The Ownership of Human Life
There is a curious passage in 2 Samuel 24, retold in 1
Chronicles 21, wherein King David provokes God to anger by, of all things,
taking a census of the Israelites (and in 2 Samuel, also the people of Judah).
Why should this act incur the wrath of God, when censuses had been taken before
(just read the book of Numbers) and would be taken afterwards (a couple of
chapters later in 1 Chronicles, in fact) without entailing any such
consequences?
One possibility, which I would imagine is the one that is
usually touted, is that God did not command David to take the census; rather, it
was Satan who ‘tempted’ David to do so (in 2 Samuel, most translations suggest
that it was God who “incited” David to take action, but apparently this is an erroneous
rendering; I’m afraid that I lack the knowledge of ancient Hebrew required for
me to comment on this point). Surely, though, a given act is only sinful if it
contravenes the Law of God. After all, why would Satan tempt somebody to do
something, unless that thing was contrary to God’s commandments?
In fact, in Exodus 30:11-14, we find precisely such a
commandment: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘When you take the census of the people
of Israel, then each shall give a ransom for his life to the Lord when you
number them, that there be no plague among them when you number them. Each one
who is numbered in the census shall give this: half a shekel according to the
shekel of the sanctuary (the shekel is twenty gerahs), half a shekel as an
offering to the Lord. Everyone who is numbered in the census, from twenty years
old and upward, shall give the Lord's offering.’” It would appear from this
passage that the sin, and the ensuing judgement of pestilence, lay in the fact
that David undertook the census without imposing its attendant tax. This is undoubtedly
why Joab, the commander who David ordered to carry out the census, was so
hesitant to do so, and did so rather unenthusiastically, omitting the Levites
and the Benjamites – he understood the grave consequences of such a crime. But
why did God require this ‘census tax’, and why did David not implement it?
Fictitious Commodification
Here, I think, we arrive at the crux of the passage. In
those days, one was only allowed to count what one owned. This is reflected in Jesus’ teaching that we are more valuable than sparrows because God Himself has numbered the hairs of our head (Matthew 10:29-33; Luke 12:6-7). In this light, the census
tax existed as a way of acknowledging that human life belongs to God and God
alone, with the king acting merely as a sort of representative; its purpose was
to “bring the people of Israel to remembrance before the Lord, so as to make
atonement for [their] lives” (Exodus 30:16). David, it would appear, had grown
haughty as king, having just defeated the kingdoms of Ammon, Aram, Rabbah, and
the Philistines, even smiting the great Philistine giants with his mighty men (1 Chronicles 19-20).
As a result, he perhaps felt a sense of ownership over the kingdom, and thus
reckoned that it was within his mandate to number ‘his’ people without paying
the tax. In other words, he had falsely commoditised something – namely human
life – which in fact was owned only by God Himself. The inevitable result was judgement,
as symbolised by David’s vision of the sword-wielding angel of the Lord standing
by the threshing floor of Onan (Araunah in 2 Samuel) the Jebusite, ready to destroy Jerusalem
(see Micah 4:12), and as materialised in the three-day pestilence that God
inflicts upon all of Israel.
In our modern, capitalist world, we have committed the same
sin on an even wider scale, and to an even greater extent. We have quantified and
commoditised all things sacred, even to the point of assigning a monetary value
to human life. Indeed, it is surely no coincidence that in economic techniques
of cost-benefit analysis, lives are valued according to their (potential)
incomes. This stands in direct contravention of the stipulations of the census
tax, which state that “[t]he rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not
give less, than the half shekel, when you give the Lord's offering to make
atonement for your lives” (Exodus 30:15). All lives were seen as equally valuable,
just as God saw them. If pestilence across an entire nation is the punishment
for failing to pay the census tax, I dread to imagine what kind of judgement is
commensurate with our ubiquitous, unabashed commodification of human life.
The Ultimate Atoning Sacrifice
Thankfully, there are a number of clear messianic overtones
in this passage that point towards mercy, grace, and redemption. Jesus was born
during a census; echoing the stipulations in Exodus, He came “as a ransom for
many” (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45); He was an innocent “sheep”, as David refers
to the Israelites who experience God’s judgement in 2 Samuel 24:17 and 1
Chronicles 21:17 (an interesting contrast - one innocent man taking the sins of many versus many innocent people taking the sins of one person); and mirroring the three-day judgement of pestilence, He was
in the grave for three days before rising again. As if this were not already
striking enough, there are a number of uncanny similarities between this
passage and the episode of Abraham binding Isaac for sacrifice, which in itself
is a vivid messianic picture (Genesis 22). Just as the innocent Isaac was to be
slaughtered, so too the innocent Israelites were to be punished for David’s
sin; and just as the angel intervened before Abraham could do the deed, so too
the Lord stopped His angel from destroying Jerusalem at the last minute. The
most telling detail is that, as we later dsicover in Chronicles 3:1, Onan’s threshing floor was located on Mount Moriah –
the very place that Abraham offered Isaac for sacrifice!
Furthermore, when David purchases the threshing floor from
Onan, we witness a ‘strange exchange’. Recognising the infinite value of the
sacred, Onan offers the land to David for free, and even throws in some extras,
including the threshing sledges along with the wood, the wheat, and the grain
for the various offerings that David subsequently performed. The supposed ‘owner’ of the threshing floor states, “[a]ll
this, O king, Araunah gives to the king” (2 Samuel 24:23), and “I give it all”
(1 Chronicles 21:23). David, however, feels obligated to pay something, perhaps
as a tribute to the Lord, and so offers 50 shekels of silver (in 2 Samuel) or 600
shekels of gold (in 1 Chronicles). This exchange is strange because transactions are normally negotiated in the opposite way, with the buyer and seller respectively vying for the lowest and highest possible price. Indeed, there is a sense in which the final price is more
or less arbitrary, especially considering that even the currency differs between the two accounts. Surely this is points
forward to the New Covenant; and perhaps it provides a model of the New
Economy.
The Infinitude of the Divine
The significance of Mount Moriah is even more marked when it
is chosen as the site for the Temple in the subsequent chapter of 1 Chronicles, with the construction itself beginning in 2 Chronicles 3 under the reign of Solomon.
In fact, the tax was originally used to pay for “the service of
the tent of meeting” (Exodus 30:16), and the stipulations for the tax are
outlined smack in the middle of the stipulations regarding the Temple. The
construction of the Temple on the site of the threshing floor is an interesting juxtaposition
of judgement and blessing; indeed, the threshing floor is often portrayed as a
place not only of the former, but also the latter (Numbers 18:30; Joel 2:24).
It is almost as if God’s presence could not be established until a sort of
purification had taken place.
What is peculiar, however, is that, as we know from numerous
passages, the measurements of the Temple were comprehensively quantified; there
are chapters and chapters in Exodus, for example, meticulously outlining the specifications
of the Tabernacle, which are reflected in the specifications of the Temple outlined in, for example, 2 Chronicles 3 and 4. At the same time, the building of the Temple involved seemingly
unquantifiable amounts of resources; in 1 Chronicles 22,
we are told of “great quantities of iron for nails for the doors of the gates
and for clamps, as well as bronze in quantities beyond weighing, and cedar
timbers without number”, as well as “craftsmen without number”. The Temple is
the place of meeting between God and man, divine and worldly, sacred and
profane, temporal and eternal, numerical and infinite.
After it has been decided that the Temple will be built, eventually permitting the return of the Ark of the Covenant and the re-establishment of God's presence as King of Israel, we witness a change in David’s attitude. Although the various categories of people (stewards, musicians, builders, etc.) are still referred to as David's “property” (1 Chronicles 27:31), in his final public prayer as king David himself avers, “O Lord our God, all this abundance that we have provided for building you a house for your holy name comes from your hand and is all your own” (1 Chronicles 29:16, emphasis added). Furthermore, now that God is acknowledged the “own”-er, quantification serves to glorify Him rather than to glorify His earthly representative: vast censuses are taken of the people without incurring any punishment; indeed, wrath comes upon Israel because Joab does not fully complete the census (1 Chronicles 27:24). Note that Joab also failed to complete the first census that David ordered, but in that case, his refusal may well have averted rather than invited further judgement.
After it has been decided that the Temple will be built, eventually permitting the return of the Ark of the Covenant and the re-establishment of God's presence as King of Israel, we witness a change in David’s attitude. Although the various categories of people (stewards, musicians, builders, etc.) are still referred to as David's “property” (1 Chronicles 27:31), in his final public prayer as king David himself avers, “O Lord our God, all this abundance that we have provided for building you a house for your holy name comes from your hand and is all your own” (1 Chronicles 29:16, emphasis added). Furthermore, now that God is acknowledged the “own”-er, quantification serves to glorify Him rather than to glorify His earthly representative: vast censuses are taken of the people without incurring any punishment; indeed, wrath comes upon Israel because Joab does not fully complete the census (1 Chronicles 27:24). Note that Joab also failed to complete the first census that David ordered, but in that case, his refusal may well have averted rather than invited further judgement.
No comments:
Post a Comment