Wednesday, September 14, 2005
2 Samuel 15 The politician
Nursing his resentment, and preparing rebellion, Absolom, plays the part of the archetypical politician, and panders to public opinion:
2 Samuel 15:3 Absalom would say, "See, your claims are good and right; but there is no one deputed by the king to hear you."
He even stoops to "kissing babies":
2 Samuel 15:5 Whenever people came near to do obeisance to him, he would put out his hand and take hold of them, and kiss them.
Absolom put his plan into effect from Hebron and himself declared as king. Hebron, of course, was the center of his family's power; the very place where David was first declared king (c.f., 2 Sam 2:1-11). The difference in the two stories, however, is this: "David inquired of the LORD" (2 Sam 2:1), but Absolom inquired of the political advisor: 2 Samuel 15:12 Ahithophel the Gilonite, David's counselor, from his city Giloh."
So, David decides to withdraw from Jerusalem, rather than fight. Why? Does he believe that the cause is militarily too difficult? or is he unwilling to fight against his own son? or is waiting for a sign from God concerning what God's decision is concerning the kingship?
The latter is suggested by:
2 Samuel 15:25-26 Then the king said to Zadok, "Carry the ark of God back into the city. If I find favor in the eyes of the LORD, he will bring me back and let me see both it and the place where it stays. 26 But if he says, 'I take no pleasure in you,' here I am, let him do to me what seems good to him."
This is the measure of David's greatness. This whole episode of Tamar's rape by Amnon, Amnon's murder by Absolom, and now Absolom's rebellion are the fruit of David's sin. David is not morally admirable. treatment of Micah is further evidence. But where David shines in brilliance is in his acceptance of God's judgment -- personally and even more so in the matter of God's authority to annoint the ruler of Israel. David was not willing to raise his hand against Saul, and now he is willing to be deposed from his throne. The choice, and the action, must be God's.
This is not to be confused with indecision or unwillingness to act forcibly when needed. David's whole history shows that he was a "mighty man." He, like Absolom (who was his father's son!), was a canny political manueverer, and used his own friend Hushai the Archite (v. 32) to as a spy to "defeat for me the counsel of Ahithophel." (Samuel 15:34 )
However, as to the fundamental question of whether he was to rule in the "kingdom of God," David defered to God. God, in the end, must be the divine warrior, and no-one, not even David, can fight in his place.
2 Samuel 15:3 Absalom would say, "See, your claims are good and right; but there is no one deputed by the king to hear you."
He even stoops to "kissing babies":
2 Samuel 15:5 Whenever people came near to do obeisance to him, he would put out his hand and take hold of them, and kiss them.
Absolom put his plan into effect from Hebron and himself declared as king. Hebron, of course, was the center of his family's power; the very place where David was first declared king (c.f., 2 Sam 2:1-11). The difference in the two stories, however, is this: "David inquired of the LORD" (2 Sam 2:1), but Absolom inquired of the political advisor: 2 Samuel 15:12 Ahithophel the Gilonite, David's counselor, from his city Giloh."
So, David decides to withdraw from Jerusalem, rather than fight. Why? Does he believe that the cause is militarily too difficult? or is he unwilling to fight against his own son? or is waiting for a sign from God concerning what God's decision is concerning the kingship?
The latter is suggested by:
2 Samuel 15:25-26 Then the king said to Zadok, "Carry the ark of God back into the city. If I find favor in the eyes of the LORD, he will bring me back and let me see both it and the place where it stays. 26 But if he says, 'I take no pleasure in you,' here I am, let him do to me what seems good to him."
This is the measure of David's greatness. This whole episode of Tamar's rape by Amnon, Amnon's murder by Absolom, and now Absolom's rebellion are the fruit of David's sin. David is not morally admirable. treatment of Micah is further evidence. But where David shines in brilliance is in his acceptance of God's judgment -- personally and even more so in the matter of God's authority to annoint the ruler of Israel. David was not willing to raise his hand against Saul, and now he is willing to be deposed from his throne. The choice, and the action, must be God's.
This is not to be confused with indecision or unwillingness to act forcibly when needed. David's whole history shows that he was a "mighty man." He, like Absolom (who was his father's son!), was a canny political manueverer, and used his own friend Hushai the Archite (v. 32) to as a spy to "defeat for me the counsel of Ahithophel." (Samuel 15:34 )
However, as to the fundamental question of whether he was to rule in the "kingdom of God," David defered to God. God, in the end, must be the divine warrior, and no-one, not even David, can fight in his place.
Monday, September 12, 2005
2 Samuel 14 - Spilled Water
In the middle of this confrontation between Joab and David over the fate of Absalom, this unamed "woman of Tekoa" is recruited by Joab to trick David into showing mercy to his son. The device is similar to the way Nathan tricked David into conodemning himself in the matter of Uriah. But in verse 14, it seems to me that the woman goes off script, or at any rate, she says something personal and profound.
2 Samuel 14:14 We must all die; we are like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up. But God will not take away a life; he will devise plans so as not to keep an outcast banished forever from his presence.
Matthew Henry comments, "This was poor reasoning, and would serve against the punishment of any murderer" and perhaps that is the reason that, instinctively, I liked it. She is saying that life is lived forward, never backward. This is a condition of our mortality. What is done cannot be undone. Punishment cannot change the past, but God is always in the business of looking for some manner of redemption.
We cannot change the past, but we do not need to be trapped by it. Tthe injustice or oppression we have expreienced or that we have imposed on others is water spilled on the ground. The woman of Tekoa tells us that we have to accept that: our attempts to change the past through vengeance are fruitless. God is about something better: creating a new future.
So, here is Gospel, on the lips of the nameless woman of Tekoa: God is doing something new.
2 Samuel 14:14 We must all die; we are like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up. But God will not take away a life; he will devise plans so as not to keep an outcast banished forever from his presence.
Matthew Henry comments, "This was poor reasoning, and would serve against the punishment of any murderer" and perhaps that is the reason that, instinctively, I liked it. She is saying that life is lived forward, never backward. This is a condition of our mortality. What is done cannot be undone. Punishment cannot change the past, but God is always in the business of looking for some manner of redemption.
We cannot change the past, but we do not need to be trapped by it. Tthe injustice or oppression we have expreienced or that we have imposed on others is water spilled on the ground. The woman of Tekoa tells us that we have to accept that: our attempts to change the past through vengeance are fruitless. God is about something better: creating a new future.
So, here is Gospel, on the lips of the nameless woman of Tekoa: God is doing something new.
