David & The Gibeonites (part 2 of 2)

Putting aside a tendency to paint a rosy picture of King David, one should not overlook the calculated measures that are here taking place.  According to the history presented here in this book, David had recently experienced Absalom’s rebellion (with his own temporary deposition from power).  Together with that, there were other potential problems and rebellions with which to be dealt, and the most natural direction from which those problems would come would be the family of Saul.  Indeed, there is ample evidence of David being inclined to think in such ways. 

Looking back to his flight from Jerusalem, when he was met by Ziba the servant of Mephibosheth (the son of Jonathan to whom David had extended grace and seated at his table, treating him as one of his own sons---2 Samuel 8), when David sees that Ziba alone has come to him, without Mephibosheth, bringing him bread, raisin cakes, summer fruit, and wine (16:1), he says, “Where is your master’s grandson?” (16:3a).  Ziba replies by saying, “He remains in Jerusalem, for he said, ‘Today the house of Israel will give back to me my grandfather’s kingdom” (16:3b). 

Though this makes no sense at all, as it was Absalom, David’s son, that was supported by the people and taking the throne, one here sees David’s willingness to believe such a thing and the ongoing threat of reprisal from Saul’s family implied thereby, as he says “Everything that was Mephibosheth’s now belongs to you” (16:4a).  Now, with the famine and the appearance of the Gibeonites, the presence of Saul’s old enemies provide the means to end this always looming threat once and for all. 

So it is reported that “The king had mercy on Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, in light of the Lord’s oath that had been taken between David and Jonathan son of Saul” (21:7), though before he had been willing to quickly write off Mephibosheth and toss him aside as a traitor and conspirator.  Additionally, because Mephibosheth was crippled in his feet, not only would he not be able to rise up to lead an army, but David would also have been confident that the people of Israel would certainly not support one such as him as king. 

Sparing Mephibosheth, the king took seven sons and grandsons of Saul and “turned them over to the Gibeonites, and they executed them on a hill before the Lord.  The seven of them died together” (21:9a).  To go along with that, the Gibeonites left those men there to rot.  For David, problem solved.  Potential rivals to the throne have been eliminated.  However, drawing attention to what could truly have been viewed by the people as a rather despicable, unjust, unjustifiable, and clearly politically calculated action on David’s part, a woman named Rizpah, the mother of the sons of Saul that had been executed, “took sackcloth and spread it out for herself on a rock.  From the beginning of the harvest until the rain fell on them, she did not allow the birds of the air to feed on them by day, not the wild animals by night” (21:10). 

This was an unforeseen nuisance, and when David is told that this was taking place, he ordered their bodies to be taken, along with the bones of Saul and Jonathan, and to be buried in the tomb of Saul’s father in the land of Benjamin.  Thus, David can then seen to be honoring these men, when such could not have been further from his mind.  Most likely, keeping in mind the fact that David has just perpetrated a despicable act, he does this so that he will not be viewed as being responsible for the execution of the sons of Saul, though they had in fact done no wrong.  Of course, this must also be considered in light of the fact that the Creator God’s law clearly stated that a son was not to be put to death because of the actions of his father, though this was precisely what David allowed to take place because it was a furtherance of his own ends.   

Triumph Of Jesus (part 6)

Today and today only, he bore the titles ultimately reserved for Caesar.  Along with the crowds, I read the embroidered titles and hailed him as the greatest of all kings and greatest of lords.  When I read them I thought of Caesar, for the triumphator merely bears the title and the power in proxy.  Though he is the greatest of Rome’s generals, and though he has achieved an exalted position, at any moment Caesar could demand him to turn over his army and he would have no choice but to acquiesce.  He will, however, get to keep the crown, the robes, and the baton for the remainder of his life, though I’m sure that if the Caesar asked him to return them for any reason, he would gladly do so. 

He’s a man of humility, and that is part of the reason that he is being so celebrated.  His popular support is so great and his army so loyal that he could have, at any time, easily marched on Rome and overthrown Caesar himself, but he has chosen not to do this.  It probably never even crossed his mind to grasp at Caesar’s throne, which is yet another reason to hail him.  Listen to me going on and on.  It’s almost like I’m worshiping him as if it were he that was the son of god, rather than the Caesar himself.    

As I continued to watch, and as I continued to be enveloped in a sense of amazement at the sight before me, I heard the voice of the heralds.  They were traveling through the crowds reminding all on-lookers that the celebration would not end at the conclusion of the ‘triumph,’ but that the Caesar expected all the citizens of Rome to carry the festivities into the night, doing so with joyous feasting.  The heralds walked the crowds, speaking of the great exploits of the soldiers, of their service to Rome, and of their felicity to that which was symbolized by the eagle emblazoned upon their banners, saying ‘Open your homes to the fighting men of Rome!  Invite them to your banquets!  Let them eat their fill!  In service to Rome, they have taken their lives in their hands to conquer generals and all manner of powerful people!  They faced down charging horses so that all, free men and slaves, might continue to enjoy the benefits of all that Rome has to offer!  You owe them your hospitality and your very lives!  Honor them!’  I certainly hoped that I would have the honor of hosting one of these brave warriors. 

Behind the triumphator and his army came those that he had conquered.  Foolishly, they had attempted to do battle with Rome’s greatest general.  Not unexpectedly, they had failed; and now, they were going to suffer the end of all that attempted to stand against the glorious Roman empire, its Caesar, and its legions.  I saw the king of the conquered peoples.  I saw the greatest of his generals.  Poor fools.  They did not realize the futility in which they were engaged.  They did not realize that their doom had been sealed when Caesar sent out his armies under the command of this particular triumphator.  Examples were going to be made of these men, and that example was going to be published far and wide as a warning against those that might attempt the same.  The king and his generals, so used to riding at the front of their army in all of their regal splendor, had been forced to come last in the procession, stripped of all semblances of power and bearing the scorn and insults of the crowd.  For them, shame was heaped upon shame. 

A Tradition Of Wells (part 8)

Continuing to lay the conceptual foundation for the collective consciousness concerning wells, it is worthwhile to quickly trace all remaining mentions of wells within what are considered to be the historical books of Israel.  In the second book of Samuel, there is a mention that is probably not a helpful or useful mention of a well, at least on the surface.  Nevertheless, it occurs during the time period following the death of King Saul, as David is solidifying his royal position, so perhaps others can find related value in its mention. 

Engaging the text: “Then Joab left David and sent messengers after Abner” (3:26a).  Joab is the commander of David’s forces, and Abner is the commander of the forces of Saul, and temporarily Ishbosheth, the son of Saul.  “They brought him back from the well of Sirah.  (But David was not aware of it.)  When Abner returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside at the gate as if to speak privately with him.  Joab then stabbed him in the abdomen and killed him” (3:26b-27a).  Later in the same book, during the time of Absalom’s temporarily successful (and seemingly temporarily divinely sanctioned) taking of the throne of Israel, there is a story concerning two spies that David had in his employ. 

This seems to be as useful as the event just presented, but in dutifully presenting the record it is found that “Jonathan and Ahimaaz were staying in En Rogel.  A female servant would go and inform them, and they would then go and inform King David.  It was not advisable for them to be seen going into the city.  But a young man saw them on one occasion and informed Absalom.  So the two of them quickly departed and went to the house of a man in Bahurim.  There was a well in his courtyard, and they got down in it” (17:17-18). 

Finally, in the book of Nehemiah, in a section that mentions wells as part of a prayerful praise that recounted Israel’s history, beginning with the Genesis account of creation, in a manner which undergirds the purpose of this study by demonstrating a mention of wells in a general recapitulation of the exodus narrative, Nehemiah can be heard to say “They captured fortified cities and fertile land.  They took possession of houses full of all sorts of good things---wells previously dug, vineyards, olive trees, and fruit trees in abundance.  They enjoyed to the full your great goodness” (9:25). 

Having reviewed the location of wells within the historical narrative (though it is possible to find some historical narrative overlap when turning to the prophets, specifically Isaiah), this study now turns its attention to the mention of wells within the wisdom/poetic and prophetic literature of the Hebrew Scriptures.  With these, it will be possible to see how the larger part of the historical narrative that is associated with wells serves to shape ideas about references to wells in this body of work, while also continuing to form the historical imagination along the lines of that of the Johannine author, that one might more correctly approach the story of Jesus and the woman at the well.

Handsome Men (part 2 of 2)

Certainly, because Joseph was a powerful ruler, even if it was in Egypt, there could naturally be a desire for a ruler of Israel to be very much like Joseph.  Though it is scant, there is a growing sense that this issue of appearance is an important one when it comes to Israel’s rulers and the way the people wanted to think about their rulers.  This is quite understandable in the day of mass media, but it is not at all difficult to comprehend what would seem to be a natural human desire to have attractive leaders set over them. 

This should be kept in mind when first encountering David in the Scriptural narrative.  As is well known, the Creator God is said to have rejected Saul as king.  Samuel, the one whose failure with his sons has lead to the desire for a king, goes to anoint another man as king.  When David is brought before Samuel we learn that “he was ruddy, with attractive eyes and a handsome appearance” (16:12b).  Strangely, this is after Samuel has viewed the first of David’s brothers and was impressed by his physical appearance. 

This experience with the sons of Jesse must have reminded Samuel of when Saul first stood before him.  However, with that in mind the Lord can be heard to say “Don’t be impressed by his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him” (16:7b), which serves as an explicit reminder of Saul’s having been rejected.  The Lord is reported to have gone on to say “God does not view things the way men do.  People look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (16:7c).  With this said, it is indeed strange that David’s appearance is mentioned at all, let alone mentioned in such positive terms.  One might think that it would have been the opposite when it came to David, and that Samuel was going to anoint one who was unattractive, but this was apparently not going to be the case. 

Eventually Saul dies and David takes the throne as he was anointed to do.  Frankly, he fares little better than Saul.  In many ways, he was more corrupted by the power than was Saul.  When those who hear the story of Saul, followed by the story of David (with that story naturally and appropriately including David’s adultery and murder) while considering that Saul was rejected from the throne of Israel because he had inappropriately offered a sacrifice, the hearer simply knows that Israel’s God is going to remove David from the throne as well. 

As if to confirm that this is indeed going to take place in due course, David’s son Absalom is introduced into the narrative.  During the course of Absalom’s story, adhering closely to the pattern that has been previously established and apparently as if to confirm that Absalom is indeed going to take the throne of Israel, the author reports that “in all Israel everyone acknowledged that there was no man as handsome as Absalom.  From the sole of his feet to the top of his head he was perfect in appearance” (2 Samuel 14:25). 

Unsurprisingly then, he indeed does take the throne (David is temporarily removed), and even experiences an anointing to confirm what was his justly and prophecy (calling corrupt leaders to account) confirming gained position.  However, as had been the case with both Saul and his father, he eventually engages in an action that is displeasing to the Lord of Israel and is removed from the throne, allowing David (one of the handsome men of Scripture) to regain his rule.  

Absalom (part 20)

While it is true that a great deal of time and space has been spent dealing with Absalom, it simply must be said that his story is truly and fascinatingly compelling, as it presents and ties together (as has been seen) multiple themes that run deep in Scripture.  Therefore his story lends itself to drawing many conclusions about the Creator God’s working, His mission, and what it is that the Creator God desires for His people (for all time), as it serves as something of a climactic turning point in the history of Israel. 

Now, it has been concluded that Absalom’s downfall came because he agreed with the idea of raising his hand against the Creator God’s anointed, thereby demonstrating that he did not fully trust that God and the promises upon which he may very well have been relying.  Is this sort of conclusion justified?  Apart from the example of Moses and Israel, which was an example and path from which Absalom was deviating, was there another example that he could have followed?  Of course there was.  It was the example that had been set by his own father, before he had been corrupted by the power of the throne. 

In the first book of Samuel, there are two occasions on which David had the opportunity to kill Saul, his oppressor and subjugator.  However, he did not seize upon either of those opportunities to do so.  In fact, David felt guilty for cutting off an edge of Saul’s robe (1 Samuel 24:4).  Of course, to this point Absalom had not even gone that far.  In response to his own action, David said “May the Lord keep me far away from doing such a thing to my lord, who is the Lord’s chosen one, by extending my hand against him.  After all, he is the Lord’s chosen one” (24:6). 

A short while later, David calls out to Saul and says “Even though I have not sinned against you, you are waiting in ambush to take my life” (24:11b).  In the case of Absalom, up until the point that Ahithophel and Hushai speak, there has been no talk, on either the side of David or Absalom, about one attempting to take the other’s life.  Certainly, it can be said that part of the judgment of the Creator God that came upon Saul was related to his ongoing desire to physically and violently raise his hand against the one that his God had been said to have anointed.  Absalom should have continued in the attitude modeled by David and said “May the Lord judge between the two of us” (24:12a), which had already apparently been happening in Absalom’s favor based on the fact of the peaceful exchange of power.  In relation to his opportunity to raise his hand against Saul, David continued with words upon which Absalom should have seized, saying “may the Lord vindicate me over you, but my hand will not be against you” (24:12b). 

Absalom already had the support of the people, and it would appear that David himself was willing to accept Absalom’s exaltation as king.  David had been disgraced and humiliated.  The last thing that Absalom needed to do was to take action that would draw attention, and perhaps even heap sympathy upon David.  Instead, it may very well have been better to completely forget about his father.  Surely, his attempted actions against David might have been perceived as a spiteful type of “kicking a man while he is down,” which would serve to elicit the sympathy and condolences of the people while creating an unfavorable opinion of Absalom as an oppressive ruler that, after all has been said and done, is not all that interested in justice. 

Now, David will be able to turn his words against Absalom, and paint him as a king who has had the hand of Israel’s God removed from him, in a way not unlike that which was experienced by King Saul, and say “Who has the king of Israel come out after?  Who is it that you are pursuing?  A dead dog?  A single flea?  May the Lord be our judge and arbitrator.  May He see and arbitrate my case and deliver me from your hands” (24:14-15).  David will now be able to turn the tables on Absalom, and make his plea for justice, when such, to that point, has been Absalom’s cry. 

Absalom (part 16)

Everything was going well for Absalom.  He had taken the throne.  He had secured the support of one of his father’s chief advisors.  His efforts at fostering a sense of justice and peace through brotherhood with the people seemed to have been effective, as Absalom had “won the loyalty of the citizens of Israel” (2 Samuel 15:6b).  The narrative of exile and exodus that he had been creating for himself had paid off, as “the people were starting to side with Absalom” (15:12b).  Even his father had been told that “The men of Israel are loyal to Absalom!” (15:13b). 

Due to this loyalty and support, Absalom entered Jerusalem peacefully (15:37b), apparently encountering no resistance.  To go with all of this, Hushai the Arkite, another one of his father’s servants, came to Absalom in Jerusalem and said “I will be loyal to the one whom the Lord, these people, and all the men of Israel have chosen.  Moreover, whom should I serve?  Should it not be his son?  Just as I served your father, so I will serve you” (16:18b). 

                          

Now, Absalom did not know that Hushai had attempted to go with David, and had gone back to Jerusalem at David’s request for the expressed purpose of countering the advice that Ahithophel would provide to Absalom (15:34).  So as far as Absalom would have been concerned, these words from Hushai, that were actually words of deception that were put in Hushai’s mouth by David, were simply further evidence that his plan had been successful, and that the God of Israel was favoring him in his efforts. 

As one reads through this story (which seems to have a place of importance in the life of David and the history of Israel), it would be easy to conclude that even David himself seems to have been resigned to the possibility that Absalom’s exodus to kingship, and his own exile from the throne, was part of the Creator God’s will, as again, the promise to David was that he would have a dynasty on the throne.  The rule of Absalom most certainly fit within that framework.  To go along with that, David would have been none too surprised that this was part of his God’s judgment upon him for his failures as king (Uriah, Amnon).  Witness to this is that he has taken only mild measures to retain his position, involving Zadok, Abiathar, and Hushai in that effort. 

Thinking about this for a moment, when David employs Zadok and Abiathar (along with their sons) as spies, it is a bit of a perversion of their role (as priests) to represent the people before their God.  Nevertheless, this resignation is partly indicated (among other things that have already been explored) by the fact that David sends the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem, and his saying “If I find favor in the Lord’s sight He will bring me back and enable me to both see it and His dwelling place again” (15:25b).  That was said together with “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” (15:26).  Additionally, the words that David spoke in the wake of being cursed and assaulted (rocks thrown) by Shimei, only points to his understanding that all of this might very well have been his God’s will. 

So as was said, everything was going swimmingly for Absalom.  He had led his peaceful insurrection, and it has been accomplished by winning the hearts of the people.  In essence, according to the historic narrative of Israel, he was Moses and he was leading Israel in a new exodus movement with the Lord of Israel on his and their side.  Indeed, Absalom, if he would have been so inclined, could have stood before the people and said “just as the Lord fought for Israel in Egypt, rescuing a people by the acts of His mighty hand, so He has again fought for Absalom and Israel, delivering me to the throne of His people, by the singular working of His powerful, saving might.” 

Reinforcing such a thought, he has now even heard it said, by one of his father’s trusted servants, that he (Absalom) was anointed by both Israel’s Lord and the people.  To that point, any such mention of anointing (in the mold of Saul and David) had been completely absent from the narrative.  Upon this, his revolution was complete.  Absalom was king.  The covenant God was going to fulfill the promises to David through him.  Then, in the midst of this, the tide turned.  Everything changed.  Events began to unfold that would unravel Absalom’s victory.        

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.  

No One Knows The Hour (part 15)

While still in the Temple, Jesus says “The experts in the  law and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat.  Therefore pay attention to what they tell you to do and do it.  But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they teach” (Matthew 23:2-3).  The previously referenced Markan warning comes out with what comes next, as Jesus says “They do all their deeds to be seen by people, for they make their phylacteries wide and their tassels long.  They love the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces, and to have people call them ‘Rabbi.’…  And call no one your ‘father’ on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven” (23:5-7,9). 

When considering the fact that Jesus is saying all of these things at the Temple, which is understood to be the place where heaven and earth join together---the place where the realm of the Creator God’s dwelling and the realm of man’s dwelling meet, intersect, and overlap, Jesus’ contrast between earth and heaven takes on an interesting dimension that will be revisited at a later point in this study.  In addition, his talk of the calling of someone “father,” in juxtaposition to His sustained critique of the Temple authorities, while also going on to say “The greatest among you will be your servant.  And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (23:11-12), adds fuel to the critical, judging fire of His actions in the Temple and His words that follow that action.  Indeed, Jesus goes on to stoke those flames, providing stark contrast to the humble servant mentality when He says “But woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites!  You keep locking people out of the kingdom of heaven!  For you neither enter nor permit those trying to enter to go in” (23:13). 

When “kingdom of heaven” is placed on terra firma, rather than thinking of it as some place “out there,” while also tying in the conjoining thoughts of land and Temple, one rightly hears Jesus continuing His critique of the Temple authorities and their mis-use of the Creator God’s Temple.  Shortly thereafter, Jesus makes explicit mention of the Temple and their mis-use of it, still echoing Jeremiah in style if not in substance when He says “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the Temple is bound by nothing.  But whoever swears by the gold of the Temple is bound by the oath.’  Blind fools!  Which is greater, the gold or the Temple that makes the gold sacred?” (23:16-17)  In a mocking report of the words of the Temple authorities, Jesus informs his audience of what they say and then comments on it, saying “’Whoever swears by the altar is bound by nothing.  But if anyone swears by the gift on it he is bound by the oath.’  You are blind!  For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred?  So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it.  And whoever swears by the Temple swears by it and the one who dwells in it.  And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and the one who sits on it” (23:18-22). 

There is a fascinating and almost imperceptible movement that takes place from verses thirteen through twenty-two.  It is only with the Temple firmly in view that one is able to pick up on that movement.  In verse thirteen Jesus mentions the kingdom of heaven.  In verse sixteen He mentions the Temple.  In eighteen and nineteen, within the same movement of thought, He speaks of the altar.  Beginning in the twentieth verse, Jesus goes on to draw conclusions.  In verse twenty He again speaks of the altar.  In verse twenty-one He mentions the Temple.  In verse twenty-two He speaks of heaven and the throne of God. 

Through this entire sequence, Jesus has moved out of and back into the Temple.  As was said, this movement can only be seen if the Temple is kept in view, and it only comes together after hearing Him speak all the way to the end of the twenty-second verse.  When Jesus mentions the kingdom of heaven, He speaks of the holy of holies and the place in which the Ark of the Covenant is supposed to be resting (though it was not there at that time)---where the Creator God would come down to sit, as if on His throne, to dwell with His people.  By mentioning the Temple, He moves outside of the holy of holies to the holy place, for it is the holy place, which housed the holy of holies, that was thought of as the Temple proper.  Jesus then mentions the altar, which was positioned outside of the holy place in the Temple court.  In His conclusion He speaks of the altar that sits outside of the holy place, then the Temple (the holy place), and finally heaven and the throne of the Creator God, which is an unmistakable reference to the holy of holies and the throne-like lid of the Ark of the Covenant. 

In This Is Love (part 11)

In the first and third of the temptations of Jesus that are recorded in Luke, interestingly enough, Satan’s challenge is prefaced by the words “If you are the Son of God” (Luke 4:3,9).  So Satan’s challenges to Jesus ask to be understood and come within the context of whether or not He is the Son of God. 

These temptations, and the written record of these temptations, reflect upon a time at which a messiah is expected.  In popular comprehension, this messiah would be the son of God in that he would be Israel’s king, but in some circles he would also be the Son of God, in that many believed it to be the case that the Creator God would take human flesh upon Himself in order to personally intervene on behalf of His people, establishing Israel’s rule over the nations.  As Israel’s king therefore, this would mean that the Creator God, through His son, was going to establish His own physically present rule over the whole of the world. 

So when Satan tempts Jesus, it appears that what He is tempting Jesus to do is to take a shortcut to acclimation as king.  He could turn stone into bread (an allusion to Israel receiving manna in the wilderness), and with such a miraculous demonstration He prove Himself to be the messiah and therefore immediately hailed as king.  Such would be a reasonable expectation on the part of Satan, because as would come to be seen, when Jesus multiplies the loaves and the fishes, the people attempted to come and make Him king by force, which caused Jesus to quickly withdraw into isolation. 

It would seem that Jesus knew that there was only one way for Him to ascend to the throne, and ultimately only one way in which He would be recognized as the Messiah (along with all that would entail according to the expectations of a great number of His fellow citizens), and that was going to be the path of suffering on an altogether unlikely cross.  That, presumably, is why Jesus refutes Satan’s insistence to worship him in exchange for earthly rule, and why He also rejects the idea of putting His God to the test by casting Himself from the Temple for the purpose of forcing a miraculous rescue that would have the likely effect of an immediate elevation to the throne of Israel.  Apart from that, Jesus may not have been altogether confident that the covenant God would come to His rescue if he flung Himself from the pinnacle of the Temple, as such would not have been an exilic suffering in the mold of Israel into which their God would enter in to provide deliverance.   

What does this have to do with Adam?  Well, where Adam failed, Jesus succeeded.  When the serpent tempted Adam with being like the Creator God, Adam acceded to the temptation.  When Satan tempted Jesus (the second Adam) with the opportunity to show Himself forth as God ( being “like God” for all practical purposes), Jesus refused.  Subtle to be sure, but here in the wilderness Jesus destroyed a work of the devil.  By holding on to the fate of suffering, love was put on display. 

To further reinforce the congruity between Adam (son) and Jesus (Son) as presented through Jesus’ experience of wilderness temptations, Mark adds that Jesus was “with the wild animals” (1:13c).  Adam, according to the Genesis narrative, was given “rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth” (1:26b).   Additionally, the animals that had been created were brought before Adam “to see what he would name then, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.  So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field” (2:19b-20a).  Adam, the son of God before Jesus, was very much with the wild animals.  Perhaps this is why Mark, drawing from the son of God tradition that would have included Adam, makes what seems like a rather out of place insertion about Jesus being with the wild animals during His wilderness trials? 

Kingdom Of Peace (part 3 of 3)

Based on the scope of his analysis of what has been and is being wrought in and for the world through God’s faithful action, which will continue to be made manifest by His covenant people, we can surmise that the “grace in which we stand” is a way that Paul uses to refer to covenant standing.  This could be taken to refer to the gracious extension of the covenant to those previously excluded, which would fit nicely with what appears to be Paul’s identification of himself with Gentiles, but it can also just as easily be applicable to members of Israel, who are to be cognizant of the fact that, beginning with Abraham, they were also specially chosen by God through no effort or causation of their own (with this made explicit based on the words of God delivered to Israel through Moses).   

Regardless of applicability, the recognition of God’s grace rightly leads one to “rejoice in the hope of God’s glory” (5:2b).  This rejoicing in hope points us forward to the hope that is so profoundly expressed in the eighth chapter of Romans (which will fall outside of the scope of this study), while mention of God’s glory should call to mind the words of the third chapter and Paul’s insistence that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23).  We cannot overlook the importance of the “all” there, along with the continued use of “all,” as the statement is provided its context by the context of Gentile justification (gaining of covenant standing) through belief in Jesus. 

Jesus, having revealed the glory of God by being the first to rightly bear the divine image, not only reminds us of where and how we fall short of living up to what was intended by God for humanity, He also points the way and displays the means by which we too can be truly human and so reflect the glory of God into the world.  At the same time, as Paul draws conclusions from which he can build as he moves on to the next period of thoughtful reflection, these words from the beginning of chapter five draw on the fourth chapter, as Paul continues to root his talk of righteousness, peace, faith, and grace in Abrahamic sensibilities. 

It is Abraham’s loyalty to God that serves as the model, along with that of Jesus (which first mimics that of Abraham) of the believer’s loyalty to God, which we are able to demonstrate through loyalty to the words and ways of Jesus, as He has taken up His throne of all power and all authority.  More specific to Abraham and the fourth chapter, talk of “hope” and “God’s glory” remind us that Abraham believed with hope, against hope (4:18).  Can we not say that belief in a crucified and resurrected Lord, through which one enters into covenant with God, is also a hopeful belief against hope?  Abraham’s hope concerning the promise that had been spoken to him, which runs parallel with our belief in the Resurrection and the hope of resurrection in the same manner as that which was experienced by Jesus, redounds to God’s glory, just as was the case for Abraham, who “did not waver in unbelief about the promise of God but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God” (4:20). 

While we can certainly imagine Abraham glorifying God, we can just as easily make the case that it was Abraham’s lack of wavering, continuing in belief, that gave glory to God.  Regardless of what he saw, regardless of his age, regardless of his wife’s age, and regardless of all those things that could militate against his trusting in the promises of God concerning descendants, Abraham believed.  How can we make this application in the here and now?  As we believe in the Resurrection, so believing in Jesus (standing in covenant with God in the process and so standing in the line of descendants of Abraham and being positioned to share in the blessings promised to him), we believe that He was the first of those to be raised from the dead.  We believe that this portends another Resurrection. 

Regardless of that which we see around us, as evil seems to make its way in the world without fetters or restraints (though this is patently false), we believe that the kingdom of God has come, that Jesus is ruling, and that we participate in that kingdom, in its peace, and in its life.  We stand by faith and “rejoice in the hope of God’s glory,” trusting that, working through His loyal servants, He is bringing and going to bring His kingdom to full consummation and restore His creation as was promised and for which was hoped and expected by the prophets of old (with Jesus and the earliest believers operating with the same hope), such that “we also rejoice in sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance, character, and character, hope” (5:3-4).  By this, we are allowed to imitate our Lord, so learning how to represent Him in the world.         

Solomon & Shimei (part 2 of 3)

Solomon, at what seems like the first opportunity to do so, does indeed deal with Shimei.  Immediately after reading about Joab’s execution, we find that “Next the king summoned Shimei and told him, ‘Build yourself a house in Jerusalem and live there---but you may not leave there to go anywhere!  If you ever do leave and cross the Kidron Valley, know for sure that you will certainly die!  You will be responsible for your own death!’” (1 Kings 2:36-37)  Interestingly, Solomon puts the onus on Shimei for his own welfare and survival.  It almost seems as if Solomon is reluctant to carry out his father’s orders against Shimei.  So mercifully, as would befit a peaceful man, Solomon converts Jerusalem into something akin to Shimei’s personal city of refuge (though he had not killed anyone).  As long as Shimei stays in Jerusalem, no harm will come to him. 

Shimei responds as we might expect, especially in the wake of Solomon having had his own brother executed, along with the general of Israel’s army.  He says, “My master the king’s proposal is acceptable.  Your servant will do as you say” (2:38a).  This is followed by a note that informs us that “Shimei lived in Jerusalem for a long time” (2:38b).  That period of time, we quickly learn, was three years (2:39).  Shimei’s response to Solomon’s proposition reminds us of his response to the returning David.  In that situation, he had said, “Don’t think badly of me, my lord, and don’t recall the sin of your servant on the day when you, my lord the king, left Jerusalem!  Please don’t call it to mind!  For I, your servant, know that I sinned, and I have come today as the first of all the house of Joseph to come down to meet my lord the king” (2 Samuel 19:19-20).  David’s recorded response to Shimei was “You won’t die” (19:23). 

Shimei, above all things, seems to have been willing to follow kingly authority, as evidenced by his words that demonstrated support of an Absalom that had peacefully (and justifiably) taken the throne of Israel, of a David that was returning to the seat of power, and of a Solomon that was now seated as Israel’s king.  Solomon’s knowledge of David’s two encounters with Shimei, the fact that he had probably been a loyal subject of David, and the lingering promise by David that Shimei would not die in relation to the events related to Absalom, likely account for Solomon’s reluctance to deal harshly with Shimei.  In fact, what we can see is that Solomon constructs an entirely new basis for his dealings with Shimei, seemingly unrelated to what has gone on before.  Solomon strikes a deal with Shimei in relation to not leaving Jerusalem.  If he were to leave Jerusalem, it is then that he would die; and his death would be for that reason alone. 

Three years after this agreement is struck, two of Shimei’s servants ran away.  “So Shimei got up, saddled his donkey, and went to… find his servants” (2:40a).  To accomplish this, he left Jerusalem.  He left what was his city of refuge.  “When Solomon was told that Shimei had gone from Jerusalem… and had then returned, the king summoned Shimei and said to him, ‘You will recall that I made you take an oath by the Lord, and I solemnly warned you, “If you ever leave and go anywhere, know for sure that you will certainly die.”  You said to me, “The proposal is acceptable; I agree to it.”  Why then have you broken the oath you made before the Lord and disobeyed the order I gave you?’” (2:41-43)  As we can see, Solomon is keeping his dealings with Shimei completely within the context of the oath between he and Shimei.  Though Solomon only entered into an agreement with Shimei because of David’s desire to see Shimei killed, Shimei’s physical fate is not bound up with his “mistreatment” of David.  In effect, Solomon is demonstrating that Shimei has sinned against him, in willful violation of their covenant, and is therefore deserving of an agreed upon sentence of death owing to that violation, and nothing more. 

Though Solomon does add “You are well aware of the way you mistreated my father David” (2:44a), he adds that “The Lord will punish you for what you did” (2:44b).  With these words, Solomon indicates a personal disinterest in what had taken place between Shimei and David, leaving God to arbitrate that case.  He then goes on to say, in further reinforcement of the idea that the judgment that is about to be passed has to do with him and him alone (unrelated to David), that “King Solomon will be empowered” (2:45a).  With that, Solomon, reflecting on the covenantal promise made to David in specific and initial reference to him (Solomon), says “David’s dynasty will endure permanently before the Lord” (2:45b).  The very fact of his rule was evidence of that empowerment, and that in him, the promise to David was established.  Solomon did not need Davidic sanction to thusly deal with Shimei; and indeed, the author of this history goes on to write, “So Solomon,” after ordering Shimei’s execution, “took firm control of the kingdom” (2:46b).    

David Spares Saul (part 2 of 2)

At the close of this first encounter with Saul, which saw David deliver him from certain death by his own hand, Saul says, “The Lord delivered me into your hand, but you did not kill me.  Now if a man finds his enemy, does he send him on his way in good shape?...  Now look, I realize that you will in fact be king and that the kingdom of Israel will be established in your hand.  So now swear to me in the Lord’s name that you will not kill my descendants after me or destroy my name from the house of my father” (1 Samuel 24:18b-19a,20-21). 

Casting our thoughts rearward, again, to the plagues and the exodus and to Moses’ encounters with Pharaoh, we look to chapter twelve of the book of Exodus and to the words of Pharaoh after the carrying out of the plague of death against the firstborn.  There, “Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron in the night and said, ‘Get up, get out from among my people, both you and the Israelites!  Go, serve the Lord as you have requested!’” (12:31)  With these words, Pharaoh, like Saul, is admitting to the fact of the Lord’s power.  Pharaoh, like Saul, can see that he is being spared, though it is certainly not beyond the power of Israel’s God, at the word of Moses, to take his life.  Pharaoh realizes that Israel must be freed, and that they will be established as a nation, and that Moses will be their king.  Pharaoh then gives voice to a statement echoed by Saul, saying “take your flocks and your herds, just as you have requested.  But bless me also” (12:32).  Saul asked for David’s blessing and mercy upon him and his family, as did Pharaoh to Moses. 

We can stay here in Exodus, moving forward to learn that “When it was reported to the king of Egypt that the people had fled, the heart of Pharaoh and his servants was turned against the people, and the king and his servants said, ‘What in the world have we done?  For we have released the people of Israel from serving us!’  Then he prepared his chariots and his army with him…  the lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he chased after the Israelites” (14:5-6,8a).  Israel had been rescued from foreign subjugation, but their former oppressors wanted to re-subjugate them, turning exodus back to exile.  How is this related to David?  It is related in that the sentiment of the words that Saul spoke to David, which seemed to be words of peace and release, in recognition of the Lord’s faithfulness to David (like those of Pharaoh to Moses), seemed to be short-lived.  A short time after the cave incident, “The Ziphites came to Saul at Gibeah and said, ‘Isn’t David hiding on the hill of Hakilah near Jeshimon?’” (26:1)  Rather than recalling David’s mercy and the Lord’s faithfulness to David, “Saul arose and went down to the desert of Ziph, accompanied by three thousand select men of Israel, to look for David in the desert of Ziph” (26:2).  Following a report, Saul’s heart is turned.  This sounds remarkably like Pharaoh’s reaction to the departure of the people, after his previous recognition of the power and faithfulness of Israel’s God. 

Pharaoh reversed his assertion and set out after Moses and Israel, and Saul would do the same.  What happens?  David confirms that Saul is pursuing him again, reversing the exodus, previously granted by Saul, from the subjugating and exile extending pursuit, but he does not respond in either fear or anger.  Like Moses at the Red Sea, when learning that Pharaoh and Egypt were once again in pursuit in order to subjugate and bring Israel back to exile, David knows that the Lord is fighting his battles for him.  He says, “Who will go down with me to Saul in the camp?” (26:6b)  Naturally, this was not for the purpose that his men expected, which they hoped was to kill Saul and thereby end their exile, but rather, for David to take another opportunity to make yet another point to Saul, and function, yet again, as a deliverer in the eyes of Saul, Saul’s men, his own men, and ultimately all of Israel as well. 

When Saul is approached while sleeping, the man that went with David, Abishai, said, “Today God has delivered your enemy into your hands” (26:8b).  Quite rightly, he speaks of God’s blessing upon His faithful servant, David.  David, however, does not necessarily focus on what God has delivered to him, but rather, God’s delivering of him from his own exile, and with being a deliverer, and a light, and a reflection of the glory of the God that has anointed him to be his ambassador in this world.  It appears that David does not see deliverance coming through the striking down of his enemy, but rather, in loving his enemy, and sparing his life again, in what is going to be, for David, because his own exile and subjugation will continue for the forseeable future, a costly act of sacrificial love. 

“David said to Abishai, ‘Don’t kill him!  Who can extend his hand against the Lord’s chosen one and remain guiltless?’” (26:9)  Pharaoh had attempted to do this, and things had gone poorly for him.  David, of course, was not in the same position as Pharaoh (who was not the Lord’s chosen one), as it is Saul that, as far as David is concerned, still stands in that role.  He said, “may the Lord prevent me from extending my hand against the Lord’s chosen one!” (26:11)  David continued to rely on the faithfulness of his God, choosing to endure hardship and suffering, rather than enter in to the establishment of his kingdom by raising his sword against the one that was persecuting and subjugating him.  He trusted that he would eventually be lifted from his exile and set upon his throne, with the requisite glory and honor and dominion that would be attendant upon that enthronement.  In this particular instance, we see David bearing the image of the One from heaven.