READING THE BOOK OF PSALMS

PART XLVI

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Psalms 63 and 73

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Psalms 63 and 73 are similar to each other; they express faith in God, come from circumstances of affliction, and insist that the wicked will reap what they have sown.

The dubious superscription of Psalm 63 links the text to a time when David was hiding in the wilderness of Judah and people were trying to kill him.  This may refer to a portion of the reign of King Saul.  Alternatively, Absalom’s rebellion works as a context for the superscription.  Yet the psalm is a general lament from someone in mortal danger from human beings.  And who is the king in the last verse?  Is the king God or a mortal?  Is this verse original to Psalm 63?  Your guesses are as good as mine, O reader.

The superscription of Psalm 73 attributes the text to Asaph, a Levite and the choir director at the Temple in Jerusalem.  I do know if this attribution is historically accurate.  That question may be irrelevant anyway.  For your information, O reader, the Asaph psalms are numbers 50, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, and 83.

The psalmist–perhaps Asaph–notices how many wicked people flourish.  He reports having doubted the purpose of remaining faithful until he visited the Temple.  The psalmist concludes that God will remain faithful to the pious and that the wicked will go to destruction.  This is mostly repetitive from other psalms, so I need not delve into that territory again, in this post.

Instead, I focus on the positive influence of religious institutions and congregations.  Rugged individualism is not a spiritual virtue.  We all rely upon God and each other.  We need faith community to teach and support us in paths of God.  This is why toxic faith and abusive and hateful religious institutions are so harmful; they drive people away from God and damage those whom they deceive.  Many people project their bigotry and spiritual blindness onto God.  In so doing, they create a mockery of religion that violates the Golden Rule.  Yet positive, loving faith community embraces the Golden Rule.

If God has created us in his image, we have returned him the favor.

–François-Marie Arouet, a.k.a. Voltaire (1694-1778)

I, as an Anglican-Lutheran-Catholic Episcopalian with liberal tendencies in South Georgia, U.S.A., belong to a visible minority.  I may belong to the one congregation in my county where I can speak my mind theologically without prompting either (a) concerns that I may be a damned heretic, or (b) certainty of that opinion, with (c) suspicions that I am too Catholic, tacked onto either (a) or (b). The growing influence of Eastern Orthodox spirituality within me places me more out of step with most of my neighbors and renders me more alien to the spirituality of the majority of nearby congregations.  Certainly, I belong to the one congregation in my county I can feel comfortable joining.  If I were a Low Church Protestant with liberal tendencies, I could choose from a handful of congregations.  So, given my spiritual and religious reality, I understand the importance of faith community.  My congregation, which helps to keep me grounded spiritually, is precious to me.

We human beings are social creatures.  Even I, an introvert, am a social being.  My personality type does not exempt me from evolutionary psychology.  Faith is simultaneously individual and communal.  Individual faith exists within the framework of a community.  The two forms of faith interact.  So, a solo person who claims to be “spiritual but not religious” pursues a nebulous path to nowhere.

May we, by grace, understand how much we rely on God and each other.  Then may we act accordingly.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

JANUARY 20, 2023 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF SAINT FABIAN, BISHOP OF ROME, AND MARTYR, 250

THE FEAST OF SAINTS EUTHYMIUS THE GREAT AND THEOCTISTUS, ROMAN CATHOLIC ABBOTS

THE FEAST OF GREVILLE PHILLIMORE, ENGLISH PRIEST, HYMN WRITER, AND HYMN TRANSLATOR

THE FEAST OF HAROLD A. BOSLEY, UNITED METHODIST MINISTER AND BIBLICAL SCHOLAR

THE FEAST OF HARRIET AUBER, ANGLICAN HYMN WRITER

THE FEAST OF RICHARD ROLLE, ENGLISH ROMAN CATHOLIC SPIRITUAL WRITER

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Advertisement

READING THE BOOK OF PSALMS

PART III

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Psalm 3

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Psalm 3 is a first; it is the first psalm “of David.”  “Of David” may carry one of three meanings:

1. David wrote it,
2. Someone else wrote it and attributed it to David, or
3. Someone else wrote in the style of David.

Given the frequent, later tacking on attributions in the Book of Psalms and elsewhere in the Bible, (2) and (3) are the most feasible options.

For the sake of thoroughness, though, I note that the story of Absalom’s rebellion is in 2 Samuel 15-19.

The psalmist, under threat from many violent foes, prayed for divine deliverance.  He prayed that God would

break the teeth of the wicked,

as if God had already done so.  These were the same teeth through which the same wicked people had declared that God would not deliver the psalmist.  Alternatively, the psalmist imagined how King David must have felt then written accordingly.

Psalm 3 affirms human dependence on God, that the reality of God shapes human identity and destiny. This understanding contradicts a cultural norm in North American Christianity, infected with individualism and self-reliance.

God helps those who help themselves

comes from Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanac, not the Bible.  A seminary professor I heard speak jokes that such sayings allegedly from the Bible come from the First Book of the Babylonians.

The petition for divine, avenging violence is common in the Book of Psalms.  It is also common in human beings.  Yet may none of us forget that God loves us and our enemies.  Nevertheless, deliverance for the oppressed may prove catastrophic for the oppressors.  We may understandably weep for victims of the Third Reich and not shed one tear for any Nazi.  And I, as a student of history with a strong social conscience, read accounts of violent and rebellious slaves.  I always side with the slaves, forced into a corner.  I never shed one tear for the White people who died in such rebellions and other rebellious acts.  I affirm that such violence was part of the price White people paid for maintaining slavery.  Besides, I favor the underdogs and the oppressed every time.

One brutalized slave who escaped to freedom in British North America before the Civil War offered his thoughts in writing.  He had been the property of a Baptist deacon who had beaten him often.  The slave had seized his opportunity to pursue freedom when the deacon died.  The former slave wrote that he did not know if the deacon had gone to Heaven or Hell.  The ex-slave wrote that he (the former slave) hoped to go to the other place in death.  The former slave’s hostility toward the bastard who had owned him was understandable.

Some people are sympathetic; others are not.  Chickens do come home to roost, too.  Some people are so unsympathetic as to be morally monstrous.  But God loves them, too.  And if their worst fate is suffering the smashing of their teeth, they get off lightly.

Such people could have turned out differently.  Something went horribly wrong; they took a wrong turn and headed down a destructive path.  They may even have done so with good intentions, the paving stones of the road to Hell.

So, how can each of us avoid such a path?  We all have moral blind spots.  We all carry assumptions, some of which are erroneous.  The short answer to my question is grace.  Yet, if I say,

There but for the grace of God go I,

I err.  If I commit that error, I imply that others lack grace.

Here, as when pondering the Book of Job, I rebel against pat answers to difficult questions.  I am the hero of my own story.  Nevertheless, someone, somewhere, may think of me as a villain.  Reality is what it is; objective reality exists.  Perceptions are subjective, of course.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

DECEMBER 9, 2022 COMMON ERA

THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF ADVENT, YEAR A

THE FEAST OF SAINT LIBORIUS WAGNER, GERMAN ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST AND MARTYR, 1631

THE FEAST OF DAVID BRÜNING, U.S. GERMAN EVANGELICAL MINISTER, HYMNAL WRITER, AND HYMN TUNE COMPOSER

THE FEAST OF GEORGE JOB ELVEY, ANGLICAN COMPOSER AND ORGANIST

THE FEAST OF JOHN ZUNDEL, GERMAN-AMERICAN ORGANIST, HYMNAL EDITOR, HYMN TUNE COMPOSER, AND MUSIC EDITOR

THE FEAST OF SAINT PETER FOURIER, “THE GOOD PRIEST OF MATTAINCOURT;” AND SAINT ALIX LE CLERC, FOUNDER OF THE CONGREGATON OF NOTRE DAME OF CANONESSES REGULAR OF SAINT AUGUSTINE

THE FEAST OF THOMAS MERTON, U.S. ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST, MONK, AND SPIRITUAL WRITER

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

READING 1, 2 AND 4 MACCABEES

Above:  The Punishment of Antiochus, by Gustave Doré

Image in the Public Domain

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PART XVIII

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 Maccabees 6:1-17

2 Maccabees 9:1-29

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Retribution is a theme in 2 Maccabees.  Enemies of pious Jews died ignominiously in that book.  Consider:

1. Andronicus, who had killed High Priest Onias III (4:34), died via execution (4:38).  “The Lord thus repaid him with the punishment he deserved.”–4:39, Revised Standard Version–Second Edition (1971)
2. High Priest Jason “met a miserable end” (5:8, RSV II).  He, shunned, died in exile in Egypt.  Nobody mourned him after he died.  Jason had no funeral (5:9-10).
3. High Priest Menelaus died via execution.  He, pushed off a tower about 73 feet high, died in a pit full of ashes.  Nobody held a funeral for Menelaus (13:3-8).
4. Nicanor, who had commanded the siege of Jerusalem, died in combat.  This his severed head hung from the citadel of Jerusalem.  Furthermore, birds ate his severed tongue (15:28-36).

Is this not wonderful mealtime reading?

Then we come to King Antiochus IV Epiphanes, an infamous blasphemer, “a sinful root” (1 Maccabees 1:10), and “a little horn” (Daniel 7:8) who made “war with the saints” (Daniel 7:21).

When we left off in the narrative, King Antiochus IV Epiphanes, short on funds, was traveling in the eastern part of the Seleucid Empire and raising money to finance the struggle against Judas Maccabeus and his forces (1 Maccabees 3:27-37).  At the beginning of 1 Maccabees 6 and 2 Maccabees 9, the blasphemous monarch was in the area of Susa, in the region of Elam.  King Antiochus IV Epiphanes was engaging in one of his favorite fund-raising tactics–trying to plunder a temple full of valuable treasures.  (Read 1 Maccabees 1:54f and 2 Maccabees 5:15f, O reader.)  He failed this time.  News of the developments in Judea reached the king, whose world was collapsing around him.  He died, allegedly penitent, in the year 164/163 B.C.E. (149 on the Seleucid/Hellenistic calendar).

2 Maccabees elaborates on the account in 1 Maccabees.  2 Maccabees describes vividly the pain in the monarch’s bowels (9:5f), the infestation of worms (9:9), his rotting flesh (9:9), and his body’s stench (9:9).

So the murderer and blasphemer, having endured the most intense suffering, such as he had inflicted on others, came to the end of his life by a most pitiable fate, among the mountains of a strange land.

–2 Maccabees 9:28, Revised Standard Version–Second Edition (1971)

King Antiochus IV Epiphanes had appointed Philip the regent and the guardian of the new king, Antiochus V Eupator (reigned 164/163 B.C.E.).  There were two major problems, however:

1. King Antiochus IV Epiphanes had previously appointed Lysias to both positions (1 Maccabees 3:32-33), and
2. Lysias had custody of the young (minor) heir to the throne.

Philip attempted a coup d’état and failed (1 Maccabees 6:55-56).  Meanwhile, Lysias had installed the seven-year-old King Antiochus V Eupator on the Seleucid throne.  Philip, in mortal danger from Regent Lysias, fled to the protection of King Ptolemy VI Philometor (reigned 180-145 B.C.E.) in Egypt.  

1 and 2 Maccabees differ on the timing of the death of King Antiochus IV Epiphanes relative to the Temple in Jerusalem–the first Hanukkah.  1 Maccabees places the king’s death after the purification of the Temple.  2 Maccabees, however, places the death of the blasphemous monarch prior to the first Hanukkah.  Father Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., writing in The New Collegeville Commentary:  Old Testament (2015), 832, favors the relative dating in 2 Maccabees.  Harrington also proposes that news of the death of King Antiochus IV Epiphanes may have reached Jerusalem after the first Hanukkah.  That analysis is feasible and perhaps probable.

I agree with the evaluation of King Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 2 Maccabees.  I agree that his repentance was insincere and self-serving.  The monarch was like a criminal who regretted getting arrested and sentenced, not having committed a crime.

An interesting connection to the New Testament deserves comments here.  I start with the Wisdom of Solomon 4:17-20:

These [wicked] people [who look on, uncomprehending] see the wise man’s ending

without understanding what the Lord has in store for him

or why he has taken him to safety;

they look on and sneer,

but the Lord will laugh at them.

Soon they will be corpses without honour,

objects of scorn among the dead for ever.

The Lord will dash them down headlong, dumb.

He will tear them from their foundations,

they will be utterly laid waste,

anguish will be theirs,

and their memory shall perish.

—The Jerusalem Bible (1966)

This is the reference in the Lukan account of the death of Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:15-20).  That account differs from the version in Matthew 27:3-10 (suicide by hanging, without his entrails bursting out), like that of Ahitophel (2 Samuel 17:23), during Absalom’s rebellion against King David.  (Ahitophel had betrayed King David.)  Both Acts 1:15-20 and 2 Maccabees 9:5-29 echo aspects of the Wisdom of Solomon 4:17-20.  The Lukan account of the death of Judas Iscariot purposefully evokes the memory of King Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Obviously, one part of the Wisdom of Solomon 4:17-20 does not apply to King Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Judas Iscariot.  We know their names.

The evil that men do lives after them;

the good is oft interred with their bones.

–William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar

(I memorized that in high school, which was more years ago then I like to admit some days.)

In reality, we may know the names of evildoers in greater quantity than those of the righteous.  Think about it, O reader.  How many gangsters, serial killers, Nazis, Nazi collaborators, terrorists, dictators, would-be dictators, and genocidal dictators can you name?  And how many saints, humanitarians, and other kind-hearted people can you name?  Which category–evildoers or good people–has more names in it?

King Antiochus IV Epiphanes had started down his destructive path by seeking to impose cultural uniformity–Hellenism–on his culturally diverse empire.  He was neither the first nor the last ruler to commit some variation of the error of enforced cultural homogenization.  He learned that defining unity as enforced cultural homogeneity increased disunity by inspiring rebellion.

Cultural diversity adds spice to communal life.  The world would be boring if we were all homogenous.  Mutual respect, toleration, acceptance, and tolerance maintains unity in the midst of cultural diversity.  When acceptance is a bridge too far, tolerance may suffice.  However, there are limits, even to cultural diversity.  Tolerance is a generally good idea.  A good idea, carried too far, becomes a bad idea.  Correctly placing the boundaries of tolerance amid cultural diversity is both necessary and wise.  On the left (where I dwell), the temptation is to draw the circle too wide.  On the right, the temptation is to draw the circle too small.

I am a student of history.  My reading tells me that many rulers of culturally-diverse realms have succeed in maintaining unity.  They have done so by practicing respect for diversity in matters of culture and religion, although not absolutely.  But these rulers have not insisted that everyone fellow a monoculture.  Therefore, very different people have peaceably found their places in those societies.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

FEBRUARY 10, 2021 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF SAINT SCHOLASTICA, ABBESS OF PLOMBARIOLA; AND HER TWIN BROTHER, SAINT BENEDICT OF NURSIA, ABBOT OF MONTE CASSINO AND FATHER OF WESTERN MONASTICISM

THE FEAST OF SAINT BENEDICT OF ANIANE, RESTORER OF WESTERN MONASTICISM; AND SAINT ARDO, ROMAN CATHOLIC ABBOT

THE FEAST OF JULIA WILLIAMS GARNET, AFRICAN-AMERICAN ABOLITIONIST AND EDUCATOR; HER HUSBAND, HENRY HIGHLAND GARNET, AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRESBYTERIAN MINISTER AND ABOLITIONIST; HIS SECOND WIFE, SARAH J. SMITH TOMPKINS GARNET, AFRICAN-AMERICAN SUFFRAGETTE AND EDUCATOR; HER SISTER, SUSAN MARIA SMITH MCKINNEY STEWARD, AFRICAN-AMERICAN PHYSICIAN; AND HER SECOND HUSBAND, THEOPHILUS GOULD STEWARD, U.S. AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL MINISTER, ARMY CHAPLAIN, AND PROFESSOR

THE FEAST OF SAINT NORBERT OF XANTEN, FOUNDER OF THE PREMONSTRATENSIANS; SAINT HUGH OF FOSSES, SECOND FOUNDER OF THE PREMONSTRATENSIANS; AND SAINT EVERMOD, BISHOP OF RATZEBURG

THE FEAST OF PHILIP ARMES, ANGLICAN CHURCH ORGANIST

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

READING 1-2 SAMUEL, 1 KINGS, 2 KINGS 1-21, 1 CHRONICLES, AND 2 CHRONICLES 1-33

Above:  Joab Slays Amasa

Image in the Public Domain

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PART XLVII

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 Samuel 20:1-26

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Repay them according to their deeds,

and according to the wickedness of their actions.

–Psalm 28:4, The Book of Common Prayer (1979)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Chronology is not always the organizing principle for material in 2 Samuel.  2 Samuel 20, for example, leads into 1 Kings 1.  2 Samuel 21-24 constitute an appendix.  I, trained as a historian, think about the arrangement of material.  Chronology is not always the best organizing material.  One can often make a case for moving chronologically within one theme at a time.  Appendices are also legitimate.

Joab!  Joab slew Abner (2 Samuel 3:27).  Joab ordered the death of Absalom, against David’s commands (2 Samuel 18).  Then David demoted Abner and promoted Amasa (2 Samuel 19).  (Aside:  I would have fired Joab.)  Next, some time later, Joab slew Amasa (2 Samuel 20:10) and became the commander again.  (Aside:  Why did David keep Joab around so long?)  Joab also threatened the town of Abel of Beth-maacah and accepted an offer to save the population in exchange for the head of Sheba son of Bichri, the most recent rebel leader.  David, dying, advised Solomon to order the execution of Joab (1 Kings 2:5-6).  Solomon did (1 Kings 2:28f).

How are we supposed to evaluate Joab?  Was he an overzealous patriot who occasionally violated David’s orders?  Perhaps.  Maybe David should not have permitted Joab to get away with such actions.  Or maybe Joab was correct vis-á-vis Sheba.  If had David had consented to the beheading of Shimei in 2 Samuel 16:9, the rebellion of Chapter 20 would never have occurred, according to a note in The Jewish Study Bible.  If we agree with that note, the dying David was correct to order the execution of Shimei (1 Kings 2:8-9), which Solomon made happen several years later (1 Kings 2:39-46).  Or maybe one agrees with me and disagrees with that note in The Jewish Study Bible.

Nobody is right or wrong all of the time.  One is, however, either right more often that one is wrong or wrong more often than one is right.  Even a broken clock is right twice a day, to quote a cliché.  

So, was Joab right more often than he was wrong?  Or was he wrong more often than he was right?

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

OCTOBER 14, 2020 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF SAINTS CALLIXTUS I, ANTERUS, AND PONTIAN, BISHOPS OF ROME; AND SAINT HIPPOLYTUS, ANTIPOPE

THE FEAST OF SAINT ROMAN LYSKO, UKRAINIAN GREEK CATHOLIC PRIEST AND MARTYR, 1949

THE FEAST OF SAMUEL ISAAC JOSEPH SCHERESCHEWSKY, EPISCOPAL BISHOP OF SHANGHAI, AND BIBLICAL TRANSLATOR

THE FEAST OF THOMAS HANSEN KINGO, DANISH LUTHERAN BISHOP, HYMN WRITER, AND “POET OF EASTERTIDE”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

READING 1-2 SAMUEL, 1 KINGS, 2 KINGS 1-21, 1 CHRONICLES, AND 2 CHRONICLES 1-33

Above:  King David

Image in the Public Domain

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PART XLVI

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 Samuel 19:1-43 (Protestant)/19:2-44 (Jewish and Roman Catholic), or, as the Eastern Orthodox call the text, 2 Kingdoms 19:2-44

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Turn to me and have pity on me,

for I am left alone and in misery.

The sorrows of my heart have increased;

bring me out of my troubles.

Look upon my adversity and misery

and forgive me all my sin.

–Psalm 25:15-17, The Book of Common Prayer (1979)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

David was victorious and relatively magnanimous following the events of 2 Samuel 15-18 (the rebellion of Absalom).  The King, for example, demoted Joab, who had committed insubordination, caused the death of Absalom, and behaved insensitively toward the grieving David.  But David let Joab live.  David promoted Amasa to take Joab’s place.  The King even rejected another suggestion to have Shimei (who had cursed him 2 Samuel 16) executed.  Unfortunately, David changed his mind years later (1 Kings 1:8-9) and Solomon ordered the death of Shimei (1 Kings 2:36-46).

Unity remained elusive in the immediate wake of the rebellion of Absalom, however.  There was no way David could unfry that egg.

2 Samuel 19 presents David favorably.  He stands in contrast to the lying, insensitive Joab and the pitiful yet loyal Mephibosheth.  The narrative also presents David as a broken, humbled man not eager to shed more blood immediately after a bloody rebellion.

This was the first rebellion.  The second one followed in Chapter 20.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

OCTOBER 3, 2020 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF GEORGE KENNEDY ALLEN BELL, ANGLICAN BISHOP OF CHICHESTER

THE FEAST OF ALBERTO RAMENTO, PRIME BISHOP OF THE PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENT CHURCH

THE FEAST OF SAINT GERARD OF BROGNE, ROMAN CATHOLIC ABBOT

THE FEAST OF JOHN RALEIGH MOTT, U.S. METHODIST LAY EVANGELIST, AND ECUMENICAL PIONEER

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

READING 1-2 SAMUEL, 1 KINGS, 2 KINGS 1-21, 1 CHRONICLES, AND 2 CHRONICLES 1-33

Above:  The Death of Absalom

Image in the Public Domain

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PART XLV

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 Samuel 18:1-33 (Protestant)/18:1-19:1 (Jewish and Roman Catholic), or, as the Eastern Orthodox call the text, 2 Kingdoms 18:1-19:1

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

LORD, how many adversaries I have!

how many there are who rise up against me!

How many there are who say of me,

“There is no help for him in his God.”

–Psalm 3:1-2, The Book of Common Prayer (1979)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ahimaaz was in a difficult political situation.  He was loyal to King David, so the news of the defeat and death of Absalom seemed to be positive.  On the other hand, David (a terrible father, who had driven his son to rebellion) had, unbeknownst to Ahimaaz, given orders to the commanders (including Joab) to deal gently with Absalom.  Joab had violated that order.  David wanted to end the rebellion, of course, but he did not want Absalom to die either.  On that day, many people died because of David and Absalom.

David wore two hats, so to speak.  He was both a monarch and a father.  David seemed to be the king and not a father when dealing with Absalom (especially in 2 Samuel 14:33) most of the time.  If he had been Absalom’s father (as opposed to the emotionally distant king) more often, the rebellion may never have occurred.  Yet there was David, in father mode, in the designated portion of scripture for this post.

The line separating the personal from the political frequently does not exist for powerful people.  Life does not always permit neat categories.  On the other hand, the separation of the personal from the political can be a virtue.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

OCTOBER 3, 2020 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF GEORGE KENNEDY ALLEN BELL, ANGLICAN BISHOP OF CHICHESTER

THE FEAST OF ALBERTO RAMENTO, PRIME BISHOP OF THE PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENT CHURCH

THE FEAST OF SAINT GERARD OF BROGNE, ROMAN CATHOLIC ABBOT

THE FEAST OF JOHN RALEIGH MOTT, U.S. METHODIST LAY EVANGELIST, AND ECUMENICAL PIONEER

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

READING 1-2 SAMUEL, 1 KINGS, 2 KINGS 1-21, 1 CHRONICLES, AND 2 CHRONICLES 1-33

Above:  Absalom Between Ahithophel and Hushai

Image in the Public Domain

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PART XLIV

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 Samuel 17:1-29

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In those days, the advice which Ahithophel gave was accepted like an oracle sought from God; that is how all the advice of Ahithophel was esteemed both by David and Absalom.

–2 Samuel 16:23, TANAKH:  The Holy Scriptures (1985)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Back in 2 Samuel 15, Ahithophel, a royal counselor, switched alliances and sided with Absalom.  Also, David planted Hushai in Absalom’s court, to nullify Ahithophel’s advice and to participate in a spy network.  Ahithophel’s advice that Absalom have public intercourse with David’s concubines prevailed in 2 Samuel 16.  Nevertheless, Hushai’s advice overrode that of Ahithophel in 2 Samuel 17, thereby buying time for David.  The tide having turned in David’s favor, Ahithophel feared (correctly) that David would execute him for treason.  So the counselor committed suicide.  Absalom’s rebellion was about to fail.

The text makes the theological agenda of the narrative plain.

The LORD had decreed that Ahithophel’s sound advice be nullified, in order that the LORD might bring ruin upon Absalom.

–2 Samuel 17:14, TANAKH:  The Holy Scriptures (1985)

David had prayed in 2 Samuel 15.  God answered that prayer in 2 Samuel 17 and 18.

Regardless of who holds power or who seeks it, God is in control.  Appearances may deceive, but God is in control.

I admit to struggling with accepting that God is in control.  I affirm that teaching in good moments.  Yet when current events depress me, I have serious doubts.  I am of two minds regarding this matter.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

OCTOBER 3, 2020 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF GEORGE KENNEDY ALLEN BELL, ANGLICAN BISHOP OF CHICHESTER

THE FEAST OF ALBERTO RAMENTO, PRIME BISHOP OF THE PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENT CHURCH

THE FEAST OF SAINT GERARD OF BROGNE, ROMAN CATHOLIC ABBOT

THE FEAST OF JOHN RALEIGH MOTT, U.S. METHODIST LAY EVANGELIST, AND ECUMENICAL PIONEER

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

READING 1-2 SAMUEL, 1 KINGS, 2 KINGS 1-21, 1 CHRONICLES, AND 2 CHRONICLES 1-33

Above:  Shimei Curses David

Artist = William Hole

Image in the Public Domain

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PART XLIII

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 Samuel 16:1-23

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Trouble and distress have come upon me,

yet your commandments are my delight.

The righteousness of your decrees is everlasting;

grant me understanding, that I may live.

–Psalm 119:143-144, The Book of Common Prayer (1979)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

David was in deep trouble.  He was on the run from Absalom, who had claimed the throne and the royal concubines.  David, verbally abused, accepted that abuse.  He refused to permit Abishai to behead Shimei.  Unfortunately, David changed his mind years later (1 Kings 1:8-9) and Solomon had Shimei executed (1 Kings 2:36-46).

Mephibosheth, a grandson of King Saul, was also in trouble.  Back in 2 Samuel 9, Ziba had brought Mephibosheth to David’s attention.  David had taken Mephibosheth into the court and granted him privileges.  In 2 Samuel 16, Ziba lied–told “alternative facts,” to quote Kellyanne Conway regarding mathematics in January 2017–about Saul’s grandson.  Mephibosheth had designs on the throne, Ziba claimed.  That was a lie.  “Alternative facts” have always been objectively false.  Ziba’s statement was a lie, according to 2 Samuel 19.  Mephibosheth, by breathing and having a pulse, posed at least a theoretical threat to David’s claim to the throne.  Yet the grandson of Saul seemed not to want to become the King of Israel.

No, the main threat to David’s kingship came from Absalom, one of his sons.  Absalom’s rage against his father ran deep.  It must have been building up since long before the rape of Tamar by Amnon (2 Samuel 13).  Despite David’s flaws, his maturity in 2 Samuel 16 contrasted with Absalom’s rage.

I wish that David’s maturity had continued all way to his death, and that he had advised the continued sparing of Shimei.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

OCTOBER 3, 2020 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF GEORGE KENNEDY ALLEN BELL, ANGLICAN BISHOP OF CHICHESTER

THE FEAST OF ALBERTO RAMENTO, PRIME BISHOP OF THE PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENT CHURCH

THE FEAST OF SAINT GERARD OF BROGNE, ROMAN CATHOLIC ABBOT

THE FEAST OF JOHN RALEIGH MOTT, U.S. METHODIST LAY EVANGELIST, AND ECUMENICAL PIONEER

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

READING 1-2 SAMUEL, 1 KINGS, 2 KINGS 1-21, 1 CHRONICLES, AND 2 CHRONICLES 1-33

Above:  Absalom Conspires Against David

Image in the Public Domain

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PART XLII

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 Samuel 15:1-37

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

For [the wicked] cannot sleep unless they have done wrong;

they are robbed of sleep unless they have made someone stumble.

For they eat the bread of wickedness

and drink the wine of violence.

–Proverbs 4:17-18, Revised Standard Version (1952)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The framing of the story of King David in 2 Samuel, told via hindsight, pivots in Chapters 11 and 12.  After the murder of Uriah the Hittite and the seduction of Bathsheba, the narrative teaches us, David’s figurative chickens came home to roost.  One should, therefore, read the stories of Absalom in the context of 2 Samuel 12:9-12.

David was oblivious then shrewd in 2 Samuel 15.  He missed the signs of Absalom acting like a monarch and starting a rebellion until the time to prevent that insurrection had passed.  Yet David established a network of spies in Jerusalem after having fled the city.

David reaped what what he sowed.  He reaped what he sowed beyond the call back to Bathsheba and Uriah.  David also reaped what he sowed by having a terrible relationship with Absalom.  It was a two-way relationship, of course.  David did little or nothing to have a positive relationship with Absalom, even after pretending to reconcile with him.  If David had acted shrewdly vis-à-vis Absalom, the monarch would have kept at least as close an eye on him as he did on Mephibosheth.

Ironically, Ittai the Gittite, a foreigner, was loyal to David when Absalom and many Israelites were not.  Ittai remained loyal to David throughout the rebellion (see Chapter 18).

On a technical note, the proper passage of time in verse 7 is four years, not forty years.  TANAKH:  The Holy Scriptures (1985) has “forty,” but The New American Bible (1991) has “four.”  This sets the beginning of Absalom’s rebellion four years after the faux reconciliation at the end of Chapter 14, six years after Absalom’s return from exile, nine years after the murder of Amnon, and eleven years after the rape of Tamar (Chapter 13).  The narrative presents Absalom as a passionate, troubled man who had been stewing in the juices of resentment for years.  One may guess how long Absalom had resented David prior to Amnon’s rape of Tamar.  The narrative presets David and Absalom as being emotionally distant from each other.

One may recall a saying:  Before a man can command others well, he must command himself.  One may reasonably question the fitness of David and Absalom to command, based on that standard.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

OCTOBER 2, 2020 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF RALPH W. SOCKMAN, U.S. UNITED METHODIST MINISTER

THE FEAST OF CARL DOVING, NORWEGIAN-AMERICAN LUTHERAN MINISTER AND HYMN TRANSLATOR

THE FEAST OF JAMES ALLEN, ENGLISH INGHAMITE THEN GLASITE/SANDEMANIAN HYMN WRITER; AND HIS GREAT NEPHEW, OSWALD ALLEN, ENGLISH GLASITE/SANDEMANIAN HYMN WRITER

THE FEAST OF PETRUS HERBERT, GERMAN MORAVIAN BISHOP AND HYMNODIST

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

READING 1-2 SAMUEL, 1 KINGS, 2 KINGS 1-21, 1 CHRONICLES, AND 2 CHRONICLES 1-33

Above:  David and Absalom

Image in the Public Domain

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PART XLI

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 Samuel 14:1-33

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Then the king said to Joab, “I will do this thing.  Go and bring back my boy Absalom.”

–2 Samuel 14:21, TANAKH:  The Holy Scriptures (1985)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Joab engineered the return of Absalom.  Yet King David did not forgive the former exile.  Father and son did not speak for two years after Absalom returned.  In Samuel 14:33, for example, David was “the king,” not “the father.”  Reconciliation was formal and insincere.  Absalom remained violent, resentful, and unrepentant for the murder of Amnon.  David had not forgiven Absalom.  And if David had sympathies for Tamar, the author of the text seemed not know of that attitude.

Based on the text, I conclude that David remained unchanged from Chapter 13.

He who troubles his household will inherit wind….

–Proverbs 14:29a, Revised Standard Version (1952)

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1971) defines “reconcile” several ways, including the following:

To settle or resolve, as a dispute.

“Reconcile” derives from “conciliate,” derived from the Latin conciliare, or

to bring together.

To reconcile, then, is to bring together again.

David and Absalom did not really come back together.  Regardless of how approximate they were, they were far apart emotionally.  David contributed greatly to the storm about to overtake his realm and his family.  He either could not or chose not to recognize the threat Absalom constituted.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

SEPTEMBER 29, 2020 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF MARY RAMABAI, PROPHETIC WITNESS AND EVANGELIST IN INDIA

THE FEAST OF FRANCIS TURNER PALGRAVE, ANGLICAN POET, ART CRITIC, AND HYMN WRITER

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++