Absalom (part 17)

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

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

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

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

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

Absalom (part 15)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absalom (part 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.

Raising A Temple (part 2 of 2)

Why go through all of this analysis of Paul’s sermon in Acts?  We did so because we needed to be able to have some perspective on David, and the fact that David is not there held up as a model for emulation, as we examine his desire to build the Temple.  After expressing his desire to the prophet Nathan, David hears it said to him by that same prophet: “You should go and do whatever you have in mind, for the Lord is with you” (2 Samuel 7:3).  However, it so happens that “That night the Lord told Nathan, ‘Go, tell My servant David: “This is what the Lord says: Do you really intend to build a house for me to live in?  I have not lived in a house from the time I brought the Israelites up from Egypt to the present day.  Instead, I was traveling with them and living in a tent.  Wherever I moved among all the Israelites, I did not say to any of the leaders whom I appointed to care for My people Israel, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’”’” (7:4-7) 

This now allows us to return to the issue of motivation, as it is incumbent upon us not to place men like David on a super-spiritual level, but to remember that they were people like us, with fears and insecurities, prone to mistakes, and subject to the corrupting forces that shape any and all interaction with this world.  What’s more is that it is perfectly okay and legitimate to do this, as in the end it gives us an even more amazing picture of a faithful God---which seems to be one of the points of the Bible. 

So what was the motivation to build a Temple?  Through Nathan, God asks David as much, when He says, “Do you really intend to build a house for Me to live in?”  It’s almost as if God was saying, “Is this for Me or for you?”  To answer that, we cannot separate David’s desire to build a Temple from the relief from enemies that the Lord had given to His people and their king, and it is unlikely that the God of Israel separated these things from each other.  What was it that was signified by the temple of a god?  Power.  Prestige.  Authority.  Domination.  This was what Israel now had in their land.  They claimed that their God had given them these things.  However, if other nations and other peoples were to begin to look to Israel and to Israel’s God, which is precisely what the Lord desired, where would they find Him?  In a temple?  No.  They would find Him (in a manner of speaking) in a lowly tent.  This, of course, was not troubling for God.  However, in contact with many nations, Israel knew that such was not the house of a powerful god.  So not only would this invite scorn upon Israel, but with the lack of a glorious display of their God by a beautifully adorned temple, Israel’s position in the land could come to be looked upon as something of a fluke.  This would invite attack.  The tabernacle alone as the place of God’s dwelling could be understood as a source of embarrassment for Israel, as well as an undermining of their security. 

Apart from all of this, one had to consider the items that were to be found in the tabernacle.  There were a number of precious articles that were composed of gold and bronze, and yet, here they were housed in a simple tent.  This position, for a number of reasons, could be understood as untenable, and we can sympathize with David thinking that it needed to be addressed.  Therefore, to rectify the shortcomings of the house of their God, David proposed the construction of a Temple that would more adequately convey, at least in His mind, the power of Israel’s God.  It would seem that the prophet Nathan even succumbed to this idea for a brief period of time before God intervened to dissuade him, and David through him, of what he had encouraged David to do. 

As an aside, we here note that in the ancient world, the temple of a god was understood to be the resting place of that god.  The God of Israel, the Creator of all things, did not need to dwell in an elaborate temple, for the whole of creation was His Temple; and that was the Temple in which He rested on the seventh day, according to the record of Genesis.  Ultimately, God would take up His dwelling in human flesh, and call that His Temple. 

When Solomon would take up the task of building the Temple, it was not strictly because of a stated desire to do so.  He was simply following the instructions given to him by his father, as we find in the first book of the Chronicles (22:7-10).  There, we find David informing Solomon about his desire to build a temple, God’s denial of that desire, the reasons provided for that denial (David was a man of blood and war), and God’s insistence that it would be Solomon himself that would build the Temple to honor God (though this is never explicitly communicated in 2 Samuel---only that David’s son would build a “house” for the name of the Lord).  It is still of great interest to note that, even there in the Chronicles, it is not God that is demanding a temple to be built, but still only David. 

The Scriptural record is clear, in that it is David’s wish to build the Temple in Jerusalem, and this is probably due in large part to David’s desire to consolidate power and increase Israel’s relative security in its land, with an elaborate temple also serving as a witness of the divine sanction of his rule before the people.  So though this was not necessarily God’s doing, God made sure that when His Temple was built---even though David provided much of the supply, the building process would be carried out by a man of peace, wisdom, understanding, and justice (though this last term may be a pit problematic for Solomon in some cases).  These are epithets that are not given to David.  We cannot help but elaborate on this point, and say that the Temple of God that would come to be called the Church of Christ is built by the one known as the Prince of Peace.  It is in such a Temple that God will dwell.      

Raising A Temple (part 1 of 2)

Why did Solomon undertake the building of a Temple?  Was it his idea?  No, but rather, it was his father’s idea.  In a communication to King Hiram of Tyre, whose assistance Solomon was going to enlist in obtaining the materials for the Temple, Solomon wrote, “You know that my father David was unable to build a temple to honor the Lord his God, for he was busy fighting battles on all fronts while the Lord subdued his enemies.  But now the Lord my God has made me secure on all fronts; there is no adversary or dangerous threat.  So I have decided to build a temple to honor the Lord my God, as the Lord instructed my father David, ‘Your son, whom I will put on your throne in your place, is the one who will build a temple to honor Me.’” (1 Kings 5:3-5).  It was the security that was provided by God’s putting down of all of Israel’s enemies that provided the impetus to build the Temple. 

The security provided by God, which would be seen as part and parcel of the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, is only part of the answer as to why Solomon would build a Temple.  The Temple was established after Israel had finally, after so many years within its promised land, been rescued from foreign subjugation.  However, it was not an original idea.  In fact, it wasn’t even the first Temple.  Solomon was simply following a pattern that had already been established, and which had been established on what was essentially the same basis.  The Temple, of course, was simply a more glorious version of the tabernacle, and it was constructed for the same reasons that we can find for the construction of the tabernacle. 

The Temple, for all practical purposes, was a reiteration of the tabernacle.  Though God was certainly pleased with the Temple, and though He would come to fill it with His presence, it never came about as the result of any demand on His part.  We would probably be quite safe in saying that the desire to build a Temple was closely connected to the steps that Israel, primarily under David, had taken to gain control of their land.  To reach such a conclusion, we need only look at the circumstances surrounding the first record of an expressed desire to build a Temple. 

In the seventh chapter of the second book of Samuel, we read that “The king,” that being David, “settled into his palace, for the Lord gave him relief from all his enemies on all sides.  The king said to Nathan the prophet, ‘Look!  I am living in a palace made from cedar, while the ark of God sits in the middle of a tent.’” (7:1-2)  Now, we can examine this in one of two ways.  We can take the approach that has us holding David up as some type of super-spiritual figure that is primarily concerned with honoring the God in which he trusted, and determine that such was the motivating factor behind his desire to build a Temple, or we can infuse our assessment with elements of the realistic portrayal of David that is provided to us within the Scriptures.  We shall take the latter approach, which would seem to be altogether appropriate, bearing in mind that the Scriptures routinely lay bare before us, in quite unflattering ways, the lives of the men presented therein.  There are only three men in Scripture that seemingly escape any and all criticism (Joseph, Daniel, Jesus), so we will not tread a path that has us holding King David in what might be an unwarranted ultra-high regard. 

There are reasons why David is held in such high regard within the traditions and history of Israel, and given the history of Israel as a regularly oppressed people, David’s status as a conquering, warring, domineering and powerful king unlike any other ruler of Israel would be the primary reason for him to top the list of those that are so revered.  Of all of the reasons why David is a revered figure for Israel, perceptions of his righteousness and his moral integrity do not exactly top the list.  Yes, when Paul stands before the congregants of the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, in the process of recounting the history of Israel (beginning, of course, with the Egyptian exodus as that which always and primarily defined Israel as a people), he does say that “After removing” Saul, “God raised up David their king” (Acts 13:22a).  He continues and says that God “testified about Him,” saying “I have found David the son of Jesse to be a man after My heart, who will accomplish everything I want him to do” (13:22b).  Later in the same speech Paul would add that David “served God’s purpose in his own generation” (13:36a). 

So while these things are said of David, we need to put things in perspective.  Firstly, Paul is not, by any means, attempting to here give praise to David.  He is simply undertaking a common re-telling of the history of Israel, and doing so in a way that is going to be rather pleasing to and expected by his hearers.  If he leaves out mention of their greatest king, which he would have no reason to do, he would not be faithful to the story with which the community will be quite familiar, he’ll find his words being parsed, and the greater point that he is making will go unheard.  Secondly, he is moving to the climax of the “sermon,” (yes, it’s a sermon, which should inform us of the value of historical underpinnings within a grand narrative in all of our sermons), which is the Resurrection of Jesus, which proves the fact that He was the Messiah and therefore the inheritor of the promises made to David.  Unfortunately, we tend to extract individual elements from Paul’s presentation and use those individual elements as a means to honor David.  In all honesty, this is a rather odd practice.  Thirdly, we need to remember that David is spoken of as being a man after God’s own heart before he is anointed as king.  We do not find a repetition of such words after he takes the throne.  This is not to say that he was not such a man, but that the words that Paul quotes were words spoken to Samuel by God before we ever meet David, so we do well to keep things in order.  After we take in the full scope of the record of David that is provided to us by the Scriptures, we see a man, regularly broken, and completely reliant upon God.  It is in that sense that we can refer to him as a man after God’s own heart. 

Lastly, the fact that it is said that he served God’s purpose in his own generation should not necessarily be construed as a point of vindication that stands against his many failings.  The history of Israel, in both the writings and the prophets, clearly present an understanding that God will even use Gentile nations, such as the Assyrians and the Babylonians, to carry out His purposes.  In no way was there any intimation that serving God’s purpose at a given time in history was necessarily a badge of righteousness, apart from the fact that such things (being conquered by Assyria and Babylon) pointed to God’s righteousness (His faithfulness to His covenants).  Again, these words by Paul were not meant to exalt David, but rather to honor David’s God; and Paul’s second mention of David in the course of his speech functions as a bridge that allows Paul to cross over to the fact of Jesus’ Resurrection.  David served God’s purpose and is dead.  Jesus served God’s purpose and is alive. 

Solomon's Early Struggles (part 2 of 2)

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

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

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

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

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

Upsetting The Lord (part 2 of 2)

Having asked the incredulity-laced question of David, Nathan goes on to inform him that “the sword will never depart from your house” (2 Samuel 12:10a).  Why will this happen?  Through His prophet, God says it is because “You have despised Me by taking the wife of Uriah the Hittite as your own!” (12:10b)  This is akin to Israel’s despising their God by adopting the ways of the people around them, especially in the area of the worship of their gods.  Also, based on the context of the story of the rich man and the poor man, and the taking of the poor man’s lamb, it is not so much the taking of another man’s wife for which God is providing this judgment upon David, but (in the search for the greater subtext in which we are to be engaged ) the oppressive behavior in which David has engaged that should gain our attention. 

David was charged to protect Uriah, but rather, became a predator towards him.  David was supposed to be a deliverer for God’s people, but instead, he becomes an oppressor.  David is supposed to be used by their God, first and foremost, to bring the blessings of exodus.  Instead, David becomes the bringer of death---that which represents cursing and exile---to an individual, and also to a child.  David has presumptuously abused the power and the position that has been given to him by God, and therefore, judgment will come to him.  The same thing happened to the Pharaoh of Egypt that forgot Joseph, and by extension, the blessings of the God of Joseph and his people that blessed Egypt and made it the powerful nation that it had become.  Later on, the same thing would happen to Babylon and its king (Nebuchadnezzar), that would be raised up by God for a particular purpose in relation to His people, but then overstep the boundaries which God had set for it.  With that, judgment came to Babylon, just as it had come to Egypt, and just as it was now coming, in a different measure, to David. 

The language of cursing and exile is spoken to David, as, having already heard that the sword will never depart from his house, he also hears from the Lord that “I am about to bring disaster on you from right inside your own household!  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!  Although you have acted in secret, I will do this thing before all Israel, and in broad daylight” (12:11-12).  In Deuteronomy, one of the curses to come upon Israel for its failure to abide by the Lord’s commands is that “You will be engaged to a woman and another man will rape her” (28:30).  This may be harsh language, but this is about David feeling the weight of the boot of oppression, and experiencing humiliation, scorn, and ridicule (28:37).  His is a greater responsibility, and with the words of Nathan, David is quickly brought to realize his failure to live up to that responsibility. He exclaims, “I have sinned against the Lord!” (12:13b) 

David is fully aware of the oppression that he has wrought.  He is fully cognizant of the fact that he has failed.  He knows that all of the words that have been spoken to him---representative of exile---will come to pass, and that the sword will never depart from his house and that he will be humiliated before the people.  He knows that he must suffer these things, and with the confession that he has failed to live up to what was expected of him, and that he has failed to be a light to his people and to the surrounding nations, and that he has failed to adequately reflect the glory of God into the world (that he has sinned), he hopes that he will be vindicated through the suffering and come to experience an exodus.  Hearing David’s confession, Nathan says, “Yes, and the Lord has forgiven your sin.  You are not going to die” (12:13c). 

The finality of exile was not going to be David’s lot.  These words of forgiveness do inform David that there will be exodus on the other side of the exile that he is going to experience.  Yes, the sword will forever be there in his house.  Yes, he was going to have his wives taken from him.  Yes, he was going to be an object of ridicule.  Yes, he himself was going to be subject to an oppressor in a physical exile, as the declaration in his regards to his wives would come about in connection with the rebellion of Absalom which was soon to come.  The forgiveness of sin which, throughout Israel’s history, was always accompanied by a turning to the Lord, meant that God had responded favorably to His people’s confession and set about bringing their return from exile to pass, was now David’s experience as well.  “Nonetheless,” says Nathan, “because you have treated the Lord with such contempt in this matter,” which was a clear allusion to Israel’s idolatry and therefore a sign to David that there was going to be judgment, “the son who has been born to you will certainly die” (12:14).  

Upsetting The Lord (part 1 of 2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Davidic Expectations

In the seventh chapter of second Samuel, David begins to contemplate the building of a temple to God.  While David is talking about building a house for God, God begins talking building a house for David.  This talk of David’s house begins with God speaking to the prophet Nathan, instructing him to speak to David and say, “I took you from the pasture and from your work as a shepherd to make you leader of My people Israel” (2 Samuel 7:8b).  This is an allusion to David’s Moses-like story, in that this was essentially Moses’ experience as well.  In the same vein, with a hearkening to the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night that attended Israel in the wilderness of Moses’ leadership, God goes on to say through Nathan, “I was with you wherever you went, and I defeated all your enemies before you” (7:9a).  To this is added, “Now I will make you as famous as the great men of the earth” (7:9b), which can undoubtedly be said of David. 

Following this, the Lord turns his attention ever so slightly to Israel, saying “I will establish a place for My people Israel and settle them there; they will live there and not be disturbed any more.  Violent men will not oppress them again, as they did in the beginning and during the time when I appointed judges to lead My people Israel” (7:10-11a).  God informs David that He wants to give His people a permanent exodus---a permanent rescue.  This sounds remarkably like a promise given voice by Jeremiah (indicating a pattern of belief and expectation), when the Lord informs His people that they will ultimately be delivered from exile, so as to dwell in His gift of exodus for all of their days.  In Jeremiah, God says, “’When the time for them to be rescued comes,’ says the Lord Who rules over all, ‘I will rescue you from foreign subjugation.  I will deliver you from captivity.  Foreigners will then no longer subjugate them.  But they will be subject to the Lord their God and to the Davidic ruler whom I will raise up as king over them’.” (Jeremiah 30:8-9) 

This mention of the Davidic ruler seems to connect this passage quite explicitly with what is happening in Second Samuel, as we return there and read the continuation of the Lord’s words to David, which are “The Lord declares to you that He Himself will build a dynastic house for you.  When the time comes for you to die, I will raise up your descendant, one of your own sons, to succeed you, and I will establish his kingdom.  He will build a house for My Name, and I will make his dynasty permanent.  I will become his Father and he will become My son” (7:11b-14a).  With the benefit of hindsight, it is impossible for us to read those words without having our minds transported beyond David’s son Solomon, though he would be raised up at the time of David’s death, to succeed him, and his kingdom was most definitely established, with peace on all sides.  Indeed, he would build a house for the Name of the Lord, as he did build the Temple of God in Jerusalem.  His dynasty however, though it did endure for some time, cannot truly be spoken of as permanent.  So going beyond Solomon, and beyond the kings of Israel and Judah, we search for a person to whom we can apply these words, and in doing so, we eventually land upon the one who would be messiah. 

The messiah (the deliverer to whom all previous deliverers of Israel pointed) was going to be the great king of Israel, the Son of David, whose kingdom would be established forever.  The house that he would build in the Name of the Lord was going to be a glorious house to which all men would look and come for the worship of the God of Israel.  The messiah was expected to have a permanent dynasty, because when he appeared, it was believed that he would be the physical embodiment of Israel’s God, entering into history to set the world right.  It was the messiah that would be the true Son of God---the great king of Israel under whose rule Israel would be safely established and no longer oppressed, and through whose rule God would set Israel above all peoples and all nations. 

Returning to the passage from Jeremiah, in the context of being established, a Davidic ruler, and the permanent dynasty that has been promised to David, we go on to hear God say, “So I, the Lord, tell you not to be afraid, you descendants of Jacob, My servants.  Do not be terrified, people of Israel.  For I will rescue you and your descendants from a faraway land where you are captives.  The descendants of Jacob will return to their land and enjoy peace.  They will be secure and no one will terrify them.  For I, the Lord, affirm that I will be with you and will rescue you” (10-11a).  The promises do not stop there, as there is more to the word of the Lord in the passage from Jeremiah, just as there is more to the words of God through Nathan. 

From Nathan, we go on to hear “When he sins,” in reference to the descendant that will be raised up, “I will correct him with the rod of men and with wounds inflicted by human beings.  But My loyal love will not be removed from him as I removed it from Saul, whom I removed from before you” (7:14b-15).  In Jeremiah, God goes on to say, “I will completely destroy all the nations where I scattered you.  But I will not completely destroy you.  I will indeed discipline you, but only in due measure.  I will not allow you to go entirely unpunished” (30:11b).  The greater context of this promise of the infliction of wounds is the continuation of the Davidic dynasty, which we also find being communicated to David, as God says that, in spite of the wounds that would be inflicted upon David’s descendant by human beings, that “Your house and your kingdom will stand before Me permanently; your dynasty will be permanent” (7:16).  Once this great descendant takes the throne, the rescue provided by the Lord will never come to an end.