7 Now when the king was settled in his house, and the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies around him, 2 the king said to the prophet
II Samuel 7:1-14a is part of a chapter that deserves close attention. It is part of one of the most important theological text in the account of David. 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.
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.”[1] 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). 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. However, the following chapters describe further wars. The passage could be out of place historically. Second, we have a speech from the Lord. 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. [2] 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.[3] 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; 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 willlive 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. 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. 12When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring, referring to Solomon, but in rabbinic times was applied to the Messiah, who will be of the house of David and whose reign will last forever,after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13a He, the descendant of David, will build a house for my name, making it clear that the essence of the Lord does not dwell there, but rather, the “name,” focusing on one of the main themes of the chapter, the building of the temple. 13band I will establish the throne (bayit[4])of his kingdom forever, focusing one of the main themes of the chapter, the dynasty of David. 14 I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. Like a father and son, the Lord will chastise the successor of David, but never reject him. We should note that the term “father” when applied to God is rare in the Old Testament, but here is one of the cases when it does so by God being father to the king.[5] As such, the king was the earthly representative of divine lordship.[6] As such, this terminology became a fitting place to which the New Testament goes to describe Jesus. Referring to Jesus as the Son of the Father has an intimation here and in Psalm 2:7.[7] The title of Son or Son of God was fitting for the Messiah, for the Davidic king was the son of God.[8]
The concept of covenant runs through Chapter 7, even though the word itself does not appear. In Scripture, when God says, "I am / will be your God, and you are / will be my people," this is covenant-language (e.g., see Ezekiel 37:26-27; Jeremiah 31:33; cf. Revelation 21:1-3). The concept of covenant (Hebrew berit -- pronounced buh-REET) pervades much of the theology of the Hebrew Bible / OT. Among the many last words of David, see II Samuel 23:5: "Is not my house [bayit] like this with God? For he has made with me an everlasting covenant [berit 'olam], ordered in all things and secure ... ." Covenant / berit can mean a treaty, agreement, or arrangement. In theological settings, it delineates a mutual relationship, initiated and given by God.
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.[9] 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.[10]
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. "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.
With all that David accomplished in his life, here is one desire of his heart that was not fulfilled. He never built the temple. Most of us can think of something that was a desire of the heart that has remained unfulfilled. It may well be that we need to offer praise for what the Lord has done in our lives and surrender the desire of our hearts to the Lord. That desire may well have had another role in our lives than that of fulfillment.
[1] 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).
[2] Walter Brueggemann (David’s Truth in Israel’s Imagination and Memory)
[3] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 1, 414.
[4] We see throughout the canonical text of II Samuel 7 the play on words with “bayit,” which one can translate as house, as does the NRSV throughout, but it can carry other meanings, as the context reveals here. 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).
[5] Systematic Theology Volume 1, 260.
[6] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 50.
[7] Systematic Theology Volume 2, 317.
[8] Systematic Theology Volume 2, 364.
[9] Walter Bruggemann (David’s Truth in Israel’s Imagination and Memory)
[10] —Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (John Knox Press, 1990), 257–259.
No comments:
Post a Comment