Absalom (part 18)

So here is an answer.  This, as should be well understood by now, was completely un-necessary.  Seemingly, David was not a threat to Absalom.  David had resolved to leave his destiny in the hands of his God.  Along with that, and based on the mournful response that David makes when he eventually (after the unfolding of the events to come) receives word of Absalom having been struck down and killed, one can even imagine that David asked for his God’s blessing and favor to fall upon the one whom He (God) had seen fit to place in the role of king, having given him favor with the people of that God. 

No, David did not and could not have seen himself as being unlawfully or unjustly removed from the throne of Israel; and if he truly was the man after the Creator God’s own heart, and if he truly served under a special anointing of that God, it would have been incumbent upon him to seek and to serve his God’s will, even if that meant that he was not to be the king.  Based on what he had done and had not done, as he delivered oppression and usurped justice (with morality-related mistakes to which fallen humans are prone as secondary issues), David would have been justified in believing in this way and acting accordingly.     

Hushai, the one that had sent back to Jerusalem by David to serve as a “double-agent” in Absalom’s court, suggested a different strategy than that of Ahithophel.  He reminded Absalom of the fact that his father was, most certainly, a warrior, and that the men with him were quite brave (2 Samuel 17:10).  In that light, he suggests that “all Israel from Dan to Beer Sheba---in number like the sand of the sea!---be mustered to you, and you lead them personally into battle” (17:11b). 

How interesting it is that Hushai just happens to toss in, almost as an aside, a description of the people of Israel as being as numerous as the sand on the seashore.  In his advice to Absalom, which was really part of his service to David, he invokes the memory of the covenant promise that Israel’s God had originally made to Abraham.  It is probably this, more than anything else that he said, that inspires Absalom to be partial to Hushai’s advice.  After all, what proud, self-respecting Israelite would not be moved to act when regaled with such speech, as the person on the receiving end of such words would now be connected with the great patriarchal father? 

Hushai adds: “We will come against him wherever he happens to be found.  We will descend on him like the dew falls on the ground.  Neither he nor any of the men who are with him will be spared alive---not one of them!  If he regroups in a city, all Israel will take up ropes to that city and drag it down to the valley, so that not a single pebble will be left there!” (17:12-13)  Hushai is definitely engaging in some pronounced hyperbole here.  Though he does not believe or desire that such things will happen, he uses terms such as “All Israel,” and in reference to those with David, says that “not one of them” will be spared.  These things are quite unlikely, yet for some reason they are appealing to Absalom.  “Absalom and all the men of Israel said, ‘The advice of Hushai the Arkite sounds better than the advice of Ahithophel” (17:14a).  So Absalom is heeding advice that is directed towards attacking and killing his father and his father’s men.  This becomes his fatal mistake. 

Following the report of the favorable response to Hushai’s advice, the author adds what is obviously a retroactive application of what was ultimately manifested as Divine displeasure with Absalom, no doubt because of the course of action that was now going to be undertaken, saying “the Lord had decided to frustrate the sound advice of Ahithophel, so that the Lord could bring disaster upon Absalom” (17:14b).  This is the first negative connotation that one can find, from either the Lord of Israel or from man, in the story of Absalom’s insurrection and coming to power.  To this point, Absalom could very well lay claim to being a leader and deliverer for Israel in the mold of Moses.  

Love On John's Terms (part 23)

As Jesus speaks in a way in which He appears to present Himself as the Messiah that came to do the will of His Father, He said “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly” (John 10:10b).  When Jesus speaks of this giving of life in abundance, is that gift to be thought of as being directed to Israel?  Naturally, that answer is yes.  However, the giving of life abundant cannot be disconnected from the statements about the stealing, killing, and destroying that had been employed by the thieves and robbers that had come before Him (and after Him, as was likely to have been quite well known to John’s audience). 

It must be understood that Jesus is also offering that gift of life abundant to the Gentiles that were then in possession of the land---the gift of the blessings of the covenant God of Israel---in His establishment of the kingdom of God.  This would have been contrary to a good portion of the then-current ways of thinking by a large percentage of the populace.  Quite a significant number of the people wanted their Messiah to steal from and kill and destroy the oppressors (those would not necessarily have been considered stealing, but liberation), but Jesus intended the opposite, desiring to establish the kingdom through acts that were the extension of the love of the Creator for His world.  Yes, Jesus intended that the hated Romans and all Gentile nations were to have the blessings of abundant life as well.  This was a component of the love of the Creator God that was first referenced in the third chapter (3:16), put into action for the world.      

Making what would then seem to be a point about the nature of His kingdom and His role as Israel’s Messiah, Jesus adds to this and says “I am the good shepherd” (10:11a).  This use of “good shepherd,” owing to its usage in the Hebrew Scriptures (the book of Zechariah most especially), as well as being something of a reference to Moses (the prophet that was to come into the world and Isreal’s great shepherd), was another way of speaking about the Messiah.  In this capacity Jesus says “The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep” (10:11b).  In its utterance (and quite obviously in retrospect), this was designed to begin preparing the covenant people for the fact that their Messiah was going to be killed at the hands of the very ones that so many of the people thought He would forcefully overthrow, which also answered the criticisms of those that stood opposed to the ongoing Jesus movement post-crucifixion and Resurrection, who would have pointed to the fact that Jesus had been crucified by the Romans and therefore could not possibly have been the Messiah. 

It had always been the case that when a potential messiah arose to do battle against the enemies of the Creator God’s people, the evidence that the person in question was obviously not the messiah was his eventual death at the hands of those same enemies.  Execution or death at arms was the clear signal of another failed messiah, but this was not going be the case for Jesus.  This pattern of potential revolution leading to death and destruction had been repeated numerous times both before and after Jesus, so these words of Jesus not only take on a prophetic role when directed to His hearers, but also an apologetic role when constructed in this way for the community as they learned to tell the story of Jesus.   

Elaborating on this thought, Jesus presents a short analogy in reference to would-be messiahs that had risen before Him (thieves and robbers), saying “He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.  He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep” (10:12-13).  How many men before Him had risen up to lead the people in revolution?  How many, when the pressure came and death threatened, ran away, leaving those whom he had previously led to suffer gruesome deaths?  

Describing David, Seeing Jesus (part 1)

I have discovered David My servant. – Psalm 89:20a  (NET)

As an attempt is made to fathom the depths of the Hebrew Scriptures for information and for instruction, it is eminently necessary for the reader to not view these writings through the lens of what they might personally mean for them today in the specific situation or circumstance in which the reader finds him or herself.  Rather, it is necessary (and expected), if one was to engage these writings as did those that composed the covenant community in the days and years after the Christ-event, to view them through the lens of the cross of the Christ. 

When one does so, the words of the page are brought splendidly to life and provided with a depth of meaning and value far beyond anything that might have ever been expected, as they become imbued with the living and salvific power of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ---the crucified and resurrected Lord of all.  This is quite true of the words of this Psalm.  Here in the eighty-ninth Psalm, the reader is said to be hearing the very words of the Creator God when reading, “I have energized a warrior; I have raised up a young man from the people.  I have discovered David, My servant.  With My holy oil I have anointed Him as king” (89:19b-20). 

As these words are viewed through the light that is cast upon them by the cross, Jesus is clearly and quickly to be found, especially when words such as “king,” “anointed,” and “servant” are employed.  Here one also finds the term “raised up” used, which should certainly cause the reader to contemplate Jesus’ Resurrection, though such should not necessarily consider such to be an implicit reference.  However, one can also here find the word “warrior,” which does not seem to fit what is known about Jesus from the Gospels. 

Moving on to the next verse, the reader finds it being said that “My hand will support him, and My arm will strengthen him” (89:21), which (again, appropriately reading conscientious of the cross) can serve as a reminder that it is the Creator God Himself that will fight battles on behalf of His anointed servant King Jesus.  It is on the other side of the cross and the grave that one is then able to speak of Jesus as a great warrior King, having flung Himself headlong into the most significant and terrible battle ever waged, which was the battle with death and the powers of evil, and emerging victorious.  With this said, the Resurrection can then almost be thought of as the Creator God having “energized a warrior,” though it makes the analogy a bit messy and one may not necessarily want to carry it too far. 

The Creator God of Israel is reported to go on to say, “No enemy will be able to exact tribute from him” (89:22a).  Throughout the Scriptures, there are reports about kings and countries “paying tribute money.”  Whether it was being paid to the kings of Israel, or whether Israel was paying it to an oppressing enemy, the purpose of paying tribute, ultimately, was to show subservience.  It was a bowing of the knee, by the king, through an economic transaction, that represented the bowing of an entire people. 

Whether it was the reported time of temptation at the hands of Satan, or the time in which He was subjected to the over-powering sway of death itself, it is understood that Jesus, the representative of Israel (the Creator God’s covenant people then, now, and forever) did not bow the knee to His enemy.  He would not become subservient.  He would offer no tribute and barter no deals, hoping for kind treatment.  This is part of the reason that believers have the hope of a bodily Resurrection within the covenant God’s creation in the same way as that which was experienced by Jesus.  Believers have that hope because Jesus does not allow His enemy to exact tribute. 

Marching Up From Gilgal (part 1 of 2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David & Goliath: A Battle With Death (part 6 of 7)

Many in Israel believed that their messiah would rise up, sparking and leading a revolution, and conducting a military revolt that would conquer the Romans and drive them out of the land of promise, thus ending their God’s curse upon His people and their long and futile exile.  This mindset led to the rise and fall of many false messiahs, many uprisings, and many needless and fruitless deaths.  Apparently, many had forgotten that their beloved King David, when confronted with an enemy whose defeat seemed like a hopeless cause, before slinging a stone and chopping off a head, somewhat ironically stood and said, “it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves.” 

When it came to fighting His battle, Jesus, though eschewing David’s particular methods as they are cataloged in the Scriptural narrative of Israel’s history, did not forget other words that David was said to have uttered.  Thus, as Jesus approached the place of His battle with His particular enemy, He could join with David and say, “the battle is the Lord’s, and He will deliver you into our hand” (1 Samuel 17:47b).  Ultimately, when His followers and those that came to believe in His Resurrection came to grasp the significance of that to which they had been witness, Jesus would be understood to have mysteriously defeated death, and in so doing ushered in His kingdom in a way unlike that of all of the kingdoms of the world. 

However, rather than engage in what would have been the customary and expected violence of military conflict, doing battle with sword and spear as had so many to mixed ends, Jesus would be the one to suffer violence.  In that suffering, He would both literally and figuratively take all of the blows that His and His God’s enemy could deliver, and still emerge victorious through a Resurrection. 

Truly, in His arrest, His trial, and His crucifixion, Jesus would prove that the battle belonged to the one He called Lord.  Though on the surface it seems as if Jesus was delivered into the hands of His enemy, just as it would have seemed to everybody in David’s day that he was marching forward to his own destruction and to that which would result in Israel’s subjection to its enemy, the Lord God of Israel did indeed deliver Jesus’ enemy into His hands, as it would eventually come to be said of Him that He claimed the keys of death (Revelation 1:18). 

Because Jesus figuratively took those keys, those that called Him Lord and King came to believe that death, though still demonstrating its own power in the world, would no longer have the ability to lock away a people and keep them in exile from the plans, place, and purposes of their God.  Both David and Jesus would willfully and against all odds engage in battle as representatives for their people, putting defeat and subjection on the line, and both would emerge victorious.  Their peoples (Israel and humanity) would gain victory in their victories. 

In Jesus’ victory, all the people of that land (that being the land of Israel) should have recognized that Israel has a God, and that its God was embodied by and revealed through their resurrected Messiah King, Jesus of Nazareth.  In line with the covenant as expressed to Abraham and upon which their perception of the world was based, this reality would be first embraced by Israel, and then shared with the world.         

David & Goliath: A Battle With Death (part 4)

Seemingly un-intimidated by the imposing warrior that stood before him, young David boldly is said to have boldly declared, “This very day the Lord will deliver you into my hand!  I will strike you down and cut off your head” (1 Samuel 17:46a).  Answering Goliath’s assertion that he would feed David’s lifeless body to the birds and the beasts, David adds, “This day I will give the corpses of the Philistine army to the birds of the sky and the wild animals of the land” (17:46b). 

Jesus too, more than one thousand years later, would fling Himself headlong into battle.  With what appeared to have been a supreme trust in the faithfulness of His God, He too would confront His enemy, brushing off the multiplied attempts at intimidation from a variety of directions, and saying “The Lord will deliver you into My hand.”  Because He is shown to have trusted that He would be resurrected, with that resurrection according to that which He had most likely come to believe concerning what had come to be considered as the promises about Israel’s messiah, and that His Resurrection would signal the defeat of death and its decapitation, He could confidently insist, not unlike David, that He would strike death down and cut off its head.

David would go on to add that his defeat of Goliath would not only be a temporary victory for the covenant people of the Creator God, but that it would prove to one and all that “Israel has a God” (17:46c).  Why would that be the case?  Frankly, because it would be inconceivable to any observer that this young man, vastly inexperienced in battle and in the art of war, could actually topple this proven warrior.  Yet the report of the story is that that is exactly what happened.  Similarly, as nobody had ever been able to overcome death or gain victory over the grim reality that all life would eventually come to an end, Jesus’ defeat of death would be just as inconceivable.  Death’s track record, undoubtedly, was even better than that of Goliath.  However, that which was and is inconceivable by any reasonable standard, would be proven by a physical Resurrection. 

Then, as now, all people were more than well aware that people do not come back to life.  This was especially true of those subjected to crucifixion.  Not only was crucifixion fatal, the shaming experienced by the one crucified (as well as those close to the crucified individual) would be so great that, even if one was somehow able to survive the ordeal, the shame that would now be attached to that person would be so intense that they might as well be dead. 

So when Jesus returned to life, demonstrating death’s defeat, it was taken to be the manifestation of the Creator God’s victory over death.  It was taken to be a reversal of the honor and shame cultural paradigm, now informing one and all that the place of suffering, perhaps unjustly, on behalf of others in an act of self-sacrifice, was that which should be afforded honor.  Because Jesus’ Resurrection showed Him forth as the Son of God in power---borrowing a well-known title from the liturgy surround the Caesar and his cult of worship, with Jesus now looked upon as the Son of God and King of Israel who rules in the inaugurated kingdom of heaven on earth---all observers that were willing to be honest with themselves would know and understand, as David had said to Goliath so many centuries prior (with that statement definite for Israel’s defining narrative), that Israel has a God.  

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. 

God In The Camp

“A god has come into the camp” – 1 Samuel 4:7b  (ESV)

In the fourth chapter of the first book of Samuel, as part of the story by which Israel understood itself, defined itself, and presented itself to the nations, we read that “Israel went out to battle against the Philistines” (4:1b).  The battle did not go well.  “Israel was defeated by the Philistines” (4:2b).  It is said that four thousand men of Israel were killed.  Naturally, the elders of Israel were quite distraught about this situation, and they wondered why the battle went the way that it did.  They asked, “Why has the Lord defeated us today before the Philistines?” (4:3b)  Such an interesting question.  They understood themselves to be God’s covenant people, with an internal understanding of promises of victory in battle as they gained and maintained dominion over their land of promise, so the cause for loss in battle was to be searched for outside of the sheer strength of their enemies.  For that reason, they speak of their defeat as having been wrought by the Lord, rather than by the Philistines themselves.

The question is followed by a declaration, as they said, “Let us bring the ark of the covenant of the Lord here from Shiloh, that it may come among us and save us from the power of our enemies” (4:3b).  At first glance, this seems like the correct response, and the right thing to do; but if we look carefully, we’ll notice that they are not necessarily on the right track, which will be borne out by what we find happening in just a few verses.  Though they rightfully put things in the Lord’s hand by asking why it was that the Lord had defeated them before the Philistines, when they shift to speaking about the next steps to take, the language subtly shifts.  They talk of bringing “the ark of the covenant of the Lord” to this place of battle, but then say that they are going to do this, not so that the Lord of the covenant will be with them and save them, but that “it,” that being the ark itself, that “it may come among us and save us from the power of our enemies.”   

“So the people sent to Shiloh and brought from there the ark of the covenant of the Lord of hosts, Who is enthroned on the cherubim” (4:4a).  Here, we can’t help but make a note of the fact that great, swelling words are used to describe the ark, and speak of the Lord of hosts, but in the midst of that, we cannot forget the words that were previously spoken.  In bringing the ark, they have plainly said that they expect the ark to save them from the power of their enemies, rather than the Lord Whose faithful and covenant fulfilling power the ark represents.  Also, the fact is almost comically mentioned that “the two sons of Eli. Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God” (4:4b).  Right there, we have a clue that things are not going to go well for Israel here, because these two guys are not spoken of very highly.  In fact, they are referred to as “worthless men,” who “did not know the Lord” (1 Samuel 2:12).  They “treated the offerings of the Lord with contempt” (2:17b), and they would “lay with the women who were serving at the entrance to the tent of meeting” (2:22b).  We are told that “it was the will of the Lord to put them to death” (2:25b), and that “both of them shall die on the same day” (2:34b).    The men going to battle, with the ark or without the ark, would have been well-advised to keep these two far from them. 

So, “As soon as the ark of the covenant of the Lord came into the camp, all Israel gave a mighty shout” (4:5a).  They were so excited that the ark had come into the camp.  Not the Lord, but the ark.  Now, the ark may have been thought to be, as the ultimate focal point of Israel’s portable temple, the actual resting place of their God.  Therefore, in a sense, the bringing of the ark into the camp may have been, in their mind, the same as bringing the Lord into the camp, but it seems that the text as a whole does not want to convey this idea. 

The Philistines heard this and said, “What does this great shouting in the camp of the Hebrews mean?” (4:6b).  Making inquiries, “they learned that the ark of the Lord had come to the camp” (4:6c), and “the Philistines were afraid” (4:7a).  Why were they afraid?  Reinforcing the “resting place” concept, they thought “A god has come into the camp” (4:7b).  They were right.  A god had come into the camp.  Not the God, but a god.  The ark had come into the camp, and the Israelites looked to the ark, rather than looking to or remembering the Lord of the ark.  The Philistines were right in saying that a god had come into the camp, because Israel had reduced the ark of the Lord into nothing more than an idol.  Because of this, and bearing out the idea that the author wants to convey the idolatry and its associated problems that would lead to Israel being defeated by its enemies, “the Philistines fought, and Israel was defeated, and they fled, every man to his home.  And there was a very great slaughter, for there fell of Israel thirty thousand foot soldiers.  And the ark of God was captured, and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, died” (4:10-11). 

In the first battle, only four thousand died.  Once the idolatry of Israel in regards to the ark was manifest, which is that which always brought God’s judgment upon them and upon all of His covenant people in accordance with the promises of His covenant faithfulness, thirty thousand died and Israel was stripped of that which had become little more than an idol.