Absalom (part 22 of 22)

Having made this crossing of the Jordan (leaving the Promised Land), Absalom will never cross back.  It is not insignificant that Absalom’s crossing of the Jordan coincides with blessings beginning to come David’s way.  It is reported that “When David came to Mahanaim,” men came to him and “brought bedding, basins, and pottery utensils.  They also brought food for David and all who were with him, including wheat, barley, flour, roasted grain, beans, lentils, honey, curds, flocks, and cheese” (2 Samuel 17:27a,28-29a). 

Remarkably (or perhaps not so remarkably), this provision of food and supplies for David and the people with him sounds like what is to be found in the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy.  There, along with the copious listing of curses that will come upon the covenant God’s people for failure to adhere to the terms of the covenant, one also finds the promise of blessings.  It is written: “If you indeed obey the Lord your God and are careful to observe all His commandments… the Lord your God will elevate you above all the nations of the earth.  All these blessings will come to  you in abundance if you obey the Lord your God: You will be blessed in the city and blessed in the field.  Your children will be blessed, as well as the produce of your soil, the offspring of your livestock, the calves of your herds, and the lambs of your flocks.  Your basket and your mixing bowl will be blessed.  You will be blessed when you come in and blessed when you go out” (28:1-6).  One can almost certainly imagine David reflecting upon these promised blessings as he receives the items that are being brought to him at Mahanaim. 

If he is thinking in such ways, then it is at this point that he knows that his God has turned things in his favor, that truly he is still the anointed one of Israel, and that Absalom should not have raised his hand (or contemplated raising his hand) against him.  After contemplating the blessings related to sustenance, David could go on to consider what follows in Deuteronomy, which is “The Lord will cause your enemies who attack you to be struck down before you; they will attack you from one direction but flee from you in seven different directions… The Lord will designate you as His holy people just as He promised you… Then all the peoples of the earth will see that you belong to the Lord, and they will respect you” (28:7,9-10).  It is after he receives the gifts that, for him, could serve to indicate the return of the Creator God’s favor and to remind him of the anointing and promise of his God that had been placed upon his life and his rule, that “David assembled the army that was with him.  He appointed leaders of thousands and leaders of hundreds.  David then sent out the army” (18:1-2a). 

David knew that Israel’s God was going to be with him and that his return to the throne was now but a foregone conclusion.  With full knowledge that the change of events was instigated by Absalom’s agreement to unnecessarily raise his hand in violence against his father, when David sends out the army he says “For my sake deal gently with the young man Absalom” (18:5b).  This, of course, does not happen, as Joab, David’s general (who has no fear of reprisal from David for a variety of reasons), has Absalom executed at the first opportunity to do so, which presented itself relatively quickly.  In fact, Absalom was struck down in the very first military engagement of his kingship, which is extraordinarily telling.  As was said before, once Absalom crossed the Jordan, thus departing from his exodus and going into exile, he would never cross back.  The only thing that was waiting for him on the other side was the completion of the curses of exile, which was death---dragged into the subjugation of creation’s great and foreign power.        

Absalom (part 15)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absalom (part 14)

Surely, the curses and stones being hurled at David from this man served as a vivid demonstration of the Deuteronomic curses and the exile in which those curses are enfolded.  Thus, this man, as David rightly surmised, was being used by Israel’s God (at that point), to bring David’s failures to mind.  One could also think of Goliath uttering curses at David and Israel, along with David’s felling him with a stone from his slingshot. 

Additionally, Abishai’s use of the term “dead dog,” which the author was sure to mention here in the telling of this story, had to have been a reminder to David of Mephibosheth’s response to him, when David restored Mephibosheth to his lands and gave him a place at the king’s table.  Mephibosheth referred to himself as a “dead dog” that was undeserving of such treatment by the king.  That event, perhaps more so than any other in the life of David, saw him demonstrating the compassion of the covenant God of Israel in a way that would most definitely have served to allow him to shine as a light to the nations and to reflect the glory of his God into the world, as he lifted up the grandson of his enemy. 

If that was a consideration, David could not then help but be reminded of the way he had honored his God and his kingship before he began robbing (wives and lives and justice) from his people.  Yes, to return to an issue previously raised, which was that of David himself going into exile, in light of a later promise to Israel that the sign of their exile would be the eternal rule of a Davidic king, David was eventually returned to Jerusalem and re-established as king.  If David himself could go into exile and be exodus-ed from that exile and restored to the kingship, then so too could Israel (Judah) be later exiled to Babylon and subjected to a foreign nation, while trusting in their God’s promise to return them to their land.  

Now after Absalom entered Jerusalem, he sought the counsel of Ahithophel, saying “Give us your advice.  What should we do?” (2 Samuel 16:20b)  Ahithophel provides a two part answer.  The first part of his answer is “Have sex with your father’s concubines whom he left to care for the palace” (16:21a).  Absalom, quite pleased with this suggestion (for obvious and perhaps not so obvious reasons), seizes on the idea and follows through on it.  The author reports that “they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and Absalom had sex with his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel” (16:22).  Why does Ahithophel suggest this?  Why does Absalom do it?  It is suggested and undertaken because of what it was that the prophet Nathan had said to David after David’s taking of Uriah’s wife and life. 

Through Nathan, the Creator God had said to David, “you have despised Me by taking the wife of Uriah the Hittite as your own!” (12:10b)  Though it does not provide a direct correlation, it would not be too far-fetched to suggest that this despising of Israel’s God by David bears very little difference from Israel’s forsaking of their God and their worship of idols, by which they most assuredly despised Him.  If this is correct, then it is only right that David experience what his God promises to His people for idolatry, which is cursing (exile).  So Nathan continues, saying “This is what the Lord says: ‘I am about to bring disaster on you from inside your household!’” (12:11a)  Certainly the Absalom situation, which has been created and fueled by the Tamar and Amnon situation and the resulting fall-out, could be described as disaster from inside the household.  Furthermore, the covenant God says, “Right before your eyes I will take your wives and hand them over to your companion.  He will have sexual relations with your wives in broad daylight!” (12:11b)  Why?  Because “Although you have acted in secret, I will do this thing before all Israel, and in broad daylight” (12:12).  This is obviously fulfilled.

Absalom (part 12)

This exile that David was experiencing had several of the marks of the curses promised in Deuteronomy.  The author reports: “As David was going up the Mount of Olives, he was weeping as he went; his head was covered and his feet were bare.  All the people who were with him also had their heads covered and were weeping as they went up” (2 Samuel 15:30).  Does this not sound like the way that slaves would be carried off by a conquering foe?  Is it possible to find this paralleled in Deuteronomy?  There one reads of “hunger, thirst, nakedness, and poverty” (28:48a). 

David, with all of his riches, was fleeing Jerusalem with nothing.  In fact, this is evidenced by the fact that shortly thereafter, “Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth… had a couple of donkeys that were saddled, and on them were two hundred loaves of bread, a hundred raisin cakes, a hundred baskets of summer fruit, and a container of wine” (16:1b), so as to provide for the king and his people during their journey into exile for lack of faithfulness to their covenant responsibilities. 

In the midst of the travel of his travail, David, having begun to recognize where his faults had been and what it was that had brought him to this horrible predicament, begins to strategize.  He has already sent the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem for good reason, and implores the Creator God to turn the advice of one of his chief advisers, Ahithophel, who was now supporting and advising Absalom, into foolishness.  In addition, he employed the priests, Zadok and Abiathar, to serve as his spies within Jerusalem. 

As David begins to remember the God of Israel and His faithfulness, he also begins to be fully cognizant of the exilic nature of what is happening to him, and vice versa.  No doubt this experience is going to serve him well, if in fact his God does restore him to the throne, which at this point was certainly not a foregone conclusion.  Remember, even if David is removed from the throne, the promise is that the God of Israel would make a dynasty of his house, which he could very well do through Absalom, who, at this point, has carried out a successful rebellion and insurrection without shedding any blood. 

In considering that, it is worth once again making note of the strategy which might very well have been being employed by Absalom.  Absalom has, quite possibly, positioned himself as a new Moses that is leading a new exodus for Israel, with a delivery from a new Pharaoh, that being David, who had become an oppressor in Israel.  Remember, Israel began to suffer oppression in Egypt when a Pharaoh came to power that did not know Joseph. 

Naturally, it was not so much that said Pharaoh did not know Joseph,  but more that he had forgotten what had been wrought on behalf of Egypt, with Egypt gaining an empire through the power and deliverance of the God of Joseph and Israel.  In making his case, Absalom could certainly point to David’s less than just actions and point out that David had forgotten the faithful, powerful, delivering, kingdom giving God of Israel---the very God that had delivered David from Saul and from his own earlier time of exile and oppression.          

Furthermore, as one examines the potential of Absalom positioning himself as a new Moses and leading a new exodus, it should be remembered that Israel’s Egyptian exodus was carried out with no bloodshed.  Moses had attempted such and failed, earning only a personal exile which eventually resulted in his calling by the covenant God.  Israel did not rise up en masse to overthrow and defeat Egypt by means of violence.  They did not have to resort to war.  Rather, their God worked for them.  The Creator God brought Egypt low through plagues and the eventual death of the firstborn.  

Absalom (part 11)

Does David get a sense of this?  Did he realize that the Ark was being treated as a talisman and an idol?  This had happened once before during the time of the judges, when Hophni and Phinehas, the corrupt sons of Eli, brought the Ark into the presence of the Israelite army as they were being threatened by and were fearful of the army of the Philistines.  What happened to the Ark in that instance?  It was captured by the Philistines.  Israel fell to the Philistines in battle, Hophni and Phinehas were killed, Eli fell over and broke his neck when he heard the news of the Ark’s capture, and Phinehas’ wife gave birth to a son and named him Ichabod, saying that “The glory has departed from Israel, because the Ark of God has been captured” (1 Samuel 4:22). 

Understandably then, David did not want to be on any side of that issue.  He did not want to treat the Ark as an idol.  He did not want to leave the people in a vulnerable position without the presence of their God, and thereby effectively in exile.  He did not want to be thought of as somebody who had captured the Ark and therefore caused the glory of the Lord to depart from Israel, nor did he want to experience the exile-like curses that came upon the Philistines because they presumed to possess the Ark of the Covenant God.  So “the king said to Zadok, ‘Take the Ark of God back to the city.  If I find favor in the Lord’s sight He will bring me back and enable me to see both it and His dwelling place again.  However, if He should say, “I do not take pleasure in you,” then He will deal with me in a way that He considers appropriate’.” (15:25-26)  This represents a turning of the tide for David.  Once he actively recognizes the Lord God of Israel’s hand in all of these things, matters begin to turn out better for him and worse for Absalom.        

Later on in Israel’s history, the book of Jeremiah will inform a people that are nearing a time of exile and foreign subjugation to not lose heart or forget the covenant faithfulness of their God.  Their God has delivered a solemn promise, saying “When the time for them to be rescued comes… I will rescue you from foreign subjugation.  I will deliver you from captivity.  Foreigners will then no longer subjugate them.  But they will be subject to the Lord their God and to the Davidic ruler whom I will raise up as king over them” (30:8-9).  Ironically, it is King David---the very one to whom is made reference by the term “Davidic ruler”---that is himself going into exile.  He is, in a way, undergoing a foreign subjugation.  Why?  Because, like Israel itself, he had taken his eyes off of his God.  Because, like Israel itself, he had forgotten his purpose.  He had begun to treat the people of Israel as if they were there for him, rather than remembering his role and that he was there to be a servant to the covenant people of the covenant God. 

How could he serve them best?  By being a testimony of what it looked like to be a light to the surrounding nations and so reflect the glory, into the world, of the God Who had anointed him and delivered him a kingdom.  How could he do that if he was oppressing his own people, taking their wives, and killing them?  How could he do that if he was showing favoritism to his own son and not executing what justice demanded?  How could he do that if he allowed the relationship with another son to deteriorate to the point that that son could feel the need to turn the people against his father and take the kingdom for himself?  David had become a king for himself and for his own glory, rather than for his people, for the world, and for the glory of Israel’s God.  This was David’s idolatry, and it had earned him an exile. 

Only Son (part 8)

The promise communicated to and through Solomon, long-cherished by the covenant people of the Creator God and recorded in the second book of the Chronicles, follows from the Creator God saying to Solomon “When I close up the sky so that it doesn’t rain, or command locusts to devour the land’s vegetation, or send a plague among My people” (7:13).  Significantly, this causes the promise to fit into the overall narrative, thus providing a context that is so often lost in much popular use, because when these things are mentioned, Solomon and those to whom these words would be communicated would naturally think of Egypt and the exodus. 

Connected to that, (and regardless of when these works reached their final form, as Nicodemus and his contemporaries, like the modern reader, would have been familiar with these texts as part of Israel’s historical narrative) it is likely that such things would also call to mind the Levitical and Deuteronomic curses that were offered up as Israel’s fate, principally for the sin of idolatry.  Because of that, these words would ultimately be tied to the idea of exile. 

So, making the connection, when the serpents (as recorded in the book of Numbers) attack the people, a people in the process and state of exodus becomes, briefly, a people in exile.  Returning to that story then, after Moses prayed for the people, “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Make a poisonous snake and set it on a pole.  When anyone who is bitten looks at it, he will live.’  So Moses made a bronze snake and put it on a pole, so that if a snake had bitten someone, when he looked at the bronze snake he lived” (Numbers 21:8-9). 

Now, getting back to Nicodemus and Jesus, it would not be unreasonable to think that Jesus expected Nicodemus to have all of these things in mind, and that Nicodemus did, in fact, have such things in mind.  Otherwise, why would the author include this exchange in a story that itself would be so thoroughly dependent on the Israel narrative for its own meaning?  That considered, one is also reminded that Jesus spoke of believing in Him and having eternal life, just as was the case with Moses and the serpent (eternal life understood as the life of the age to come entering into the present---the idea of living forever in heaven would not here be present). 

Those that looked at the serpent did so, presumably, because they then believed their God and believed Moses.  Those who looked were healed.  They were snatched away from their brief state of exile, experiencing a new exodus.  Though many were said to have died, and though, to be sure, many more were going to die if their God did not mercifully intervene, those who looked at the serpent received something akin to a resurrection.  Their movement from exile, as they regained their exodus, was a movement from death to life. 

This analysis then helps to provide some context for Jesus’ usage of the story.  With this reference to the story of the poisonous serpents that were said to be a dramatic memory of Israel’s wilderness experience, Jesus would seem to be informing Nicodemus that the covenant people of Israel, in their own day, were in the same position as the Israel that was suffering from the bite of poisonous serpents.  They were not truly trusting their God.  They were not believing Him and aligning themselves with His kingdom ways.  They were a people in exile, in need of another exodus---a resurrection. 

Marring Of A Servant (part 1)

His form was so marred he no longer looked human---so now he will startle many nations. – Isaiah 52:15a  (NET)

When one takes a look at the prophecy of Isaiah and the “suffering servant” that has come to carry such a tremendous amount of significance to the understanding of Jesus’ crucifixion and Resurrection, an observer is met with some rather unsettling words.  One learns that the servant will be “so marred” that he will not even be recognizable as a human.  Time can be allocated for a brief and useful analogy here, and say that even though these words, following the lead of the earliest believers, can be rightly applied to Jesus, due to that which He underwent through the ordeal of the crucifixion (including the scourging and the crown of thorns), it is also possible to make words such as these, lifted from their immediate context of course, apply to the whole of humanity. 

Humanity was created in the divine image, but the fall, as it is reported in the Scriptural narrative, marred that image, so much so that what can be seen in self and others can and should be thought of as barely recognizable as human.  Following in the logic of that same Scriptural narrative, it is only when Jesus mysteriously works in and through believers by the Spirit, as He represented and fulfilled the Creator God’s intention for His divine-image-bearing creation, that such an individual can actually be recognized as human. 

Is it not ironic that, in order for this recognition of humanity to take place, through a union with the Christ by faith, that Jesus had to endure an infliction of suffering that would so mar Him that He would be unrecognizable as a human?  The indication of Scripture, and more appropriately the understanding that followed that indication, was that He would be marred so as to provide the basis for the reversal of the marring of humanity, beginning with those that believed in Him as the Christ and cast their allegiance with Him and His kingdom model as and Lord and King of all. 

So the suffering servant of Isaiah would be horribly marred.  Prior to that, however, it can be read “Look, My servant will succeed!  He will be elevated, lifted high, and greatly exalted” (52:13).  Words such as these create an expectation of something different than what is to come, so a reader could be justifiably confused by the next verse, which says, “(just as many were horrified by the sight of you) he was so disfigured he no longer looked like a man” (52:14).  The same one that is to succeed, be elevated, lifted high, and exalted is the same one that will be disfigured and marred.  It is quite the interesting contrast, but compares well with the first part of the fourteenth verse and the horror experienced on the part of the nations at the sight of the covenant God’s people Israel.  The suffering servant, as representative of Israel, is going to be marred and made unrecognizable, because as the embodiment and representative of Israel, he must share in their cursing. 

Here one must recognize that Israel itself could easily be recognized as the suffering servant, marred and no longer recognizable as the covenant people, suffering because they had failed to be the servants of all humanity in their representation of their covenant God. With that in mind,  a question can be asked as to what Isaiah is referring when he writes “just as many were horrified by the sight of you”?  He seems to be hearkening back to the ever-present comprehension and narrative-coloring of the Levitical and Deuteronomic curses, and the statement to be found attached to those curses as Israel wantonly violates its covenant with their Creator God by going after idols, not reverencing His sanctuary, and dis-honoring His Sabbaths, that “You will become an occasion of horror, a proverb, and an object of ridicule to all the peoples to whom the Lord will drive you” (Deuteronomy 28:37).  In this, it can then be seen that Israel itself was disfigured, no longer resembling the nation that the Creator God had drawn out from Egypt and set forth as the representative of His glory and the light to all nations. 

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. 

My Enemies (part 2)

The Apostle Paul would latch on to this theme of kneeling, echoed elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, and include in his letter to the believers in Philippi “that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow---in heaven and on earth and under the earth” (2:10).  Not only could Jesus come to believe that, if He was correct in His assessment of the messianic vocation, His enemy would kneel and bow before Him, but Jesus could also look to this Psalm and go to the cross with the confident declaration that “You make My enemies retreat” (18:40a).  With the power of the faithful, covenant-making-and-keeping God at His back, Jesus could make the assertion that “I destroy those who hate Me” (18:40b).  Surely, the powers of death and destruction could be understood to hate the bringers of life, renewal, restoration, and re-creation. 

His enemies would not go down without a battle, nor without an assertion of their rights.  In fact, those enemies would cry out.  The Psalmist would write, “they cry out, but there is no one to help them” (18:41a).  More than that, His enemies, death and the grave, would even “cry out to the Lord, but He does not answer them” (18:41b).  Wait a minute.  How could death cry out to the Lord?  Why would death cry out to the sovereign Lord of the cosmos? 

In crying out to the Lord, if in its own death throes as the power of resurrection life was about to be unleashed into the world, death would be doing nothing more than asserting its rightful claim against all of mankind.  According to the narrative by which Jesus would have ordered and defined His own life, and by which His thinking would be shaped, that rightful claim began with Adam.  More specifically, death would be asserting its rightful claim against Israel (of which Jesus was part), which had been in constant violation of their God’s commandments to them, as evidenced by their ongoing experience of His promised curses and their continual state of exile, being oppressed and subjugated while in their own land 

Among a number of reasons, it was this failure of Israel that would make it necessary, because the covenant God is faithful to His promises, for their King to undergo that which was seen as the greatest curse, the cross, going there as the representative of His people, to undergo the curses of suffering and death.  Though death was certainly a usurper and an interloper in the God of Israel’s good creation, it was not an unlawful usurpation, as death had only entered because of mankind’s failure, and remained through the divine image-bearer’s (whether Adam or Israel) relinquishing of his God-given dominion over all things.  Though death and its associates cry out, the Creator God’s answer would come through His anointed King’s power to “grind them as fine windblown dust” (18:42a), and His strength to “beat them underfoot like clay in the streets” (18:42b).  This would be accomplished by a Resurrection, as God would brook no bargains with death in the process of setting His world to rights (and right standing with Him) through His Christ.  

As one ponders what has been accomplished by the death and Resurrection of Jesus, and as one continues to imagine the strength and confidence for His mission that Jesus would have gained through His study and exploration of the Scriptures, one is able to go on to read “You rescue Me from a hostile army” (Psalm 18:43a).  For Jesus, this involves a two-fold application.  Though in the natural He was not rescued from a hostile army---that being the Roman army---by being raised up from His grave (which actually does indicate something of a rescue from Rome’s military might), He was rescued from death and its vengeful hordes.  By going into the curse of death on a cross as the singular representative of His people Israel, it can be seen that Jesus took yet another aspect of the Deuteronomic curse upon Himself. 

Change Your Ways (part 2)

This second time that the Creator God speaks to His people about changing their ways and doing what is right, follows the mocking repetition of the high-mindedness of the people, in thinking that they were safe from judgment, because they could simply say, “The temple of the Lord is here!  The temple of the Lord is here!  The temple of the Lord is here!” (Jeremiah 7:4b). 

Why would they say that?  To answer that, one must understand the purpose that the temple served.  Along with being a reminder and representation of their God, of the tabernacle of the wilderness, and therefore of their redeeming exodus from Egypt at the hands of their covenant-making-and-keeping God, the temple was the place where the covenant people could go for the purpose of offering sacrifices for transgressions of the provisions of the law.  It was central to the life of Israel and served an extremely important role. 

Members of the covenant people could go to the temple, and through offering the requisite sacrifices prescribed under the law, receive atonement for their covenant failures.   In that day, the Creator God’s people relied upon this aspect of the temple every bit as much as the Creator God’s people, in this day, rely upon the sacrifice of the Christ to provide the necessary atonement for transgressions that represent their failures to be the divine image and light bearers that the Creator God intends His people to be. 

So when the Creator God directs His people to change their ways, it needs to be determined what it is that they are doing that needs to be changed.  When God instructs them to do what is right, to what is He referring as their actions that are wrong in His sight?  What are His people doing that has their God looking upon those things and saying, “If you keep doing these things, I am going to bring My promised curses and send you into exile away from the land that I have given to you”? 

After imploring them to treat others as they would want to be treated, the covenant God gives a list of those things that are severely offending Him.  Having been so long steeped in a Christian culture that highlights certain types of “sins” (sex, drugs, alcohol, etc…), one might register a bit of surprise to hear the Creator God speak through His prophet and draw attention to that which offends Him most by saying “Stop oppressing foreigners who live in your land” (7:6a).  Apparently, the Creator God’s people had forgotten that they had been foreigners in the land of Egypt.  They had forgotten their previous exile from the land that had been given to Abraham.  They had forgotten their exodus.  They had forgotten Who it was that was represented by the temple, and from Whom they were seeking their atonement.   

The oppression of foreigners in the land of Judah is such an interesting phenomenon, not only in that it demonstrated such a tremendous amount of forgetfulness on the part of God’s people, but also because it seems that a great many Christians think that this does not really apply to them, primarily because of the unfortunate (and anti-Scriptural) long-held tendency, insisted upon by so many erstwhile and well-meaning preachers of the Gospel, for Christians to think of themselves as foreigners---as strangers in a strange land (the mindset of “this world is not my home, I’m just passing through”). 

However, if the body of Jesus believers represents a renewed Israel, then it is incumbent upon that group to recognize that they are not the foreigners.  They are not the strangers.  As those that represent the kingdom of the sovereign God of the universe, and as harbingers of the renewed creation that is and will be brought to bear in this world, they are those that ultimately possess the land and are actually the ones in the position to be potential oppressors.  They are living in a world that began to be re-claimed two thousand years ago, serving as kings and priests to the most High God, through their believing union with the Christ. 

Change Your Ways (part 1)

The Lord God of Israel Who rules over all says: Change the way you have been living and do what is right.  If you do, I will allow you to continue to live in this land.– Jeremiah 7:3  (NET)

As the prophet Jeremiah is still in the early stages of his proclamation concerning the destruction and desolation and exile that is to come upon Judah because they have failed to be what their God intended them to be, he passes along the instruction, from God, that His covenant people must “change the way” that they “have been living,” and to that end, must “do what is right.”  The Creator God tells them that, if they do so, then He will allow them to continue to live in the land. 

By speaking of the land, and such an allowance, the covenant God is attempting to bring His people to the point of remembrance of perhaps the most significant component of the curses that had been presented to them in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that would result from their not being faithful to the covenant into which they had been brought by their God.  Because the promise to their progenitor, Abraham, included the promise of a land, and because the defining moment of their history was the exodus event that would allow them to return to that land promised to their forefather, the greatest of all of the curses that were on offer from their God was the curse of being driven from their land and subjected to foreign oppressors, in exile from the land of their heritage.    

Along with those warnings rooted in their historical narrative and their own self-understanding, the people of Judah would have had ready access to the extraordinarily vivid reminder of what had transpired in the not-too-distant history of their northern neighbor, Israel.  More than a century earlier, Israel (the northern kingdom of the divided kingdom) had been conquered by Assyria and removed from their land of covenantal promise. 

The Creator God’s curse had come upon the northern kingdom, and exile had ensued.  It would be none too difficult for Judah to equate the exile with the promised curses, as did the prophets of Israel, and adapt accordingly.    That group of people had been scattered to the winds, never to be re-constituted in the form of the ten tribes that had composed the nation.  As seems to be the case, the warnings had come to Israel through their prophets just as warnings were now coming to Judah.  Repeatedly, Israel had been directed to change their way of living and to do what was right.  Because they did not, the covenant God faithfully executed His solemn, covenant promises by not allowing them to continue living in their land.    

The Creator God can be heard repeating Himself in the fifth verse of this chapter, where the reader finds “You must change the way you have been living and do what is right” (7:5a).  That’s twice in the span of just three verses, so clearly attention is being drawn to the covenant-violating actions of the people.  To that is added “You must treat one another fairly” (7:5b).  Now, because fairness is often taken to be such a personally subjective and eminently fluid concept, a right understanding is probably best served by perceiving this insistence on fairness as something more along the lines of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” 

Measure Given, Measure Received (part 7)

These are striking statements.  Jesus is telling His fellow Jews that, as the covenant people of the Creator God, they have a greater obligation to do all of these things of which He has been speaking.  They were not justified in waiting around for better treatment from Rome.  A redress of grievances was unlikely.  Rome was not going to come around.  Though this is certainly difficult, the idea that they were under no obligation to love until they were loved was patently dismissed.  As the covenant people, held to a higher standard and with a greater set of obligations laid upon them, they were to treat others as they wanted to be treated. 

Indeed, Jesus makes the point that loving those who loved them would not mark them out as the Creator God’s covenant people, for this was true of all men, Jew and Gentile.  Yes, all people do this, so it is nothing particularly special.  The higher standard---the true way of the kingdom of God that was the hope of their day---was to love one’s enemies, though the nation may have felt them to be completely undeserving of that love.  To make this point, Jesus adds “And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you?  Even sinners do the same” (6:33).   

These two questions and statements are neatly tied to what He has already said.  Jesus had said to those “who are listening”, who had ears to hear (a standard rhetorical tool), to love their enemies and to do good to those who hated them.  Even about the Gentiles, those upon whom His Jewish brethren would look down and dismiss, Jesus says, they do good to those who do good to them.  There is nothing extraordinary about that.  Surely covenant people, those who desire to participate in bringing the kingdom of the Creator God to earth, are asked to live according to a much higher standard.  Tying in His directives concerning the person who takes away a coat, to which you add the tunic (6:29), and not asking for one’s possessions back from those who take them away, Jesus says, “And if you lend to those from you hope to be repaid, what credit is that to you?  Even sinners lend to sinners, so that they may be repaid in full” (6:34).   

By now, Jesus’ point is well made, so He adds, “But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back” (6:35).  This is truly revolutionary, and it is a foundation of Jesus’ revolutionary scheme.  Why would they do these things?  What would be the point?  All of this, it would seem, would only serve to maintain and deepen their subjection to Rome, extending their exile from their God’s promises to them.  In response to such a thought, Jesus says, “Then your reward will be great” (6:35).   

Throughout His “sermon,” Jesus has been helping His hearers to actively call to mind the words of Moses from Deuteronomy concerning the blessings and the curses of their God.  At the same time, He wanted to turn their hearts, in love, towards those to whom they were supposed to be shining as the Creator God’s light.  While they may have been naturally inclined, upon hearing about those that hate and persecute them, to think “Then the Lord your God will put all these curses on your enemies, on those who hate and persecute you” (Deuteronomy 30:7), Jesus implored them to show preference, love, kindness, and favorable treatment.

Hezekiah's Prayer (part 3 of 3)

Hezekiah goes on to exclaim, “Look, the grief I experienced was for my benefit.  You delivered me from the Pit of oblivion.  For You removed all my sins from Your sight” (38:17).  Apparently, Hezekiah was made to be thankful for both the sickness and the deliverance.  Not only that, but by connecting his sickness with sin (failure to rightly bear the divine image), Hezekiah demonstrated that he understood that the sickness that he carried resulted from his violations of the divine covenant.  Not only was sickness understood to be a curse that entered into the world with man’s fall, but sickness was also associated with Israel’s failure to keep covenant with their God.  The Creator God had promised sickness to His people , while also promising that if they repented from their failure to keep covenant, He would remove the associated curses. 

As it applied to the whole of God’s covenant people, so it also applied to the king.  Hezekiah, as the representative of the people, linked the removal of his sickness with the removal of sins.  Furthermore, because being conquered by a foreign people was part of the Creator God’s curse that would be directed toward His people if they were to completely disregard His covenant, and as this recovery from sickness and its attendant prayer follows closely on the heels of the expulsion of Assyria from Judah when it looked as if they were about to suffer the same fate as the northern kingdom of Israel, the removal of his sins (forgiveness), as evidenced by his healing, is also closely linked to the covenant God’s removal of the sins of His people (forgiveness), as evidenced by God Himself by the narrative that presents their God Himself intervening and defeating the Assyrians and sending them away.

Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the kings of Israel and Judah were the representatives of God’s people.  When David numbered the people, though this was his action alone, the people suffered.  When Manasseh brought Judah to the pinnacle of its idolatry, it was in conjunction with this that their God declared, with no reversal (though the judgment would be briefly stayed), that Judah would be conquered and sent into captivity (the promised curse would come).  In addition, Israel also held to the idea of a vicarious sacrifice for the removal of sins, which can be seen in the scapegoat of the Day of Atonement.  One sees the representative principle at work here with Hezekiah, and it is in this narrative context that the prayer of Hezekiah can be heard on the lips of Jesus in the garden prior to His passion. 

Jesus could quite easily say that “the grief (or illness) I experienced was for My benefit,” as He could reflect on the suffering servant prophecy of Isaiah fifty-three, fully convinced that His suffering would benefit not only His people, but Himself as well.  Though He knew Himself to be walking the path of death (not only in the time leading up to the crucifixion, but throughout His revolutionary ministry), it is quite easy to hear Jesus say, with a faith like that which was exhibited by Abraham when he confidently declared that both he and Isaac would return from the mountain of sacrifice, that “You delivered Me from the Pit of oblivion.” 

However, it would only be as Israel’s King---as Israel’s representative and as the representative of all of those that would come to call Him King, in substitution for His people, that Jesus could say “You removed all My sins from Your sight.”  This could only occur through God’s King bearing God’s cursing on behalf of God’s people, though Jesus Himself is understood to have never failed to rightly bear the divine image (thus, without sin).  It is because of this execution of faithfulness that Hezekiah could say, “The living person, the living person, he gives you thanks, as I do today” (38:19a).  Those that share in the blessed and vital union with the Christ join with him in such a prayer.  

Treaty Dissolved (part 1 of 2)

Your treaty with death will be dissolved; your agreement with Sheol will not last.  When the overwhelming judgment sweeps by, you will be overrun by it. – Isaiah 28:18  (NET)

With these words, Isaiah is delivering a message to the people of covenant God.  It is a people that have been given covenant responsibilities, but have failed to live up to the obligations of that covenant (their God seems particularly incensed at the oppression and lack of care for orphans and widows), and are now experiencing the sweep of curses that were to accompany such violations, though they do not want to connect the judgment of which Isaiah speaks with those failures. 

The words of the text are Isaiah’s answer to the attitude of the people of Jerusalem, who say, “We have made a treaty with death, with Sheol we have made an agreement.  When the overwhelming judgment sweeps by it will not reach us” (28:15a).  It is quite interesting to find out why they would say such a thing.  Isaiah reports the people’s words: “For we have made a lie our refuge, we have hidden ourselves in a deceitful word” (28:15b).  However, Isaiah insists that the “sovereign Master, the Lord” (28:16a) has a response to such words.  It is that response which provides the context for the dissolution of the treaty with death and the agreement with Sheol.  Isaiah reports the words of the Creator God of Israel, which are, “Look, I am laying in Zion an approved stone, set in place as a precious cornerstone for the foundation” (28:16b). 

For those that live in the post-Christ-event world, in which it is proper to view the Hebrew Scriptures through the lens of Jesus and the cross, any talk of cornerstones should immediately force the directing of attention to the One Who is referred to as “the Cornerstone.”  In Acts, Peter stands before the “rulers, elders, and experts in the law” (4:5), and declares that “This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, that has become the cornerstone” (4:11).  As one understands Jesus, the Messiah, as “the cornerstone,” it is not difficult to comprehend why a treaty with death would be dissolved in connection with the laying of that cornerstone. 

Because the messiah, among other things, was thought to be the one that would reverse not only Israel’s cursing, but also the cursing of the entire creation, it is always appropriate to consider the entire arc of Scripture, by which the work of Jesus as Messiah can be understood, and which also provided a portion of the context for Israel’s self-understanding.  Isaiah’s worldview then, of course, would be shaped by this narrative.   Thus, if one was to look back to the events of Eden and the fall of man, could it not be said that man, in effect, made an agreement, a treaty, with death? 

As Genesis insists, Adam knew the Creator God’s promise to him.  That God had said, “You may eat freely from every tree of the orchard, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will die” (Genesis 2:16b-17).  Everywhere it is made abundantly clear, and Scripture never argues the point, that Adam knew the consequences for disobedience, unfaithfulness, and rebellion, but still he chose to eat of the fruit.  

What The Lord Says (part 2 of 2)

The Scriptural narrative makes it abundantly clear that Israel and Judah, as the covenant people of the Creator God, were held to a different and seemingly higher standard than the surrounding nations.  The evil that was bringing their God’s judgment upon them, according to the prophetic words of Amos (prophecy more often than not the act of calling leaders and rulers to account for their actions, rather than foretelling) was of far greater consequence. 

Of Judah, the covenant God says, “They rejected the Lord’s law; they did not obey His commands.  Their false gods, to which their fathers were loyal, led them astray.  So I will set Judah on fire, and it will consume Jerusalem’s fortresses” (2:4b-5).  This pronouncement, rooted in the Deuteronomic and Levitical curses that were promised to the covenant people if they failed to meet their covenant obligations, would be fulfilled when the Babylonians would come forth to conquer.  Of Israel, God says, “They sold the innocent for silver, the needy for a pair of sandals.  They trample on the dirt-covered head of the poor; they push the destitute away” (2:6b-7a).  Judah was condemned for idolatry, whereas Israel was called to account for rampant oppression as well as idolatry.

Moving along to the end of the third chapter, the Creator God speaks through His prophetic mouthpiece to His wayward people, saying “Certainly when I punish Israel for their covenant transgressions, I will destroy Bethel’s altars.  The horns of the altar will be cut off and fall to the ground.  I will destroy both the winter and summer houses.  The houses filled with ivory will be ruined, the great houses will be swept away” (3:14-15a).  In the fourth chapter, there is a greater elaboration on Israel’s transgression, as it is read, “You oppress the poor; you crush the needy” (4:1b).  The God of Israel’s response to this is to say “Certainly the time is approaching when you will be carried away in baskets, every last one of you in fisherman’s pots” (4:2b).  Furthermore, one finds that God saying, “But surely I gave you no food to eat in any of your cities; you lacked food everywhere you live.  Still you did not come back to Me… I withheld rain from you three months before the harvest…. People from two or three cities staggered into one city to get water, but remained thirsty.  Still you did not come back to Me.  I destroyed your crops with blight and disease.  Locusts kept devouring your orchards, vineyards, fig trees, and olive trees.  Still  you did not come back to Me… I sent against you a plague like one of the Egyptian plagues.  I killed your young men with the sword… Still you did not come back to Me” (4:6a, 7a, 8a, 9a, 10a,c). 

Naturally, all of this is quite significant.  With these words of what the Creator God will do to His people, specific references are being made to the curses that are set forth in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, with a reminder of the highly determinative (for Israel’s identity) Egyptian experience.  When it is said “Still you did not come back to me,” the reader is forced to think about what God promised upon national repentance (2 Chronicles 7:14-if My people…), which would be a restoration from the curse of conquering and exile.  This is the promise that would be seized upon in the story of Daniel, which leads to Judah being restored to their land (though still in exile, as they are not independent from foreign power), and re-gathered for identification as their God’s covenant people.  

Though Daniel and Judah recognized the curses and repented, Israel, on the other hand, did not.  Though their God brought His promised curses, this was not productive of repentance.  They did not return to Him.  What ultimately happened?  Israel was conquered by Assyria, scattered through the Assyrian empire, and the ten tribes that made up the kingdom of Israel were dispersed, never to be re-gathered or identified as part of the covenant people of the cosmic sovereign.  “The virgin Israel has fallen down and will not get up again” (5:2a).  Truly, the Creator God is faithful to His covenant promises and deals seriously with covenant transgressions. 

Beginning Of Deliverance (part 1 of 2)

 The Israelites again did evil in the Lord’s sight, so the Lord handed them over to the Philistines for forty years. – Judges 13:1  (NET)

Round and round they went.  With the use of “again,” it appears that the author wants to make it clear that this was an almost never ending cycle for Israel.  Israel did evil, they were turned over to their enemies, they cried out for a deliverer, and their God is understood to have provided them with a measure of redemption which would eventually be forgotten and the cycle would begin again.  It is both quite unfortunate, along with being the pronounced and prominent theme of the historical book of the Judges. 

Prior to the subjection to the Philistines that is implied in the text, Israel has been subjected to Aram-Naharaim (3:8), to Moab (3:12), to King Jabin of Canaan (4:2), to Midian (6:1), to the Philistines and Ammonites concurrently (10:7), and now here in the thirteenth chapter, to the Philistines alone.  This time it will be an extended period of time, forty years, which would be designed to call to mind a number of things from what would have been the collective and self-defining historical narrative tradition of Israel (forty days of rain in the flood story, Isaac taking a wife at the age of forty, the forty years of wilderness wandering, Moses’ forty days on the mountain, and more).  Forty, clearly, is a significant number that will resound throughout Israel’s history.  With that in mind, we can venture forth to see what can be learned from the example of Israel that has been set before us.

After the initial information about the then-current situation that is provided in the first verse of the thirteenth chapter, we quickly come to learn about “a man named Manoah from Zorah, from the Danite tribe” (13:2a).  Sadly, we are informed that “His wife was infertile and childless” (13:2b).  Now, since we must always endeavor to keep in mind that one of the overarching and underlying and dominant themes of the story of Scripture is the faithfulness of Israel’s God, and that this faithfulness is demonstrated within the controlling narrative of that God’s covenants, our learning about the condition of Manoah’s wife, together with the fact of Israel’s return to evil (idolatry, violation of the Sabbaths, non-reverence of the Lord’s sanctuary), should cause our thoughts to turn to the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (or at least the then-prevailing oral tradition that would eventually come to be codified in those works) and to the promises of their God (the blessings and the curses) that are associated with His covenant with Israel. 

If we were to look through the list of curses that are associated with the people of the covenant God doing evil (failing to respond to the grace of their God in the prescribed manner, and thereby bringing dishonor and shame to their God), though the whole of which would be brought to mind by mention of subjection to another people, we would also see that such subjection could be considered the pinnacle of the experience of cursing.  Ironically, if the covenant was kept, God intended Israel to be blessed by and be a blessing to all peoples.  Failure would lead to the exact opposite situation. 

In line with mention of a childless woman, even though infertility and a dearth of children are not specifically named in the list of curses that Israel’s God promised to bring upon His covenant people if they failed in their covenant responsibilities, we do find God promising the blessing of greatly multiplying children (Deuteronomy 28:11) for their faithfulness to the covenant and its concurrent responsibilities.  So by a natural and logical extension, failure and evil would lead to the opposite of the multiplying of children, which would be barrenness and childlessness. 

Faithfully Turned Over & Overwhelmed (part 2 of 2)

How do the implications of Leviticus and Deuteronomy relate to the text with which we began?  Israel is said to have done evil, and is subsequently subjected to Midian.  This is to be understood and being in accordance with the covenant of their Creator God.  So having done evil, it can be said that the Lord faithfully turned Israel over to Midian.  Faithfully?  Yes, for Israel’s God is understood to be faithful to His promises.  If He was not, and if the Scriptural record could not be looked to as the record of that faithfulness, then Israel would not be recognize Him as a God that was worthy of trust. 

The Scriptural narrative informs Israel that through Moses, God had warned His people, saying “if you ignore the Lord your God and are not careful to keep all His commandments and statutes I am giving you today, then all these curses will come upon you in full force” (Deuteronomy 28:15).  Moses begins outlining curses and comes to the point where he says, “The Lord will allow you to be struck down before your enemies” (28:25a), which sounds suspiciously like being turned over to and overwhelmed by Midian. 

With our return here to Judges then, we read that “Whenever the Israelites planted their crops, the Midianites… would attack them.  They invaded the land and devoured its crops…  They left nothing for the Israelites to eat, and they took away the sheep, oxen, and donkeys.  When they invaded… they were as thick as locusts… They came to devour the land” (6:3-5).  Looking again to the curse tradition as recorded in Deuteronomy, in an effort to make sense of the plight of Israel, what do we find?  “You will plant a vineyard but not even begin to use it.  Your ox will be slaughtered before your very eyes but you will not eat of it.  Your donkey will be stolen from you as you watch and will not be returned to you.  Your flock of sheep will be given to your enemies and there will be no one to save you” (28:30b-31).  In Judges we can read that their invaders were as thick as locusts that devour the land, and in Deuteronomy, we find that “You will take much seed to the field but gather little harvest, because locusts will consume it” (28:38).  Clearly, the author of Judges well understood the terms of God’s covenant, along with His blessings and curses---his worldview shaped by the Levitical and Deuteronomic traditions.   

Yes, and that tradition includes the sense that their God will fulfill His promises.  The faithfulness of Israel’s God is not limited to doing only what His covenant people will view and agree upon as good (blessings), though all things to which God subjects His people (even His curses) are ultimately for the working of His good.  The words of this message are not offered as a warning, but rather, as a reminder of the steadfast, promise giving and promise fulfilling nature of that God.  Though we can read about His people suffering for their failure to perform as God would have had them perform in accordance with His covenant with them, and though we can read about the curses that could and would come upon His people as a result of those failures, and though we can certainly accept them as warnings about the wrath of that God in response to sin (word and deed not in keeping with His covenant, failure to bear the divine image), we are best served by letting these things remind us of the steadfast love and faithfulness of the God that reached out and chose a people for Himself---a renewed Israel---by and through which to bring the blessings of that God into the world. 

Remembering Egypt (part 2 of 2)

In his desire to make it so that the people of Israel “remember the day” that they “came out of the land of Egypt” all the days of their lives, Moses continues to present the mighty hand and outstretched arm of Israel’s faithful God, recounting “His signs and His deeds that He did in Egypt…and what He did to the army of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 11:3-4).  Though the people continued to cast their eyes and hopes backwards in a longing for what they thought of as simpler days, Moses bids them look forward, saying that “the land that you are entering to take possession of it is not like the land of Egypt” (11:10).  Because it is the land that is the covenant gift of their God, it is better.  So that they would not be taken by faulty memories of supposed freedom from the want of the wilderness, Moses speaks again of the Lord “Who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery” (13:5).  Belaboring the point, Moses repeatedly refers to “the land of Egypt” as “the house of slavery” (13:10), regardless of the people’s present struggles as they made their way to their promised land.  He goes on to quite bluntly inform the people to “remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you” (15:15). 

When they came to the season of Passover, its purpose was to remind the people that “the Lord your God brought you out of Egypt by night” (16:1).  They were to remember that they “came out of the land of Egypt in haste” (16:3), wasting no time at all in coming out, because of the great oppression “of the land of Egypt” (16:3).  Moses was very clear in telling the people that God was giving them this celebration of remembrance to mark “the time you came out of Egypt” (16:6), with each person reminding himself, “that you were a slave in Egypt” (16:12).  God wanted His people to have a clean break from Egypt, relying on it for nothing, not even allowing one of their future kings to consider a “return to Egypt to acquire many horses” (17:16).  God is clear in informing His people that He can provide them all things of need and value.  Even in the midst of the fear of those who would come against them with horses and chariots, they were not to turn back, but find value in calling to mind that “the Lord your God is with you, Who brought you up out of the land of Egypt” (20:1).  It was made to be understood that there was power in remembering the deliverance provided by the Lord. 

Even their dealings with foreign nations were to be defined by such remembrance.  Ammonites and Moabites were not allowed to “enter the assembly of the Lord” (23:3).  Why was this?  “Because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt” (23:4).  Israel’s treatment of foreigners, the fatherless, and widows was determined according to God’s deliverance, regulated by the remembrance “that you were a slave in the land of Egypt” (24:22).  Later in Israel’s history, God would direct His kings to show no mercy to the Amalekites, because of what they “did to you on the way as you came out of Egypt” (25:17). 

When the people told their story, they were to include the fact that their forefathers “went down into Egypt and sojourned there” (26:5), even though the slavery experienced there would be a source of shame and derision.  This part of the story must be told, for then the rest of the story, that of their faithful, covenant God could be told, and the people could exclaim that “the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and outstretched arm, with great deeds of terror, with signs and wonders” (26:8).  This story of their covenant God would necessarily include a recounting of the potential for blessings or curses which He presented to them.  The dreaded curses spoke of “the boils of Egypt” (28:27), and “the diseases of Egypt” (28:60), recounting the plagues that befell those that would attempt to stand against this mighty God.  The greatest of all of the curses associated with Israel’s failure to be faithful to the demands of the covenant, would be for “the Lord” to “bring you back in ships to Egypt” to “offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves” (28:68). 

As he is reported to have worked towards the conclusion of his message to the people, once again, Moses is heard to declare that “You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt” (29:2).  Lest the people begin to be deceived by the recollections of the life lived in Egypt, Moses says “You know how we lived in the land of Egypt” (29:16).  If the people began to engage in the practices in which, no doubt, many were engaging in while living in their land of slavery, the Lord would bring calamity upon His people, and “Then people would say, ‘It is because they abandoned the covenant of the Lord, the God of their fathers, which He made with them when He brought them out of the land of Egypt, and went and served other gods and worshiped them’.” (29:25)  God’s people would know, by this daily remembrance, that when misfortune befell them, such perdition was of themselves.            

The Creator God, through Moses, seems to have repeated Himself a great deal here.  With that, we who assent to the confession of the covenant (Jesus is Lord) can take a moment to agree and say “Yes, we would do very well indeed to keep the memories of where it was from which our God redeemed His covenant people, and that from which He delivered, close at hand and near to our hearts.”  We do well to remember being dragged out of the house of slavery (which is no doubt on the mind of somebody like the Apostle Paul, in his references to slavery), but along with that, to remember the place that God had originally intended for His creation, and the place from which the divine image bearers fell.  In this, we can have a vision of the place to which our God is bringing us in restoration and renewal and salvation.  Indeed, as it was of great value for God’s covenant people in that day, so it is of great value for God’s covenant people in this day, to not only remember that He brings into covenant for a purpose, but also to hearken to the words spoken by the man who spoke to God face to face, to cast our eyes rearward, so “that all the days of your life you may remember the day when you came out of the land of Egypt.” 

David's Idolatry (part 2 of 3)

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

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

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

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

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

Humiliation

In looking at the life of King David, we come upon the story related to King Hanun of the Ammonites.  Though it is brief, it does make a telling point, fitting in with the Scriptural theme of exile and exodus in what is a rather obvious way.  Hanun’s father had died “and his son Hanun succeeded him” (2 Samuel 10:1b).  Upon learning of this event, “David said, ‘I will express my loyalty to Hanun son of Nahash just as his father was loyal to me’.” (10:2a)  To fulfill this desire, David sent a group of servants to Hanun so that they might express to him a message of sympathy.  For some reason, in a way that is reflective of the poor advice that would later be acted upon by Solomon’s son Rehoboam, Hanun was convinced that these messengers that were carrying a message of sympathy were actually spies.  In response, “Hanun seized David’s servants and shaved off half of each one’s beard.  He cut the lower part of their robes off so that their buttocks were exposed, and then sent them away” (10:4).  As a result, we find that “the men were thoroughly humiliated” (10:5b). 

Though as we read this, we do not find any wrongdoing on behalf of these men, or their king, in connection with this treatment at the hands of a foreign nation, the picture that is painted, through the shaving of the beards and the cutting away of the garments, is thoroughly exilic in nature.  With a reasonable degree of certainty, it can be insisted that the telling of this story amongst God’s people would conjure up thoughts of the curses promised by God in Deuteronomy.  Undoubtedly, these men, being so roughly treated, would have been subjected to ridicule at the hands of those who are oppressing them---bringing shame and humiliation upon them. 

David’s first reaction is to acknowledge the humiliation and exile that has come to them, telling them to “Stay in Jericho until your beards have grown again; then you may come back” (10:5c).  With this, David even speaks the words of exile (stay in Jericho) and exodus (then you may come back).  Not only would those that experienced and heard the story be reminded of the Deuteronomic curses and the faithful God that stood behind those curses made in accord with His covenant, but they would also have been reminded of the larger story of Israel in Egypt, and of Israel’s exodus from Egypt, especially considering the oft-told nature of that worldview-shaping story. 

In that there was no clear wrongdoing on behalf of this group of men, it is similar to the story of Israel in Egypt, as there is no Scriptural presentation of any reason for Israel’s subjugation there beyond the fact that a king eventually came to power in Egypt that did not know Joseph.  Is this not what we see in this story as well?  Clearly, David has a relationship with King Nahash of Ammon.  David said that Nahash had “been loyal” to him.  However, this relationship apparently did not exist with the son of Nahash, so it could be said that a new king came to power over Ammon, that did not know David.  The result here, just as it had been in Egypt, was oppression, and a humiliating display of domination that would have caused these men to figuratively “grown” for deliverance.  What comes of this?  When David learns of the suffering and shame that has come upon these messengers that he himself has sent out, he is indignant.  Just as Israel’s God would hear the groaning of His people in Egypt, David hears the groaning of these men and takes action.  They have suffered, and he is going to enter in to vindicate them in their suffering.  They have been sent into exile, and David is going to provide exodus. 

In this situation of exile in need of exodus, David takes the position that is occupied by the Lord in the story of the deliverance from Egypt.  Like the God of Israel’s disgust with Egypt, David is disgusted with Ammon (10:6).  Also like God, David sends a deliverer to carry out his wishes, sending “Joab and the entire army out to meet them” (10:7b), just as the Lord would send Moses to confront the oppressors of His people.  Though the Ammonites are not immediately put down, just as Egypt was not immediately put down, but rather, experienced numerous displays of power at the hands of God’s appointed representative, they eventually succumb to Israel.  We read about this at the beginning of chapter eleven, in that “In the spring of the year, at the time when kings normally conduct wars, David sent out Joab with his officers and the entire Israelite army.  They defeated the Ammonites” (11:1a).  In yet another remarkable parallel to the story of the Exodus, the defeat of those that had attempted to oppress the people of the Lord, and who had desired to shame and humiliate them, the Ammonites were defeated in the spring.  So too were the Egyptians.  Such is the ongoing and fascinatingly repetitive story of Israel’s faithful God.