordained as their proper worship. 

Reveling in the blessings of the Lord’s deliverance, David provided rescue.  It is reported that “David retrieved everything the Amalekites had taken” (30:18a).  In a sense, this is the point at which David becomes king, as the Amalekites, figuratively, had taken the kingship from Saul.  Where Saul had failed, David had truly begun to succeed.  When a division arose concerning the sharing of the plunder, David takes up the language of exodus, speaking of the Lord and saying “He has protected us and delivered into our hands the raiding party that came against us” (30:23b).  He had rescued women and children from foreign subjugation, and now, following Saul’s death which immediately follows within this historical record, David is going to be installed as king, and used by God to continue the redemption and rescue of His people.