Week 21, Day 2 — 2 Samuel 1-4

“How the Mighty Have Fallen!”: But David Is Not to Blame

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+sam+1-4&version=NIV

As noted yesterday, chapters 1-4 record the chaos that follows the death of Saul, centering on the war over succession. On the face of it, David is implicated in the deaths of Saul and his lineage, in the effort to secure kingship for himself. So the narrator consistently directs blame away from him and toward other characters in the narrative.

What God said to them. These chapters form a unit, both thematically and structurally. Thematically, they all deal with the death of Saul and succession to his vacated throne. Structurally, the episodes form a chiasm

a      1:1-27 David executes Saul’s killer and grieves the loss of Saul

b           2:1-32 David and Ish-Bosheth compete for the throne

c                  3:1-5 David begins to prevail

b’          3:6-39 Ish-Boseth’s commander surrenders to David, and is killed

a’    4:9-12 Ish-Bosheth is killed by his men, whom David then executes

David’s rise to the throne depends in large measure on the death of his predecessor and rivals. The narrator protects David from any appearance of complicity by identifying the responsible parties in each case.

First, David is free from blame in the death of Saul. He was not even present when Saul died (1:1). Instead, an Amalekite takes credit for the final blow, perhaps exaggerating his role in hopes of a reward (1:2-10). Far from celebrating the death of his antagonist, David kills the Amalekite for striking – rather than dying to protect – the king (1:11-16). He then composes an elegy, and leads all Israel in grieving the death of Saul and Jonathan (1:17-27).

The second episode describes the competition to succeed Saul. God guides David to his appointment as king of his own clan, Judah (2:1-4a). In the hopes of expanding his influence nationwide, David reaches out to the Saul loyalists in Jabesh Gilead (2:4b-7 cf. 1 Sam 11). Saul’s commander Abner, however, promotes Saul’s son Ish-Bosheth as king over the other eleven tribes (2:8-11). This leads to civil war, until David gradually prevails (2:12-32).

The third episode provides a brief interlude, identifying one evidence (or two) of David’s growing strength: he fathers six sons, from six different women.

The fourth episode matches the second, updating the progress of the civil war. When Ish-Bosheth accuses his commander of insurrection, Abner defects to David’s side, and brings all of Israel with him (3:8-21). Joab takes advantage of the peace accord to take revenge against Abner (3:22-27). The narrator absolves David of complicity in this murder (3:28-37). In fact, David wants to execute Joab to avenge the assassination, but Joab is too powerful (3:38-39).

The fifth episode matches the first, and ties up the remaining loose end. With the outcome of the civil war assured, two of Ish-Bosheth’s men assassinate him in the hopes of ingratiating themselves with David (4:1-8). Instead, they sign their own death warrants. Just as he executed Saul’s executioner, David now orders the deaths of those who killed Saul’s son (4:9-12).

Thus, while David clearly benefits from the death of his rivals, he is entirely innocent in their demise, and takes no satisfaction from it. Instead, he grieves over them, and executes those responsible.

What God is saying to us. Once again, we see the fallacy of seeking to apply all biblical texts to our private lives. “Do not assassinate the President” is not an admonition that most of us need. Nor, by extension, “Do not kill your boss, even if he treats you unjustly.” The latter is both remote from the text, and trivial in comparison to it.

In contexts like David’s, where violence is endemic in the acquisition and exercise of power, the relevance of his model is transparent: for those who claim the name of Christ, violence in the pursuit of political goals is not an option. It may also encourage those who suffer under political violence to know that God delegitimizes such rulers (and occasionally deposes them).

While it is an extension of the immediate point of the text, David may also serve as a role model for Christian politicians in countries where money –not violence – is the primary instrument of political power. When political campaigns require obscene amounts of money, and corporate donations come with the expectation of return on investment, integrity may be impossible to maintain, without massive overhaul of campaign finance laws. God, through David, calls us to prioritize integrity over political advancement.

“’When someone told me, ‘Saul is dead,’ and thought he was bringing good news, I seized him and put him to death… How much more—when wicked men have killed an innocent man in his own house and on his own bed—should I not now … rid the earth of you!’” (2 Samuel 4:10-11)

Week 21, Day 1 — 2 Samuel 1-10

The King Is Dead! Long Live the King!

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+sam+1-10&version=NIV

The entirety of 2 Samuel focuses on the reign of King David. The first portion covers his appointment and early reign (1-10). The second portion records his adultery with Bathsheba, and its consequences for his personal and professional life (11-21). The last three chapters provide a concluding reflection on his rule (22-24). This week we explore chapters 1-10; next week, chapters 11-24.

What God said to them. Chapters 1-10 consist of two sections. The first records the death of Saul and the violence which ensues, as two factions vie to succeed him (chapters 1-4). The burden of this section is to absolve David of any responsibility for, or misconduct in, the civil war. Eventually the entirety of the country endorses David as king (chapters 5-10). This section portrays the merits of his reign. In short, David is exemplary both in how he rises to power, and how he rules.

Read in the light of Israel’s preceding and subsequent history, the purpose of these two sections can be readily inferred.

Regarding chapters 1-4 and David’s ascent to the throne, both the antagonistic Saul and the supportive Jonathan share the same worry: that a new king will dispose of all potential rivals. Jonathan solicits a pledge from David: “Show me unfailing kindness … as long as I live, so that I may not be killed, and do not ever cut off your kindness from my family” (1 Sam 20:14-15). Saul solicits a similar pledge: “You will surely be king … Now swear to me by the Lord that you will not kill off my descendants” (1 Sam 24:20-21).

This concern reflects a common practice. A generation later, during Solomon’s reign, God promises one of his officials, Jeroboam, that he will rule over ten of the twelve tribes, in an eternal dynasty parallel to David’s (1 Kings 11:26-39). Solomon gets wind of the prophecy, and in an effort to protect his dynasty, he attempts to kill this upcoming rival.

So when Saul and Jonathan die, then civil war breaks out, and David eventually prevails, but his rivals are killed, the narrator takes special pains to protect David from any insinuation that he is complicit in the violence (chapters 1-4).

Regarding chapters 5-10, Israel’s subsequent history similarly explains why the narrator stresses the virtue of David’s rule. When Solomon dies, the people appeal to his son Rehoboam to lower the oppressive burdens of taxation and conscription. He refuses, so ten of twelve tribes secede. Jeroboam rallies the secessionists with the cry: “’What share do we have in David?’” (1 Kings 12:16).

So chapters 1-10 are an ‘apology’ (in the technical sense of a ‘defense’) for David in times when the Davidic monarchy is in dispute. The narrator portrays the virtues of his rise and reign to differentiate him from his successors. The Davidic monarchy is not the problem, though some of its subsequent rulers are.

The differentiation is important not simply for accurate recollection of the past, but also for the future: it holds out hope that the two national breech can heal, and, toward that end, holds up David as a model for his successors to follow.

What God is saying to us. King David is a less compelling figure two millennia later, and outside of Israel. Still, the Bible’s validation of these two characteristics – how a ruler attains and exercises power –imbues these traits with trans-temporal and trans-cultural significance.

Politics may be one of the most difficult careers in which to preserve integrity, whether in gaining or holding office. It can be tempting to justify compromise on the grounds of necessity, with the rationalization that ‘this is just the way the game is played.’ Or to suppose that while it may be necessary to engage in unsavory behavior in order to gain power, once in office, it will be possible to govern with integrity. Or to claim a greater good, compromising integrity where deemed less important, in the hopes of achieving a higher goal. Or to engage in partisanship, holding opposing parties and politicians to higher standards.

In contrast, David follows God, rather than the conventional practices of his time and place. We will have occasion to explore some specifics of his rise and rule in subsequent days. For today, it is sufficient to observe from 2 Samuel 1-10, that Scripture affirms the importance of both these dimensions of politics: how power is attained and how it is exercised.

Because both matter to God, both must also matter to Christians in politics, and to the people who select them.

“David was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years.” (2 Samuel 5:4)