JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES Books VI-VIII, David - Solomon, SOLVED

[rakovsky]

Ben Christian in his essay "Setting sh it on fire to get attention (2 Samuel 14:28-33): An Apology in Defense of Absalom" writes about the irony in Absalom's revolt regarding his treatment of David's concubines, which fits in with Nathan's prophecy about David's concubines and with Amnon's treatment of Tamar:

At one point Absalom goes as far as raping David’s concubines to politically and legally emasculate his father. And it is not lost on most readers that this act hearkens back to what happened to Tamar, or that these abused women are treated exactly like Tamar once David regains the throne and decides that they are damaged goods (2 Samuel 20:3).

I guess that you could theorize that David was responsible for Tamar's rape because he had sent Tamar to Absalom to care for Absalom per Absalom's request. And maybe David should have known better, he could have suspected that Absalom might want her or that he was breaking some taboo about unmarried women being with men in ancient Middle East culture (if such a taboo existed like it seems to exist in Islamic cultures today). But I am not sure about David's guilt over Tamar, but it seems like the author could be hinting at it by mentioning that David was the one who sent in Tamar.

Ben Christian tries to figure out why David didn't punish Amnon, and he quotes a Biblical passage and comments that David ignored her crying:

"When King David heard of all these things, he became very angry, but he would not punish his son Amnon, because he loved him, for he was his firstborn (2 Samuel 13:21)."

DAVID DOES NOT PUNISH AMNON BECAUSE HE LOVES HIM MORE THAN TAMAR.

Perhaps Amnon was also being groomed to be king, but the bottom line is that David would not punish his son for the sake of is daughter. He loved one more than the other. Need more proof? When Amnon was faking having a witty bitty cold, David dropped everything, went to visit him, and arranged for Tamar to play his nurse (2 Samuel 13:6). He appeared when summoned by his son. David could not be bothered to visit Tamar, his own daughter, after her rape. She remained locked away in her older brother's home, ignored by the one who was supposed to protect her.

And after that, this father blocked out the cries of his daughter.

"But Tamar put ashes on her head, and tore the long robe that she was wearing; she put her hand on her head, and went away, crying aloud [za`aq] as she went. (2 Samuel 13:19)"


The Hebrew for "crying aloud" is the word used when describing not mere tears, but trauma. It is biblically employed for childbirth, war cries on the battlefield, and most notably, the people of God crying out for His help while under the unbearable weight of oppression and slavery in Egypt:



"And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried [za`aq], and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage. (Exodus 2:23)"

Ben Christian takes a view that runs counter to Bomkamp, in that he sees Absalom as being punished for what David should have done. Maybe Bomkamp would respond that David should have punished Amnon, but that killing him might have been too severe. Anyway, Ben Christian writes:

After the rape, Absalom waited two years before he acted. Two years. But David did nothing. Nothing to Amnon. Nothing for Tamar. So Absalom acted. He took his sister in, named his daughter after her (c.f. 2 Samuel 13:20 & 14:27, marking the comparison of their beauty), and then he took care of Amnon. Actions David should have taken. Absalom was punished for doing what David should have done; he was punished by the one who should have been punishing the one he punished.

Image those three years in exile from Absalom's perspective. The resentment building ("I did your job and I'm in exile?!") and leading to a plan ("You're not fit to lead!"). Was he wrong? Absalom's name means “my father is peace,” which is ironic for multiple reasons. Most obviously that David is known as a warrior, but also because it highlights the problem in this story: David's "peace" was complete inaction.

He also comments about how Bathsheba's affair with David played into Absalom's revolt:

David should have done something about what happened to Tamar. But he did nothing. So Absalom stepped up to administer the justice his father never did. He did what a male in the family should do. What other biblical brothers have done when placed in similar situations. And others men thought the same way, including Bathsheba's family.

Absalom's chief adviser during the revolt was Ahitophel, whose defection was a major blow to David. If David hadn't placed a double agent within Absalom's ranks, someone who was able to persuade Absalom against following Ahitophel's advice, David would not have regained the throne. Ahitophel was Bathsheba’s grandfather. It also bears mentioning that Eliam, Bathsheba's father, was also of David's "mighty men." He fought alongside Urriah for years, entrusted his daughter to the man, and could have potentially died during the cover-up by their commanding officer. The men in the family knew what went down, and they weren't having any of it.

In passing, the article links to the story in Genesis of Dinah's brothers avenging her rape. Ben Christian theorizes that Absalom was avenging his sister Tamar, and that David's mistreatment of Tamar for failing to act against Amnon fit a pattern of David's abuse of women:

While those "Absalom focused" sermons we mentioned above say man's wrath is not God's righteousness and that vengeance belongs to the Lord, they do not discount the biblical reality that sometimes humans are the instruments that the Lord uses for punishment, and that those human hands may have reasons to be pissed off.
Absalom has become a go’el ha'dahm, "a redeemer of blood." The avenger of the family honor. Part of Tamar was murdered, so Absalom will make the guilty parties pay. Amnon and David. For while we can blame Amnon for his rape of Tamar, but we can also blame David. Not only for his inaction, but his actions.

David sucked when it came to his relationships with women. Look at his history. Read the stories of his relationships with his wives. How the redactors try to make David look better, but the seams of the stories shine through.



His crappy treatment of Michal, Saul's daughter.

Ahinoam, the wife he may have stolen from Saul.

Abigail, who the texts spends too much time trying to make us believe David didn't kill her first husband Nabal, but he died under suspicious circumstances.

Maacah - the mother of Tamar and Absalom, mentioned above.

Bathsheba - who he power-raped, cast aside, and whose husband he had murdered.

Haggith, Abital, Eglah & and the other unnamed wives and concubines he gathered, and no doubt mistreated.

While I see that David's inaction regarding Amnon and Tamar's case would fit a pattern of David's mistreatment of women, I have a hard time saying whether Absalom acted rightly or wrongly in avenging his sister, and, consequently, whether David should have punished Absalom when later Absalom returned home to David. I am inclined to think that Absalom acted wrongly, but I am still not sure if David should have punished Absalom when he came home.

So in conclusion, as for Question 3's answer, it looks like there is some uncertainty or lack of clarity over how much factors like David's polygamy, lack of punishment for Amnon, lack of punishment for Absalom, marriage with Absalom's mother who was from one of Israel's enemies factored into Absalom's revolt. But it does look like the Bible is blaming David for his affair with Bathsheba and Uriah and for his ignoring of Tamar and failure to do anything about Amnon (like sending him into exile) and treating the revolt as a result of at least these incidents. Bomkamp has some good ideas too about ways that David could and to some extent did address these causes of the revolt, like repentance for mistreating Bathsheba when Nathan pointed it out to David.

[rakovsky]

For Question 4 (What episodes, if any, in David's life might the Psalmist have referred to when making the Psalms about the king's death and resurrection? Could David's conflict with Absalom parallel in some way Christ's rejection by or conflict with the Jewish religious leadership, since David is seen as a Messianic prefigurement?), you are right that one could get too carried away with prefigurements. Still, I am thinking about what experiences could have prompted his Psalms about death and resurrection.
Psalms 3-5 are about sleeping and awakening, as are some other Psalms, which prefigure death and resurrection, and Psalm 3 was written during Absalom's revolt, when David was in danger of death and saved from the danger, but they are not specifically about his death and resurrection directly.

Psalm 16 is about God preserving the narrator or his seed or descendant from physical decay. I guess that you could theorize that this Psalm was not based on any particular experience of the narrator's own death, but rather it was a prediction of the Messiah's own experience later of not physically decaying.

Psalm 22 is directly a Psalm of death and resurrection.
My sense is that Psalms 23 -24 serve in their images as images of burial, a funeral, and resurrection, and others from ancient times have made the same observation. But Psalms 23-24 do not seem to directly or openly portray the narrator as being buried, having a funeral, and resurrecting.

I read that the Psalms are ordered in reverse of David's life, so that Psalms with lower numbers represent later moments in David's life. But maybe they were just talking about the chronology of Israel's political figures in general, so that Moses' psalms comes after David's, even though he lived earlier than David. It seems that we might be able to line up the Psalms in reverse chronology with David's life to see which moments these particular resurrection Psalms might refer to. But I am not sure what to make of that claim. 

One writer, referring to how Psalm 22 opens with an instruction that it is to be played on the Dawn of the Morning theorized that David was experiencing the sunrise in connection with the Psalm. I am not sure though that this was the moment that David was referring to in his own life. Esther Menn writes in her essay, "No Ordinary Lament", that, "Curiously, the superscription of the Targum to Psalm 22 claims that this is a psalm “concerning the virtue of the Continual Morning Sacrifice.”"

I also read that Ulmer Rivka's article on Psalm 22 relates that Midrash Tehillim (an early medieval compilation) relates Psalm 22 to David's early life as a shepherd. I read that this description can be found in:

• Esther M. Menn. "Prayerful Origins: David as Temple Founder in Rabbinic Psalms Commentary," in Of Scribes and Sages, Vol 2: Early Jewish Interpretation and Transmission of Scripture, ed. Craig A. Evans (New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 77-89.

But this book is not online.

"Psalm of Our David Series", on the Country Bible Church website, lists these correspondences with the Psalms, although I don't know how they reached these conclusions:

PSALM 22 - I SAM. 30:7 David turned to the Lord for strength at Ziklag when the Amalikites had stolen all the women and children and his own men were about to kill him.
PSALM 30 - II SAM. 5:12 David gave the Lord all of the credit for promoting him to be king over Israel. He reminds us to sing praises to the Lord and that He is the source of all our blessings.

The article "Psalm 22 – The Messiah’s Mind" on The Lampstand website theorizes that David was thinking of the Messiah's redemptive work. In part, it notes the similarity with Psalm 32 to be a potential clue to a relationship to the sin with Bathsheba:

It would seem that Psalm 22 would have been written at a time when David was caused to have a complete focus on Christ and his redemptive work. There are three significant events in the life of David that not only fit this scenario, but link us to Psalm 22 through either the historical accounts or other Psalms written during these times. All three are therefore plausible possibilities:



David’s sin with Bathsheba

Absalom’s revolt and David’s ultimate redemption

Adonijah’s conspiracy, David’s sickness and Solomon’s coronation

David’s Sin with Bathsheba



We are hugely indebted to David for the powerful lessons we learn from his Psalms during this time. How encouraging it is for us to see David have a right spirit renewed in him when he was caused to reflect on what his Messiah would go through because of David’s sin? Some evidence to support this timing could be as follows:



PSALM 22_______________TIME OF DAVID’S SIN

“Words of my roaring” (v1)         “Through my roaring” (Psa 32:3)

“Daytime...night season” (v2)     “For day and night” (Psa 32:4)

Twice it is mentioned regarding the evil that “compassed” him (v12,16)     Twice it is mentioned regarding the mercy that “compassed” him (Psa 32:7, 10)

Although David in 2 Sam 12, when prostrate on the ground in prayer, could be a fitting time here to reflect on the Messiah, the links seem weak in comparison to the next two possibilities.

Absalom’s Revolt and David’s Ultimate Redemption
Yet in these events we have David’s own experiences mirroring that of Christ. From David fleeing in 2 Samuel 15:17, as “the King went forth” and “passed over the brook Kedron” we see the parallels to the path that Christ himself walked on the night he was betrayed (cp John 18:1). Compare:

2 Sam 15:25-26 with Christ in the garden as he surrenders to the Father’s will (Luke 22:42)

2 Sam 15:30,32 with Luke 22:39,44; Heb 5:7

2 Sam 17:2 with Matt 21:38; 26:31

2 Sam 17:23 with Matt 27:4-5

2 Sam 19:15 with Zech 14:4

PSALM 22___TIME OF ABSALOM’S REVOLT

“My God, My God”       Psa 35:23 “My God”

                                 Psa 35:24 “My God”

“Why have you forsaken me” (v1)       Psa 38:21 “Forsake me not”

The article connects phrases in Psalm 22 with numerous phrases in Psalms 35, 38, and 69, which it treats as if they refer to the fight with Absalom (although those Psalms don't identify themselves that way). I does make one direct connection, between Ps. 22:20 and David's biography:
“From the power of the dogs” (v20) ........   2 Sam 16:9 “This dead dog curse my lord the King”

Next, the article connects David's sickness, Adonijah's attempted takeover, and the crowning of Solomon withh Psalm 22, especially with the ending:

David’s recovery and appointment of Solomon, followed by his coronation in 1 Chronicles 28 and 29 provide significant links to show that Psalm 22 could also have been written about this time:

PSALM 22__________TIME OF ABSALOM’S REVOLT

“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (v1) 1 Chron 28:20 “Even my God...He will not fail thee nor forsake thee”

1 Chron 29:17 “My God, thou triest the heart”

“I will declare thy name unto my brethren” (v22) 1 Chron 28:2 “Hear me, my brethren

“Will I praise thee” (v22), “Praise him, glorify him” (v23) 1 Chron 29:13 “Praise thy glorious name”

“In the midst of the congregation will I praise thee” (v22)

“My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation” (v25) 1 Chron 28:1,8; 29:1,10,20 David assembles “the congregation”

1 Chron 29:10,20 “David blessed YHWH before all the congregation”

“For the Kingdom is YHWH’s” (v28) 1 Chron 29:11,23 “Thine is the Kingdom... Solomon sat on the throne of YHWH”


Another key piece of evidence is the links between Psalm 22 and Psalm 71. The setting of Psalm 71 can be seen as late in David’s life from verse 18, “I am old and grey headed”:



PSALM 22_______PSALM 71

“My God, my God” Psa 71:22 “Oh my God”

“Why hast thou forsaken me?” (v1) Psa 71:9,18 “Forsake me not”

“I was cast upon thee from the womb” (v10) Psa 71:5-6 “Thou art my trust from my youth...from the womb”

Psalm 71:9 specifically speaks of David’s cry of “forsake me not” coming in his old age, which provides a strong suggestion that Psalm 22 could be related to this time. When we see the flow of Psalm 71 into Psalm 72 and the wonderful connection of Solomon as a type of Christ both in 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 72, it provides more significant points for the later timing of Psalm 22.



Yet all these events are related. The revolt of Absalom and Adonijah both arise as consequences of David’s sin. So it would be fitting for David to recount the events of Absalom’s revolt and the lessons learnt during Adonijah’s conspiracy. David also had loose ends for Solomon to tie up which further connect the two scenarios (1 Kings 2v7-9). As such, the connection of these two events makes it harder to accurately link Psalm 22 to either one or the other time period.

It looks like the article is making lots of correlations between the middle of Psalm 22 and David's conflict with Absalom, and between the ending of Psalm 22 and David's recovery from sickness in 1 Chron. 28-29. 

Another theory that I read was that the Psalm was written for David's soldiers who faced death or died in battle, although I don't remember where I read this.

Richard Patterson, in his essay "Psalm 22: From Trial to Triumph" writes that a relationship can be seen with 2 Samuel 22, which were made according to verse 1, "in the day that the Lord had delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul":

Yet even setting aside the ascription of the psalm to David in the psalm’s title, its internal features bear the marks of Davidic authority. Not only inits general reflection of David’s stormy career but in the details of the psalm one can see a close resemblance to 2 Samuel 22 (cf. 2 Sam 22:4–7, 17–20, 49–50), whose narrative introduction clearly attests Davidic authorship.

The article notes that some writers theorize that Psalm 22 was related to Saul's pursuit of David, but it says that this is not really provable.

The article "PSALM 22 – NOW WITH LESS JESUS!" takes the chapter as expressing the way that David felt when in danger:

In 2 Samuel 22, David delivers Psalm 18 after being saved from his enemies and Saul. ... Several times Saul tries to murder David (2 Samuel 19), eventually driving him into hiding. Saul later dies in battle and David is made king, but then Saul’s son Ish-bosheth goes to war with the house of David for “a long time” (2 Sam. 3:1). ... Did David feel abandoned by God at some point? Were his enemies encircling him and mocking him? Did he need to be delivered from the sword, and did he perhaps feel afflicted? From what we’ve just discussed, there were many moments in David’s life when all these emotions and experiences would have applied. Psalm 22 depicts a person struggling with suffering by reassuring himself that God is in control and will deliver those who remain faithful.

That Psalm 18, 4 chapters earlier, relates to the persecution from Saul could also suggest a relationship between Psalm 22 and the escape from Saul. 

The article, "The Suffering Servant, Good Shepherd, and Triumphant King" on UCG.org brings up something from Saul's and Jonathan's death:

Yet even apart from knowingly or unknowingly prophesying Christ's form of execution, it should not be hard to imagine David thinking of his own body being figuratively nailed up in a shaming display. For penal suspension was known to that era. As an example, the Philistines literally fastened the dead bodies of Saul and his sons to the wall of Beth Shan as a public disgrace (1 Samuel 31:8-10).
"I can count all my bones" in verse 17 would seem to refer to David being able to see his bones through his skin, being gaunt from lack of nourishment because of illness or being on the run. Yet in Jesus' case it may refer to the actual exposure of His bones from the severe, flaying scourging He endures.

In that case, I wonder if Psalm 22 could refer to the sufferings of Saul or Jonathan, whom David loved. This would fit with the claim I read that it fits a prayer written for a warrior. 

1 Samuel 31 says:

10. And they put his armour in the house of Ashtaroth: and they fastened his body to the wall of Bethshan.

11. And when the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead heard of that which the Philistines had done to Saul;

12. All the valiant men arose, and went all night, and took the body of Saul and the bodies of his sons from the wall of Bethshan, and came to Jabesh, and burnt them there.

The verb for fastening Saul's body is the same one for the spike being driven into Sisera in Judges 4:21.

Earnest Farr, on the other hand, theorizes on the Quora website that Psalm 22 was written long after David's lifetime because it is for playing at a Temple and because the Hebrew dialect used is from a much later period:

Rather, it belongs to a genre of persecution laments prevalent in the 6th century BC, the time of the Babylonian exile. The latter portion, which praises YHWH for deliverance, is dated to the post-exilic period.
The choral direction at the start of the psalm indicates that it was to be used in Temple liturgy. But there was no Temple liturgy during David’s lifetime. Nor is this psalm composed in the pre-exilic Hebrew that we find, for example, in “J” and “E” sourced portions of the Biblical text.
All indications are that this song dates to the 500s BCE with later editions, a few centuries after David’s reign.

I don't know Hebrew well enough to tell for myself if he is right.

In "No Ordinary Lament: Relecture and the Identity of the Distressed in Psalm 22
," Esther M. Menn suggests that the Psalms with superscriptions like Psalm 3's relation to David's flight from David could be added on later and the Psalms could have originally been written with ordinary believers meant as the narrators. She notes that Midrash Tehillim relates David's work as a shepherd fighting lions with Psalm 22's verse of David crying "Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns."


To me, it seems most like Psalm 22 refers to David's recovery from sickness in his old age and Solomon's coronation because of how the Psalm's verses resemble verses in Chronicles about those events. Plus, considering that Psalm 23 and 24 that follow it could symbolize a funeral and resurrection, this set of poems would seem to best fit David's own death and resurrection. Absalom chasing David could be a close second choice. But there seem like other options too, like the death of a warrior, the death and nailing of Jonathan to a wall by the Philistines, or David being chased by Saul. Or it could have directly been meant by David to describe the Messiah's experiences. Or David could have been summarizing his life experiences that fit into a category of salvation.

I also find Psalm 30 to be about the narrator having been in a state of death and raised from it. It runs in the opening:

(A Psalm and Song at the dedication of the house of David.)

1. I will extol thee, O LORD; for thou hast lifted me up, and hast not made my foes to rejoice over me.

2. O LORD my God, I cried unto thee, and thou hast healed me.

3. O LORD, thou hast brought up my soul from the grave: thou hast kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit.

Dr. Jack Hyles, in his article about the Psalms, "The Story Behind the Psalms", gives this incident for the background to Psalm 30:

David had committed a sin. He had numbered the people. Now when a leader numbered the people, this was to prepare them for war. God was not in this numbering and offered David three choices of punishment: (1) seven years of famine, (2) three months of defeat, or (3) three days of pestilence or sickness. David chose the latter, whereupon 70,000 people died. David himself became ill. He built an altar on the threshingfloor of Araunah (perhaps this was the same spot as was Mt. Moriah where Abraham offered Isaac, and some even think it was the location of Calvary). There at the altar David is forgiven for his sin. He dedicates this altar and writes the 30th Psalm. The 30th Psalm is a Psalm of dedication of the altar built on the threshingfloor of Araunah. Can you imagine David with the blood of 70,000 people on his hands begging God for forgiveness? With this image in your mind read the 30th Psalm.

[rakovsky]

As for Question 9, David's comment is curious because sometimes in the Psalms he seems to believe in an afterlife. Actually in Psalm 30, there seemed to me to be a belief in the afterlife when David says that he was taken out of the grave. But later in the Psalm, his rhetorical questions about whether the dead can praise God seem to put that in question again.
David Guzik writes in his commentary about Psalm 30:8-10:

"What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit? Will the dust praise You?" 
This was David’s prayer in a life-threatening situation. He made rational arguments to God, knowing that he would certainly praise God if he escaped death, but was uncertain if he could praise God from the pit or the dust of the grave.



i. These words of King David frankly sound strange to the reader of the New Testament. It seems very different from the triumphant confidence of Paul who said, to live is Christ and to die is gain (Philippians 1:21). David seemed to see no gain in death, and therefore pleaded that God would preserve his life.



ii. This is due to the admittedly shadowy understanding of the afterlife in the Old Testament. There are certainly moments of triumphant faith, such as when Job said, For I know that my Redeemer lives, and He shall stand at last on the earth; and after my skin is destroyed, this I know, that in my flesh I shall see God (Job 19:25-26). Yet there are also moments of uncertainty, such as here in Psalm 30:8-9.

...
iv. Therefore David logically – and rightly, according to the revelation he had – only knew with certainty that he could praise God on this side of death. It was a valid reason to bring before God in prayer.

[alon]

Nov 8, 2019 18:39:31 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Also regarding Question 1, David Guzik makes an outline, "David and Goliath", that shows major elements of the story that can relate to the Gospel story:

Notice that David is said to be the youngest of eight sons of Jesse; yet Psalm 89:27 calls David God's firstborn, demonstrating that "firstborn" is as much a title and a concept as a description of birth order (see Colossians 1:15)

It was descriptive of a concept of place, of title, and of function and honor.

This brings to mind that Yeshua is God's firstborn.
1 Samuel 17 says that David went with his brothers to the battle, "15 But David went and returned from Saul to feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem.
16 And the Philistine drew near morning and evening, and presented himself forty days." Guzik notes: "Forty days (or years) is used in the Scriptures rather consistently as a period of judgment and/or testing (Noah, Israel, Jesus)"

In 1 Samuel 17, Goliath's challenge went:

8 And he stood and cried unto the armies of Israel, and said unto them, Why are ye come out to set your battle in array? am not I a Philistine, and ye servants to Saul? choose you a man for you, and let him come down to me.
9 If he be able to fight with me, and to kill me, then will we be your servants: but if I prevail against him, and kill him, then shall ye be our servants, and serve us.
10 And the Philistine said, I defy the armies of Israel this day; give me a man, that we may fight together.

[David replies:] What shall be done to the man that killeth this Philistine, and taketh away the reproach from Israel? for who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?

[Goliath says back, since David had a staff with him for the battle:] Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods.

He is defying the Israelite armies, challenging them to give someone in a duel, and then he reproaches David. I don't really see this as reproaching God, at least not directly.

Actually, in that time it was thought that the army whose gods were stronger would win the day. Goliath spoke blasphemies, and he directly denounced the God of Yisroel.

Also, maybe Favid's brothers are not representing Herod, Pilate, and the pharisees, but are Jesus' own brothers, who at least at the beginning of Jesus' ministry seem to have been reproaching him for his ministry in some of the gospels, calling for him to come back home.

Definitively placing the brothers in this is going to be difficult. They could represent none, some, or all of them.

Guzik lists:

Examples of how David's victory over Goliath prefigures Jesus' victory on our behalf

1. Goliath wanted to be a representative of his people; whatever happened to him would happen to the Philistine nation; whatever happened to the representative of God's people would happen to God's people
2. The battle took place on ground that rightfully belonged to God's people, ground that they had lost
3. Goliath was able to dominate the people of God through fear and intimidation alone
4. Who sent David to the battle ground? He was sent by his father (1 Samuel 17:17)
5. David was scorned and rejected by his own brethren
6. David fought the battle without concern with human strategies or conventional wisdom
...
F. (55-58) Saul meets a victorious David
1. Why didn't Saul recognize David, when David had played for him in the palace? Four possible solutions:
a. He did recognize him, but wanted to know his family background for the sake of marriage
b. He could not recognize David because he is, or was, too mentally and emotionally unstable
c. Perhaps Saul never really saw David, because David played behind a curtain
d. Perhaps David had matured greatly (had he grown a beard?) in his time away from Saul
e. Young man in verse 56 means one who is fully grown, mature, and ready to marry

Saul's inability to recognize David reminds me of the Sanhedrin's and pharisees' inability to recognize Yeshua as the Messiah.

Matt Hereema, in his essay "The Rise of David, the Flawed Messiah", see the Israelites running after the Philistines as comparable to believers routing remaining unbelief What do you think of this comparison?:

Just as David faced down the giant, Goliath, the enemy of Israel, and killed him, and Israel got to run behind David and totally route the Philistine army; Jesus faced down the giant: sin and death, and destroyed it, and we get to run behind him and route out our remaining unbelief. David gave Israel victory over the Philistines. Jesus gives us victory over sin and death.

My guess is that if Goliath represents Satan, then the Philistines running away would be the demons. I am not sure though because it is rather angels who are to route demons. So maybe they represent the wicked. Har Meggido.


Goliath was from the city of Gath, and as Guzik noted in his list, this was where the Anakim giants lived in Joshua's time. I think that this might mean that he was descended from the Nephilim, as if he were partly descended from some angel. Depending on whether you see the nephilim angels who mated with women as bad, one might also see him as descended from a bad angel.

That the Nephilim were the product of angels mating with human women is dependent entirely upon the pseudepigraphical book of Enoch. It is a lie, written in the 1st or 2nd cen BCE. It was not a pre-flood account as its proponents claim. 

Dr. Lewis Johnson, in his sermon on "David, Goliath, and David's Greater Son," notes a theological aspect to the battle:

But, also, you’ll notice he says that “He should taunt the armies of the living God.” And so he recognizes the fundamental fact that the Philistines gods are the gods that are made by the Philistines. They are the dead gods. But the God of the children of Israel is the living God. So in David’s case, instead of thinking of Goliath, he’s thinking about the honor of the Lord God, and he’s thinking, also, about the fact that this incident will take place in order that men may know that YHWH is the true God.

Lewis explains the types that he sees that the story serves of Yeshua:

David came forward when everything else had failed. Here is Goliath standing out in front of the children of Israel, the covenant people of God, and he is shouting out, “Give me a man. Give me a man.” And there is no man.
Saul and Israel are immobilized; shuddering, shivering, slaves. ...  The Lord, Jesus Christ, comes in his incarnation, all things having failed, as the root of David, and as John the Apostle, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the last book of the Bible says, “That he has prevailed. He has won his victory. He has purchased a people out of every tribe, kindred, tongue and nation. He has made them priests to God and they shall rule and reign upon the earth forever.”
Isn’t that interesting, too, that when David came his brothers rejected him? Eliab rejects him. And, when our Lord came, his brethren rejected him, too.
“He came unto his own, and his own,” the Apostle says, “And his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he the power to become the children of God, even to those that believe in his name: who were born, not of the will of man – or the will of the flesh – or of bloods, but were born of God.”
David’s victory was won by apparently foolish means. The Cross is a foolish means, apparently. Who could ever think of an individual overcoming by dying? But, it’s by the Cross that our Lord overcomes. It’s by death that he overcomes death. It’s by what apparently is more foolish than the sling and the stones that David had. And so David’s equipment and his victory, in which he slays Goliath and slays him with his own sword, suggests that our Lord overcomes, ultimately, by the very thing that Satan had delegated in his power, the power of death.
Isn’t it interesting? I think that when David has his sling and his stone and it struck Goliath in his forehead, stunned him, he fell on the ground, I’m not sure he was really dead. But David rushed up, drew his sword out of its sheath and killed him with his own sword. That’s what our Lord has accomplished on Calvary’s cross. He has overcome the wicked one. He has overcome Satan and sin by that which was and is regarded as the power and the weapon of the wicked one, death.
As we often sing, he death, by dying, slew. You think immediately of the crushing of the serpent’s head in the first preaching of the gospel in Genesis chapter 3. The first preaching of the gospel, the woman’s seed shall crush the serpent’s head.

I see the stone hitting Goliath in the head as representing the crushing of the serpent's head promised in Genesis 1. 
Also, Dr Johnson says that he isn't sure if the stone slew David or if the sword did. 1 Samuel 17 also seems confusing about this because it uses the term slew in both cases:

49 And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.
50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.
51 Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

The stone probably stunned Goliath, and of course then decapitation was the cause of death.

I guess what it means that both methods caused him to die, ie. he was dying from the blow to the head, and then the sword killed him with finality.
The Israelites were not able to overcome Goliath or Satan on their own, they needed David and Yeshua to do so.

David, working in absolute trust in his God and on behalf of that God, and in the power and might of his God did in fact slay the giant. Goliath was doomed the moment one Israelite trusted God enough to stand up and say "send me, Lord!"

[alon]

Nov 8, 2019 21:24:57 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

*"The Typology of David’s Riseto Power: Messianic Patterns in the Book of Samuel", by James M. Hamilton, Jr., is a really interesting essay. It begins by trying the lay out a strategy of interpreting the Bible typologically to see what it calls "Old Testament Christianity" (ie. the portrayals and stories of Yeshua in the TaNaKh):
I suppose if the only way the church can look at the OT and the NT as a homogenous unit is to Christianize the OT, then so be it! But as I've told you before, the entire Bible points to Yeshua. The OT looking forward, and the NT looking back. Obviously they do much more as well, but this is their primary purpose. Without Yeshua and His work on the Cross, none of the rest matters anyhow.

this presentation willconsider whether we are limited to the examples of typological interpretation seen in the Old andNew Testaments,6 or whether, taking our cuesfrom those examples, we can build upon them.The theory that we can learn to interpret the Bibletypologically from the authors of the New Testa-ment and apply the method to passages they them-selves do not specifically address will then be testedagainst the narratives of David’s rise to power in the book of Samuel.
This is one of the worst problems the church has. Every denomination I've seen or read about starts by interpreting the NT, then making the OT either conform to their idea of what the NT means or declaring parts to be nullified by the Cross. The Old should always interpret the New! That's just common sense! "Oh, but Jesus ..." Just who do you think gave the to Moses!? And then after all that was done in the Old Testament, according to the church Jesus then comes and says "Well, just do those things you want from the Old. Here, I'll even die a horrible death just so you are free from those bad laws I gave everyone else." Gads, what can I say to that kind of thinking that isn't just outright insulting?  

At stake [is] the correctness or incorrectness of a later interpretation of the words of earlier texts.Did the earlier texts actually mean what at a laterstage they had been said to mean? … Were the New Testament writers correct or not when they used the Old Testament texts as evidence for theNew Testament’s own historical truth claims?
Of course they were correct! Who was not correct were the church fathers who originally interpreted the NT according to their pagan traditions, and later the church leaders who never questioned church dogma.

He makes an interesting observation in a subsequent section about whether the OT writers realized that they were effectively giving stories that served as types or prefigurements, especially in the underlined part:

Retrospective or Prospective?
There is a dispute among those who read the Bible typologically over whether types are only retrospective or whether they also function prospectively, that is, predictively. On one side, R. T. France writes: “There is no indication in a type, as such,of any forward reference; it is complete and intelligible in itself.” On the other side, G. K. Beale states that “the πληρόω [fulfillment] formulas prefixed to citations from formally non-prophetic OT pas-sages in the gospels decisively argue against this.” In between these two options, Grant Osborne writes,“It is likely that the solution lies in the middle. The OT authors and participants did not necessarily recognize any typological force in the original, but in the divine plan the early event did anticipate the later reality.” The fulfillment formulas do indicate that the NT authors understand the Old Testament types to be pointing forward, but Osborne is correct to point out that more needs to be said about how and when these types would have been understood as pointing forward.
The underlined is closest to the truth, but they all show absolutely no understanding how scripture was written. God didn't dictate, nor did He say "Make me up a type and write it down." He simply raised up men who had the right personality traits and writing style; men who were completely sold out to their God. He then had them participate in or observe events, or sometimes He gave them visions. They then as accurately as possible wrote these things down. I doubt any even thought their writings would end up in a "Bible." There was no such thing until a couple hundred years after Yeshua. (There is evidence the LXX was actually compiled much later than thought.) To the Jew, there was , then were were collections of writings. Those things so meticulously written were simply documents witnessing salvation history. Their own personalities came out in their writings, but they were true. The "types" were arranged by the hand of the Almighty, witnessed by His own, and painstakingly recorded, copied, and stored; later to be compiled into a Bible.

I think that at least some times the OT authors did think that they were making prefigurements, like in the story of the granting of Hezekiah's names (eg. "Almighty God"), with its divine attributes and promises.
Hamilton quotes another writer who gives clues as to when a type is being used by an OT writer:

Michael Fishbane lists several phrases that are characteristically used to signal typological interpretations in the Old Testament. He writes:
• “the clause ןכ…רשאכ ‘just as…so’ and its variants are particularly frequent”
• “In a similar way, the prophet Jeremiah juxtaposes old and new events with a fixed rhetorical style, as can be seen by a comparison of his statement in 31:30-2 that the new covenant will ‘not be like’ (… כ אל) the older one ‘but rather’ (יכ תאז [v.33]) of a different type”
• “Apart from these instances, there is another broad category wherein the typologies are indicated by non-technical idiosyncratic usages, employed by the speaker for the situation at hand. A good example of this technique may be found in Isa. 11:11, where YHWH states that ‘he will continue ףסוי’ to redeem Israel in the future, a ‘second timeתינש’, just like the first. The language used here marks the typological correlation very well, and explicitly indicates its two vital features, the new moment and its reiteration.”
• “In addition, there are many other cases of inner-biblical typology which are not signaled by technical terms at all. To recognize the typologies at hand, the latter-day investigator must be alert to lexical co-ordinates that appear to correlate apparently disparate texts… or to various forms of paratactic juxtaposition. Sometimes, moreover, motifs are juxtaposed, sometimes pericopae, and sometimes recurrent scenarios.”
Those literary devices were how paragraphs and chapters were delineated in ancient writings. The writers did not put them in to signal "Looky here, I'm gonna make a type!" Like I said, the types were God's doing. They just recorded what they did, saw, or were told.

So there can be lexical coordinates (as I think that you mentioned, Dan, when we were talking on the thread about prefigurements in the stories of Yael and Jotham), and recurrent scenarios.
Lexical coordinates, yes. Dedicated to making types, no. Unless God told the author, how would he even know what to make a type of in the first place? 

I don't get what Hamilton is saying in this part of his essay. I think that he means that you can't just say that a figure in the OT is only a symbol (cipher) for something else that it represents (the antitype), and that you need to fit the symbol in a story somehow:

It is important to stress that it is precisely the historical nature of a type that is essential to it being interpreted typologically. This is a universally acknowledged methodological control articulated by those who differentiate between typology and allegory. Thus, if the type becomes merely a cipher for its antitype, the interpreter has begun to lean in the direction of allegory. As Fishbane writes, “the concrete historicity of the correlated data means that no new event is ever merely a ‘type’ of another, but always retains its historically unique character.”48 But it is not only history that matters, there must also be a genuine correspondence.
He's saying be careful assigning the term "type" to what may just be allegory. A type must be mostly a good parallel to really be a type. He's right, though I think I said it beteter. But then I wasn't trying to show off my AA degree in Mechanical Engineering Technology by seeing how many big words I could string together.

He makes a good point when he writes:

Moreover, several pas-sages in the New Testament invite readers to con-clude that the Old Testament is fulfilled in Jesus and the church in more ways than are explicitly quoted in the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:25-27;John 5:39-46; Acts 3:24; 17:2-3; Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11; 2 Cor 1:20; Heb 8:5; 10:1; 1 Pet 1:10-12).53 The text that is particularly relevant for the exami-nation of Samuel below is Acts 3:24, “And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days.”54 Could the proclamation in view be typological?
The OT is fulfilled in Yeshua, NOT the church! How can an organization of men be equal to Almighty God? That they would even try to place themselves on that level is ample evidence they do NOT represent Him! And while on the subject, fulfilled means to come true in, not to be done away with.  

He mentions a way that Goliath could be seen as representing Satan:

Just as David delivered God’s people from the Philistines, Jesus saved his people from their sins (Matt 1:21) by casting out the ruler of this world (John 12:31), and the New Testament promises that he will come again and defeat the enemies of his people (e.g., 2 Thess 1:8; Rev19:11-21).

Hamilton's essay did not say much about David's battle with Goliath except for some things that could be found in the other essays that I cited. Specifically, he wrote about this in his section, "SEED OF THE WOMAN, SEED OF THE SERPENT" Generally he looks for different coincidences. In this case, he sees David and Jesus as booth "Seed of the Woman":

On a broader scale, opponents of the people of God seem to be regarded as seed of the serpent,and no opponent of Israel is more prominent in Samuel than the Philistines. The particular Philistine seed of the serpent who receives the most attention in Samuel is the giant Goliath. Goliath presents himself as the representative Philistine.He stands for his tribe. And he calls for Israel to send out a representative Israelite to settle the dispute between Philistia and Israel (1 Sam 17:4-11).Israel does just that, but the representative Israelite they send out is a shepherd boy unarmed but for a sling and five stones. This particular shepherd boy comes from a particular line. This line has been carefully traced back to Judah’s son via the genealogy in Ruth 4:18-22. Judah descends from Abraham, whose line was carefully traced back to Noah’s son in Genesis 11:10-27. Noah descends from a line that is carefully traced back to the son of Adam in Genesis 5:6-29. This means that the representative Israelite who goes out to meet the representative Philistine is the seed of Judah, seed of Abraham, seed of Noah, seed of the woman.In the conflict between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, the seed of the woman crushes the head of the seed of the serpent, smiting Goliath with a stone from the sling (1 Sam 17:49).79 Sending out a virtually unarmed shepherd boy to fight the mighty Philistine looks like certain defeat. But the shepherd boy knows and proclaims that “the Lord saves not with sword and spear.For the battle is the Lord’s” (17:47). The victory that comes through the seed of the woman is a victory snatched from the jaws of defeat.

So basically the answer to Question 1 is that Yes, the battle with Goliath is a Messianic prefigurement because the Bible sees David as a Messianic figure and also because of coincidences between the battle and Jesus' story.
If you believe they were coincidental, you are missing the whole point. Hamilton may believe this, but he's not much of a commentator or a theologian. God arranged the prefigurements, the types. Holy and honorable men recorded them. We looking back now see them for what they are. To the sages looking forward to Messiah some of these "types" would have appeared as prophetic clues to help recognize Him when He came. 

[rakovsky]

Dan, you wrote: "Lexical coordinates, yes. Dedicated to making types, no. Unless God told the author, how would he even know what to make a type of in the first place?" I think that you are asking a rhetorical question. I suppose the person could use his own logic and creativity. I suppose that a writer could have in mind some righteous attributes of the Messiah, and then write about a figure that would match those attributes, like when Zechariah wrote about the Good Shepherd. So the Good Shepherd could be a "type" of Christ based on the author's logic and creativity. I am not sure if that is the right answer to your question.

I didn't make myself clear enough when I wrote: "So basically the answer to Question 1 is that Yes, the battle with Goliath is a Messianic prefigurement because the Bible sees David as a Messianic figure and also because of coincidences between the battle and Jesus' story."
You answered: "If you believe they were coincidental, you are missing the whole point. Hamilton may believe this, but he's not much of a commentator or a theologian. God arranged the prefigurements, the types."

By "coincidences" I did not mean random matches, but simply "matches", whether they were random or not. I mean that the two sets of elements in the two stories were co-incidental, ie. the two incidents correlated with each other or came together in a way where the elements matched up.
Often when people say "It was a coincidence", they mean that it was random, but in this case I meant that there were so many coincidences between the two stories that it looks like David's battle was a prefigurement, not just a mess of random elements.

[rakovsky]

For Question 4, I notice that the superscription for Psalm 30 is "A Psalm. A Song at the dedication of the house of David."
The word for house here is bayith, ("house"), so the verse refers to a song at the dedication of his palace.
The Enduring Word commentary notes:

Yet, it says nothing about the house itself; rather the focus is on God and the greatness of His deliverance. At the dedication of David’s house, David wanted God to be praised, not himself."

a. I will extol You, O LORD: At the dedication of his own house, David did not extol himself – rather, the LORD. What might have been understood as the achievement of a man was instead the occasion for praising God.



i. 2 Samuel 5:11-12 (and 1 Chronicles 14:1-2) describe the completion of King David’s palace: Then Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, and carpenters and masons. And they built David a house. So David knew that the LORD had established him as king over Israel, and that He had exalted His kingdom for the sake of His people Israel.

a. You have brought my soul up from the grave: We don’t know if David here described what we might call a near-death experience or if it would be more like a narrow escape from death. Either way, in his life as a soldier and leader he had more than one time when death was near, and God rescued his soul from death.

Matthew Henry theorized that the dedication might have occurred in conjunction with David's recovery:

This is a psalm of thanksgiving for the great deliverances which God had wrought for David, penned upon occasion of the dedicating of his house of cedar, and sung in that pious solemnity, though there is not any thing in it that has particular reference to that occasion. Some collect from divers passages in the psalm itself that it was penned upon his recovery from a dangerous fit of sickness, which might happen to be about the time of the dedication of his house.

It could be that David was recapping earlier points in his life, as I thought when I read the Sons of Korah webpage on Psalm 30:

Verse 6 and 7a tell of the somewhat careless attitude that David had in the midst of an easy run in his life. But David got a rude shock when all this was taken from him (vs. 7b). The result of this was that David was shaken into some solid faith-action and this is demonstrated in his prayer described in verses 8-10.

David Sielaff writes that Psalms 22 and 30 must be specifically Psalms of David, or written by David because of Psalm 72:20:

Psalm 30 is attributed to have been authored by King David himself as it says in the title of verse 1, and it is included with the Psalms from 1–72 inclusive. Psalm 72:20 makes David’s authorship explicit: “The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended” meaning that all those psalms are from David.

Sielaff's article "The Tomb of David and Psalm 30" claims that the "house" of David that God built for David in 2 Samuel, and the "house" in Psalm 30 is actually David's tomb. However, unfortunately I have a hard time following this argument and I am skeptical about it. (I can give you the link to the article if it would be easier for you.) One reason that I am skeptical is that in 2 Samuel 5, it sounds more like a palace is being built, because for instance it talks about the cedar trees used.
Nonetheless, the article does a good job comparing Psalm 30:2–3, 9–10 (by King David)
and Isaiah 38:16–19, in which King Hezekiah prays for recovery from an illness:

“O YHWH, by these things men live, and in all these things is the life of my spirit: so will you recover me, and make me to live. Behold, for peace I had great bitterness: but you have in love to my soul delivered it from the pit [grave] of corruption: for you have cast all my sins behind your back. For the grave [sheol] cannot praise you, death can not celebrate you: they that go down into the pit [crypt] cannot hope for your truth. The living, the living, he shall praise you, as I do this day: the father to the children shall make known your truth.”

This suggests to me that the Psalm could be referring to David's healing from illness. I didn't find that the Bible says that he was one of the people who got sick as a punishment for his census taking. But I know that he got a major sickness toward the end of his life, and that it may have been the cause of his writing of Psalm 22. One problem with this interpretation is that David's palace was dedicated in 2 Samuel 5, which is before the end of his life when he got ill. Sielaff doesn't think that Psalm 30 is about David's illness in his old age, but he makes interesting points that suggest that Psalm 30 was about recovery from sickness:

The Hebrew word “healed” means from a illness, not from some malady of the soul or a lapse of morals, but healed from a physical problem or illness that threatened death. While David suffered many afflictions in his lifetime (Psalm 132:1), these were not illnesses but rather they were humiliations and physical dangers such as combat or “close calls” that threatened David’s life. In Psalm 30:1, however, the word “healed” does mean healing from an illness that brought David close to death.
...
Some have thought that David’s illness and healing were related to the episode of David’s numbering of Israel (2 Samuel 24:1–17; 1 Chronicles 21:24–22:1). However, there is no record of David ever being sick or near death because of that situation, only the people of David’s kingdom suffered and died. Therefore there is no reason to believe that Psalm 30 has reference to the numbering of Israel incident. Furthermore, David’s numbering of Israel occurred very late in David’s reign, shortly before his death.

Still, if this was a prayer for the dedication of the temple, the context of David recovering from the illness of the plague that came from the census taking would make sense, because during this event, an angel appeared on the future sight of the temple, and the appearance of the angel made David buy the land for the temple there.

Albert Barnes makes a relevant linguistic comment in his commentary:

It is clearly implied in the title, though not expressly affirmed, that David was the author of the psalm, for it is to be presumed that he would himself compose the hymn or song that was to be used at the dedication of his own dwelling. In fact, the title, as Rosenmuller has remarked, might not improperly be read, “A Psalm, a song of dedication of a house, of David,”
...
It was usual for the Hebrews to “dedicate” a house when it was finished; that is, to devote it in a solemn manner to God, probably with appropriate religious exercises. Deuteronomy 20:5, “what man is there that hath built a new house, and hath not dedicated it? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man dedicate it.”
...
The allusion in the psalm is rather to a previous state of depression, trouble, and sorrow, such as occurred in the life of David before he conquered his enemies, and before he was peaceably established on his throne - and to the joy which he felt when he had triumphed over his foes, and was peacefully established as king in Jerusalem. All the circumstances seem to me to accord best with the time when David erected a house for his own abode - a palace - upon Mount Zion, and to the act of dedicating such a house to God. See 2 Samuel 5:9-12; 2 Samuel 7:1-2.
...
That the allusion in the psalm is to “sickness,” seems to me to be evident from Psalm 30:2-3, Psalm 30:9, though at what time of life this occurred, or what was the particular form of disease, we are not informed. From Psalm 30:3, Psalm 30:9, however, it is certain that it was a “dangerous” illness; that he anticipated death; and that he was saved from death only in answer to fervent prayer. The psalm, therefore, in this respect, has a resemblance to Psalm 6:1-10; Psalm 41:1-13; psalms composed also in view of sickness.

[rakovsky]

Also regarding Question 4 and whether David's conflict with Absalom prefigured Yeshua's conflict and rejection, it's worth noting that 2 Samuel 19's mention that the people had anointed Absalom implied that they had rejected David during the conflict:

Now all the people were in a dispute throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, “The king saved us from the hand of our enemies, he delivered us from the hand of the Philistines, and now he has fled from the land because of Absalom. But Absalom, whom we anointed over us, has died in battle. Now therefore, why do you say nothing about bringing back the king?”

Ralph Wilson in "David's Exile from Jerusalem" quotes this passage and notes:

David can't just march into Jerusalem proclaiming himself to be king, however. Judah and Israel had rejected him when they had anointed Absalom king. Of course, David has the military power to return to Jerusalem, but power is different from recognized authority. For David to regain his authority as king, Judah and Israel need to reaffirm David as their monarch.

The Enduring Word commentary notes that later in verses 11-14, David swayed their hearts to have him come back:

a. Why are you the last to bring the king back to his very house: David would not force his reign on Israel. He would only come back if the tribes who rejected him for Absalom agreed to bring back the king.



i. “David didn’t lift a finger to re-establish his authority… His return to sovereignty was decided by the voluntary submission of his kinsmen and by their loving obedience to his will.” (Redpath)



b. Amasa… commander of the army… in place of Joab: David agreed to replace Joab with Amasa, who was the captain of Absalom’s army. This was to put Joab in his place and to offer a gesture of reconciliation to the former supporters of Absalom.

c. So he swayed the hearts of all the men of Judah, just as the heart of one man: The efforts of Zadok and Abiathar succeeded. David would not come back until welcomed by the hearts of all, and that could not be forced – their hearts had to be swayed.



i. God will not force His reign on us. We must welcome His reign and He will not force our heart response. Our hearts must be swayed by the work of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.



ii. Just as the heart of one man: David wanted the reception to be unanimous. The men of Judah responded together to the wooing work of Zadok and Abiathar.

In "David in the Gospels
", Margaret M. Daly-Denton sees David's flight from Absalom as representing Yeshua's time in Gethsemane in sorrow, among other parallels:

Reminiscences of this episode in the gospel passion narratives invite the hearer to draw interpretive conclusions from either the similarities
between David and Jesus or the differences. For example, Matthew’s detail that Judas went out and hanged himself (Matt 27:3–5) serves to cast him in the role of Ahithophel, David’s betrayer (2 Sam 17:23), thereby hinting at a parallel between
David and Jesus. Luke makes a similar comparison by means of imprecatory passages from two “Psalms of David” spoken by Peter “against” Judas (Acts 1:18–20,
quoting from Pss 69 and 109). The theme of betrayal by a confidant is common to
the “passions” of both David and Jesus (2 Sam 15:31; 16:23; Matt 26:20–25 and
parallels). Like Ahithophel who plots to take King David at night (2 Sam 17:1), Judas arranges for the arrest of Jesus by night (Mark 14:17, 30; Matt 26:31; Luke
22:53, 66). The announcement of the defection of the disciples and of Peter’s denial
and their protestations of loyalty on the way to the Mount of Olives (Mark
14:29–31; Matt 26:30–35; Luke 22:33) is strongly evocative of 2 Sam 15. There, walking sorrowfully towards the Mount of Olives (2 Sam 15:30), aware of the defection of those close to him, David receives pledges of loyalty from faithful servants (2 Sam 15:15, 21). Like the David of 2 Sam 15:30–31, a distressed Jesus prays
on the Mount of Olives. It is also possible that 2 Sam 17:1–2, where Absalom says,
“I will come upon him while he is weary and discouraged...and all the people with
him will flee,” may have influenced the shaping of the synoptic arrest scenes.


The Fourth Gospel account of Jesus’ death begins with a recollection of
David’s crossing of the Kidron on his departure from Jerusalem with his loyal followers at the time of Absalom’s conspiracy (1 Sam 15:23; John 18:1).4 A foreigner,
Ittai the Gittite, says to David, “As the Lord lives, and as my lord the King lives, in

whatever place my lord shall be, whether it be for death or life, there shall your servant be.” Echoes of this declaration of loyalty can, perhaps, be heard in John 12:26:
“If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant be
also.” Earlier in John’s narrative, Caiaphas has given advice: “You do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that
the whole nation should not perish” (John 11:50). On comparison with 2 Sam 17:3
(“You need only seek the life of one man and all the people shall have peace”)
Caiaphas sounds suspiciously “Ahithophelian.”

G.R. Schmeling, in "The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament", sees similar parallels and notes Shimei's mocking of David (which happened in 2 Samuel 16):

In II Samuel 15, we hear that David crossed the Brook Kidron fleeing before his own son Absalom. He went in great sorrow of heart. It was then that he learned that even Ahithophel, his trusted advisor, had betrayed him and sided with Absalom. Along the way, Shimei, a relative of the former king Saul, came out and cursed him (II Samuel 16:5-13). Similarly, on Maundy Thursday evening the Second David passed over the Kidron. He too was the God ordained King of Israel driven out by the Jewish leaders. When He crossed the Kidron He found His Ahithophel, His betrayer Judas, in the garden. One who ate at His table lifted up his heel against Him (Psalm 41:9; John 13:18). As David remained silent before the cursing and mockery of Shimei, so Jesus was lead as a lamb to the slaughter and yet He opened not His mouth. (Isaiah 53:7).

I feel that what I wrote answers Question 4 enough.

[alon]

Nov 10, 2019 19:01:13 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

For Question 4, I notice that the superscription for Psalm 30 is "A Psalm. A Song at the dedication of the house of David."
The word for house here is bayith, ("house"), so the verse refers to a song at the dedication of his palace.
The Enduring Word commentary notes:
Just as an aside, the ESV translation of that superscription is "A Psalm of David. A song at the dedication of the temple." Yet we know he couldn't do that because of the blood on his hands. Superscriptions were later additions, and while I consider the ESV to be one of the more accurate translations, still you must watch out for the translation and often things like superscriptions added later. Just something I noticed. Sorry for getting off track ...

Yet, it says nothing about the house itself; rather the focus is on God and the greatness of His deliverance. At the dedication of David’s house, David wanted God to be praised, not himself."

a. I will extol You, O LORD: At the dedication of his own house, David did not extol himself – rather, the LORD. What might have been understood as the achievement of a man was instead the occasion for praising God.

As it should be. This is one reason God called David a man after His own heart.

i. 2 Samuel 5:11-12 (and 1 Chronicles 14:1-2) describe the completion of King David’s palace: Then Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, and carpenters and masons. And they built David a house. So David knew that the LORD had established him as king over Israel, and that He had exalted His kingdom for the sake of His people Israel.

a. You have brought my soul up from the grave: We don’t know if David here described what we might call a near-death experience or if it would be more like a narrow escape from death. Either way, in his life as a soldier and leader he had more than one time when death was near, and God rescued his soul from death.

David also had many sorrows in his life. As a soldier and even a mercenary for a time he may well have suffered from some kind of PTSD. So he could be speaking of God bringing him up from depression also. Regardless what was actually meant, the takeaway here seems to be "He is the God who lifts us up, no matter how low we go or in what manner." 

Matthew Henry theorized that the dedication might have occurred in conjunction with David's recovery:

This is a psalm of thanksgiving for the great deliverances which God had wrought for David, penned upon occasion of the dedicating of his house of cedar, and sung in that pious solemnity, though there is not any thing in it that has particular reference to that occasion. Some collect from divers passages in the psalm itself that it was penned upon his recovery from a dangerous fit of sickness, which might happen to be about the time of the dedication of his house.

It could be that David was recapping earlier points in his life, as I thought when I read the Sons of Korah webpage on Psalm 30:

Verse 6 and 7a tell of the somewhat careless attitude that David had in the midst of an easy run in his life. But David got a rude shock when all this was taken from him (vs. 7b). The result of this was that David was shaken into some solid faith-action and this is demonstrated in his prayer described in verses 8-10.

David Sielaff writes that Psalms 22 and 30 must be specifically Psalms of David, or written by David because of Psalm 72:20:

Psalm 30 is attributed to have been authored by King David himself as it says in the title of verse 1, and it is included with the Psalms from 1–72 inclusive. Psalm 72:20 makes David’s authorship explicit: “The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended” meaning that all those psalms are from David.

Sielaff's article "The Tomb of David and Psalm 30" claims that the "house" of David that God built for David in 2 Samuel, and the "house" in Psalm 30 is actually David's tomb. However, unfortunately I have a hard time following this argument and I am skeptical about it. (I can give you the link to the article if it would be easier for you.) One reason that I am skeptical is that in 2 Samuel 5, it sounds more like a palace is being built, because for instance it talks about the cedar trees used.
Nonetheless, the article does a good job comparing Psalm 30:2–3, 9–10 (by King David)
and Isaiah 38:16–19, in which King Hezekiah prays for recovery from an illness:

“O YHWH, by these things men live, and in all these things is the life of my spirit: so will you recover me, and make me to live. Behold, for peace I had great bitterness: but you have in love to my soul delivered it from the pit [grave] of corruption: for you have cast all my sins behind your back. For the grave [sheol] cannot praise you, death can not celebrate you: they that go down into the pit [crypt] cannot hope for your truth. The living, the living, he shall praise you, as I do this day: the father to the children shall make known your truth.”

This suggests to me that the Psalm could be referring to David's healing from illness. I didn't find that the Bible says that he was one of the people who got sick as a punishment for his census taking. But I know that he got a major sickness toward the end of his life, and that it may have been the cause of his writing of Psalm 22. One problem with this interpretation is that David's palace was dedicated in 2 Samuel 5, which is before the end of his life when he got ill. Sielaff doesn't think that Psalm 30 is about David's illness in his old age, but he makes interesting points that suggest that Psalm 30 was about recovery from sickness:

The Hebrew word “healed” means from a illness, not from some malady of the soul or a lapse of morals, but healed from a physical problem or illness that threatened death. While David suffered many afflictions in his lifetime (Psalm 132:1), these were not illnesses but rather they were humiliations and physical dangers such as combat or “close calls” that threatened David’s life. In Psalm 30:1, however, the word “healed” does mean healing from an illness that brought David close to death.
...
Some have thought that David’s illness and healing were related to the episode of David’s numbering of Israel (2 Samuel 24:1–17; 1 Chronicles 21:24–22:1). However, there is no record of David ever being sick or near death because of that situation, only the people of David’s kingdom suffered and died. Therefore there is no reason to believe that Psalm 30 has reference to the numbering of Israel incident. Furthermore, David’s numbering of Israel occurred very late in David’s reign, shortly before his death.

Still, if this was a prayer for the dedication of the temple, the context of David recovering from the illness of the plague that came from the census taking would make sense, because during this event, an angel appeared on the future sight of the temple, and the appearance of the angel made David buy the land for the temple there.

Albert Barnes makes a relevant linguistic comment in his commentary:

It is clearly implied in the title, though not expressly affirmed, that David was the author of the psalm, for it is to be presumed that he would himself compose the hymn or song that was to be used at the dedication of his own dwelling. In fact, the title, as Rosenmuller has remarked, might not improperly be read, “A Psalm, a song of dedication of a house, of David,”
...
It was usual for the Hebrews to “dedicate” a house when it was finished; that is, to devote it in a solemn manner to God, probably with appropriate religious exercises. Deuteronomy 20:5, “what man is there that hath built a new house, and hath not dedicated it? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man dedicate it.” 
...
The allusion in the psalm is rather to a previous state of depression, trouble, and sorrow, such as occurred in the life of David before he conquered his enemies, and before he was peaceably established on his throne - and to the joy which he felt when he had triumphed over his foes, and was peacefully established as king in Jerusalem. All the circumstances seem to me to accord best with the time when David erected a house for his own abode - a palace - upon Mount Zion, and to the act of dedicating such a house to God. See 2 Samuel 5:9-12; 2 Samuel 7:1-2.
...
That the allusion in the psalm is to “sickness,” seems to me to be evident from Psalm 30:2-3, Psalm 30:9, though at what time of life this occurred, or what was the particular form of disease, we are not informed. From Psalm 30:3, Psalm 30:9, however, it is certain that it was a “dangerous” illness; that he anticipated death; and that he was saved from death only in answer to fervent prayer. The psalm, therefore, in this respect, has a resemblance to Psalm 6:1-10; Psalm 41:1-13; psalms composed also in view of sickness.

And all the above discusses in one way or another what I last said. We now know that depression is a clinical problem, so use of a term meaning recovery from an illness would be correct. Not sure how the ancient Hebrews thought of mental problems overall. However we are given a clue in the cave on Mt Horeb where Elijah fled. God ministered to him there. And he isn't the only one; in fact, this is probably where Rav Shaul went to be counseled by Yeshua after his conversion. You talk about a case of PTSD/shell-shock! He'd just learned he was fighting for the wrong side, killing and persecuting the people of the God he was so zealous to serve! Not only that, Yeshua Himself had spoken to him, blinded him, sent him to a believers house, and was calling him to be the most prolific of all the apostles! I'd have run screaming into that desert never to be seen again! He needed the kind of ministering to only the Ruach HaKodesh can give; and the kind of training only Yeshua can do (whereas I'd have needed someone to catch me and tie me down first! ).

Dan ( ) C

[alon]

Nov 10, 2019 21:31:11 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Also regarding Question 4 and whether David's conflict with Absalom prefigured Yeshua's conflict and rejection, it's worth noting that 2 Samuel 19's mention that the people had anointed Absalom implied that they had rejected David during the conflict:

Now all the people were in a dispute throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, “The king saved us from the hand of our enemies, he delivered us from the hand of the Philistines, and now he has fled from the land because of Absalom. But Absalom, whom we anointed over us, has died in battle. Now therefore, why do you say nothing about bringing back the king?”

Ralph Wilson in "David's Exile from Jerusalem" quotes this passage and notes:

David can't just march into Jerusalem proclaiming himself to be king, however. Judah and Israel had rejected him when they had anointed Absalom king. Of course, David has the military power to return to Jerusalem, but power is different from recognized authority. For David to regain his authority as king, Judah and Israel need to reaffirm David as their monarch. He's right. Note it said "whom we anointed over us," not who God anointed. Ellicot's Commentary says "We anointed over us.—There is no other mention of the anointing of Absalom, and it certainly would not have been performed by the high-priests. It may have been done by some prophet, or this may be a mere form of expression taken from the custom of anointing, and only mean “whom we appointed over us.”" 

The Enduring Word commentary notes that later in verses 11-14, David swayed their hearts to have him come back:

a. Why are you the last to bring the king back to his very house: David would not force his reign on Israel. He would only come back if the tribes who rejected him for Absalom agreed to bring back the king.

i. “David didn’t lift a finger to re-establish his authority… His return to sovereignty was decided by the voluntary submission of his kinsmen and by their loving obedience to his will.” (Redpath)

b. Amasa… commander of the army… in place of Joab: David agreed to replace Joab with Amasa, who was the captain of Absalom’s army. This was to put Joab in his place and to offer a gesture of reconciliation to the former supporters of Absalom.

c. So he swayed the hearts of all the men of Judah, just as the heart of one man: The efforts of Zadok and Abiathar succeeded. David would not come back until welcomed by the hearts of all, and that could not be forced – their hearts had to be swayed.

i. God will not force His reign on us. We must welcome His reign and He will not force our heart response. Our hearts must be swayed by the work of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. 

ii. Just as the heart of one man: David wanted the reception to be unanimous. The men of Judah responded together to the wooing work of Zadok and Abiathar.

In "David in the Gospels
", Margaret M. Daly-Denton sees David's flight from Absalom as representing Yeshua's time in Gethsemane in sorrow, among other parallels:

Reminiscences of this episode in the gospel passion narratives invite the hearer to draw interpretive conclusions from either the similarities
between David and Jesus or the differences. For example, Matthew’s detail that Judas went out and hanged himself (Matt 27:3–5) serves to cast him in the role of Ahithophel, David’s betrayer (2 Sam 17:23), thereby hinting at a parallel between
David and Jesus. Luke makes a similar comparison by means of imprecatory passages from two “Psalms of David” spoken by Peter “against” Judas (Acts 1:18–20,
quoting from Pss 69 and 109). The theme of betrayal by a confidant is common to
the “passions” of both David and Jesus (2 Sam 15:31; 16:23; Matt 26:20–25 and
parallels). Like Ahithophel who plots to take King David at night (2 Sam 17:1), Judas arranges for the arrest of Jesus by night (Mark 14:17, 30; Matt 26:31; Luke
22:53, 66). The announcement of the defection of the disciples and of Peter’s denial
and their protestations of loyalty on the way to the Mount of Olives (Mark
14:29–31; Matt 26:30–35; Luke 22:33) is strongly evocative of 2 Sam 15. There, walking sorrowfully towards the Mount of Olives (2 Sam 15:30), aware of the defection of those close to him, David receives pledges of loyalty from faithful servants (2 Sam 15:15, 21). Like the David of 2 Sam 15:30–31, a distressed Jesus prays
on the Mount of Olives. It is also possible that 2 Sam 17:1–2, where Absalom says,
“I will come upon him while he is weary and discouraged...and all the people with
him will flee,” may have influenced the shaping of the synoptic arrest scenes.


The Fourth Gospel account of Jesus’ death begins with a recollection of
David’s crossing of the Kidron on his departure from Jerusalem with his loyal followers at the time of Absalom’s conspiracy (1 Sam 15:23; John 18:1).4 A foreigner,
Ittai the Gittite, says to David, “As the Lord lives, and as my lord the King lives, in

whatever place my lord shall be, whether it be for death or life, there shall your servant be.” Echoes of this declaration of loyalty can, perhaps, be heard in John 12:26:
“If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant be
also.” Earlier in John’s narrative, Caiaphas has given advice: “You do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that
the whole nation should not perish” (John 11:50). On comparison with 2 Sam 17:3
(“You need only seek the life of one man and all the people shall have peace”)
Caiaphas sounds suspiciously “Ahithophelian.”

G.R. Schmeling, in "The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament", sees similar parallels and notes Shimei's mocking of David (which happened in 2 Samuel 16):

In II Samuel 15, we hear that David crossed the Brook Kidron fleeing before his own son Absalom. He went in great sorrow of heart. It was then that he learned that even Ahithophel, his trusted advisor, had betrayed him and sided with Absalom. Along the way, Shimei, a relative of the former king Saul, came out and cursed him (II Samuel 16:5-13). Similarly, on Maundy Thursday evening the Second David passed over the Kidron. He too was the God ordained King of Israel driven out by the Jewish leaders. When He crossed the Kidron He found His Ahithophel, His betrayer Judas, in the garden. One who ate at His table lifted up his heel against Him (Psalm 41:9; John 13:18). As David remained silent before the cursing and mockery of Shimei, so Jesus was lead as a lamb to the slaughter and yet He opened not His mouth. (Isaiah 53:7).

I feel that what I wrote answers Question 4 enough. Yes. Just keep in mind when you know what parallels you are looking for you can find them everywhere. It's easy to superimpose what we want onto history. So while I believe these parallels are real, a non-believer may not find them so convincing. And if you ever find yourself arguing this with a Jew you may find you are in over your head. When God said He entrusted them with His oracles (scripture/writings), He meant they generally know them forwards and back. Stick to the major prophecies and types. But uncovering these things as you have is good for us as believers, and parsing hem out takes us deeper into the word. Kudos for the effort you put forth.

Obviously I am not the only one you are talking to either. That can get hard to keep sorted. But you seem to have a handle on it. Then you have the dogma and training of your own faith. As any Messianic knows, that can be very hard to overcome. It's why our movement has so many "Baptists in Tallits" calling themselves "Rabbi" instead of really digging in and going for the truth. So my advice is to prayerfully go into the word, trying to put aside all the competing voices you have going on; then take your truth from scripture. Not as you were taught what it means, or what I, other sites, the priest, or anyone else said. God is very capable of communicating with you through His Word. That is where the truth lies.

This is one reason I am going through and digging out actual commandments and biblical principles. Yes, we adopt some things from our Christian past and some from Judaism. But I want to go back to the raw truth- what God actually said to do, how He said to worship Him. Traditions are fine, but only if they do not conflict with or change ; His instructions to us for holy living. We start there, then we grow. 

You may still be in a place of the NT first, then the OT. Fine. I encourage you to do the same thing there. Read every verse IN CONTEXT, not just separate then understanding it as you were taught to. One book, one author (by inspiration), one message. Take every verse back to the OT and parse that out. A KJV Bible with the center column of references to other scriptures is a good tool there. They don't always have everything, but they are pretty good. 

You have a head for this stuff. If you can just take that last step of passing everything through the fire, and I mean right down to whether God even exists and going up from there, I think you can reach your own conclusions. If it is true, then it will survive the refiners fire. If false, well, did you really want that in your head anyhow? All any of us on forums or in church can tell you is what we understand. Go after the truth yourself like a Pit Bull. Pray, read, cross reference scripture, then dig it out. THEN you can read what others said (thought I'll warn you now, you can start to get pretty angry with some commentators you previously thought knowledgeable). And read from Jewish sources as well. They have an excellant understanding, though often bent some by their ideas of Yeshua. But that's just a good exercise in discernment.

Meanwhile, I'll keep telling you what little I know, long as you want to hear it.

Dan C

[rakovsky]

For Question 5, I would resolve the contradiction by taking the passages to mean that Absalom erected the pillar when he had no sons, and then later he had three sons.
When 2 Samuel 18:18 says: "Now Absalom in his lifetime had taken and reared up for himself a pillar
", the words "in his lifetime" means that the Biblical writer is not indicating when in Absalom's life he made the pillar, so this could have happened before his sons were born. Randy McCracken notes in his essay "How Many Sons Did Absalom Have?: Intentional Ambiguity as Literal Art":

This could well mean that Absalom made this statement before he had any sons, especially since lifting an event from its chronological context is a common technique in the books of Samuel (e.g., 2 Sam. 4:4; 21:1–14)

A less likely option is that the sons died before he built the monument. But this is unlikely, because 2 Samuel 14:27 says that he had three sons, and it is unlikely that all three would have died before Absalom made his pillar. They could have been killed in Absalom's revolt, but the pillar was made before the defeat of his revolt. Plus, if the sons had died while Absalom was still alive and a contender for the throne, the Bible could have mentioned their deaths. eg. Absalom could have said in his announcement that he had no sons left to carry his name.

Another, even less likely Option is when 2 Samuel 18 notes his words and comments:

"I have no son to keep my name in remembrance": and he called the pillar after his own name: and it is called unto this day, Absalom's place."

He could have meant that he did not have any sons who bore his name, Absalom. But this is unlikely because keeping a parent's name in remembrance does not mean that the child actually has the parent's name, only that the child remembers the name.

[rakovsky]

For Question 6, Was it the case in the First Century - Second Century that whereas the Temple in Jerusalem used musical instruments, the synagogues did not? As I understand it, for a long time, synagogues did not traditionally use instruments.

The Catholic Encyclopedia claims:""Although Josephus tells of the wonderful effects produced in the Temple by the use of instruments, the first Christians were of too spiritual a fibre to substitute lifeless instruments for or to use them to accompany the human voice. Clement of Alexandria severely condemns the use of instruments even at Christian banquets." This is referring to Clement's writing in 190 AD when he wrote:

"Leave the pipe to the shepherd, the flute to the men who are in fear of gods and intent on their idol worshipping. Such musical instruments must be excluded from our wingless feasts, for they arc more suited for beasts and for the class of men that is least capable of reason than for men. The Spirit, to purify the divine liturgy from any such unrestrained revelry chants: 'Praise Him with sound of trumpet," for, in fact, at the sound of the trumpet the dead will rise again; praise Him with harp,' for the tongue is a harp of the Lord; 'and with the lute. praise Him.' understanding the mouth as a lute moved by the Spirit as the lute is by the plectrum; 'praise Him with timbal and choir,' that is, the Church awaiting the resurrection of the body in the flesh which is its echo; 'praise Him with strings and organ,' calling our bodies an organ and its sinews strings, for front them the body derives its Coordinated movement, and when touched by the Spirit, gives forth human sounds; 'praise Him on high-sounding cymbals,' which mean the tongue of the mouth which with the movement of the lips, produces words.

In another passage, Clement of Alexandria might be explaining his reasoning based on an idea found in 1 Corinthians 6:19, "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?" He notes that Yeshua did not use instruments (at leas, the Gospels don't record him using them):

He who sprang from David and yet was before him, the Word of God, scorned those lifeless instruments of lyre and cithara. By the power of the Holy Spirit He arranged in harmonious order this great world, yes, and the little world of man too, body and soul together; and on this many-voiced instruments of the universe He makes music to God, and sings to the human instrument. 'For thou art my harp and my pipe and my temple'

I found an article, "The Exclusion of Musical Instruments from the Ancient Synagogue", by James W. McKinnon. (It's behind a login wall on JSTOR, a neutral academic source, www.jstor.org/stable/765928?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)

In The Choir in Jewish History, Jonathan L. Friedmann writes:

Following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E., the Rabbis abolished the sacrificial rite and its accompanying instrumental and vocal music. So, even as most other elements central to the Jewish tradition survived the destruction, the Levites refused to divulge their "trade secrets," and their musical culture was lost.

Wikipedia says:

However, after the fall of the First Temple, Werner states that the fabric of dreams spun about its earlier music included reminiscences, visions, and fantasies, as the Rabbis took pains to eradicate both its choral and instrumental traditions. "Their time had arrived, and their ideas on liturgy and music were radically different from those of the Temple priests." Werner finds it paradoxical that modern day rabbis continue to praise the instrumental music of the Temple but prohibit any and all instrumental music in their synagogues today.

Michael Levy gets into theorizing what the ancient music would have sounded like on the harp and Lyre on his blog in the article "Finding Authentic Tunings For An Ancient Lyre".

It looks like the answer to Question 6's first part is that the synagogues did not use accompaniment with instruments, and the early Nazarenes and Christians didn't either because their worship was also synagogue-like (eg. with "House Churches") or in Jewish synagogues, rather than focused on the Temple, although there was some Nazarene prayer at the Temple like Paul's. Also, they had theological reasons like Clement of Alexandria gave, like the body that sang being a Temple. As for the second part, I was able to find recordings of Psalms with musical accompaniment of instruments that aren't necessarily modern and with Middle East melodies. I posted what I found earlier in this thread and on the other thread that i made about Psalm recordings: theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/4685/recordings-psalms-original-style?page=1&scrollTo=24554

[rakovsky]

Nov 9, 2019 13:19:55 GMT -8 alon said:

Nov 6, 2019 13:26:28 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

(Question 7) Why was David's census-taking sinful or deserving of punishment?

They were God’s people, not David’s. Rulers like to think they are in control, but in Israel God was in control. So when God tells you to number the people, you do so. But when He tells you not to do so, you don’t.

To clarify, in the story in the Bible and in Josephus, God does not order David to avoid making a census. The Bible doesn't mention whether David collected or paid a tithe for his census, so Josephus' theory is that David's mistake was in failing to perform the tithing that the required for census taking.

[alon]

Nov 11, 2019 23:31:59 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Nov 9, 2019 13:19:55 GMT -8 alon said:

You are right, it doesn't specifically say God told David not to take the census. However God does not punish for no reason. I believe David was not supposed to take that census, and he knew it. But there are other possibilities, and they are not mutually exclusive. All may be correct to one degree or another.

Exodus 30:12-13 (ESV)“When you take the census of the people of Israel, then each shall give a ransom for his life to the Lord when you number them, that there be no plague among them when you number them. Each one who is numbered in the census shall give this: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (the shekel is twenty gerahs), half a shekel as an offering to the Lord.

No mention is made of David collecting this, so it is possible it was at least part of the sin. However the proof has the same problem as that of his being told not to take the census: how do you prove a negative? Could just be that counting the money was the way the census was commonly counted, and as such the author didn't think it worth mentioning.

2 Samuel 24:2 (ESV)  So the king said to Joab, the commander of the army, who was with him, “Go through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, and number the people, that I may know the number of the people.”

As I said earlier, they were the people of God of- Elohei Yisroel, God of Israel (2 Sam 23:3). They were not David's to count without a specific mandate from God. We count what WE own; God tells us when to count what HE owns.

2 Samuel 24:9 (ESV) And Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to the king: in Israel there were 800,000 valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were 500,000.

David wasn't just counting the people, he was counting soldiers. He was trusting in the military might of his kingdom rather than just on El Sali, God of My Strength (Pslm 42:9). This showed the trust he'd had in his God so strongly earlier in his life was waning, and he was trusting in his own might as a monarch instead.

1 Chronicles 21:3 (ESV) But Joab said, “May the Lord add to his people a hundred times as many as they are! Are they not, my lord the king, all of them my lord's servants? Why then should my lord require this? Why should it be a cause of guilt for Israel?”

If Joab knew the king was sinning, and it was serious enough he would risk telling the king he was sinning, the David was not just sinning but he was transgressing. He was deliberately going against the will of El-Elyon, Most High God (Ge 14:18). And indeed, David did know he'd sinned:

2 Samuel 24:10 (ESV) But David's heart struck him after he had numbered the people. And David said to the Lord, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. But now, O Lord, please take away the iniquity of your servant, for I have done very foolishly.”

So we see there are several reasons which might have been cause for the punishment. But all are subsumed under one undeniable principle: God's people are His alone, and it is He who numbers them.

Oddly enough, this was one of the biggest problems I had with churches in the beginning of my "rebellion." I don't know about EO churches, but it was common when I was growing up for Protestant churches to have "scoreboards" (my term) right up front for all to see. And these were updated as the count came in or was changed, even if it interrupted service. Usually in the shape of the Tablets of the Ten Commandments, these boards had how many attended Sunday School, how many were in the church service, how much was in the various offerings and collections, and other information thought necessary for us to know. And yet I listened to visiting pastors and evangelists talking with my Dad, and they all agreed that at least half of every congregation who thought they were saved actually were not! That's half the voting membership or more were enemy double agents! Yet they were dutifully counted and placed on our scoreboard. Seems to me either God was getting the right count and keeping a bunch of those lost sheep home on critical votes, or those churches were putting friendly fire on our own "Christian Soldiers!" Wasting God's resources, throwing battles, and generally raising havoc behind our own lines. I got to the point if I visited a church and saw a scoreboard up front, I wouldn't go back there.

Let God do the counting, then He can adjust things according to His plan. But when we count, we also then want to "get out the vote," encouraging everyone to be there for to be heard. And he enemy dances ...

Dan C 

[rakovsky]

At this point, this seems like the best for an answer for question 7, what you wrote:

David wasn't just counting the people, he was counting soldiers. He was trusting in the military might of his kingdom rather than just on El Sali, God of My Strength (Pslm 42:9). This showed the trust he'd had in his God so strongly earlier in his life was waning, and he was trusting in his own might as a monarch instead.

In some EO parishes, I think those with dwindling attendance, they put in the bulletin how many attended Church on a Sunday.
I never heard of the scoreboard practice, but I believe you. I have seen alot of churches with the hymn numbers on tablet sized scoreboards.