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 17)

Absalom appears to be enjoying the Creator God’s favor upon his life and his kingship.  He has suffered in exile, and now he has been vindicated from that suffering.  He has been delivered to the kingship of the covenant people of the covenant God.  Much like Israel, it could be said that he had “taken the land.”  The demonstration of that ongoing Scriptural theme of exile and exodus has been well demonstrated, and above all things, it shows that he is not only now of kinship with Moses, but also Israel itself (from Egypt to the Promised Land), of Jacob (to Haran and back to Canaan), and Abraham (from Ur to Canaan, and from Egypt to Canaan).  It cannot be emphasized enough that he can consider himself to have been vindicated by his God, with evidence of such, following his long ordeal, that he is hailed as Israel’s king.  It must be further emphasized, quite strenuously, that his ascension to the throne (the completion of his personal exodus journey) has been accomplished without resort to military operations. 

As has been previously pointed out, he has not had to raise his hand against Israel’s anointed king.  The people can freely support him in good conscience, knowing full well that David appears to have abdicated willingly.  If indeed the Bathsheba/Uriah incident has been made public knowledge, which seems like a reasonable proposition because of Absalom’s actions with David’s concubines (wives) in sight of the people, that was meant to be a demonstration of the judgment pronounced against him by the Creator God through the prophet Nathan, then David’s peaceful abdication would have seemed altogether appropriate, with Absalom’s peaceful taking of power (in this context) completely understandable. 

Then, the unraveling begins.  Absalom quickly moves from the place of apparent favor and blessing of Israel’s God, with an implicit sanction of his kingship (because of his role in delivering prophesied and embarrassing judgment for David) with David slinking quietly away into the background, into the opposite situation.  Almost immediately upon becoming secure upon the throne, Absalom begins to see his station slipping from him.  To a point, he had been growing in favor with man (and apparently) with God, but this now turns.  Absalom starts to fall into the Creator God’s disfavor, and David begins to regain in favor. 

This can’t simply be because David had been anointed by God to replace Saul and lead the covenant people, as the Creator God is free to work through Absalom (according to the promise to David) to cause His people to be a light to the nations and to reflect His glory into the world, so there must be a signal reason why this takes place.  Did Absalom have his own Bathsheba situation?  Not as far as the Scriptures report.  Did he fail to execute justice as did David in the situation with Amnon and Tamar.  Again, not as far as is known.  So what was it?  Why is the Creator God’s blessing suddenly removed from him?  What is it that causes the people to slowly begin to turn from Absalom and reinstitute their support of David? 

The answer is found in the first few verses of the seventeenth chapter of the second book of Samuel.  What does this passage say?  There it is reported that, “Ahithophel said to Absalom, ‘Let me pick out twelve thousand men.  Then I will go and pursue David this very night.  When I catch up with him he will be exhausted and worn out.  I will rout him, and the entire army that is with him will flee.  I will kill only the king and will bring the entire army back to you.  In exchange for the life of the man you are seeking, you will get back everyone’.” (17:1-3a)  What was Absalom’s response to this?  In what should be a surprise, based on how things have gone and what has been accomplished to that point, it is said that “This seemed like a good idea to Absalom and to all the leaders of Israel” (17:4).  Though Absalom would also seek out further advice and eventually act upon advice contrary to what was offered by Ahithophel, the point is that this seemed like a good idea to Absalom. 

Den Of Lions (part 9)

When one moves on to Luke, and as one considers that which clinched the argument for Daniel’s foes (“Recall, O king…), the chief priests and elders can be found making a more explicit reference to Jesus’ challenge to the power of the king.  Remember, Luke reports Jesus’ foes saying that Jesus was forbidding the people to pay the tribute tax to Caesar and claiming kingship for Himself (Luke 23:1-2), which carries an implicit claim that Caesar’s rule is irrelevant.  To this they added that “He incites the people by teaching throughout all Judea” (23:5a). 

This “inciting” of the people, in the ears of the Roman governor, would have caused him to make an inference in the area of “revolution”.  Knowing the history and expectations of these people over which he ruled, such words would have been quite troubling, as it was a charge that was taken seriously by Rome’s provincial rulers.  It was at this point that Pilate sends Jesus to Herod, who then returns Jesus to Pilate, which subsequently finds Pilate desirous of securing Jesus’ release after a flogging. 

The implications are that there was nothing to the charges being leveled against Jesus.  The people, however, who are actually being incited by those that sought to bring about the death of Jesus (asserting themselves in a way that was an ironic rejection of Caesar’s rule), reject Pilate’s proposal.  Pilate, undaunted, “addressed them once again because he wanted to release Jesus” (23:20).  Interestingly, it is the continued pursuit of Jesus’ execution as a state criminal, with this after neither Pilate nor Herod could find substantiation for such the claims being made against Him, serve to make Caesar’s rule irrelevant.   

At this, the Gospel author reports that the shouts of the crowd had begun to include an insistence to “Crucify, crucify Him!” (23:21b)  Pilate had already reasoned that crucifixion---that horrible and ignominious death that is reserved for recalcitrant slaves and openly rebellious subjects---was not something that was deserved by this Jesus, who, apart from affirming that He was the king of the Jews (with no obvious evidence to support this claim---no circumstantial evidence, nor any followers attempting to intervene on His behalf, whether through violent or non-violent means), had not entered into actions that would make it incumbent upon Pilate to pass such a sentence. 

So Pilate, in an exasperated plea that must be somewhat reminiscent of King Darius, says “Why?  What wrong has He done?  I have found Him guilty of no crime deserving death.  I will therefore flog Him and release Him” (23:22).  As it was for Jesus, so it had been for Daniel.  Darius clearly had no desire to see Daniel suffer the horrific punishment of a state criminal---being put to death in the den of lions, and Pilate had no desire to see this come upon Jesus either.  He wanted this to be clear to all, so returning briefly to Matthew (viewing the story through the lenses of the collected Gospel records, as it is likely that all of the authors had been heavily influenced by the Daniel story), as he saw that “a riot was starting, he took some water, washed his hands before the crowd and said, ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood.  You take care of it yourselves!’” (27:24b) 

Psalm Of The King (part 4 of 5)

Additionally, one can rest fairly assured that part of Jesus’ prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane, before He was made to embark upon the ordeal of the cross, was that His life be sustained; and that when He went down into death, taking the Creator God’s cursing and going into exile on behalf of all God’s people (because He is demonstrated to have understood Himself to be Israel’s Messiah, with all of the implications of unending rule and kingship associated with that position), that He be granted the redemption of physical resurrection to new life---the deliverance from exile---that was the great hope and expectation of Israel.  In union with Him, that same hope that animated much of Israel belongs to all believers as well.  

Moving on to the fifth verse of this Psalm, Jesus and others would find “Your deliverance brings him great honor” (21:5a).  Similar to the way in which “blessings” would have carried a specific connotation for the Psalmist, for Jesus, and for the people of Israel, the use of “deliverance” would have a deliberate reference attached to it as well.  “Deliverance,” when used by the people of Israel (and most likely the Psalmist as well), pointed to exodus---to redemption.  Again, these words are not to approached apart from their own terms, and they are certainly not to be informed by twenty-first century mindsets.  The modern observer must take the contextual approach that goes beyond the use of language, making every attempt to understand the terminology in its historical, philosophical, theological, political, cultural and social setting as well, with no disconnect between any of those things. 

For Israel, “deliverance” was deliverance from exile, and along with the memory of the Babylonian and Assyrian experiences, as highlighted in the historical narrative of Israel and in the prophets, the Deuteronomic description of exile would have loomed large in the popular imagination.  In the area of deliverance, Israel’s story includes the story of their covenant God delivering His chosen people from Egypt.  Their God is then reported to have delivered His people from a variety of oppressors through the time of the Judges. 

Enhancing the understanding of exile and deliverance (or exodus), the record of Judges demonstrates that exile entailed much more than simply Israel being away from its land.  The idea of exile included the Creator God’s people not ruling themselves in their own land.  Because of that, this concept can be carried forward into His own day, as Jesus would have done, building on Ezra and Nehemiah’s declarations that the exile was continuing even though the Creator God’s people had returned to their land, and it can be verified that the people of Israel (by and large) still saw themselves as a people in exile.  This ongoing conception of exile from God’s blessings, among other things, was a major impetus behind the attempts at revolution in the centuries leading up to, and the century following Jesus’ life, death, and Resurrection. 

Part of the anticipation for their messiah, which was connected with the vision of Daniel and the four hundred ninety years attached to that vision that would culminate with the coming of the messiah (regardless of when Daniel was composed), was that the messiah, their king (Son of God, Son of Man, Son of David---all kingly terms that would eventually be vested with divine significance because of the post-Resurrection realization, by His disciples, that Jesus had been the physical embodiment of God in His saving action on behalf of His chosen people) would bring Israel’s long exile to an end once and for all.  

Psalm Of The King (part 3)

So as Jesus explores these Psalms for the strengthening of His resolve and trust in His God, and as He continually considers what it is possible that He has been called to do and to be for Israel, it is likely that He came to see Himself as being the one that the Creator God will use, and do so in a very specific way, to bring about the blessings that are promised to His God’s covenant people.  Also, as the nature of the covenant, along with the requirements that were put in place to be a part of God’s covenant people (circumcision, reverencing the sanctuary, keeping the Sabbath, and avoiding idolatry) are considered, it must be remembered that Jesus, with His steps informed by His reading of the Scriptures of His people, takes the remarkable step of re-focusing the covenant requirements upon Himself.

Jesus declares, in no uncertain terms (again, with this informed by His reading of Scripture), that it is belief upon and allegiance to Him as the Creator God’s Messiah that will be the basis for being included under that God’s covenant, and therefore the basis for being able to experience the blessings (as spelled out in Leviticus and Deuteronomy) to be had therein. 

Because the Psalmist connects God’s blessings with kingship (a golden crown for the head), Jesus, as part of declaring Himself to be Israel’s Messiah, is able to make the connection between His own Kingship, and the blessings available for the people of the covenant.  Jesus would come to believe that through His actions, along with the response of Israel’s faithful covenant God, that He would be able to bring about the blessings that appear in Deuteronomy.  He would be able to do this because, as He believes Himself as Messiah to be the faithful Israelite as well as the King of Israel, He is the representative of the people as He fulfills the conditions of the covenant that the Creator God made with Israel at Mount Sinai following the Exodus. 

Because Israel’s messiah is more-than-clearly presented in the Scriptures as a king for all peoples, Jesus’ re-positioning of the covenant requirements around Himself and belief in His Gospel (Jesus is Lord), allows Him, because of His belief in the supreme faithfulness of God that He relies upon and ultimately experiences in His Resurrection, to extend God’s covenant blessings to all peoples.  By this, the Abrahamic covenant comes to be fulfilled as well---all peoples of the world are blessed.  At the same time, the connection to the Levitical and Deuteronomic blessings points to the ultimate exodus of the people of the renewed covenant, as the Creator God redeems a people for Himself, through their believing union with Jesus, from the exile into which they had been sent, according to the Scriptural narrative, upon Adam’s rebellion and the fall of man.    

Maintaining the theme of kingship, the Psalmist also writes, “He asked You to sustain his life, and You have granted him long life and an enduring dynasty” (21:4).  The fact that one of the titles of the messiah was “Son of David” demonstrates the continuity of God’s promises.  Jesus, of course, is referred to on more than one occasion as the “Son of David,” thereby reinforcing that “enduring dynasty” that was rooted in a reliance on God’s faithfulness. 

The Apostle Paul makes this connection even more explicit, reminding his readers in Rome (and therefore under the nose of the one who sat in the seat of power as the son of god) that Jesus was “a descendant of David with reference to the flesh” (Romans 1:3b).  As the earliest Jesus-believers came to grips with the breadth of the implications of Jesus life, death, and Resurrection, and as their thinking quickly lined-up with what was clearly that of the one they followed and soon came to worship as the embodiment of the Creator God of Israel, the whole of the New Testament would come to resound with declarations of Jesus’ majesty and the eternal nature of His rule. 

Pilate's Dilemma (part 2 of 3)

At the same time, it is not difficult to surmise that Pilate would have been thinking that this was the first time that he (or another Roman procurator) found himself dealing with a would-be Jewish messiah, with the popular support of a large number of the people, that was not conducting overtly revolutionary activities in support of his aspirations to kingship.  As we know from the narrative, as Jesus is said to have pointed out, and as Pilate was likely to have found quite interesting, there was no band of armed men around Jesus.  This could only have contributed to Pilate’s dilemma. 

No, this Jesus of Nazareth had not taken up arms in his apparent quest.  As Pilate would have no doubt discovered, there was no overt or even implied threat of force that was going to be brought against the occupying power.  Jesus spoke of no such things, and such certainly did not present itself along with this prisoner.  There would not even have been whispers of such things amongst the followers of this Galilean. 

It is likely that Pilate would have been made aware of the “triumphal entry” and of Jesus’ activities in the Temple, but it is also just as likely that he would not have understood the significance of those actions.  Even if he had grasped the meaning behind those two actions---the coming of Israel’s king and a symbolic action of judgment against the Temple---he would have also grasped that it was not accompanied by any mob action.  Of course, if he had investigated further (which is not difficult to imagine), there was also the inescapable fact that this Jesus had directed His words and actions to the Temple and its authorities. 

Jesus had not stormed the Roman garrison or the praetorium, nor did he encourage others to do so, as might be expected from somebody that was actively seeking the casting off of the yoke of Roman power.  Indeed, as far as Pilate would be able to gather, there were no obvious demands being made against the Roman rulers of Israel.  In spite of all of these things, Pilate here had standing before him and under his judgment this Man that was accused of, not denying, and even embracing a claim to be something that He had to know was going to result in His own crucifixion. 

Yes, Pilate would hear Jesus being “accused by the chief priests and the elders” (27:12b), while certainly making note of the fact that, to those accusations, Jesus “did not respond” (27:12b).  In all this, we find that Pilate “was quite amazed” (27:13b).  The amazement is more than understandable, as this would have been a most unique situation.  Pilate would not be alone in his amazement.  Certainly, the author of the story intended the same type of amazed response from those that would come to hear it. 

As we consider the fact that Pilate is reported to have been in this state of amazement, we revert back to the original question with which this study began: “Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus Who is called the Christ?”  Having already made note of the fact that Jesus is not reported to have had an armed band of followers, that no one is there speaking up for Him and pleading on His behalf (which is not surprising, considering the custom of rounding up and killing the followers of other potential messiah figures), and that He was not acting as at least part of the people of Israel were expecting their messianic king to act in His encounter with Rome, the people responded with “Barabbas!” (27:21b).    

Beginning An Exodus (part 2 of 2)

In what would appear to be an exodus-ing of the Davidic narrative, we hear David, following his lament for Saul and Jonathan, saying “Should I go up to one of the cities of Judah?” (2 Samuel 2:1b)  David was going up into that which had been prepared for him, again, departing from the exilic state in which he had been hunted by the very same king against whom he would not extend his hand, and whom he mourned upon his death.  David was going up to Judah, much like Israel went up out of Egypt---called out of exile, and much like Jesus, at a young age, who would also go up out of Egypt.  David was going up to the kingship, having consistently experienced the rescuing hand of his God upon his life, but he was not entering fully upon the kingship. 

When David made his initial inquiry as to whether or not he should go up to one of the cities of Judah, the Lord’s reply was “Go up” (2:1c).  “David asked, ‘Where should I go?’  The Lord replied, ‘To Hebron.’” (2:1d)  David followed this instruction and went to Hebron, where “The men of Judah came and there they anointed David as king over the people of Judah” (2:4).  At this point, it is only a partial going-up.  It is only a partial exodus, as David is not crowned as king over all Israel, but rather, only over Judah (his tribe).  This is not unlike the experience of Israel as a whole, in that though they had experienced the Egyptian exodus, it is only partial, as they had not yet entered in to that which was promised to them.  Furthermore, even upon their entering, their exodus remained only partial, because they would fail to drive out the peoples that were dwelling in and defiling the land, as God had clearly instructed them to do.  Here, we can see David’s exodus as a partial re-enactment of the experience of his people. 

Having been established as king over Judah, in Hebron, David begins the long process of consolidating the kingdom.  Once again, this is not going to be unlike Israel’s entrance into the promised land, as even though they were entering in upon that for which they had been specially chosen and anointed, the process of consolidating their dominion over the land was long.  Ultimately, it was incomplete, as the history of their “conquest” is replete with only partial completions of their task, and numerous reports of foreign peoples not being driven out, and as a result, dwelling alongside Israel in the land.  It could be said of David, as well, that even though he would eventually take the throne of Israel as a whole, that his attempts at consolidating power remained incomplete, as he dealt with internal conflicts and the rebellion of his own son in his attempts to take his father’s throne.  To be sure, history, in the case of Israel (and truly the whole of the world), must be said to be a mirror that is reflective of what it is that has gone before.  To know what is coming, we must know what has already come. 

As Israel would deal with the various peoples of the land as they embarked upon its subjugation, so too would David find himself dealing with Abner, the general of Saul’s army.  Abner “had taken Saul’s son Ishbosheth and…appointed him king over… all Israel” (2:8-9).  Ishbosheth would maintain this illegitimate rule over Israel for two years, while the people of Judah looked to David as their legitimate and rightful king (2:10).  This could not have been a happy time for David or for Israel.  Most certainly, Israel was not being a light to the nations throughout these days of conflicting monarchies, as civil war and civil strife effectively prevented them from reflecting their God’s image into the world in a way that would cause the surrounding peoples to look to the God of Israel in worship and honor.  It was a time of intra-national exile, as one part of the people attempted to subdue the other part of the people.  Indeed, we find that “the war was prolonged between the house of Saul and the house of David” (3:1a); and even though it was the case that “David was becoming steadily stronger, while the house of Saul was becoming increasingly weaker” (3:1b), it was the still the case that this prolonged conflict prevented Israel from being for their land, and for the wider world, what it was that God had intended them to be. 

David’s exodus to the kingship saw some fruits of exile, just as Israel’s exodus towards the covenantal land of promise saw them dwelling outside that land, in an exodus-oriented exilic condition, for forty long years.  We should not be surprised to find such congruity, especially as we consider that the wilderness wandering took place because the people of Israel, by and large, continued to look to Egypt, questioning Moses and thereby questioning the Lord Himself.  This runs parallel with the situation in Israel, as a majority of the people continued to look to Saul and his house, questioning David’s claims, and thereby questioning the work of the Lord.  The prolonged war in Israel is emblematic of Israel’s wilderness experience, as Israel found itself in the wilderness of discontent, awaiting deliverance into that which God had promised them through His promises to Saul of a kingdom torn from him, and His promises to David, to whom a kingdom had been granted.