David & The Gibeonites (part 2 of 2)

Putting aside a tendency to paint a rosy picture of King David, one should not overlook the calculated measures that are here taking place.  According to the history presented here in this book, David had recently experienced Absalom’s rebellion (with his own temporary deposition from power).  Together with that, there were other potential problems and rebellions with which to be dealt, and the most natural direction from which those problems would come would be the family of Saul.  Indeed, there is ample evidence of David being inclined to think in such ways. 

Looking back to his flight from Jerusalem, when he was met by Ziba the servant of Mephibosheth (the son of Jonathan to whom David had extended grace and seated at his table, treating him as one of his own sons---2 Samuel 8), when David sees that Ziba alone has come to him, without Mephibosheth, bringing him bread, raisin cakes, summer fruit, and wine (16:1), he says, “Where is your master’s grandson?” (16:3a).  Ziba replies by saying, “He remains in Jerusalem, for he said, ‘Today the house of Israel will give back to me my grandfather’s kingdom” (16:3b). 

Though this makes no sense at all, as it was Absalom, David’s son, that was supported by the people and taking the throne, one here sees David’s willingness to believe such a thing and the ongoing threat of reprisal from Saul’s family implied thereby, as he says “Everything that was Mephibosheth’s now belongs to you” (16:4a).  Now, with the famine and the appearance of the Gibeonites, the presence of Saul’s old enemies provide the means to end this always looming threat once and for all. 

So it is reported that “The king had mercy on Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, in light of the Lord’s oath that had been taken between David and Jonathan son of Saul” (21:7), though before he had been willing to quickly write off Mephibosheth and toss him aside as a traitor and conspirator.  Additionally, because Mephibosheth was crippled in his feet, not only would he not be able to rise up to lead an army, but David would also have been confident that the people of Israel would certainly not support one such as him as king. 

Sparing Mephibosheth, the king took seven sons and grandsons of Saul and “turned them over to the Gibeonites, and they executed them on a hill before the Lord.  The seven of them died together” (21:9a).  To go along with that, the Gibeonites left those men there to rot.  For David, problem solved.  Potential rivals to the throne have been eliminated.  However, drawing attention to what could truly have been viewed by the people as a rather despicable, unjust, unjustifiable, and clearly politically calculated action on David’s part, a woman named Rizpah, the mother of the sons of Saul that had been executed, “took sackcloth and spread it out for herself on a rock.  From the beginning of the harvest until the rain fell on them, she did not allow the birds of the air to feed on them by day, not the wild animals by night” (21:10). 

This was an unforeseen nuisance, and when David is told that this was taking place, he ordered their bodies to be taken, along with the bones of Saul and Jonathan, and to be buried in the tomb of Saul’s father in the land of Benjamin.  Thus, David can then seen to be honoring these men, when such could not have been further from his mind.  Most likely, keeping in mind the fact that David has just perpetrated a despicable act, he does this so that he will not be viewed as being responsible for the execution of the sons of Saul, though they had in fact done no wrong.  Of course, this must also be considered in light of the fact that the Creator God’s law clearly stated that a son was not to be put to death because of the actions of his father, though this was precisely what David allowed to take place because it was a furtherance of his own ends.   

David & The Gibeonites (part 1)

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

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

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

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

Here, David appears to be seizing on an opportunity.  He is using the fact of the famine in a calculated manner for the sake of his own kingship and that of his progeny.  Additionally, he knows that the Gibeonites are motivated by revenge, so in calling to mind the blessings promised (in the Abrahamic covenant) for those that bless Israel (with the king representing Israel in such a way that by their serving the king they bless him, the nation as a whole, and themselves in turn), he is going to turn that mindset of vengeance in his own favor. 

After being asked this extraordinarily calculated question by David, “The Gibeonites said to him, ‘We have no claim to silver or gold from Saul or from his family, nor would we be justified in putting to death anyone in Israel.’” (21:4a)  Feigning ignorance of where all of this was leading, “David asked, ‘What then are you asking me to do for you?’” (21:4b)  “They replied to the king, ‘As for this man who exterminated us and who schemed against us so that we were destroyed and left without status throughout all the borders of Israel---let seven of his male descendants be turned over to us, and we will execute them before the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, who was the Lord’s chosen one.’” (21:5-6a)  In what must have been a considerable exercise of self-restraint in the midst of jubilation, David says, “I will turn them over” (21:6b). 

A Tradition Of Wells (part 8)

Continuing to lay the conceptual foundation for the collective consciousness concerning wells, it is worthwhile to quickly trace all remaining mentions of wells within what are considered to be the historical books of Israel.  In the second book of Samuel, there is a mention that is probably not a helpful or useful mention of a well, at least on the surface.  Nevertheless, it occurs during the time period following the death of King Saul, as David is solidifying his royal position, so perhaps others can find related value in its mention. 

Engaging the text: “Then Joab left David and sent messengers after Abner” (3:26a).  Joab is the commander of David’s forces, and Abner is the commander of the forces of Saul, and temporarily Ishbosheth, the son of Saul.  “They brought him back from the well of Sirah.  (But David was not aware of it.)  When Abner returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside at the gate as if to speak privately with him.  Joab then stabbed him in the abdomen and killed him” (3:26b-27a).  Later in the same book, during the time of Absalom’s temporarily successful (and seemingly temporarily divinely sanctioned) taking of the throne of Israel, there is a story concerning two spies that David had in his employ. 

This seems to be as useful as the event just presented, but in dutifully presenting the record it is found that “Jonathan and Ahimaaz were staying in En Rogel.  A female servant would go and inform them, and they would then go and inform King David.  It was not advisable for them to be seen going into the city.  But a young man saw them on one occasion and informed Absalom.  So the two of them quickly departed and went to the house of a man in Bahurim.  There was a well in his courtyard, and they got down in it” (17:17-18). 

Finally, in the book of Nehemiah, in a section that mentions wells as part of a prayerful praise that recounted Israel’s history, beginning with the Genesis account of creation, in a manner which undergirds the purpose of this study by demonstrating a mention of wells in a general recapitulation of the exodus narrative, Nehemiah can be heard to say “They captured fortified cities and fertile land.  They took possession of houses full of all sorts of good things---wells previously dug, vineyards, olive trees, and fruit trees in abundance.  They enjoyed to the full your great goodness” (9:25). 

Having reviewed the location of wells within the historical narrative (though it is possible to find some historical narrative overlap when turning to the prophets, specifically Isaiah), this study now turns its attention to the mention of wells within the wisdom/poetic and prophetic literature of the Hebrew Scriptures.  With these, it will be possible to see how the larger part of the historical narrative that is associated with wells serves to shape ideas about references to wells in this body of work, while also continuing to form the historical imagination along the lines of that of the Johannine author, that one might more correctly approach the story of Jesus and the woman at the well.

Handsome Men (part 2 of 2)

Certainly, because Joseph was a powerful ruler, even if it was in Egypt, there could naturally be a desire for a ruler of Israel to be very much like Joseph.  Though it is scant, there is a growing sense that this issue of appearance is an important one when it comes to Israel’s rulers and the way the people wanted to think about their rulers.  This is quite understandable in the day of mass media, but it is not at all difficult to comprehend what would seem to be a natural human desire to have attractive leaders set over them. 

This should be kept in mind when first encountering David in the Scriptural narrative.  As is well known, the Creator God is said to have rejected Saul as king.  Samuel, the one whose failure with his sons has lead to the desire for a king, goes to anoint another man as king.  When David is brought before Samuel we learn that “he was ruddy, with attractive eyes and a handsome appearance” (16:12b).  Strangely, this is after Samuel has viewed the first of David’s brothers and was impressed by his physical appearance. 

This experience with the sons of Jesse must have reminded Samuel of when Saul first stood before him.  However, with that in mind the Lord can be heard to say “Don’t be impressed by his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him” (16:7b), which serves as an explicit reminder of Saul’s having been rejected.  The Lord is reported to have gone on to say “God does not view things the way men do.  People look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (16:7c).  With this said, it is indeed strange that David’s appearance is mentioned at all, let alone mentioned in such positive terms.  One might think that it would have been the opposite when it came to David, and that Samuel was going to anoint one who was unattractive, but this was apparently not going to be the case. 

Eventually Saul dies and David takes the throne as he was anointed to do.  Frankly, he fares little better than Saul.  In many ways, he was more corrupted by the power than was Saul.  When those who hear the story of Saul, followed by the story of David (with that story naturally and appropriately including David’s adultery and murder) while considering that Saul was rejected from the throne of Israel because he had inappropriately offered a sacrifice, the hearer simply knows that Israel’s God is going to remove David from the throne as well. 

As if to confirm that this is indeed going to take place in due course, David’s son Absalom is introduced into the narrative.  During the course of Absalom’s story, adhering closely to the pattern that has been previously established and apparently as if to confirm that Absalom is indeed going to take the throne of Israel, the author reports that “in all Israel everyone acknowledged that there was no man as handsome as Absalom.  From the sole of his feet to the top of his head he was perfect in appearance” (2 Samuel 14:25). 

Unsurprisingly then, he indeed does take the throne (David is temporarily removed), and even experiences an anointing to confirm what was his justly and prophecy (calling corrupt leaders to account) confirming gained position.  However, as had been the case with both Saul and his father, he eventually engages in an action that is displeasing to the Lord of Israel and is removed from the throne, allowing David (one of the handsome men of Scripture) to regain his rule.  

Handsome Men (part 1)

There was a Benjaminite named Kish… He was a prominent person.  He had a son named Saul, a handsome young man. – 1 Samuel 9:1a,2a  (NET)

Israel is going to receive its first king.  The author reports that “the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do everything the people request of you.  For it is not you that they have rejected, but it is Me that they have rejected as their king.  Just as they have done from the day that I brought them up from Egypt until this very day, they have rejected Me and have served other gods” (8:7-8a).  One should here recognize the fact that the proximate cause of Israel’s request for a king stemmed from Samuel. 

You see, “In his old age Samuel appointed his sons as judges over Israel… But his sons did not follow his ways.  Instead, they made money dishonestly, accepted bribes, and perverted justice” (8:1,3).  It was for this reason that “all the elders of Israel gathered together and approached Samuel” and “said to him, ‘Look, you are old, and your sons don’t follow your ways.  So now appoint over us a king to lead us, just like all the other nations have” (8:4a,5). 

So some may point fingers of blame and rebellion at the people of Israel, and one can certainly understand the words on offer from the Lord to Samuel, comforting him by saying that it is the Lord of Israel that has been rejected and not him, but it must be borne in mind that it is Samuel’s sons that are the issue.  Had Samuel been a better father he might have prevented Israel from traveling the route of monarchy.  Without getting off track, this issue of being a poor father can serve to partially explain David’s affinity for Samuel.  At the same time, however, part of the covenant God’s words to Moses included an insistence that the people would indeed ask for a king, with the Creator God giving directions as to the proper response, so there was always an aura of inevitability about the whole thing.

Samuel then goes to seek out a king to set over the people of Israel.  Because the story introduces Saul immediately after “The Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do as they say and install a king over them’” (8:22a), the reader knows that, when hearing the description of Saul, that this is the one that the God of Israel has chosen to be anointed as king over His people.  It is said that Saul was “a handsome young man.  There was no one among the Israelites more handsome than he was; he stood head and shoulders above all the people” (9:2). 

Whether one realizes it or not, this is the beginning of a pattern as it relates to the monarchy.  Also, through a continued paying of careful attention, this talk of a man being handsome, when presented to a people that absolutely defines themselves by the story of exodus, with that story naturally including the story of Joseph (which explains how Israel came to be in Egypt in the first place so that there could be a resulting exodus), could very well remind the people of Joseph, who was described as being “well built and good-looking” (Genesis 39:6b). 

Absalom (part 21)

Returning to the text of Absalom’s story, Hushai, after gaining Absalom’s ear, passes along to David the news of both his and Ahithophel’s advice, along with Absalom’s response to that advice.  Knowing his own history and reflecting upon his previous time in exile, this must have been somewhat heartening for David.  Obviously, there would be a level of sadness, in that he now learns that his son thinks that it is a good idea to have him dispatched from existence, but there would be a level of encouragement because he could see this as a sign of his God’s favor returning upon him. 

David could reflect upon the fact that he did not raise his hand against Saul, and that he had been ultimately rewarded for his restraint.  He could think about the fact that Saul came out after him, and though Saul’s efforts at striking David down proved unsuccessful, Saul’s efforts also proved to be less than beneficial.  In this unwarranted plan to attack David without provocation, as (according to the narrative on offer), David has not actively said or done anything to defeat what he feels might very well be the work of the Creator God, Absalom has now turned oppressor. 

Absalom is no longer Moses, but rather Saul.  He is no longer rescuing the people from subjugation, but he is instead attempting to subjugate his father who is also now his subject.  Yes, David and the men with him are now Absalom’s subjects, and therefore it is incumbent upon Absalom to secure blessings for them.  This is quite difficult to do if one is plotting to bring death to said subjects.  

With Absalom’s approval of Hushai’s plan, events begin to unfold rather quickly.  David is advised to move quickly, lest he be caught, and he does so along with all his people.  Ahithophel, who appears to be sensing oncoming defeat in addition to having his advice ignored in favor of that of Hushai, kills himself.  David and those with him have crossed the Jordan River, symbolically leaving the land of Israel, and going to Mahanaim (2 Samuel 17:24a).  Following the plan, “Absalom and all the men of Israel had crossed the Jordan River” (17:24b) as well. 

One may be predisposed to read by that quickly, but perhaps such should not be the case.  Crossing the Jordan was of tremendous significance in the history of Israel.  Following the exodus and Israel’s time in the wilderness, the crossing of the Jordan meant that they had crossed over into the land of the Creator God’s promise.  It was, in a sense, the completion of the exodus, though the exodus would never truly complete, as exodus would prove to be an ongoing process of deliverance, rescue, redemption, and salvation, which must be worked out diligently. 

Even after Israel crossed into their promised land, they still had to take the land, drive out its occupants, and crush the rampant idolatry (which they would fail to do).  In the days of John the Baptist, baptism in the Jordan River was a clear signal of a new exodus movement and a submission to the claims of the coming kingdom of their God, just as baptism in this day is a sign of departure from exile into a life of exodus (a constant entering into the Creator God’s mission and purpose) and submission to the covenant God’s King, that being Jesus the Messiah.  David, already in a self-imposed exile from Jerusalem and his throne, crosses the Jordan as he flees Absalom, who is now, unfortunately, intent upon killing his father. 

This does carry some meaning for David, though it carries far greater meaning for Absalom.  After crossing the Jordan River in his pursuit of his father, as he leads the men of Israel in this pursuit and as he goes forth to violently raise his hand against his father, he is going into another exile.  With this exile, and with what it is going to mean for him, his father is now being rescued from subjugation and delivered from his oppressor.  By this, Absalom has reversed the exodus that he has experienced.  He has completely reversed the Moses-oriented narrative that he had created for himself.  

Absalom (part 20)

While it is true that a great deal of time and space has been spent dealing with Absalom, it simply must be said that his story is truly and fascinatingly compelling, as it presents and ties together (as has been seen) multiple themes that run deep in Scripture.  Therefore his story lends itself to drawing many conclusions about the Creator God’s working, His mission, and what it is that the Creator God desires for His people (for all time), as it serves as something of a climactic turning point in the history of Israel. 

Now, it has been concluded that Absalom’s downfall came because he agreed with the idea of raising his hand against the Creator God’s anointed, thereby demonstrating that he did not fully trust that God and the promises upon which he may very well have been relying.  Is this sort of conclusion justified?  Apart from the example of Moses and Israel, which was an example and path from which Absalom was deviating, was there another example that he could have followed?  Of course there was.  It was the example that had been set by his own father, before he had been corrupted by the power of the throne. 

In the first book of Samuel, there are two occasions on which David had the opportunity to kill Saul, his oppressor and subjugator.  However, he did not seize upon either of those opportunities to do so.  In fact, David felt guilty for cutting off an edge of Saul’s robe (1 Samuel 24:4).  Of course, to this point Absalom had not even gone that far.  In response to his own action, David said “May the Lord keep me far away from doing such a thing to my lord, who is the Lord’s chosen one, by extending my hand against him.  After all, he is the Lord’s chosen one” (24:6). 

A short while later, David calls out to Saul and says “Even though I have not sinned against you, you are waiting in ambush to take my life” (24:11b).  In the case of Absalom, up until the point that Ahithophel and Hushai speak, there has been no talk, on either the side of David or Absalom, about one attempting to take the other’s life.  Certainly, it can be said that part of the judgment of the Creator God that came upon Saul was related to his ongoing desire to physically and violently raise his hand against the one that his God had been said to have anointed.  Absalom should have continued in the attitude modeled by David and said “May the Lord judge between the two of us” (24:12a), which had already apparently been happening in Absalom’s favor based on the fact of the peaceful exchange of power.  In relation to his opportunity to raise his hand against Saul, David continued with words upon which Absalom should have seized, saying “may the Lord vindicate me over you, but my hand will not be against you” (24:12b). 

Absalom already had the support of the people, and it would appear that David himself was willing to accept Absalom’s exaltation as king.  David had been disgraced and humiliated.  The last thing that Absalom needed to do was to take action that would draw attention, and perhaps even heap sympathy upon David.  Instead, it may very well have been better to completely forget about his father.  Surely, his attempted actions against David might have been perceived as a spiteful type of “kicking a man while he is down,” which would serve to elicit the sympathy and condolences of the people while creating an unfavorable opinion of Absalom as an oppressive ruler that, after all has been said and done, is not all that interested in justice. 

Now, David will be able to turn his words against Absalom, and paint him as a king who has had the hand of Israel’s God removed from him, in a way not unlike that which was experienced by King Saul, and say “Who has the king of Israel come out after?  Who is it that you are pursuing?  A dead dog?  A single flea?  May the Lord be our judge and arbitrator.  May He see and arbitrate my case and deliver me from your hands” (24:14-15).  David will now be able to turn the tables on Absalom, and make his plea for justice, when such, to that point, has been Absalom’s cry. 

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. 

Absalom (part 8)

In the case of both Saul and David, the case could be made that both were attractive in appearance, but it was not their physical appearance that drew the people to them, but rather their leadership.  A grave injustice is done to the people of Israel in Absalom’s day when they are treated as creatures of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, who are bombarded with images of beauty on a daily basis and asked to follow the leadership (in various areas of concern) of those that are thought of as “the beautiful people”.  Absalom’s culture was not one of mass media.  Indeed, one can imagine that Absalom would have been unknown, by appearance, to the majority of the people over which he desired to rule. 

With that said, there must have been something far more substantial to Absalom’s position and to his claims that would enable him to win the allegiance of so many within Israel.  An appeal to their history, set against the possibilities of sharing in either the blessing or cursing of their God, and presented within the context of Israel’s great story of redemption from Egyptian bondage---if Absalom could successfully make the desired exile and exodus connections in the hearts and minds of the people---would have a powerful effect within the nation.  An additional benefit is that this would enable a revolution that could consist of very little bloodshed, with their God acting on behalf of them and their new leader, just as He had done against Egypt and Pharaoh.   

Moving forward then to David’s response to Absalom’s proclamation as king at Hebron, it is interesting to look at it in the light which has been created for it by Absalom, while also looking at it from the perspective of the God that had anointed David as king over His people.  Immediately after learning that the people were siding with Absalom, it is said that “a messenger came to David and reported, ‘The men of Israel are loyal to Absalom!” (2 Samuel 15:13)  What is David’s response to this news?  Does he assert that he is king?  Does he attempt to derail the coup that is taking place?  Not at all.  Rather, “David said to all his servants who were with him in Jerusalem, ‘Come on!  Let’s escape!  Otherwise no one will be delivered from Absalom!’” (15:14a)  This would play nicely into the narrative that Absalom is attempting to both build upon and create.  His father, when challenged, flees. 

This would be a clear sign to Absalom’s supporters that the protective and supporting hand of Israel’s God had been removed from David and was being transferred to Absalom, though he, unlike Saul and David (and every other previous leader of Israel since Moses) had not been anointed to the position of king.  Absalom could point to this response and make the point that exile was coming to David.  This would have been poetic justice for Absalom, in that it was he who was previously forced to flee from Jerusalem.  At the same time though, it should not be forgotten that his flight was not altogether unfortunate, as his being able to tell a story which included fleeing must have been quite important in his gaining influence and favor with the people. 

David is clearly fearful.  Perhaps he too feels that rule is being stripped from him, as the Bathsheba incident would certainly have never been far from his mind.  Indeed, if Saul had been rejected as king for not following out the Creator God’s orders and executing all of the Amalekites (along with their animals), then should David be surprised if he ultimately comes to be rejected as king because of his oppressive and high-handed actions against Uriah?  Yes, the prophet Nathan had informed David that God had forgiven him and that he would not die as a result of what he had done, but nothing had been said about his own kingship in that incident.  He had received the promise that the Lord God of Israel would build him a dynastic house (7:11), but that was before he had Uriah murdered.  Besides, Absalom was his very own son, so the Creator God could very well be faithful to His promise in that regard by showing favor to Absalom and removing David as king. 

Raising Lazarus For Glory (part 6)

Though it’s difficult to conceive of this, Jesus was perceived as something of a corruptor of the people and a subverter of faith and practice.  Thus, those that followed Him, who believed in Him as the Messiah, and who thus began mimicking His practices---especially in the area of table fellowship with “sinners”, interaction with Gentiles, involvement with those that were ritually unclean, and general acceptance of all who were considered to be outside of the bounds of covenant---would invoke the anger of Israel’s God and delay His long-awaited entrance into history to work on behalf of His covenant people. 

As far as many were concerned, especially the Chief Priest and Pharisees, if more and more people began to disregard the works of the law (covenant markers that identified those holding to the covenant of the Creator God in thankful response) that were then in place and somewhat stridently enforced, then all that would result would be the extension of the curse of their God under which they continued to find themselves, as they were in exile from their God’s promises to them.  That exile was primarily evidenced by the fact that they were ruled by a foreign power (Rome), in accordance with the clear enunciation of curses to be found in the Torah (in both Deuteronomy and Leviticus). 

Generally, this would have been the attitude that would have been adopted by the Pharisee Saul, as before his “conversion,” he was, according to his own testimony, doing everything in his power to stamp out the pestilent heresy (the crucified man from Nazareth was resurrected and was the Messiah) that was serving to drive the people of Israel away from the keeping of the required marks of covenant (remember, these were not good works designed to earn their God’s favor so that they could be saved and go to heaven when they die), and thus delaying their God’s redeeming action (deliverance, exodus).  

Continuing on in chapter twelve of John, subsequent to the raising of Lazarus and the return to Bethany, the reader learns that “The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem” (12:12).  Part of this great crowd, of course, consisted of those that were causing great consternation amongst the chief priests and Pharisees---specifically, those that “were going away and believing in Jesus” (12:11b).  By way of reminder, they were believing in Jesus in these great numbers because of the knowledge that Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead. 

This belief was foundational in the growing movement towards that which was going to show forth the Creator God’s glory.  This crowd “took branches of palm trees and went out to meet Him.  They began to shout, ‘Hosanna!  Blessed is the One Who comes in the Name of the Lord!  Blessed is the King of Israel!’” (12:13)  This was a large-scale messianic confession.  This was a widespread identification with Jesus’ kingdom movement.  Significantly, this was being done openly, before both Jewish leaders and Roman officials. 

As if that was not enough, “Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, just as it is written, ‘Do not be afraid, people of Zion; look, your King is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt!’” (12:14-15)  Why is it significant that this was being done in front of both Jewish leaders and Roman officials?  Well, in chapter eleven, following Lazarus’ raising, in acknowledgement that Jesus was “performing many miraculous signs” (11:47b), the Jewish council had already said, “If we allow Him to go on in this way, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation” (11:48).  This reminds the reader that there had been other messianic claimants that had risen up, movements that had gained some small measure of popular support, and had been subsequently put down by the Romans. 

David & Goliath: A Battle With Death (part 5 of 7)

Furthermore, the sheer folly of the preaching of a crucified and resurrected man had power to convince people to believe in Jesus, submit to His claims in allegiance, and be willing to go to their own deaths for holding to such a claim, was further evidence of what was believed to somehow be the case that death, though still present, had truly been overcome.  If the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ had the power to loose its claimants and adherents from the grip and hold of death, supplanting all fear and replacing it with the hope of eternal life (more than going to heaven, but participating in the ongoing process of bringing the life of the age to come to bear in the present) through a trusting allegiance to Jesus, then yes, Israel, the Creator God’s people through the covenant, had a God.

David continued and said that “all this assembly will know that it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves!” (17:47a)  Of course, it has come to be quite well known that David was armed with only a slingshot and some stones, whereas Goliath was undoubtedly out-fitted with what passed for that day’s state-of-the-art military equipment.  Those that were in a position to observe David’s going out to meet Goliath would probably have not thought very highly of David’s hopes of victory. 

Since Goliath’s issued challenge had been a man-to-man battle, with two men representing their respective peoples, in which the loser’s people would become slaves to the victor’s people, one can imagine the grumbling that would have been taking place amongst the men of Israel.  One must take the time to envision the attitude of the men of Israel’s army as David marched out with no shield, no armor, no sword, no spear, and presumable no hope.  It would not be far-fetched to see Saul’s generals and advisors pleading with him to not be so foolish as to allow this boy to determine the fate of Israel.  David however, was quite confident of the salvation and vindication that would be his at the hands of the Lord God of Israel.

Jesus, as one could also imagine, would take up similar words to those on offer from David.  He was clear and direct in His message to His people, as He would effectively, through both what He did and didn’t do (and said and didn’t say), tell them that “it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves.”  In Jesus’ day, the enemy that embodied death and that also embodied the Creator God’s continued cursing of Israel, was Rome.  As long as Israel was in continued subjection to a foreign power, which had been the case for more than half a millennium at that point, then they were still in exile from their land, regardless of the geographic location of the people. 

Subjugation to a foreign people was an ongoing implication of their God’s cursing, as outlined in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.  With this concept extended to all of mankind and all of God’s creation, subjection to death and its corrupting power implied that man, along with all of the creation which he had been charged to steward as the image of the Creator, continued to stand under the curse inflicted upon him and it by Adam’s rebellion in the Garden.  For Israel, because of this understanding of cursing, it was widely believed that a movement must take place to overthrow the Romans and to drive them from their land, so as to re-assert Israel as autonomous and independent.  This would come, many believed, through the leadership of their messiah, who would be a king in the mold of their great warrior-king David.  

David & Goliath: A Battle With Death (part 3)

Eventually, young David, castigated by his brothers though unfazed by their criticisms, is brought before Saul.  There, he recounts events in his life concerning the killing of a lion and a bear by his own hands,  insisting that he is ready, willing, and more than able to engage the one he considers to be not only an enemy of Israel, but also of Israel’s God.  David expressed confidence that “The Lord Who delivered me from the lion and the bear will also deliver me from the hand of this Philistine!” (17:37a) 

Once again, these words of David could cause one to hearken to the life and voice of the one called Savior, as through the numerous instances in which He spoke of His impending and inescapable death and what He hoped to be His Resurrection, Jesus seemed to express a supreme confidence that His Lord would deliver Him from the grip of the enemy with which He intended to do battle on behalf of all of those that would come to believe upon Him, and on behalf of the whole of the creation.

With this said, David set out to face the enemy.  As he did, “The Philistine kept coming closer to David, with his shield bearer walking in front of him” (17:41).  Though his enemy approached, it is to be imagined that David did not waver.  So too can it be imagined of Jesus, in His final days, as He marched forth boldly toward His cross.  His enemy came closer and closer, holding forth the accursed and shameful and humiliating cross as the instrument with which Jesus would be engaged in the battle.  Jesus, of course, did not waver.  He never once faltered, and thankfully, He did not fail, nor did the One in Whom He placed His trust.

“The Philistine said to David, ‘Am I a dog, that you are coming after me with sticks?’” (17:43a)  As this analogy has been developed, it is ironic that it is the enemy of the Creator God’s people and that God’s man that could utter these words, as when Jesus would set His face against His enemy and its chosen weapon (the cross), He is the One that could rightly take up the same question and ask, “Am I a dog, that you are coming after Me with sticks?” 

In addition, “The Philistine said to David, ‘Come here to me, so I can give your flesh to the birds of the sky and the wild animals of the field’.” (17:44)  To Jesus, death also could have been presumed to have said, “Come here to me.”  With this, it is interesting that death and the powers that stand behind it would be employing crucifixion against Jesus, as on many occasions the bodies of the crucified victims were left on the cross, to be picked over by scavenger birds.  Along with that, the traditional conception of crucifixion has the body set several feet above the ground, whereas in actuality, the victim was set just a few inches off the ground, so that the victims were left exposed to scavenging animals as well. 

David’s reply is that “You are coming against me with sword and spear and javelin.  But I am coming against you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel’s armies, Whom you have defied” (17:45b).  Indeed, death thought that it had weapons that would serve to defeat and destroy, but ultimately, its weapons lacked power.  Jesus also stood in the face of His adversary, and just as David reminded Goliath that he was attempting to defy the Lord God of Israel, so too would Jesus remind death that it was an illegitimate and unintended usurper inside the created order of the God of Israel.  Death had defied and the Creator God and His plans long enough, and that God, through His Messiah, was going to deal death its mortal blow.  

David & Goliath: A Battle With Death (part 1)

Goliath stood and called to Israel’s troops, “Why do you come out to prepare for battle?  Am I not the Philistine, and are you not the servants of Saul?  Choose for yourselves a man so he may come down to me!” – 1 Samuel 17:8  (NET)

“There is no need for the entirety of our armies to go to war,” says Goliath.  Continuing, he is reported to have said, “All that is necessary if for one man from each side, representative of our respective peoples, to do battle.  The peoples of the winning side will be served by the peoples of the losing side.”  Though the story informs the reader that David would here take up the challenge and face Goliath in battle, there would come a time at which another man, the one that would come to be called the Son of David, would also go forth in battle as a representative of His people.  Yes, Jesus would willingly engage in a battle against the curse of death, and of course, He would emerge victorious.  The people for which He stood as representative would be victorious, while death and the grave would be defeated. 

The story of David and Goliath---the story of a faithful Israelite doing battle against the enemy of the Creator God’s covenant people---could certainly be perceived to be but a foreshadowing of the great and decisive battle that would be waged and won by the faithful Israelite to come, stripping the power of death from off of the chosen people of the covenant God.  No, His people would not be ruled by death.  They would not be participants in the dissemination of corruption.  They would not serve death.    

Just as Goliath stepped forward to the battle line saying, “I defy Israel’s troops this day!  Give me a man so we can fight each other” (17:10), so too did death step forward with a similar proclamation.  Death can be presumed to have made this figurative proclamation when confronted with the claims of Israel, and the Creator God’s purpose to use this people (beginning with Abraham) to bless all the world, to deal with the problem of evil, to set His world to rights, and to ultimately be the people through which He would send His promised deliverer into His fallen creation. 

In response to Goliath, just two verses later beyond those previously referenced, young David is introduced into this story as a potential deliverer.  Immediately, it can be surmised that David is the one that is going to respond on behalf of the people of the covenant God.  As David is going to stand against Israel’s enemy, Goliath, so too will Jesus stand against mankind’s undefeated mortal foe, that being death. 

Corruption and death seemed to defy all of the Creator God’s plans and purposes for His creation, just as Goliath would defy Israel.  As Goliath was the Philistine champion, so too death had reigned undefeated from the fall of man until the moment that Jesus stepped forth from His tomb.  As the story goes, Goliath was supremely confident in his ability to withstand any challenge.  Similarly, one could presume that death was not the least bit lacking in confidence when presented with the person of Jesus. 

With much boldness, Goliath said, “Give me a man so we can fight each other,” though the narrative reports that it was the very first one that answered the challenge that would prove the foolishness of this challenge.  Unchallenged and undefeated, with its own foolish and unsuspecting (though well-earned) boldness, death presumptuously shook its fist at the Creator God and exclaimed, “Give me a man so we can fight each other.”  That God’s answer to this was Jesus; and yes, a bloody and decisive battle would have to be waged. 

Good Shepherd (part 1 of 2)

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and robber. – John 10:1  (ESV)

Having put forward this thought, Jesus embarks on a series of statements about entering the door as the shepherd of the sheep, about gatekeepers, about sheep hearing the voice of true shepherd, about their not following strangers, and about sheep fleeing from that voice.  It is then said, not surprisingly, that “they did not understand what He was saying to them” (10:6b).  This lack of understanding must have been communicated by either facial expression or verbally, because Jesus goes on to elaborate, repeating His dictum of “Truly, truly, I say to you”, and going on to say, “I am the door of the sheep” (10:7).  He then makes a slight change to His previous statement in regards to those that climb in by another way, and by doing so, makes it more direct and applicable, saying that “All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them” (10:8). 

What does Jesus mean when He said that “All who came before Me are thieves and robbers”?  About whom is He talking?  He is obviously not talking about the prophets.  He is probably not talking about humans in general, and it is unlikely that He is referring to the leaders of Israel in that day.  So we must look to the context in which this discourse about being the “good shepherd” is presented.  What is it that comes before the beginning of the tenth chapter of John? 

The ninth chapter of John is taken up with the story of the man who had been born blind, but who had been healed by Jesus.  This story include a notation that anyone confessing Jesus to be the Christ was to be put out of the synagogue (9:22).  Clearly, the idea that this Jesus fellow might very well be the Messiah, was present, with this aside accounting for that fact.  As we come to the close of the ninth chapter, Jesus encounters the formerly blind man again, asks him if he believes in the Son of Man (9:35).  This title carried huge significance to the people of that day.  Upon confirming that he had a desire to believe in the Son of Man, and perhaps more specifically in the ideas, hopes, dreams, and aspirations of God’s people that were represented by that title “Son of Man,” Jesus tells him that “it is He Who is speaking to you” (9:37b). 

Naturally, this follows from the eighth chapter, in which there has been much talk about Jesus Himself, based on His declaration that He was “the light of the world” (8:12).  Though this is not our focus here, with these words, we can hear Jesus positioning Himself as the embodiment of national Israel, taking up what was to have been the task of Israel itself, as it was God’s covenant people Israel that were supposed to be the light of the world.  This, of course, follows from chapter seven, in which we find the people openly asking “When the Christ appears, will he do more signs that this man has done?” (7:31b).  Again, this was Messiah-speak by the people, as “the Christ” was understood to the “anointed One” of God, with such anointing hearkening back to the anointing of the kings of Israel, especially Saul, David, and Solomon. 

It was these words that led to the first movement by the chief priests and Pharisees to arrest Jesus, most likely because He was creating Messianic expectations amongst the people, but had not attempted to gain the support of any of the influential factions or ruling parties.  This may very well have been a political calculation, to test Jesus’ true popularity amongst the people, to bring him in for questioning, and to offer Him a deal to stand in solidarity with the chief priests and Pharisees, depending on the outcome of some private conversations.  Jesus, however, as He would later declare, always spoke openly in the Temple and in the synagogues, purposely avoiding such back-room dealings and the problems that lie therein. 

Finally, we look back to the sixth chapter.  Though the event took place in Galilee and not in Jerusalem, there was already some type of movement afoot in regards to Jesus-as-Messiah, as upon the great and miraculous feeding that had been at His hand, the people responded by saying “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world” (6:14b); and together with that statement of clear, Messianic significance they “were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king” (6:15b).  This is to what Israel, almost as a whole, was constantly looking.  So as we consider all of these things from the sixth chapter, on through Jesus’ shepherd statements of the tenth chapter, it must be remembered that these things are occurring in the context of the often-stoked expectations of the people, beginning with the first major revolt of the second century B.C. and the establishment of the ruling, Hasmonean dynasty, that it was well past the time for their God to enter into history, to send His Messiah, to forcibly remove the pagans from their land, to violently lift the yoke of oppression, and to exalt Israel as chief over all the nations of the world.  It is such remembrance that will give full weight to Jesus’ speaking of Himself as the shepherd of the people.     

Paul's Mission, Gentiles & The Holy Spirit

In verse two of chapter thirteen of Acts we read “While they were serving the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’” (13:2)  With this being presented as the direct command of the Holy Spirit, and with knowledge that it is the Gentile mission to which Paul has been called (as indicated by the directive by which the Lord Jesus, after speaking to Saul on the road to Damascus, instructs a man named Ananias in regards to Saul, saying “Go, because this man is My chosen instrument to carry My name before Gentiles and kings and the people of Israel” – 9:15) and which will receive the great bulk of his attention, we should not be surprised to find mention of the Holy Spirit being quite frequent in the story of Paul’s ministry. 

It seems that Luke wants to make it abundantly clear that the Holy Spirit, which he has Jesus mentioning at the close of Luke and the opening of Acts, as that which Jesus has promised and which will be the means by which His followers will be able to function as His witnesses, is the one that is sending Paul out to the Gentiles.  Accordingly, in verse four of the same chapter we read “So Barnabas and Saul, sent out by the Holy Spirit” (13:4a), with this quickly followed by mention of Selucia, Cyprus, Salamis, and Paphos (13:4-6).  Even though “they began to proclaim the word of God in the Jewish synagogues” (13:5b), the Gospel message would not be long restricted to this environment. 

A  few verses later, we again hear of the Holy Spirit in an encounter with a man first introduced as “Bar-Jesus,” who is later known as “Elymas,” when we read that “Saul (also known as Paul), filled with the Holy Spirit, stared straight at him” (13:9a) and spoke words of rebuke.  Shortly, we find Paul in the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, speaking to the “Men of Israel and… Gentiles who fear God” (13:16b).  In his speech to these people, Paul tells them the story of Israel, which implies that this has value for a Gentile audience as well (as they are being included in the family of Abraham---God’s family of redemption).  The story of Israel begins with the Egyptian exodus, climaxes in the Resurrection of Jesus, and leads to talk of justification for all of his audience. 

Paul’s talk of justification, within his Holy Spirit directed mission, has him saying “by this one everyone who believes is justified from everything from which the law of Moses could not justify you” (13:39), which, when we take into consideration that his speech began with talk of Israel in bondage to Egypt (exile), seems to be an indicator that his audience is in an exile of their own, in need of the experience of exodus.  Their justification (covenant inclusion, salvation) will be their exodus, as Moses, most importantly, is linked to the event of exodus, God’s establishment of a covenant people to serve His purposes, and a symbol of that justification.  With Moses, that symbol was the law.  With the new Moses (Jesus), that symbol is trust in the Gospel (Jesus is Lord), which is a trust like that first demonstrated by Abraham. 

It is here that Paul meets with opposition to his message, presumably because it so freely incorporates Gentiles, without restriction or any need to undergo long-standing rites of qualification (no need to adopt the then current covenant markers of circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, food laws).  Thus, the next time Paul has the opportunity to speak to the assembly, “the Jews… began to contradict what Paul was saying” (13:45), which eventually prompts the declaration of “turning to the Gentiles” (13:46b), with all of this occurring under the auspices of the activity of the Holy Spirit.  Paul even adds, quoting Isaiah, that “this is what the Lord has commanded us: ‘I have appointed you to be a light for the Gentiles, to bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’” (13:47)  Paul grasps on to the words of the prophet to make the point that God’s covenant plan had always included Gentiles, and that it was His intention for His covenant people to take His salvation out to the peoples of the world, rather than forcing those peoples to come to them. 

Consequently, “When the Gentiles heard this, they began to rejoice and praise the word of the Lord, and all who had been appointed to eternal life believed” (13:48).  Listening to the forty-eighth verse in its immediate context and in its narrative context, as well as alongside the soteriological context provided by Paul’s thoughts about justification as expressed in Romans and elsewhere, we are not allowed to hear this as a selective statement about some that had been pre-destined to believe, while others were pre-destined not to believe.  Rather, we hear it as a reference to Gentiles, as it had always been God’s plan for Gentiles to believe, as they too, as divine image-bearers, had been appointed to participate in the life of the age to come, doing so right alongside Israel.  As this particular portion of the narrative is brought to a close, Luke reminds us of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, which first occurred at Pentecost and sparked a highly determinative message from Peter and set the stage for what would come in the story he would be telling in this book, by writing about the Gentiles who were hearing and rejoicing at the words of Paul concerning Jesus, that “the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit” (13:52).

Cornelius & The Mission Of God (part 1 of 4)

In the tenth chapter of Acts, Peter pays a visit to the household of Cornelius.  Cornelius is a Gentile, which makes the record of this encounter of particular interest to the mission of the church as presented in Acts and expounded on in the New Testament.  We will not recap the whole of the interaction or what led to Peter’s dealings with this prominent Gentile (though there will be some recapping), and we will begin by recounting that it is near the close of the story that we hear Peter say “I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism in dealing with people” (10:34b).  This is not about individual favoritism, but favoritism towards peoples or nations, so it should not, at first, cause us to take the position of an inward focus or cause us to direct our thoughts at some type of earned salvation or status with God. 

With that established, we continue, hearing “but in every nation,” which reinforces the point just made, “the person who fears Him and does what is right is welcomed before Him” (10:35).  This welcome is, quite obviously, a welcome to the covenant people of God.  To this point, briefly reaching into the story of Cornelius, and doing so that we might appropriately hear the words of Peter within the narrative that is on offer, rather than visiting the text with possibly foreign notions of what is meant by “does what is right,” we find very little activity or doing attributed to Cornelius.  We are alerted to the fact that Cornelius is a God-fearing man that performed acts of charity and regularly prayed (10:2).  Right away then, he is introduced in a far more flattering way than was Abraham in Genesis. 

We go on to learn that “About three o’clock one afternoon he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God who came in and said to him, ‘Cornelius.’  Staring at him and becoming greatly afraid, Cornelius replied, ‘What is it, Lord?’  The angel said to him, ‘Your prayers and your acts of charity have gone up as a memorial before God.’” (10:3-4)  This should give us some pause, causing us to reflect on God’s opinion about “good works” and their ultimate value.  Again, and for what it’s worth, Cornelius is introduced into the narrative of the people of God in a more positive light than was Abraham, which is something to keep in mind. 

Cornelius receives instructions: “Now send men to Joppa and summon a man named Simon, who is called Peter.  This man is staying as a guest with a man named Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea” (10:5-6).  With this said, we find that “When the angel who had spoken to him departed, Cornelius called two of his personal servants and a devout soldier from among those who served him, and when he had explained everything to them, he sent them to Joppa” (10:7-8).  Later, after Peter has come to his house, Cornelius, relating his story, speaks to Peter and says “I sent for you at once, and you were kind enough to come.  So now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to say to us” (10:33). 

We’ll notice that Cornelius, in both verse four and verse thirty-three, uses the word “Lord.”  Based on the whole of Luke’s presentation, and especially the story of Saul’s blinding on the road to Damascus, where he says “Who are you, Lord?” and heard “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting” (9:5), we should presume that Cornelius’ references to the “Lord” are to be considered to be references to the Lord Jesus.  Therefore, Cornelius effectively gives voice to the Gospel, calling Jesus Lord, thus taking upon himself the mark of the covenant, which is the confession of Jesus as Lord.  It is these things told about Cornelius that, according to the story on offer, fall into the category of “does what is right” (demonstrating a respect of God by engaging in charity, praying regularly, and calling Jesus “Lord”).  

This use of “Lord,” with Peter recognizing it for what it is, allows him to move immediately to his speech, pointing to God’s lack of favoritism and His desire to welcome people from all nations before Him.  It is telling that Peter does not go into the story of Abraham, nor does he tell the story of Jesus as if Cornelius is hearing it for the first time.  Instead, he says “You know the message He sent to the people of Israel, proclaiming the good news of peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)” (10:36).  We shall not fail to here note that Cornelius is a centurion---an official in Caesar’s army.  He, of all people, would be well aware that “good news” is routinely linked to the Caesar.  In addition, the use of “Christ,” which is “Messiah,” and means “king”, together with a proclamation that He and not Caesar is “Lord of all,” was quite a bold statement by Peter, considering his setting, while also being emblematic of the proclamation of Christ-followers from the beginning. 

Solomon & Shimei (part 1 of 3)

Early in his reign, Solomon has Adonijah (his brother) and Joab (general of the army) dispatched.  Following that, Solomon turns his attention to a man named Shimei.  He does so because Shimei is mentioned within his father’s dying words.  David said to Solomon: “Note well, you still have to contend with Shimei son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurin, who tried to call down upon me a horrible judgment when I went to Mahanaim” (1 Kings 2:8a).  This is not entirely true, so David seemed to have been employing exaggeration with some effect.  What Shimei is recorded to have said to David was “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!” (2 Samuel 16:7) 

Apart from a subjective rhetorical flourish when Shimei declares that the Lord is punishing David for the spilled blood of the house of Saul, this cursing by Shimei rings true.  David was not punished for bloodshed related to the house of Saul, but rather, it was the blood spilled within his own house (Absalom’s slaying of Amnon as a result of Amnon’s rape of Tamar), as well as the blood spilled by his own command (David using Israel’s enemies to have Uriah murdered), that had led to the situation which gave Shimei the opportunity to speak forth such words.  Beyond the improper of attribution of the spilling of blood there mentioned, it is difficult to find fault with Shimei’s message to David.  At that point, since David was fleeing Jerusalem, Absalom, by all appearances, had taken the kingdom.  With the peaceful transfer of power, one could easily look upon Absalom’s taking of the throne as having divine sanction. 

With regard to referring to David as a man of bloodshed, it must be said that Shimei does not appear to be incorrect in his assessment.  If we were to look ahead to the first book of the Chronicles, we would there find a record of David speaking to Solomon and saying “My son, I really wanted to build a temple to honor the Lord my God.  But the Lord said to me: ‘You have spilled a great deal of blood and fought many battles.  You must not build a temple to honor Me, for you have spilled a great deal of blood on the ground before Me” (1 Chronicles 22:7-8).  Apparently, God Himself referred to David as a man of bloodshed. 

It’s useful here to consider, if the blood David spilled in battle was (according to the Scriptural record) almost entirely at the Lord’s direction, why that same God would use the fact of spilled blood as a reason to bar David from building His Temple.  The most likely reason is that a temple constructed by a king that was known to have waged vigorous military campaigns, and through those campaigns to have extended his territory and his power, would be seen as a temple constructed in honor of a conquering, warring, subjugating god that would bear a great deal of resemblance to the gods of the surrounding nations.  A temple built to honor such a god would simply be one amongst many.  This point is drawn out by what the Lord is reported to have said to David after making mention of his acts of bloodshed, which was “Look, you will have a son, who will be a peaceful man.  I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side.  Indeed, Solomon will be his name; I will give Israel peace and quiet during his reign.  He will build a temple to honor Me; he will become My son, and I will become his Father.  I will grant to his dynasty permanent rule over Israel” (22:9-10). 

The temple to be built by Solomon would not be constructed by a man of war, nor could it be perceived as a symbol of military conquest, which would have been common in that day.  The Temple that would be honoring to God alone (rather than a temple that would be partly honorific for David) would be built by one known as a peaceful man, though the fact that blood was spilled in abundance at the beginning of Solomon’s reign seems a bit troubling in this light.  Nevertheless, this Temple that was to be associated with rest and peace and quiet would be raised into existence by one about whom God spoke of as being His son.  This Temple would be the symbol of a permanent rule over the people of God, and by extension, over the territory occupied by that people.  Here, the analogies to the One that would eventually come, as a Son, in place of the Temple, and Who would raise up an eschatological Temple to God, are so stark and clear that they need not even be detailed. 

Reverting our attention now to David and his directives concerning Shimei that were passed along to Solomon, we find him moving from a recounting of the Shimei situation in connection with his escape from Jerusalem, to his dealings with Shimei upon his return to Jerusalem, and saying “He came down and met me at the Jordan, and I solemnly promised him by the Lord, ‘I will not strike you down with the sword.’” (2:8b).  To this David added, “But now,” speaking to Solomon, “don’t treat him as if he were innocent.  You are a wise man and you know how to handle him; make sure he has a bloody death” (2:9).  In the record of the Kings, these are the final words of David.  Ironically, and in a way that probably indicates that the author wants this to be acknowledged, these last words of David have to do with him calling for the bloody death of the man that had referred to him as a man of bloodshed.      

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. 

David's Idolatry (part 1 of 3)

The twenty-fourth chapter of second Samuel begins by stating that “The Lord’s anger again raged against Israel, and He incited David against them, saying, ‘Go count Israel and Judah.’” (24:1)  So David gives an order to his general, Joab, telling him to “Go through all the tribes of Israel from Dan to Beer Sheba and muster the army, so I may know the size of the army” (24:2b).  Now, this is not precisely what David had been commanded to do, which is somewhat telling when it comes to an overall analysis of David’s character, which was seriously flawed.  Yes, David, as the Apostle Paul would say, “served God’s purpose in his own generation” (Acts 13:36a), but this statement is removed quite a distance from the initial report of David before he was anointed to be king, in which Paul presents David as “a man after My (God’s) heart” (13:22).  With this, Paul borrows from the first book of Samuel, where we read about the Lord having sought out, what is perhaps a better translation, “a man who is loyal to Him” (13:14b). 

God instructed David to number Israel and Judah.  In and of itself, this is not a problem.  God has no problem with a census of His people.  In fact, in His law as given through Moses, the Lord gave instructions as to how it was that the census was to be carried out, and what it was that must occur along with the census.  In fact, the book of Numbers, for the most part, is itself a census.  However, we know that the Lord’s anger was raging against Israel, which is an indication that there was a problem with which God intended to deal.  It seems as if God knew that David would not follow the directive that had been given, which might very well be the implication of the author’s record of inciting David against Israel.  Rather than direct a numbering of the whole of the people, David instead asks for a numbering of the army. 

It seems that Joab better understood the Lord’s command than did David, as he replies to the order that has been given, saying “May the Lord your God make the army a hundred times larger right before the eyes of my lord the king!  But why does my master the king want to do this?” (24:3)  It is worth repeating that the Lord wanted His people numbered, whereas David asked for a numbering of his army.  By all appearances here, Joab is aghast at the king’s command.  However, “the king’s edict stood, despite the objections of Joab and the leaders of the army” (24:4a).  So not only did Joab have a grasp of what it was that the Lord wanted, but so too did the leaders of the army, who were likely influenced by Joab to offer their objections to the king.  Ultimately, the record indicates that “Joab and the leaders of the army left the king’s presence in order to muster the Israelite army” (24:4b), so that David, as he said, could know its size.  After a period of time, “Joab reported the number of warriors to the king” (24:9a).  The given report stated that “In Israel there were 800,000 sword-wielding warriors, and in Judah there were 500,000 soldiers” (24:9b). 

David’s response to the report of more than a million soldiers at his disposal is not what one might expect.  Rather than exulting in the power that such a count represented, “David felt guilty after he had numbered the army” (24:10a).  Why would David feel guilty?  Was it because numbering the people was wrong?  Not at all.  Rather, David felt guilty because he commanded something to be done that was not what the Lord commanded him to do, which also served to give him an insight into his own mindset.  As a result, “David said to the Lord, ‘I have sinned greatly by doing this!  Now, O Lord, please remove the guilt of your servant, for I have acted very foolishly.’” (24:10b)  What was David’s sin?  Naturally, we can easily make the case that it was disobedience.  God asked for one thing, and David did something different.  This is not difficult to ascertain.  However, there was something more substantial than disobedience.  It was the same problem that we saw with Saul and the situation with the Amalekites. 

God, through Samuel, had given specific instruction to Saul as to how he was to deal with the Amalekites.  Saul only partially carried out the Lord’s command.  This resulted in Saul being rejected by God as king over His people.  So in David’s actions, we see hints of the same thing.  Saul was given a specific instruction, as was David.  Saul followed the instruction to an extent, as did David.  Saul is rejected as king, and David, knowing this story of Saul and perhaps coming to his senses a bit, feels guilty, offering his plea to the Lord for the removal of guilt.  He did not want to be rejected as king (which would be the second time if this occurs after the Absalom situation), and he did not want to be overtaken by the same fate as that which was experienced by Saul.  In connection with what brought about his downfall, Saul was said to have been setting up a monument for himself (1 Samuel 15:12).  In our exploration of Saul’s life in the course of this study, we determined that this was the beginning of idolatry for Saul.  This idolatry is what would result in Saul being exiled from the throne of Israel, as Saul began to operate outside of God’s purposes for him, though he would remain king until his death.  His idolatry led to exile. 

So what was David’s sin---his great sin, as he said?  Of what was he guilty?  Into what had he entered which he now regarded as foolishness?  What did the numbering of the army rather than the people represent?  Plainly and simply, it was idolatry.  His army, which represented his power and his kingdom, had become his idol.  It seems as though Joab and the leaders of the army had a sense of this, but that David was blinded to this fact.  The fact of his own idolatry appears to have dawned upon him when he received Joab’s count.  As we understand this about David, we are now better positioned to understand what it was that caused the Lord’s anger to rage against Israel.  

David's Song (part 2 of 2)

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

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

Once again, let us not forget the calculated measures taking place.  According to the history presented here in this book, David had recently experienced Absalom’s rebellion (with his own temporary deposition from power), along with the issue of Sheba.  Together with that, there were other potential problems and rebellions with which to be dealt, and the most natural direction from which those problems would come would be from the family of Saul.  Indeed, we see evidence of David being inclined to think in such ways, if we look back to his flight from Jerusalem, when he was met by Ziba the servant of Mephibosheth (the son of Jonathan to whom David had extended grace and seated at his table, treating him as one of his own sons).  When David sees that Ziba alone has come to him, without Mephibosheth, bringing him bread, raisin cakes, summer fruit, and wine (16:1), he says, “Where is your master’s grandson?” (16:3a).  Ziba replies by saying, “He remains in Jerusalem, for he said, ‘Today the house of Israel will give back to me my grandfather’s kingdom” (16:3b). 

Though this makes no sense at all, as it was Absalom, David’s son, that was supported by the people and taking the throne, we see David’s willingness to believe such a thing and the ongoing threat of reprisal from Saul’s family implied therein, as he says, “Everything that was Mephibosheth’s now belongs to you” (16:4a).  Now, the presence of Saul’s old enemies provide the means to end this looming threat once and for all.  So we read that “The king had mercy on Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, in light of the Lord’s oath that had been taken between David and Jonathan son of Saul” (21:7), though before he had been willing to quickly write off Mephibosheth and toss him aside as a traitor and conspirator.  Additionally, because Mephibosheth was crippled in his feet, not only would he not be able to rise up to lead an army, but David would also have been confident that the people of Israel would certainly not support one such as him as king. 

Sparing Mephibosheth, the king took seven sons and grandsons of Saul and “turned them over to the Gibeonites, and they executed them on a hill before the Lord.  The seven of them died together” (21:9a).  To go along with that, the Gibeonites left those men there to rot.  For David, problem solved.  However, drawing attention to what could truly have been viewed by the people as a rather despicable, unjustifiable, and clearly politically calculated action on David’s part, a woman named Rizpah, the mother of the sons of Saul that had been executed, “took sackcloth and spread it out for herself on a rock.  From the beginning of the harvest until the rain fell on them, she did not allow the birds of the air to feed on them by day, not the wild animals by night” (21:10).  This was an unforeseen nuisance, and when David is told that this was taking place, he ordered their bodies to be taken, along with the bones of Saul and Jonathan, to be buried in the tomb of Saul’s father in the land of Benjamin.  Thus, David is then seen to be honoring these men.  Most likely, he does this so that he will not simply be viewed as being responsible for their execution though they had done no wrong, especially in light of the fact that God’s law clearly stated that a son was not to be put to death because of the actions of his father, though this was precisely what David allowed to take place because it was a furtherance of his own ends.