Absalom (part 10)

“So the king and all the members of his royal court set out on foot” (2 Samuel 15:16a).  This is Israel’s exodus from Egypt, but applied in reverse.  It is the oppressive king that is fleeing, rather than the people.  This is the king of Israel, who represents the people, going into exile rather than leading them to and then in their promised land.  David, whether directly or indirectly, through the situation that he created by not dealing with Amnon, and by not dealing with Absalom, is delivering the people that are loyal to him into exile.  Their march is not one of exodus, in power and glory, but rather one of fear and shame.  Not all of the members of the royal household left Jerusalem however, as “the king left behind ten concubines to attend to the palace” (15:16b).  This becomes significant later on, as this allows for the fulfillment of a “prophecy” that had previously been given to David. 

Like Israel, but again in reverse, “The king and all the people set out on foot, pausing at a spot some distance away” (15:17).  This should cause a reflection upon Israel’s flight from Egypt, in that they paused at the Red Sea, and then again at the mountain of God.  It should also serve as a contrast to what it is that is happening with the two events.  Drawing attention to the fact that he knew that he was going into exile, “the king said to Ittai the Gittie, ‘Why should you come with us?  Go back and stay with the new king, for you are a foreigner and an exile from your own country… Today should I make you wander around by going with us?’” (15:19,20b) 

David asks Ittai, who already lives in a state of exile, why he wants to continue in exile.  H then uses the language of wandering, which present thoughts of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness after their faithless response to the call to enter the land of promise.  Ittai, however, refused to leave David, saying “As surely as the Lord lives and as my lord the king lives, wherever my lord the king is, whether dead or alive, there I will be as well!” (15:21)  Clearly, not all is lost for David.  This response from Ittai seems to boost David’s spirits a bit.  Perhaps he began to think that if this man would not forsake him, then perhaps the Lord God of Israel had not completely forsaken him either. 

One must take note of a startling fact.  That fact is that the first mention of the Lord God of Israel in relation to David’s situation and in the midst of Absalom’s insurrection, comes from this foreigner Ittai who is living in exile.  It seems that David had forgotten about his Lord.  To make the point, the author does not have David mentioning his Lord since the twenty-second verse of chapter twelve, as he does so in connection with the death of the child that was born to he and Bathsheba.  As one can be sure that these books of Samuel are both historical and theological treatises, this mention of Israel’s God by Ittai is quite striking.  It seems to jar something within David. 

After this reminder of the Lord, it is said that “All the land was weeping loudly as all these people were leaving.  As the king was crossing over the Kidron valley, all the people were leaving on the road that leads to the desert” (15:23).  This is understandable.  Jerusalem, after all, is the capital of the country.  Many that lived there would have served the king in official government positions.  With David fleeing and a new king on the way, it would not be unreasonable for these people to believe themselves, at the least, as out of a job, and at the worst as liable to be put to death by Absalom so that he can appoint his own people into government positions---people that he can trust to be loyal to him and to serve him well.  Along with that, “Zadok and all the Levites who were with him were carrying the Ark of the Covenant of God” (15:24a).  For some reason, they were taking the Ark of the Covenant with them, as if somehow it was only David that could legitimate its presence there in Jerusalem, rather than the other way around, with the Ark serving to legitimate the rule of the Creator God’s people by its presence near the throne. 

Joshua's Battles (part 3)

The questions here posed are legitimate.  The same questions existed shortly after Jesus’ day, as His apostles were carrying the message of His paradoxical all-conquering victory via death and Resurrection into the world.  To wit, in the second letter of Peter, one is able to read questioning words like “Where is His promised return?  For ever since our ancestors died, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation” (2 Peter 3:4). 

In the face of the message that Jesus had conquered death, hearers in that day were no less able than “astute observers” today (who always think that they are the first to notice that there is evil all around them), to take in their surroundings and see violence, death, and inexplicable destruction, and say “Nothing much has changed.  Things pretty much look the same way that they have always looked.”  It’s a legitimate observation, so how is the question to be answered? 

Naturally, this is a difficult issue that has plagued all that have ever posited a God of love and a victorious Messiah.  As they fought to take possession of that which they believed had been promised to them, Israel would have been tempted to pose the same type of statement and its implied question to their God.  They could easily cast a collective gaze upwards and say, “Lord, You promised this land to our ancestors and to us.  You brought us out of Egypt.  You directed us to cross the Jordan and to re-claim that which you said is ours.  Why don’t these people know this?  You brought plagues on Egypt, parted the Red Sea, destroyed the Egyptian army, and gave us food and water in the wilderness, so why not just drive these people from the land with the obvious mighty power of your outstretched arm?  Would that not be easier?  Would that not be a greater demonstration of your power than us having to carry out these campaigns?” 

One could even imagine the covenant people attempting to employ some reverse psychology on the Creator God by saying, “Seriously, Lord, if you just drive them out, then you will get all the glory.  If we have to do battle against these people and these rulers, then we might get some of the glory too.  We don’t want that.  You don’t really want that, do you?” 

How might the God of Israel be disposed to respond to such thinking?  After all (and putting aside the potential ploy at reverse psychology), based on the reported experience of Israel in their journey out of and from Egypt, these are legitimate points.  Returning then to the eleventh chapter of Joshua so as to pick up where this study left off, and in response to the concerns of the covenant people of the Creator God, it is said that “the Lord determined to make them obstinate so they would attack Israel.  He wanted Israel to annihilate them without mercy, as He had instructed Moses” (11:20). 

Without getting sidetracked by the thought that this, in isolation, paints the picture of something less than a loving God, one finds that though the land had been given to Israel, and though the people of the land had been handed over to Israel, the Creator God wanted His people to annihilate them (though some could certainly see such reports as after-the-fact justification).  Regardless, the narrative suggests that Israel’s God did in fact desire that His people have a hand in the battle. 

Indeed, Scripture seems to suggest that the Creator God wanted to work through His people and empower His people to come alongside Him and work with Him to deal with and overcome that which despoiled, defaced, and decimated their land of promise---that first part of the creation that was to be redeemed through the care and stewardship of His covenant people.  In the end then, Israel should have been compelled to point to their God, and the power of their promise-making God, as the means by which they emerged victorious. 

Subject To Rulers & Authorities (part 3 of 4)

In what is perhaps yet another hearkening back to considerations of the covenant and the responsibility of God’s chosen people within God’s covenant plan (as Paul was a member of Israel who would see himself as defined by the history of his people and its most important and defining events, the previously referenced washings and renewal and new birth could certainly be heard as an allusion to the exodus, as Israel symbolically passes through the waters of the Red Sea, reborn as a renewed people in a single day---baptism, of course, plays on this tradition), Paul notes that “He saved us not by works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of His mercy” (3:5a). 

Throughout his writings, when Paul uses the term “righteousness,” he is not doing so in a broad-based way or in a nod to performance of what might be considered to be “good works” in the moral sphere.  Almost without fail, when Paul writes “righteousness,” he is making a direct reference to God’s covenant faithfulness.  Because it is almost always valuable to bring in historical reference to provide appropriate grounding for statements made in Paul’s writing, here again it is worth considering that the single greatest example (outside of the Christ-event) of the covenant faithfulness and mercy of the Creator God, as salvation is provided apart from His people’s ability to do anything about their situation, is the example of the exodus.  This event is almost always going to be at play in the mind of the Apostle.   

Here, in light of what comes immediately before it, as he is both encouraging believers to be submissive to authorities while at the same time remembering his own people’s failure to be properly submissive to those authorities, it is reasonable to hear Paul extolling God’s covenant faithfulness yet again, by reminding his readers that neither God’s people Israel, who had been given the knowledge of God’s covenant, nor God’s people of renewed Israel in Christ, had entered into righteousness (faithfulness to the covenant such that right standing in God’s kingdom was evident, as demonstrated by deeds of love, mercy, and sacrifice).  That is, none had been faithful to God’s covenant requirements to be a light to the nations so as to bring Him glory, especially if they are now bringing their God into disrepute in the eyes of the peoples of the world by becoming belligerent citizens. 

In spite of that, the Creator God proffered and continues to proffer His salvation, dragging His people out of their long exile in the realm of death and separation from Him, and gifting them with His eternal life through belief in the Lordship of His Christ.  This was done entirely through His mercy.  Of course, this talk of mercy would also have a cultural grounding in the context of honor and shame and the court of public reputation, with this speaking quite highly of the God of Israel as a/the most generous patron (beyond Caesar himself, though the people of Christ will still submit to Caesar’s rule).    

Looking again to the fifth and sixth verses, and the all-important Resurrection power that is shared with believers through their union with Christ by the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by faith’s confession of Jesus as Lord (here we remember talk of washing and renewing), we are propelled forward to verse seven, and find that “since we have been justified by His grace, we become heirs with the confident expectation of eternal life” (3:7).  Here, with talk of justification (entrance upon the covenant), believers experience the grace of the Creator God, thereby entering into His circle of grace (another component of the honor and shame culture), receiving the benefits (heirs) of their great patron, and now orienting their life in such a way that they participate in that circle of grace by living and acting in such a way, especially towards their fellow man as good citizens, that they become the place where the life of the age to come (eternal life) breaks into this world.

God Of The Gentiles

When we gather around the meal table of the Roman church and hear “But they are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24), we are forced to hear Paul within the contextual realm of both Jews and Gentiles being encompassed by the covenant through the same means.  They are justified in connection with Jesus, as God graciously expands the reach of His covenant---stretching out the curtains of the grand, covenant tent, as expressed so beautifully by Isaiah.  Furthermore, Gentiles, without Judaizing (becoming Jews by adopting the covenant markers of Judaism – circumcision, Sabbath keeping, dietary restrictions), also experience the redemption that has long been cherished by Israel, which, when this term is employed by a member of Israel, is a reference to the experience of exodus-ing from out of a state of exile, with this exodus always being a movement that includes a journey towards, a return to, or a restoration of sovereignty in, a land of promise. 

The redemption of exodus, which is tightly connected to the Red Sea and also symbolized by baptism (especially that of John the Baptist, as he was recognized to be leading a new exodus movement, recapitulating the entrance of the people into the promised land through baptism in the Jordan River, which was doubly symbolic, serving also as a reminder of the Red Sea crossing), was a defining portion of Israel’s story.  Part of the story that Israel told about itself was that of the Egyptian exodus, and rightly so.  It was a dramatic story of the intervention of the Creator God on their behalf, and is intimately tied to the story of their election as the special, covenant people of that Creator God.  It is important to also note that Paul locates the story of Jesus in continuity with Israel’s history, and sees it as the climax of their story.  Of course, we know that it is impossible to understand the story of Jesus, or to attach any significance to His ministry, death, or Resurrection, apart from its being set within the story of Israel and its covenant relationship with their God, as the story stretched back to Adam.  That said, because Israel identified itself as an exodus people, who had experienced God’s redeeming activity on their behalf numerous times, the fact that Gentiles are now included in talk of those that experience redemption, with redemption being used by an Israelite and therefore carrying the freight of Israelite sensibilities, becomes yet another mark of their being adopted into the ranks of the people of God’s election.  Gentiles are now free to attach themselves to Israel’s story and tell it as their own.

When we detach verses twenty-three and twenty-four from out of their context, to read and hear Paul’s statements from within our individualistic, historically disconnected concern with a personal salvation experience, they sound nice, but we miss so very much.  Truly, when we read “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  But they are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” we can take some comfort.  Unfortunately, if we tear these words from their historical and cultural context, without allowing the history of Israel and its covenant to define them (instead, we define them based on our own conceptions, which might actually have no connection with Paul’s conceptions or those of his audience), we miss out on the full spectrum of meaning contained by “all,” “sin,” “glory,” “justified,” and “redemption.”  Ultimately, we do ourselves a tremendous disservice when utilizing or proffering constructs such as the “Romans road to salvation,” as this tends to lead people away from the Gospel message of “Jesus is Lord,” with the range of kingdom and covenant concerns therein entailed, and toward a selfish concern with the eternal destiny and situation of one’s personal soul.

Having provided his “thesis” concerning the nature of justification, and having done so within the parameters of Jew and Gentile concern, as we move along to the twenty-eighth verse, we should not be surprised to hear Paul return to explicit mentions of Jew and Gentile.  Paul writes “For we consider that a person is declared righteous by faith apart from the works of the law” (3:28).  That statement, of course, demands to be heard as a component of the narrative that Paul has structured, so, as elsewhere, this verse is not to be lifted and applied in isolation.  Therefore, it is worthwhile to reiterate and expand what is being said.  The statement of verse twenty-eight, more fully unpacked, is “we consider that a person is said to be a part of the covenant people of God through the confession of a trusting loyalty to Jesus as Lord and King, with this loyalty extended to the Creator God via the loyalty to Jesus; and it is no longer necessary for any person to demonstrate this loyalty by circumcision, Sabbath keeping, or food laws, which is currently being utilized as the identifier of the people of the covenant, but no longer.”  To drive home the point that, through his talk of justification, Paul has been concerned with Gentile inclusion and the elimination of the barriers that have been used to keep the covenant exclusive to Jews and to prevent Gentile participation unless they were willing to Judaize, he goes on to write “Or is God the God of the Jews only?  Is He not the God of the Gentiles too?  Yes, of the Gentiles too!  Since God is one, He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith” (3:29-30). 

Song Of Exodus (part 1 of 4)

If we situate ourselves with an exodus-oriented approach to David’s song (2 Samuel 22), with the looming specter of exile that stands behind his acknowledgment of the Lord as his deliverer, refuge, savior, and rescuer from enemies, we can move through the song to demonstrate more explicitly the reliance upon the theme. 

It would not be overdoing it for David to call attention to the God of Israel as the God of exodus, as he says “In my distress I called to the Lord; I called to my God” (2 Samuel 22:7a), as this is a recurring theme in Exodus itself.  When we look at Exodus, we are consistently referred back to the Israelite groaning, as we can read that the Lord spoke to Moses and said, “I have surely seen the affliction of My people who are in Egypt.  I have heard their cry because of their taskmasters, for I know their sorrows.  I have come down to deliver them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up from that land… And now indeed the cry of the Israelites has come to Me” (3:7-8a,9a).  Further on in Exodus, we hear the Lord speaking again and saying, “I have also heard the groaning of the Israelites, whom the Egyptians are enslaving, and I have remembered My covenant” (6:5). 

Just as Israel groaned under oppressors and cried out to God under the knowledge of His covenant with them, so too did David.  When David cries out in praise, referencing enemies, death, chaos, and distress, he does so under the knowledge that the same God that delivered Israel from Egypt and eventually made him king of Israel, has made a covenant with him.  David can rely upon and trust in that covenant because, again, that God of covenant was and is the God of exodus; and if that God can deliver an entire nation, and raise them up as His people to be a light to the nations (no matter how far short of this ideal they fell), then that God can certainly perform according to His promises to David. 

The Lord spoke to Moses on two different occasions and spoke of having heard the cry of His people, so we hear David, in reference to his own calling upon the Lord out of his distress, saying “From His heavenly temple He heard my voice; He listened to my cry for help” (22:7b).  What happened in Egypt when Israel cried out in their distress and the Lord heard?  He responded with an awesome display of the power of His outstretched hand.  Egypt and Israel saw water turned to blood, frogs covering the ground, gnats on man and beast, the descent of flies, disease on livestock, affliction with boils, the destructive power of locusts, the falling of hail and fire, the land shrouded in darkness, and the death of Egypt’s firstborn. 

What did David see as the Lord’s response to his own call?   How did David describe the result of his God listening to his cry for help?  He would say, “The earth heaved and shook; the foundations of the sky trembled.  They heaved because He was angry.  Smoke ascended from His nose; fire devoured as it came from His mouth; He hurled down fiery coals” (22:8-9).  Yes, David called upon the God of Israel’s deliverance, claiming Him as the God of His own deliverance as well.  We are certainly able to imagine that, if David has successfully brought Israel’s God of exodus to mind with his words to this point, when he speaks of the shaking of heaven and earth, the trembling of the sky, smoke and fire and fiery coals, thoughts of the plagues upon Egypt would not be too terribly distant. 

If thoughts of the plagues of Egypt were close-at-hand, then so too would be thoughts of what resulted from those plagues, which was Israel’s liberation.  What was it that accompanied that liberation that saw Israel marching out of Egypt?  Of course, it was the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire, to which we are first introduced in the fourteenth chapter of Exodus, at the Red Sea.  The record of Israel’s victory (and Egypt’s defeat) at the Red Sea would be immediately followed by a song of triumph in the fifteenth chapter of Exodus.  David’s song, in the second book of Samuel, heavily mirrors the song that was sung by Moses and the Israelites, and would, quite naturally, because of the explicit connections to the exodus that are being made by David, call to mind the song of Exodus and the events that both preceded and followed from the song. 

It would be shortly following the deliverance at the Red Sea that Israel would come to Mount Sinai.  We read that the Lord’s presence on Sinai was signaled by “thunder and lightning and a dense cloud on the mountain,” and that “Mount Sinai was completely covered with smoke because the Lord had descended on it in fire, and its smoke went up like the smoke of a great furnace, and the whole mountain shook violently” (Exodus 19:16b,18).  There, God would give voice to the commandments of His covenant, speaking clearly to Moses, for His people, as to what He desired from them.  Before we get to that however, “the Lord called to him from the mountain” and said, “Thus you will tell the house of Jacob and declare to the people of Israel: ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt and how I lifted you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself” (19:3b-4).  What does David say, when he contemplates the Lord’s deliverance?  With words that will call exodus and Sinai and covenant to mind, he says, “He made the sky sink as He descended; a thick cloud was under His feet.  He mounted a winged angel and flew; He glided on the wings of the wind.  He shrouded Himself in darkness, in thick rain clouds.  From the brightness in front of Him came coals of fire.  The Lord thundered from the sky; the sovereign One shouted loudly” (22:10-14).