2 Samuel 11: Original Sin
The change of pace comes in chapter 11 of the second book of Samuel. This is indicated by the fresh narration – “in the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle, David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel… But David remained at Jerusalem”. Unlike the preceding verses where we saw the enemies of God flee before the Anointed King, we begin to see implications of David’s typology no longer as that of Christ, the prophesied Son of the Father in 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2. Instead, this is the chapter where we see David’s kingdom being torn apart for the very reason that David is still a son of Adam, at best a shadow representation of Jesus, the son of God. The beginning of this chapter saw David’s participation not in warfare, but in sin, thus displaying a mark of his failure to lead the spiritual battle against neighbouring nations. The end of this chapter saw the LORD’s displeasure (v.27). It is here, that we see the fallout of God’s chosen man as akin to the chosen man in the first garden, Adam:
“He took her unlawfully. He deceived Uriah and when the deception didn’t work, he killed him. Desire, deception, unlawful taking and death. And from this event in 2 Samuel 11, chaos broke out. David’s kingdom, from this point on, becomes not the mirror of Christ’s Kingdom which it was meant to be. Instead it becomes a broken mirror, reflecting not Christ’s Kingdom but the wicked kingdoms of this world. The chapter in front of us is part of that fall-out.” – Glen Scrivener’s sermon on 2 Samuel 13
Is this pattern not the same as that committed by Adam? For Jesus in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 7:20-23) described the chaos of this world as being spun out by our lust and murder (c.f. James 4). And so, we begin to see the layers of shadows and types folding over one another, that even the great king David bears the mark of original sin – the mark of the race of adam which can only be cured and restored by the one who takes on the flesh of adam though descends from the line of Melchizedek (Psalm 110). If 2 Samuel 7 displayed the very first promise made between the Father and the Son (John 17:24) before creation, then 2 Samuel 8-10 is equally prophetic in displaying the essence of Christ as mediator and the inevitable victory over those who fall away from God. This therefore takes us to 2 Samuel 11 as a reflection of this ‘broken mirror’ of Christ, this broken mirror being a remnant shard of the fall in Genesis 3. Could not David’s very actions, lust and murder, bear the same symbolic weight (though not identical) as that of Adam in the garden?
Here is a man who played with his temptation (v.2-4), though it was clear that she had been unclean – and the entire chapter reeks of hypocrisy and reversal: where the king should be fighting, he instead wanders with wandering eyes; where the woman should have been purifying, she is readily invited to bed with the king in an act of uncleanness. In a matter of a short two verses, the kingdom of Israel has been severely compromised – only to lead to the deaths and rebellion of David’s sons (in chapters 13-18 of 2 Samuel) – it was merely a moment of weakness where he fell for another man’s wife. Bathsheba, though she has clearly sinned and contributed to the fall of the kingdom, is not the centre of focus here. Just as Eve was the one who had first tasted of the forbidden fruit, Adam, like David, had the final say as the head of man’s kingdom. Yet, like Adam, David fell for what was good in man’s sight (Genesis 3:6) – and so the first unnamed son was literally conceived in sin just as Abel and Cain both were products of a fallen race. To have us remember the prophecy in chapter 7 concerning David’s son, and then to read about the conception of David’s new offspring in chapter 11 is a stark reminder that God’s true Son will not come by the way of man but by His own appointed manner; by a virgin to be engaged in royal wedlock than an act of adultery (Isaiah 7:14).
Just as the focus had been on David’s ‘first’ sin as a reflection of Adam’s first sin, so we see the consequences of the first sin unraveling. Where in Genesis 3 we see the LORD pronouncing the result of Adam’s fall, from 2 Samuel 11 onwards we see the curse of Genesis 3:14-19 played out in the narrative.
Therefore, what we saw of the surrounding nations in chapter 10 is entirely mirrored by David. These nations conspired and fought against God, even to hire the Syrians for an expensive price (1 Chronicles 19:6) than to provide a peace offering to Yahweh through David and the Levitical priests. This scheming and conspiring are epitomes of the unbelievers in Psalm 2, against the true Son of God; and yet David himself is the one attacking the true Son of God, conspiring with Joab the man (2 Samuel 3:29) to murder the innocent.
In the midst of this conspiring between David and Joab, look at Uriah’s (Yahweh is my flame) contrast with David, the latter remaining at Jerusalem during a time of battle and the former ever wary (V.11; 1 Peter 5:8). The latter staying sober while the king is encouraging him to be drunk (v.13; Jeremiah 13:12-13). And so David would join and bloody his hand with Joab, when in 2 Samuel 3 he had condemned his accomplice for executing Abner like a guilty man (2 Samuel 3:33). What we see here is David’s hypocrisy – he, too, has dealt in a similar manner to Uriah the Hittite, that he should die like the pagan Ahimelech, son of Jerubbesheth (Judges 9).
Therefore, the chaos which David has woven has begun to spin out of control. This is the same chaotic darkness (Jeremiah 46:7; 51:55-64) spoken of in Genesis 1, the waters of chaos on day two of creation which was not good . In the midst of this chaos, we see a glimpse of the gospel but it is not found in the person of David – it is found in Uriah, who was the lamb led to slaughter (Isaiah 53:7). Uriah’s innocent death is like that of Abel’s innocent death, his blood (Luke 11:48-52) crying from the earth. Where our Christ died without lifting a finger (Hebrews 13:20; James 3:17; 2 Peter 1:2), the chaos of sin under the headship of Adam instead of Christ has led to the proverb “Do not let this matter trouble you, for the sword devours now one and now another” (Matthew 26:52). What happened to the David who mourned so much for Abner ? Who mourned even the death of Saul who had been persecuting him (2 Samuel 3:31)? Instead, like the Roman soldiers (Luke 23:36) who trampled on Christ, so David trampled on him who obeyed this king of Israel. Even the swiftness of the mourning (v.26-27) reeks of pretence (Isaiah 58).
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: Adultery, Bathsheba, David, Genesis, Glen Scrivener, Lust, Murder, Sin, Typology, Uriah
2 Samuel 10: Nahash and Jonathan
It would seem out of place to turn back to David’s military victories after a reprieve from that line of narration in chapter 9 by David’s mercy on Mephibosheth for Jonathan’s sake, yet the purpose of chapter 10 is not merely to line out David’s victories in the same way as it was laid out in chapter 8. Rather, its focus is on the comparison between Jonathan as mediator for Mephibosheth as a type of Christ’s mediation, and then Nahash’s (the serpent) mediation on behalf of Hanun.
At the outset, it is clear that the background is extremely similar – the house of Saul seen conflicting with the house of David is exalted in the form of Mephibosheth sitting at the king’s table. Now begs the question: will the house of Nahash, the house of the Ammonites, also be exalted to fellowship with Israel’s king? V.2 of chapter 10 echoes v.2 of chapter 9 – the call of the Father upon the Gentiles after the call of the Father upon the Israelites – “I will deal loyally with Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father dealt loyally with me”. First to the Jews, then to the Gentiles (Romans 1:16).
Yet, unlike the response within Israel where Mephibosheth humbly called himself a dead dog, what is Hanun’s response? V.3-5 shows that not only is Hanun a lord who is surrounded by princes, a large contrast to Mephibosheth’s dire state of lameness (especially compared to Ziba’s household of wealth), but that he would be so arrogant and heed the advice of evil men (Psalm 1:1, 2:2) and mock David’s servants (v.4).
As akin to chapter 8v.5, the Ammonites and the Syrians rise up against Israel despite their previous defeat (c.f. Hosea 8:9-11) and it is clear that the initiation of the offense is from the side of the Ammonites, with the Israelites drawing up in self-defence by the ordering in v.6-8. Not to mention that unlike the movement of our Trinitarian God Who moves as one united family on a mission of redemption, the hired Syrians are scattered and ‘by themselves in the open country’ – a mark of the sinful man in the wilderness (Micah 4:10). Note the contrast between the wicked council of the Ammonites and the Syrians compared with Joab and Abishai’s unity – the former being united for the purpose of money and the latter united under the banner of the LORD– Joab is truly his brother’s keeper (Genesis 4:9)(v.11-12). The mutual aid is the true spirit of the Triune family.
Yet what is so laughable is that the Ammonites and Syrians completely fled (c.f. Revelation 6:16) before Abishai and Joab – as if either the Ammonites or Syrians were too much for them to handle (v.11), instead at the very sight of these two Christian brothers they fled and only then did they gather together (v.15), along with the support of Hadadezer’s Syrian army beyond the Euphrates. Upon the defeat of Shobach (expansion) at Helam (fortress), the commander of the army of Hadadezer at their head, we are brought to re-experience the death of the mediator of the Philistinian army in 1 Samuel 17. So, the death of Shobach and the death of the seed of Nahash the serpent bring us to see the death of the expansion of the Satan’s kingdom; the fear of the Syrians to save the Ammonites (v.19 – c.f. 2 Chronicles 24:24) anymore is the beginning of the fall of the wicked counsel (Psalm 1:1, 2:2).
This is the image of the failure to heed the call of the Father. Though Nahash may have dealt loyally with David just as Jonathan had done so, this blessing could have been imputed to the house of the Ammonites. Yet, the end of chapter 10 spelled out a disastrous future, and the story of Nahash is used as a narrative for the macro understanding of Nahash as the false mediator and Jonathan as the true mediator; though Hadadezer and his subjects made peace with Israel and became subject to them (v.19), this type of submission is far from the type of exaltation which Mephibosheth received – and thus this contrast of the lame man fellowshipping with David is more poignant in the face of the proud and resourceful Ammonite and Syrian kings. Hanun as the seed and result of the line of Nahash is directly contrasted to Mephibosheth, the direct seed of Jonathan. As such, though we are all predestined to be in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 1), for those who reject the call of the Father to follow His Son, they have ignored the call and the mediation is thus not received. Thus, instead of the mediation of Triune love depicted in chapter 9, they receive the mediation of the Father’s wrath as a mirror to the measuring line – that either the line measures the bounds of new Jerusalem, or it is a line which measures the extent of the LORD’s wrath upon the rebellious nations (2 Kings 21:13). Glen on “God without a Mediator” blog post –
“In terms of Scripture – 2 Thes 1:9 “Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” (KJV) There’s a translation issue about the preposition (‘apo’). Should it be translated ‘from’ or ‘away from’? I favour ‘from’ – ie implying that Christ is present in judgement. This goes with Revelation 14:10 where the damned are tormented in the presence of the Lamb. See also Rev 1:18 where Jesus is presented as the Jailor of death and hades, and Rev 6:16-17 where it’s the wrath of the Father together with the Lamb. Jesus expressly says in John 5:22 that the Father has entrusted all judgement to Him.
What does this mean? It means that hell is being in the presence of God who continues to mediate His judgement through the Son. There is no such thing as ‘God without a mediator’.”
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: Glen Scrivener, Jonathan, Mediator, Mephibosheth, Nahash, Serpent, Trinity
The story of the restoration of Mephibosheth is the fulfilment of the covenant which David had made with Jonathan (1 Samuel 18:3). This is a reflection of the covenant made between God and us through Jesus Christ before creation (John 17:24). Mephibosheth had been mentioned in (2 Samuel 4:4) and in that chapter alone we would have surmised that the house of Saul has been entirely cut off. Yet this is far from true – in the same way that we are lame in our feet (v.13; c.f. Genesis 3) because of the fall, that our movement is stunted (Romans 10:15), yet it is purely by the grace of David’s call that we are given an opportunity to respond and to eat at the king’s table in Jerusalem (v.13).
So the crux of this chapter lies not primarily in the happy reunion of the House of Saul and the House of David; rather, the primary focus should be the first verse: “Is there anyone left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan’s sake?” It is here that the role of David switches to that of the Father in heaven, and Jonathan being the type of Christ – for it is Jonathan, and not David, who initiated the covenant of love (1 Samuel 18:3). It is Jonathan’s love with David, this brotherly love, that plays a twofold witness of that of John the Baptist paving the path for the Messiah (Luke 3), and that of Jesus and the Father in each others’ arms. Is this not the same call which the Father makes to the entire world? “Is there anyone left in the fallen house, the house which was once filled with glory but have been left to its godless devices? Is there anyone left that I may show him kindness for my son Jesus Christ’s sake?” (Romans 10:8)
The establishment of Mephibosheth’s blessing is therefore entirely vicarious; his salvation is imputed; and his ascension to the king’s table is entirely a reason extra nos. It is also important for us not to overlook how the narrator of 2 Samuel chose to end this chapter with an emphasis on his physical disability. Mephibosheth is nothing like the glory of Saul’s household (1 Samuel 31:2 – all of Saul’s sons at war) and is instead the true rendition of the value of Saul’s work. Saul is the alpha-male, he is the man chosen by men (1 Samuel 12:13); yet before David, what is left of Saul’s line is Mephibosheth – resident of the house of Machir (sold) the son of Ammiel (my kinsman is God) at Lo-debar (pastureless)(v.5). Even Mephibosheth is less wealthy than Saul’s servant Ziba (statue) whose wealth is deliberately described as far more luxurious (v.10-11) in comparison to the remnant of Saul’s offspring, as summarised by Mephibosheth in three words – “a dead dog” (v.8). Yet, this is the remnant of Jonathan’s house, this lame man sold in the embrace of God’s kinsman, yet unlike Ziba – is not surrounded with servants and pastures of his own.
Yet, is it not the dead dog who shall inherit Ziba’s service, who shall never go hungry again and so much so that he should fellowship with the king himself? (Matthew 15:27) Is this not the true picture of the gospel, that we are all Mephibosheths and that the Father will arrange, on our Christ’s behalf, for us to dine with him face to face (1 Corinthians 13:12) where we have absolutely nothing to offer except our stench, our lameness, our weakness? And this is the true gospel – that the Son has exchanged his righteousness for our sinfulness, he who had no sin to be filled with the sin of mankind (Romans 5:19; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Now, we are lame in both of our feet – but our true Jonathan has already entered into a loving covenant on our behalf. Will we respond to the call of the Father – “is there still anyone left of the house of Adam, that I may show him kindness for Jesus’ sake” (v.2, my rendition)?
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: David, Household, Jonathan, Justification, Mephibosheth, Saul
After the important prophecy about the Messiah in chapter 7, what follows after is understandably prophetic in its own sense as well. The Israelites reading 2 Samuel after their expulsion to Assyria and Babylon will undoubtedly refer to the promises made to David concerning the everlasting kingdom of his offspring, and with bittersweet flavour will they turn to chapter 8, seeing the victories achieved by King David as firstfruit of what their Messiah Son of God would do on Israel’s behalf. What judge, and what man has single-handedly, under his headship, led the defeat of several of the enemies of God’s people within one chapter besides a taster by Abraham (Genesis 14)? The systematic dispatching of the Philistines (v.1) from whom David received Metheg-ammah, a ‘bit of the metropolis’, a bit of the city dedicated to new creation; the Moabites (v.2) by whom he follows the tradition of the measuring line, this line being a type of Christ deciding who is to dwell in the city of Jerusalem and who is beyond the “one full line” (v.2) and put to death (c.f. 2 Kings 21:10-15; Jeremiah 31:38-40; Lamentations 2:8; Ezekiel 47:1-6; Amos 7:17; Zechariah 1-2) with the remaining Moabites being received into the nation Israel; the defeat of the Hadad-worshipper Hadadezer (c.f. Genesis 36:35) so that David may prevent his restoration at the river Euphrates so commonly associated to destruction, this river of Babylon (by its other name, Perat in Genesis 2:14; c.f. 2 Kings 23:29; Jeremiah 2:18, 51:63; Revelations 9:14, 16:12) being the associated source of evil as opposed to the rivers of life; and with what great judgment David enacted (v.4) that even the supporting pagan nations are similarly destroyed – the people and its resources (v.5-6).
And so this is the effect of the new king, that he shall inherit the gold, silver and bronze (taken even from the secure hands of Betah and the mighty ‘god’ Hadad in the cities of Hadadezer v.8) on our behalf from surrounding nations (Matthew 5:5) – the amazing defeat of Edom (Genesis 36), Moab (Genesis 19:37), Ammonites (Genesis 19:38), Philistines (Genesis 10:14), Amalek (Genesis 36:12-16), Hadadezer – all symbolic enemies of God throughout the previous books of the Old Testament, all from the root of the sinful line of Adam, either removed from power or restored under the headship of the Israelite King (c.f. Moab and Edom restored as servants of Israel v.2 and v.14) not because of David’s innate strength, but because of what the LORD had promised to effect through David (v.14) as a foreshadow of his Offspring. The witnessing of this priesthood of all nations (Exodus 19:6) is not merely in the form of war, but also in the form of diplomacy, that Toi king of Hamath shall acknowledge his subservience to King David (v.10-11) by paying tribute indirectly provided to the LORD. It is in Toi that we see ourselves typified: in the wandering Toi once king of our own fortresses (Hamath) we have been attacked by the pagan nation of Hadadezer and true victory is achieved on our behalf through King David, our tribute, sacrificial response and offering provided through David (v.11) by the hands of Joram (“Jehovah is exalted“), so that the household of Toi and his aptly named son would both be grateful worshippers of Yahweh through David their mediator.
As the Israelites read this, their anticipation should be ever more expectant of an even greater king who will not only provide gold, silver and bronze before the LORD and subdue surrounding nations under the one true God – the king on the throne of the everlasting kingdom is to do even greater things than what is listed out in this chapter!
Yet, the key thing about David’s victories is not the gold, silver or bronze; it is not even about the mere subduing of nations, taking away of their idols, or making them Israel’s servants. It is primarily about worship; about purifying the land; about new creation in replacement of old creation – new wine and new wineskin (Matthew 9:17). What better way than to begin with the list of David’s list of officials, all men whose honour comes from the Lord God? Joab (Jehovah is father); Jehoshaphat (Jehovah judged); Zadok (righteous); Ahimelech (brother of the king); Seraiah (Jehovah is ruler); Benaiah (Jehovah has built); and finally David’s sons, the centre of all attention in lieu of chapter 7, were priests, a foreshadowing of the kingly-priest Messiah.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: David, Genesis, Name, New Creation, Typology
2 Samuel 7: The law for Adam
This chapter then brings us, after the joyous return of the ark of the covenant, to the LORD’s explanation of all these things. In the words of God we hear that what we have witnessed thus far from the building of the tabernacle onwards to be everything but shadows (v.6), for the tabernacle is but a temporary dwelling place. The true ‘house’ to be built could not possibly be one built by human hands (v.7). v.12-13 immediately tells us who this person is. “He shall come from your body” (v.12), “He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever”, (v.14) “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son… when he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, (v.15) but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul… (v.16) Your throne shall be established forever.”
Although it is true that Solomon is the one who builds the temple of God (see 1 Chronicles), it is important that we note the internal contradiction of the LORD’s words if He was to elect Solomon over David. The LORD’s fundamental reason for not dwelling in a house is because it is built not by judges, not even by the first anointed king of Israel, but by The Appointed One. It is easy to then assume that this ‘offspring’ is the immediate son of David. Yet, v.12 is to precede v.16 – this ‘man’s’ kingdom must be established forever before David’s throne can inherit that same blessing. Solomon may accord blessing to David’s name as his son, but Solomon’s kingdom – like any human’s – was of a limited capacity. With these internal issues regarding v.6-16, it would be difficult to suggest that this prophetic utterance is primarily about Solomon, when it is more suitably applicable to Jesus our Christ. Adam Clarke in particular looks at the Hebrew of v.14 which may otherwise be misleading in understanding the Christological focus of this chapter:
“…the Hebrew words do not properly signify what they are now made to speak. It is certain that the principal word, בהעותו behaavotho, is not the active infinitive of kal, which would be בעותו, but העות from עיה is in niphal, as הגלות from גלה. It is also certain that a verb, which in the active voice signifies to commit iniquity, may, in the passive signify to suffer for iniquity; and hence it is that nouns from such verbs sometimes signify iniquity, sometimes punishment. See Lowth’s Isaiah, p, 187, with many other authorities which shall be produced hereafter. The way being thus made clear, we are now prepared for abolishing our translation, if he commit iniquity; and also for adopting the true one, even in his suffering for iniquity. The Messiah, who is thus the person possibly here spoken of, will be made still more manifest from the whole verse thus translated: I will be his father, and he shall be my son: Even in His Suffering for Iniquity, I shall chasten him with the rod of men, (with the rod due to men), and with the stripes (due to) the children of Adam. And this construction is well supported by Isa_53:4, Isa_53:5 : He hath carried Our Sorrows, (i.e., the sorrows due to us, and which we must otherwise have suffered), he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. See note, p. 479, in Hallet, on Heb_11:26. Thus, then, God declares himself the Father of the Son here meant; (see also Heb_1:5); and promises that, even amidst the sufferings of this Son, (as they would be for the sins of others, not for his own), his mercy should still attend him: nor should his favor be ever removed from this king, as it had been from Saul. And thus (as it follows) thine house (O David) and thy kingdom shall, in Messiah, be established for ever before Me: (before God): thy throne shall be established for ever. Thus the angel, delivering his message to the virgin mother, Luk_1:32, Luk_1:33, speaks as if he was quoting from this very prophecy: The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob For Ever: and of his kingdom there shall be no end. In 2Sa_7:16, לפניך lephaneycha, is rendered as לפני lephanai, on the authority of three Hebrew MSS., with the Greek and Syriac versions; and, indeed, nothing could be established for ever in the presence of David, but in the presence of God only.”
What amazement! The Son is here clearly preached, to exist (as opposed to the emphasis on the future tense in this verse) in relationship with his Father (v.14). “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son” should instead be likely to be read as “I exist (hayah היה) to him as a father, and he exists to me as a son”. So I continue in a similar vein to Adam Clarke’s observations:
“Having thus shown that the words fairly admit here the promise made to David, that from his seed should arise Messiah, the everlasting King; it may be necessary to add that, if the Messiah be the person here meant, as suffering innocently for the sins of others, Solomon cannot be; nor can this be a prophecy admitting such double sense, or be applied properly to two such opposite characters. Of whom speaketh the prophet this? of Himself, or of Some Other man? This was a question properly put by the Ethiopian treasurer, (Act_8:34), who never dreamed that such a description as he was reading could relate to different persons; and Philip shows him that the person was Jesus only. So here it may be asked, Of whom speaketh the prophet this? of Solomon, or of Christ? It must be answered, Of Christ: one reason is, because the description does not agree to Solomon; and therefore Solomon being necessarily excluded in a single sense, must also be excluded in a double. Lastly, if it would be universally held absurd to consider the promise of Messiah made to Abraham as relating to any other person besides Messiah; why is there not an equal absurdity in giving a double sense to the promise of Messiah thus made to David?”
This message about the prophecy of the Son of God as opposed to the mere son of David, Solomon, is further consolidated in David’s response. Not to only highlight the fact that Israel is such a special nation (v.23) as to be redeemed in the Elect One, there is an indication that Israel is the only nation which the LORD has redeemed for Himself (v.23-24) – a strong reason why Paul uses continually the imagery of Israel as the universal and global church in the spiritual sense, that even Gentiles can be called as children of Abraham and partake in the same olive tree which naturally bears the branches of physically born Israelites (Romans 9-11). David here, therefore, understands that it is not purely his own house that is being blessed. He understands that the importance of his own righteousness and salvation could only be established by the foundation of “his” eternal household. “And now, O LORD God, confirm forever the word that you have spoken concerning your servant and concerning his house, and do as you have spoken” (v.25). Thus, this promise of the Appointed One, the words about the eternal household, about servanthood – none of these are to do with David. None of these are to do with Solomon. They are to do with the Christ in whom David places his trust. The Hebrew of v.19 shows that the LORD is not interested in establishing a kingdom, as if He has not shown enough of that through the temporary nature of the types of Christ, be that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, the judges, David, or even Solomon. The progressive revelation is that these men, though exalted by God, was never meant to be the heads of the kingdoms – rather, as v.19 shows – “You have spoken also of your servant’s [Jesus'] house for a great while to come, and this is instruction for mankind“.
David knows that this fulfillment will not be immediate; but not only that, this is instruction for the race of adam, for mankind – it is a blessing which has been explicitly voiced in Genesis 3:15 – a blessing for Adam and all those who are born after him, and in the words of Adam Clarke thus we see that David’s conscious faith as a Christ-follower shines as an example to all the Israelites who oftentimes had faith in David rather than His Christ:
“From David’s address to God, after receiving the message by Nathan, it is plain that David understood the Son promised to be The Messiah: in whom his house was to be established for ever. But the words which seem most expressive of this are in this verse now rendered very unintelligibly: And is this the manner of man? Whereas the words וזאת תורת האדם vezoth torath haadam literally signify, and this is (or must be) the law of the man, or of the Adam; i.e., this promise must relate to the law or ordinance made by God to Adam, concerning the seed of the woman; the man, or the second Adam; as the Messiah is expressly called by St. Paul, 1Co_15:45, 1Co_15:47. This meaning will be yet more evident from the parallel place, 1Ch_17:17, where the words of David are now miserably rendered thus: And thou hast regarded me according to the estate of a man of high degree; whereas the words וראיתני כתור האדם המעלה ureithani kethor haadam hammaalah literally signify, and thou hast regarded me according to the order of the Adam that Is Future, or The Man that Is from Above: (for the word המעלה hammaalah very remarkably signifies hereafter as to time, and from above as to place): and thus St. Paul, including both senses – The Second Man Is the Lord from Heaven – and Adam is the figure of him that was to come, or the future, Rom_5:14. – See the Preface of the late learned Mr. Peters on Job, referred to and confirmed as to this interesting point in a note subjoined to my Sermon on A Virgin Shall Conceive, etc., P. 46-52, 8 vo. 1765. A part of that note here follows: ‘The speech of David (2Sa_7:18-29) is such as one might naturally expect from a person overwhelmed with the greatness of the promised blessing: for it is abrupt, full of wonder, and fraught with repetitions. And now what can David say unto thee? What, indeed! For thou, Lord God knowest thy servant – thou knowest the hearts of all men, and seest how full my own heart is. For thy word’s sake – for the sake of former prophecies, and according to thine own heart – from the mere motive of thy wisdom and goodness, hast thou done all these great things, to make thy servant know them. I now perceive the reason of those miraculous providences which have attended me from my youth up; taken from following the sheep, and conducted through all difficulties to be ruler of thy people; and shall I distrust the promise now made me? Thy words be true. If the preceding remarks on this whole passage be just and well grounded, then may we see clearly the chief foundation of what St. Peter tells us (Act_2:30) concerning David: that being a prophet, and Knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he, seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, etc.’” – Adam Clarke
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: Adam, Adam Clarke, Father, Hebrew, Justification, Prophecy, Re-translation, Solomon, Son, Spirit
In a short number of chapters (since 1 Samuel 22:2), David has accumulated thirty thousand chosen men of Israel from the curiously named lords of Judah, Baale-judah, to finally retrieve the ark of covenant on which the LORD of hosts, the Father and First Person of the Trinity sits enthroned (v.2). Here we must remember that the ark has been neglected during the reign of Saul, since 1 Samuel 7.
Yet, in the midst of merry worship (v.5-8) is a horrifying scene of Uzzah’s death. In spite of the new cart (v.3) which carried the ark, the stumbling of the oxen meant that the foundation of the cart was unstable. Yet, Uzzah’s sin did not merely manifest upon the touching of the ark as traditionally interpreted as God’s holy wrath burning against the sinful unprotected flesh, not robed by the garments of righteousness (Isaiah 61:10). Rather, as Matthew Henry meticulously noted,
“Uzzah thereupon laid hold of it, to save it from falling, we have reason to think with a very good intention, to preserve the reputation of the ark and to prevent a bad omen. Yet this was his crime. Uzzah was a Levite, but priests only might touch the ark. The law was express concerning the Kohathites, that, though they were to carry the ark by the staves [my emphasis added], yet they must not touch any holy thing, lest they die, Num_4:15. Uzzah’s long familiarity with the ark, and the constant attendance he had given to it, might occasion his presumption, but would not excuse it.”
The key thing here is that the staves where not used; the staves/poles (Exodus 25:14) which were appointed by God to be the method which by which the Levites were to carry the ark. What presumption it is therefore to carry God on a new cart, as if there could be a man-made foundation which could only stumble? Instead, the key focus here is that the household of Uzzah is the cause of this new cart, which relied on the movement of a mere animal. Is this not the key reversal at the dreadful fall of man in Genesis 3, that the God and man relationship is inverted where we have worshipped the brute, the animal-serpent over God? This is why God is so angry, that we should presume to be able to touch the Father in heaven and that this was brought about because we have placed an oxen as the foundation before the ark itself. And this is the same lesson learnt by the men who bore the ark of the LORD (v.13) instead of carrying it on a cart which relies on the stability of an animal rather than the stability of priestly men as types of Christ carrying the ark as an analogy to preaching in the Name of His Father. No oxen dares to bear that role, and no man who by man’s strength (as Uzzah is so aptly named) could arrange for the Father to arrive by the way of an animal when the First Person has ordained the arrival to come by way of the true Levite, the true King David, the true Priest-King.
And so this provocation of anger (v.8) in David’s heart is not that of David being furious against God; the Hebrew charah (חרה) suggests the possibility that it is a vexation against oneself, and a general fear that God cannot be with us. What a ridiculous notion, that the King of Israel should fear the ark, and yet a little servant such as Obed-Edom, the servant of Edom (Esau) should receive the ark so pleasurably and be blessed by God (v.11-12)!
Yet, these things shall be no meaning until we take these verses into the wider context of chapter 6, and further into the wider context of God’s grand plan of salvation. Where in chapter 5 we witness Baal-perazim, where the LORD burst through the Philistines, here we see Perez-Uzzah, a bursting forth upon Uzzah. This parallel is brought to recognition when we see the fall of Israel in the second book of Kings despite God protecting Israel in her early days. And similarly, just as God had burst forth upon the Philistines, so He bursted forth onto Uzzah who represented the foolish Levite who disobeyed the mandate of tabernacle management and denied Christ His due glory. Is not Uzzah, the strong man, a representative of those in physical Israel who perceive themselves as strong? Perceive themselves are arrogant enough to carry the weight of the ark? Perceive themselves as clever enough to provide a new cart which balanced on the idolatrous oxen (Exodus 32)?
Instead, the presence of the Father goes to Obed-Edom, the “servant of Edom”, the rejected brother of Jacob. This Gittite, he who belongs to Gath, is the definitive mark of the Gentile; and so we see here the New Testament period shadowed in the ark going to Obed-Edom. Salvation is first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles – and so we see the Jews rejecting the ark, even the king rejecting the ark, and instead the Father blesses the Gentiles. This jealousy (Romans 10-11) would then lead to the ark being brought back to Israel whereupon the second iteration of bringing the ark to the city of David is successful, upon the blood of ox and a fattened animal. Although it is not indicative of whether it is the same ox which caused the stumbling (v.6), this is symbolic of the death of the animal and the birth of new life after six steps before the throne of the Father (1 Kings 10:9, the calf head being at the head of the throne) – and so the ark’s re-entry into Israel by way of the Gentiles is the mark of the new covenant, by the death of the enemy in Christ Jesus:
“So in summary, from the Old Testament, we learn that the Law is in essence the Old Covenant, although it is under-girded and talks extensively about the New. Its primary purpose is to show the Person and Works of the Anointed One, the Prophet, Priest and King, and how He is the Righteous One, He is just, He is holy, He is God’s beloved, He will inherent the land. From this Israel and the world become aware that they are not God’s chosen Messiah, they made aware that only Him, Joshua will enter the promised land. They are not made sinful by the law, but they become aware through the law that they are sinful already, because of Adam, because of the flesh. They are told that refuge, and blessings await within the Messiah, who is God, and are pleaded with time and time again to love Him, to trust Him, to obey Him, to put their faith in Him. The world is also told that those who do trust Him, they will dwell in peace with God forever, under the eternal covenant, in the eternal land. Moses in Deuteronomy pleads with stiff-necked people to obey the commandment (singular), which is to love the Lord their God, to trust in Him – that is the whole commandment, just like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did.” – Dev Menon in his “Law and Gospel” essay
And so David danced before the LORD as the King-Priest in his linen ephod (c.f. Exodus 28 – the ephod to be worn by the priest), the joy of the typological Son dancing before the Father as the Kingdom of Israel is truly restored in Triunity.
Yet, in the face of this joy is the immediate contrast of Michal’s despising of David (v.16). What she despised was not merely David’s etiquette; what she despised was His God – what she despised was the whole picture of salvation, of familial blessings brought through the partaking of the Trinitarian love (v.14-20), such awesome distribution that no human secular government communist, capital or other could ever provide. Her words of spite, “How the king of Israel honoured himself today, uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants’ female servants, as one of the vulgar fellows shamelessly uncovers himself” (v.20) is therefore not merely a strong opinion against David’s ‘inappropriateness’, for David immediately appeals to the one explanation. “It was before the LORD” (v.21). Should there be any other explanation? When one is naked before the LORD as in the days before the fall (c.f. Genesis 2), but that this recapitulation is of greater glory than that experienced in the Garden of Eden, should Michal despise such a fundamental truth rooted in the very history of the race of adam? “And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death (v.23)”. The Promised One shall not be born through her, not through a woman who wholeheartedly despised the reunion caused by the ark of the covenant; Saul’s line thus continues to diminish one by one.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: Ark of the Covenant, Covenant, Dev Menon, Edom, Father, Genesis, Gentiles, Hebrew, Michal, New Creation, Priest, Priesthood, Saul, Son, Trinity, Uzzah, Wrath
From the tragedy of the death of Abner and Ish-bosheth we are immediately greeted with a congratulatory in chapter 5: the wedding of Israel to her true head Jesus Christ. “Behold, we are your bone and flesh” is but an echo of Genesis 2:23, as a woman is to her man. V.2 in particular refers to the replacement of the head of Israel in the appointment of David over Saul in 1 Samuel 13:14; and so, as David had promised to Abner that Israel is to be united to Judah, the covenant first began with the house of Jonathan. This is why the ray of hope is not in Saul’s immediate descendants who were murdered (c.f. chapter 4) or killed in battle; rather, this ray of hope is in Jonathan’s house, for it is Jonathan who covenanted with David first (1 Samuel 18:3). This covenant is thus kept, as a reminder that even when Israel is rejected, the LORD is faithful to the covenant promise and a remnant is preserved for this remnant stands firmly in Christ Jesus the only Elect One (c.f. Romans 9-11). His reign lasts for forty years (v.5), the same length of the period of peace for most judges (Judges 3:11, 5:31, 8:28) after their victories. Yet, this is but a foreshadow of Christ’s period on earth (as the short seven years as ‘king’ of Judah) and the far longer period of time as the king of the whole of Israel. David is but a type of Christ, and his symbolic reign of forty years as king shows that even his reign is short-lived. Even he is not the everlasting LORD and Messiah in whom the Israelites find the Promised Offspring long foretold in Genesis 3:15. Simply put, v.4 confirms that David and his story are but shadows and types of the true Messiah who has yet to come (c.f. Isaiah 9:7).
The overcoming of the Jebusites as his first role confirming himself as king (v.6-10) is extremely significant. In the words of Matthew Henry:
“If Salem, the place of which Melchizedec was king, was Jerusalem (as seems probable from Psa_76:2), it was famous in Abraham’s time. Joshua, in his time, found it the chief city of the south part of Canaan, Jos_10:1-3. It fell to Benjamin’s lot (Jos_18:28), but joined close to Judah’s, Jos_15:8. The children of Judah had taken it (Jdg_1:8), but the children of Benjamin suffered the Jebusites to dwell among them (Jdg_1:21), and they grew so upon them that it became a city of Jebusites, Jdg_19:11. Now the very first exploit David did, after he was anointed king over all Israel, was to gain Jerusalem out of the hand of the Jebusites, which, because it belonged to Benjamin, he could not well attempt till that tribe, which long adhered to Saul’s house (1Ch_12:29), submitted to him.”
The winning over of the Jebusites is the first confirmation of David’s enthronement – the winning over of a tribe which had long adhered to Saul’s house; and it is utterly important that these idolatrous Jebusites are entirely rooted out so that the promised new city will indeed be set apart for the LORD (Jeremiah 37:9-10).
However, the key verse is v.6; why would the Jebusites think that the ‘lame and the blind’ will ward off David? This is furthermore curious when all that David had been doing was spend time with ‘worthless’ men. Even the LORD in Jeremiah 31:8-10 expressed that through the true David, the lame and blind would be called into New Jerusalem. It is indicative therefore that the Jebusites may not have been referring to actual lame and blind men, as if David was some sort of arrogant fool who would not even touch the lame or the blind. Rather, the Hebrew descriptions imply an analogous application, which could be applied to idols which are in God’s eyes lame and blind:
“The Jebusites’ defiance of David and his forces. They said, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither, 2Sa_5:6. They sent David this provoking message, because, as it is said afterwards, on another occasion, they could not believe that ever an enemy would enter into the gates of Jerusalem, Lam_4:12. They confided either, 1. In the protection of their gods, which David, in contempt, had called the blind and the lame, for they have eyes and see not, feet and walk not. “But,” say they, “these are the guardians of our city, and except thou take these away (which thou canst never do) thou canst not come in hither.” Some think they were constellated images of brass set up in the recess of the fort, and entrusted with the custody of the place. They called their idols their Mauzzim, or strong-holds (Dan_11:38) and as such relied on them. The name of the Lord is our strong tower, and his arm is strong, his eyes are piercing. Or, 2. In the strength of their fortifications, which they thought were made so impregnable by nature or art, or both, that the blind and the lame were sufficient to defend them against the most powerful assailant. The strong-hold of Zion they especially depended on, as that which could not be forced. Probably they set blind and lame people, invalids or maimed soldiers, to make their appearance upon the walls, in scorn of David and his men, judging them an equal match for him. Though there remain but wounded men among them, yet they should serve to beat back the besiegers. Compare Jer_37:10. Note, The enemies of God’s people are often very confident of their own strength and most secure when their day to fall draws nigh.”
This is therefore the most likely reason for the new proverb in v.8, that “the blind and the lame shall not come into the house”. This proverb bears so much weight and that it indicates a two-fold meaning: that no idol shall enter the house of David (Isaiah 42:18); and that the true David shall overcome the lame and the weak, redeeming them into the house of God and granting them true and everlasting rest (c.f. lame and blind walking and seeing: Acts 3; Matthew 9:27).
Furthermore, the joining of the rich nation of Tyre (Psalm 45:12) with Israel, and the cedar trees rooted in living waters (Numbers 24:6) are but shadows of the fruit we shall receive in true Canaan under Christ as the Head. It is therefore in the overcoming of the lame and the blind, the overcoming of the idolatrous Jebusites, then coupled with the gifts from a foreign non-Israelite nation that David knew that the LORD had established him king over Israel, exalted not for David’s sake but for the sake of the church. So also the ascension of Christ was done for our exaltation (v.12), secured in the defeat of old pagan Jerusalem and the joining of heart-circumcised Israelites and foreigners (represented by Tyre) under the banner of His Name.
And so we move onto v.13-16 which emphasizes once more that any one of these descendants are to be the line through which Jesus will reign; and despite the names given to all of these, almost all of which are inspired by Eli, by God Himself, Solomon is the only son of the eleven born in Jerusalem who will bring about the golden era of Israel. All the others will only be mentioned sparsely in the rest of the Bible, especially in 1 Chronicles 14, but Solomon the peaceful and perfect one as his name indicates, will be the one who builds God’s temple.
The consolidation of David’s kingship comes with it the enemy symbolic of David’s initial election as mediator and saviour of Israel so recognized – this enemy is the Philistine. It is important to see the chiastic framework of David’s life – that the Philistines as enemies in the Promised Land should be destroyed through the death of Goliath in 1 Samuel 17, and once again destroyed by David. This two-fold destruction affirming that David was never a servant of Gath (1 Samuel 27), but that he was and always is the Head and anointed One of Israel We must not overlook that over Baal-perazim, where the LORD bursted through for the first time (v.20-21), the Philistines have left their idols and yet they escaped alive. Only upon the second attempt, standing symbolically at the Valley of the remnants of the Giants (Joshua 11:22), does the LORD shift tactic. Instead of facing them head-on, the LORD advises David to come against them opposite the balsam trees by their rear.
Why this change in strategy? Why the focus on the balsam trees? This narration impacts us the same way we are taught about the dispensation of the Old and the New Testaments – that in the Old, the effect of the Mediator is but to cripple the Philistines and to rob them temporarily of their idols which they can always rebuild with their own hands (Judges 8:27); yet the fulfillment of all prophecies, the fulfillment of the hope of the race of adam in the New Covenant means that this crippling has condemned Satan to eternal death, that He has bound the strong man in the house. “And when you hear the sound of marching in the tops of the balsam trees, then rouse yourself, for then the LORD has gone out before you to strike down the army of the Philistines” (v.24) – this is a committed cleansing in the midst of trees with red-wine like berries which upon crushing is akin to the crushing of the vine at the winepress (Isaiah 63). So Satan stands in the Valley of the Giants, only to be surprised by Jesus’ resurrection from the death of the cross, this surprise from the rear leading to the tearing down of the old temple, of old creation, and leading to new creation and an everlasting temple.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: Balsam, David, Gath, Hebrew, Matthew Henry, Mulberry, New Testament, Old Testament, Re-translation, Saul, Tree
2 Samuel 4: The Two Bosheth’s
It is clear from v.1 that Israel’s dismay was not simply because Abner had died; but because Abner died as the mediator between Judah and themselves. Ish-bosheth, a man of shame, is therefore left to his own devices and his own counsel. Though Abner had positively decided to fellowship with the light by putting himself before the anointed David (2 Corinthians 6:14), Ish-bosheth has sadly remained without hope, only to have the ruthless Benjaminites (Beerothites) surround him (Genesis 49:27), the Beerothites who had fled to the double-winepress Gittaim as the double-winepress Baanah and Rechab attempt to destroy the final line of Saul via the death Ish-bosheth.
It is therefore important that we see the parallel not simply between the righteousness of Abner as a temporary type of Christ, but also the comparison between Ish-bosheth and Mephibosheth, bearing names of contrasting meaning. Where Ish-bosheth is the appointed king clothed in royal garb, he is in fact a man of shame who is undeserving of the title; contrary to Mephibosheth, the grandson of Saul and the son of righteous Jonathan who is lamed but will be brought to the meal table before David (2 Samuel 9:10). Where Ish-bosheth’s courage failed, Mephibosheth’s courage was brought to life. Such is the man titled the exterminator of idol and shame compared with the man of shame. In what form does this exterminator take? The form of a lame man from his youth. And that is why Mephibosheth is mentioned in what is a seemingly random placement between the repeated descriptions of Baanah and Rechab (v.2 and v.5); in the midst of the ravenous wolves of Benjamin is this ray of hope in the physical house of Israel, in the natural branches of the olive tree (Romans 11).
It is therefore immediately clear that Mephibosheth’s humility is described in such a way as to shame Baanah and Rechab who in their own mind are exterminating Ish-bosheth as if he was an idol. Yet, these two men are deceivers (v.6), like the Benjaminite ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing, the true enemy of the church from within her own ranks (Matthew 7:15). And so Baanah and Rechab are the false exterminators – they fail to see that Israel is not to be replaced by any more shedding of blood, nor it is pleasing to God that Saul should fall for David to rise. Is Saul’s blood not enough? Is Asahel’s blood not excessive? Is Abner’s blood not innocent? Is Joab’s violence not rebuked? And so we see a chain of events which spiral out of control preceding David’s enthronement; and yet, this is not of David’s will nor is it of God’s will. It is reflective of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus – his excessive, selfish betrayal which is typified by these chains of madness. Yet, God works through this madness to bring about Christ’s exaltation, restoring even the house of Israel though crippled and lamed by its internal conflict and warfare to display that it is only by Christ’s grace that Israel is to return to the table which it once took part of at the height of its glory at Mt. Sinai (Exodus 24).
And so such blasphemous words from the ravenous wolves in sheepskin: “The LORD Has avenged my lord the king this day on Saul and on his offspring” – what ridicule that such a Messianic race of people should dare kill the offspring of the first anointed king Saul when they are indeed anticipating the One beyond David and beyond Saul who will redeem them! These are the secret responses from Satan that from the day of his punishment (Genesis 3) he would want to murder the offspring of the king!
Therefore the removal of the hands and feet of the Beerothites is a symbol of the powerlessness of Satan hanged up beside the pool at the seat of association before the LORD; their heads are not cut off for all to see and identify such heresy as powerless before the living God effectuated through David. By parallel, the head of Ish-bosheth is buried with Abner, representative that both men of Israel however once shameful are considered righteous men by David’s account and pronouncement; that they should share the same tomb at Hebron. Ish-bosheth, a man of shame to have his head buried in the same tomb as the man whose death was heavily mourned and fasted for (c.f. chapter 3) – such is the exaltation which David is capable of bringing on the house of Saul, from the shackles of sin (Mark 5) to the glory of gifted righteousness from the anointed king! David has consistently exercised this power of redemption throughout his ministry in restoring shameful Israel to glory from 1 Samuel 17 to 2 Samuel 4, and it is upon his enthronement as the King of Israel that the headless man of shame is now led by the new head David son of Jesse, and that another brand of worthless men – Abner and Ish-bosheth – are to be honoured and to go with Him into the true Promised Land.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: Ascension, Benjamin, David, Genesis, Headship, Ish-bosheth, Israel, Judas, Mephibosheth, Prophecy, Resurrection, Typology
2 Samuel 3: Abner and Nabal
The ‘long war’ spoken of, is this war of the end-times. The Christian church grew stronger and stronger, while the house of Saul, the continual epitome of old Israel, became weaker and weaker (v.1). Is this not the picture of the present day, that Israel (though the nation is re-established on the geographical map) has a long way to go before many are called to join the house of David? While the gospel has gone out to the Gentiles and other worthless men who are now hiding under the banner of Jesus?
It is no surprise that v.2-5 is therefore a return to a genealogical account of David because it contrasts the birthing of new sons in the house of David against the death of Saul’s family, save for a few daughters such as Milcah and the son Ish-bosheth and a grandson Mephibosheth (c.f. chapter 4). In the dwindling house of Saul, the head of this house is symbolically Ish-bosheth; but Abner is the real mediator between the two houses. It is clear that there could be no procreation of this old Israel and that they must join with the house of David if they were to continue to exist. In comparison to the richness of the wives and sons by David’s side, Abner and Ish-bosheth quarrel over a rumour of Saul’s concubine being disloyal, and fear and adultery rules in this house where the king is subdued by the army commander (v.11); where the head fears the body. Yet, one thing is for certain – the looming fulfillment of the prophecy that David will be king (v.10) which has been burnt into Abner’s heart. This shameful man Ish-bosheth must turn from this accusation of adultery and move onto the inevitable truth that the house of Saul must fail; and that like Abner, choose to surrender and follow the new head David.
Yet, it is in v.12-16 that we learn truly why the genealogical account was given in v.2-5: because Milcah was David’s first wife. Because Milcah is Saul’s daughter; and it is by Milcah that David is (by implication) to become the potential heir to the throne besides Jonathan and his other brothers. And it is in God’s economy and irony that Saul’s own prophetic words are fulfilled (1 Samuel 18:21), but not for the good of Saul but for the pleasure of the Father in heaven. Milcah is no snare and has not proven to be the catalyst for David’s rise to the throne; rather, it is David who initiated this fulfillment of the first marriage to honour the house of Saul just as Abner has been doing in lieu of Saul’s death.
Thus, it is by circumcision that the old enemy, the Philistines, is exchanged as a bridal price for Saul’s daughter (v.14), as Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho states:
“The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first.”
And in this chapter we see the transfer of the bride to the true first head, God delivering (Paltiel) Milcah from the hands of the false husband who is the son of Laish, the ancient name of the tribe of Dan, the prophesied symbolic serpent (Genesis 49:17) rejected from the book of Revelation; of Abner declaring that his hand shall be with David to bring over all Israel to him (v.12), further declaring the long foretold prophecy of David as the true king of Israel (v.17-19) finally admitting that David is the true Messiah and not some king of the physical lineage of Saul’s. Will this be the picture of Israel in the end-days, that they will no longer call Christ an imposter-Messiah but finally accept that the prophecies, shadows, sacraments and types of the Old Testament all point definitively to this God-man upon which the physical lineage of the kings are removed in favour of the priestly line of Melchizedek (Psalm 110)?
The joint fact that Abner had conferred with the elders of Israel privately and thereafter in v.20-21 had a feast with David (c.f. Exodus 24; Matthew 22 – the wedding feast typified by David’s reunification with Michal) upon his re-uniting with Michal is more than simply a message of the church uniting in new creation to finally see the Father and the Son face-to-face (v.13). It is a message of the restoration of Israel under the banner of Christ; it is the message of the long-war whereupon the elect nation Israel will not be replaced by the Gentiles, but will submit to the true God alongside them (Revelation 21:12).
The transparency of Abner’s dealings with the elders of Israel depict a man who has finally accepted the fulfillment of Yahweh’s prophecy in Jesus Christ typified in David; yet Joab’s murder of Abner is not fuelled by love for his enemy but fuelled by wrath and blindness (v.25). It is therefore interesting what pronouncement David makes over Joab’s house in v.29: “May it fall upon the head of Joab and upon all his father’s house, and may the house of Joab never be without one who has a discharge or who is leprous or who holds a spindle or who falls by the sword or who lacks bread!” What a seemingly extreme curse in light of Asahel’s death (v.30)! Yet, as we have looked at the last chapter that Asahel’s pursuit of Abner is more typical of the son of Zeruiah than the son of Mary (c.f. v.39), so David’s pronouncement is on this ‘missing father’ of these sons who take upon the matronymic label; instead, David’s pronouncement is not merely on some physical father but on the spiritual father of these sons – this spiritual father being Satan (John 8:44), who had used Joab to prevent the unity of the Israelite and the Gentile church which has been the subject of the end-times since Christ’s ascension (c.f. Acts 2, which shows the momentous act of the Gentiles speaking in tongues, and book of Ephesians which both focus on the addition of Gentiles to the church of Israel).
Thus, the burial of Abner at Hebron (v.32) is a mirror to the birth of David’s sons also at Hebron (v.2-5); just as the burial of Asahel at Bethlehem is a mirror of the birth of David in Bethlehem; just as the death of Michal’s second marriage to be replaced by the first love under David’s banner (1 Samuel 18:28).
“He speaks as one boasting that Abner did not fool himself out of his life: “Died Abner as a fool dies? No, he did not, not as a criminal, a traitor or felon, that forfeits his life into the hands of public justice; his hands were not pinioned, nor his feet fettered, as those of malefactors are: Abner falls not before just men, by a judicial sentence; but as a man, an innocent man, falleth before wicked men, thieves and robbers, so fellest thou.” Died Abner as Nabal died? so the Septuagint reads it. Nabal died as he lived, like himself, like a sot; but Abner’s fate was such as might have been the fate of the wisest and best man in the world. Abner did not throw away his life as Asahel did, who wilfully ran upon the spear, after fair warning, but he was struck by surprise. Note, It is a sad thing to die like a fool, as those do that in any way shorten their own days, and much more those that make no provision for another world.” – Matthew Henry
In David’s poetic cry Abner’s death is compared to the death and sacrifice of the Christ; upon his death are the Israelites and the Gentiles united. Though this typology is imperfect for Abner is at fault for Asahel’s death (though made in self-defence), the poetry speaks of the contrast between Abner and Nabal; the former repenting of his treatment of David and willing to unite Israel under David, against the latter refusing to repent and leading to God’s punishment of death.
Further, in David’s fasting he uses a similar phrase as Abner had done in his heated conversation with Ish-bosheth – “God do so to me and more also” to identify that both men are of the same agenda. Both men, though from different houses, have set in their mind matters of peace and mediation between the two houses, united under the prophecy of Yahweh’s anointing of David as the very centre of unity. Abner is no mere army commander, but a prince and a great man (v.38) with whom he had made a covenant with (v.13) rather than directly with Ish-bosheth himself (c.f. v.14 where Ish-bosheth was asked to deliver Michal but nothing was stated about the covenant which he offered to make with Abner). Though Asahel is buried in Bethlehem as a mark of the end of his ministry without mourning, the death of Abner in Hebron is marked with true mourning and fasting; where peace was achieved in chapter 2v.17 but denied by Asahel’s pursuit upon which he died a warrior’s death (Matthew 26:52), true peace was indeed achieved in this chapter (v.23) but again denied by the hands of a son of Zeruiah whereupon the curse is on the father of these sons and a blessing is proclaimed on the house of Abner – the house of Saul, with whom David managed to make a covenant with before Abner’s passing away.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: Abner, Adultery, Asahel, Blood, Circumcision, David, Genealogy, Houses, Ish-bosheth, Justin Martyr, Marriage, Matthew Henry, Michal, Poetry, Procreation, Saul, Typology
In the anointing of David (v.4) we see that he brings with him the women from the garden land (the Carmelite), and the land sown of God (the Jezreelite), to the seat of association (Hebron). It is intended, given David’s inclination for mercy (see chapter 3), for David to be associated with growth; with peace; brought to the mercy seat of God. In the midst of such immense respect for Saul’s house, followed with praise to the men of Jabesh-gilead who had properly buried Saul, we are brought to recognize Abner’s futile actions from v.8 onwards.
The real question is this: does Abner really want Saul’s kingdom to be established? Why was his absence so profound between 1 Samuel 26 to 2 Samuel 2? Surely he is Saul’s chief commander of the army, a particular title which he bears even in this chapter, v.8 (and in previous chapters (1 Samuel 14:50; 17:55; 20:25; 26:5)). Yet, it appears that the true stewardship of Saul’s protection falls upon David, Saul’s true armor-bearer (1 Samuel 16:21) despite Abner’s important role as confidante and leader (1 Samuel 26:15). What is Abner who buried Saul? Who praised Saul? Who mourned for Saul? Abner would have to admit negatively to these questions; and instead, he would rather unite the rest of Israel against David despite being very aware of the prophecy made for David, a subject possibly touched upon by Saul with Abner prior to his death. Not only that, but he would rather subject Israel to its physical lineage Ishbosheth rather than the spiritual lineage after the line of Melchizedek where David stands as the true anointed One (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:6).
What we have here are two shadows in v.10 – the shadow of civil conflict within a nation and within a family stemming from the third chapter of Genesis with our removal from God’s heaven-earth presence in the Garden of Eden; the fourth chapter of Genesis with the death of Abel, the brother of Cain; the tension between Jacob and Esau (Genesis 27); the attempted murder of Joseph by eleven others (Genesis 37); the death of Israelites and Egyptians who failed to rely on the blood of the Passover Lamb in the final punishment of the Angel of the LORD (Exodus 12); and the list continues. Here, the conflict is materialized in Judah’s relation with the rest of Israel – Ish-bosheth commanded almost all the regions outside of Judah, whereas “the house of Judah followed David” (c.f. the beginning of the split in 1 Kings 12:27 after Solomon’s death).
The second shadow lies in the temporary kingship of David over Judah as representative of his true kingship over Canaan the Promised Land; though he had long been anointed to become the king of Israel, his persecution by Israel and eventual ostracism even by his enemies in Gath and his return to Israel are symbolic of Jesus Christ’s work in his life-time. This period of David’s is also the period of Jesus’ humiliation as he was man on earth though both figures drew in countless worthless men through their rejection from Israel. Yet, in the crowning of David in Hebron over the house of Judah for the temporary period of seven years and six months (v.11), we see the crowning of Christ in his resurrection and ascension as the true LORD and king of heaven and earth, the true heir of new creation and true Canaan (Hebrews 1:2; 11:7). It is after the period of seven years that we see a renewal of relations – the release of slaves and freedom flowing in from the throne (c.f. Deuteronomy 15:1, 31:10; Jeremiah 34:14).
In spite of this, Jesus has not yet physically penetrated and inherited the land, though by the Christians we are reclaiming souls for Him daily (2 Peter 3:9). So, in similarity, we see that David has commanded allegiance from the house of Judah, to penetrate into the rest of Israel until the total surrender of the nation before the feet of Christ. This is the second shadow, the period of the end-times, such that David is truly the king of Israel and not only the king of the church in Judah and especially not only the rejected carpenter’s son (Psalm 110:1). It is by the government of old Israel and the government of the twelve apostles (v.15) that we see the removal of the branches which do not bear fruit, and the implanting of branches into the tree trunk that is Jesus Christ (Romans 11).
It is at this point that we are introduced to the sons of Zeruiah after the defeat of Abner and the men of Israel which already spelled out the eventual defeat of the house of Israel in favour of the remnant church in Judah. It is important that we see these sons mentioned with the matronymic “son of Zeruiah”, as Zeruiah is not their father but their mother. Yet, these were zealous men for the LORD, interestingly named father of a gift (Abishai), God-made (Asahel), and Jehovah-fathered (Joab) – all pursuing the father of light (Abner). There is implication that these sons of Zeruiah are raised by Zeruiah alone, and that Yahweh is their true father. In this, we see a parallel between David as typological son of God, against the sons of Zeruiah (a shadow of Jesus who was also referred to by the matronymic “son of Mary”). Where David desired mercy (chapter 3), the sons of Zeruiah desired revenge and violence (chapter 3v.39).
The contrast is large; in the death of Asahel, there is no mourning; the pursuit of Abner led to his surrender (v.26) although Abner had already long been defeated in v.17. Although Abner had surrendered, he had not been commissioned to go in peace as by David in chapter 3; and instead, he returns to Mahanaim to place himself before the false king of Israel once more and no peace is made. These sons of Zeruiah seem to have followed in the vein of Saul that their swords shall “devour forever” (v.26) (1 Samuel 14:52). Despite this temporary reprieve set forth by Joab in v.28, we soon learn that Joab’s rage has not yet been tempered as shown in the next chapter.
Asahel’s burial is the final point of parallel between the son of Zeruiah and the son of Mary; where the former is buried in Bethlehem, the home town of David, it is there that David the man after God’s heart is born; it is there that the son of Mary is also brought out of. Where this son of Zeruiah’s ministry ended in Bethlehem, the son of Mary’s ministry began in Bethlehem (c.f. Genesis 35:19, 48:7; Ruth 2:4; 1 Samuel 17:12).
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: Abner, Asahel, David, Father, Hebrew, Joab, Mary, Matronymic, Saul, Typology, Zeruiah
-
Recent Comments
-
Flickr Photos
More Photos
Recent Entries
- 2 Samuel 11: Original Sin
- 2 Samuel 10: Nahash and Jonathan
- 2 Samuel 9: The call of the Father
- 2 Samuel 8: Firstfruit of Victory
- 2 Samuel 7: The law for Adam
- 2 Samuel 6: Naked before the Father
- 2 Samuel 5: David as King of Kings
- 2 Samuel 4: The Two Bosheth’s
- 2 Samuel 3: Abner and Nabal
- 2 Samuel 2: Son of Zeruiah, Son of Mary
- 2 Samuel 1: Lamentations
Categories
- Uncategorized (122)
