CHAPTER 6

RISE AND REIGN OF DAVID:  THE DISRUPTIVE TRUTH OF MESSIANIC LEADERSHIP

So far in this section of the framework series we have studied the rise of God’s counter-culture nation, Israel.  As the original post-flood Noahic civilization became ever more paganized, God disrupted the decline of human society.  In a miraculous interference in the great kingdom of Egypt, God wrenched His people loose and started Israel on its path as a new nation.  From Mt. Sinai God revealed His absolute law code as the international model of righteousness over against all pagan lawmaking activity.  In the last chapter we surveyed the start of four centuries of warfare between Israel and her pagan neighbors.  As a counter-culture Israel was a never ending disruption to pagan civilization.

Nevertheless, as a fallen people, Israel was constantly in danger of succumbing to the same evil that lay at the root of paganism.  Throughout the conquest and settlement the tribes of Jacob failed to attain true national unity.  The prophetic analysis of the period concluded that “in those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 17:6; 21:25).  The people never came to a thorough perception of Yahweh as their true King and failed in their sanctification toward loyalty to Him—as we observed in the last chapter.  When God responded with the sentence of doom at Bochim, the coming Kingdom of God was postponed.  Something further needed to be done in order to resume the ultimate goal of removing evil from history.

This ancient society had it all:  political freedom from surrounding totalitarian regimes, miraculous economic sustenance from God, a model law code, and an educational system thoroughly imbued with biblical wisdom.  The failure of this amply blessed society under a theocracy demonstrated anew the sin of mankind.  The idea, therefore, that future progress in human civilization rests upon a free, educated, prosperous society is a deceptive myth.[1]  The democratic ideal arose not from the Bible but from atomistic philosophy in pagan Greece.  Democracy, so popular today, inherently denies the fall of man.

The Judges period ends in chaos.  The flesh of man always reacts to chaos and disintegration with a cry for order, even totalitarian order.  Anything to be rid of chaos.  Thus it was in Nimrod’s day (Gen. 10).  Man attempted to build security against getting lost in the mysteries of the vast new world with a one-world government at Babel.  God, however, interfered. He fractured the human race linguistically so it would be forced to “fill the earth” under the new world covenant (see Chapter 1).

This time around the cry for a flesh-based totalitarian order again would be resisted.  This chapter traces the new controversy within Israel through the book of I Samuel to the rise and reign of King David.  As in previous chapters I will contrast the work of the Spirit in Israel to the surrounding pagan world.  You should carefully observe the difference.  Out of this study you will gain new insights into the sanctification process God is working in our lives.  Far more is at stake in this portion of Scripture than just a heroic story of a giant and a boy.

BACKGROUND FOR KINGSHIP.

“Kings Like All The Other Nations Have”.  In the days of Samuel the prophet, Jewish leadership insisted that a monarchy be formed to unify the nation and restore justice and order (I Sam. 8:5).  Their role model was that of the surrounding pagan kingships.  They showed little evidence of understanding the stipulations about a monarchy already embedded in the Mosaic Law (Deut. 17:14-20).

Speaking of the ancient Near Eastern versions of kingship, Prof. Frankfort writes:

The ancient Near East considered kingship the very basis of civilization.  Only savages could live without a king.  Security, peace, justice could not prevail without a king to champion them.  If ever a political institution functioned with the assent of the governed, it was the monarchy which built the pyramids with forced labor and drained the Assyrian peasantry by ceaseless wars. . . .

Whatever was significant was imbedded in the life of the cosmos, and it was precisely the king’s function to maintain the harmony of that integration.[2]

A vivid example of pagan kingship was given in Chapter 3 in connection with the exodus from Egypt.  It was precisely this structure from which God separated Israel that they now voluntarily sought for themselves.

King Priests—Genuine and Apostate.  To understand what God accomplished through eventually raising up David as His messianic king, you must remember the function of the first kings after the flood.  In the first two chapters of this publication we studied the old universal order of civilization designed by Noah and his sons.  Through their dramatic physical and intellectual power, Noah and his sons in a few short centuries explored, mapped, settled, and left their architectural wonders throughout the continents of the new post flood world.  They spread the Word of God as it then existed, the Noahic Bible (Gen. 1-9 plus other parts since lostÑnote one surviving piece in Jude 14-15) leaving traces of their Semitic-like language all over the earth.

In a way not understood these early kings of civilization also acted as priests.  They led their people in worship, apparently focusing on various aspects of God’s complexity revealed in creation through the sun, moon, storm, and animals.  As Noahic civilization deteriorated more and more through the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life, they perverted not only their kingship authority but also adopted apostate religious practices.  The apostate spirit clearly manifested itself at Babel where it was bluntly stated:  man, not God, would define all meaning (Gen. 11:4).  Polytheistic temples and cults arose in nation after nation often utilizing the architecture of the “sacred mountain” or pillar, testifying to man’s claim to a continuity of being with the powers of heaven.  God’s complexity was broken apart, metaphors in creation were given divine glory (lunar cult, sun deity, etc.).[3]

By Abraham’s day, one of these king-priests who had remained faithful to God as El Elyon at Jerusalem authenticated Abraham’s call and the beginning of a new era (Gen. 14:17-20).  The continuity between Noahic civilization and the separatist nation Israel was revealed through this approval from a surviving, genuine, Noahic king-priest.  Israel, as God’s missionary nation to the world, would one day bring into existence the ultimate King-Priest to fulfill the destiny of Noahic civilization.

Law over King.  We are getting ahead of ourselves.  A lot must happen between Israel’s birth and the blessing to all the world.  After the birth of Israel, the Sinaitic Covenant split the traditional king-priest into two separate offices.  The priesthood was confined to the tribe of Levi; the kingship was to remain in another tribe:  Judah (note Gen. 49:10).

Israelite kingship was to submit to the authority of the Law (Deut. 17:14-20).  God’s Law, not a human king, was the ultimate authority. The Creator-creature two-level view of reality had to be respected.  Kingship was not supposed to be some midpoint between man and God on a continuous scale of being.  As Frankfort has written:

“The Hebrew king normally functioned in the profane sphere, not in the sacred sphere.  He was the arbiter in disputes and the leader in war.  He was emphatically not the leader in the cult. . . .He did not, as a rule, sacrifice; that was the task of the priests.  He did not interpret the divine

will; that, again, was the task of the priests. . . .Moreover, the divine intentions were sometimes made known in a more dramatic way when the prophets. . .cried, “Thus saith the Lord.”  These prophets were often in open conflict with the king precisely because the secular character of the king entitled them to censor him. . . .

The transcendentalism of Hebrew religion prevented kingship from assuming the profound significance which it possessed in Egypt and Mesopotamia. . . .”[4]

You must read the stories of I Samuel with this background in mind.  The people wanted monarchy, but God had to restrain it and prevent the rise of an imitation form of pagan kingship.  In the books of Samuel and Kings God demonstrates over and over the truth of “law over king.”  Interestingly, this period of history was later used by Bible-believers in seventeenth and eighteenth century England as an argument against their contemporary “divine right of kings”.[5]  The Samuel-Kings history proves that monarchy, in and of itself, conceived as man’s fleshly attempt to set order over chaos, is no more successful at truly solving mankind’s dilemma than the earlier “free” theocracy.  Neither democracy nor autocracy can ultimately succeed.

THE RISE OF KINGSHIP AND THE HOUSE OF BENJAMIN.

God’s ways are not our ways.  He repeatedly humbles us by doing the unpredictable.  His sovereign plan is so ingenious that, like an incredibly brilliant chess master, he uses our moves against Him to defeat us and bring about the plan he had in mind all along!  Let’s watch Him “play” with Israel in this matter of kingship.

God’s Response through Samuel.  Although Jews before Samuel functioned as prophets (e.g., Gen. 20:7; Exod. 7:1), Samuel appears to be the first of the prominent biblical prophets (cf. I Sam. 3:19-21).  These prophets were agents of God calling Israel to loyalty to the covenants.  They anointed kings, and they pronounced judgment upon them.  It likely was Samuel, Nathan, and others who compiled the books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings to show God’s working through the monarchy.  The prophet precedes the king.  Even the New Testament begins not with Jesus, the eventual messianic king, but with John the prophet who anoints Him.  This is the hallmark of the Bible over against pagan kingships who knew no such limitation on their authority. 

Chapter eight of I Samuel is one of the most insightful political documents of all time.  It exposes the abuses of totalitarian civil authorityÑan authority lacking all restraint from any transcendent law.  The core issue of the passage

occurs in I Samuel 8:4-9.  First, the people have rejected Yahweh, Who, under the Sinaitic Covenant, functioned as the real King (8:7).  Second, God instructs Samuel to go along with the public demand (“listen to the voice of the people”, 8:7,9).  Third, Samuel is to warn the people what they will get when they have a king like those of all the other nations (8:9).

The following scripture (I Sam. 9-15) traces the outworking of the “demanded monarchy” in the selection of Saul from the tribe of Benjamin.  Chapters 9 and 10 narrate the selection and anointing of Saul as king.  Saul had admirable outward qualities:  handsome and impressive stature (9:2).  How Samuel indicated God’s choice with oil reveals what the term “messianic” means (10:1).  Messianic leadership is leadership chosen by God through His Spirit symbolized with the oil poured on Saul’s head.  The presence of the Spirit in Saul would shortly be obvious (10:6-13).  God not only chose and anointed a Benjamite, which conflicted with the messianic promise of Genesis 49:10 that restricted the messianic choice to the tribe of Judah, but He was willing to make Saul’s dynasty an everlasting one (13:13)!  Clearly, this House of Benjamin was a conditional kingship, dependent upon its behavior toward God’s law.

Saul’s Response toward God.  Very soon Saul had an opportunity to prove his royal leadership when Israel was attacked by the Ammonites (I Sam. 11).  The Spirit came upon Saul (11:6).  As Professor Merrill notes:

“In the greatest show of military strength since Joshua’s day, three hundred thousand Israelites and thirty thousand men of Judah gathered at Bezek. . . .  The next day they attacked the Ammonite besiegers and completely routed them.  This put to silence once and for all those who had ridiculed Saul’s regal claims.”[6]

In spite of the Spirit’s presence with Saul, shown by his prophesying and victory in battle, the monarch demanded by the people was precarious.  In a major address with supernatural confirmation, Samuel warned in language reminiscent of the Sinaitic Covenant that Saul’s kingship was a conditional one and that the nation’s real security lay in obeying God (I Sam. 12).  Remarkably, the people who heard the Word through Samuel agreed that demanding monarchy was a sin (12:19).  Samuel counseled them to trust God’s election of the nation (a truth based upon the superior Abrahamic Covenant) and walk by faith (12:22-24).

Although impressive on the outside, Saul had profound inner flaws that would be his undoing.  He placed his own career ahead of the need of the people for food for battle (14:24), and his own son, the Crown Prince (Jonathan), recognized his father’s foolishness (14:29).  He caused his army to violate both the Noahic and Sinaitic Covenants (14:32) and eventually almost got himself in a position of having to execute Jonathan (14:44).  Later when Samuel passed on Yahweh’s order to wage holy war against Amalek, Saul violated the law concerning holy war (Deut. 20:16-18 cf. 15:9).  He even appeared to have planned a ceremony of sacrifice (note 15:15,21-22) which would have been a forbidden intrusion into the priesthood of another tribe, the Levites.  The outworking of the tension between law and king becomes clearer as we proceed through I Samuel.

In the end, Yahweh rejected Saul’s conditional dynasty, and His prophet Samuel would have nothing to do with him for the rest of his life (15:35).  Is this narrative from I Samuel 8 to 15 an argument against an Israelite monarchy?  Was Samuel against monarchy?  The law clearly allowed a monarchy (see Deut. 17:14-20), but did the law require a monarchy?  It seems from the text in Deuteronomy that the monarchy was an accommodation of God to the people.  He was their true King, but as a nation they would want human national leadership.  Such leadership was not in itself evil, but it had to be operated under God’s law.  The evil with the House of Benjamin was the spirit of dissatisfaction and impatience with God’s leadership methods.  An evil prayer was answered with tragic results.

Just as the people had fallen into sin even while the law was still being given at Mt. Sinai (Chapter 4), so here the king fell into sin at the very beginning of the monarchy.  Neither people nor king could live up to the righteous demands of Yahweh’s law:  “by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20).  Both law and grace are required to succeed under the lordship of Yahweh.  When grace is despised, man becomes the creator and determiner of his own righteousness; he recognizes truth only in what he invents himself.  He becomes a legalist and a rationalist.  Lost is the sense of gratitude toward the Lord for what He has done and must continue to do for man to be saved.  Yahweh’s answer to Israel’s arrogance was to let their monarchy be exposed for what it wasÑa vain work of the flesh trying to overcome the chaos caused by the previous sin of the judges period.

GOD’S INTERVENTION AND THE HOUSE OF JUDAH.

As God’s replacement for Saul, David epitomizes sovereign grace at work.  In spite of Israel’s premature demand for kingship, God chose to work with the institution and turn it toward His ultimate purposes:  to fulfill the king-priest model given in Noah’s day with the revelation of His own Son to the world.  David was a product from beginning to end of the grace of God.  I present his life in three parts.

The Anointing and Confirmation.  Even while Samuel was yet grieving over the failure of Saul, Yahweh led Samuel to anoint David as only a youth (I Sam. 16; cf. II Sam. 7:8; Ps.78:70).  Again the messianic emblem of oil (Spirit) occurs.  This time, however, the anointed was from the right tribe in lineage of promise from the Abrahamic Covenant.  The scripture also notes that the anointed has been selected on the basis of what God sees in his heart, not on the basis of his immediate impression on the public eye (I Sam. 16:7).

Mere prophetic anointing was not enough to effect throne accession.  The youth would have to prove himself to the nation.  David’s long struggle to accede to his throne is recounted in I Samuel 16 to II Samuel 4.  I want you to observe how sharply this story contrasts to the customary politics in the ancient pagan world.  Pay attention to these contrasts; they reveal how God’s Spirit works over against normal fallen flesh.

The call of God on David had to stand the acid test of experience.  Before David finally attained national recognition, he had survived seven direct attempts upon his life by Saul (I Sam. 18:10-11, 25-27; 19:1-7, 9-10, 11-17, 18-24); evaded Saul’s “search-and-destroy” missions three times (I Sam. 23:13-29; 24:1-22; 26:1-15); defeated the Philistines twice (I Sam. 17:20-54; 23:1-5); obliterated the last remnants of the Amalekite coalition (I Sam. 27:7-12; 30:8-20); won in a long struggle of attrition with Saul’s family to obtain the allegiance of the other Hebrew tribes besides that of his own tribe Judah (II Sam. 2:12-4:12;); and escaped from two bad decisions of aligning himself with the Philistines (I Sam. 21:10-15; 27:1-29:11).  Gradually, both Israel’s leaders and populace recognized the choice of Yahweh in David (Jonathan the Crown Prince in I Sam. 20:11-17; Saul in I Sam. 24:20-22; the tribe of Judah in II Sam. 2:4; and all Israel in II Sam. 5:1-3).

Three areas of skill are prominent.  First, was his warrior skill.  The famous Goliath story in I Samuel 17 must be understood in the same historical context that occurs in Homer’s Iliad, Aeschylus’ Seven against Thebes, and Vergil’s Aeneid.  Just as in these later stories, David and Goliath are called “men of the middle” (17:4,8-9) or champion warriors whose duel in the middle of the battle line determines the outcome of the battle.

The second skill was his musical ability.  Throughout his time of trial he managed to write great hymns of lament and praise to Yahweh (e.g., Pss. 34, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 63, 142).  So powerful were his compositions that they have become the spiritual food of the saints for over 30 centuries after him!

His third skill was his wisdom rooted in biblical faith.  He spared his arch foe, Saul, twice (I Sam. 24:1-22; 26:5-25), trusting that Yahweh would fulfill His Word by arranging Saul’s death through “accidental” or “natural” means (I Sam. 26:10).  He made a very unusual oath to protect the house of Saul, his rival dynastic family, from total extinction (I Sam. 20:15-16; 24:21-22) and later enforced those oaths during his administration (II Sam. 4:9-12; 9:1-13; 21:7).

In contrast to David’s story of accession is the story of the famous Assyrian king who lived a few centuries later, Esarhaddon.  No biblical revealing prophet came to him in his youth.  Instead, his father, the Assyrian king Sennacherib, chose him as his successor.[7]  Later an oracle “confirmed” to Esarhaddon his father’s choice, but he still faced the problem of convincing the rest of the royal family and the nation.  Rather than relying upon God’s grace, Esarhaddon gained his throne by his own works seen inside an idolatrous view of the world.  He himself recounted the matter:

“I became mad as a lion, my soul was aflame and I [called up the gods by] clapping my hands, with regard to my [intention of] assuming the kingship, my paternal legacy.  I prayed to Asshur, Sin, Shamash, Bel, Nebo and Mergel, to Ishtar of Nineveh, the Ishtar of Arbela, and they agreed to give an [oracle] answer. . . .I did not even wait for the next day. . . .but I spread my wings like the [swift] flying storm (bird) to overwhelm my enemies.”[8]

The Assyrian king did see the world in light of the Creator-creature distinction.  He had no sovereign Word from the Creator concerning his destiny so he diversified and hedged his faith in a group of created god and goddess images.  Such a group, of course, lacked the sovereign power of the God of Israel so that ultimately all depended upon him.  He had to create his own security by eliminating his opponents in the “uncontrolled” political arena.  None could be left for the gods to remove as David left Saul in the hands of the Lord.  Esarhaddon made no oaths guaranteeing merciful survival of his foes’ families as David did for the House of Saul.

“In the month of Addar, a favorable month, on the eighth day, the day of the Nebo festival, I . . .sat down happily on the throne of my father.  The Southwind, the breeze [directed by] Ea, blew [at this moment], this wind, the blowing of which portends well for exercising kingship, came just in time for me. . . .The culpable military which had schemed to secure the sovereignty of Assyria for my brothers, I considered guilty as a collective group and meted out a grievous punishment to them; I [even] exterminated their male descendants.”[9]

After comparing this pagan story to David’s anointing and confirmation, you cannot help but see the contrast between the works of the flesh and the gracious work of the sovereign Lord.  David’s ascent to office can thus be described as a political work of grace by the Intervening God of history.  David as a man of faith placed his entire unhedged faith in Yahweh alone.  Such messianic leadership models Spirit-directed leadership in sharp contrast to the traditional fleshly leadership of paganism.

Yahweh Grants David a Covenant.  David arrived on his throne as the man through whom God would reveal His sovereign plan for Kingdom leadership.  Just as the election of Israel was rooted in the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant, so the election of Israel’s king would now be rooted in an unconditional covenant.  Both nation and king could not rest securely in their human merit under the conditional Sinaitic Covenant (I Sam. 12); if they were ever to attain the historical manifestation of God’s Kingdom, God would have to do the work.  Before God grants a new covenant, however, David honors God by establishing His meeting place with the nation.

The Old Testament narratives insist that it was David who finally brought the Ark of Yahweh to Jerusalem and made it his capital (II Sam. 6; I Chron. 15-16).  As Dr. Merrill points out, in so doing David acted as a priest and king who emulated the ancient Noahic king-priest model shown in Melchizedek (who also reigned at Jerusalem—cf. Psa. 110).[10]  The royal and priestly functions so carefully separated under the Sinaitic Covenant between Levi and Judah are coming closer together.  Features in David’s life now begin to point ahead in history to the coming Messiah (“Anointed One”) Who not only will be Israel’s king but also civilization’s universal king!  The Spirit-given leadership model emphasizes the requirement to lead the people in worship as well as in civic duties.

After telling of King David’s civic and religious accomplishments for Yahweh’s nation, the OT text introduces Yahweh’s accomplishment for David (II Sam. 7; Ps. 89).  To understand better Yahweh’s gift, I will follow my comparison method.  Let’s compare what Yahweh did for David with what the pagan deities “did” for their favorite kings.  It was customary in the nations around Israel for a king, after he had won an important campaign, to build a temple to the deity that supposedly helped him win the campaign.  Thus, for example, after Pharaoh Thutmose III had subdued lands to the south and northeast of Egypt, he built a temple for his Egyptian god, Amon-Re.  In the famous victory hymn of Thutmose III we read the words of Amon-Re as given through Egyptian diviners:

“Welcome to me, as thou exultest at the sight of my beauty, my son and my avenger, [Thutmose III], living forever! . . .Thou treadest all foreign countries, thy glad heart.  There is none who can thrust himself into the vicinity of thy majesty, while I am thy guide. . . .My serpent-diadem which is upon thy head, she consumes them. . . .[11]

Then, after mentioning his help of Thutmose in the campaigns, Amon-Re turned to the matter of temple-building:

“Thou hast erected my dwelling place as the work of eternity, made longer and wider than that which had been before. . . . Thy monuments are greater than [those of] any king who has been.  I commanded thee to make them, and I am satisfied with them.”[12]

Finally, Amon-Re promised to Thutmose III:  “I have established thee upon the throne by Horus for millions of years, that thou mightest lead the living for eternity.”[13]

Now, compare some of these detailsÑthe military victories, the temple-building, the million-year dynastyÑwith the details of II Samuel 7:4-16.  Yahweh claims to be the source of David’s victorious accession to the throne with its military victories along the way (7:8-9).  He directed that a temple be built for Himself (7:13), and He promised that the Davidic Dynasty (“house”) would be an eternal dynasty.  The significant comparisons between the Hebrew and Egyptian stories, however, are not the parallel features but the contrasting ones.  Instead of commanding David to build Him a temple immediately, Yahweh first insisted upon building a “temple” (Hebrew bayith = “house” and “temple”) for David (7:5-7, 11-16)!  Moreover, rather than a temple of cedar such as man could build, Yahweh would build a temple of people from the seed of David!

Yahweh’s covenant with David was unconditional like the Abrahamic Covenant. [14]  Let us use the four-part covenant structure to study it.   The parties to the covenant were Yahweh and David plus certain of his descendants.  The sign of the covenant was the enduring line of David’s descendants who would qualify for Israel’s throne.  The Davidic Dynasty would survive through great historical catastrophes for ten centuries, a major theme of Kings and Chronicles (note II Kings 25:27-30), until the Everlasting One, the greater Son of David, would come.  The Eighteenth Dynasty of Thutmose III disappeared less than 150 years after his reign!

The legal terms of the Davidic Covenant can be summarized in three promises, each having a particular application to the royal family of Israel and a

universal application to the royal family of the Greater Son.  First, the king would enjoy a “father-son” relationship with God (II Sam. 7:14; cf. Ps. 2:7).  The king would be “adopted” into God’s family.  Later those “in Christ” would be called “sons of God” (John 1:12).  Second, if the seed of David should sin, they would be chastened but never rejectedÑthe dynasty would survive because it was unconditionally elected (II Sam. 7:14-15; Ps. 89:30-35).  Those, too, who are elect in David’s Son, though disciplined, are never lost (Rom. 8:29-30; I Cor. 5:5; Heb. 12:5-11).  Third, David’s dynasty would always be centered at the cultic city of Jerusalem in the kingdom of Israel (II Sam. 7:16).  Similarly, those in Christ are destined to be centered at the Throne of God as priests and kings forever (Rev. 5:10).  Obviously, these legal terms enlarge upon the “seed” promise of the prior Abrahamic Covenant.

The founding sacrifice seems to be missing with this covenant, unless it is implied in the promise that God would never permit David’s “soul” to see corruption (Ps. 16:10; cf. Acts 2:22-36).  The promise of resurrection of David’s seed implies the death of David’s seed and, hence, a founding sacrifice might be indirectly implied by the promises to David.  Yahweh’s promise, then, after David’s accession to the throne, actually fulfilled what had been the cry of so many pagan, viz., an eternal dynasty.  Again, the unique work of the God of the Bible is clear.

David’s Royal Record.  David might have been a model of Spirit-led leadership that pointed to his Greater Son, but he was fallen and imperfect.  In one of the most famous and well-written royal records in the world, the Author of Scripture tells us the story of the outworking of an act of adultery on the king and his kingdom (II Sam. 11-20).  The affair began at the height of David’s political career.  Spiritually, David was at a low ebb during the Ammonite-Syrian campaigns (II Sam. 10; 12:26-31).  Instead of assuming his customary direct command, David chose to delegate it to his field general, Joab (II Sam. 11:1).  David’s pattern of living had become abnormal.  Whereas before he had been an early riser (Pss. 5:3; 59:16; 143:8), at this point he arose from his bed “at even tide” (II Sam. 11:2).  After seeing Bathsheba, who unwisely exposed herself within view of the palace, David had sexual intercourse with her; and then, to cover up one sin, he committed anotherÑmurder of Uriah, her husband and one of David’s key army officers (II Sam. 11:4-27; cf. 23:39).[15]

At this point another event unique to Israel occurred.  Only in Israel could a “commoner” censure the king, but Nathan the commoner-prophet did announce condemnation upon David (II Sam. 12:1-14).  Since the king in Yahweh’s kingdom was not above God’s Law, he too, had to submit to the Law as every other Hebrew.  Moreover, like all other men, the king was a fallen creature with an obvious inclination to sin.  Although David confessed his sin and was forgiven (II Sam. 12:13; Pss. 51 and possibly 32, 38), the rest of his reign would be marred from the “fallout” of his sinful act.  Sins of sex and violence would plague his family (II Sam. 12:10-12).  Since Uriah had lost one loved one, David would lose four loved onesÑall sons (II Sam. 12:6; cf. 12:19; 13:28-29; 18:14-15; I Kings 2:24-25).  Political instability and rebellion would weaken his reign (II Sam. 15-20).

Nowhere else in the ancient world could the king be so censured, especially for a moral wrong, as David was, and certainly nowhere else in the world would it be so publicly condemned as in the royal record of II Samuel.  Outside of Israel and her Law there was no developed sense of sin.  Frankfort notes concerning Egypt:

“The Egyptian viewed his misdeeds not as sins, but as aberrations. . . .It is especially significant that the Egyptians never showed any trace of feeling unworthy of divine mercy.  For he who errs is not a sinner but a fool, and his conversion to a better way of life does not require repentance but a better understanding. . . .The theme of God’s wrath is practically unknown in Egyptian literature; for the Egyptian, in his aberrations, is not a sinner whom God rejects but an ignorant man who is disciplined and corrected.”[16]

Similarly, the ancient Mesopotamians lacked the concept of sin:

 ”While they knew themselves to be subject to the decrees of the gods, they had no reason to believe that these decrees were necessarily just.  Hence their penitential psalms about in confessions of guilt but ignore the sense of sin; they are vibrant with despair but not with contritionÑwith regret but not with repentance.”[17]

It is the same old story.  Paganism, as we saw in the second section of this series, views the fallen universe as “normal”.  Good and evil are correlative of each other.  In the Continuity of Being mankind and the gods alike are corrupt; there is no fall and no future separation of good and evil.  This view plays out in the lack of a sense of sin.  The royal record of David’s reign, therefore, is a “disruption” to the usual royal histories.  The Creator-creature distinction with a real fall, a real Law, and a real future judgment/salvation opposes the pagan leadership ideal.

Although David’s sin and its aftermath dominate the structure of II Samuel, there is a deeper theme of David’s election.  God’s evaluation of David was that he “went fully after Yahweh” (I Kings 11:6; cf. 14:8; 15:3).  The royal record ends with material emphasizing Yahweh’s pleasure in David and his loyalty to Yahweh.  David’s thanksgiving psalm (II Sam. 22 = Ps.)