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which was really part of his service to David, he invokes the memory of the covenant promise that Israel’s God had originally made to Abraham.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.  

Absalom (part 7)

It would not be difficult to imagine that, along with the telling of his own story of what he considered to be poor treatment at the hands of his father, that Absalom also “went public” with the Bathsheba incident in order to continue the efforts towards painting his father as an oppressive ruler in the mold of a Pharaoh that needed to be defeated by Israel’s God, doing so through the agency of another Moses. 

After receiving the approval of his father to go to Hebron to offer the aforementioned sacrifice, “Absalom sent spies through all the tribes of Israel” (2 Samuel 15:10a).   Here again there is another allusion to Moses and the exodus of Israel, in that Moses sent spies into the promised land.  Yes, it has become readily apparent that Absalom wanted to be seen as a great deliverer within Israel, raised up by their God to liberate from oppression and servitude.  This sending of spies would play very well into the narrative that he was attempting to create.  Not only that, but this sending of spies might also very well cause the people to remember the other famous sending of spies, which would have been to Jericho before that city was defeated.  This, of course, would invoke thoughts of Israel’s great general Joshua, and the people’s actual entering into and conquering of the promised land under his leadership. 

Remember, Absalom has been quite patient.  It has been at least four years since his coming before the king, at least six years since his return to Jerusalem, at least nine years since his flight to Geshur, and at least eleven years since his brother raped his sister.  With such a patient demeanor on display, without a doubt he must also have been considered as an astute observer of the people and of Israel’s history. 

His time spent at the gates, as he was gaining the respect of the people, would have put him in a position to ascertain what types of symbols and symbolism would resonate with the people when the time came for him to lead another exodus of sorts.  If such was his mindset, then part of his interaction with the people---if he was indeed positioning himself as a Moses/Joshua type of leader, with his increasingly out-of-touch father as a new Pharaoh---would have been an insistence that, under David, Israel was in something of another exile (or at least heading that way), with all of the curses of exile that would be sure to follow if the people failed to rally around him and support his leadership, while encouraging others to do the same.  So the spies were sent through the land and instructed “When you hear the sound of the horn, you may assume that Absalom rules in Hebron” (15:10b). 

The breadth of Absalom’s influence is further demonstrated in that he “sent for Ahithophel the Gileonite, David’s adviser, to come from his city, Giloh” (15:12b).  Ahithophel was a highly respected adviser to David, and if he has been convinced that Absalom is the one to follow, then one can well understand the words that followed, which report that “The conspiracy was gaining momentum, and the people were starting to side with Absalom” (15:12c). 

What was it about Absalom that attracted the people to him and away from David?  Was it because “in all Israel everyone acknowledged that there was no man as handsome as Absalom,” and that “From the sole of his feet to the top of his head he was perfect in appearance” (14:25)?  While this is an “attractive” option, it is unlikely.  David himself, when first introduced into the Scriptural narrative, is said to have “attractive eyes and a handsome appearance” (1 Samuel 16:12b).  When Saul is introduced as king of Israel, he is described as standing “head and shoulders above them all” (1 Samuel 10:23b).  Further, Samuel says, “Do you see the one whom the Lord has chosen?  Indeed, there is no one like him among all the people!” (10:24b)  

Place For You (part 2 of 2)

Moses, who was the first to be recognized as a deliverer of Israel (something of a pre-messianic sensibility messiah), had spoken to the people of the covenant about the land of their Father’s promise---the land in which the Creator God said that He would dwell with His people---telling them that it possessed many dwelling places for them.   Specifically, the people were informed that this promised land contained large, fine cities which they did not build.   

In that mold, Jesus, the presumed messiah and deliverer of Israel and renewed Israel, speaks to the people of the covenant and the new covenant that was to be centered upon Him, about the land of the Father’s promise---the place in which His people would one day dwell with Him---also telling them, as had Moses in a previous time and place, that it was a place of many dwelling places.  These words that were said to have fallen from the lips of Jesus mark the beginning of what is generally known as His “farewell discourse” in the Gospel of John, as they follow the “last supper” and Judas’ having gone out to complete what would come to be understood as his betrayal of Jesus.  As Jesus is now on His path to the cross, He says “I am going away to make ready a place for you” (14:2c).  This is deliverer-speak. 

Based upon the route He traveled in His vocation, Jesus understood where it was that He was going.  If He was indeed Israel’s Messiah, He operated with a certain level of trust and expectation in regards to  what it was that His death would accomplish.  Believing Himself to be the representative of Israel (its King), He knew that He was going down into the curse of death on behalf of His Israel, but did so in what appeared to be complete trust in the promise-keeping God of Israel---Whom He is shown to have trusted with His whole mind, being, and strength---to fulfill the expectations of His promise, to raise up His Messiah from the dead, to conquer death through that Resurrection, and to inaugurate the kingdom of heaven on earth in a radically transformed creation in which Jesus reigned and Resurrection power was available through the mysterious agency of the Spirit for all those who were moved to a trusting allegiance to Him as Lord and King---for the purpose of bringing the Creator God’s glory to bear in this world. 

Because Jesus consistently spoke of the kingdom of God on earth, when He says that He is going to make ready a place for His disciples, we can safely understand that He is speaking of the kingdom of God that was going to be established with His Resurrection.  He is not necessarily talking about an eternal home full of mansions in a far-away place called heaven.  This expectation of the kingdom of heaven being established on earth (the life of the age to come breaking in upon the present creation, renewing and restoring, and the Creator God making His dwelling among men as the realm of His existence overlaps with the realm of man’s existence---heaven on earth) would be completely in line with the Jewish worldview, which looked to a resurrection of the righteous dead and a restoration of the creation to a pre-fall condition, with Israel’s God as ruler through His Messiah.  For Israel, and Jesus as the representative of Israel, this would be a world in which renewal had been commenced, in which heaven was going to be everywhere breaking in and shining forth in the world through God’s covenant people. 

When Jesus says “if I go and make ready a place for you, I will come again and take you to be with Me, so that where I am you may be too” (14:3), He seems to be speaking of His Resurrection.  With this, one must consider the Apostle Paul’s repeated insistence that all those that trust in Jesus as King will be raised up from the dead in the exact same way in which He was raised up from the dead---into a world now subject to and experiencing the kingdom of God that has Jesus as its ruler.  Finally, because He had spoken so many times of His death and His Resurrection, Jesus rather pointedly says to His disciples, though they would neve grasped the message or want to believe it until after the climactic events of all of history, that “you know the way where I am going” (14:4).       

David's Song (part 1 of 2)

In the twenty-second chapter of the second book of Samuel, we find what is known as “David’s Song.”  In the first verse we read “David sang to the Lord the words of this song when the Lord rescued him from the power of all his enemies, including Saul” (22:1).  As we will see, David viewed the Lord as the God of rescue from subjugation.  Not surprisingly, in this song David is to be found speaking the language of exodus, as he was patently aware that God’s deliverance (exodus) of His people from Egypt (exile) was the most important and powerful story of Israel’s history, as it acutely connected them with Abraham, which then, in turn, connected them with Adam (as Abraham had been chosen out by God to be His vessel to bring God’s blessing to a world that had fallen into cursing because of Adam). 

So as this song of David begins, we hear him saying, “The Lord is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer” (22:2).  This is pure exodus language, and it points to the fact that David considered his numerous trials and tribulations and circumstances that he often brought upon himself to be akin to the state of exile.  Not only was his God his deliverer (and high ridge and stronghold), but His role as Israel’s deliverer from Egypt was part of what defined Israel’s God for them.  In the exodus, Moses had been God’s instrument for deliverance, leading them to Sinai (a high ridge) and to their promised land (a stronghold).  Beyond that, to further define God’s role as deliverer, one need only look to the history of Israel through the time period recorded in the book of Judges, and the repetitive language of deliverance, as God continually raised up deliverers for His people, to bring them back from their repeated excursions into varying states of exile. 

Continuing his use of exodus language, David says “My God is my rocky summit where I take shelter, my shield, the horn that saves me, my stronghold, my refuge, my savior.  You save me from violence! (22:3)  Shelter and shield and stronghold and refuge---all point to the God of exodus.  If we think back to the ten plagues of Egypt, we remember that the land in which Israel dwelt, and the people of Israel themselves, were spared from the plagues and from their effects.  They were sheltered and shielded.  Their God Himself was their stronghold and their refuge.  Though it is tempting to use these terms in purely spiritual and personal ways, and though it may be entirely proper to do so, we cannot and should not lose grip of the fact that this terminology is rooted, first and foremost, in the history of Israel, as the constant presentation and consistent understanding of the Lord their God was that He was the God of creation and of covenant that providentially entered into history on behalf of His chosen people, in order to further His purposes for them and through them for His world. 

When David speaks of Israel’s God as the “horn that saves me” and “my savior,” he is using language with definite historical reference points.  Remember, the immediate context for the language is that this is a song offered in praise of the God that saved him from all his enemies, including Saul; and the song follows the recounting of David’s long and interesting and rather sordid history.  In fact, it follows immediately upon the stories of Sheba son of Bicri and the vengeful Gibeonites.  In the story of Sheba, we find a mini-rebellion against David following his re-taking of the throne of Israel after Absalom’s short-lived revolution.  David’s response to Sheba is different from his response to Absalom (for obvious reasons---Absalom was his son, the Lord could have easily been fulfilling His promise to David through Absalom’s kingship, the Lord was chastising David for his failures, David has previously experienced an unexpected loss of the people’s support, etc…), as he says to Abishai, “Now Sheba son of Bicri will cause greater disaster for us than Absalom did!  Take your Lord’s servants and pursue him.  Otherwise he will secure fortified cities for himself and get away from us” (20:6).  As a result, Sheba, though he did gather some supporters (20:14), was struck down relatively quickly.  This was yet another salvation from enemies. 

Following that, we can read about the story of the Gibeonites.  It is said that “During David’s reign there was a famine for three consecutive years.  So David inquired of the Lord.  The Lord said, ‘It is because of Saul and his bloodstained family, because he murdered the Gibeonites.’” (21:1)  The Gibeonites, by way of recollection, were the group of people that came to Joshua and Israel, pretending to be from a faraway land, offering terms of peace.  Joshua and Israel made a treaty with them, and upheld the treaty (though they would become woodcutters and water-carriers for Israel) even when it was discovered that they had lied and misrepresented themselves.  The author here causes us to remember these things (which are obviously closely connected with the exodus and the conquering of the promised land, calling to mind God’s actions on behalf of His people), by writing “The Israelites had made a promise to them” (21:2b); “but,” he goes on to write, “Saul tried to kill them because of his zeal for the people of Israel and Judah” (21:2c).     

Repeating Sinai (part 1 of 2)

In the ninth chapter of the second book of Samuel, we encounter one of the most endearing Biblical stories concerning King David, that being the story of David and Mephibosheth.  Mephibosheth was the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul.  This makes him a grandson of King Saul, who had been responsible for David’s life of exile, and from whose subjugation God had entered in so as to rescue David and set him over Israel---delivering David so that he could be a deliverer of God’s people. 

Having been well established on the throne, David asks “If anyone still left from the family of Saul, so that I may extend kindness to him for the sake of Jonathan?” (2 Samuel 9:1)  David knows that Saul’s house is in exile.  As David asks this question, he very much finds himself in the role of Israel’s God, who previously looked upon His people in Egypt and desired to show them kindness for the sake of the promises that had been made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  God looked upon Israel, showing them kindness so that they might fulfill God’s covenantal promise to bless the whole world through Abraham.  In this instance, perhaps surprisingly, it is Saul and Jonathan that stand in the role of the patriarchs, while Mephibosheth stands in the role of Israel.  This point is made even more poignant as we move forward when David is informed that “One of Jonathan’s sons is left; both of his feet are crippled” (9:3b). 

When Israel was in Egypt, in bondage and in servitude, it must truly be said that the nation to whom God refers as His “son” and “firstborn” (Exodus 4:22), lay crippled, unable to provide deliverance for themselves, and unable to return to the land that had been promised to their forefathers.  Concerning Mephibosheth, David asked where he might be found, and the response came that “He is at the house of Makir son of Ammiel in Lo Debar” (9:4b).  The fact that Mephibosheth is in Lo Debar is incredibly fascinating.  As if the connection between his situation and that of Israel in Egypt was not clear enough, this mention of the place in which he was residing, wedges his story even more tightly into the overall Scriptural narrative. 

Lo Debar is generally translated as “no pasture,” which is terribly significant in relation to the theme of exile.  Indeed, not only is it thought of as a place of no pasture, but as the lack of pasture, or land, is considered within the framework of Israelite hope, along with the tremendous importance of land in relation to God’s promises to His people, Lo Debar has also come to be thought of as a place of no pasture, and no hope, and as a place of total desolation.  Is that not exile?  Is that not the situation in which Israel was living in Egypt?  Is that not what is presented by the promised curses of Deuteronomy twenty-eight, and their presentation of exile?  Could the exile of God’s people not be described as being devoid of hope and rife with desolation?  Absolutely, they could, and this is where Mephibosheth is to be found, with crippled feet, and as far as he would have been concerned, awaiting the judgment of David to fall upon him because he was a member of Saul’s house. 

King David, in act of mercy and grace towards a member of Saul’s house that posed zero threat to him, in accordance with promises made to Jonathan, reaches into the life of Mephibosheth and “had him brought from the house of Makir son of Ammiel in Lo Debar” (9:5), to be made to stand in his presence.  So too did the God of Israel, in an amazing act of mercy and grace, in accordance with promises made beginning with Abraham, reach into Egypt, gathering His people to bring them up from their desolation and subjugation, so as to stand before Him at what came to be referred to as the mountain of God (Mt. Sinai). 

In a replay of what took place at Mt. Sinai (before that pesky golden calf incident), “Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, came to David, he bowed low with his face toward the ground” (9:6a).  There, he spoke to the king and said “at your service” (9:6c).  As we might imagine, Mephibosheth was trembling in fear, unsure of the reason for which he was standing before the king, just as Israel stood before Mt. Sinai in fear, unsure of what lay before them following their exodus (redemption, rescue, deliverance, salvation, vindication, resurrection, restoration).  Mephibosheth might have believed that he now stood before David so that David might bring his exile to its full consummation, by execution.  David, however, looked upon Mephibosheth with compassion, desiring to provide him with exodus (redemption, rescue, deliverance, salvation, vindication, resurrection, restoration). 

David & Amalek

In between Saul’s visit to the witch at Endor and the record of his death, we can find the story of David and his defeat of the Amalekites.  It is quite interesting that the author of the first book of Samuel saw fit to arrange the material in this way, whether or not the arrangement represents a precise chronological progression of events within Israel’s history (though the beginning of the second book of Samuel indicates that such is the case).  At Endor, Saul has Samuel tell him about his pending death and the re-subjugation of Israel, connecting both with his not carrying out the Lord’s “fierce anger against the Amalekites” (1 Samuel 28:18b).  From there, the story of the book progresses to the story of David being rejected and sent away by the Philistine leaders, which makes for a curious juxtaposition against Samuel’s declaration that Saul will be brought down by those same Philistines. 

After David had been sent away from the Philistines, as they were about to go to war with Israel, “David and his men came to Ziklag” (30:1a).  There, we find that “the Amalekites,” who had not been completely annihilated by Saul, “had raided the Negev and Ziklag.  They attacked Ziklag and burned it.  They took captive the women who were in it, from the youngest to the oldest, but they did not kill anyone.  They simply carried them off and went on their way” (30:1b-2).  Obviously, this only came about because Saul had failed in his duties.  The Amalekites had been left alive to complete (albeit on a smaller scale) that which they had attempted when they had encountered Israel on their way out of Egypt.  Here, David and his men, representative of Israel, were exodus-ing what could be referred to as their Philistine exile, when Amalek attacked.  This is somewhat congruent to Amalek’s attack of Israel while they were exodus-ing Egypt.  While we can see, in the raiding and the burning and the taking captive, something akin to the curses of Deuteronomy, it is clear that these are not being conducted at the hand of God against His wayward people.  What we should see is God providing David, as a deliverer within Israel, with a pretext for the continued efforts against a people that were destined for complete destruction. 

Moving on, we read that “When David and his men came to the city, they found it burned…  Then David and the men who were with him wept loudly until they could weep no more… each man grieved bitterly over his sons and daughters” (30:3-4,6c).  Even though David was suffering right along with his men, having had his two wives taken, “the men were thinking of stoning him” (30:6b), in a vivid reminder of the murmuring and complaining against Moses, by Israel, in the wilderness following the exodus.  Just as Israel wanted to return to their Egyptian exile and their subjugation, so David’s men wanted to subjugate him to death.  However, “David,” like Moses, when faced with this adversity, “drew strength from the Lord his God” (30:6d).  “David inquired of the Lord, saying, ‘Should I pursue this raiding band?  Will I overtake them?’” (30:8a)  The response that came to David was “Pursue, for you will certainly overtake them and carry out a rescue” (30:8b). 

When David did indeed catch up with this group of Amalekites, “They were eating and drinking and enjoying themselves because of all the loot they had taken from the land of the Philistines and from the land of Judah” (30:16b).  Though this could easily have been viewed in accordance with the Deuteronomic curses that stressed Israel’s loss of “loot,” David clearly saw it as an opportunity to enter into the blessings commensurate with faithfulness to God’s covenantal commands, so he attacked.  “David struck them down from twilight until the following evening” (30:17a).  It is said that “None of them escaped, with the exception of four hundred young men who got away on camels” (30:17b).  Not only does this remind us of the promised blessing that Israel’s enemies would flee before them (Deuteronomy 28:7), but it also speaks to the woeful inadequacy of Saul’s striking down of Amalek, especially if there were so many Amalekites that even after experiencing being struck down for an extended period of time, there were still so many men to escape, and so many camels on which to escape, even as it is said that “None of them escaped.”  This speaks to there being a significantly large number of Amalekites with which David had to deal, as he attempted to complete Saul’s mission.  

Among other things, this should bring to mind Israel’s conquest of the Promised Land under Joshua, and the ongoing (yet never completely successful) attempts to rid the land of the people by which it was inhabited, and which God had commanded His people to drive out.  Just as Amalek became this ongoing source of problems for Israel, so too would the people of the land be an ongoing source of frustration---not just by their presence, but through the deleterious effects that they would have upon God’s people and upon what had been ordained as their proper worship. 

Reveling in the blessings of the Lord’s deliverance, David provided rescue.  It is reported that “David retrieved everything the Amalekites had taken” (30:18a).  In a sense, this is the point at which David becomes king, as the Amalekites, figuratively, had taken the kingship from Saul.  Where Saul had failed, David had truly begun to succeed.  When a division arose concerning the sharing of the plunder, David takes up the language of exodus, speaking of the Lord and saying “He has protected us and delivered into our hands the raiding party that came against us” (30:23b).  He had rescued women and children from foreign subjugation, and now, following Saul’s death which immediately follows within this historical record, David is going to be installed as king, and used by God to continue the redemption and rescue of His people.    

Abigail

In between the two instances in which David exercises mercy and spares the life of the one that is attempting to kill him (Saul), we come upon an interesting incident of a person who stands in the role of deliverer within Israel.  The name of this particular deliverer is Abigail.  Abigail, of course, will eventually become one of David’s wives, but when we meet her, she is married to a man named Nabal.  He is said to have been “very wealthy,” while also being “harsh.”  Additionally, we are informed that “his deeds were evil” (1 Samuel 25:2,3).  That use of “evil” should be a clue that God’s judgment is eventually going to fall upon him.

Apparently, David had taken it upon himself, without being asked it seems, to serve as protection for Nabal’s shepherds and his flocks when they were out in the field.  David instructs his men to go and inform Nabal that “When your shepherds were with us, we neither insulted then nor harmed them the whole time they were in Carmel” (25:7b).  On the surface, this hardly seems noble, but for this, David appears to have expected some type of reward.  When Nabal heard this, his response to what he obviously perceived as extortion was “Should I take my bread and my water and my meat that I have slaughtered for my shearers and give them to these men?  I don’t even know where they came from!” (25:11)  David’s predictable response, upon being rebuffed by Nabal, was to give his men instructions to “strap on your sword” (25:13a).  He intended to bring pain and shame and cursing and exile to Nabal and his household.  This is the point at which Abigail actually enters into the story.  One of her servants told her that “These men were very good to us.  They did not insult us” (25:15a), which hardly seems worthy of reward, but nevertheless, the servant went on to tell Abigail, “nor did we sustain any loss during the entire time we were together in the field.  Both night and day they were a protective wall for us the entire time we were with them, while we were tending our flocks” (25:15b-16).  In regards to Nabal, the servant rightly feared that “disaster has been planned for our lord and his entire household” (25:17b), and urged Abigail to intercede. 

In response, Abigail “quickly took two hundred loaves of bread, two containers of wine, five prepared sheep, five seahs of roasted grain, a hundred bunches of raisins, and two hundred lumps of pressed figs” (25:18a), intending to take them to David and his men, so as to appease David’s wrath and spare her husband from the exile of death that was coming to him.  Eventually, Abigail greets David, falls at his feet, and says “My lord, I accept all the guilt!” (25:24b)  In accepting the guilt, she stands in her husband’s place, asking David for mercy, and for the sparing of the one who has become another enemy to him.  She asks to take the punishment upon herself.  At the same time, she offers the presents that she has ordered to be brought to David and says “Please forgive the sin of your servant” (25:28a).  With her gift of fruits and grains and animals, Abigail is not only functioning in the role of deliverer, rescuing her husband from David’s sword that will subjugate him to death, but she also becomes a vibrant reminder of God’s promised blessings upon His people. 

In Deuteronomy, we read about blessings upon baskets and mixing bowls (28:5), upon the produce of the soil, and upon the livestock, which is represented by what Abigail is offering to David.  She does not stop there, but goes on to tell David that “When someone sets out to chase you and to take your life, the life of my lord will be wrapped securely in the bag of the living by the Lord your God.  But He will sling away the lives of your enemies from the sling’s pocket!  The Lord… will make you leader over Israel” (25:29-30a,c).  Now Abigail has reminded David of God’s promises to him, in regards to his rule, doing so by the use of words that sound suspiciously like that which are also to be found in Deuteronomy, when Moses speaks to the people of God’s promise to cause His people’s enemies to flee (28:7), while also making them “the head and not the tail” (28:13), and making sure that they always end up at the top and not at the bottom (28:13). 

David had been about to take it upon himself to stand in the role of one whom God uses to bring the curse upon His people, rather than being the king and deliverer for which purpose his ordination had come.  Not only does Abigial deliver Nabal from David’s sword, but she is also used to deliver David from, as he would say in quoting the words of Abigail, “taking matters into my own hands” (25:33b). 

When Abigail eventually informs her husband about what David had purposed for him, and what she had done for him, “He had a stroke and was paralyzed.  After about ten days the Lord struck Nabal down and he died” (25:37b-38).  We read that “When David heard that Nabal had died,” he was reminded of God’s faithfulness---surely reflecting on the two-fold deliverance that Abigial had provided---and said, “Praised be the Lord who has vindicated me and avenged the insult that I suffered from Nabal!” (25:39a)  David insists that Nabal had attempted to insult and shame him, which is a component of exile, and David sought to return the favor, bringing exile upon Nabal.  With this turn of events, and in his speaking of vindication and the Lord’s vengeance, David employs the language of exodus (redemption, deliverance, salvation), as it was the repeated acts of exodus that would consistently demonstrate God’s vindication of His.  David recognizes that through Abigail’s sacrificial act of deliverance, that “The Lord has kept His servant from doing evil” (25:39b), and he responds by inviting Abigail to be his wife.