We begin with peace. David is safely ensconced in his
house of cedar and has been given rest from his enemies. He asks the prophet
Nathan about building a house (or temple) for the ark. At first, Nathan agrees:
“Go, do all that you have in mind; for the LORD is with you” (7:3). Apparently,
he is not speaking for the LORD. That night, the LORD tells Nathan “No.” The
LORD never asked for a house. Tents and tabernacles are portable; temples are
not. Whether it’s the ark or the LORD’s
name that is housed, there is a danger that the people will forget that they
are dealing with an undomesticated God who is always free to
move.
Instead, the LORD turns it around and tells Nathan to
proclaim to David: “The LORD will make you a house. When your days are
fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring
after you…he shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne
of his kingdom forever…When he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod
such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings. But I will not take
my steadfast love from him…your house and your kingdom shall be made sure
forever before me; your throne shall be established forever” (7:11-16).
Do we need a Messiah to make this promise true? How
conditional is it? It will be another 400 years or so before it is severely
challenged – when the last Davidic king is deposed from Judah and the people
are taken into exile in Babylon. That is a long way off, however. For now,
David responds by sitting in the tent in front of the ark and praying before
the LORD: “Who am I, O Lord GOD, and what is my house, that you have brought me
thus far?...Because of your promise, and according to your own heart, you have
wrought all this greatness…you established your people Israel for yourself to
be your people forever; and you, O LORD, became their God” (7:18-24). He
realizes that this is part of God’s loyalty to Israel and not just to him
personally. Still, he asks God to confirm the promise about his house in
particular: “…with your blessing shall the house of your servant be blessed
forever” (7:26, 29).
Then from peace, we turn quickly to war. (Interestingly,
in I Chronicles 28:3 we’re told that this is the reason David will not build
the temple: “You shall not build a house for my name, for you are a warrior and
have shed blood.”) While administering “justice and equity to all his people”
(8:15) at home, David successfully goes on the offensive against the Philistines,
Moabites, Arameans, and Edomites and expands his kingdom to the north, south
and east. We’re told that “the LORD gave victory to David wherever he went”
(8:6). Does that mean that the LORD always approves of David’s methods? No. His
treatment of the Moabites - his ancestors by way of great-grandmother Ruth and
the guardians of his own parents at one point (I Sam. 22:4) - seems
particularly harsh. He tries to go a different route with the Ammonites, but
his reputation precedes him; his gesture of consolation is interpreted as
aggression – and he’s off to war again.
At last David returns to the promise he made his late
best friend Jonathan. He asks: “Is there anyone left of the house of Saul to
whom I may show kindness for Jonathan’s sake?” (9:1) You mean, now that Ishbaal
is dead and Michal has fallen out of favor? A servant of the house of Saul, Ziba (of whom
we will hear more later), points out Jonathan’s crippled son Mephibosheth. David
commands Ziba and his household to serve Mephibosheth. He gives Mephibosheth
Saul’s personal property and has him eat at the king’s table – where he can
keep an eye on him (as Saul’s heir, he is a potential rival to the throne) and
give him a position of honor. As usual, David’s kindness is also politically
astute.
What happens when doing the right thing is not to his
political advantage? Read on to find out – and, in the meantime, click on “comments”
to add your thoughts!
The “early David” appeared to be at one with the Lord, in tune in his heart as well as his actions. But in his mourning for Saul, his bringing the ark to Jerusalem, and his exhibition of dancing, is his motive primarily to impress the people—or even to impress and in a sense to manipulate God? Has David changed since the early days? Have power, and its several rewards, corrupted him?
ReplyDeleteDavid asks the prophet Nathan whether he should build a “house” for the Lord. Nathan tells him, “Go, do all that you have in mind; for the Lord is with you.” (7:3) But that night the Lord inspires Nathan to tell David, no, do not build me a “house of cedar.” Nathan is inspired to remind David of all that God has done for and with his people, and all he has done for and with David, and to tell David that the Lord will establish David’s “throne” and “house”—“forever.” (7:16)
[It looks as though God has made quite a promise. Too good to be true? Especially in light of the Babylonian exile, the Roman conquest, the Diaspora, and Holocaust, and even today’s amazing turbulence within Israeli politics? Or has God in his freedom established the House of David in the way that God has chosen? “And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David.” (Luke 2:4 KJV) Indeed!
Compared with the hidden Messianic promise stretching into eternity, is not a “house of cedar” a trivial and confining thing? Does God want any kind of limitation or confinement, as in an immovable thing?]
Now we see David continuing his wars, building his earthly kingdom, achieving victories with God’s help. Apparently his reign brought justice and good government, (8:15) David did great kindness to the crippled son of Jonathan, giving him the wealth he would have inherited from Saul through Jonathan, and welcoming him to the king’s table (where he could be watched for sedition). (Ch. 9)
ReplyDeleteWhen David sends emissaries of peace to the Ammonites, their new king distrusts them and assaults and humiliates the ambassadors. David then mobilizes his armies and defeats the Ammonites and their several allies. (Ch. 10)
[As when David brought the crippled son of Jonathan into the royal court, there was room for doubt about his motives. Perhaps it is a burden of power, to be distrusted even when your motives are good. And in politics, are not motives most often mixed? But at least for now, may we take David’s continuing unbroken string of victories as something like divine endorsement?]