[2 Sam. 13:1] And it came to pass after this, that Absalom the son of David had a fair sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her.
David had older sons who also had a claim to the throne. Of these Ammon, Absalom, and Adonijah appear to have staked their claims for the throne. The accounts that follow in verses 1-20:26 are therefore meant to show why these persons were disqualified from being the successor to David.
Absalom and Tamar were directly half brother and sister, born to David through the Aramaic princess from Geshur (Maachah), whereas Amnon had a different mother. Amnon loves his half-sister Tamar because she is beautiful. According to Lev. 20:17 marriage between a half brother and a half sister is discouraged, though that Law comes from a later period.
The virgin Tamar lives in a different place from Amnon, so it is not possible for Amnon to meet her in private. The desire for Tamar was not motivated by true love; rather, it was the mere lust of the flesh. Virginity is still a pre-condition for marriage for women in most Asian countries. Unmarried daughters were kept in close seclusion from the company of men; no strangers, nor even their relatives of the other sex, being permitted to see them without the presence of witnesses. Of course, Amnon must have seen Tamar, for he had conceived a violent passion for her, which, though forbidden by the Law (Leviticus 18:11), yet with the sanction of Abraham’s example (Genesis 20:12), and the common practice in neighboring countries for princes to marry their half sisters, he seems not to have considered an improper connection. But he had no means of making it known to her, and the pain of that disappointment preying upon his mind produced a visible change in his appearance and health.
In Eastern countries, where polygamy prevails, the girls are considered to be under the special care and protection of their uterine brother, who is the guardian of their interests and their honor, even more than their father himself. Amnon should pretend to be sick and request from the king the services of Tamar at his sick bed, and David grants his request. The Israelites appear to have had a strange custom to prove the virginity of a woman. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 refers to the tokens of virginity. These seem to be those clothes that show blood from the first intercourse after a proper marriage, which are than preserved by the girl’s parents as proof of their daughter’s virginity at the time of marriage. The child which Tamar might conceive through intercourse with Amnon would become a shame for her. Her human reasoning of marrying her does not appeal to Amnon, because his human faculties are overpowered by his animal instincts. Tamar is not against having Amnon as her husband; but she objects to being used as an object of his lust, to being raped. Tamar, living ca. 1000 B.E. recalls the stipulation of the covenant, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’. Tamar not only appeals to Amnon’s reason, but also protests at his physical act. The account of Amnon’s rape of Tamar is given in vivid detail with much realism. The innocent Tamar is caught as a lamb in the mouth of a wolf.
Then Amnon hated her after he raped her, with very great hatred, and Absalom hated Amnon (v. 22). The sin that Amnon committed induced this internal change within him, resulting in the hatred of the one whom he had liked the most. Further it strained his relationship with his brothers and his father, David was very angry (v. 21). The sinful act actually ends in the death of Amnon. (v.28-29).
Tamar resorts to a public mourning so that others may know what happened to her. Otherwise, if she were discovered later to be pregnant, she would have to die on the charge of fornication. Oriental manners would probably see nothing beyond a strong sense of the injury she had sustained, if Tamar actually rent her garments. But, as her veil is not mentioned, it is probable that Amnon had turned her out of doors without it, and she raised her hand with the design to conceal her face.
By these signs, especially the rending of her distinguishing robe, Absalom at once conjectured what had taken place. Recommending her to be silent about it and not publish her own and her family’s dishonor, he gave no inkling of his angry feelings to Amnon. But all the while he was in secret “nursing his wrath to keep it warm,” and only “biding his time” to avenge his sister’s wrongs, and by the removal of the heir-apparent perhaps further also his ambitious designs.
Tamar runs to her brother Absalom. Perhaps her mother is no longer alive and Absalom plays the role of guardian. In a family with many wives and concubines, David apparently had no direct control over his children. He was her natural protector, and the children of polygamists lived by themselves, as if they constituted different families.
In spite of Absalom’s consolation, Tamar dwelt in Absalom’s house as a desolate woman. A woman who can have no more sex and so could not bear children was considered to be desolate. For Tamar marriage with another man has now become impossibility; nor can she return to the house of the virgins. Thus her life becomes desolate.
It does not say what the king David did to render justice to Tamar and to defuse the tension between Absalom and Amnon. He was mad but seemed to do nothing, it was a daughter not one of his precious sons. Nathan’s oracle on David has already begun to take effect: ‘I will raise up evil against you out of your own house’ (12:11). Absalom’s hatred against Amnon is internalized in that he is now devising secret plans to take revenge. Quiet persons, who do not react openly, can be much more dangerous than persons who do react openly. He seems to have already made up his mind; but he does not want to create any suspicion in the minds of Amnon and the other sons of the kings lest his secret plot should be crushed. Absalom waits for two whole years to execute his plans. At the end of that period he celebrates a sheepshearing festival and invites all the sons of the king to be present. At the opportune moment during the festival his servants strike and kill Amnon. And David mourned for his dead son every day. Had David intervened to avenge Tamar, he could have prevented the killing of Amnon.
The feelings of the father triumphed over the duty of the king, who, as the supreme magistrate, was bound to execute impartial justice on every murderer, by the express Law of G-d (Genesis 9:6, Numbers 35:30,31), which he had no power to dispense with (Deuteronomy 18:18, Joshua 1:8, 1 Samuel 10:25). David brings Absalom out of blandishment, whatever error David committed in authorizing the recall of Absalom, he displayed great carefulness and command over his feelings afterwards for his son was not admitted into his father’s presence but was confined to his own house and the society of his own family. This slight severity was designed to bring him to sincere repentance, on perceiving that his father had not fully pardoned him, as well as to convince the people of David’s hatred of his crime in defending his sister. Absalom named one of his daughters Tamar, in memory of his innocent sister.
Through the sins of our for-fathers we can see G-d’s pardon when we repent, but we still have to pay the price for our disobedience in doing G-d’s will.
Showing posts with label 2 Samuel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2 Samuel. Show all posts
Conception, Concretization, & Consequences
[2 Sam. 11:2] And it came to pass in an evening tide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king’s house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon.
[27] And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife, and bare him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD.
Sin is conceived in the heart and is concretized in actions in one’s life. All temptations have three aspects:
1. The object or the person who tempts the sinner appeals to the sinner as being highly desirable.
2. The sinner finds this object easily obtainable.
3. This action leads to undesirable consequences.
The Hebrews, like other Orientals, rose at daybreak, and always took a nap during the heat of the day. Afterwards they lounged in the cool of the evening on their flat-roofed terraces. It is probable that David had ascended to enjoy the open-air refreshment earlier than usual.
It is the greatness of the Bible that it speaks not only about the glorious side of its characters, but also about their darker side. It speaks both about the good and the bad in its characters, yet of course, often with a certain amount of theological bias. The Deuteronomic historian, who step by step builds up the image of David as an ideal king, is not guilty of covering up David’s weaker side; this certainly adds to the credibility of the account. Here are the bare facts of an account without any toning down or touching up. There is so much realism in the report which exposes the basic nature of David – an ordinary man, vulnerable to human temptations, unscrupulous and crafty in removing any barriers that block his plans and in getting things don in his own way. This account is also meant to affirm G-d’s promise to David regarding his throne, that the L-rd will not take His steadfast love from him, but will chasten the king with the stripes of the sons of men when he commits iniquity (7:14-16).
A sinner is often taken unawares by the impulsive nature of temptation so that it blinds his eyes from its consequences. It is for this reason that Y’Shua warned His disciples to ‘watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation’.) Mat. 26:41 and also taught them to pray, saying ‘lead us not into temptation’ (Matt. 6:13).
Most of the houses in Palestine were built with a flat mud roof, with a staircase leading to it from outside (1 Sam. 9:25). Because it was the palace of the king, the roof of David’s house would probably have been the highest in that area, so that from there he could look down into the open bathroom in the open space of the neighboring house.
Bathsheba’s husband is away and David’s royal authority is to his advantage; when David sends messengers to fetch Bathsheba, she goes with them without any protest because the men have come with the authority of the king. So he orders Bathsheba to come to his house, and has sexual intercourse with her. Bathsheba was purifying herself from her uncleanness in David’s house, probably because she had her menstrual period, while she was there. It is not said how long her cleansing should take; perhaps it was for seven days, as required by the Law regarding menstruation (Lev. 15:19).
The despotic kings of the East, when they take a fancy for a woman, send officers to the house were she lives, who announces it to be the royal pleasure she should remove to the palace. An apartment is there assigned to her; and if she is made queen, the monarch orders the announcement to be made that he has made choice of her to be queen. Many instances in modern Oriental history show the ease and dispatch with which such secondary marriages are contracted, and a new beauty added to the royal seraglio. But David had to make a promise, or rather an express stipulation, to Bath-sheba, before she complied with the royal will (1 Kings 1:13,15,17,28); for in addition to her transcendent beauty, she appears to have been a woman of superior talents and address in obtaining the object of her ambition; in her securing that her son should succeed on the throne; in her promptitude to give notice of her pregnancy; in her activity in defeating Adonijah’s natural expectation of succeeding to the crown; in her dignity as the king’s mother in all this we see very strong indications of the power she gained and maintained over David, who, perhaps, had ample leisure and opportunity to discover the punishment of this unhappy connection in more ways than one.
She knows what would happen to her if the public came to know that she had conceived outside her marital relationship. According to the Law, those who are involved in adultery – both man and the woman – must be stoned to death (Lev. 20:10). David must act quickly. In taking another man’s wife, David had used his royal authority without rhyme or reason. Sin leads on to undesirable consequences. Sin breeds further sins; in order to hide one sin, the sinner commits more sins. This is what is illustrated in David’s life. David first attempts to cover up Bathsheba’s conception by making it appear as normal through her marital relations with her husband. David orders a compulsory holiday for Uriah and tries to persuade him to go to his house and sleep with his wife.
It is customary for servants to sleep in the porch or long gallery; and the guards of the Hebrew king did the same. Whatever his secret suspicions might have been, Uriah’s refusal to indulge in the enjoyment of domestic pleasure, and his determination to sleep “at the door of the king’s house,” arose from a high and honorable sense of military duty and propriety (v. 11). But, doubtless, the resolution of Uriah was overruled by that Providence which brings good out of evil, and which has recorded this sad episode for the warning of the church.
Uriah as a loyal citizen cannot enjoy life for himself when the nation is in an emergency, with the ark and Israel and Judah dwelling in booths and his lord Joab and other fellow servants camping in the open field. (v.11), Uriah had morals and respect for his men.
David then makes a second attempt to send Uriah to his wife. This time he tries to make Uriah drunk, in the hope that in the state of drunkenness Uriah might go and have sex with his wife. But here again Uriah disappoints David. David plunges still deeper into the darkness of sin. Having failed in his attempt to make Uriah appear responsible for the child in Bathsheba’s womb, he now conceives a heinous plot to eliminate the innocent Uriah, so that there will not be anyone to refute the claim that the child is Uriah’s.
David wrote down his secret plan for Joab and has Uriah deliver it. Note the irony of the tragedy! Uriah carries his own death sentence! David devises the plan to have Uriah killed on the battlefield, and orders Joab to execute it. Uriah is to be set in the forefront of the hottest battle. In order to have Uriah killed without arousing the suspicion of people; Joab must put him in the front along with other servants of David. His fellow soldiers are to draw back from him, then he may be struck down, and die. Joab thus becomes the accomplice in David’s crime. The sinner does not stop with sinning himself, but implicates others also in his sin. In this way David sold himself to Joab; this may be one reason why David was afraid of Joab (3:39).
The various arts and stratagems by which the king tried to coax Uriah, till at last he resorted to the horrid crime of murder the cold-blooded cruelty of dispatching the letter by the hands of the brave but much-wronged soldier himself, the enlistment of Joab to be a partaker of his sin, the heartless affectation of mourning, and the indecent haste of his marriage with Bath-sheba have left an indelible stain upon the character of David, and exhibit a painfully humiliating proof of the awful lengths to which the best of men may go when they forfeit the restraining grace of G-d. Getting near the city wall where the enemy can attack from above could appear as a tactical mistake in warfare; therefore a redactor could have inserted verses 20-21 in its present context to show that Joab was aware of the danger, yet purposely acted as he did to get Uriah killed.
Love for G-d and love to mankind goes together; one without the other is not possible. As such, David’s love to G-d should have been reflected in his relationships to his fellow humans, and most especially to his subjects. In this then David failed.
David’s sin is of a much greater nature both in quality and quantity, aroused his conscience, and brought him to his knees. The sincerity and depth of his repentant sorrow are evinced by the Psalms he composed (Psalms 32:1-11, 51:1-19, 103:1-22). He was pardoned, so far as related to the restoration of the divine favor. But as from his high character for piety, and his important rank in society, his unpardonable fall was calculated to do great injury to the cause of religion, it was necessary that G-d should testify His hatred of sin by leaving even His own servant to reap the bitter temporal fruits. David was not himself doomed, according to his own view of what justice demanded; but he had to suffer a quadruple expiation in the successive deaths of four sons, besides a lengthened train of other evils.
See what one night of ‘pleasure’ can result to – is it worth the price you will have to pay?
[27] And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife, and bare him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD.
Sin is conceived in the heart and is concretized in actions in one’s life. All temptations have three aspects:
1. The object or the person who tempts the sinner appeals to the sinner as being highly desirable.
2. The sinner finds this object easily obtainable.
3. This action leads to undesirable consequences.
The Hebrews, like other Orientals, rose at daybreak, and always took a nap during the heat of the day. Afterwards they lounged in the cool of the evening on their flat-roofed terraces. It is probable that David had ascended to enjoy the open-air refreshment earlier than usual.
It is the greatness of the Bible that it speaks not only about the glorious side of its characters, but also about their darker side. It speaks both about the good and the bad in its characters, yet of course, often with a certain amount of theological bias. The Deuteronomic historian, who step by step builds up the image of David as an ideal king, is not guilty of covering up David’s weaker side; this certainly adds to the credibility of the account. Here are the bare facts of an account without any toning down or touching up. There is so much realism in the report which exposes the basic nature of David – an ordinary man, vulnerable to human temptations, unscrupulous and crafty in removing any barriers that block his plans and in getting things don in his own way. This account is also meant to affirm G-d’s promise to David regarding his throne, that the L-rd will not take His steadfast love from him, but will chasten the king with the stripes of the sons of men when he commits iniquity (7:14-16).
A sinner is often taken unawares by the impulsive nature of temptation so that it blinds his eyes from its consequences. It is for this reason that Y’Shua warned His disciples to ‘watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation’.) Mat. 26:41 and also taught them to pray, saying ‘lead us not into temptation’ (Matt. 6:13).
Most of the houses in Palestine were built with a flat mud roof, with a staircase leading to it from outside (1 Sam. 9:25). Because it was the palace of the king, the roof of David’s house would probably have been the highest in that area, so that from there he could look down into the open bathroom in the open space of the neighboring house.
Bathsheba’s husband is away and David’s royal authority is to his advantage; when David sends messengers to fetch Bathsheba, she goes with them without any protest because the men have come with the authority of the king. So he orders Bathsheba to come to his house, and has sexual intercourse with her. Bathsheba was purifying herself from her uncleanness in David’s house, probably because she had her menstrual period, while she was there. It is not said how long her cleansing should take; perhaps it was for seven days, as required by the Law regarding menstruation (Lev. 15:19).
The despotic kings of the East, when they take a fancy for a woman, send officers to the house were she lives, who announces it to be the royal pleasure she should remove to the palace. An apartment is there assigned to her; and if she is made queen, the monarch orders the announcement to be made that he has made choice of her to be queen. Many instances in modern Oriental history show the ease and dispatch with which such secondary marriages are contracted, and a new beauty added to the royal seraglio. But David had to make a promise, or rather an express stipulation, to Bath-sheba, before she complied with the royal will (1 Kings 1:13,15,17,28); for in addition to her transcendent beauty, she appears to have been a woman of superior talents and address in obtaining the object of her ambition; in her securing that her son should succeed on the throne; in her promptitude to give notice of her pregnancy; in her activity in defeating Adonijah’s natural expectation of succeeding to the crown; in her dignity as the king’s mother in all this we see very strong indications of the power she gained and maintained over David, who, perhaps, had ample leisure and opportunity to discover the punishment of this unhappy connection in more ways than one.
She knows what would happen to her if the public came to know that she had conceived outside her marital relationship. According to the Law, those who are involved in adultery – both man and the woman – must be stoned to death (Lev. 20:10). David must act quickly. In taking another man’s wife, David had used his royal authority without rhyme or reason. Sin leads on to undesirable consequences. Sin breeds further sins; in order to hide one sin, the sinner commits more sins. This is what is illustrated in David’s life. David first attempts to cover up Bathsheba’s conception by making it appear as normal through her marital relations with her husband. David orders a compulsory holiday for Uriah and tries to persuade him to go to his house and sleep with his wife.
It is customary for servants to sleep in the porch or long gallery; and the guards of the Hebrew king did the same. Whatever his secret suspicions might have been, Uriah’s refusal to indulge in the enjoyment of domestic pleasure, and his determination to sleep “at the door of the king’s house,” arose from a high and honorable sense of military duty and propriety (v. 11). But, doubtless, the resolution of Uriah was overruled by that Providence which brings good out of evil, and which has recorded this sad episode for the warning of the church.
Uriah as a loyal citizen cannot enjoy life for himself when the nation is in an emergency, with the ark and Israel and Judah dwelling in booths and his lord Joab and other fellow servants camping in the open field. (v.11), Uriah had morals and respect for his men.
David then makes a second attempt to send Uriah to his wife. This time he tries to make Uriah drunk, in the hope that in the state of drunkenness Uriah might go and have sex with his wife. But here again Uriah disappoints David. David plunges still deeper into the darkness of sin. Having failed in his attempt to make Uriah appear responsible for the child in Bathsheba’s womb, he now conceives a heinous plot to eliminate the innocent Uriah, so that there will not be anyone to refute the claim that the child is Uriah’s.
David wrote down his secret plan for Joab and has Uriah deliver it. Note the irony of the tragedy! Uriah carries his own death sentence! David devises the plan to have Uriah killed on the battlefield, and orders Joab to execute it. Uriah is to be set in the forefront of the hottest battle. In order to have Uriah killed without arousing the suspicion of people; Joab must put him in the front along with other servants of David. His fellow soldiers are to draw back from him, then he may be struck down, and die. Joab thus becomes the accomplice in David’s crime. The sinner does not stop with sinning himself, but implicates others also in his sin. In this way David sold himself to Joab; this may be one reason why David was afraid of Joab (3:39).
The various arts and stratagems by which the king tried to coax Uriah, till at last he resorted to the horrid crime of murder the cold-blooded cruelty of dispatching the letter by the hands of the brave but much-wronged soldier himself, the enlistment of Joab to be a partaker of his sin, the heartless affectation of mourning, and the indecent haste of his marriage with Bath-sheba have left an indelible stain upon the character of David, and exhibit a painfully humiliating proof of the awful lengths to which the best of men may go when they forfeit the restraining grace of G-d. Getting near the city wall where the enemy can attack from above could appear as a tactical mistake in warfare; therefore a redactor could have inserted verses 20-21 in its present context to show that Joab was aware of the danger, yet purposely acted as he did to get Uriah killed.
Love for G-d and love to mankind goes together; one without the other is not possible. As such, David’s love to G-d should have been reflected in his relationships to his fellow humans, and most especially to his subjects. In this then David failed.
David’s sin is of a much greater nature both in quality and quantity, aroused his conscience, and brought him to his knees. The sincerity and depth of his repentant sorrow are evinced by the Psalms he composed (Psalms 32:1-11, 51:1-19, 103:1-22). He was pardoned, so far as related to the restoration of the divine favor. But as from his high character for piety, and his important rank in society, his unpardonable fall was calculated to do great injury to the cause of religion, it was necessary that G-d should testify His hatred of sin by leaving even His own servant to reap the bitter temporal fruits. David was not himself doomed, according to his own view of what justice demanded; but he had to suffer a quadruple expiation in the successive deaths of four sons, besides a lengthened train of other evils.
See what one night of ‘pleasure’ can result to – is it worth the price you will have to pay?
Faithfulness of a Friend
[1 Sam. 18:1] And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
[2 Sam. 4:4] And Jonathan, Saul’s son, had a son that was lame of his feet. He was five years old when the tidings came of Saul and Jonathan out of Jezreel, and his nurse took him up, and fled: and it came to pass, as she made haste to flee, that he fell, and became lame. And his name was Mephibosheth.
The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David - They were nearly of an age. The prince had taken little interest in David as a minstrel; but his heroism and modest, manly bearing, his piety and high endowments, kindled the flame not of admiration only, but of affection, in the hospitable mind of Jonathan.
The strength of his attachment, his pure disinterestedness, his warm piety, his invocation to G-d (consisting of a prayer and a solemn oath combined), the calm and full expression he gave of his conviction that his own family were, by the divine will, to be disinherited, and David elevated to the possession of the throne, the covenant entered into with David on behalf of his descendants, and the imprecation (20:16) denounced on any of them who should violate his part of the conditions, the reappearance of this covenant on both sides (20:17) to make it indissoluble - all this indicates such a power of mutual affection, such magnetic attractiveness in the character of David, such vulnerability and elevation of feeling in the heart of Jonathan, that this interview for dramatic interest and moral beauty stands unrivalled in the records of human friendship
The story of Mephibosheth is purposely inserted here in order to show the Israelites on the one hand that the seed of Saul is not cut off from the earth, and on the other hand that it is David who cares for the protection and continuation of Saul’s line. His original name was Meribaal, as is attested in 1 Chr. 8:34; 9:40. Meribaal means loved by Baal, and Mephibosheth means he who scatters shame or from the mouth of the shame.
Lame of his feet mentioned as a reason why, according to Oriental notions, he was considered unfit for exercising the duties of sovereignty.
On inquiry, Saul’s land steward Ziba, (2 Sam. 9:1) was found, who gave information that there still survived Mephibosheth, a son of Jonathan who was five years old at his father’s death, and whom David, then wandering in exile, had never seen. Mephibosheth’s lameness (4:4) had prevented him from taking any part in the public contests of the time, that he was lame in both his feet may have been why he always remained in Jerusalem Besides, according to Oriental notions, the younger son of a crowned monarch has a preferable claim to the succession over the son of a mere heir-apparent; and hence his name was never heard of as the rival of his uncle Ish-bosheth. His insignificance had led to his being lost sight of, and it was only through Ziba that David learned of his existence, and the retired life he passed with one of the great families in trans-jordanic Canaan who remained attached to the fallen dynasty in the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel, in Lo-debar.
David promises to restore to him all the land of Saul (v. 7), meaning Saul’s personal property Mephibosheth was invited to court, and a place at the royal table on public days was assigned him, as is still the custom with Eastern monarchs. Saul’s family estate, which had fallen to David in right of his wife (Numbers 27:8), or been forfeited to the crown by Ish-bosheth’s rebellion (12:8), was provided (9:11; also 19:28), for enabling Mephibosheth to maintain an establishment suitable to his rank, and Ziba appointed steward to manage it, on the condition of receiving one-half of the produce in remuneration for his labor and expense, while the other moiety was to be paid as rent to the owner of the land (19:29). Ziba exploits the disability of his master to his own advantage. In this he becomes the typical model of all those who allow vested interests to come in the way of service. Such interests betray love and loyalty, and engender lack of integrity, exploitation, and misappropriation.
Mephibosheth is given the special privilege of eating at the king’s table as one of his sons, the same privilege which David enjoyed in Saul’s house. It could also be that David wanted to have Mephibosheth under his personal supervision, lest there be any revolt from his side,
Mephibosheth had a young son, whose name was Micah whether born before or after his residence in Jerusalem, cannot be ascertained. But through him the name and memory of the excellent Jonathan was preserved (see 1 Chronicles 8:34, 35, 9:40, 41). Nothing more is mentioned about Mephibosheth’s son Mica and further shows that the house of Saul continued for several generations through the lineage of Jonathan.
David was a true friend of Jonathan that went pass the grave to the second mile!
[2 Sam. 4:4] And Jonathan, Saul’s son, had a son that was lame of his feet. He was five years old when the tidings came of Saul and Jonathan out of Jezreel, and his nurse took him up, and fled: and it came to pass, as she made haste to flee, that he fell, and became lame. And his name was Mephibosheth.
The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David - They were nearly of an age. The prince had taken little interest in David as a minstrel; but his heroism and modest, manly bearing, his piety and high endowments, kindled the flame not of admiration only, but of affection, in the hospitable mind of Jonathan.
The strength of his attachment, his pure disinterestedness, his warm piety, his invocation to G-d (consisting of a prayer and a solemn oath combined), the calm and full expression he gave of his conviction that his own family were, by the divine will, to be disinherited, and David elevated to the possession of the throne, the covenant entered into with David on behalf of his descendants, and the imprecation (20:16) denounced on any of them who should violate his part of the conditions, the reappearance of this covenant on both sides (20:17) to make it indissoluble - all this indicates such a power of mutual affection, such magnetic attractiveness in the character of David, such vulnerability and elevation of feeling in the heart of Jonathan, that this interview for dramatic interest and moral beauty stands unrivalled in the records of human friendship
The story of Mephibosheth is purposely inserted here in order to show the Israelites on the one hand that the seed of Saul is not cut off from the earth, and on the other hand that it is David who cares for the protection and continuation of Saul’s line. His original name was Meribaal, as is attested in 1 Chr. 8:34; 9:40. Meribaal means loved by Baal, and Mephibosheth means he who scatters shame or from the mouth of the shame.
Lame of his feet mentioned as a reason why, according to Oriental notions, he was considered unfit for exercising the duties of sovereignty.
On inquiry, Saul’s land steward Ziba, (2 Sam. 9:1) was found, who gave information that there still survived Mephibosheth, a son of Jonathan who was five years old at his father’s death, and whom David, then wandering in exile, had never seen. Mephibosheth’s lameness (4:4) had prevented him from taking any part in the public contests of the time, that he was lame in both his feet may have been why he always remained in Jerusalem Besides, according to Oriental notions, the younger son of a crowned monarch has a preferable claim to the succession over the son of a mere heir-apparent; and hence his name was never heard of as the rival of his uncle Ish-bosheth. His insignificance had led to his being lost sight of, and it was only through Ziba that David learned of his existence, and the retired life he passed with one of the great families in trans-jordanic Canaan who remained attached to the fallen dynasty in the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel, in Lo-debar.
David promises to restore to him all the land of Saul (v. 7), meaning Saul’s personal property Mephibosheth was invited to court, and a place at the royal table on public days was assigned him, as is still the custom with Eastern monarchs. Saul’s family estate, which had fallen to David in right of his wife (Numbers 27:8), or been forfeited to the crown by Ish-bosheth’s rebellion (12:8), was provided (9:11; also 19:28), for enabling Mephibosheth to maintain an establishment suitable to his rank, and Ziba appointed steward to manage it, on the condition of receiving one-half of the produce in remuneration for his labor and expense, while the other moiety was to be paid as rent to the owner of the land (19:29). Ziba exploits the disability of his master to his own advantage. In this he becomes the typical model of all those who allow vested interests to come in the way of service. Such interests betray love and loyalty, and engender lack of integrity, exploitation, and misappropriation.
Mephibosheth is given the special privilege of eating at the king’s table as one of his sons, the same privilege which David enjoyed in Saul’s house. It could also be that David wanted to have Mephibosheth under his personal supervision, lest there be any revolt from his side,
Mephibosheth had a young son, whose name was Micah whether born before or after his residence in Jerusalem, cannot be ascertained. But through him the name and memory of the excellent Jonathan was preserved (see 1 Chronicles 8:34, 35, 9:40, 41). Nothing more is mentioned about Mephibosheth’s son Mica and further shows that the house of Saul continued for several generations through the lineage of Jonathan.
David was a true friend of Jonathan that went pass the grave to the second mile!
Good intentions, with unsanctified minds
[2 Sam. 6:2] And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the LORD of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims.
There is no doubt that David’s intentions were noble and good in bringing the ark to Jerusalem. Not that his kingdom was established, he did not forget his earlier vow to return the ark to its rightful place of prominence.
A significant omission in the first three verses sets the scene for failure for he conferred with each of his officers instead of inquired of the L-rd. There was no need to consult these men. G-d had already given clear instructions in Num. 4:5-6 as to how to move the ark. It should be covered with a veil, to shield the holiness of G-d from any kind of rash intrusion, and then carried on poles on the shoulders of the Levites according to Num. 7:9.
David had a better idea; one he had learned from the pagan Philistines and he put it on a new cart. G-d had never said anything about using a new cart. This was a human invention contrary to the will and Law of G-d.
Surely this passage warns that it is not enough to have a worthy purpose and a proper spirit when we enter into the service of G-d; G-d’s work must also be performed in G-d’s way. Pursuing the right end does not automatically imply using the right means.
Uzzah fearing that the ark was in danger of being overturned, Uzzah, under the impulse of momentary feeling, laid hold of it to keep it steady.
The Father had plainly taught that even the Kohathites, the Levite family designated to carry the ark, must not touch the holy things or they would die in Num. 4:15. Even if Uzzah were not a Kohathite or even a Levite, he still would know what the Law taught in Num. 4 & 7. G-d not only keeps His promises, but He also fulfills His threats!
When the Philistines, who had no access to the special revelation of G-d, sinned by touching the ark and using a new cart to transport it, G-d’s anger did not burn against them. Therefore, G-d is more merciful toward those less knowledgeable of His will than toward those who are.
Uzzah’s motive, like David’s, was pure; but he disregarded the written Word of G-d, just as David did. Thus one sin led to another. Good intentions, with unsanctified minds, interfere with the kingdom of G-d. This is especially true of the worship of G-d and the concept of His holiness.
Because G-d is holy, He is free of all moral imperfections. A sharp line of separation was drawn between holy things and the common or propane. Our word profane means ‘before’ or ‘forth from the Temple.’ Thus all that was apart from the Temple, where the holiness of G-d was link, was by definition profane. Uzzah’s act made the holiness associated with the ark also profane and therefore brought disrepute to G-d as well.
To take something holy and inject into it the realm of the profane was to confuse the orders of G-d. The prone is not only in opposition to the holiness of G-d’ it confuses the secular and the sacred. Obedience is preferable to learning that G-d and His Word remain true when we insist on being foolish.
The oxen shook it or, “stumbled” (1 Chronicles 13:9). The oxen stumbled as they came to the threshing floor of Nacon. Perhaps that was a cultic place, and the stumbling of the oxen was the sign of the presence of some spirit there, a relic of some primitive animistic belief. Perez was probably the name of the deity in that place.
Uzzah and Ahio, as the sons of a priest and also responsible for driving the new cart with the ark of G-d on it, should have been consecrated for that special task. Still, Uzzah is killed.
Whether it fell and crushed him, or some sudden disease attacked him, he fell dead upon the spot. This sad occurrence not only threw a cloud over the joyous scene, but also entirely stopped the procession; for the ark was left where it then was, in the near neighborhood of the capital. It is of importance to observe the fair sternness of the punishments attending the sacrilege of the ark. The Philistines suffered by diseases, from which their oblations relieved them, because the law had not been given to them (1 Samuel 5:8-12); the Bethshemites also suffered, but not fatally (1 Samuel 6:19); their error proceeded from ignorance or inadvertency. But Uzzah, who was a Levite, and well instructed, suffered death for his breach of the Law. The severity of Uzzah’s fate may seem to us too great for the nature and degree of the offense. But it does not become us to sit in judgment on the dispensations of G-d; and, besides, it is apparent that the divine purpose was to inspire awe of His majesty, a submission to His Law, and a profound veneration for the symbols and ordinances of His worship.
David feelings on this alarming judgment were greatly excited on various accounts, dreading that the displeasure of G-d had been provoked by the removal of the ark, that the punishment would be extended to himself and people, and that they might fall into some error or neglect during the further transportation of the ark. He resolved, therefore, to wait for more light and direction as to the path of duty. An earlier session by Urim would have led him right at the first, whereas in this bewilderment and distress, he was reaping the fruits of inconsideration and neglect. He took the time to study the Law for three months before proceeding.
The lapse of three months not only restored the agitated mind of the monarch to calm and settled tone, but led him to a discovery of his former error. Having learned that the ark was kept in its temporary resting-place not only without inconvenience or danger, but with great advantage, he resolved forthwith to remove it to the capital, with the observance of all due form and seriousness (1 Chronicles 15:1-13). It was transported now on the shoulders of the priests, who had been carefully prepared for the work, and the procession was distinguished by extraordinary solemnities and demonstrations of joy. According to Ex. 25:13-15 the ark was carried by people on two poles with four rings (1 Kgs. 8:7-8).
Entering the city with dancing, shouting and the blowing of the shofer. The entry of the ark into the capital city would therefore have symbolized for David and the people Yahweh’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem as its king.
One must do the research before proceeding for it is better to do it right the first time around – and do it G-d’s way.
There is no doubt that David’s intentions were noble and good in bringing the ark to Jerusalem. Not that his kingdom was established, he did not forget his earlier vow to return the ark to its rightful place of prominence.
A significant omission in the first three verses sets the scene for failure for he conferred with each of his officers instead of inquired of the L-rd. There was no need to consult these men. G-d had already given clear instructions in Num. 4:5-6 as to how to move the ark. It should be covered with a veil, to shield the holiness of G-d from any kind of rash intrusion, and then carried on poles on the shoulders of the Levites according to Num. 7:9.
David had a better idea; one he had learned from the pagan Philistines and he put it on a new cart. G-d had never said anything about using a new cart. This was a human invention contrary to the will and Law of G-d.
Surely this passage warns that it is not enough to have a worthy purpose and a proper spirit when we enter into the service of G-d; G-d’s work must also be performed in G-d’s way. Pursuing the right end does not automatically imply using the right means.
Uzzah fearing that the ark was in danger of being overturned, Uzzah, under the impulse of momentary feeling, laid hold of it to keep it steady.
The Father had plainly taught that even the Kohathites, the Levite family designated to carry the ark, must not touch the holy things or they would die in Num. 4:15. Even if Uzzah were not a Kohathite or even a Levite, he still would know what the Law taught in Num. 4 & 7. G-d not only keeps His promises, but He also fulfills His threats!
When the Philistines, who had no access to the special revelation of G-d, sinned by touching the ark and using a new cart to transport it, G-d’s anger did not burn against them. Therefore, G-d is more merciful toward those less knowledgeable of His will than toward those who are.
Uzzah’s motive, like David’s, was pure; but he disregarded the written Word of G-d, just as David did. Thus one sin led to another. Good intentions, with unsanctified minds, interfere with the kingdom of G-d. This is especially true of the worship of G-d and the concept of His holiness.
Because G-d is holy, He is free of all moral imperfections. A sharp line of separation was drawn between holy things and the common or propane. Our word profane means ‘before’ or ‘forth from the Temple.’ Thus all that was apart from the Temple, where the holiness of G-d was link, was by definition profane. Uzzah’s act made the holiness associated with the ark also profane and therefore brought disrepute to G-d as well.
To take something holy and inject into it the realm of the profane was to confuse the orders of G-d. The prone is not only in opposition to the holiness of G-d’ it confuses the secular and the sacred. Obedience is preferable to learning that G-d and His Word remain true when we insist on being foolish.
The oxen shook it or, “stumbled” (1 Chronicles 13:9). The oxen stumbled as they came to the threshing floor of Nacon. Perhaps that was a cultic place, and the stumbling of the oxen was the sign of the presence of some spirit there, a relic of some primitive animistic belief. Perez was probably the name of the deity in that place.
Uzzah and Ahio, as the sons of a priest and also responsible for driving the new cart with the ark of G-d on it, should have been consecrated for that special task. Still, Uzzah is killed.
Whether it fell and crushed him, or some sudden disease attacked him, he fell dead upon the spot. This sad occurrence not only threw a cloud over the joyous scene, but also entirely stopped the procession; for the ark was left where it then was, in the near neighborhood of the capital. It is of importance to observe the fair sternness of the punishments attending the sacrilege of the ark. The Philistines suffered by diseases, from which their oblations relieved them, because the law had not been given to them (1 Samuel 5:8-12); the Bethshemites also suffered, but not fatally (1 Samuel 6:19); their error proceeded from ignorance or inadvertency. But Uzzah, who was a Levite, and well instructed, suffered death for his breach of the Law. The severity of Uzzah’s fate may seem to us too great for the nature and degree of the offense. But it does not become us to sit in judgment on the dispensations of G-d; and, besides, it is apparent that the divine purpose was to inspire awe of His majesty, a submission to His Law, and a profound veneration for the symbols and ordinances of His worship.
David feelings on this alarming judgment were greatly excited on various accounts, dreading that the displeasure of G-d had been provoked by the removal of the ark, that the punishment would be extended to himself and people, and that they might fall into some error or neglect during the further transportation of the ark. He resolved, therefore, to wait for more light and direction as to the path of duty. An earlier session by Urim would have led him right at the first, whereas in this bewilderment and distress, he was reaping the fruits of inconsideration and neglect. He took the time to study the Law for three months before proceeding.
The lapse of three months not only restored the agitated mind of the monarch to calm and settled tone, but led him to a discovery of his former error. Having learned that the ark was kept in its temporary resting-place not only without inconvenience or danger, but with great advantage, he resolved forthwith to remove it to the capital, with the observance of all due form and seriousness (1 Chronicles 15:1-13). It was transported now on the shoulders of the priests, who had been carefully prepared for the work, and the procession was distinguished by extraordinary solemnities and demonstrations of joy. According to Ex. 25:13-15 the ark was carried by people on two poles with four rings (1 Kgs. 8:7-8).
Entering the city with dancing, shouting and the blowing of the shofer. The entry of the ark into the capital city would therefore have symbolized for David and the people Yahweh’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem as its king.
One must do the research before proceeding for it is better to do it right the first time around – and do it G-d’s way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
