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

[alon]

Nov 9, 2019 15:40:15 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

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.

You make some good points here. The Bible does not hide the character flaws and failings of its hero's of faith. And David had a few. The only point I'd make here is to be careful judging David's actions by our own mores. Remember when Lot tried to give his two daughters to the mob in order to save his two guests from homosexual gang rape? We don't understand how anyone could do that! But the ultimate would be for anyone under your roof to come to harm. Likewise the view that a woman, once violated was "damaged goods" seems to most men to be harsh. Yet this attitude persists even today, especially in mid-eastern cultures. However the idea that David should have taken immediate punitive action and did not has merit. Not just from a standpoint of justice, but to hesitate, even shirk this duty would be seen as weakness in a king. This probably helped fuel the revolt as well.

Dan C

[alon]

Nov 9, 2019 21:02:26 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

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.

Ancient Jews believed in the resurrection, however there seems to be some debate whether you immediately go to Paradise or just lie in the dust awaiting the Shofar call to rise.

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.

The NT is based in the OT. So if this sounds strange to the reader, I'd suggest they read much more "Old" than "New" for a while! That is one thing I'll say for growing up Southern Baptist. We got a LOT of OT, not just a bunch of NT.

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.

True.

Do a search here for the term chevleh mavet. It will take you to threads that deal with this question of an afterlife in the OT.

[rakovsky]

You gave an interesting take on David's words when you wrote:

(("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.))

Ancient Jews believed in the resurrection, however there seems to be some debate whether you immediately go to Paradise or just lie in the dust awaiting the Shofar call to rise.

[rakovsky]

For Question 7 about the census, Exodus 30:12 helps support Josephus' reasoning when God told Moses, “When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the LORD a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them.”
Logically, based on this command, had David paid the ransom, there would be no plague.

Also, the need to pay a ransom to God implies that God in some way was holding the Israelites, and a census was a way for the king to claim them.

[alon]

Nov 12, 2019 21:00:43 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

For Question 7 about the census, Exodus 30:12 helps support Josephus' reasoning when God told Moses, “When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the LORD a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them.”
Logically, based on this command, had David paid the ransom, there would be no plague.

Also, the need to pay a ransom to God implies that God in some way was holding the Israelites, and a census was a way for the king to claim them.

More like a reminder to the king that he held the people in trust for the God he also served! Kings, even like David and Solomon tend to forget who ultimately controls the fate of the nation. They forget the people belong to Elohim and are meant to live as free men and women, not as mere vassals of an earthly kingdom; slaves to a tyrant with absolute powers. Part of the witness of the Hebrews to the surrounding nations was to be their status as a free people. A people freed from bondage by their God, not enslaved by church and state. A people freed even from the bondage of sin! Whose standard of living was high because their society was governed by godly principles. They were a light to the Gentile nations around them.

Dan C

[rakovsky]

In Kyle Butt's article "David's Census and the Plague", Butt gives the same theory, and he finds a similar instance:

A similar event occurred when, under David’s leadership, the Israelites did not carry the Ark of the Covenant correctly, bringing about the death of Uzzah. Concerning that episode, David himself stated: “[T]he Lord our God broke out against us, because we did not consult Him about the proper order” (1 Chronicles 15:13, emp. added).

He theorizes that "Neither did the Israelites consult God’s Word about the “proper order” concerning the census."

On the Christianity StackExchange, Tom Au writes:

Basically, David had won his earlier battles with an all-volunteer army. He told the people of Israel what he wanted to do (capture Jerusalem, drive out the Philistines), and through the grace of God, just enough of them volunteered for these projects. Later on, David wanted to conquer neighboring lands and peoples, which created two problems: 1) He would introduce foreign, non-believing people into Israel and 2) he would shed Israeli blood for this purpose. Worst of all, the purpose of the census was that David could DRAFT the soldiers he thought he'd need, instead of trusting God to give him "just enough" (along with God's power to "veto" certain projects by giving David "not enough").
But buoyed (and probably made overconfident) by his successes, David tried to push ahead and expand his kingdom for HIS wealth and glory (not God's). That was the sin.

I still think that the specific sin would have been failing to pay the ransom tithe for the people counted, but the paragraph above helps show why that would be required. The king would count them as members of his own kingdom and use the census for taxation and to force a draft on people if he wanted.
I am skeptical that the army was really totally "volunteer" before the census though, because it was common for people to basically have to fight for their tribes' protection and wars. 
On Christianity StackExchange, Mason Wheeler noted that in Luke's gospel the census was used for taxation in the 1st century. Wheeler also pointed to 1 Samuel 8, in which Samuel, as instructed by God, warned against appointing a king to rule the Israelites because of how the king would assign his citizens duties like an autocrat:

This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.



12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.



13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.



14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.



15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.



16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.



17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.



18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.

So making a census would be bad for the Israelites because it would be one of the steps in this process of autocracy that God warned about. The king would use the census for tithing and for putting them into the army. 

Yochanan Mauritz Hummasti on Stackexchange proposed that another problem was in 1 Chronicles 27:

23. But David took not the number of them from twenty years old and under: because the Lord had said he would increase Israel like to the stars of the heavens.
24. Joab the son of Zeruiah began to number, but he finished not, because there fell wrath for it against Israel; neither was the number put in the account of the chronicles of king David.

He took this as meaning that David did not take the number of them under 21, because the forbid this, but that Joab did take the number (ie. of those under 21). But I took the verses in 1 Chron 27:23-24 to mean that Joab began to number all Israelites over 20. Benson and Matthew Poole's commentaries take it to mean all Israelites over 20 as David ordered. Benson writes: "Joab began to number — Namely, all from twenty years old and upward, as David commanded him. "

Earlier, 1 Chron. 21:5 says:

And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.

So maybe these passages in 1 Chronicles together mean that Joab gave the number of the census to David (in Chron 21), and he began to number those under 20 but didn't finish because of the plague (in 1 Chron 27). Or maybe these passages mean that Joab gave the number of people who were for fighting (in 1 Chron 21), but he didn't finish numbering everyone in the census in 1 Chron 27.


Nicci Adonai writes on Stackexchange that there was a nonexplicit sense that making a census was harmful. He writes:

Here in Exodus [Ex 30], beyond the explicit legality, we see, again, that numbering the people, and that alone without any mention of motive, is offensive. Which brings us again to the first passage quoted:

1Ch 27:23 But David took not the number of them from twenty years old and under: because the LORD had said he would increase Israel like to the stars of the heavens.

There are other places where explicit legality is not the only requirement: 2 Kings 13:14-19 (legally did the king do as he was asked?), Romans 14 (especially that last verse), and 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, to name some that I have seen.

David was not taking the number of youth because it would show a limited number and he sensed that it would go against the promise of far greater descendants. Perhaps the same reasoning could apply against numbering the adults too.

[rakovsky]

Exodus 30 gives specific instructions about the ransom:
12 “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. 13 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. ESV

Also, Numbers 1 says:

49 “Only the tribe of Levi you shall not list, and you shall not take a census of them among the people of Israel.
I remember Joab not taking a census of Levi, and it was portrayed as if Joab was failing to obey the order when he din't survey them.

Joab's objection to David's order suggests the explanation that we discussed that the people belonged to God, not to David:

"May the Lord multiply his troops a hundred times over. My lord the king, are they not all my lord's subjects? Why does my lord want to do this? Why should he bring guilt on Israel?"

User2910 on Stackexchange sees it as a military census suggesting that David was looking to judge his own military prowess:

The census as military preparation seems the most on track:

David sends 'Joab, the commander of the army' and other 'commanders of the army' to take the census (2 Samuel 24.2,4; 1 Chronicles 21.2)
When they return with the tally of their census, they report the number of 'men who drew the sword' (2 Samuel 24.9; 1 Chronicles 21.5)
One of the three possible punishments David must choose is to 'flee three months before your foes while they pursue you' (2 Samuel 24.13), or alternately 'three months of devastation by your foes while the sword of your enemies overtakes you' (1 Chronicles 21.12), which is the one punishment David specifically requests not to happen: 'let me not fall into the hand of man' (2 Samuel 24.14; 1 Chronicles 21.13)
I would suggest David's actions were antithetical to the type of thought we find represented in Deuteronomy 20.1-4: Israel was to trust in God, not large numbers. David's decision to assess just how many 'men who drew the sword' throughout Israel may have been seen by other Israelites as a failure to trust in God.

I think that what I have above answers Question 7 enough, with it being militaristic and autocratic for using the people as David's army instead of God's and not paying a ransom.

[alon]

Nov 13, 2019 9:14:54 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

In Kyle Butt's article "David's Census and the Plague", Butt gives the same theory, and he finds a similar instance:

A similar event occurred when, under David’s leadership, the Israelites did not carry the Ark of the Covenant correctly, bringing about the death of Uzzah. Concerning that episode, David himself stated: “[T]he Lord our God broke out against us, because we did not consult Him about the proper order” (1 Chronicles 15:13, emp. added).

He theorizes that "Neither did the Israelites consult God’s Word about the “proper order” concerning the census."

On the Christianity StackExchange, Tom Au writes:

Basically, David had won his earlier battles with an all-volunteer army. He told the people of Israel what he wanted to do (capture Jerusalem, drive out the Philistines), and through the grace of God, just enough of them volunteered for these projects. Later on, David wanted to conquer neighboring lands and peoples, which created two problems: 1) He would introduce foreign, non-believing people into Israel and 2) he would shed Israeli blood for this purpose. Worst of all, the purpose of the census was that David could DRAFT the soldiers he thought he'd need, instead of trusting God to give him "just enough" (along with God's power to "veto" certain projects by giving David "not enough").
But buoyed (and probably made overconfident) by his successes, David tried to push ahead and expand his kingdom for HIS wealth and glory (not God's). That was the sin.
Good insights. It's kind of where I was headed, except I'm wary of reading into scripture and assigning motives. However I do think he's right (my opinion).

I still think that the specific sin would have been failing to pay the ransom tithe for the people counted, but the paragraph above helps show why that would be required. The king would count them as members of his own kingdom and use the census for taxation and to force a draft on people if he wanted.
I am skeptical that the army was really totally "volunteer" before the census though, because it was common for people to basically have to fight for their tribes' protection and wars.
Yes and no. Depends on time and circumstances. But if his plan was conquest without cause, he'd have to conscript them. 
 
On Christianity StackExchange, Mason Wheeler noted that in Luke's gospel the census was used for taxation in the 1st century. Wheeler also pointed to 1 Samuel 8, in which Samuel, as instructed by God, warned against appointing a king to rule the Israelites because of how the king would assign his citizens duties like an autocrat:

This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.

making a census would be bad for the Israelites because it would be one of the steps in this process of autocracy that God warned about. The king would use the census for tithing and for putting them into the army. 
Kings and rulers seldom change.

Yochanan Mauritz Hummasti on Stackexchange proposed that another problem was in 1 Chronicles 27:

23. But David took not the number of them from twenty years old and under: because the Lord had said he would increase Israel like to the stars of the heavens.
24. Joab the son of Zeruiah began to number, but he finished not, because there fell wrath for it against Israel; neither was the number put in the account of the chronicles of king David.
He took this as meaning that David did not take the number of them under 21, because the forbid this, but that Joab did take the number (ie. of those under 21). But I took the verses in 1 Chron 27:23-24 to mean that Joab began to number all Israelites over 20. Benson and Matthew Poole's commentaries take it to mean all Israelites over 20 as David ordered. Benson writes: "Joab began to number — Namely, all from twenty years old and upward, as David commanded him. "

Earlier, 1 Chron. 21:5 says:

And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.

So maybe these passages in 1 Chronicles together mean that Joab gave the number of the census to David (in Chron 21), and he began to number those under 20 but didn't finish because of the plague (in 1 Chron 27). Or maybe these passages mean that Joab gave the number of people who were for fighting (in 1 Chron 21), but he didn't finish numbering everyone in the census in 1 Chron 27.


Nicci Adonai writes on Stackexchange that there was a nonexplicit sense that making a census was harmful. He writes:

Here in Exodus [Ex 30], beyond the explicit legality, we see, again, that numbering the people, and that alone without any mention of motive, is offensive. Which brings us again to the first passage quoted:

1Ch 27:23 But David took not the number of them from twenty years old and under: because the LORD had said he would increase Israel like to the stars of the heavens.

There are other places where explicit legality is not the only requirement: 2 Kings 13:14-19 (legally did the king do as he was asked?), Romans 14 (especially that last verse), and 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, to name some that I have seen.

David was not taking the number of youth because it would show a limited number and he sensed that it would go against the promise of far greater descendants. Perhaps the same reasoning could apply against numbering the adults too.
Not sure about all that. But the reason for taking a census of men of military age is either to go to war or he thinks it's needed for defense. And the reason for taking a census of everyone else is to see how large an army they could support 

[alon]

Nov 13, 2019 12:30:42 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Exodus 30 gives specific instructions about the ransom:
12 “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. 13 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. ESV

Also, Numbers 1 says:

49 “Only the tribe of Levi you shall not list, and you shall not take a census of them among the people of Israel.
I remember Joab not taking a census of Levi, and it was portrayed as if Joab was failing to obey the order when he din't survey them.

Joab's objection to David's order suggests the explanation that we discussed that the people belonged to God, not to David:

"May the Lord multiply his troops a hundred times over. My lord the king, are they not all my lord's subjects? Why does my lord want to do this? Why should he bring guilt on Israel?"

User2910 on Stackexchange sees it as a military census suggesting that David was looking to judge his own military prowess:

The census as military preparation seems the most on track:

David sends 'Joab, the commander of the army' and other 'commanders of the army' to take the census (2 Samuel 24.2,4; 1 Chronicles 21.2)
When they return with the tally of their census, they report the number of 'men who drew the sword' (2 Samuel 24.9; 1 Chronicles 21.5)
One of the three possible punishments David must choose is to 'flee three months before your foes while they pursue you' (2 Samuel 24.13), or alternately 'three months of devastation by your foes while the sword of your enemies overtakes you' (1 Chronicles 21.12), which is the one punishment David specifically requests not to happen: 'let me not fall into the hand of man' (2 Samuel 24.14; 1 Chronicles 21.13)
I would suggest David's actions were antithetical to the type of thought we find represented in Deuteronomy 20.1-4: Israel was to trust in God, not large numbers. David's decision to assess just how many 'men who drew the sword' throughout Israel may have been seen by other Israelites as a failure to trust in God.
Agreed.
Dan C

[rakovsky]

Nov 9, 2019 13:31:46 GMT -8 alon said:

(Question 8) Does the Temple location's former status as a threshing floor hold a mystical or spiritual meaning?



I suppose you could equate it somehow to separation of wheat and chaff. Israel at the time was primarily an agrarian society, so many of their analogies were agricultural in nature. And because of the mountainous nature of the terrain the location of the Temple would have been chosen for the same qualities that might have made it a good location for a threshing floor.

Dan,
I sympathize with what you said above about the analogy to wheat and chaff.
In my opening post, I wrote:

One meaning for the threshing floor could relate to Jesus' allegory of separating the wheat from the chaff during the Last Judgment. It's noteworthy in this regard that the Yom Kippur/ Day of Atonement sacrifice was a key Temple ritual involving placing the blood of a sacrificed goat onto the Ark of the Covenant, which held the Ten Commandments.

What I was getting it was that the Yom Kippur ritual was related to the concept of judgment. The blood on the altar in the Temple over the threshing floor ch covered the guilt of the people's sins so that they were not punished.

The One For Israel ministry page article "The Temple was Built on a Threshing Floor" points to the Psalm about the tree and the chaff:

The threshing theme is woven throughout the Bible, and in Jewish thought. How does the book of Psalms start? With a song contrasting the righteous with the wicked using the analogy of a well watered-tree versus chaff. It begins with the phrase, “blessed is the man” – much like Yeshua’s beatitudes in his sermon on the mount – blessed is he who does not join with sinners, but who meditates on God’s word:

He will be like a planted tree over streams of water,
producing its fruit during its season.
Its leaf never droops—but in all he does, he succeeds.

The wicked are not so.
For they are like chaff that the wind blows away.
Therefore the wicked will not stand during the judgment,
nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

I find this Psalm's use of the idea of threshing significant because it is a leading Davidic verse, showing how David, who chose the Temple, used the concept of threshing.

Charles Spurgeon's Sermon "1808. The Threshing-Floor Of Ornan" says that God chose a threshing floor because of its plainness and because God provides bread to people to live:

14. II. But now, secondly, SPIRITUALLY THIS THRESHING-FLOOR OF ORNAN WAS AN ADMIRABLE TYPE OF HOW GOD MEETS WITH MEN.

15. I think, first, its extreme simplicity enters into the essence of the type. So far from thinking that a threshing-floor was a bad place to pray in, if I look a little beneath the surface I think I can see the reason for it. Golden grain is being separated from the straw by the {a} corn drag — where did this grain come from? From him who opens his hand and supplies the need of every living thing. Here, then, God meets me in the kindest way.

This could be true, but it also feels shallow.

If think Spurgeon makes more progress when he refers to Isaiah 21:10, where God's people are called, "Oh, my threshing and the grain of my floor! That which I have heard from the LORD of hosts, The God of Israel, I have declared to you."
The Pulpit Commentary says about this verse in Isaiah:
"Her chastisements have long been 'threshing' Israel, separating the grain from the chaff, and will do so still more as time goes on. The prophet's message is for the comfort of those who shall have gone through the process and become the true "children of the threshing-floor" - pure wheat, fit to be gathered into the garner of God (Matthew 3:12)."
But Spurgeon is unsure if the threshing floor relates to an image or type of threshing or affliction, commenting: "Would it be fanciful if with a glance I indicated that the threshing-floor is the exact type of affliction?"

Biblehub's word study for the word threshing used in Isaiah 21 says that the Hebrew root word is dush, meaning to tread or thresh. So the verse in Isaiah refers to the people as downtrodden, and as the Lord's grain, rather than the chaff.

[rakovsky]

Nov 12, 2019 20:53:54 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

You gave an interesting take on David's words when you wrote:

(("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.))

Ancient Jews believed in the resurrection, however there seems to be some debate whether you immediately go to Paradise or just lie in the dust awaiting the Shofar call to rise.

Also, for Question 9, it is not really so clear that he is denying the afterlife when David wrote:

9 What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit? Shall the dust praise thee? shall it declare thy truth?

He is implying that there is no profit from his blood when his body decays in the grave, and that fully decomposed bodies that have turned into dust don't make praise in their dust state, so David could be interpreted as hoping for resurrection after death in fact. Also, he is not denying that the soul could praise God if he died. He is implying that for the physical world, the dust doesn't make praise, so he is implying that he hopes for resurrection.

So I don't share the writer David Guzik's view that in this Psalm David wasn't believing that his soul could be alive if his body was dead. Maybe there is another Psalm that is clearer on this topic.

[alon]

Nov 13, 2019 17:55:52 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Nov 9, 2019 13:31:46 GMT -8 alon said:

(Question 8) Does the Temple location's former status as a threshing floor hold a mystical or spiritual meaning?



I suppose you could equate it somehow to separation of wheat and chaff. Israel at the time was primarily an agrarian society, so many of their analogies were agricultural in nature. And because of the mountainous nature of the terrain the location of the Temple would have been chosen for the same qualities that might have made it a good location for a threshing floor.

Dan,
I sympathize with what you said above about the analogy to wheat and chaff.
In my opening post, I wrote:

One meaning for the threshing floor could relate to Jesus' allegory of separating the wheat from the chaff during the Last Judgment. It's noteworthy in this regard that the Yom Kippur/ Day of Atonement sacrifice was a key Temple ritual involving placing the blood of a sacrificed goat onto the Ark of the Covenant, which held the Ten Commandments.

What I was getting it was that the Yom Kippur ritual was related to the concept of judgment. The blood on the altar in the Temple over the threshing floor ch covered the guilt of the people's sins so that they were not punished.

The One For Israel ministry page article
"The Temple was Built on a Threshing Floor" points to the Psalm about the tree and the chaff:

The threshing theme is woven throughout the Bible, and in Jewish thought. How does the book of Psalms start? With a song contrasting the righteous with the wicked using the analogy of a well watered-tree versus chaff. It begins with the phrase, “blessed is the man” – much like Yeshua’s beatitudes in his sermon on the mount – blessed is he who does not join with sinners, but who meditates on God’s word:

He will be like a planted tree over streams of water,
producing its fruit during its season.
Its leaf never droops—but in all he does, he succeeds.

The wicked are not so.
For they are like chaff that the wind blows away.
Therefore the wicked will not stand during the judgment,
nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

I find this Psalm's use of the idea of threshing significant because it is a leading Davidic verse, showing how David, who chose the Temple, used the concept of threshing.

Charles Spurgeon's Sermon "1808. The Threshing-Floor Of Ornan" says that God chose a threshing floor because of its plainness and because God provides bread to people to live:

14. II. But now, secondly, SPIRITUALLY THIS THRESHING-FLOOR OF ORNAN WAS AN ADMIRABLE TYPE OF HOW GOD MEETS WITH MEN.

15. I think, first, its extreme simplicity enters into the essence of the type. So far from thinking that a threshing-floor was a bad place to pray in, if I look a little beneath the surface I think I can see the reason for it. Golden grain is being separated from the straw by the {a} corn drag — where did this grain come from? From him who opens his hand and supplies the need of every living thing. Here, then, God meets me in the kindest way.

This could be true, but it also feels shallow. Most Christian interpretations of the Bible seem shallow to us, and I'd agree here. He's not wrong, but he needs to go deeper. However to be fair, this is only one quote from an entire d'rash, so I don't know how deep he did go with this.

If think Spurgeon makes more progress when he refers to Isaiah 21:10, where God's people are called, "Oh, my threshing and the grain of my floor! That which I have heard from the LORD of hosts, The God of Israel, I have declared to you."
The Pulpit Commentary says about this verse in Isaiah:
"Her chastisements have long been 'threshing' Israel, separating the grain from the chaff, and will do so still more as time goes on. The prophet's message is for the comfort of those who shall have gone through the process and become the true "children of the threshing-floor" - pure wheat, fit to be gathered into the garner of God (Matthew 3:12)."
But Spurgeon is unsure if the threshing floor relates to an image or type of threshing or affliction, commenting: "Would it be fanciful if with a glance I indicated that the threshing-floor is the exact type of affliction?" Again, I'd have to view that in context to know for sure. 


Biblehub's word study for the word threshing used in Isaiah 21 says that the Hebrew root word is dush, meaning to tread or thresh. So the verse in Isaiah refers to the people as downtrodden, and as the Lord's grain, rather than the chaff.

Strong's H4098 מְדֻשָּׁה mᵉdushshâh, med-oosh-shaw'; from H1758; a threshing, i.e. (concretely and figuratively) down-trodden people:—threshing.

My BDB Lexicon says it means "that which is threshed."

God has always "threshed and winnowed" His people, separating the grain from the chaff. Having worked with wheat farming, I can tell you trodding on a pit full of grain would break down the chaff and shell out the grain. Then tossing piles of it into the air on a blanket would allow the breeze to blow the straw and chaff away, the heavier grain then falling back onto the blanket. So yes, there is a trodding, a force component to this analogy. The wind might then represent the final work of the Ruach. Analogies of the grain which is left to the believers and their work on earth are numerous, but suffice to say that only the true believers are left. So metaphorically the threshing floor, like the wine press allegorically give us insights into spiritual truths. I do not see a mystical component. Like the "mystery of communion," it just isn't there. However if in your own theology you want to make a connection to the communion wafer you probably could stretch it that far and find your "mystical meaning."

mys•ti•cal (ˈmɪs tɪ kəl) adj.
1. mystic; occult.
2. of or pertaining to mystics or mysticism.
3. spiritually symbolic.

I suppose under def #3 you could make it work. For most Messianics the major connotation for the term is #'s 1 & 2. To us, the "mystery" is reveled in the typology. Trust me, we get "threshed and winnowed" all the time! We have a pretty good idea what it means! We also do the same to the Word, working out the meanings until only the pure, golden truth is left. That we store up. That is what nourishes us. No mystery, just good food. 

[alon]

Nov 13, 2019 23:08:10 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Nov 12, 2019 20:53:54 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

You gave an interesting take on David's words when you wrote:

Also, for Question 9, it is not really so clear that he is denying the afterlife when David wrote:

9 What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit? Shall the dust praise thee? shall it declare thy truth?

He is implying that there is no profit from his blood when his body decays in the grave, and that fully decomposed bodies that have turned into dust don't make praise in their dust state, so David could be interpreted as hoping for resurrection after death in fact. Also, he is not denying that the soul could praise God if he died. He is implying that for the physical world, the dust doesn't make praise, so he is implying that he hopes for resurrection. Tue. Remember too, "the life is in the blood," so I imagine that is why David referenced the blood. 

So I don't share the writer David Guzik's view that in this Psalm David wasn't believing that his soul could be alive if his body was dead. Maybe there is another Psalm that is clearer on this topic. Taken in context with all scripture as well as writings like the Mishna, where learned men debated such things, my bet is he did believe in an afterlife of some kind.

Psalm 18:4 The cords of death encompassed me, And the torrents of ungodliness terrified me.

cords חֶבֶל chebel, kheh'-bel; or חֵבֶל chêbel; from H2254; a rope (as twisted), especially a measuring line; by implication, a district or inheritance (as measured); or a noose (as of cords); figuratively, a company (as if tied together); a throe (especially of parturition (childbirth)); also ruin:—band, coast, company, cord, country, destruction, line, lot, pain, pang, portion, region, rope, snare, sorrow, tackling.

death מָוֶת mâveth, maw'-veth; from H4191; death (natural or violent); concretely, the dead, their place or state (hades); figuratively, pestilence, ruin:—(be) dead(-ly), death, die(-d).

Psalm 18:5 The cords of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me.

cords חֶבֶל chebel (above)

Sheol שְׁאוֹל shᵉʼôwl, sheh-ole'; or שְׁאֹל shᵉʼôl; from H7592; hades or the world of the dead (as if a subterranean retreat), including its accessories and inmates:—grave, hell, pit.

snares מוֹקֵשׁ môwqêsh, mo-kashe'; or מֹקֵשׁ môqêsh; from H3369; a noose (for catching animals) (literally or figuratively); by implication, a hook (for the nose):—be ensnared, gin, (is) snare(-d), trap.

death מָוֶת mâveth, (above)

Psalm 18:6 In my distress I called upon the LORD, And cried to my God for help; He heard my voice out of His temple, And my cry for help before Him came into His ears.

distress צַר tsar, tsar; or צָר tsâr; from H6887; narrow; (as a noun) a tight place (usually figuratively, i.e. trouble); also a pebble (as in H6864); (transitive) an opponent (as crowding):—adversary, afflicted(-tion), anguish, close, distress, enemy, flint, foe, narrow, small, sorrow, strait, tribulation, trouble.

Psalm 116:3 The cords of death encompassed me And the terrors of Sheol came upon me; I found distress and sorrow.

chords חֶבֶל chebel (above)

death מָוֶת mâveth, (above)

terrors מֵצַר mêtsar, may-tsar'; from H6869; something tight, i.e. (figuratively) trouble:—distress, pain, strait.

Sheol שְׁאוֹל shᵉʼôwl (above)

distress צָרָה tsârâh, tsaw-raw'; feminine of H6862; tightness (i.e. figuratively, trouble); transitively, a female rival:—adversary, adversity, affliction, anguish, distress, tribulation, trouble.

sorrow יָגוֹן yâgôwn, yaw-gohn'; from H3013; affliction:—grief, sorrow.

According to biblical Hebrew expert Dr. Danny Ben Giggi, the above describes the "umbilical cords of death," and the travails of childbirth for both the woman and the infant. And just as the umbilical cord sustains us through the process of the beginning of our life, so the chevlei mavet, the umbilical cords of death not only sustain us through the very traumatic death process if we are believers, but in describing it this way we have the promise of new life after death. So again, I think Melech Dovid would have believed in life after death. In the resurrection surely, and possibly in Paradise.

Dan C 

[rakovsky]

Also for Question 8 about the threshing-floor, the key verse identifying it with the Temple site is 2 Chronicles 3:1: "Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in mount Moriah, where the Lord appeared unto David his father, in the place that David had prepared in the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite."

Karen Holland writes in "The Threshing Floor: A Place of Worship?",

Threshing and winnowing are common metaphors for judgement (Dan 2:35; Isa 21:10; Jer 15:7, 51:2, 33; Hos 13:3; Mt 3:11-12; Lk 3:17). The threshing floor is a place where good is separated from bad, true from false. The sheaves are beaten or crushed in order to make this separation.



...while the threshing floor is a place of judgement and testing, it is also a place to receive blessing. It is a place where the grain of the harvest is actually taken from the sheaves. As such, it is a place where the blessing is received. The Bible refers to “the increase of the threshing floor” (Num 18:30) and to a time when “the floors shall be full of wheat” (Joel 2:24). Like the threshing floor, the temple is also meant to be a place of blessing for God’s people. It’s out of this blessing received from the threshing floor that an offering to the Lord is to be made (Num 15:20, 18:27). This links the threshing floor to worship. The threshing floor as a place of receiving blessing, offering and worship fits perfectly with the temple! The judging, testing, and separation processes can be viewed as preparation for this worship.

...

Ruth also washed and anointed herself; then put on her best clothes before going to meet Boaz (Ruth 3:3). Is it a coincidence that Ruth in the time of the barley harvest went to the threshing floor to meet Boaz? Boaz represents Christ (our kinsman redeemer) and Ruth, the Bride of Christ, the church. This expands the meaning of the threshing floor even further as a place where the Bride and Bridegroom meet and recognize one another. The “grinding of grain” can be seen as a depiction of the act of marriage (Job 31:10). Along the same lines, the image of the threshing floor is used when God’s people are not faithful. God calls it “adultery” or “playing the harlot” (Ezek 23:37, Hos 4:12). Notice what God says to Israel in Hosea 9:1 – “You have loved harlots earnings on every threshing floor”.

Dinah Dye, a Messianic Jew, in her article "Understanding Temple Idioms: The Threshing Floor", compares the threshing floor of the Temple with the concept of food for gods in other Ancient Near East nations:

The ziggurat, which enabled the god to descend from heaven to his second home on earth, was an altar where food from the garden was cooked and offered back to him. Sacrifices, therefore, played a major role in providing sustenance for the god and his entire household. The Temple in Jerusalem and its environs was structured in a similar fashion. The garden, described as a field, was for growing grain; the ziggurat was the altar or threshing floor for separating the grain from the stalks; and the Temple was the granary/storehouse for storing the seed grain for food consumption.

...

Here the grain seed was stored in order to bring fruitfulness to the whole world. In reality, the Ark of the Covenant rested on the Foundation Stone inside the Holy of Holies, where it served as God’s earthly throne. Attached to the house/temple was a sacred garden where seed grain was planted, cultivated, and harvested as food for the entire household. The Garden of Eden functioned in much the same way. Adam, the gardener, also served as a priest and worked the garden to harvest food for his family and provide offerings for his God. The Hebrew word for garden is gan (!g). When the letter resh (r) is added to the word gan, it becomes goren (!rg), which is a threshing floor. Goren can also mean the first place for the gathering of seed. The garden was “the field,” which according to the sages was a term related to the Temple complex.

...

The “grinding of grain” alluded to the act of marriage, which brings to mind the story of Ruth and Boaz and their unusual encounter. Spreading the corner of Boaz’s robe over Ruth as she lay at his feet on the threshing floor was symbolic of an ANE proposal ritual (Ruth 3:9). The covering indicated Ruth’s submission to Boaz as the bride and his responsibility to protect her from an enemy who would seek to steal and destroy the grain seed. ...  Israel is holy to Adonai, the first (reisheet) of His crop (Jer. 2:3). The first fruit (reisheet) of the wheat harvest was offered at Shavuot (Feast of Weeks or Pentecost) when the Temple was standing.

I am skeptical of Dye's etymology for Kadesh. She writes:

The true definition of kadesh (vdq, holy) is “to thresh” or “to be set apart.” The purpose was to produce abundant fruit.

Rather, it looks like Qadash means consecrated or set apart. Qodesh means apartness, sacredness.



Dye also theorizes that the Ark was like a threshing cart:

The front part of the threshing board was narrower and curved upward like a sled and the board was made from one piece of wood. Similarly, the Ark cover was made of one piece of hammered gold that also curved upwards. A description of the Ark of the Covenant in the book of Ezekiel indicates it may have resembled a threshing cart. Later threshing sleds were fitted with wheels to become carts. When David had the Ark of the Covenant moved by cart it was taken to the threshing floor of Nakhon. It was there Uzzah was struck dead for grabbing hold of the ark to steady it when the oxen stumbled.

She also goes into the mortification of the flesh, and I am not sure about that, because it reminds me of an anti-flesh theology, although she makes it sound logical:

The heavy sled, when it was drawn over the straw and the ears, allowed for the ears to escape damage while the straw on top was crushed to pieces. What a compelling picture of judgment for the wicked represented by the chaff and atonement for the righteous represented by the life-giving grain seed! It is at the altar that the flesh is beaten, pulverized and trampled so it can be destroyed. The flesh is the obstacle that prevents entry into the Temple and into the presence of the King who resides in the Holy of Holies. The flesh must first be crucified at the threshing floor, as it was for Yeshua the Messiah. It is a painful process, indeed, but necessary for producing fruit for the Kingdom. It is impossible to enter the Temple, especially the Holy of Holies, without first removing the flesh. Once the flesh is removed, the seed is ready to be stored as food or it is fertilized to produce more fruit to feed the world as Joseph did in Egypt during the time of the famine. This underscores the eternal nature of seed and points to Yeshua as the model. He was the first of the grain seed (bar reisheet) whose flesh was crucified and destroyed. But from the threshing floor where He died, came resurrection and eternal life.



SOURCE: www.academia.edu/15170482/Understanding_Temple_Idioms_The_Threshing_Floor

Victoria Radin, in her article "The Threshing Floor", gives a theory that the worship at the Temple is connected to judgment also:

The altar was a place of sacrifice and worship. The threshing floor, on the other hand, was the place where the harvest was prepared for usefulness, the place where the harvested grain, corn, and spices were subjected to the violence of the sledge, the grinding wheel, or vigorous shaking. It was usually built on heights or in open fields to insure the help of the wind in the winnowing process. As the place of separating the good from the bad, the threshing floor and its threshing and winnowing process became a metaphor for judgment (e.g. Isaiah 21:10, Jeremiah 15:7, 51:33, Daniel 2:35, Matt. 3:12). So how do we reconcile the idea that the threshing floor is also a place of worship and in one case, even a place of mourning before God (Genesis 50:10-11)?



The unmistakable message of the 2 Samuel 24 story is that worshiping God not only involves love and passion, but also sacrifice and judgment in its violence against sin. In other words, in worship we are stepping onto “the threshing floor” where our “wheat and chaff” are threshed by the Lord while a holy wind (the Holy Spirit) does the winnowing by blowing away the chaff from our lives. In the midst of our worship, we mourn before the Lord for having held onto any worldly ways and we praise the Lord for removing the things that impede our spiritual relationship with Him.

Don Walker notices the themes of worship, offering, mourning for Jacob/Israel, and marriage in the image of the threshing floor and connects them with the Temple in his essay "Worship and the Threshing Floor":

The first mention of a threshing floor is found in Genesis 50:10-11, “the threshing floor of Atad”, where Joseph and his brothers mourned the death of their father, Israel. It seemed appropriate for them to mourn at what we might consider an “unusual” place. Why mourn for Israel at a “threshing floor”? I believe the reason becomes more apparent as we see it’s significance in Old Testament typology.



The next reference we have to the threshing floor is in regards to the “heave offering” in Numbers 15:20. It speaks of the “offering of the the threshing floor”. We see a similar reference in Numbers 18:27.



It was at the “threshing floor of Nacon”, that Uzzah was struck dead for taking hold of the Ark of the Covenant (II Sam. 6:6-7).



Where was the Temple built? It was built at the threshing floor David had purchased from Ornan the Jebusite (I Chron. 22:1).



Let us consider what the threshing floor represents in the Scriptures. Its meaning goes beyond merely “the place where grain was threshed”. It is symbolic of the relationship between the Bride and the Bridegroom. It is not insigificant that Ruth came to Boaz at the “threshing floor” (Ruth 3:6-14). Boaz represents Christ (our kinsman redeemer) and Ruth, the Bride of Christ.



At the center of the threshing floor, one finds two large flat stones, one resting on the top of the other. They were “fitted and joined” together. The top stone was known as the “female” and the bottom stone the “male”. The “grinding of grain” was a depiction of the act of marriage (Job 31:10).



The act of marriage is a physical depiction of the “spiritual communion” God desires between Himself and Man. When God’s covenant people stray from Him and worship other gods, God calls it “adultery” or “playing the harlot” (Ezek. 23:37, Hosea 4:12). Notice what God says to Israel in Hosea 9:1, “You have loved harlots earnings on every threshing floor”.



It should be quite clear to you by now, that the “threshing floor” speaks to us about a place of worship.

The idea of the Church/Ekklesia as Christ's/Messiah's bride is a NT concept, but it also shows up in the TaNaKh like when Hosea sees his wife as a figure for Israel. It also shows up in Jeremiah 31, where God says of Israel's fathers with whom He made a covenant when He brought them from Egypt, "I was a husband to them".
It looks to me like the answer to Question 8 lies in the images that these writers found, with judgment, setting apart / consecrating, offering food to God, marriage and union. These images are associated with threshing floors in the TaNaKh and would be familiar to the writer and readers of the passage on the selection of the floor for the Temple.

[rakovsky]

Nov 14, 2019 11:58:28 GMT -8 alon said:

Nov 13, 2019 23:08:10 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Psalm 18:4 The cords of death encompassed me, And the torrents of ungodliness terrified me.

cords חֶבֶל chebel, kheh'-bel; or חֵבֶל chêbel; from H2254; a rope (as twisted), especially a measuring line; by implication, a district or inheritance (as measured); or a noose (as of cords); figuratively, a company (as if tied together); a throe (especially of parturition (childbirth)); also ruin:—band, coast, company, cord, country, destruction, line, lot, pain, pang, portion, region, rope, snare, sorrow, tackling.

death מָוֶת mâveth, maw'-veth; from H4191; death (natural or violent); concretely, the dead, their place or state (hades); figuratively, pestilence, ruin:—(be) dead(-ly), death, die(-d).

Psalm 18:5 The cords of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me.

cords חֶבֶל chebel (above)

Sheol שְׁאוֹל shᵉʼôwl, sheh-ole'; or שְׁאֹל shᵉʼôl; from H7592; hades or the world of the dead (as if a subterranean retreat), including its accessories and inmates:—grave, hell, pit.

snares מוֹקֵשׁ môwqêsh, mo-kashe'; or מֹקֵשׁ môqêsh; from H3369; a noose (for catching animals) (literally or figuratively); by implication, a hook (for the nose):—be ensnared, gin, (is) snare(-d), trap.

death מָוֶת mâveth, (above)

Psalm 18:6 In my distress I called upon the LORD, And cried to my God for help; He heard my voice out of His temple, And my cry for help before Him came into His ears.

distress צַר tsar, tsar; or צָר tsâr; from H6887; narrow; (as a noun) a tight place (usually figuratively, i.e. trouble); also a pebble (as in H6864); (transitive) an opponent (as crowding):—adversary, afflicted(-tion), anguish, close, distress, enemy, flint, foe, narrow, small, sorrow, strait, tribulation, trouble.

Psalm 116:3 The cords of death encompassed me And the terrors of Sheol came upon me; I found distress and sorrow.

chords חֶבֶל chebel (above)

death מָוֶת mâveth, (above)

terrors מֵצַר mêtsar, may-tsar'; from H6869; something tight, i.e. (figuratively) trouble:—distress, pain, strait.

Sheol שְׁאוֹל shᵉʼôwl (above)

distress צָרָה tsârâh, tsaw-raw'; feminine of H6862; tightness (i.e. figuratively, trouble); transitively, a female rival:—adversary, adversity, affliction, anguish, distress, tribulation, trouble.

sorrow יָגוֹן yâgôwn, yaw-gohn'; from H3013; affliction:—grief, sorrow.

According to biblical Hebrew expert Dr. Danny Ben Giggi, the above describes the "umbilical cords of death," and the travails of childbirth for both the woman and the infant. And just as the umbilical cord sustains us through the process of the beginning of our life, so the chevlei mavet, the umbilical cords of death not only sustain us through the very traumatic death process if we are believers, but in describing it this way we have the promise of new life after death. So again, I think Melech Dovid would have believed in life after death. In the resurrection surely, and possibly in Paradise.

Dan,
Well, I think the implication from the verses that you cited is that David believes in an afterlife, because he says that the snares of death surrounded him, and then he cried to God for help, implying that God freed him from them. So David believes that a holy person seeks rescue from death and that God saves this person from death, despite David knowing that people die. So the way to reconcile the contradiction is that after the person dies and is in the snare, God frees the person from the snare. This is the way that I would deal with the issue in the verses that you cited.

I took you as implying that the chords/snares of death were like an umbilical chord that keep up alive through the death process. But I doubt that this is the meaning implicit in the phrase. It looks to me like in the verses that you cited, the person is being caught by the chords like an animal is caught with chords in snare, or like a person who is abducted is tied up. 
Acts 2:24 seems to refer to this concept when it says refers to the Messiah: "...whom God raised up, having loosed the pains (ODINAS in Greek) of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it."
Biblehub gives this definition for ODINAS in Greek: "Definition: a birth pang; Usage: the pain of childbirth, acute pain, severe agony, a snare."
I could see the umbilical relationship to birth pangs, but it seems more to me like the concept would be that the chords in this case would be putting the person into death, as the inverse of the umbilical chord that helps put a person into life. Also, it gives the meaning of a snare for ODINAS, which is a meaning for the chords in the verse that you cited.
Still, like I said, it looks like the verses that you cited help suggest belief in resurrection.