|
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Background to the Book of 2 Samuel
|
|||||||||
|
Context of 2 Sam 7:1-16 We are not so surprised at the depth of David's grief expressed in the lament when we read about his relationship with Jonathon in 1 Sam 18-31 in which they covenant with each other three times. 1 Sam 31 tells of the death of Jonathon, two of his brothers and their father Saul at the hands of the Philistines. The Philistines cut of their heads and hung their bodies from the walls of a town nearby. This is a particularly abhorrent practice to the Israelites and some valiant men from a nearby town took the bodies down burned them and buried the remains under a Tamarisk tree at Jabesh. This was the end of that section which concentrated on the rise of David and Saul's decline. The new section goes from 2 Sam 2 - 2 Sam 8 often titled Kind David The death of Saul did not stop the fighting between those who barracked for Saul and those who backed David. 2 Sam 2-5 tells the story of the ongoing fight between the two sides. Saul's commander Abner initially supported the sons of Saul and was instrumental in making Ishbaal King of Israel. A protracted period of war ensued and might have carried on longer except Ishbaal accused Abner of seducing his concubine which resulted in Abner swearing an oath to God and stating he would accomplish for David the throne of Saul. Very stupid accusation by Ishbaal - it lost him the vital support of a very competent commander of his forces. During this period of war David was busy on the home front by his six wives each giving birth to sons. When Abner made his proposal that he would bring the house of Saul over to David, David insisted he bring him his wife Michal. David accepted Abner and appeared to trust him, but when David's commander, Joab heard of Abner's transfer he secretly set up a meeting and killed Abner for revenge of his brother's death. David lamented the death of Abner. Two captains of Ishbaal decide to kill him, take his head to David and expected a reward, but David is still consistent and condemns the manner in which Ishbaal is killed. One of the most brilliant acts by David was immediately after his enthronement as King of all the tribes he marched on Jerusalem and took this amazing city. Strategically it straddled the geographic line between the tribes of Judah and Israel and it had no prior importance in either of their traditions. The city of David was its name and here was born eleven more children to David from various wives and concubines. The children are named but not those who gave birth to them, as was the case in 2 Sam 3. After the defeat of the Philistines (2 Sam 5:17-25), David turns his
attention to the transportation of the ark up to Jerusalem, which is the
text for today. This is followed by David's suggestion that he build the
temple and the story of God speaking to Nathan, which contradicts David's
desire. 2 Sam 8 acts as the closure for this section with a summary which
tells us about David's victories over the Philistines, Moabites, Arameans,
Edomites, Ammonites and Amalekites. The chapter can stand by itself and
has no obvious connections with 2 Sam 7. The next section 2 Sam 9-20 picks
up a number of issues, which occur in the reign of David including the
various rebellions against David.
|
|||||||||
|
Insights/Message of 2 Sam 7:1-16 Literary:vvI think the section ought to be vv.1-17 which is a couple of verses more than in the Lectionary reading. It is divided vv.1-3 (Introduction), vv.4 -16 (oracle), v.17 (editorial conclusion to vv.1 - 16). Verses 1-3 give a sense of peace and tranquillity. The promise of rest from all his enemies has come true at least until you get to chapter eight. At David's suggestion that he should build something better for the Ark because he, David, is in a house of cedar brings forth an unequivocal assent from Nathan. He even says that God is with David. We have not been privileged to know how Nathan can make this sort of statement and indeed it becomes clear later that this is diametrically opposed to what God wants. However, if we read the prophet Haggai we find the reason David gives is the one the prophet Haggai uses to condemn the people and shame them into building the temple after the exile. It demonstrates that each story must be taken within its own context. What is right in one situation is wrong in another. The message from God to Nathan that night makes clear that David is not the one to build the temple. God gives a profound theological truth as the reason against David's desire to build a temple, which is that God has been present with them in all their wanderings "to this day". If a tent has been good enough why is a house needed now. Not once in this time did God ask the question "Why have you not built me a house of cedar?" This is a lovely rhetorical device because one knows the answer - God has never asked it. Of course there is some contradiction with this statement because the Ark was going to be housed permanently at Shiloh according 1 Sam 3:3. This conversation would have been a very positive reminder at a later time to the people in exile that God was always with them as he had been in the wilderness so he was with them also in Babylon. We have no record of Nathan's call, which is often seen to give authority to the word of the prophet. However, the oracle begins with usual prophetic saying - "Thus says the Lord" so making the point that the following words come from God. The people are expected to hear and obey what is said. In the Hebrew the preposition You which is put occasionally as a separate word is used here to emphasise what Nathan will say to David. A similar theological purpose is made when the separate first personal pronoun is used in v.8 to emphasise that it was God who did the action. The actions are described as those, which God has undertaken to bring David to this point. Again the theological issue emphasised in these verses is that all of David's success is due to God and not to David's effort alone. God has accomplished the following for David: he is prince, God has been present with him always in every situation, God has defeated his enemies, and then what appears as a future action in which God will make David a great name. The rhetorical question in v.5 (Are you the one to build me a house to live in?) makes use of the emphatic pronouns again to stress the point that God decides when and where things will happen. We continue with a number of literary emphases on name, place, house and ancestors. Each of the promises in relation to the above is named as something "I will do " - God will do these things. The promise of a great name (v.9) has reminiscence of the promise to Abraham (Genesis 12:2), which automatically links David with the father of the nation, and the promises given to Abraham. Instead of a house that David will build God promises that David's line will be the house and his throne will be established forever. From v.1 we have the house mentioned and the play on house, ancestors and temple goes back and forward in this chapter. David's house will be his progeny of whom one will build the house of worship, which in turn is called initially the House of David. The high point of these verses is the promise by God that that his steadfast love (hesed) will never be removed from David as it was removed from Saul. House, kingdom and throne will be established forever. Ps 89:20-37 has preserved what appears to be an expanded version of the promise in 2 Sam 7:4-16. Debates abound about which is original, but we accept that the oracle is in its earliest form in vv.11-16. However, vv.38-52 express the people's anger because God has not keep his promise that David's "throne shall be established forever". I make the point that we need to read the whole Psalm and not just the bits, which agree with the main OT reading (it is clear that whoever chooses the lectionary readings omits the nasty and contradictory parts). Like the people of the exile we know that David's line and throne disappeared some time during the exile. We can spiritualise it by saying that Jesus is of the line of David and therefore it has continued, but for the people who went into exile the promise was broken. It raises the theological question about how one deals with broken promises that have had such a high profile. The psalmist has not problem speaking of his anger and we would be more helpful to people if we allowed others to express their anger when they feel God has let them down without the need to rationalise that God never breaks his word. What is demonstrated in this Psalm is both the honesty and clarity in
which the psalmist can relate to God and affirm in the start and finish
their faith in God no matter what has happened, even when it appears that
God has broken promises. 2 Sam 7 is one of the high points of the author's theology and there is so much that is compressed into this chapter. * God has given rest, which we know is not the case in the following
chapters, and yet is stated twice in these verses. God is the one who
brings this state about. Such a theology gives hope to a people to assure them in several ways. No matter what has happened to them God will be with them as he was in the time of the wilderness. The throne of David will continue forever and God will provide rest for the people of Israel. The oracle finishes as it begins with its authority testified to by the prophet that this is the word of God, and furthermore includes a vision. If we were in the generations following these promises we could see the truth in them for roughly four hundred years. However, we are a people of the 21st century and know these promises were broken and David's throne failed to continue. To include the Psalm and the theology expressed there in the verses (vv.38-52) after the ones, which simply repeat the promise (vv.20-37) and deal with the context could be helpful to those people who might want to consider that God did break his promise. God is acknowledged as the creator and Lord of all and within this context
God is big enough to cope with the people's anger and disappointment at
what they perceive as broken promises. It is one of the most pastorally
helpful roles of the Old Testament in that it models honesty before God.
However, after all the questions and complaints the final line is able
to acknowledge their relationship to the Lord (v.52) is one which is still
intact on both sides. |
|||||||||
|
Resources/Worship for 2 Sam 7:1-16
The Dramatised Bible: ed. Michael Perry. London: Marshall Pickering: Bible Society, 1989 Web sites with helpful lectionary resources: These links were updated 23/11/06
|