May 14, 1999
Continuing the scene from the letter two weeks ago (2 Sam.19), we have arrived at the point where the Two Houses meet at the fords of the Jordan. Did love and mutual cooperation unite the two brothers, and did they bring the king back together to Jerusalem? Oh no! Having David as their king was not enough! The old old story of resentment and jealousy immediately irrupted. A remnant from the northern tribes, as we mentioned previously, went down in humiliation to invite the king back. From this we may infer that they did not humble themselves, but rather that they had “egg on their faces” and were embarrassed by the defeat of Absalom, their chosen leader. Their only alternative was possibly to select another king. The defeat was extremely degrading, not because David's army was more powerful and clever, but because the forests of Ephraim claimed more lives than did the actual fighting. This may have caused them to deduce that Elohim's hand was in the matter, therefore they had no alternative but to reinstate David. What's more, Absalom, their leader, was also “overcome” by a large oak tree, as he hung by his head and long hair in its branches (2 Sam.18:9). In scripture trees are sometimes connected to Elohim's righteousness: "That they may be called trees of righteousness, the planting of YHVH, that He may be glorified" (Isa. 61:3). In our day and age, many leaders in the Church system are also finding these oak trees dangerous, especially the longer the "hair" of self-exaltation, or self-glorification is.
After their defeat, the tribes of Israel all fled to their own tents (congregations), and spent the time disputing, arguing and quarreling amongst themselves (2 Sam.19:9-10). What were they fighting over? They had remembered how David delivered them from their enemies, and saved them time and time again from the hand of the Philistines. But they could not understand why he would flee and leave them alone, under the rule of a rebellious son. Did they have a choice in the matter, could they have stood up and opposed this would-be leader? Instead, they had chosen to serve Absalom whole-heartedly, and were even willing to fight against some of David's faithful servants. (Is this reminiscent of Church history?) However, after the defeat, a remnant of them decided to go and ask the king to return. But lo and behold, the king ignored their request. (2 Sam. 19:10-11)! These perplexed Israelites were further embarrassed when David sent for Judah to come down to Gilgal. Judah, than, quite typically, resented that fact that the Israelites were there.
Please take note of the following small, but yet moving, episode (v.16-20). When the time came for David to cross over, a repentant man by the name of Shimei (root of "to listen") of “Benjamin, from the house of Joseph,” along with other of Saul's servants, went with Judah. This group of Benjamites was made up of those who were mocking, cursing and throwing stones at David when he left Jerusalem, (2 Sam. 16:5-8). However, now they were truly repentant, and "rushed down to the Jordan and brought across all the king's household, and did what was right in the eyes of the king". This small company of Benjamites, ("listeners" from the "son of the right hand") of the house of Joseph (v 20), were not only the first to see the king of Israel, but were also the ones to experience his heart first hand.
Meanwhile, more and more of the Israelites were coming down to watch the procession crossing the Jordan. Their internal quarreling had stopped, but now they were incensed with Judah. When the latter escorted the king across the river, the jealousy of Ephraim (Israel) finally broiled to the surface. "Then all Israel came to the king and said, 'why has our brothers from Judah stolen you away, and brought the king and his household and all David's men with him over the Jordan?'" (2 Sam 19:41). Ephraim did not want to be left out, or should I say, pushed out, or be bullied out by His older brother. So, he lodged his complaint: "that’s not fair! It was my idea in the first place to bring the king back!" (v. 43); a mere logical conclusion, right? Unfortunately, Ephraim’s sense of inferiority demanded a touch of favoritism, and measure of recognition. Having failed in his attempt to get his way, he flared up in anger.
What was Judah’s reply to this emotional attack? "… The king is a close relative of ours. Why then are you angry over this matter? Have we ever eaten at the king's expense? Or has he given us any gift?" (2 Sam 19:42). Does this response have anything to do with Ephraim's complain? Poor Ephraim, always outwitted by his Jewish brother! Indeed, there did not seem to be any favoritism on the king’s part toward Judah, yet Ephraim's hurt feelings of pride, jealousy and anger surfaced, and not altogether without reason. Judah was not willing to walk with that remnant of Israel to escort David across the Jordan. In fact, Ephraim's very presence, as already pointed out, gave rise to Judah's contempt. Still confused over Judah’s remarks, Ephraim made his next mistake by a business-like approach: “And the men of Israel answered the men of Judah, and said, 'we have ten shares in the king; therefore we also have more right to David than you. why then do you despise us?’" (2 Sam 19:43). We have ten shares in the king, they boasted. “Big deal!” So what's that to Judah? He can take his two shares and make them into one hundred before Ephraim even begins to think about investments. “Yet the words of the men of Judah were fiercer than the words of the men of Israel"(2 Sam 19:43). The argument must have been quite intense, but the lion's roar won over the conflict, and left Israel even more frustrated and devastated. Thus, their only recourse was to disassociate themselves from Judah. With these words they were going to teach Judah a lesson: "We have no share in David, nor do we have inheritance in the son of Jesse; Every man to his tents, O Israel.” Bear in mind that this all took place in front of the returning king.
Following this, they found themselves another leader, a worthless man, a Benjamite. This was just like Ephraim, who, when rejecting Judah's legitimate position of leadership in the family, always ends up with leaders who will be happy to take him up every mountain, as long as it is not Mount Zion. (see Eze 34).
Today, as back then, a remnant of the lost sheep of the House of Israel has been longing for the return of the Messiah, waiting at the fords of the Jordan for Him. But lo, here comes the Judeans, the natural branch, kinsmen of the Messiah. They have “gotten their act together” and they are coming down as "one man" to Gilgal.
What will happen this time? Will the New Covenant love, the Torah written on the heart win out? Will Ephraim call out: “let us return to Zion,” or will he call out "we have no share in David, nor do we have an inheritance in the son of Jesse, every man to his tents, O Israel"?. Will Judah continue to persist in their rejection, and despise Ephraim's presence and newly-found identity? We don't need your help in bringing the King back, nor do we need you to return to the land! THIS LAND HAS BEEN GIVE US AS A POSSESSION!" (see Ezk. 11:15).
Will the two brothers love one another, and accept each other’s role in this chosen generation in the family of Jacob, in the family that has been called to become a royal priesthood and a holy nation; the one new man, the first fruit of the new creation, a light to the nations? Or will their testimony to the nations continue to be enmity, strife, jealousy, resentment, hatred and divisiveness?
Redeemed of the Lord, from Ephraim and Judah, if we do not accept God's prophetic plan, which has been summed up in the New Covenant, and repent of these ancient attitudes, our eventual togetherness and unity will come forth only as a result of the following warning: "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent”(Rev.3:19).
Ephraim
Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together (shevet achim) in unity…in this God commands the blessing life eternal" (Ps. 133)
Continuing the scene from the letter two weeks ago (2 Sam.19), we have arrived at the point where the Two Houses meet at the fords of the Jordan. Did love and mutual cooperation unite the two brothers, and did they bring the king back together to Jerusalem? Oh no! Having David as their king was not enough! The old old story of resentment and jealousy immediately irrupted. A remnant from the northern tribes, as we mentioned previously, went down in humiliation to invite the king back. From this we may infer that they did not humble themselves, but rather that they had “egg on their faces” and were embarrassed by the defeat of Absalom, their chosen leader. Their only alternative was possibly to select another king. The defeat was extremely degrading, not because David's army was more powerful and clever, but because the forests of Ephraim claimed more lives than did the actual fighting. This may have caused them to deduce that Elohim's hand was in the matter, therefore they had no alternative but to reinstate David. What's more, Absalom, their leader, was also “overcome” by a large oak tree, as he hung by his head and long hair in its branches (2 Sam.18:9). In scripture trees are sometimes connected to Elohim's righteousness: "That they may be called trees of righteousness, the planting of YHVH, that He may be glorified" (Isa. 61:3). In our day and age, many leaders in the Church system are also finding these oak trees dangerous, especially the longer the "hair" of self-exaltation, or self-glorification is.
After their defeat, the tribes of Israel all fled to their own tents (congregations), and spent the time disputing, arguing and quarreling amongst themselves (2 Sam.19:9-10). What were they fighting over? They had remembered how David delivered them from their enemies, and saved them time and time again from the hand of the Philistines. But they could not understand why he would flee and leave them alone, under the rule of a rebellious son. Did they have a choice in the matter, could they have stood up and opposed this would-be leader? Instead, they had chosen to serve Absalom whole-heartedly, and were even willing to fight against some of David's faithful servants. (Is this reminiscent of Church history?) However, after the defeat, a remnant of them decided to go and ask the king to return. But lo and behold, the king ignored their request. (2 Sam. 19:10-11)! These perplexed Israelites were further embarrassed when David sent for Judah to come down to Gilgal. Judah, than, quite typically, resented that fact that the Israelites were there.
Please take note of the following small, but yet moving, episode (v.16-20). When the time came for David to cross over, a repentant man by the name of Shimei (root of "to listen") of “Benjamin, from the house of Joseph,” along with other of Saul's servants, went with Judah. This group of Benjamites was made up of those who were mocking, cursing and throwing stones at David when he left Jerusalem, (2 Sam. 16:5-8). However, now they were truly repentant, and "rushed down to the Jordan and brought across all the king's household, and did what was right in the eyes of the king". This small company of Benjamites, ("listeners" from the "son of the right hand") of the house of Joseph (v 20), were not only the first to see the king of Israel, but were also the ones to experience his heart first hand.
Meanwhile, more and more of the Israelites were coming down to watch the procession crossing the Jordan. Their internal quarreling had stopped, but now they were incensed with Judah. When the latter escorted the king across the river, the jealousy of Ephraim (Israel) finally broiled to the surface. "Then all Israel came to the king and said, 'why has our brothers from Judah stolen you away, and brought the king and his household and all David's men with him over the Jordan?'" (2 Sam 19:41). Ephraim did not want to be left out, or should I say, pushed out, or be bullied out by His older brother. So, he lodged his complaint: "that’s not fair! It was my idea in the first place to bring the king back!" (v. 43); a mere logical conclusion, right? Unfortunately, Ephraim’s sense of inferiority demanded a touch of favoritism, and measure of recognition. Having failed in his attempt to get his way, he flared up in anger.
What was Judah’s reply to this emotional attack? "… The king is a close relative of ours. Why then are you angry over this matter? Have we ever eaten at the king's expense? Or has he given us any gift?" (2 Sam 19:42). Does this response have anything to do with Ephraim's complain? Poor Ephraim, always outwitted by his Jewish brother! Indeed, there did not seem to be any favoritism on the king’s part toward Judah, yet Ephraim's hurt feelings of pride, jealousy and anger surfaced, and not altogether without reason. Judah was not willing to walk with that remnant of Israel to escort David across the Jordan. In fact, Ephraim's very presence, as already pointed out, gave rise to Judah's contempt. Still confused over Judah’s remarks, Ephraim made his next mistake by a business-like approach: “And the men of Israel answered the men of Judah, and said, 'we have ten shares in the king; therefore we also have more right to David than you. why then do you despise us?’" (2 Sam 19:43). We have ten shares in the king, they boasted. “Big deal!” So what's that to Judah? He can take his two shares and make them into one hundred before Ephraim even begins to think about investments. “Yet the words of the men of Judah were fiercer than the words of the men of Israel"(2 Sam 19:43). The argument must have been quite intense, but the lion's roar won over the conflict, and left Israel even more frustrated and devastated. Thus, their only recourse was to disassociate themselves from Judah. With these words they were going to teach Judah a lesson: "We have no share in David, nor do we have inheritance in the son of Jesse; Every man to his tents, O Israel.” Bear in mind that this all took place in front of the returning king.
Following this, they found themselves another leader, a worthless man, a Benjamite. This was just like Ephraim, who, when rejecting Judah's legitimate position of leadership in the family, always ends up with leaders who will be happy to take him up every mountain, as long as it is not Mount Zion. (see Eze 34).
Today, as back then, a remnant of the lost sheep of the House of Israel has been longing for the return of the Messiah, waiting at the fords of the Jordan for Him. But lo, here comes the Judeans, the natural branch, kinsmen of the Messiah. They have “gotten their act together” and they are coming down as "one man" to Gilgal.
What will happen this time? Will the New Covenant love, the Torah written on the heart win out? Will Ephraim call out: “let us return to Zion,” or will he call out "we have no share in David, nor do we have an inheritance in the son of Jesse, every man to his tents, O Israel"?. Will Judah continue to persist in their rejection, and despise Ephraim's presence and newly-found identity? We don't need your help in bringing the King back, nor do we need you to return to the land! THIS LAND HAS BEEN GIVE US AS A POSSESSION!" (see Ezk. 11:15).
Will the two brothers love one another, and accept each other’s role in this chosen generation in the family of Jacob, in the family that has been called to become a royal priesthood and a holy nation; the one new man, the first fruit of the new creation, a light to the nations? Or will their testimony to the nations continue to be enmity, strife, jealousy, resentment, hatred and divisiveness?
Redeemed of the Lord, from Ephraim and Judah, if we do not accept God's prophetic plan, which has been summed up in the New Covenant, and repent of these ancient attitudes, our eventual togetherness and unity will come forth only as a result of the following warning: "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent”(Rev.3:19).
Ephraim
Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together (shevet achim) in unity…in this God commands the blessing life eternal" (Ps. 133)
No comments:
Post a Comment