Absalom (part 19)

To this point, the portrayal of David as being similar to Pharoah, David’s removal as being similar to Pharaoh’s loss of power over Israel, and Absalom’s exodus from his own exile as akin to Israel’s exodus from Egypt under Moses, was effective, and perhaps, knowing what is known about David, even appropriate.  However, it is at this point that Absalom, for some unknown reason, though he was receiving advice to do this, departs from the epic narrative that he has been creating for himself. 

As one thinks back to the story of Israel’s exodus, one thing that is not be found in that story is Moses taking it upon himself to raise his hand against the one from whom Israel was being delivered.  Remember, Moses had attempted to start the revolution in Egypt on behalf of Israel, with his killing of the Egyptian taskmaster.  This failed to accomplish the goal that Moses had in mind, and he was sent into his own personal exile.  When he returned, he was gifted with the ability to lead an exodus that was peaceful, at least as it related to the actions of the people.  As has been seen, Absalom has effectively mirrored this.  Though he was not, as far as the story goes, attempting to start a revolution through his killing of Amnon, it was that killing that resulted in his own exile away from Jerusalem.  It was during that time, no doubt, that the seeds of a plan to take the throne began to germinate, perhaps primarily because he was treated unjustly due to his execution of justice. 

Returning to the exodus story then, it is clear that Israel conducted no demonstrations of violence against Egypt.  The Egyptians, on the other hand, experienced the violent power of Israel’s God, which serves as a reminder of the fact that Moses left it to the God of Israel to bring judgment and destruction in the way that He saw fit.  Then, after the death of the firstborn, which saw Pharaoh finally relent from his stubborn stance and practically demand that Israel depart from Egypt, the last thing Moses was going to do was turn around and attempt to kill Pharaoh. 

In that case, the Creator God had already judged Pharaoh, so what good would that do?  What would that prove?  Even after Pharaoh came out after Moses and Israel, Moses did not send men to confront Pharaoh and his army.  Rather, he continued to trust the God that delivers to fight on behalf of His people.  Had Moses and Israel raised their hands against Egypt in any way, things might have turned out quite differently, as it would have been an indication that they did not fully trust that their covenant God was able to rescue them from their foreign subjugation. 

Absalom would have been wise to heed this example.  Instead, because he was convinced to believe that it was incumbent upon him to go out after his father, he essentially forsook the power of the Creator God to solidify his kingship and to carry out His promises to David through Absalom.  Israel did not turn back and fight against Egypt, rather, they looked forward, preparing themselves to face the enemies to come.  Absalom should have done the same, looking forward as well, in a spirit of thankfulness, rather than allowing for the entrance of a spirit that has to be described as nothing more than vengeful.  Had he not been vindicated already?  Had he not been exalted?  Had Israel’s God not fought his battles for him?  Absalom should never have turned back so as to bring further suffering on his deposed father.  It is this that would ultimately bring David vindication through suffering (with his own story of exile to exodus), while bringing suffering to Absalom in the wake of what had been his own vindication, and sending Absalom from exodus to exile.   

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. 

No One Knows The Hour (part 11)

It’s worth reviewing what happened when Jesus entered the Temple.  He “drove out all those who were selling and buying in the Temple courts, and turned over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves.  And He said to them, ‘It is written, “My house will be called a house of prayer,” but you are turning it into a den of robbers!’” (Matthew 21:12b-13)  Then, “The blind and the lame came to Him in the Temple courts, and He healed them” (21:14).  This forces another look at Jeremiah, from which Jesus’ words of judgment are lifted, where one can see the Levitical parallels (and stand amazed at all that is going on in Jesus’ words and Matthew’s record) when reading “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” (7:3b). 

Notice the connection here made by Jeremiah between land and Temple.  By quoting and re-enacting Jeremiah, Jesus would be making the same connection.  Jeremiah goes on to say (and Jesus intends to call to mind) “Stop putting your confidence in the false belief that says, ‘We are safe!  The Temple of the Lord is here!  The Temple of the Lord is here!  The temple of the Lord is here!’  You must change the way you have been living and do what is right.  You must treat one another fairly.  Stop oppressing foreigners who live in your land, children who have lost their fathers, and women who have lost their husbands.  Stop killing innocent people in this land.  Stop paying allegiance to other gods.  That will only bring about your ruin” (7:4-6).  Here, one should note that Jeremiah’s reference to Deuteronomy flows into a concern that Israel not fall into idolatry---worshiping the gods of the people of the land to which the Lord is bringing them. 

Continuing in Jeremiah, and continuing to connect land to Temple: “If you stop doing these things, I will allow you to continue to live in this land which I gave to your ancestors as a lasting possession,” as we note the land and Temple dynamic (7:7).  Jeremiah goes on to say (and again Jesus could just as well have said) “But just look at you!  Your are putting your confidence in a false belief that will not deliver you.  You steal.  Your murder.  You commit adultery.  You lie when you swear on oath.  You sacrifice to the god Baal.  You pay allegiance to other gods whom you have not previously known.  Then you come and stand in My presence in this Temple I have claimed as My own and say, ‘We are safe!’  You think you are so safe that you go on doing all those hateful sins!  Do you think this Temple I have claimed as My own is to be a hideout for robbers?” (7:8-11a) 

So not only has Jesus made reference to the whole of this section of Jeremiah’s seventh chapter while He dramatically acts in the Temple, but situated as it is within Israel’s history, its collective and active memory, and its understanding of past exiles and current subjugation to a foreign power, He calls this to mind again along with the Leviticus passage that Jeremiah seems to also have in mind when He speaks about the demand to love neighbor as self.  To clinch the argument that Jesus’ words are not to be disconnected from His ongoing and primary concern with the Temple as demonstrated in Matthew, it is necessary to point out that this section of Leviticus basically begins with “When you sacrifice a peace offering sacrifice to the Lord, you must sacrifice it so that it is accepted for you” (19:5).  The Temple, of course, was the place of sacrifice.

Preaching & Believing (part 2)

Before going further, it is worthwhile to examine what it is that Paul most likely means when he speaks of “being saved.”  As a Jew, raised in the context of a deep-rooted understanding of covenant, the Scriptural narrative, and the context of exodus and exile, when Paul uses this term he has a specific point of reference and definition.  For the covenant people of Israel, the Creator God’s salvation would have been widely construed as being delivered from foreign bondage and exile, which represented their God’s curse upon them for covenant failures. 

Therefore, being “saved” implies a deliverance from cursing and exile, with a concordant rescue from foreign subjugation.  When the covenant God delivered Israel from their bondage in Egypt and brought them into the land of promise, they would have understood themselves as having been saved.  Most decidedly, they experienced the salvation of their God.  When their God repeatedly delivered them from oppression in the days of the Judges and made them to regain control of their promised land, each time, they would think of themselves as being saved.  When Judah was spared from Assyria, maintaining an albeit temporary self-rule under their God’s anointed kings, they would have thought of themselves as being saved.  These were all acts of salvation. 

Whenever the Creator God entered in to defeat Israel’s enemies, ending cursing (as outlined in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28) or staving off exile, that deliverance is spoken of as salvation.  When the Creator God would save Israel, it would be related to being saved from the curses that are set forth in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which set for the culminating curse of exile from their land and subjection to foreign destruction and domination. 

It must be remembered that Paul’s Jewish readers would have this in mind when considering his words and his overall message.  This would have been the air that they breathed, and the hearing of the message of the Gospel and its salvation would have been inseparable from the mindset fostered by their shared and defining history.  Yes, Jewish hearers would have in mind the entire narrative of their Scriptures, and therefore, when hearing about salvation, would also take into consideration the cursing of all mankind that began with Adam.  Early non-Jewish believers would have been educated into the Jewish narrative, so as to be able to comprehend the Creator God of Israel and make sense of the Christ-event.   

Though Paul would say that Israel’s history was instructive, especially in learning about the faithful God that would become embodied in Jesus of Nazareth, Paul would not necessarily want his Gentile readers to take Israel’s Deuteronomic curses into consideration when they considered their own cursing and exile.  Those curses were specific to Israel, as they were associated with the covenant established with Israel at Sinai.  Paul would want Gentile hearers and believers to understand that a better covenant had been enacted at Calvary, and that the covenant was more in line with the Abrahamic covenant and its directive towards all peoples, not just Israel. 

So Paul, in his message that was geared towards all peoples, would utilize mankind’s curse, along with the curse on all of the creation that was understood to have begun with Adam, as the point of reference for that from which they were being saved.  Under the covenant of Jesus, salvation, for all mankind, Jew and Gentile, would involve being delivered from the curse of death, along with the end of exile from the Creator God’s fellowship, under which man was not truly able to rightly bear the divine image in which he had been created. 

Rebuking & Rebuked (part 1 of 2)

He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?”  Peter answered Him, “You are the Christ.” – Mark 8:29  (NET)

Regardless of when the very popular book of Daniel had been penned (whether in the time of Daniel or a few centuries later), a denizen of first century Israel, with messianic expectations while living under the boot of Rome, would hold to the idea that it had been nearly five hundred years since the time that the prophecy of Daniel’s seventy weeks of years (four hundred ninety years) was thought to have commenced.  Accordingly, there was a general understanding that the time had come for God to act “to put an end to rebellion, to bring sin to completion, to atone for iniquity, to bring in perpetual righteousness, to seal up the prophetic visions, and to anoint a most holy place (Daniel 9:24b).  In that writing, these things are reported to have been said to Daniel, by the angel Gabriel, “concerning your people and your holy city” (9:24a).  So at the time in which the Christ walked the earth in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, in connection with aforementioned messianic expectation, these words from Daniel, for many, had become intimately connected to what the Creator God was finally going to do for His people, for Jerusalem, and for His Temple. 

Owing to this expectation and reckoning of the time (with a range of opinions on when that four hundred ninety year period began), many would-be messiah’s had risen up in Israel before Jesus’ day (others would continue to rise up after His day as well).  Yes, because Jesus was ultimately rejected as Israel’s Messiah, with that rejection being a very natural response to His crucifixion, other would-be Messiah’s would rise up after Him.  When men would rise up and begin to draw followers to themselves, one could almost naturally expect the claim of messiah to be either claimed by the individual or applied to him by his devotees.  Once the claim was verbalized, it would inevitably be spread around and draw more people to his movement. 

Now generally, this movement was revolutionary and violent in nature.  That is because Israel, by and large at that time, believed that their God was sending His messiah to them for a few specific reasons.  Naturally, there are exceptions and nuances to these generalization, but they believed that in the messiah, the Creator God would bring Israel’s history and purpose in and for this world to a climax.  They believed that the messiah was going to lead Israel to defeat its pagan oppressors and drive them from their land.  They believed that through the messiah, their God was going to re-establish His Temple and His presence in that Temple, so that the Lord God would dwell in their midst as had been long-promised.  They believed that their God was going to establish a new creation.  They believed that at long last, Israel’s exile, in which they did not control their land---their inheritance---was going to be brought to an end.  They believed that Israel was going to be set in power and authority over all nations. 

In their minds, the coming of messiah, and the working of messiah, was quite naturally going to involve and require a popular uprising that would be sparked and lead by the messiah himself.  Owing to hundreds of years of foreign subjugation, both inside and outside their land, there were many in Israel who eagerly looked forward to being able to participate in such actions.  So it is natural to conclude that any man who believed himself to be that messiah, and whose followers believed him to be that messiah, would want to noise such things abroad, in order to draw men in for the purpose of fighting in the battle to come, in which their God Himself was expected to have a heavy hand.  Indeed, that had largely been the case up to that point, so why would it be any different for Jesus?  Messianic aspirants had long attempted to rally fervent nationalistic support around the images and language of revolution achieved by the taking up of arms, to fight alongside their God.  Since Jesus had already drawn huge crowds and fed thousands of people at a time, and since, without a doubt, such things would have been being said about Him already, the disciples probably figured that Jesus represented the best opportunity to rally enough support to meet all of those prevailing expectations.     

Solomon & Shimei (part 3 of 3)

Apart from the fact that the machinations of power are quite interesting, and that all of the recorded events of Solomon’s life are fascinating on a number of levels, one might be curious as to why so much time and space (in the Bible) is being given to an examination of the “Shimei situation.”  On the surface, it seems like a reasonable curiosity, but in the face of that curiosity, we cannot fail to notice that Shimei makes three separate appearances within the Biblical record.  Pondering the reasons for that by exploring those appearances is altogether proper and rewarding.  At the same time, we do well to acknowledge that Shimei’s first two appearances occur in connection with the overall Scriptural theme of exile and exodus. 

Our first encounter with Shimei is conjoined with David’s exile from Jerusalem, in subjugation.  The second encounter is coupled with David’s exodus (from exile), as he returns to Jerusalem, his subjugation ended.  The third time that we happen upon Shimei, the story ends with Shimei’s own exile (his death), though he has been given the chance to live a life of exodus in Jerusalem (living within Solomon’s will).  Beyond the overt exile and exodus theme embodied by Solomon’s proceedings in regards to Shimei, we can quite profitably look even more deeply into this matter, and in doing so, discover a microcosm of one of the occurrences with which the grand Scriptural narrative began, as Shimei is demonstrated to be analogous to Adam.  Though the microcosm and analogy are limited in scope, we shall find it to be quite useful. 

Returning to the text of the first book of the Kings, we see that Solomon has summoned Shimei and instructed him to build a house in Jerusalem and live there (2:36a).  Solomon places a commanding addendum to this, saying “you may not leave there to go anywhere!” (2:36b)  Likewise, following His creative act, God summoned Adam and commanded him to tend the garden in which he had been placed, while also instructing him “you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:17a).  What was to happen to Shimei if he left Jerusalem---if he stepped outside of Solomon’s will and violated his command?  Solomon told him “If you ever do leave and cross the Kidron Valley, know for sure that you will certainly die!” (2:37a).  Adam, as we well know, in regards to the fruit of the tree, was told “for when you eat from it you will surely die” (2:17b). 

The command of God, like that of Solomon, was quite clear.  Adam, like Shimei, was expected to abide within the given parameters.  Stepping outside of those parameters would result in death.  After remaining faithful to his covenant with Solomon for a period of time, Shimei was told that two of his servants had run away, so he went out after them.  Shimei knew better.  He had observed Solomon’s commandment for three years, but now fell to this temptation to assert his authority as a master.  This parallels Adam’s experience quite well.   Adam, after obeying for some period of time, fell victim to the same type of temptation.  The serpent offered Adam (and Eve, lest we forget) the opportunity to assert themselves as masters (gods) in their own right, which would be especially tempting, seeing as how the Creator had given them dominion over the earth.  The news of Shimei’s excursion beyond the boundaries delineated by the covenant came to Solomon’s attention, as would the actions of Adam.  Solomon summoned Shimei before him and reminded him of the oath along with the penalty associated with the violation of that oath.  Solomon asked: “Why then have you broken the oath you made before the Lord and disobeyed the order I gave you?” (2:43)  The Genesis record has God calling out to Adam, along with Adam’s fearful response.  God asks Adam (as if He did not know), “Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” (3:11b) 

The author of the “King-ly” history does not even go so far as to provide us with an account of Shimei’s response to Solomon.  He knew he was guilty.  As we have seen, Shimei’s reward for his violation was death.  Adam, on the other hand, points the finger of blame to Eve, who in turn points the finger of blame at the serpent.  God calls each of the responsible parties to account, just as Solomon had told Shimei that he would be responsible for his own death if he over-stepped the prescribed boundaries, and draws this particular episode to a close by ultimately pronouncing a sentence of death, stating “for you are dust, and to dust you will return” (3:19b). 

Both Shimei and Adam were given the chance to live lives of exodus---enjoying the blessings of life within the boundaries of a willful covenant drafted by their respective kings.  Both Shimei and Adam were tempted beyond the boundaries of that covenant for similar reasons.  In the end, King Solomon was empowered, and Shimei’s final exile was immediate.  If there was to be further punishment for Shimei, then as we previously heard from Solomon, that was the Lord’s business.  Adam’s experience, however, was somewhat different.  According to the Genesis account, Adam lived a great deal of time in his exilic state before the exile of physical death overtook him.  He was first exiled from the garden, forced to consider the exile of creation for which he was responsible, to mourn over the exodus that he had forfeited, and to contemplate the cursing and pain which he had brought to creation.  He would even see one of his sons commit murder.  This punishment from the Lord was probably greater than the merciful death that would eventually come. 

Unexpectedly for us, though this was a likely intention in the construction and presentation of this story, there is much to be gleaned from the accounts of Shimei; for in it, through all its seemingly unrelated twists and turns, we are pointed towards God’s redemption project, and we are reminded of the providence and faithfulness of the covenant-making God.        

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).