Absalom (part 13)

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

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

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

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

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

Slavery (part 1 of 2)

“Every seven years each of you must free any fellow Hebrews who have sold themselves to you.  After they have served you for six years, you shall set them free.” – Jeremiah 34:14a  (NET)

This seems to be a simple enough directive, and is prefaced with Israel’s God offering a reminder to His covenant people, through Jeremiah, that “I made a covenant with your ancestors when I brought them out of Egypt where they had been slaves” (34:13b).  The text above is what follows.  Because the people of Israel had been in perpetual slavery in Egypt, with seemingly no way out of it, God wanted to be sure that His people did not perpetually enslave any of their fellow countrymen, who would most likely come into the state of slavery as a result of indebtedness.  Generally, there was a path out of debt slavery, but this would not always be the case, depending on the level of debt incurred. 

Just as their God had entered in to their situation in order to free them from their slavery to the Egyptians, having heard the groaning of His people in their condition of oppression, so their God was, in a sense, here entering in to make sure that a state of slavery among His people would not be persistent.  We can certainly imagine that the God of Israel would not want to have to hear the groaning of His own people, as they are oppressed by their fellow covenant-bearers, and therefore need to deliver the cursing of plagues upon His own people for this transgression. 

Not only was the basis for the freeing of slaves rooted in the remembrance of their Egyptian slavery and the subsequent deliverance that they experienced, but the act of freeing the slaves would be a great reminder of God’s saving power.  By freeing their own slaves, and doing so in a way that demonstrated mercy along with a willingness to sacrifice and endure hardship for the sake of their fellow citizen, the people of Israel were able to seize on the opportunity to enact and reenact the deliverance that had come their way in Egypt.  Unfortunately, we go on to hear the Creator God saying “But your ancestors did not obey Me or pay any attention to Me” (34:14b). 

What was the contingent basis for this communication from their God through Jeremiah?  During the reign of King Zedekiah there was an agreement that the people of Jerusalem were “to grant their slaves freedom” (34:8b).  It had been the case that “All the people and their leaders had agreed to this” (34:10a).  We can read that, “They originally complied with the covenant and freed them.  But later they had changed their minds.  They had taken back their male and female slaves that they had freed and forced them to be slaves again” (34:10c-11).  “That was when the Lord spoke to Jeremiah” (34:12), expressing His displeasure at this situation.  An analogy could be here adapted, in which the Israelites who freed their slaves, but then changed their minds and took them back again, are akin to Pharaoh and the Egyptians, who eventually freed their slaves and attempted to take them back.  This, of course, did not go well for them. 

For a moment, by freeing their slaves, the people showed their God something quite different than what He had been consistently shown by their ancestors.  Through Jeremiah, this God reportedly says to His people that “Recently…you yourselves showed a change of heart and did what is pleasing to Me” (34:15a).  It could be said that they actually showed some trust in their God, relying upon His just decrees and trusting that things would work out just fine even if they were to suffer what might seem to be financial loss in releasing their slaves.  God says that they pleased Him in that “You granted your fellow countrymen their freedom and you made a covenant to that effect in My presence in the house that I have claimed for My own” (34:15b).  However, they quickly returned to what had come to be their historical form, as God says “But then you turned right around and showed that you did not honor Me.  Each of you took back your male and female slaves whom you had freed as they desired, and you forced them to be your slaves again” (34:16). 

Finger Of God (part 1 of 2)

The magicians said to Pharaoh, “It is the finger of God!”  But Pharaoh’s heart remained hard, and he did not listen to them, just as the Lord had predicted. – Exodus 8:19  (NET)

As we read this verse, we find ourselves in the midst of the story of the plagues that are reported to have come upon the land and people of Egypt prior to Israel’s exodus.  The statement above, in regards to the finger of the Creator God of Israel, was specifically made in relation to the plague of gnats.  With this plague, we find that “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Tell Aaron, “Extend your staff and strike the dust of the ground, and it will become gnats throughout all the land of Egypt”.’  They did so” (8:16-17a).  As we would expect when reading the Scriptural narrative, this is what happened, as gnats did indeed come upon the land.  Up until that point, each time there had been a miraculous demonstration of power credited to the God of Moses and Israel, be it the turning of a staff into a serpent, the conversion of water into blood, or the bringing of frogs on the land, the reader is told that the magicians of Egypt were able to accomplish the same by their “secret arts”. 

When it came to the production of gnats upon the land, the men of Egypt attempted to follow suit.  Of course, it would be rather difficult to understand why they would want to continue doing so, as more gnats certainly wouldn’t be something desirable, but it is reasonable to imagine that there may ben an honor and shame component at work underlying the interactions and the narrative.  However, “When the magicians attempted to bring forth gnats by their secret arts, they could not” (8:18a).  Finally, a point had been reached where they could no longer go point for point against Israel’s God, and they came to realize that they were dealing with a power that was beyond them.  This is what elicited the cry of “It is the finger of God!”  However, even with these words from his magicians, the Pharaoh did not listen, thus aligning with a divine prediction that “although I will multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt, Pharaoh will not listen to you” (7:3b-4a). 

The term “finger of God” is used elsewhere in Scripture.  It has a role in the New Testament, as we actually find it on the lips of Jesus in the eleventh chapter of Luke.  There, Jesus had cast out a demon, and some of the witnesses of this event attempted to explain this occurrence by saying “By the power of Beelzebul, the ruler of demons, He casts out demons” (11:15).  Jesus responded with an indication that this made no sense at all, saying “So if Satan too is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand?” (11:18a)  It is logical to ask why in the world Satan would go about casting out Satan (himself).  Going further, Jesus says, “But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you” (11:20).

As we peruse the pages of the Bibles, we will find “finger of God” used four times, two of which we have now already seen.  The other two are Exodus 31:18, where Moses recounts that the tablets of stone that he received on Mount Sinai had been “written by the finger of God;” and in Deuteronomy 9:10, where, recounting the events first recorded in Exodus, Moses speaks again about the tablets that were “written by the very finger of God.” 

Thus, three of the usages of the term are explicitly connected with the exodus of Israel, with two of them being found in the book of Exodus itself.  Therefore, because we know that Jesus would have chosen His words quite carefully and purposefully, and because, as a Jew, Jesus would have understood Himself according to Israel’s historical/traditional narrative, it is reasonable to conclude that when Jesus uses the phrase, and when Luke reports Jesus using the phrase, also considering the fact that Jesus’ audience is Jewish (though Luke’s may not have been), that it is meant to be an implicit reminder of Israel’s exodus from Egypt, the power of the Creator God that was on display in that exodus, and the deliverance of Israel.  

Isaac's Life Of Exodus (part 4 of 6)

When Isaac had been blessed in the land, with the wealth of tremendous reaping, this did not exactly go over well with the Philistines.  Though his wealth is not attributed to anything beyond providence of God, this gaining of wealth in the land of Abimelech (Gerar) is a repetition of that which had been experienced by the original bearer of the covenant of blessing.  Abimelech gave Abraham “sheep, cattle, and male and female servants” (Genesis 20:14b).  Isaac is said to have had “sheep, cattle and such a great household of servants” (26:14a).  Not only did Abraham receive such things as gifts, he was also told “Look, my land is before you; live wherever you please” (20:15).  In response, “Abraham prayed to God, and God healed Abimelech, as well as his wife and female slaves so that they were able to have children” (20:17).  We read that Abraham did this, thereby becoming the exemplary of divine blessing that God had ordained him to be (rather than the deceiver of these people), “For the Lord had caused infertility to strike every woman in the household of Abimelech because he took Sarah, Abraham’s wife” (20:18).  Interestingly, the revelation of divine blessing that Abimelech and his household received was precisely the same blessing that Abraham would receive, and which would enable him to even have a household.  Abimelech’s wives were barren, as was Abraham’s wife. 

It would be immediately after Abraham prays and the Lord restores fertility to Abimelech’s household, that the Scriptural record confirms that “The Lord visited Sarah just as He had said He would and did for Sarah what He had promised” (21:1).  The Lord brought life to Sarah’s womb, and also brought life to the womb’s of Abimelech’s wives.  In a culture in which having children was highly prized, and in which not having children was a source of shame (with shame being the near equivalent of death in an honor and shame society), the God of Abraham becomes the God of vindication, of exodus, and of resurrection for Abimelech and his household, just as He will also show Himself to be for Abraham.  How incredibly fascinating that God does for Abimelech, through Abraham, what He promised to do for Abraham, doing it for Abimelech before He did it for Abraham.  How difficult it must have been for Abraham to pray for fertility to come to Abimelech’s household while awaiting the same to come to him.

Whereas Abraham is well appreciated by Abimelech, even after attempting to defraud him, and whereas Abraham becomes a blessing for Abimelech and the Philistines, the same cannot be said of Isaac.  His growing wealth produced the effect that “the Philistines became jealous of him” (26:14b).  In response, “the Philistines took dirt and filled up all the wells that his father’s servants had dug back in the days of his father Abraham” (26:15).  Rather than hearing what Abraham heard, which was “live wherever you please,” what Isaac heard, through these actions by the Philistines, was “please leave.”  Just in case he did not get the point with the filling of his wells, which would his continued dwelling there impossible anyway, “Abimelech said to Isaac, ‘Leave us and go elsewhere, for you have become much more powerful that we are’” (26:16).  As Israel would tell its story, this would be a natural parallel to Israel’s experience in Egypt, when “a new king, who did not know about Joseph, came to power over Egypt.  He said to his people, ‘Look at the Israelite people, more numerous and stronger that we are!  Come, let’s deal wisely with them.  Otherwise they will continue to multiply, and if a war breaks out, they will ally themselves with our enemies and fight against us” (Exodus 1:8-10a). 

This rejection of Isaac by the Philistines is not unfortunate, in that it forces Isaac into the mold that we have come to expect, which is that of exile and exodus, and a yet a further reminder of the God of movement.  Abraham went to Egypt, underwent a figurative oppression through having his wife “taken” from him, grew in numbers and power and gained great wealth, saw plagues come upon Pharaoh’s household, and was then expelled from the land.  Later, Israel went down to Egypt, and though the sequence is not necessarily the same, they grew in number, were oppressed, saw plagues come upon the whole of Pharaoh’s household (the Egyptian empire), and were then expelled from the land, gaining great wealth as part of the expulsion.  Isaac went to Gerar, grew in wealth, suffered the oppression of local opposition through the stopping of his wells (almost like a military siege), and was asked to leave.  We only lack evidence of some type of plague upon the Philistines or upon Abimelech’s house to complete the nearly identical picture (in events, if not in sequence).  This story of exiles and exodus and movement is the story that Israel was able to tell as they sought to understand and to reveal their God. 

In being exodus-ed, as he was actually in exile from the land promised to his father when in Gerar---yes, exile can even entail growing in wealth and enjoying God’s blessings and being a blessing, in fact, God will later demand that His people seek the good of their oppressors, when exiled to Babylon, “Isaac left there and settled in the Gerar Valley” (26:17).  Upon arrival there, making the point that the earlier stopping up of the wells that are essential to life can be equated with forcing Isaac to leave, the first thing that happened was “Isaac reopened the wells that had been dug back in the days of his father Abraham” (26:18a).  In this, not only is Isaac mimicking Abraham, but he represents something of a forerunner to Israel in their post-Egypt wilderness experience.      

David's Idolatry (part 2 of 3)

As a result of David’s failure in this area, with his idolatry having been revealed to himself, the prophet Gad goes to speak to David.  It is in the content of what it is that is spoken to David that we find the reason why God was angry with Israel.  Gad was instructed, by the Lord, to say to David, “This is what the Lord says: I am offering you three forms of judgment.  Pick one of them and I will carry it out against you” (2 Samuel 24:12).  What follows, in the choice of judgments given, will direct us to the basis for God’s anger.  In this, we will realize that God was not only angry with Israel, but that He was also angry with David as well. 

“Gad went to David and told him, ‘Shall seven years of famine come upon your land?  Or shall you flee for three months from your enemy with him in hot pursuit?  Or shall there be three days of plague in your land?  Now decide what I should tell the One Who sent me.’” (24:13)  Are these judgments random?  Of course not.  These are a portion of the prescribed exilic curses.  These three potential judgments force us to look to the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (though possibly post-David compilations, though the thoughts therein contained, in conjunction with Leviticus, would reflect the general tradition and operational mindset of the covenant people throughout their history), and to the understanding of their covenant and of the nature of their covenant God within which Israel operated.  In the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy we find all of these judgments, both implicitly and explicitly. 

Through Moses, the Lord speaks of His people being “cursed in the field,” with “basket and… mixing bowl cursed… as well as the produce of your soil” (28:16b,17,18b).  In addition, “The sky above your heads will be bronze and the earth beneath you iron.  The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust” (28:23-24a).  Taken together, these things point implicitly to the curse of famine.  We here find that “The Lord will allow you to be struck down before your enemies; you will attack them from one direction but flee from them in seven directions” (28:25a).  This points to the optional judgment of Israel being forced to flee from their enemies.  Explicitly, we find that “The Lord will plague you with deadly diseases… He will afflict you with weakness, fever, inflammation, infection, sword, blight, and mildew; these will attack you until you perish” (28:21-22).  Quite obviously, this correlates with the “three days of plague in your land.”  So no, these are not random selections on God’s behalf, but rather, they are overt and direct reminders of His covenant, of the covenant responsibilities of His people, and of the personal and perpetual covenant that God had made with the king that is now being forced to make a choice.  These are reminders of the curses that will come upon the people, and indeed, have come upon the people in various ways and at various times, for their falling into idolatry. 

Deuteronomy informs the people that curses will fall upon them if they “ignore the Lord your God and are not careful to keep all His commandments and statutes” (28:15).  However, the initial presentation of the curses, to be found in the twenty-sixth chapter of Leviticus, is far more direct in speaking to that which will bring these curses that are wrapped up together with the ultimate judgment of exile.  There, we find a greater degree of specificity in expectation, as we read “You must not make for yourselves idols, so you must not set up for yourselves a carved image or a pillar, and you must not place a sculpted stone in your land to bow down before it” (26:1).  To that is quickly added, by way of rounding out the primary things that God is requiring from His covenant people, “You must keep My Sabbaths and reverence My sanctuary” (26:2).  Clearly, there is a greater weight of judgment attached to idolatry, which makes perfect sense, especially considering that it was essentially the idolatry of the original humans that brought about the fall of man and of creation, for which Israel has been raised up as a part of God’s corrective measures for His divine image bearers and His once-good world. 

If we take in the grand, cosmic picture, then we will see that the judgments that God is offering to David and Israel here in the twenty-fourth chapter of second Samuel, are, in reality, nothing more than localized manifestations of the curses that came upon mankind and the world at the fall.  Indeed, the curses outlined and presented to Israel in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy, are actually rather detailed expansions on the initial curses that were spelled out to Adam and Eve---cursed ground, pain, and death.  As it relates to this story, are these not to be equated with famine, to being afflicted with plague, and to being pursued by an enemy?  This presents itself as grand evidence of a consistent and faithful God, as well as evidence that Israel was very much looked upon by the Lord as a second Adam, charged with bearing His image into the world and of reminding the whole of the created order of their Creator God.  It is this fact that informs us as to why Israel’s God looked upon and reacted so harshly against the idolatry on display, while opening our eyes to the deep-rooted redemptive plan that underlies the goings-on of this particular chapter of the story of Israel and of David.     

Song Of Exodus (part 4 of 4)

Having gone to such great lengths to identify himself with Israel, and having taken such great pains to effectively insert himself into the public consciousness of the narrative of Israel’s defining event, David then makes quite a bold leap.  We take note of this leap in the context of what it was that would have been crossing the minds of the hearers and readers of this song, in the wake of what has already been said.  

By way of review, we acknowledge that David has called to mind the God of the exodus (2 Samuel 22:2-3).  He has spoken of calling to the Lord, as did Israel in Egypt, with the congruent hearing and deliverance that followed (22:4).  With the language of death and distress, and yet another plaintive calling (22:5-7), he has reiterated his recognition of the God of the exodus, just as we saw the multiplied references to God hearing His people in Exodus.  By referencing the heaving and shaking of the earth, the trembling of the sky, the Lord’s anger, smoke and fire, and fiery coals (22:8-9), he has effectively brought the plagues to remembrance.  Mention of the descent of the sky and clouds at the feet of the Lord (22:10) have called Mount Sinai to memory.  Talk of wings (22:11) reminds the people of the Lord’s carrying Israel out of Egypt as if on the wings of an eagle and bringing them to His mountain (Exodus 19:4), which was spoken by the Lord, to Moses, at Mount Sinai.  A reference to clouds and brightness and fire (22:12-13) produces memories of being closed in at the edge of the sea, with Egypt’s army ready to attack.  Then, of course, David speaks of the parting of the waters in the face of certain annihilation, when he speaks of the depths of the sea being exposed and the inner regions of the world being uncovered by the breath of the Almighty (22:16). 

Having roused the nationalistic passions of those that would be exposed to this song, we then saw that David took the step of identifying himself with Israel, and as Israel, in his personal experience of God’s power, by a direct insertion of himself (so to speak) into the sea that had been opened up for God’s people to cross (22:17-19).  It is following this that we meet up with David’s bold leap.  Because David has recounted Israel’s experience in Egypt, the crying out, the plagues, the physical exodus, the cloud and the fire, the dry-ground crossing, the destruction of Egypt’s army, the deliverance towards the promised land, God’s presence at Sinai, and God’s personal act of delivering His people to Sinai (eagle’s wings), the very next thing that is going to be crossing the mind of the people is the Lord’s giving of the Ten Commandments, along with the incident of the golden calf.  It seems to be relatively clear that David has this in mind; and bearing in mind that he has positioned himself as Israel (he may have been helped along in thinking this way because he too has a special covenant with God), he goes on to say, “The Lord repaid me for my godly deeds; He rewarded me for my blameless behavior.  For I have obeyed the Lord’s commands; I have not rebelled against my God.  For I am aware of all His regulations, and I do not reject His rules.  I was blameless before Him; I kept myself from sinning.  The Lord rewarded me for my godly deeds; He took notice of my blameless behavior.  You prove to be loyal to one who is faithful; You prove to be trustworthy to one who is innocent” (22:21-26). 

Is this not bold?  As we consider the natural train of thought that would have been expected based on what had led up to this point, this is quite the surprising turn of events, requiring quite a bit of mental contortions on the part of the hearer or reader.  This is especially so if David has indeed made the effort to identify himself as Israel.  With these words, David makes a clean break with Israelite history, setting up a surprising contrast and pattern of thoughts with which he desired to be associated.  Most assuredly, this was not to be said of Israel in the context of the historical narrative that David has been offering in the course of his song.  According to the historical narrative, it is precisely at this point that Israel stepped back from godly deeds and entered into behavior that was far from blameless, disregarding the Lord’s commands and rebelling against their God and against Moses.  In all honesty, with the rubric of identification employed to this point, David should have here recounted his many failures, entering into self-abasement, rather than traveling the path of self-honor.  The situation with the golden calf is a clear instance of a rejection of the Lord’s regulations and rules for His covenant people, and represented the pinnacle of sin into which they could fall.  It was a display of paramount disloyalty and unfaithfulness, and from the Lord’s reaction, which was a desire to destroy the people and make a new people out of Moses (Exodus 32:10), they stood at a great distance from a state of innocence.  So this is bold indeed, for knowing what we know about David, such words should have been far from his lips, and such thoughts should have been far from his mind. 

With these words of godliness, blamelessness, consummate faith and innocence, David is actually rehearsing what it was that God had intended for and desired from His people, though he himself fell far short of this goal.  Naturally, there is only one individual that could truly and rightly speak these words as the embodiment of Israel.  This self-description would be taken up by the one known as the “Son of David,” who would also be the physical embodiment of Israel’s God, when He would take it upon Himself to do for the world, through Jesus (the representative of Israel) what had been purposed first for Adam, for Abraham, and then for Israel.  Ultimately, He would carry out that purpose and mission through His manifestation, by the Spirit, through His church that would be assembled and sent into the world through the power of the Gospel.       

David Spares Saul (part 1 of 2)

During the period of time that can be looked upon as David’s pre-rule exile, and in the record of some of the stories related to that time of David’s life, we find David, and others associated with David, functioning in the role of deliverer.  So in the midst of exile, as David is being pursued by an enemy (Saul), and as he awaits the exodus into his God’s ultimate plan for his life, he embodies that which he is supposed to be for his people.  The first time we see this is in the twenty-fourth chapter of 1^st Samuel, when David is given an opportunity to kill his enemy, Saul. 

Saul, while pursuing David so as to kill him, ventured into a cave “to relieve himself” (24:3) in the area in which David was said to have been hiding.  “Now David and his men were sitting in the recesses of the cave” (24:3b).  David’s men’s thought that this was quite the fortuitous turn of events, saying “This is the day about which the Lord said to you, ‘I will give your enemy into your hand, and you can do to him whatever seems appropriate to you’.” (24:4a)  They seem to be insistent that David’s moment of exodus---his deliverance from his oppressive and subjugating enemy---had finally arrived, and that this was the Lord’s handiwork.  How does David respond?  He “got up and quietly cut off an edge of Saul’s robe. 

Though this seems rather benign, we read that “Afterward David’s conscience bothered him because he had cut off an edge of Saul’s robe” (24:5a), as he still looked to and recognized Saul as the Lord’s chosen king for Israel (24:6).  There is a Moses-like quality, in a sense, that is on display here by David.  How so?  Well, when Moses went before Pharaoh in order to secure the release of Israel from Egypt, he went with the powerful backing of Israel’s God.  Moses knew that he had been appointed as Israel’s leader and deliverer, just as David was well aware, in that moment with Saul in the cave, that he had been appointed as leader in Israel.  However, with that knowledge, Moses did not strike hard against Pharaoh.  Rather, as the plagues of Egypt would begin, we see Moses figuratively cutting off a corner of Pharaoh’s robe.  As we look back on those events, we can say that the first of the plagues could be understood as a small sampling of God’s power, and that they were to be used as an inducement for Pharaoh to bring his oppression and subjugation of God’s anointed (Israel) to an end. 

After David spared Saul in the cave, David raises his voice and asks Saul why he believes those that tell him that “David is seeking to do you harm” (24:9b).  He goes on to say, “Today your own eyes see how the Lord delivered you---this very day---into my hands in the cave” (24:10a).  After the first of the plagues in Egypt, Moses could easily have communicated such a sentiment to Pharaoh.  In speaking of the way that the Lord delivered Saul into his hands, David alludes to the blessings of Deuteronomy---of being set over their enemies---that were to be enjoyed by the anointed of the Lord (Israel as a whole and him personally).  David continues and says, “Some told me to kill you, but I had pity on you” (24:10b), which is another quasi-Mosaic quality, in that God threatened to kill the Israelites in the wilderness on more than one occasion, but Moses, with pity, interceded on behalf of the people, relying on God’s righteousness (covenant faithfulness) to carry the day. 

That reliance upon God’s righteousness is reflected in what followed David’s statement concerning his pity, when he said, “I will not extend my hand against my lord, for he is the Lord’s chosen one” (24:10c).  Moses could easily have seized on the words of the Lord and had a great nation made from him, just as David could have seized on the opportunity to kill Saul and take the kingdom for himself, but both refrained from doing so, offering reminders of the Lord’s choosing and faithfulness to His chosen and to His purposes. 

David says, “Look, my father, and see the edge of your robe in my hand!  When I cut off the edge of your robe, I didn’t kill you” (24:11a).  David is effectively telling Saul, “I have delivered you!  The power to send you into exile was in my hand, and in that, my exodus was at hand.  I was being rescued from your subjugation, but I rescued you.”  David’s mercy, in this instance, extended to the one that was his enemy, as he left himself in exile, much like God would do for His people as mentioned by the Apostle Paul in the fifth chapter of Romans, in that “God demonstrates His own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us…while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son” (5:8,10a). 

Yes, Jesus, the anointed one, went into exile (albeit a temporary exile, just as David’s exile was ultimately a temporary exile), so as to foster reconciliation, on behalf of those that were enemies of God.  In that light, what was Saul’s response to David?  It was a response of reconciliation, though unfortunately fleeting, as he says “You are more innocent than I, for you have treated me well, even though I have tried to harm you!” (24:17)  Is that not the response of all of mankind to its Creator, as through its first and continued rebellion from God’s great purpose for the beings created to reflect His image into this creation, mankind says to God, “You have treated me well, even though I have tried to harm you”?