Not A “Nathan”

Now Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived that the king’s heart was inclined toward Absalom. So Joab sent to Tekoa and brought a wise woman from there and said to her, “Please pretend to be a mourner, and put on mourning garments now, and do not anoint yourself with oil, but be like a woman who has been mourning for the dead many days; then go to the king and speak to him in this manner.” So Joab put the words in her mouth. (2 Samuel 14:1-3 NASB)

In chapter 12, Nathan the Prophet (I think that was his last name actually) goes to David and confronts him about his sin with Bathsheba.  To do so, he tells the Shepherd-Warrior King a little story about two guys with sheep.  Using that story, he brings David face to face with what he has done, and David repents.  I believe Joab saw the effects of the story (since he was so involved with David’s sin), and thought Nathan was such a genius for it, he decided to copy it.  I’m not sure, the Scripture doesn’t say that Joab wanted to be, or thought he was, a genius too; I just suspect something of the sort was involved.

Playing the King…And Surviving

The story Joab puts in the mouth of this wise woman of Tekoa (where everyone finds wise women) isn’t on par with what God puts into the mouth of Nathan.  This story is made up of a lot of begging on the woman’s part, ‘They want to kill my only remaining son!’ ‘I’ll not let that happen.’ ‘Please help me, they’ll kill my son!’ ‘Send ‘them’ to me, I’ll not let that happen.’ ‘My son will DIE!’ ‘No, I won’t let that happen!’  I sort of think this should have been called, “How to annoy your king and live.”

One of the pieces to this story that irks me is the application to the king.  The supposedly wise woman applies the story of her son to the king by saying, “We’re all going to die because you won’t bring back your murdering spoiled brat Absalom!”  That had to be the words of Joab since this woman is supposed to be wise.  My only confusion is that, since she is so wise, why agree to such a preposterous story.  She probably could have come up with a better one herself.

It seems David thought so too, because he sees right through her as soon as she tries to apply the story to him.  Enter Joab, stage…well, actually he seems to be standing right there (as I said, he’s not actually a sociopolitical genius).  David relents to bring Absalom back, just not to see the king.  Why is that?

The Legal Problem

One of the problems with bringing Absalom back is that David, the king of Israel, is responsible to uphold the law.  As king he hears cases all day long (or it probably seems like it takes all day).  That’s why the woman was supposedly there, for the king’s judgment.  It would not look great for the king to break the law for his own family, although God had done so for him in his sin with Bathsheba.  So, what’s a father/king/judge to do with a son who has committed such a sin as murder?

There is a set of esoteric laws in the Hebrew Torah regarding a Gaal, pronounced with two syllables, ‘ga-al’, no long vowels…we think, there’s actually an unpronounceable consonant in between the two ‘a’s.  This family role is responsible for redeeming lost property back into the family (redeemer), carrying on the line of a dead relative (leverite), and sometimes avenging the death of a relative (avenger).  It was part of their legal system that families, particularly this Gaal, avenge murders or even accidental deaths.  They were to do so upon meeting the man-slayer, no trial needed.

Two texts regarding this are found in Numbers 35:6-8 and another in Deuteronomy 19:1-13, those are the two I found regarding the avenger role specifically.  Included in these legal records are also the rules for ‘Cities of Refuge’ where someone could go if they killed another accidentally.  They could remain there until the death of the high priest, and the avenger could not slay them.  But, it first had to be proved that they did, in fact, kill by accident, and rules are found in the text to differentiate between intentional ‘murder’ and unintentional ‘man-slaying’.  It sounds convoluted and complex, but it’s not that hard to understand, and it makes a certain beautiful sense.  The hardest part is the cultural gulf needed to be spanned between 21st Century America and Second Millennia BC cultures.

Since the circumstance of Absalom’s exile was that he avenged his sister’s rape, a case could be made that he was within his rights to do so.  On the other hand, the circumstances surrounding how he did it place him in the wrong of the intentional murderer rather than the family Gaal avenger.  It’s a case for the king to decide, but it would be between his two sons, one having killed the other.  Certainly a mess.

So, this wise woman from Tekoa is used by Joab to influence the king to restore Abasalom, partly because Joab sees David wants to.  Joab thinks he’s helping David get what he wants to do, but doesn’t see how to do.  I think Joab is wrong here.  I wasn’t there, I didn’t see David’s face and Joab does know David really well (see 2 Samuel 11:18-21, in the Greek text of this passage, David says exactly what Joab said he would).  But I think David was embroiled in a deeper dilemma than Joab knew.

Conclusion

In seeking the will and desire of my Master, I have a few things to hold on to.  First, I believe that my Master truly wants me to know what He wants.  But He wants me to know that as I grow closer to Him.  He wants that close, intimate relationship where it’s relatively easy for me to know what He wants.  The description in Scripture of God’s love and desire for His people is deeply intimate.  His practice of speaking with His people and directing them is often also very intimate.

Therefore I believe David was trying to discern the will of God for this circumstance with Absalom.  And he wasn’t getting the answer he wanted.  I don’t believe that David was comfortable doing what he wanted to do, which was bring Absalom back.  I think that is why he brings him back but won’t let him come into his presence.

One of the comments Joab puts into the woman’s mouth is that God always makes a way for the ones He banishes to come back to him.  In other words, we might see it as God always leaving a way for repentance.  I agree with this to a point.  My understanding of repentance is more than physically relocating.  In this account, Absalom never actually repents for what he does.  Instead, he consistently requires everyone else to simply accept what he does, including the king.  So, in receiving him back, the king has ‘rubber stamped’ the sin of murder, and in this case, without a trial, and without repentance.  He’s the king, and he can do that.  But as we see from what follows, this wasn’t God speaking to him to give him guidance.  It was Joab intervening to give the king what he thought he wanted.

I can be quick to jump on something that I think God is telling me because what I sense is exactly what I want. That’s probably where I need to be most cautious, the most hesitant, and the most unwilling to go.  My heart is not the heart of God, and as much as I would like to see myself as one, I don’t think I am truly a ‘man after God’s own heart’ as David was.  In my own personal circumstances God has revealed to me, just last night, that I am harboring a huge amount of resentment toward someone (or something, depending on how you look at it).  This resentment is causing me no end of problems.  It’s not hurting the one(s) I resent though.

The key application here is that my resentment and the resulting bad attitude at work was not my Master telling me to find another job.  If I did that I would simply be carrying my resentments along with me.  That would disastrous for the next job/employer that picked me up.  I think it’s very easy to believe, and we like to think that, our Creator guides us using our desires; usually misusing the verse that He gives us the desires of our heart.  Our hearts are deceitful and lie to us.  Why would the One having made our hearts, tell us how bad our hearts are, but then turn around and give us what our hearts desire?  Wouldn’t it make more sense that He would instead, plant new desires as He changes our hearts?

I realize that I need to send away my resentments before I can really understand the direction my Master has for me.  That’s my view through this particular knothole.  What’s yours?

The Sheer Number of Things Wrong

When she brought them to him to eat, he took hold of her and said to her, “Come, lie with me, my sister.” But she answered him, “No, my brother, do not violate me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this disgraceful thing! (2 Samuel 13:11-12 NASB)

There’s just something so creepy it’s shocking to pick up the sacred text of Scripture, the inspired word revealing the character of the God, Creator of the universe, and read therein, “Come, lie with me, my sister.”  It’s wrong on so many levels I’m not sure where to begin…but I’ll try.

Continue reading The Sheer Number of Things Wrong

Evil For Dinner, Revenge For Dessert

Jonadab, the son of Shimeah, David’s brother, responded, “Do not let my lord suppose they have put to death all the young men, the king’s sons, for Amnon alone is dead; because by the intent of Absalom this has been determined since the day that he violated his sister Tamar. Now therefore, do not let my lord the king take the report to heart, namely, ‘all the king’s sons are dead, ‘ for only Amnon is dead.” (2 Samuel 13:32-33 NASB)

Chapter 13 of 2 Samuel begins the ‘Absalom’ narrative within David’s story.  It begins with the tragic character of Tamar and proceeds through her humiliation by her step brother Amnon, to the eventual revenge of her brother Absalom on Amnon.  What adds to the intrigue is the small details about the edges.

Amnon is the first-born, and therefore the ‘assumed’ successor to David.  He would make a disastrous king; he’s self-centered, arrogant, manipulative, with no regard for anyone.  The reader finds him repulsive very quickly in the account.  But he is the first-born.

Absalom is very near the top of the list of king’s sons who might inherit the throne, but not at the top; he’s third (second doesn’t appear anywhere but in a list in 2 Samuel 3, and under a different name in 1 Chronicles).  So the setting of this ‘revenge’ is set within the sons of the king, a king sitting on a throne; and therefore on an inheritance that only one can inherit.

David is the father who is suffering consequences for his sin with Bathsheba (see chapter 12).  In a sense he too is a victim, or I see him as such.  He ‘hears’ of an atrocity among his children, but not from them.  What does he do?  The penalty is death, but no one will talk about it (sound like a modern family?).

What does happen is that Absalom has told his sister to be quiet while he harbors hatred toward her attacker.  So Tamar is not only victimized in one of the most horrible fashions possible (even worse in their culture than ours), she’s not given justice nor the opportunity for justice.  She’s not even given an explanation of why this happened to her.

This situation goes on for two years, and then Absalom manipulates his father, the king, into allowing all the kings sons to dine with him somewhere north.  At the meal, Absalom has Amnon killed.  He escapes to grandpa Talmai (what happens to Tamar now?), and the rest of the princes flee home.  By any assessment, the situation is a disaster.

Why? Why is this even in this book?  It’s not in Chronicles.  It’s only here in the book of Samuel.  Why in the shuffle and tussle of spoiled princes of a warrior-king is the victim, Tamar, sidelined?  In fact the ‘backdrop’ for this, repeatedly pointed out by the author, is the degradation of David’s family indicated in incest and murder. The repetition of ‘her brother’ and ‘his sister’ is almost irritating until you get the point.

David tried his best to guide and direct his children.  He had them work in the shrine of the Ark of God.  He made them ‘ministers’ with duties in the administration of the kingdom.  He gave them wise counselors like Jonadab.  They knew the job, they knew what was involved, and they knew where David’s power came from, his God.  Yet it seems they saw the ‘chair’ as either deserved by right of birth, regardless of character (Amnon); or up for grabs by whoever could manipulate their way into it (Absalom).

David makes an easy target for us, but I doubt we truly appreciate the problems he faced in parenting.  Tamar is swept aside and remains a tragic figure, but only to setup what happens to Amnon by Absalom.  I think that only deepens her tragedy.  Amnon is a cruel and despicable person; a fool who needs to die rather than become king.  Absalom is a manipulative ambitious conniver who would even use his sister’s humiliation for his own ends.  Jonadab is said to be wise, but we can’t tell if he was manipulated or participating in Tamar’s humiliation, and then in Absalom’s revenge.

The character list is peopled with characters, but not a lot of moral fiber.  This isn’t a ‘success story’ or a ‘parenting bestseller’, it makes soap operas seem bright and cheery.  As I look through the ‘knothole’ I see it’s still a story about David, but of his woes.  I see it’s about his consequences on the one hand, but about his inability to control even his own children on the other (a theme common today).  I see it is about horrible incomprehensible evil being done to a victim, and the ineffective application of justice.

What I learn about God is that He permits tragedy, He permits monsters, He permits bad things happening to good people.  It’s a hard thing to see about God.  In a real sense it’s incomprehensible; but God is supposed to be incomprehensible.  In another sense it seems He has His hands completely off the situation, yet He predicts this very thing in his prophesy through Nathan.  He knows it’s coming and doesn’t stop it.  He doesn’t make life roses and song-birds for everyone.

And so I’m challenged to regard my own life, and not use my circumstances as the litmus test for my relationship with my Master.  Some bad things are consequences, and some are not.  Can I accept both from my Master and still be confident in His perfect love and perfect power?  David was able to, and he didn’t even point to Jesus as compensation.  Rather his faith was based on the other things he saw his Master do.  Will I learn to also rely on my faith based on what I have seen my Master do?  Or will I give into the view of here, now, the darkness I sense, and the hopelessness I think I face?

What about you? What do you see through the knothole?

What Is Knothole Theology?

Imagine a bunch of kids watching a baseball game through the curved back fence.  Each one along the length of the fence looking through a knothole at the baseball action.  One can see a portion of the outfield, another two infielders, and the third can actually see home plate and the batter.  The batter hits a huge line drive deep into the outfield, and runs.  The third kid yells out, “It was a hard line drive!”  They hear the crowd on the other side of the fence go wild.  The middle one can see the two infielders anxiously looking back toward the outfield.  The runner passes through his view quickly.  He yells, “He rounded second!” And the first kid sees his outfielder grab the ball after a bounce and hurl it toward the infield.  The middle kid quickly shouts, “The second basemen got it, and threw it to home!”  And the third kid, yells out, “He’s safe! We win!”  They hear the crowd erupt on the other side of the fence and indistinct yelling.

How much could any one of the kids have really understood about what was going on without the other?  That’s the basis of Knothole Theology.  Without their view, the sound of the crowd would have told them something exciting was happening, but not what.  And their view may have shown them part of the action, but not enough to get a good sense of what was happening.  It isn’t without the view of all three that what was happening was understood.  And even three views from knotholes isn’t as good as being in the stadium.  There were a lot of details even they couldn’t see through the fence.

But what is Knothole Theology? Essentially it is a view of God through our ‘knotholes’ that gets better as everyone shares their view.  It is based on the conviction that God has not revealed Himself to any one person, but rather created a view of Himself that creates dependency on each other for clarity.

In more technical terms, it is a biblical ‘word about God’ dependent upon many perspectives. We all view God with the limited perspective as through a knothole in a fence. The view of God through the knothole is never complete, so we need the perspectives of others for a more complete understanding. Having said that, though, it is based on a few assumptions:

  1. The Bible is inspired by God
  2. The sixty-six books are the complete infallible inspired record
  3. God revealed what we need to know about Him through Scripture
  4. The purpose of God is to draw His human creatures into a relationship with Him
  5. The end result of this relationship is eternity in heaven worshiping Him

The purpose of Knothole Theology is really to gain a better understanding of what God reveals through Scripture.  In that sense it’s a biblical theology.  But in another sense it’s a theory of biblical interpretation, in that understanding is best with additional views.  It’s not an oversimplification to say that no one knows it all, but some views are better than others.  But this causes some problems; typically relational ones.

The purpose, with a focus on God, is easily lost when the participant are really more interested in the value of their view over everyone else’s view.  People can get offended that everyone didn’t consider them as important at they saw themselves, and so on.

Another problem with losing focus on God is when people desperately want a grand view, and they only have a knothole.  If their solution is make up what is lacking in their view with imagination, intuition, and deduction, they put themselves on dangerous ground.  There is some value in trying to see beyond the view this way, as long as what is seen is able to be clearly differentiated from what is surmised or imagined.  Sometimes being able to consider the views together, appreciate their gaps, and try to get a sense of what’s happening in the gaps is helpful.  But it must also be seen that way, not as a true view.  The reason for this is that the ‘views’ are, in a very real sense, given to us by God through His Spirit.

When Knothole Theology is practiced in small group Bible study, what is discovered is a much richer view of God, His character, His activity, and our relationship with Him.  This vivid view is capable of deepening our worship, our prayer life, and our daily activities.  It can be transformational.

So, this blog will be a beginning, limited view of a passage of Scripture.  What will make it great are the comments supplying missing views of the action of God.  The only ground rules really need to be that what we all be ‘at the same game’ (passage, or at least Scripture), and that we don’t lose focus on God.

Play Ball!