A DAY OF INDEPENDENCE?
 II Samuel 5. 1-16 1 All the tribes of Israel gathered at Hebron and said to David, “We are your own flesh and blood. 2 In the days when Saul ruled, it was you who led Israel on our military campaigns. And YHWH said to you, ‘You will shepherd my people Israel and be our commander of Israel.’” 3 All the elders of Israel came to David at Hebron, and David made a pact with them before YHWH. Then they anointed David ruler of Israel. 4 David was thirty years old and his reign lasted for forty years. 5 He ruled in Hebron in Judah for seven-and-a-half years, and later reigned over all Israel and Judah for thirty-three years in Jerusalem. 6 David and his army took Jerusalem by attacking its inhabitants, the Jebusites. The Jebusites said to David, “You cannot enter here: even the lame and blind will trounce you.” They said this to make it clear that even they could defend the city against David. 7 Nevertheless, David captured the hilltop fortress of Zion, and it is now called the City of David.† 8 David said on that day, “Anyone who conquers the Jebusites will have to use the water tunnel to reach ‘the lame and the blind,’ that is, David’s enemies.” That accounts for the saying, “The lame and the blind will not enter the Temple of YHWH.” 9 So David took the fortress and renamed it “City of David.” He built a wall around it, from the supporting terraces and working inward. 10 And David became more and more powerful, for YHWH was with him. 11 Hiram, the ruler of Tyre, sent envoys to David with gifts of cedar wood, along with carpenters and stonemasons to build a residence for David. 12 Thus David knew that YHWH had established him as ruler and had exalted David’s reign for the sake of the people of Israel. 13 After leaving Hebron, David took more concubines†† and wives in Jerusalem; and many more children were born to the ruler: 14 Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, 16 Elishama, Eliada, and Eliphelet. —Priests for Equality. The Inclusive Bible. Sheed & Ward. ____________________ David becomes the king of the twelve tribes, bringing—in time—the unity of the kingdom. It was, as noted above, all the tribes of Irael who gathered to anoint their new king. The reign of David marks a new chapter in Israel's history, bringing to a close the Saul-as-king-years. Hence, on this day of new beginnings, change would be expected. In fact, the unification of the kingdom was perhaps not only the most significant change, but also the most benevolent. The changes were numerous, however, and not all change was actually new or helpful. Old habits die hard. It is clear that David's coronation sprung from his military victories. The shepherd, now commander in chief, had lead the military to conquest over those who were the enemy. The Philistines, for the most part, were the people with which the Israelites battled. And, of course, the narrative of David and his role in all of this begins in that famous story of his overcoming Goliath with but a single stone launched from his sling. But, Goliath was just the beginning. Many would be the lives lost in battle—both Philistines and Israelites. And, the battles and individual conquest were not only violent, but also quite gruesome. Decapitating someone is not a necessary ingredient of the fight. Severing the head of an enemy is to emphasize the power and control that one wished to acknowledge as the combatant that overpowered the other. It is as if the beheading was more significant than the killing itself. The taking of a head not only proved the kill but boasted of the omnipotence of the victor. Certainly warfare was not uncommon and as Israel's history continues David leads the military into many battles, even when the enemy had become his own son. But, that is getting ahead of ourselves. The point is made and underscored that kingship did not come to David because he was a gifted peacemaker. He surely was ambassador to some of his own tribes, yet when it came to the enemies, the ability of military prowess and lethality is what counted. So, we have a new king but some things just continue like a status quo of cyclic and systematic shadow. As king, David receives wealth. And it is not only the wealth his own combined tribes, and the spoils gained by the conqueror, but as the text informs us: "Hiram, the ruler of Tyre, sent envoys to David with gifts of cedar wood, along with carpenters and stonemasons to build a residence for David." And, quite the building was constructed: royal palace, courtyards, homes, and walls. Does anything seem familiar here? In the psalm for this day the greatness of Jerusalem's raising is so noted: "...the city of YHWH, on God’s holy mountain—beautiful and lofty, the joy of all the earth! Mount Zion, “the heart of the earth,” is the city of the great Ruler. And for all its citadels..." How stunning and impressive those feats of construction must have been. And, while the psalmist clearly attributes this to the God of Israel (i.e. YHWH), walls divide, spires brag, and citadels not only protect but raise a toast to power. David had the means to construct a city and home on ground taken in war with the Jebusites and to make that burg a sight to be seen. But, there is more. There is always need to protect the future of an empire. It was no different for David. Only by perpetuating himself through the birth of children could he ensure that Israel would continue beyond his own life, preferably having a son as the future king. So, David enlists the service of some concubines. Their names are not familiar: "Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, Ibhar, Elishua, Nephe, Japhia, Elishama, Eliada, and Eliphelet." The women are not considered as equal to men in that ancient world, and concubines even less so. Thus, in all reality, the concubines are not so much "in service" to David, but are "enslaved" by David. Therefore, what we have here is a narrative that uplifts a male person, who is powerful, who is wealthy, and who enslaved women. And, all this is years and years before the story turns to Bathsheba, perhaps the epitome of David's injustice. Yes, it was a different world with differing traditions and ways of life, with rituals and cultural expressions that can be rightfully only be understood in that context. In fact, it must be noted how all of this wealth and power and usage of others was—in the minds of the people who told the stories, passing them on from one generation to the next—all a sign from God (i.e. YHWH) that blessing and favor had been found and established. Nevertheless, injustice is injustice, then as it is now, now as it was then. And, to be sure, this is not a word intended for all. There are people in our world who strive for peace, justice, equality, and equity for all in each day. Yet, I find it interesting that this text would fall upon the day that for the United States of America is a celebration of freedom. This is especially so given the place in history we are living now, and within my own lifetime. We as a people, some more so than others, have come to realize that life in our nation and culture are far too often made manifest in the valuation of wealth, the hunger for power, the controlling of others in misogyny, and the denial of racism that has been as American as apple pie since our founding as a people. Still, for each person that would seem to understand those dynamics and be discerning enough to recognize the injustice, there are those who tend to ignore those realities, or even propose that this is the way things are suppose to be. Take, for example, critical race theory (i.e. CRT) and how it is such a point of disagreement. Think for a moment how many times in the last handful of years someone has denied the Holocaust of Jewish people under Germany's Third Reich, denied that there are racist systems at work within our government, education, and access to resources, or denied that women should be paid on the same pay scale as men or disallowed to work in a job that has been traditional a male role. Call to mind the politics involved with the building of a wall at our southern border, the enshrining of the White House within barded-wire fencing, and the handling of peaceful protestors. Remember the violence that has been directed to people of color or the LGBTQ community. We still have people believing that the 2020 election was a fraud, that COVID-19 does not exist, that vaccinating is a government plot to control your mind or body. On this day we can only celebrate our freedom when liberty is truly for everyone. America can only be the land of the free and the home of the brave when courage means deconstructing racism, misogyny, and a host of other injustices. Our nation can only fly its flag as a symbol of who we are as a people if we as a people seek to dismantle all that is wrong with our system of government, economy, education, and healthcare. And, for those who confess to be followers of Jesus, perhaps the first place to start...if you are really serious about what is good and right and moral and blessing...take the American flag out of your worship area. It does not belong there, just as all forms of violence and injustice do not belong in a people of liberty. I share this as the thing I have been wrestling with all week after reading the texts from the lectionary appointed for tomorrow. May peace and justice we for and with all, where all means all. ____________________ † The acceptance of David’s sovereignty united the two realms in the person of David. The two, however, remained distinct, with David’s house sovereign over both. David’s choice of Jerusalem (originally named Salem, and while under Jebusite control, Jebus) as the capital of the two realms was politically astute: Jerusalem was at the border of both Judah and Israel, and neither side had a claim on it. Zion means “signpost” or “monument.” †† A concubine, or pilegesh, was generally a house servant who became the householder’s lover, occasionally just for sex, but most often to bear more children for him. Such children had equal rights with the offspring of the legitimate wife; the chief distinction seems to be that a wife had a higher social status, and received a marriage contract that stipulated a settlement that was payable if her husband died or divorced her, whereas a concubine had few rights but also fewer social penalties. |
