CHOOSING YOUR FATE (II SAMUEL 24:10-17; II KINGS 13:14-19)

In one sense, we all are free to chose our ultimate fate, and this is expressed in several ways in the Old Testament using statements such as “Chose this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15) and “I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Chose life so that you and your descendants may live.” (Deuteronomy 30:19). However, there are two unique instances in the OT in which kings are given choices by God through prophets regarding their future fate and the fate of the nation. The first example involves a choice between punishments, while the second one involves future opportunities.

David and the Census (II Samuel 24:10-17 // I Chronicles 21:7-17)

I don't want to deal in this short essay with the major issues of concern regarding these parallel passages, namely (1) the question regarding who actually tempted David, God or Satan and (2) the reason why taking a census was a sin in the first place. Instead, I would like to concentrate on the upshot of David's action, which caused God's judgment to fall on him and his kingdom. God, through the prophet Gad, gives David the choice of (1) three years of famine, (2) three months of fleeing from his foes, or (3) three days of plague. Youngblood points out that when God says he is “giving” David three options, the Hebrew word used literally means “laying upon” or “burdening with.” This is an appropriate description to use for such a life and death decision.

Before we get too far, it is first necessary to deal with a textual issue. The standard Hebrew text of II Samuel 24:13 actually reads “seven years of famine” in place of “three years.” In favor of that reading, it is the one preferred by the much later writer Josephus. In addition, Tsumura points to the parallels with seven years of famine in Genesis 41:30 and II Kings 8:1.

But in favor of “three years” instead is the combined witness of the parallel passage in I Chronicles 21, the Septuagint version, and the similar three years of famine experienced in II Samuel 21:1. Williamson expresses the opinion that “in several matters of detail the Chronicler's text has been better preserved, that of Sam. being usually emended in such cases to conform with it.” Whether or not Williamson is correct in his assessment, most modern translations use “three” in place of “seven” in II Samuel 24. After all, from a literary point of view, three options having the number “three” in front makes a lot more sense than including another number in the series. Several commentators note that the briefer punishments are the more severe ones.

However, there is one way to harmonize the Hebrew text with the other witnesses, and that is taken by Tsumura. “It seems that while the Books of Samuel reflect the epic style that adopts the perfect number 'seven' to describe a severe famine (cf. Gen. 41), the Chronicler is more realistic in describing the length of famines in general (see Isa. 37:30; 2 K. 19:29). Probably even two years of famine would cause real suffering.” In other words, the Hebrew use of “seven” in II Samuel 24 means that symbolically the famine would be “complete” while the use of “three” in I Chronicles 21:7-17 reflects the literal time period involved.

The next question to ask is, “Which of the three options did David actually choose?” It may seem obvious that he chose the plague, but it is not quite that simple. There are actually two possibilities here. The Septuagint version of II Samuel states that he specifically chose the plague option, but Davis notes that all the Hebrew text says is that he didn't want to fall into man's hands, i.e. he ruled out option #2, and thus he left it up to God to chose between the other two possibilities. That interpretation turns out to be a minority opinion among scholars.

The majority feel that David definitely chose the plague since “falling into God's hands” was practically synonymous with suffering from pestilence. So why did David chose that option? The stated reason in the text is that David trusted to God's mercy more than the mercy of his enemies. I must admit that at first I felt that David's comment here to be a strange one. After all, David was used to taking his army on the run to avoid enemies. Why couldn't he put up with such an inconvenience for three months of fleeing from hostile forces? But the best explanation is provided in the I Chronicles parallel, which describes the second option in more details using these words:

    “three months of devastation by your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you.”

The problem with this choice, as Tsumura puts it, is that “human enemies are sinful and cruel without any compassion.”

Two commentators cite David's previous experiences as guiding his decision at this time. From a negative viewpoint, David and his kingdom had already undergone affliction from their enemies and suffered from a three-year famine (II Samuel 21:1), and perhaps the king did not want to go through those two disasters again. (Payne)

But there was probably a more positive reason for David's response. F.F. Bruce says, “When King David was commanded to choose between three forms of judgment after his numbering of the people, his wise reply was the fruit of his previous experience of God.” Thus, in Davis' words, “David is about to meet Yahweh's wrath and yet is convinced of Yahweh's mercies...David's assumptions are astounding. His words in verse 14 breathe not only necessary resignation but boundless consolation...In his crises his theology seems to come out almost by reflex action...Must you not have your best theology for your darkest moments? And in the disasters and sins of life is there a kinder place to fall than 'into the hand of Yahweh'?”

And, as Baldwin concludes, “David's trust had not been misplaced, because in judgment the Lord had remembered mercy.” This is because God actually stayed His hand after only one day of plague instead of continuing it for two more days as threatened. “Though the hand of the Lord is a destroying agent of God, the Lord himself is both holy and merciful.” (Tsumura)

As an interesting question to ponder by yourself or as part of a group discussion, compare David's preference to put himself under the hand of the Lord with the seemingly contradictory statement in Hebrews 10:31 – “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” It is especially interesting to look at these two passages together in light of Bruce's contention that the author of Hebrews may actually have had David's experience in mind when he wrote these words.

Joash II and the Prophet Elisha (II Kings 13:14-19)

In this case, it is a king of Israel (who is also called Jehoash elsewhere) rather than a Judean king who is involved. But the overall situation in both cases is the same in that worried monarchs listen to prophets of God, who in turn present them with important choices to make. It is the famous prophet Elisha who is God's spokesman in this story.

Joash mourns the approaching death of the prophet. But the dying Elisha gives him encouragement through some symbolic actions. First, he tells the king to shoot an arrow out the window toward the east and announces that this is an indication that Israel will have success in an upcoming battle against the forces of Aram. Then Elisha tells Joash to strike the other arrows against the ground, which the king does three times. Elisha gets angry and reveals that he should have struck 5-6 times instead so that Aram would have been completely demolished. As it is, Israel will only defeat them in three more battles.

This story seems rather confusing in that Joash does not seem to have been given enough information to go on or he certainly would have struck the ground more times. Keil suggested years ago that we should probably translate the Hebrew words in the text to indicate that Elisha told Joash to shoot more arrows into the ground rather than just beating them on the floor. If so, and that is also the interpretation that the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery goes with, then the king should have realized immediately that if one arrow equated with one victory in battle, then the more arrows he shot, the better the outcome.

But since no major Bible translation has adopted that particular interpretation, we probably need to try and understand the text as others do. Although it is not crystal clear to us or the king that hitting the arrows on the ground will have the same significance as shooting an arrow out a window, he probably should have at least realized that the arrows represented God's power over the enemy, which would have caused him to be a bit more enthusiastic in his tepid response. At least, this is how most scholars take it:

    “Apparently Jehoash should have struck the ground until Elisha gave him instructions to stop.” (House)

    “Three is an intermediate point on the way to larger numbers, especially seven (Num 19:12), as when Elisha criticizes the king for striking the ground only three times (2 Kgs 13:18).” (Jenson) Jenson's words make little sense unless one realizes that “seven” is the symbolic number standing for completion. Thus, if Joash had at least gone half way toward seven in his actions, the enemy would have been completely vanquished.

    “Elisha's passionate anger aginst Yahweh's enemies found little echo in the politically conditioned mind of the king.” (D.G. Martin)

    “(T)he king's response to the prophetic commands is not unreserved.” (Provan)

The use of arrows in the practice of forecasting the future goes by the technical term belomancy. Cogan and Tadmor point to Ezekiel 21:21 for another biblical example. Younger draws a parallel with Exodus 14:15-27 in which Moses is told to hold out his staff over the Red Sea to part the waters. And LaSor sees an even closer example in Joshua 8:18 in which God tells Joshua to stretch out his sword in the direction of Ai, and it was captured. He is careful to explain that this is not a case of sympathetic magic but just a symbolic sign. We should understand Joash's actions in the same way.