I love this finding of Jesus in this troubling story of vengeance and violence, Jesus taking the violence upon himself and moving us toward seeing Christ in everyone!
How is not obvious that the Amalekite was lying about killing Saul? Especially since the Philistines took their corpses and used them as evidence as to the power of their idols.
But Jesus is an Amalekite now? This is a great demonstration of how destructive and relativistic Christianity is that they would rather embrace idolatry than call evil by its name.
II Samuel 2 even has David thanking the residents of Jabesh-gilead for the service they did for in retrieving the bodies buttressing the veracity of the first account.
Thanks for your comment. I don’t think it’s that obvious, but that’s a helpful contribution to the discussion.
I was really drawing parallels between Saul and Jesus, not Jesus and the Amalekite. However, we can see Jesus in the Amalekite as we can see Jesus in all cases where blood is shed. In committing violence to “the least of these” we do it unto the Christ.
You say "Jesus is in the slain Amalekite." Call me crazy but I took that to mean Jesus is in the slain Amalekite.
It strikes me as irresponsible obfuscation of the text to make Jesus omnipresent and it most certainly a form of eisegesis to disregard the example in II Samuel 12 when God says why he is displeased with David after he has Uriah killed. Before that Hashem said that he would like to build a house for David in his lineage that will be set up for eternity but you say that it is because of the slain Amalekite. That is not how the story goes. Or in Chronicles when just a couple sentences later in the example you provide --Solomon is referred to as the Son of God.
And the use of the word "pierced" is interesting because Christians perform similar parlor trick scholarship to say that Psalm 22 is foreshadowing Jesus and the Gospel has him say the Psalm during the crucifixion but he was wise enough then to pray to God. There is a mistranslation of the word for "like a lion" in Hebrew which matches well with the animal motif in the rest of the Psalm. Wave your hand with "3" and that's supposed to erase entire chapters from Samuel -- pull a rabbit from the false bottom in the hat with "anoint" and abracadabra: Jesus
The "cycle of violence" is such a tired cliche. Solomon's reign was pacific because David contended with both the Amalekites and the Philistines -- never mind the civil war between his house and the house of Saul.
It's like a form of anti-literacy to read this exposition. You neglected the entire funeral dirge in the second half of the Chapter that gives another beautiful glimpse at perhaps the best song writer the world has ever known. You may as well take the entire corpus of all the prophets, the Torah, and the writings and paper it all over with one Roman derived name. This is why David himself warns us not to put trust in princes nor in the son of man -- in whom there is no help. It's a monomania that makes distinct people, things, events, ideas -- all indistinguishable from each other and like the Grecian generals argue in Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida Act 1 Scene 3...that is when everything devolves into violence. And both Micah and Isaiah tell us that the arrival of the Messiah will usher in an end to warfare.
"The primary object of every intelligent person must be to deny the corporeality of God." Maimonides
"Mock not flesh and blood with solemn reverence." Richard II in Shakespeare's play of the same name.
Jesus is in the slain Amalekite just as Jesus is in the slain Palestinian, Israeli, Ukrainian, and Russian. Jesus is omnipresent in both Scripture and the world because he is the Logos of God. As our Rabbi, Jesus invites us into the Scriptures to read Moses, the psalms, and prophets with the understanding that they are all about him.
Since I wasn't writing a commentary on 2 Samuel and just reflecting on a class project, I didn't feel compelled to go into all the details. If Jesus can be the Rock in the wilderness, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10, then I don't think it far fetched to see shadows of the cross in 2 Samuel 1.
But you are welcome to disagree. This space is made better by your presence because diversity is needed for mutual growth. Thank you.
You said that Jesus brought the violence to a screeching halt which is one of the necessary prerequisites for the Messiah according to Isaiah and Micah and yet you outlined all of the wars on the planet right now neglecting India & Pakistan, the Christians being brutalized in Africa and the Yazidis in the Middle East in addition to every other armed conflict I’ve forgotten —to say nothing of all the intervening conflicts since the time of the crucifixion & then destruction of the Second Temple. The swords have not become pruning hooks.
Setting aside the fact that Jesus is not the Messiah. Your interpretation deadens the story. What about Jonathan’s love for David and his loyalty? He warned David about Saul’s plans to have him killed. David had two opportunities to kill Saul and once just cut his cloak and the other stole a couple items from him and then shouted from a distance.
It strikes me as dangerous idolatry to flatten a rich and complex narrative to the point of absurdity — where we have to pretend that Samuel doesn’t say that God is not a man because he is capable of seeing what’s in your heart. Ye that is precisely what he said. Which is the whole point of Saul constantly telling David one thing and then speaking of his evil machinations in his heart throughout 1 Samuel. And yet David keeps returning to Saul’s side to ease his suffering and dodge all the spears that he attempts to impale him with.
And God’s opposition to the establishment of the monarchy and Samuel’s warning to the people if they did establish one adds another delicious element to a story that is made so cheap by a blurring omnipresence of someone that’s not there.
You can see it in how you began with making no distinctions between the lines of battle in the present day. It would seem that the influence this Jesus fellow has had over you is to make you incapable recognizing morality or unable to see that there is a good and evil — other than a strange suicidal empathy— of allowing your enemy to kill you. Which is why Orwell would state in a famous essay that “pacifism is objectively pro fascist.” Isaiah 5 warns of the woe to follow on the man that will make no distinctions between lightness and dark, and good and evil.
What Isaiah says is that Israel is the suffering servant —several times— but people won’t read Isaiah because it is sixty chapters long much like I’m afraid people won’t read the two books of Samuel because your proposition is that they can be summarized by saying one name in nauseous repetition. Or is they do read Isaiah they will only read Chapters 7, 11, and 53.
What’s interesting is that Ukrainian intellectuals in the 1800s often compared themselves to ancient Israel in that they were stuck in a wild civilizational fulcrum.
I don’t trust Paul. He lied about how the Law was handed down to Moses. It’s easy to check if one just reads Exodus.
I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks for taking the time to write out such extended responses.
I’m sorry you don’t think Jesus is the Messiah and that you distrust Paul. A lot of people distrust Paul, even fellow Christians I’m very good friends with.
I’m also sorry I didn’t take the time to write a commentary on Jewish history, but I don’t feel obligated to explain the purpose of this post to you. Those who understand my background and regularly engage in this page get it, and I’m content with that.
It’s my prayer that you’ll learn to distinguish the difference between an exhaustive commentary on 2 Samuel and a short summary of a fifteen minute small group exercise at a college retreat. Once you learn how to do that, you might not come off so angry for no reason.
Yet despite all this, Jesus loves you, and just as the cycle of violence came to a stop with him as he laid bare the principalities and powers, the cycle of violence can stop with each of us when we reject both violence and pacifism by engaging in radical nonviolence of sacrificial love.
Ending the cycle of violence is not a tired cliche. Perpetuating violence to stop violence is. It hasn’t worked in all of human history, and it won’t work now. One of the sins of the Church is rejecting Jesus’s demand of self sacrifice and taking up the sword just to perish by the sword.
God bless. Feel free to respond, but I’ve said all I needed to say in this thread.
Angry for no reason? Who wouldn’t be angry when a good story is ruined? I would say that my reaction was much more frustrated than angry. But to be fair I have been described by detractors euphemistically as “earthy” and dogs barks as I walk by them so I’m sure I exude something indignant.
All I see throughout scripture is that the burden of the word of The Lord (not Jesus —but the Transcendent Creator of the Cosmos and Author at Horeb that helped Moses with 5 books) is on Israel. I try to do my part to lessen that burden. Paul says in Galatians that angels handed down those 5 books but that’s not true. Paul stands in opposition to the ritual law and if anyone actually read Samuel they would find out that a real Navi advises against that. It’s not about what I think when it comes to Jesus not being the Messiah. It’s about what’s written and no one is going to see what’s written if obfuscatory material like your little essay continues with its hazardous antinomian syncretism.
But I suppose I come off as being a (expletive deleted) but I’m the son of a Priest — used as a curse in Gogol’s “Dead Souls” —-so I’m obviously out of my gourd😂
Olive branch extended — if you don’t mind an olive branch with some leafy vituperations
I love this finding of Jesus in this troubling story of vengeance and violence, Jesus taking the violence upon himself and moving us toward seeing Christ in everyone!
We have been given such a wonderful gift in Christ! You told us we would be included in your advanced studies, this is an example, thanks for sharing.
Thank you so much, Travis. There is more to come!
How is not obvious that the Amalekite was lying about killing Saul? Especially since the Philistines took their corpses and used them as evidence as to the power of their idols.
But Jesus is an Amalekite now? This is a great demonstration of how destructive and relativistic Christianity is that they would rather embrace idolatry than call evil by its name.
II Samuel 2 even has David thanking the residents of Jabesh-gilead for the service they did for in retrieving the bodies buttressing the veracity of the first account.
Thanks for your comment. I don’t think it’s that obvious, but that’s a helpful contribution to the discussion.
I was really drawing parallels between Saul and Jesus, not Jesus and the Amalekite. However, we can see Jesus in the Amalekite as we can see Jesus in all cases where blood is shed. In committing violence to “the least of these” we do it unto the Christ.
You say "Jesus is in the slain Amalekite." Call me crazy but I took that to mean Jesus is in the slain Amalekite.
It strikes me as irresponsible obfuscation of the text to make Jesus omnipresent and it most certainly a form of eisegesis to disregard the example in II Samuel 12 when God says why he is displeased with David after he has Uriah killed. Before that Hashem said that he would like to build a house for David in his lineage that will be set up for eternity but you say that it is because of the slain Amalekite. That is not how the story goes. Or in Chronicles when just a couple sentences later in the example you provide --Solomon is referred to as the Son of God.
And the use of the word "pierced" is interesting because Christians perform similar parlor trick scholarship to say that Psalm 22 is foreshadowing Jesus and the Gospel has him say the Psalm during the crucifixion but he was wise enough then to pray to God. There is a mistranslation of the word for "like a lion" in Hebrew which matches well with the animal motif in the rest of the Psalm. Wave your hand with "3" and that's supposed to erase entire chapters from Samuel -- pull a rabbit from the false bottom in the hat with "anoint" and abracadabra: Jesus
The "cycle of violence" is such a tired cliche. Solomon's reign was pacific because David contended with both the Amalekites and the Philistines -- never mind the civil war between his house and the house of Saul.
It's like a form of anti-literacy to read this exposition. You neglected the entire funeral dirge in the second half of the Chapter that gives another beautiful glimpse at perhaps the best song writer the world has ever known. You may as well take the entire corpus of all the prophets, the Torah, and the writings and paper it all over with one Roman derived name. This is why David himself warns us not to put trust in princes nor in the son of man -- in whom there is no help. It's a monomania that makes distinct people, things, events, ideas -- all indistinguishable from each other and like the Grecian generals argue in Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida Act 1 Scene 3...that is when everything devolves into violence. And both Micah and Isaiah tell us that the arrival of the Messiah will usher in an end to warfare.
"The primary object of every intelligent person must be to deny the corporeality of God." Maimonides
"Mock not flesh and blood with solemn reverence." Richard II in Shakespeare's play of the same name.
Jesus is in the slain Amalekite just as Jesus is in the slain Palestinian, Israeli, Ukrainian, and Russian. Jesus is omnipresent in both Scripture and the world because he is the Logos of God. As our Rabbi, Jesus invites us into the Scriptures to read Moses, the psalms, and prophets with the understanding that they are all about him.
Since I wasn't writing a commentary on 2 Samuel and just reflecting on a class project, I didn't feel compelled to go into all the details. If Jesus can be the Rock in the wilderness, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10, then I don't think it far fetched to see shadows of the cross in 2 Samuel 1.
But you are welcome to disagree. This space is made better by your presence because diversity is needed for mutual growth. Thank you.
You said that Jesus brought the violence to a screeching halt which is one of the necessary prerequisites for the Messiah according to Isaiah and Micah and yet you outlined all of the wars on the planet right now neglecting India & Pakistan, the Christians being brutalized in Africa and the Yazidis in the Middle East in addition to every other armed conflict I’ve forgotten —to say nothing of all the intervening conflicts since the time of the crucifixion & then destruction of the Second Temple. The swords have not become pruning hooks.
Setting aside the fact that Jesus is not the Messiah. Your interpretation deadens the story. What about Jonathan’s love for David and his loyalty? He warned David about Saul’s plans to have him killed. David had two opportunities to kill Saul and once just cut his cloak and the other stole a couple items from him and then shouted from a distance.
It strikes me as dangerous idolatry to flatten a rich and complex narrative to the point of absurdity — where we have to pretend that Samuel doesn’t say that God is not a man because he is capable of seeing what’s in your heart. Ye that is precisely what he said. Which is the whole point of Saul constantly telling David one thing and then speaking of his evil machinations in his heart throughout 1 Samuel. And yet David keeps returning to Saul’s side to ease his suffering and dodge all the spears that he attempts to impale him with.
And God’s opposition to the establishment of the monarchy and Samuel’s warning to the people if they did establish one adds another delicious element to a story that is made so cheap by a blurring omnipresence of someone that’s not there.
You can see it in how you began with making no distinctions between the lines of battle in the present day. It would seem that the influence this Jesus fellow has had over you is to make you incapable recognizing morality or unable to see that there is a good and evil — other than a strange suicidal empathy— of allowing your enemy to kill you. Which is why Orwell would state in a famous essay that “pacifism is objectively pro fascist.” Isaiah 5 warns of the woe to follow on the man that will make no distinctions between lightness and dark, and good and evil.
What Isaiah says is that Israel is the suffering servant —several times— but people won’t read Isaiah because it is sixty chapters long much like I’m afraid people won’t read the two books of Samuel because your proposition is that they can be summarized by saying one name in nauseous repetition. Or is they do read Isaiah they will only read Chapters 7, 11, and 53.
What’s interesting is that Ukrainian intellectuals in the 1800s often compared themselves to ancient Israel in that they were stuck in a wild civilizational fulcrum.
I don’t trust Paul. He lied about how the Law was handed down to Moses. It’s easy to check if one just reads Exodus.
I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks for taking the time to write out such extended responses.
I’m sorry you don’t think Jesus is the Messiah and that you distrust Paul. A lot of people distrust Paul, even fellow Christians I’m very good friends with.
I’m also sorry I didn’t take the time to write a commentary on Jewish history, but I don’t feel obligated to explain the purpose of this post to you. Those who understand my background and regularly engage in this page get it, and I’m content with that.
It’s my prayer that you’ll learn to distinguish the difference between an exhaustive commentary on 2 Samuel and a short summary of a fifteen minute small group exercise at a college retreat. Once you learn how to do that, you might not come off so angry for no reason.
Yet despite all this, Jesus loves you, and just as the cycle of violence came to a stop with him as he laid bare the principalities and powers, the cycle of violence can stop with each of us when we reject both violence and pacifism by engaging in radical nonviolence of sacrificial love.
Ending the cycle of violence is not a tired cliche. Perpetuating violence to stop violence is. It hasn’t worked in all of human history, and it won’t work now. One of the sins of the Church is rejecting Jesus’s demand of self sacrifice and taking up the sword just to perish by the sword.
God bless. Feel free to respond, but I’ve said all I needed to say in this thread.
Angry for no reason? Who wouldn’t be angry when a good story is ruined? I would say that my reaction was much more frustrated than angry. But to be fair I have been described by detractors euphemistically as “earthy” and dogs barks as I walk by them so I’m sure I exude something indignant.
All I see throughout scripture is that the burden of the word of The Lord (not Jesus —but the Transcendent Creator of the Cosmos and Author at Horeb that helped Moses with 5 books) is on Israel. I try to do my part to lessen that burden. Paul says in Galatians that angels handed down those 5 books but that’s not true. Paul stands in opposition to the ritual law and if anyone actually read Samuel they would find out that a real Navi advises against that. It’s not about what I think when it comes to Jesus not being the Messiah. It’s about what’s written and no one is going to see what’s written if obfuscatory material like your little essay continues with its hazardous antinomian syncretism.
But I suppose I come off as being a (expletive deleted) but I’m the son of a Priest — used as a curse in Gogol’s “Dead Souls” —-so I’m obviously out of my gourd😂
Olive branch extended — if you don’t mind an olive branch with some leafy vituperations
Olive branch received. 🙏