What Happened?

Reflections on 2 Sam. 24:1-10 & 1 Chron. 21:1-8; 27:23-24

Recently I passed an accident on the highway just as the first patrolman was arriving. Heavy black skid marks slanted from the right lane toward ditch where a vehicle was resting on its side. A half dozen people were milling around it. An 18-wheeler was on the shoulder just beyond the vehicle in the ditch. Soon traffic on the highway would slow as people would try to see. Each would ask themselves, "What happened?" Some would say this, and others that. Many answers might be given. Several might be right, and many would probably be wrong.

When we look at the account of David numbering the people of Israel as recounted in 1 Chronicles 21 and 2 Samuel 24, we get two explanations as to what happened. 2 Samuel says the Lord incited David against Israel, but 1 Chronicles says that Satan incited David to take a census of Israel. Are these explanations contradictory, or could both be true? What really happened?

FIRST. Satan rose up against Israel (1 Chronicles 21:1). This is surely due to his malice against God, against God's people, and even against God's ruler. He tempted them to be dissatisfied with God's rule and to desire to be like the nations.

SECOND. The Lord's anger burned against Israel (2 Samuel 24:1). Israel had displeased the Lord by falling to Satan's temptation. They had rebelled against David, the Lord's anointed, who provided righteous rule, directed their devotion toward God, and gave them safety from their enemies. They had wanted a king like the nations, a king like Absalom.

THIRD. David sinned (2 Samuel 24:10; 1 Chronicles 21:7). After the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba, David's faith may have wavered. God tested him. Would he rely on God, or would he be anxious about the strength of his army? Anxiety won over faith. Even though God had not commanded him to take a census as he had commanded Moses on two occasions (Numbers 1:2; 26:2), David ordered that the people be numbered. In this, he also would have been thinking like the nations, relying on military strength instead of the Lord. David's command to number the people was "evil in the sight of the Lord" (1 Chronicles 21:7).

FOURTH. Wrath came on Israel on account of the numbering (1 Chronicles 27:24). Israel may have found satisfaction in David's numbering of the people capable of bearing arms. David had started acting like a "real" king in measuring the strength of his army. He had never done this before. The numbering was a way for them to "flex their muscles."

So who incited David to take the census? God tempts no one to sin, but he did test David, and Satan used the occasion to lure both Israel and David into sin. Numbering the people was a sin both for David and for Israel. However, even though Satan meant harm, God would purify Israel with his wrath and establish a place for his name to be glorified through David's confession and intercession.

When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.
-- James 1:13-14 NIV

A "Confession" Gone Awry

Reflections on 2 Sam. 1:1-16

The young man who brought the news of Israel’s defeat on Mt. Gilboa to David was an opportunist. He habitually sought to take advantage of situations to gain wealth or advancement, and he did so without considering whether his actions were right or wrong. Evidences of his opportunistic character are found throughout this episode.

FIRST, the young man said, “By chance I happened to be on Mount Gilboa” (v. 6). By neglecting to give his reason for being on Mt. Gilboa, he probably raised David’s suspicions about his character. He was not there at the command of an officer. He was not participating in the heat of battle out of loyalty to the king or to Israel. He just happened to be there. He implies he was behind the line of battle because the wounded king saw him when he “looked behind him.” He was probably a human vulture at the battle site merely to profit from any opportunity that might present itself.

SECOND, the young man was an opportunistic liar. Although David had no way of knowing that the messenger was lying, we know from 1 Sam. 31:3 ff. that he was lying. Saul could not have been “leaning on his spear” (2 Sam. 1:6) after he and his armor-bearer had fallen on their swords. What the Amalekite saw was a dead king. No armor-bearer was there to defend the king’s life or honor. Accordingly, when he saw the dead king, he thought it would be to his advantage to confess to David, “I killed him.” He thought he could obtain honor and advancement because he had lived in Israel long enough to know that Saul was the only obstacle to David becoming king.

THIRD, the messenger brought Saul’s crown and arm-band to David (2 Sam. 1:10). If he had killed Saul out of a sense of mercy as he implied, he would have tried to restore the crown to the royal family, or at least to one of Saul’s army officers, without claiming to have killed him. Instead of doing that, he made a much longer journey to take the crown to David. So the crown and arm-band were not only evidence that Saul was dead, but they were also conclusive evidence of the Amalekite’s opportunism.

FOURTH, the young man told David he was the son of an alien or sojourner (2 Sam. 1:13). His father was an Amalekite, a member of the nomadic, warlike tribe that David had been destroying in obedience to God’s command. Perhaps many in his family were opportunists who chose to sojourn in Israel merely to save their lives. (If you can’t beat them, join them.) However, aliens who obeyed Israel’s laws received rights and protections from those laws, so David could not execute the Amalekite merely because he brought bad news.

FIFTH, the Amalekite showed no respect for “the Lord’s anointed.” The messenger’s claim to have killed the king showed that he had no loyalty to Israel’s law or Israel’s rulers. As such, the young man could not claim the protection of that law. In fact, he would fall under the condemnation of that law. His “confession” did not bring him the advancement and honor he anticipated. Instead, it convicted him and brought him swift destruction.

Temptation or Opportunity?

Reflections on 1 Sam. 24:1-22

Saul immediately returned to his pursuit of David when he finished fighting the Philistines. By this time, David had moved about ten miles east of Ziph to Engedi, which was near the west shore of the Dead Sea. During the pursuit, David and his men hid in a cave. With Saul’s army outside, they were in grave danger if Saul had known where they were. But Saul did not know, so he went into a cave to relieve himself (the literal “cover his feet” in the KJV is a euphemism — see BDB, p. 696-97). Because Saul was alone, in the dark, and unprepared for defending himself, David’s men saw this as an opportunity sent by God for David to kill the unsuspecting Saul. David snuck up on Saul, but instead of killing him, cut off the corner of his outer garment.

REMORSE. An interesting aspect of this story is that David felt remorse even for cutting off a corner of Saul’s robe (1 Sam. 24:5). The reason David felt this remorse was because his action was disrespectful to the king. According to Num. 15:37-41, God instructed Israelites to wear blue tassels in the corner of their garments. These tassels, which were extensions of the embroidery in the hem, were a kind of identification. For instance, priests had quite elaborate hems according to Ex. 28:33. Undoubtedly, the tassel of a king was more elaborate than the tassel of a common man and identified him as royalty. Evidently, each person’s tassel was unique since Mesopotamian texts indicate that they were impressed into clay as a kind of signature. Furthermore, removing the hem and its tassels symbolized a change in the identification of a person. For instance, when a man divorced his wife, he cut off the hem of her garment which identified her as his wife (see Jacob Milgrom, “Of Hems and Tassels,” Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1983, p. 61 ff.). In this case, David removed that which in part identified Saul as king, and in doing so he insulted the ruler of God’s people. Hence, David felt remorse for his deed.

PERSUASION. When David returned to his men, he had to justify his refusal to kill Saul. David did not merely defend himself. He “persuaded” them (1 Sam. 24:7). Saul was his master because he was the Lord’s anointed. He would not lift his hand against the Lord’s anointed. On this basis, David saw the situation as a temptation rather than a providential opportunity. David wanted his men to show the same respect to Saul as he did.

DILEMMA. So how does one distinguish a temptation from a providential opportunity? In the story about how Ahab spared the Aramean king, Ben-Hadad, after defeating him in battle, a prophet rebuked Ahab for not taking advantage of a providential opportunity (I Kings 20:42). Ahab erred in sparing an enemy who had engaged God’s people in battle (Deut. 20:13). David’s situation was different because Saul had been anointed by God to rule Israel and as such was David’s master. It was not lawful even to speak against the ruler of God’s people (Ex. 22:28). Accordingly, David correctly identified what his men thought to be an opportunity to be a temptation. No opportunity is ever providential if it requires one to break God’s law; such opportunities are nothing more than temptations.

LOYALTY. After Saul left the cave, David also left the cave and addressed Saul. In David’s longest recorded speech in 1 Samuel (Bergen, 1996, pp. 239-240), he made it clear that he remained loyal to Saul and would not lift his hand against his “lord, for he is the LORD’s anointed” (1 Sam. 24:10). David called Saul “my father” (1 Sam. 24:11) as he raised a portion of Saul’s garment to prove that he had chosen not to kill Saul when he had the opportunity. David was a man of more noble character than Saul. He would not wrest the kingdom from Saul; instead, he would call upon the Lord to vindicate him.

REALIZATION. Saul was deeply shaken. Not only did he respond by calling David “my son,” but he also completely understood the significance of David’s deed. When Saul saw the hem of his own robe in David’s hand (1 Sam. 24:11), he said, “I know that you shall surely be king, and that the kingdom of Israel shall be established in your hand” (1 Sam. 24:20 ESV, emphasis mine). And again alluding to David’s act of cutting off the corner of his robe, he pled, “Swear to me therefore by the LORD that you will not cut off my offspring after me” (1 Sam. 24:21 ESV, emphasis mine). In this speech, which is also Saul’s longest recorded speech (Bergen, 1996, pp. 239-240), Saul acknowledged that David would indeed become king of Israel.

Desperate Housewife

Reflections on 1 Sam. 19:8-17

Michal was a desperate housewife trying to save her beloved husband from her insanely jealous father, King Saul. After Saul tried to kill David with his spear, David fled to his own house where Michal discovered that the door was being watched by Saul’s men. She urged David to leave and helped him escape through a window. Then in order to buy time for David, she used a household idol to make it look like someone was in bed and told Saul’s officers that David was ill. When Saul discovered her deception, Michal lied again telling Saul that she only let David leave because he had threatened to kill her.

MOTIVES. Michal’s lies differ significantly from Saul’s lie about wanting David to be his son-in-law. When Saul lied, he masked an evil motive and tried to put David in a situation where he would be killed. When Michal lied the first time, she was trying to save David’s life. When she lied the second time, she was merely trying to escape her father’s insane anger.

JUSTIFIABLE? It is easy to excuse Michal’s lies while condemning Saul’s because she had “justifiable” motives. Some would go so far as to say that when she lied the first time, she did not break the spirit of the Law because she did not testify “against” her neighbor. She was trying to help her neighbor, and it is hard to imagine what else Michal could have done but lie to buy more time for David to escape. Some would say she was justified in lying to an insanely angry person when she accused David of threatening to kill her. Indeed, a short time later he did try to kill Jonathan for excusing David from the new moon feast at Saul’s house (1 Sam. 20:33). Although she slandered David, she was not lying in a courtroom before impartial judges trying to pervert justice. She was trying to escape unjust anger.

PRIORITIES. Both lies showed Michal’s priorities. Her first lie show that she placed David before her father, but the second lie also showed that she placed herself before David because she was willing to slander him to save herself. Her slander brought into question the love Michal and David had for each other, and Saul eventually gave her to another man (see 1 Sam. 25:44). Furthermore, the item she used to deceive Saul’s soldiers revealed something of her broader priorities. Just as Rachel had brought a household idol into Jacob’s tent (Gen. 31:30-35), so Michal had brought a household idol into David’s house. She turned to this lifeless idol for help when Saul’s soldiers came to the house, but she lost the husband she loved. On the other hand, David trusted God, and God enabled him to escape.