Again the choler of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, stating, ‘Go, number the people of Israel and Judah. ‘ So the male monarch said to Joab and the commanding officers of the ground forces, who were with him, ‘Go through all the folks of Israel, from Dan to Beer-sheba, and take a nose count of the people, so that I may cognize how many there are. ‘ But afterwards, David was stricken to the bosom because he had numbered the people. David said to the Lord, ‘I have sinned greatly in what I have done. ‘ So the Lord sent a plague on Israel from that forenoon until the appointive clip ; and 70 1000 of the people died, from Dan to Beer-sheba ( 2 Samuel 24:1-2, 10, 15 ) .
This paper will demo that, by carry oning the nose count in 2 Samuel 24, David was merely making as he was told and the penalty levied by God was misplaced, as was David ‘s confession of error, despite being entirely God-fearing. A godly direction was given to him and he carried out that directive. He ended up paying for his actions and the apogee of the narrative sees him plunged from the extremum of the highest mountain as a first rate military commanding officer into the deepnesss of the deepest vale as something of a failed politician. So it was that his people would fall with him through the penalty for this ill-forged action. God directed, David obeyed, and his people were tried. God truly was ‘playing God ‘ when he picked up his dart gun and brought decease to 70,000 people because of what he regarded as David ‘s wickedness. But David remained low and compliant to the terminal.
There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay.
Tell us what you need to have done now!
order now
It might look suiting that this paper is being written in 2011 as the UK nose count is conducted, and at that place have been many alterations since the last 1 was taken in 2001. The certification has been geared to capture the kinds of informations that might reflect how life is lived in the UK today, by whom and in what manner. For the historiographer, a nose count holds valuable information and informs about the manner communities live, besides being a societal every bit good as historical papers. Six thousand old ages ago, Babylonians used it to cognize how much nutrient was needed, and the Egyptians used it in the same manner, every bit good as for work force planning and land sharing ( Office for National Statistics, 2011 ) . David ‘s nose count may hold served more as a scorecard for the province of the state, and in today ‘s electronic epoch, one might inquire about the method of entering employed during David ‘s Iron Age, devoid of such taken-for-granted engineering as computing machines and the planetary connectivity of the World Wide Web. David conducted the nose count, and when the consequences were known at the terminal of “ nine months and 20 yearss ” ( 2 Sam. 24:8 ) , he had a clear image of how things stood across the land. There were 12 divisions of generals in the Royal Guard, and each division consisted of 24,000 work forces, giving a sum of 288,000. The 12 princes of the 12 folks housed 12,000 work forces, giving an overall count of 300,000 work forces. 1 Chronicles 21:5 joins the 300,000 to the remainder, giving 1,100,000 in all. Not all of them were of the folk of Judah harmonizing to the writer of Samuel. Levi and Benjamin were non counted because Numbers 1:49 explicitly forbade that Levi should be counted as they were non warriors and Benjamin had become the least of all the folks ( Judg. 21:1-25 ) . No adult females or kids were counted ( Ackroyd, 1977, 230 ) , recommending that this was specifically a militarily calculation.
This event would hold been a mammoth undertaking and non without its jobs. Israel as a state would hold been excessively expansive logistically for a nose count, the geographical extents stretching south-east from Jerusalem, north to Dan, thence towards the seashore and South to Beer-sheba ( 2 Sam. 24:5-7 ) . “ From a twelve semi-nomadic folks slackly bound together in a compact of Confederacy, [ Israel ] had been forged into a powerful political province ” ( Anderson, 1975, 198 ) . It took nine months and 20 yearss to finish, which enabled clip to remain in each topographic point to take the count of “ able-bodied work forces, capable of bearing weaponries ” ( Ackroyd, 1977, 230 ) . During this clip, the proviso of supplies and so on, coupled with equilibrating the demand for equal remainder whilst doing sufficient advancement would, I posit, have been debatable.
The undertaking was undertaken as Judaic political independency waned in c.586 BCE with Judah ‘s expatriate to Babylon ( Halpern, 2001, 57 ) and was, first and foremost, a count of the people. It was written whilst the Royal Court was still working, “ during Solomon ‘s reign to progress his political place, and to laud the laminitis – David – of the dynasty ” ( Halpern, 2001, 57 ) .
It was foremost taken in the eastern portion of the Hebrew land, and advancement was so northerly, as was the instance with David ‘s old military conquerings. The occupation of taking it was delegated to Joab, the ‘commander of the ground forces ‘ ( frequently quoted as such throughout the text ) , with the clear direction “ take a nose count of the people so that I may cognize how many there are ” ( 2 Sam. 24:2b ) . But Joab did non move in the same obedient manner that David did, at first oppugning David ‘s direction ( “ But why does my lord the male monarch privation to make this? ” ( 2 Sam. 24:3b ) ) . David stands house and Joab, as a military subsidiary, conforms ( v.4-5 ) . Here I concur with Bailey ( 1993, 89 ) , where a more likely campaigner for incrimination was Joab, irrespective that David does non advert wholly his failure to finish the nose count. Once more there is grounds of David taking the incrimination for another, something seen in its fullest extent during the mid portion of chapter 24.
That it was used for military intents, authorised in Numbers 26 ( Anderson, 1975, 146 ) is seen through the revenue enhancement that was levied against the people, or where at least an estimation of their wealth was made. Exodus 30 reinforces this with God ‘s direction to Moses: “ When you take a nose count of the Israelites to register them, at enrollment all of them shall give a ransom for their lives to the Lord so that no pestilence may come upon them ” ( Ex. 30:12 ) . Whether it was for revenue enhancement or muster or another intent, the over-arching consideration was that David needed to cognize how many contending work forces he might hold on-hand in the event of offense being laid against him, despite it ne’er being stated explicitly in the text. Although he had conquered wholly enemies by this clip, David still needed a contending force to continue his military standing, and looked to the might of the state to guarantee he could safeguard himself, puting his security and assurance in his ain power, instead than God ‘s. The penalty of God sought to endanger the really safety that David looked to keep, and David thence fell from favor ( 1 Sam. 16 – 2 Sam. 7 ) , recognizing the incorrect he had done. As Wright ( 1993, 88 ) confidants: why would David botch an otherwise good – albeit imperfect – record by disobeying? Bailey ( 1993, 83 ) solidifies Wright by saying that David was “ an guiltless victim, a heroic male monarch who attempts to salvage his land from godly wrath provoked by another. ” As God knew that naming the nose count would “ convey heartache to the people ” ( Alter, 1999, 353 ) , it is God who goes on test here, non David.
That the nose count was commanded by God, harmonizing to 2 Samuel 24:1 is in struggle with the Chronicler ‘s record when he says Satan was the perpetrator ( 1 Chr. 21:1 ) . Did God instruct David or did Satan provoke him, or was there collusion, in order that God could hold some merriment by imposing his wrath against the people? The extended similarity between the two histories leans towards the impression that they are the same happening. The confederacy found in Job, where God and Satan worked together to torture Job, should non use in David ‘s instance, since if his offense was so flagitious, so penalty might hold been expected much earlier, and God ‘s domination over Satan would hold been seen by remarkable and fleet action. I maintain that David was simply making what he was told by God, and he remained reverent right down to his really ain admittance of guilt, albeit misplaced, irrespective of who the arising participant was.
The nose count could hold happened earlier, but the author puts it here to underscore and prefix Solomon constructing the temple and his eventual accession ( Ackroyd, 1977, 229 ) . “ The Deuteronomist sees the history of the period as following a orderly form ” ( Anderson, 1975, 138 ) and “ Israel ‘s ups and downs illustrated the basic theological strong belief of the Deuteronomic historiographer ” ( Anderson, 1975, 138 ) . Despite this ‘neat form ‘ , the author had an urgency to acquire to the bosom of the issue found at the terminal of 2 Samuel, viz. , the edifice of the communion table that would set up the temple. The laying of the land in readying for the temple was the apogee of the narrative found in the first portion of 2 Samuel 24, and, aside from the tests and problems, the pestilences and jobs, David was the King of Israel, the King under God, “ walking in his ways and maintaining his legislative acts, his commandments, his regulations and his testimonies ” ( 1 Kgs. 2:3b ) .
The timing of the narrative may look misplaced, being at the terminal, but the offerings made to the Lord in 2 Samuel 24:25 are grounds of David ‘s obeisance, and show the ups and downs of his life ‘s advancement. His calling ascents steadily until it reaches the extremum, but so falls off as he becomes unstuck, and the author may hold put the events of chapter 24 at the terminal instead than in their correct, chronological context, to remind the reader where David had come from, despite the jobs he faced because of the nose count ( private interview, D Shepherd, 24 March 2011 ) .
The narrative is thematic, but non needfully in order, and this is demonstrated as the author recalls God ‘s wrath being halted in 2 Sam. 24:16b. His direction to the angel “ It is adequate ; now remain your manus ” , comes before David ‘s supplication that God ‘s choler should be directed against him singularly – “ Let your manus, I pray, be against me and against my male parent ‘s house ” ( 2 Sam. 24:17b ) . David ‘s intercession for his people, preceded by his admittance of guilt – “ I entirely have sinned, and I entirely have done evilly ” ( 2 Sam. 24:17b ) – is grounds of David ‘s acquiescence, as he realized how he had angered God with his action.
As Eichrodt ( 1961, 262 ) writes “ The frame work in which the narratives are embedded clearly express the authors ‘ serious unfavorable judgment of the lacks of their heroes. ” In this instance, God is the deficient hero, since he is at odds with Satan ( aggravation ) and improperly call on the carpet a state of people instead than punishing the cause of his repulsion. Further struggle exists as Bergen ( 1996, 474 ) , reveals “ Yahweh exercises rule over all powers and governments ” , and God ‘s penalty of the people instead than the adult male served to show rule and domination in no unsure footings.
The nose count angered Yahweh because there was a deficiency of religion that he would increase the population of Israel ( Halpern, 2001, 336 ) , and, as 2 Samuel dressed ores on slaying, so God ‘s wrath in chapter 24 was brought upon David as requital for more error than the nose count entirely. Was David ‘s wickedness to make with the fact that he carried out a nose count, or was it about the manner in which it was conducted? “ David ‘s wickedness does non lie simply in the fact that he conducted one ; “ God was likely penalizing him for other wrongs excessively ” ( Bergen, 1996, 475 ) . David might hold been compliant, but he may besides hold been nescient, as his ‘blindness to transgress ‘ shows in 2 Samuel 12 with the narrative of Bathsheba.
God incited David to name the nose count cognizing that it would merely convey heartache to the people ( Alter, 1999, 353 ) . Despite David ‘s protestations to God and his intercession that the people should be spared and the penalty levied against him alternatively, the bond between God and David is steadfastly maintained. Because of God ‘s clemency, the penalty was stopped. “ Unlike sanctity or righteousness, wrath ne’er forms one of the lasting properties of the God of Israel ” ( Eichrodt ( 1961, 262 ) . God does non destruct Jerusalem because it holds a particular topographic point for him and is where David lives. God ‘s choler might hold stemmed from the inappropriateness of military power, in which instance Joab comes to the bow one time once more, slightly, as the failed appointee.
God ‘s judgement is painful but necessary, showing his authorization and power over all things. Given the scope of penalties available from God, be it the seven old ages famine, the three yearss war or three yearss plague, David ‘s confusion at why the people are to be punished is good founded. “ Let us fall into the manus of the Lord, for his clemency is great ” ( 2 Sam. 24:14b ) . David ‘s inclusive linguistic communication here is at odds with his personal confession and entreaty for damages found in 24:10 and repeated in 24:17. God ‘s disillusion with David was reflected in the unknown type of pestilence that he sent upon the people, go forthing David broken-spirited yet resting in the clemency of God.
From a renegade to a provincial leader to the King of Israel, David was a proud male monarch who had control over his people, and when it came to the nose count, he was merely making as he was told. Conducting it was “ against the advice of his counselors ” ( Anderson, 1975, 183 ) , and God blamed David and should hold punished him, non the people. ‘Let me fall ‘ instead than ‘let us fall. ‘ Holman-Hunt ‘s picture ‘Scapegoat ‘ illustrates the distance that God apparently exhibited towards the people, doing them the footing for his choler instead than David as the instrument of his Godhead bid.
If the nose count was so incorrect and David ‘s wickedness so calculated and far-reaching, so the fact that God did non move instantly showed the bond between them, solidifying the kingship that they each had, one earthly, one transcendent. David was a Devout adult male and did nil more than he was told to make. This action, or the manner it was carried out, enraged God sufficiently that he invoked a penalty on David ‘s people. By making so, he reaffirmed that he entirely was powerful and Godhead, non David or anyone else. By faulting David for his error and penalizing his people for it, he emphasised the centrality of the Godhead and reminded others of their topographic point.
I contend that this whole episode was an issue between God and David, without other intercession. As Wright ( 1993, 90 ) says, if the nose count was “ negative and evil, a title meriting an angel of decease ” , so why did God let it? “ Solomon continue [ vitamin D ] the Davidic policy of nose counts ” ( Wright, 1993, 91 ) , but was non punished. Indeed, his nose count enables work force planning, merely as the Egyptians had done, in order to construct the temple.
My instance in this paper is farther established by Wright ‘s ( 1993, 98 ) averment that “ God was incorrect and David was used ” , with the reader ‘s understandings “ more for David and the nose count than for Joab ” , the merely other possible rival in this doomed quandary. Joab emerges as the one against whom God is most displeased, and, as Bailey ( 1993, 84 ) says “ It is really Joab ‘s refusal to finish the enumeration of Israel that attracts God ‘s wrath ” . Wright ( 1993, 100 ) goes on: “ the duty for Israel ‘s predicament is non David ‘s. ”
In his response to Wright, Bailey ( 1993, 84 ) purports that “ the nose count is an appropriate response to a military menace and no incrimination ( my accent ) attaches to David because of his bid. ”
David was a adult male after God ‘s ain bosom ( 1 Sam. 13:14 ) , one who “ did non turn aside from anything that [ God ] commanded him ” ( Rogerson and Davies, 2005, 67 ) . I agree with Bailey ( 1993, 86 ) in his go oning response to Wright, when he says “ David is accountable for his ain public presentation ” , but I maintain that David was still merely making as he was told, and ended up the whipping boy because of the weaknesss of another.
As can be seen in many of the vocals of congratulations and Thanksgiving, David remained true to God in every manner. He did non name the nose count. He complied with instructions. He fell foul to the awkwardness of others. He put his caput on the block and was tried. But he stayed true to God, “ for his steadfast love endures everlastingly ” ( Ps. 136:1b and repeated throughout ) .
