A Kingdom of Strength and Mercy

2 Samuel 8-10

            If we placed David’s conquests on a map, we would find out that he extended the borders of Israel beyond anything anyone had imagined. Aram is modern day Syria, and Moab and Ammon are modern day Jordan. Just glancing at a modern map suggests David extended Israel’s reach by about 600%!

            Reading other historical sources helps explain how this is possible. Roughly in David’s lifetime both Egypt and the Hittites (modern day Turkey) had fallen on to hard times. And Babylon wasn’t a great power then, either. North, south, and east, there was a power vacuum, and David stepped into this vacuum, taking advantage of the relative weakness of his neighbors.

            In terms of power and influence, the combined reigns of David and Solomon were a golden age for Israel. And, yes, that show of power included a great deal of brutality, too.

            Yet, David is also a man of mercy. He had promised Jonathan that he would take care of the latter’s family, and in chapter 9, he does. Understand that in most of human history, one would have gotten rid of a former king’s family altogether through execution or exile, otherwise they would have been a constant threat around which the opposition might coalesce. (Earlier this year, I read a history of the Byzantine Empire, and the number of times a former ruler came back to cause problems was mind-boggling!) But David takes that risk and welcomes Mephibosheth to his table and, in effect, to his household.

            It’s a bit of a whiplash effect: David is brutal towards some enemies, but towards another he is gracious as the Lord Himself. I think if we’re looking for an example for our lives, we want to head for the latter reaction. After all, that’s what Jesus did, praying for those who crucified Him, and it’s what Jesus commanded (Matthew 5:44). In Christ, even those whom we might regard as enemies are forgiven by His blood and we do well to see them as the objects of God’s mercy.

The Covenant with David

2 Samuel 7

            Here is the third great covenant of the Old Testament. The first one the Lord made with Abraham: it was an unconditional promise of God’s blessing. Hundreds of years later, the Lord made a covenant with all of Israel at Sinai. That covenant was of a different sort; it was conditional and many of its blessings depended on Israel’s obedience to the Lord. This third covenant, the promise that David’s throne will endure, is not explicitly called a covenant (at least as far as I can tell), but it is similar to the one made with Abraham, namely, it is unconditional. The Lord recognizes that David’s descendants may not be faithful, that they may need to be punished (v. 14), but He promises that the throne will endure anyway.

            A quick word of ‘forever’ in the Old Testament. The usual phrase for ‘forever’ is more literally ‘for the age,’ or ‘a very long time.’ It’s hard to know when the phrase should be translated ‘forever’ or ‘for a very long time’ or even if the intention is ‘for the whole of this fallen age…’

            I bring the translational bit up because, of course, from a certain point of view, David’s throne does not endure forever. By 586 BC, the nation was carried off into exile in Babylon. When they return some 70 years later they are led by Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel. Zerubbabel is almost always called the governor Judah. I can’t find a place where he is referred to as a king or even a descendant of David. 1 Chronicles 3 identifies Shealtiel as a son of Jehoiachin and therefore of the line of David, but the whole idea of Zerubbabel as a Davidic king is really downplayed.

            For a Christian, the forever aspect of this promise is found in Jesus. Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are there in both of Jesus’ genealogies (Luke 3 and Matthew 1), giving Jesus credentials as the son of David, a theme that runs through the Gospels. Paul declares Jesus a descendant of David according to the flesh. And now Jesus is the one who sits at the right hand of the Father, a phrase denoting kingly rule. So, in Jesus, the Lord fulfilled both the covenant to Abraham (that Abraham’s descendant would bring blessing to all peoples) and to David (because He is the heir of David who will never die; cf. Acts 2).

            God keeps His promises. Sometimes not in the ways that we would expect, to be sure. (I don’t imagine David thinking about the promise in the way that God fulfilled it!) Certainly on His own timeline. But God keeps His promises, and we are saved by His faithfulness.

David Brings the Ark to Jerusalem

2 Samuel 6

            David’s enthusiasm stands out. He is determined to bring the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem. And his joy overflows; there is a band and David dances so vigorously that Michal suggests he was in danger of exposing himself! David offers sacrifices every six steps of the final leg, and that’s a lot of sacrifices! (I read estimates of everything from 3 to 12 miles for the last leg!) So, point one: oh, to have that kind of joy in the presence of the Lord! The ark of the covenant represented the saving presence of the Lord among His people, and we experience the same thing every week when we hear His Word and receive Jesus’ body and blood at church. Here is the saving presence of God in our day! “Come into His presence with thanksgiving” (Psalm 100:4)!

            On closer examination, there’s some irregularities going on with the ark. It’s transported on a cart, not carried by its poles on the shoulders of the Levites. It may or not be covered. There’s no mention of the tabernacle; David pitches a tent, but where are the rest of the implements, where is the altar, where is the process for sacrifice? Finally, why is David making sacrifices? That’s exactly the kind of thing that got Saul in trouble with the Lord! I don’t have great answers. We can speculate that the rest of the tabernacle and its furniture were destroyed when the Philistine captured Shiloh in 1 Samuel 4. We know that Saul killed dozens of priests at Nod (1 Samuel 22). It’s just possible that the true religion of Israel had been almost completely snuffed out in the last 40-60 years of the story. So, second point: we should recognize how fragile the faith can be—both personally and congregationally. It’s important to nurture it—both personally and congregationally—through attendance on Word and Sacrament.

            Finally, a political note. David had demanded the return of his first wife, Michal, Saul’s daughter, but it seems to have been a blatantly political move. He couldn’t have Saul’s daughter out there potentially having babies, potentially raising little claimants on his throne. He needed her connection to Saul’s family, but he couldn’t risk her offspring. The personal toll comes clear when Michal derides David for his ‘unkingly’ behavior, and we have the note, “She had no children to the day of her death.” It seems David simply banished her to the harem and never had contact with her again. (She’s never mentioned by name in the Bible again.) I have no third point: I just find the palace intrigues interesting.

Jerusalem

2 Samuel 5

            The conquest of Jerusalem was a godsend for David. In Judges we read that both Benjamin and Judah had warred against it, but the city was never under either of their control. It was situated on a hill, and its walls made it a formidable defensive position. (That’s why David had to conquer it via its water supply.) So, here was a stronghold, located right between Judah and Benjamin, a neutral site—a perfect place for the capital, a place from which David could defend and unite the kingdom.

            Additionally, Jerusalem seems to have had ancient spiritual connections, too. Abraham met Melchizedek there and made offerings to the Lord with him (Genesis 14), so there was some connection to the worship of God. Later (Genesis 21), Abraham went to Mt. Moriah to sacrifice is his son, Isaac. There is a tradition that Mt. Moriah was one of the hills which Jerusalem encompassed (1 Chronicles 3:1).

            Altogether, then, politically, strategically, and spiritually, Jerusalem was the ideal place from which a king could rule.

Securing the Kingdom

2 Samuel 3-4

            Abner had clearly been the power behind the throne among Saul’s forces. To read 2 Samuel 3:6, he may have been planning a coup. At some point, Ish-Bosheth must have wondered, “Am I king or not?” Hence, the question about the king’s concubine. (Sleeping with a wife or concubine was widely understood to be part of claiming kingship.) Ish-Bosheth was trying to create a case against Abner. So, Abner defected and began negotiating an end of hostilities.

            Things are complicated by David’s general, Joab. Abner had killed Joab’s brother, Asahel, in battle, and now Joab plotted his revenge. The facts that Abner had tried to dissuade Asahel from his pursuit and that Abner had killed him in self-defense make Joab’s motivations all the more unseemly. In fact, Joab seems to be acting as much to preserve his own place as commander of David’s army than any truly personal reason. Joab murders Abner under the cover of peace. David, for his part, is livid. He mourns Abner with a full state funeral and disavows the actions of his general.

            In chapter 4, then, two of Ish-Bosheth’s men assassinate their king and bring his severed head to David, probably expecting a reward for destroying this usurper to the throne. David, as we might expect, sees things differently.

            Now, as we’ve seen already in David’s complicated relationship with Saul, we can explain these things in two ways. First, we could see that David really benefits from these two deaths. The leader of the rebel army and the rebels’ titular leader are both dead. There will be no more challenges from that quarter. This will make David’s assuming the throne of all Israel much easier. Under this scenario, it’s easy to see David feigning outrage and grief, but secretly smiling that things are finally breaking his way. The alternative is that David truly sought peace with Abner and truly considered Ish-Bosheth a mere shill of Abner’s designs.

            As I’ve said before, I think we’re supposed to think the latter of David, that he truly is a man after the Lord’s heart, truly loving his enemies as God in Christ loves His. But let’s be honest: life in a fallen world is complicated. Sometimes another person’s bad behavior brings us benefits. We don’t rejoice in the bad behavior; but we don’t reject the benefits either. Again, sometimes someone else’s loss is to our advantage. I hope we wouldn’t rejoice in their loss (I feel like the 9^th and 10^th Commandments come into play there), but would we reject the gain? In the case of David, perhaps this is also the hand of God, co-opting the wickedness of humans to bring about His plans and purposes, working through these sinful men to make David the undisputed king of Israel. It’s hard to see the Lord soiled with the deeds of sinful men, but very often that’s exactly the quiet, behind-the-scenes, bringing-good-out-of-evil way that He works.

The Death of Saul and Its Consequences

2 Samuel 1-2

            Last week’s readings ended with Saul taking his own life on Mount Gilboa. Today, we read how David received that news. An Amalekite, that disreputable people we have been bumping into since Exodus, appears at Ziklag and tells David, “Saul asked me to finish him off and I did.” That conflicts with 1 Samuel 31. It is possible, I suppose, that Saul had mortally wounded himself and that this Amalekite administered the coup de grace. But more likely, he’s just a corpse-raider who had the good fortune to stumble upon the body of the dead king. Now he's thinking David will provide him a big reward. But David’s response is to have the man executed and to compose a lament to Saul and Jonathan.

            The lament is beautiful. David coins the phrase, “How the mighty have fallen!” He mourns that “the glory of Israel lies slain” (in the older translations; in the NIV it’s ‘a gazelle lies slain,’ not as poetic to me…). He eulogizes that they were loved and admired, that Jonathan was to him like a brother.

            Some commentators want to make this look like only so much PR, that David is not really sorry to see Saul go, because, honestly, this is good news for David. But I think that misunderstands things. First, you can recognize that someone else’s misfortune is good for you and still feel bad for the misfortune (for example, someone with seniority on you at work quits for health reasons—you’re next in line, but you still don’t wish debilitating sickness on anyone). Second, this is part of the portrayal of David as patiently waiting for the Lord to deliver the kingdom to him, genuinely loving Jonathan, and genuinely respecting Saul, or at least his position. I think in some ways we have David acting here in a genuinely Christ-like way: he is loving his enemy like himself, just as Jesus prayed for the forgiveness of those who crucified Him. This seems a particularly effective instance of loving one’s enemies. I mean Saul has now spent years chasing David around the countryside, trying really hard to kill him. If Saul isn’t David’s enemy, no one is! Yet, here he is genuinely moved at Saul’s death.

            After this moving scene, David is anointed king over Judah, which had always been the largest and the strongest of the tribes. There appears to some rivalry between Judah and the other tribes, because they unit behind Saul’s heir, Ish-bosheth., and civil war breaks out. This war will last some 7 years. (There’s a chronology question here, because 2 Samuel 2:10 says that Ish-bosheth reigned two years. Probably that means that Ish-bosheth took several years to establish himself as the legitimate successor to Saul and that his two-year reign coincides with the end of David’s reign in Hebron. The name Ish-Bosheth means, “man of shame,” so it’s just possible that he wasn’t a legitimate son, adding depth to the explanation.)

            A civil war is bad enough, but a personal vendetta between the commanders of the opposing armies always adds drama! Stay tuned for the rest of that story tomorrow!

Thoughts on the End of 1 Samuel

1 Samuel 30-31

            A number of points in these two chapters. First, a historical note: I thought that Saul had exterminated the Amalekites? Where did these Amalekites come from then? Here I think we have to think of the Amalekites as a tribal people, scattered and wandering. Tribal peoples don’t always live altogether. So, we have to assume that Saul destroyed the largest of the tribes and that this is a smaller tribe that has now joined itself with other tribes.

            Second, a royal note: I love how David insists that all of his men will have a share in the plunder. Jesus tells a parable of a man who hires workers in the morning, noon, and even late afternoon, and pays them all the same way. Some think they deserve more, but the master reminds them he paid them what he promised. It’s a kingly, even divine thing; it’s certainly a matter of grace, to share the blessings. There’s something significant there that this is what God does for us: blesses us all the same.

            Third, a personal note: I admit, I read yesterday’s readings today, and 1 Samuel 30:4-6 really struck me. They wept aloud until they had no strength left to weep. I was like that many years ago when my father died. I have ministered to people who have suffered like that. I have felt that way myself—just plain hopeless. Then there’s the statement, “But David found strength in the Lord his God.” That sounds like a magic pill, and I wish it was as simple as that. It’s not. When I’ve gone through those times, it has been a struggle to pray, it has been a struggle to submit to the Word. But one has to keep on “inquiring of the Lord,” seeking His Word, casting one’s struggles on Him. For David, the resolution was pretty quick; for us, the resolution may not be. But finding strength in the Lord and in His Word remains the same.

            Finally: at the end of his life, Saul is still trying to control everything, even the manner of his death. First, he asks his armorbearer to kill him; then, he commits suicide. Saul’s tragedy is complete. The only glimmer of good news is that the men of Jabesh Gilead remember that Saul’s first act as king was to save them in their trouble, and they rescue his body from the desecrations of the Philistines. It’s a reminder that ultimately many things are out of our control, and it draws us back to my previous paragraph, that casting ourselves on God’s mercy is our only course.