Tag Archives: David

01/24/23

The Sword Shall Not Depart

© pamela4578 | 123rf.com

King David had his ups and downs when family and politics mixed. As a youth, he defeated Goliath in single combat and came to the attention of Saul, the king. As he gained notoriety and fame, he married the daughter of King Saul, Michal, with the bride-price of a hundred Philistine foreskins; David brought two hundred (1 Samuel 18:25-27). When Saul became publicly intent on killing David and David fled into the wilderness (with Michal’s help), Saul gave his daughter to another man to be his wife. After Saul was killed in battle and David became king, Michal was returned to him. But she ridiculed David for dancing before the Lord and as a consequence she was childless (2 Samuel 6:16-23).

Robert Bergen noted in his commentary on 2 Samuel that an audience knowledgeable of the Torah would see Michal’s childlessness as a curse against a disobedient wife, and not as evidence of David’s failure to sleep with her. “Michal’s lack of faith would mean that the house of Saul would be forever separate from Israel’s eternal royal dynasty.” But David had other wives and while he reigned as king in Hebron, he had six sons by six different women: Amnon, Chileab, Absalom, Adonijah, Shephatiah and Ithream (2 Samuel 3:2-5). Solomon, who would be king after David, was born later in Jerusalem, along with Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Eliada and Eliphlet (2 Samuel 5:14), and the unnamed son born to Bathsheba before Solomon. So, how was it that Solomon, and not one of his older half-brothers could become the king of Israel after David?

Given the custom of primogeniture, Solomon would have several older male siblings with, perhaps, a perceived stronger claim to the throne—particularly those who were born in Hebron. According to The Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, the term primogeniture refers to the exclusive right of inheritance that belonged to the firstborn male. However, if the firstborn died, the next oldest living male did not automatically receive that exclusive right. Exceptions could be made by the family patriarch, who in this case was David, if he chose to do so.

Applied to David’s family tree, Amnon had the right of primogeniture. But he was killed by Absalom, apparently in revenge for Amnon’s rape of Tamar, Absalom’s sister (2 Samuel 13:22; 28). It may also have been politically motivated. Chileab, the second born so to David, may have died in infancy, which would have then made Absalom next in line to be king after Amnon. David’s favoritism towards Absalom, even after his assassination of Amnon, seems to suggest Absalom was David’s initial choice to rule after him. However, Absalom’s attempt to usurp the throne from his father, and Joab’s killing of Absalom, eliminated him (2 Samuel 18:14-15).

That left Adonijah as the next in line, but it seems David exercised his right as the family patriarch and said Solomon, not Adonijah, would be king after him. Apparently, this did not sit well with Adonijah, because when David was old and advanced in years, he aligned himself with Joab and Abiathar the priest, and declared himself king. But this coup did not happen. Nathan and Bathsheba told David about Adonijah’s plans. He affirmed his promise to Bathsheba that her son Solomon would be king after him and arranged for a clear transfer of power to Solomon (1 Kings 1:5-48).

Because of his failed attempt to become king, Adonijah was afraid Solomon would kill him. But Solomon said if Adonijah proved himself to be a worthy person, nothing would happen to him. Yet Solomon warned in 1 Kings 1:52, “If wickedness in found in him, he shall die.” Adonijah did not prove himself to be a worthy person and tried to gain Abishag, David’s last concubine, as his wife. Moreover, he tried to draw Bathsheba into his scheme by petitioning her to make the request of Solomon. Bathsheba agreed to go to Solomon and speak in behalf of Adonijah.

Some commentators have misjudged Bathsheba believing she was “rather stupid,” with the implications of Adonijah’s request for Abishag escaping her. But in his commentary, Paul House reasoned that Bathsheba did realize he was trying to use her. Whoever possessed the former king’s harem, controlled the kingdom, as Ahithophel counseled Absalom to do is his failed coup against David (2 Samuel 16:21-22). She knew Solomon would see Adonijah’s deceitful request as part of another attempt to gain the throne. Solomon saw Adonijah’s gambit for what it was and had him put to death for his wickedness (1 Kings 2:13-25).

Bathsheba was not a stupid, naïve woman. She was the daughter of Eliam as well as the wife of Uriah (2 Samuel 11:3). Eliam seems to have been the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite (2 Samuel 23:34), meaning she was Ahithophel’s granddaughter. Ahithophel was originally an advisor to David, but then aligned himself with Absalom in his failed coup (2 Samuel 16:23). Could this reversal be attributed to Ahithophel seeking revenge against David because he committed adultery with his granddaughter and then had her husband, Uriah killed in his attempt to cover it up? As prophesied by Nathan, the actions of Amnon, Absalom and Adonijah seemed to all be “part of the evil raised up from David’s own house”:

“‘Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.’” (2 Samuel 12:10-12)

Although God forgave David, there were ongoing consequences for his hard heart and willful, deceitful actions with Bathsheba and Uriah. Like life in a modern soap opera, the sword did not depart from David’s house. Sincere repentance does not necessarily expunge the consequences of our sin.

03/3/20

Unveiling the Suffering Servant

© niti | stockfresh.com

The Pharisees and Sadducees were playing a game of “Stump the Prophet” with Jesus. They tried unsuccessfully to catch him with a question about paying taxes, and then one on marriage and the resurrection. Each time Jesus astonished them with his answer. Then Jesus turned the tables and asked them a question about the Messiah, the Christ. Referring to Psalm 110:1, Jesus asked them if the Messiah was the son of David, how could David call him Lord? They couldn’t answer him, with Matthew saying, “And no one was able to answer him a word.”

110 A Psalm of David 

1 The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” 2 The Lord sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your enemies! 3 Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power, in holy garments; from the womb of the morning, the dew of your youth will be yours. 4 The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” 5 The Lord is at your right hand; he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath. 6 He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses; he will shatter chiefs over the wide earth. 7 He will drink from the brook by the way; therefore he will lift up his head.

In his commentary on the Psalms, Tremper Longman said Psalm 110 was a royal hymn, delivered at the temple by a prophet, as part of the ceremony to a newly minted king. It contains two divine oracles (vv. 1, 4) directed to the king (Adonai, Lord) from God (Yahweh, Lord) In both verses, the use of Lord translated the Hebrew word, Yahweh. Some translations, like the ESV, renders Lord in small caps print to signify Yahweh. The second use of Lord in verse 1 translated the Hebrew word Adonai.

Longman further noted how God was envisioned as a Warrior, subduing the enemies of the Lord (Adonai) king—symbolically making them the king’s footstool. “The picture of the enemies as the king’s footstool points to the king’s dominance and control and the enemies’ humiliation.” Sitting at God’s right hand was symbolic of a position of honor and power. The IVP Background Commentary: Old Testament said an armed warrior sitting to the right of a king or lord would have the privilege of defending him, with his shield in his left hand and his sword in his right hand. “For a king to put someone there would be an affirmation of trust and therefore honor.” However, when the Lord takes up his position at someone’s right hand (as in verse 5), he is in a position to offer defense with his shield.

Through his warring activity, God (Yahweh) will extend the king’s rule, symbolized by his scepter, from Zion. Zion was the stronghold of the Jebusites captured by David (2 Samuel 5:7) and renamed the “city of David.” The Lexham Bible Dictionary said the significance of Zion developed over time. It became the Temple Mount, the place where God was present with his people (Psalm 78:68-69); it referred to Jerusalem more generally (Psalm 51:18); and could even designate the people of Israel as a whole (Isaiah 51:16).

Then with an interesting twist, the Lord (Yahweh) declares the king will be a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek (110:4). Christian tradition would come to embrace Melchizedek as a precursor to Christ. The writer of Hebrews developed this connection in chapter 5, quoting Psalm 110:4 in 5:6, and then saying in 5:9-10: “And being made perfect, he [Jesus] became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.”

Notice in verse 5, it is the Lord (Adonai) who is at your right hand, “protecting him and fighting in his behalf.” The Hebrew word adonai usually refers to men, as when Sarah laughed to herself (Genesis 18:12), saying: “After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?” If that is the way adonai is understood here, then verses 5-7 in Psalm 110 would be seen as affirming the armed warrior sitting to the right of his Lord (Yahweh), defending him. But here, there is a particular grammatical construction (o;ădōnā[y]), that always refers to God, according to Robert Alden in the Theological Word Book of the Old Testament. Adonai appears in this form more than 300 times, mostly in Psalms (as here), Lamentations and the latter prophets.

So, this changes who is doing the defending, the shattering of kings and chiefs, the executing of judgment in verses 5-7. It is the Lord (God), not a human lord (adonai). With this understanding, the Lord God is now taking up the role of defending (“The Lord [Yahweh] is at your right hand”), and becomes a fulfillment of verse 1, where unequivocally, it is the Lord (Yahweh), who will make the enemies of the Lord (Adonai), a footstool. If the use of adonai is misunderstood as referring to a human lord here, it can lead to the expectation of the Messiah as one who would restore Israel.

By the time Jesus was being questioned in Matthew 22, Psalm 110 was understood by the Pharisees to be referring to the Messiah, who they thought would restore Israel to its golden age. Interestingly, the psalm is cited more often than any other Old Testament passage (verse 1 in Acts 2:34; 1 Corinthians 15:25; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:13; 1 Peter 3:22; and verse 4 in Hebrews 5:6, 7:17, 7:21). When Jesus cites this verse (in Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42) he argues that the Messiah is superior to David, rather than subordinate, as the Pharisees believed. When David says God (Yahweh) spoke to my Lord, he was referring to someone he thought was greater than himself.

According to Leon Morris in his commentary, Matthew regards Psalm 110 as messianic, since “it teaches something about the Messiah who would come in due course and is not to be confined to statements about David.” The prophecy referred to the Messiah as sitting on the right hand of God, a place of honor. And while he sits there, God will defeat his enemies. But what about the unanswerable question, unanswerable on the Pharisee’s premises, “how is he his son?” Morris suggested Jesus was reinterpreting what the coming Messiah would be:

Jesus’ contemporaries seem to have thought of “the Son of David” as a Messiah like David, one who would sit on David’s throne, make warlike conquests as David did, and in general be David all over again. Jesus rejected that idea. “At the very least Jesus declares the freedom of the Messiah to establish the Kingdom by another path than the political and military methods of David. The Messiah can be and will be the Suffering Servant rather than the military conqueror and earthly king.”

It was widely accepted at the time that the golden age for the Jews was in antiquity, and historically it had been downhill since then. So culturally, the great king David was held to be greater than his descendants. So, if the Messiah was to be one of those descendants, then on Pharisaic terms, he had to be inferior to David. Yet David speaks of him as “Lord,” with the implication that the Messiah must be greater. Again, listen to Morris:

There was a widespread idea that the Messiah was “the Son of David,” and that meant for first-century Jews that he would be someone in David’s mold. They recalled that David had been a mighty warrior and that in his day Israel’s conquests had been extensive. But Jesus was not that sort of Messiah. For him being Messiah meant being a teacher, and being a redeemer, one who would die for others, not one who would head up great armies and slaughter people. By drawing attention to a defect in the way the Pharisees understood the relationship of David to David’s Son, Jesus was encouraging his hearers to think again about what Messiah meant.

So, the exchange was not simply an exercise in debating skills; or Jesus spinning the game of Stump the Prophet back against the Pharisees and Sadducees. He illustrated how the common belief that the coming Messiah would return Israel to their golden age was a mistaken belief. Instead, he urged his audience to change their understanding of the Messiah—to that of a suffering Servant, rather than a military conqueror and earthly king.

10/4/16

Political Pot Stirring

© Hofmeester | stockfresh.com

© Hofmeester | stockfresh.com

The account of David and Bathsheba is one of the better-known stories in the Bible. And like a modern soap opera, it tells of adultery, deception and cover up, murder and exposure. Ultimately, there were ripple effects from it that would tear David’s family and even the nation of Israel apart. The Ewing family from the TV show Dallas comes to mind when I think about the schemes, plots and counter plots that occurred. And when you look closely, there’s even a character who could go toe-to-toe with J.R. Ewing in terms of his cunning and deviousness—Jonadab.

Before we meet Jonadab, let me give a recap of the David and Bathsheba story from 2 Samuel 11 and 12. King David was walking on the roof of his house in the cool of the evening when he saw a beautiful woman bathing. He sent someone to find out who she was, and was told she was Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite. She was the daughter of one of his best fighters (2 Samuel 23:34) and the wife of another man from his elite guard (2 Samuel 23:39). In addition, her grandfather, Ahithophel, was one of David’s respected advisors (1 Chronicles 27:34). Bathsheba was a woman of influence.

David stupidly slept with her, just after she had purified herself from her menstrual cycle (1 Samuel 11:4). This meant two things. She was not pregnant when David slept with her; and he did so when she was most likely to become pregnant. When Bathsheba discovered she was pregnant, she sent word to David.

His scheme to cover up their adultery was simple. He had Uriah sent to him as a messenger to report on the siege against the Ammonites in Rabbah. Afterwards he encouraged Uriah to go to his house and “wash his feet”, which is a polite way of suggesting that Uriah sleep with his wife. David even provided a present to help set the mood. But Uriah didn’t cooperate. Instead he slept at the door of the king’s house with the servants (2 Samuel 11:9).

When David heard this, he asked Uriah why he didn’t avail himself of the opportunity to be with his wife. Robert Bergen in his commentary suggested this could have been a thinly veiled attack on Uriah’s virility, something like this: “What’s wrong with you that you didn’t take advantage of the opportunity to sleep with your wife?” Bathsheba must have been really confused to have David’s present show up at her home, but not have Uriah come with it. But David had a “plan B.”

David invited Uriah to feast with him before returning to the battle. He encouraged Uriah’s drinking to the point of getting him drunk, but Uriah still would not go and sleep with his wife. So David gave him a sealed message to give to Joab, the commander of the army. The message Uriah carried was his death warrant. David ordered Joab to put Uriah at the head of a suicide attack on Rabbah. Then when the fighting was at its peak, withdraw and let Uriah be killed. Plan C worked.

When the time of mourning was complete for Uriah, David “generously” took Bathsheba as his wife. It would have looked like good PR. The king honored the wife of a fallen warrior by taking her into his household. Also recall her background. Bathsheba was not only beautiful, she was the daughter of one his elite warriors and granddaughter of his trusted advisor. “But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord” (2 Samuel 11:27).

The prophet Nathan told David a parable, and in his judgment of the rich man from the parable, David condemns himself. Nathan then publically declared David’s actions against Uriah and his adultery with Bathsheba. God’s judgment against David will be both the death of the illegitimate son by Bathsheba and that “the sword shall never depart from your house.” God will raise up evil against David out of his own house. What David did in secret, God will do before all of Israel in judgment against him (2 Samuel 12:11-12).

David is sincerely repentant for his sin, and God forgives him. Psalm 51 is a beautiful illustration of David’s repentance. There David acknowledged his sin against God, pleading that the Lord not cast him away from His presence. He asks God to create in him a clean heart; to renew a right spirit within him. But the child does die; and the sword and evil rose up against him out of his own house.

In chapter 13 of 2 Samuel, the story turns to David’s children, Amnon, his firstborn son, Absalom his third born son and Tamar Absalom’s beautiful sister. Amnon “loved” (had the hots for) Tamar, but despaired of being able to do anything about it. Jonabab, the cousin and friend of Amnon, suggested that Amnon pretend to be ill and ask David if Tamar could make some cakes, perhaps laced with herbs to heal his supposed sickness. When they are alone, Amnon forces himself onto Tamar and then forcibly has her sent away (2 Samuel 13:11, 15-17). In doing this, Amnon acted like the Caananite prince Shechem when he raped Dinah, the daughter of Jacob (Genesis 34:2-3). The reader is then set up to look for a similar outcome as the story progresses.

Absalom takes Tamar in after her humiliating rape and rejection. David is furious that Amnon, his heir apparent, brought such public shame and embarrassment to the royal family. Remember Nathan’s prophecy? Absalom said nothing publically about his brother’s behavior, but he hated Amnon for what he had done (2 Samuel 13:23). There is some speculation that Amnon’s actions were intended to help him assure his claim on the throne. Absalom and Tamar’s mother was herself the daughter of a king (2 Chronicles 3:2). Perhaps his lineage made him a better candidate for kingship than the apparently common ancestry of Amnon and Daniel who were older than Absalom.

Two years later, Absalom has a feast for all the sons of David. Amnon was the eldest son. Absalom was the third son, but seems to have had precedence over Daniel, David’s second eldest son. Third in line for the throne was Adonijah (1 Chronicles 3:1-9). Absalom had instructed his servants that when Amnon was good and drunk, they should kill him, which they did. Chaos broke out, and the sons of David fled.

The word that reached David was that Absalom had killed all of the king’s sons. Both David and his servants tore their clothes in mourning. But then Jonadab  (remember him?) corrected the false report, saying that only Amnon was killed. So the good news was that only the heir-apparent was killed—by the next son in line for the throne—in a very public way. Strangely, Jonadab seems to have known what happened at Absalom’s feast before any of them could reach David (2 Samuel 13:30, 32). Could he have known ahead of time what was going to happen? What was he plotting?

Jonadab is not mentioned again, but it does seem he assisted Amnon in an attempted plot to solidify his claim to the throne after David. But that failed, perhaps because of Amnon sending Tamar away after he had raped her. Tamar did try to change his mind, saying that the wrong in sending her away would be greater than what he had already done to her (2 Samuel 13:16). Jonadab saw the political winds changing and switched his allegiance to Absalom, whose killing of Amnon seems to have been as much politically motivated as it was by revenge. Could Amnon have been convinced to attend Absalom’s feast by Jonadab?

These are questions to which the Bible provides no answer. What we see is that David apparently didn’t have the heart to punish Amnon or Absalom for committing the same sins of adultery and murder that he himself did. His failure to reign in Absalom eventually led to Absalom’s attempt to take over the throne. He publically slept with David’s concubines, again as an apparent political maneuver (2 Samuel 16:20-23). Note that the person giving this advice to Absalom was Ahithophel, the grandfather of Bathsheba and the former advisor to David.

Robert Bergen suggested in his commentary that Ahithophel seems to have broken with David because of David having unlawful sexual relations with his granddaughter and then killing her husband. His plan would unambiguously demonstrate Absalom’s claim to Israel’s throne by exercising privileges reserved only for Israel’s king. Secondly, it would embolden those participating in the coup to also brazenly act in a way to become a stench in David’s nostrils.

For Ahithophel personally, the scheme must have seemed like a particularly satisfying application of the Torah’s lex talionis (“eye for eye, tooth for tooth …,” cf. Exod 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21). David had had unlawful sexual relations with Ahithophel’s granddaughter at the royal palace in Jerusalem, though she was married to another; so now, unlawful sexual relations with David’s harem would take place at the same palace—only in this case the retributive act would be ten times greater than the original offense, and in public!

David still didn’t have the heart to do deal decisively with Absalom, ordering his military leaders Joab, Abishai and Ittai to deal gently with him. But Joab had Absalom killed. The circumstances of how Absalom was caught are symbolic, in that his head was caught up in a tree so that “he was suspended between heaven and earth” (2 Samuel 18:5-14). Deuteronomy 21:23 declared that anyone hung on a tree was cursed by God.

Modern political intrigue in the U.S. is starting to look downright peaceful and civil after studying this section of 2 Samuel. Character assassinations are rampant in the election, but at least there aren’t any coups or killings going on.

Jonadab played a key role in fanning the flames of ambition, lust, revenge and intrigue that led to the deaths of both Amnon and Absalom. He was never said to have taken an active role in what transpired, but he was clearly there stirring the pot. J. R. Ewing and he were cut from the same cloth. Some might find parallels to individuals who are “pot stirrers” in the ongoing presidential election. I don’t follow politics close enough to point to “Jonabad’s” behind Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump. But I can guess they are there. It’s a tradition that goes at least back to the time of King David.