II Samuel 7:1-11, 16 is part of a chapter that deserves close attention. I will first consider my understanding of what seems closest to the historical events.
II Samuel 7:1a, 2-9a, 11b, which continues in verses 12, 13b-15, 17-22a, 27-28, 29c, is part of one of the most important theological text in the historical account of David. The way this tradition regarding David grew over the centuries is an important study in the way Israel viewed its traditions as living and adaptable to new situations.[1] Prior to this passage, the reader has seen the rise of David to power in Israel, contrasted with the fall of Saul and his family. In fact, an interesting way to read the story of Saul and David is the way in which power makes and unmakes leaders. David had conquered Jebusite Jerusalem and established "the city of David" as the centralized capital of Judah (the southern tribes) and Israel (the northern tribes), which he had united by being king of both. In II Samuel 6, he had brought the ark to Jerusalem and placed it in the tent.
All successful dynasties in the ancient Near East were expected to establish and maintain a functioning worship life, connecting the throne to the divine realm. Such divine sanction of the dynasty was an important aspect of the public acceptance of the dynasty. In this rejection of his desire, David is told that the Lord will grant him a stable dynasty, and therefore, David cannot use the Lord to further his political ambitions. The Temple will be built only when the Lord deems fit.
We quickly learn that this passage will have a fascinating wordplay on the meanings of one word. In Hebrew, the word is “bayit,” occurring 15 times in the chapter. The NRSV translates the word as “house.”[2] The Lord objects to the plan of David to build the Lord a house (temple), and announces instead that the Lord will make a house (dynasty) for David, and that the son of David will build the Lord a house (temple).
We first have a brief introduction. 1aNow when the king, David, was settled in his house (bayit). 2The king said to the prophet Nathan, “See now, I am living in a house of cedar, paneled with precious cedar, but the ark of God stays in a tent.” A theme of the story of David has been that he consulted the Lord. He does not do so here. He may have been enamored with his success. David's desire to build a temple, then, reveals that he might be trying to pay the Lord back for what the Lord had done for him. It is a transactional way of thinking -- I owe the Lord a debt and the more I do for the Lord, the more the Lord will do for me in turn. Quid pro quo. This thinking was typical of the Canaanite pagan religions, and it is unfortunately typical of the way that too many think of their relationship with God. It would have been typical of David, and us, to think in terms of paying the Lord back. Given the recent victories he ascribed to the Lord, we can understand how he might view his relationship with the Lord as a transactional one. The Lord has acted for him; he now does something for the Lord, so that the Lord will do more actions for him in the future. He may have wanted to build a house for the Lord because he wanted to ensure the favor of the Lord in the future. We need to ponder this: has David gone too far in taking the initiative in his relationship with the Lord? Such arrogance on the part of a powerful and successful ruler would be a way of making the Lord into a responsive patron. Such initiative is what we might expect from the power of the political state. [3] 3 Nathan said to the king, “Go, do all that you have in mind; for the Lord is with you.” Was Nathan enamored with the success of David as well? Second, we have a speech from the Lord. Regardless of his motive, 4 But that same night the word of the Lord came to Nathan. While Nathan has encouraged David to carry out his plan, the Lord objects. His personal feelings were not in accord with God. In I Samuel 8:6-7, for example, Samuel opposed the demand of the people for a king, whereas God consented. We can see here that, given the difficult message that the Lord will give him, Nathan is open to having the Lord adjust his first impression. 5 Go and tell my servant David: Thus says the Lord, the messenger formula that assumes that the following words are the words of the Lord: Are you the one to build me a house to live in? 6 I have not lived in a house (bayit) since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been moving about in a tent and a tabernacle. In Shiloh, however, there was a House of the Lord (I Samuel 1:7, 9), but there was also a tent that symbolized the idea that the Lord is not restricted to one fixed place. 7 Wherever I have moved about among all the people of Israel, did I ever speak a word with any of the tribal leaders of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying, “Why have you not built me a house (bayit) of cedar?”We can see here the tension at this early stage of the history of Israel between the notions that the Lord enthroned in heaven might also have a dwelling on earth.[4] 8 Now therefore thus you shall say to my servant David: Thus says the Lord of hosts: I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep to be prince over my people Israel; 9a and I have been with you wherever you went, affirming what Nathan originally told David, and have cut off all your enemies from before you; 11bMoreover the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house (bayit). David wanted to build the Lord a house to pay the Lord back and as a way of ensuring the favor of the Lord in the future. The Lord tells David, however, that it is not necessary. David has not earned the favor of the Lord. And in any case, David cannot repay the Lord for preserving him and making him king. All of this is the result of the initiative of the Lord on David's behalf and on behalf of the people of the Lord.
II Samuel 7:1b, 9b-11a, 16 is part of the most significant theological texts in the history of David as we now have it in the books of Samuel. Many scholars think of these verses as coming from the hand of the Deuteronomic historian from the time of Josiah that we also find in 13a, 22b-24, 25-26, 29ab. We learn that 1bthe Lord gave David rest from his enemies, a sought after condition in the history of Israel. The Lord makes an extension of the promise offered to Abraham in Genesis 12 by applying some of its themes to David. 9bThe Lord will make for David a great name among the great ones of the earth. 10The Lord will appoint a place for the people of Israel. The divine promise is that the Lord will plant them, that they will live in their own place, and that no one will disturb them anymore. This combination of phrases is striking to me. The Lord will plant each of us because the Lord has a place for us. Each of us has our own place to live, and the intent of the Lord is that we flourish in that place. Yes, a basic sense of peace and security is the hoped-for condition. Further, 11athe promise is that evildoers shall not afflict them, and the Lord will give them rest from their enemies. 16 Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever.
The covenant of the Lord with David has come under some criticism in academic and Christian Left circles. It becomes a way to analyze the abuse of power in our day, usually from a politically Left perspective.[5] The problem I see with this interpretation is that the Old Testament values the covenant with David and his family as the promise of justly rule and righteousness. If we look upon ourselves as in conversation with this text, then we need to listen with generosity. We can approach the text as antagonists, but we have then left the realm of conversation and entered the realm of polemics.
If we view our reading of the text as a conversation, then we recognize that such texts are the basis for the Messianic hope of Israel for a world of justly rule. Such texts form part of the biblical basis for the development of the Christian notion of the Trinity. This hope also becomes part of the Christian hope for the return of Christ. The promise made to David is for time to come. It explicitly concerns David’s son Solomon, but there are always sons to come, generations of Davids yet unborn, each of which is the carrier of this unconditional promise. By this announcement, the line of David is no longer simply a historical accident but is a constitutive factor in God’s shaping of the historical process. Out of this oracle there emerges the hope held by Israel in every season that there is a coming David who will right wrong and establish a good governance. That coming hidden in the vagaries of history, may experience resistance from the recalcitrance of injustice and unrighteousness, but nevertheless there is one coming who will make things right.
This text does not intend to point to Jesus. If we expand the conversation beyond the text, we may see how easy and natural it was for the community around Jesus to seize upon this text to understand the reality of Jesus. Aside from the specificity of Jesus, however, this enduring promise to David has placed messianism at the heart of both Judaism and Christianity. This utterance by Yahweh through the mouth of Nathan has made these communities to be communities of hope. That hope believes, confesses, and trusts that God will keep God’s promise of righting the world and that the promise will be kept within the historical process through a historical agent. This promise, then, is not one among many for Jews and Christians; it is the decisive shaper of both these communities who trust God’s work to become visible within the historical process.[6]
Some biblical covenants followed the form of an ancient Near Eastern suzerainty treaty, where a powerful emperor would make a covenant with a vassal king. The suzerain pledged protection to the vassal, and the vassal pledged absolute loyalty to the suzerain and obedience to specific stipulations. The covenant which God made with the people of Israel at Mount Sinai / Horeb follows this pattern. The Lord graciously promised to be their God and protectively to provide for them; in turn, his people owed the Lord full loyalty (no other gods) and full obedience to his stipulated torah (law/instruction). Other ancient Near Eastern covenants were in the form of royal grants (gracious gifts), where the stronger party would give something of value to his already-loyal subordinates, without a lengthy list of specific requirements. The covenant of Genesis 17 follows this pattern, as does the covenant which God made with David in II Samuel 7. David prayerfully acknowledges that it was not due to himself, but to the Lord, the only God (vv. 18-29), an acknowledgment of which we read throughout the story of the successes of David at war.
The promises that the Lord made to David and his successors would later be understood messianically, as each king was anointed. "Messiah" -- mashiah (hard "h") in Hebrew -- means "anointed one." NT writers believed that Jesus Christ (christos/"anointed one" -- the Greek equivalent of "Messiah"), in the legal line of David, was the ultimate fulfillment of those dynastic promises to David. The accounts of the birth of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-18a and Luke 1:30-33, 2:1-14 are obvious as the New Testament witness views Jesus as a fulfillment of the promise of a dynasty for David. Peter refers to the promise to David that his son would sit upon the throne as finding fulfillment in the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus (Acts 2:29-36). Paul affirms that the Son of God is an offspring of David according to the flesh (Romans 1:1-4). He is an offspring of David (II Timothy 2:8). The risen Lord declares himself to be the root and offspring of David (Revelation 22:16). See also multiple references in Matthew to Jesus as "son of David." God has, in grace, fulfilled his covenantal dynastic promises. The covenant with David and his offspring consists of a promise that we need to see as connected to the covenant with the Hebrews through Moses at Sinai and continued with Israel as the Tribal Federation unfolded. The promise of land for this people is central to the covenant. The covenant with David will expand to a promise for Jerusalem and the Temple. These promises do find fulfillment in the coming of heavenly Jerusalem and in the return of the risen Lord to establish justice and righteousness. "Jesus, Lord, at thy birth" (in "Silent Night") will come to be called not only "King of the Jews," but also "King of kings and Lord of lords" (the greatest king and highest lord) of all humanity. We receive God's Christmas Gift and trustingly follow him.
[1]
[2] The Hebrew word bayit (pronounced "BUY-it") appears 15 times in the chapter; the NRSV translates it as "house" every time. But, depending on the context, bayit actually means palace, temple or dynasty (elsewhere it can mean clan, family or nation, as in "the 'house' of Judah"). Bayit becomes beth- when it's immediately followed by a noun it's (technically speaking) "in construct with." Beth- is used as a part of place names, such as Beth-el ("the house of God" -- Genesis 28:15-19) and Beth-lehem ("house of bread" -- Genesis 35:19; Micah 5:2 = Matthew 2:6. Jesus is the bread of life -- John 6:32-35, 48).
[3] Walter Brueggemann (David’s Truth in Israel’s Imagination and Memory)
[4]
[5] Walter Bruggemann (David’s Truth in Israel’s Imagination and Memory)
[6] —Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (John Knox Press, 1990), 257–259.
Good thought we can not transact with God no bargaining
ReplyDeleteThank you
Delete