LITERARY ANALYSIS OF 2 SAMUEL 24:1-25

James M. Pruch Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary May 2012

Literary Features The narrative that concludes 2 Samuel is a sad tale, yet one with a silver lining. To help the reader keep this story in its proper redemptive historical place, the author uses a literary device known as intertextuality. He accomplishes this by reminding the reader of one of the most significant events in Israels history. In the midst of the pestilence plague, when the angel stretches out his hand to destroy Jerusalem, yet God relents and says, It is enough; now stay your hand (v. 16). The reader cannot help but notice the parallel to Genesis 22:11 -12 when God stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son Isaac. For both Abraham and David, the covenantal promises seemed threatened by destruction were it not for Gods merciful response and an alternative sacrifice. The author not only looks back in Israels history to Isaacs sacrifice, but he also anticipates a greater salvation to be worked in the kingdoms future. Within the authors use of intertextuality, he expands on the importance of setting in the narrative. David purchased the threshing floor from Araunah the Jebusite so that he might offer burnt offerings and peace offerings to make atonement and put a stop to the plague (vv. 18-25). According to Genesis 22:2, Mount Moriah is the place where Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac. Second Chronicles 3:1 reveals the location of Araunahs threshing floor is also Mount Moriah, where Solomons temple would be built. This is no mere coincidence. Quoting Raymond Dillard, Waltke writes, At the place where Abraham once held the knife over his Son, David sees the angel of the Lord with sword ready to plunge into Jerusalem...The temple is established there as the place where Israel was perpetually reminded that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin (Heb. 2:22). Death for Isaac and for Davids Jerusalem was averted because the sword of divine justice would ultimately find its mark in the Son of God (Jn. 19:33).1 Thus, 2 Samuel ends with a picture of a future, perfect King whose sacrifice for sin permanently and eternally saves the kingdom. The authors use of intertextuality and setting go beyond finding mere similarities with other stories. Rather, they connect the dots to the metanarrative of Scripture and Gods ultimate purpose in redemption. An Interpretive Problem The most salient interpretive problem in this text is verse 1, Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, Go number Israel and Judah (ESV). This verse sets the stage for the narrative; indeed, it is the reason 2 Samuel ends the way it does. The reader must deal with this tension, and two questions, among others, stand out: 1) Why is God angry? 2) Is God the one who caused David to sin?

Ibid. 1

First, why is God angry? The narrator ignores the reason entirely.2 One explanation for Gods anger may be due to the recent rebellions of Absalom and Sheba that gained public support.3 In the final analysis, the reader cannot know why God is angry and he must trust that the Judge of the world will do right (cf. Gen. 18:25). Often, Scripture does not give definite answer to perplexing scenarios, but rather calls the reader to engage the story and trust that Gods sovereign reasons and purposes are being worked out as intended. Second, is God the cause of Davids sin? No, if cause means the doer of the sin. Yes, however, if cause means the sovereign orchestrator of all events. Second Chronicles has a corresponding narrative of the same event and provides the commentary for the dilemma: Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel (21:1). God chose to punish Israel by allowing Satan to incite David. 4 In other words, God uses Satan as his servant to accomplish his divine purpose in Israel. What is this divine purpose? David, Israels representative king, will make atonement on behalf of all the people, foreshadowing the work of his greater Son, who will atone once for all. Truly, the God of Israel is sovereign and does whatever he pleases (Ps. 115:3; 135:6). Contemporary Theological Principles and Applications Old Testament narratives cannot be divorced from the immediate context in a particular book and the larger context of the whole Bible. If this happens, the reader will glean false theological and applicational principles. Second Samuel 24 may teach the contemporary believer a moral lesson on the danger of pride in personal resources for his identity, present security, or future provision. However, if that is the only lessonor even the primary onethe reader encounters a great problem. The contemporary believer does not share many similarities with David, aside from being human and a sinner. David was king of Israel, corporate representative of Gods people, and a pre-Pentecost believer in God. Though not completely unrelated, Davids sin of pride in numbering Israel is quite different from an American Christian trusting in his bank account for value, worth, comfort, and security. 5 The problem is compounded when the reader realizes the immediate ramifications of his sin are drastically different (i.e. far less significant) than that of Davids. Furthermore, how would a contemporary Christian find a practical application or something to do based on the text? If a Christian takes pride in possessions and distrusts God, the solution is not to do what David did. That would negate the narratives genre and neglect its place in redemptive history. If 2 Samuel 24 is read in its proper redemptive historical context, the timeless theological and applicational principles rise to a much higher scale than simply learning to not have pride in
Ibid. Herbert M. Wolf, 1-2 Samuel, in Evangelical Commentary On the Bible, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), 229. 4 Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 677. 5 David may not have simply been counting the people out of pride or a desire to find security in numbers, but may have desired to determine the strength of the various tribes in order to levy taxes and recruit troops. William Sanford LaSor, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic William Bush, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 185.
3 2

possessions (as important as that is to Christian living). The authors purpose is to draw the reader into the larger story that God has been writing for Israel and will continue to write for his people. Because the Bible is Gods word, authorial intent rests ultimately with him, not the human author. To understand Gods purpose for any particular story then, Christians must ask, Why did God put this story in the Bible? Waltke notes that 2 Samuel 24 teaches the corporate solidarity of Israel with their king: his sin entails their punishment and his penitence entails their healing. 6 The narrative cannot be relegated to any simple moral application. David, as Israels representative king, does not prefigure contemporary Christians who struggle with pride and materialism. Rather, he prefigures Jesus, the greater David, the true representative King of Gods people. Davids sin brings judgment upon Gods people; his atonement satisfies Gods wrath and brings forgiveness. David pleaded with God, Please let your hand be against me and against my fathers house (v. 17b). God, of course, knew better. Had he judged David and Jerusalem immediately, Jesus, Davids greater Son, would not have been born. Davids plea is noble, however, and it shows him as a shepherd-king who desires to lay down his life for his flock. Christ, on the other hand, actually laid down his life for the sheep (John 10:11). Had David given up his life, he would have only been one sinner dying for many. Christ died for sinners as one who is holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens (Heb. 7:26). Davids sacrifice and future sacrifices on Mount Moriah, at the temple, were insufficient for permanent atonement (cf. Heb. 10:3-4). Jesus, however, provides men and women the required righteousness (in his perfect life) and forgiveness (in his substitionary atoning death) in order to be reconciled to God. When the contemporary Christian reads 2 Samuel 24 with this end in mind, as opposed to searching for moral application, his heart is melted by grace and worship arises in his heart. He finds himself in a much larger story than his own seemingly small life. King David indeed teaches a lesson to not trust earthly resources, but the story is designed to leave the reader longing for a perfect king. Jesus is the King that Gods people long for, the one who is worthy of our faith, trust, and hope because he has never turned aside from Gods will. When Christians see the story this way, their response will not be, How can I be like David? or What rule should I follow? Instead, they will ask, Why would I not trust King Jesus with my life? Why would I trust in money, resources, or power when my King has already provided my most important needs? Seeing the story through this lens and asking these kinds of application questions reinforces faith and repentance in Christ, the one who did for us what we, and David, could not do for ourselves.

Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 677. 3

Bibliography LaSor, William Sanford, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic William Bush. Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996. Waltke, Bruce K. with Charles Yu. An Old Testament Theology: an Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007. Wolf, Herbert M. 1-2 Samuel. In Evangelical Commentary On the Bible. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989.