NOTES for Sa2 24:1-25

What is so terrible about David's desire to count his people? The king is only finding out what he possesses. The information is useful and very important for a ruler. From it he learns how many soldiers he can count on in war, how many taxes can be collected, and so on. It seems to us that the king has the right to know all this, since the king's authority is unlimited. Especially the authority of a king appointed by God.

But the unique feature of the king of Israel's position is that the people given to him actually belong to God. God counts them, multiplies them, and raises them. And the desire to push God aside, to deprive Him of authority even in thought, to count everything and possess everything, moving God somewhere higher up so that one can manage earthly things on one's own, is not only the desire of an anointed king, but of every person. At the same time, it is also the root of original sin: to possess everything oneself and declare oneself the owner of everything that appears to be one's own. But all this is only given into one's management. And the Owner Himself knows the times and seasons when He determines how wisely you are managing what has been entrusted to you.

In traditional societies people are usually very cautious, and more often openly negative, about all kinds of attempts at censuses, passport systems, and every other form of state registration of the population or its property. This is not surprising: in such a society there are its own, usually communal, forms and methods of accounting and control. Bearers of a traditionalist mentality regard every kind of innovation in this sphere as an attempt to deprive them of their former freedom and subject them to the power of certain structures, almost always perceived as something alien or directly hostile.

The attitude toward a census in David's time could hardly have been different. Indeed, Jewish society under David was still fully patriarchal, just as the state itself was. The king relied in governing the state on traditional tribal institutions such as the council of elders and the popular assembly. David, of course, had his own circle of close associates and his own military retinue, but neither a regular bureaucratic apparatus nor a regular army yet existed in his state.

Both appeared in Israel only during the reign of David's son Solomon as a result of Solomon's reforms. And the spiritual leaders at the head of the prophetic movement also viewed the census negatively: they always supported the traditional way of life and ancient patriarchal customs. But there was another, properly spiritual dimension to this census undertaking. Any census is carried out in order to make governing a country more effective. To count everyone so that people can be disposed of more easily, so that it will be easier to manipulate them.

Understood this way, the census was undoubtedly a step toward strengthening that earthly statehood which is always hostile to God as such, by its very nature. Left to itself, every statehood sooner or later turns into another Tower of Babel, whose end is predetermined by its own nature. And therefore every step toward strengthening statehood should be taken only when it is absolutely necessary, when there is simply no other way out.

When without such a step the people will no longer be able to live normally. In David's case there was plainly nothing of the kind: the census was done simply to sum up the path already traveled. It could quite well have been avoided. And David, having already given the order for the census, almost immediately understood what step he had taken and what spiritual process he had set in motion. As a spiritually sensitive person, he could not fail to understand this. And having understood, he could not fail to repent of what he had done: for he always remained first of all a prophet, a man of God, and only then a king, politician, and warrior.

How we often catch ourselves on the fact that we would have completely behaved otherwise, being motivated by our ideas on what is decent or indecent, rational or irrational, real or unreal, just or unjust. But David brushes away all these considerations, taking into account only his relationship with God. And nobody has the right to stand between him and the Lord, because he is the king of the people of God. Nobody will dare raise his hand on the anointed; David gives to God full authority on his life. David's supreme dignity is very firmly strengthened with his full responsibility before the Lord.

Do we understand that it also concerns us? Indeed, it is to us that it is said: "you are a chosen generation" (1Peter 2:9). But we try all the time to put somebody between God and us: either the king or some kind of superior again, either the priest or a certain servant again, - only not to assume the responsibility of our life. And David already understood at the time of the Old Testament that God's mercy is great, it is opened to us in all its plenitude by the Son of God. But we are still afraid.

How often we catch ourselves thinking that we would have acted quite differently, guided by our ideas about what is proper or improper, expedient or inexpedient, realistic or unrealistic, just or unjust. But he sweeps all these considerations aside, taking into account only his relationship with God. And no one has the right to stand between him and the Lord, because he is the king of the people of God. None among human beings dares raise a hand against the anointed one, while David leaves to God the full authority over his life. David's highest dignity is inseparably bound to his complete responsibility before the Lord.

Do we understand that this also has to do with us? For it is to us that it is said: "You are a royal priesthood" (1 Pet. 2:9). Yet we are always trying to place someone between ourselves and God: now a king or some other superior, now a priest or some other minister, if only we do not have to bear responsibility for our own life. But already David, in Old Testament times, understood that the mercy of God is great; to us this has been revealed in all its fullness by the Son of God. And still we are afraid.

It had probably often happened to everyone to hear that there is all the same justice in the world, that evil committed by man returns to him and other such maxims, which maybe help man to accept the injustice that exists in the world.

Moreover, it happens again more often to hear that there is no justice in the world, that the misfortunes often fall on the heads of those who don’t deserve them at all, and those who by their actions really deserve them, on the contrary prosper. Who is thus right? Indeed, one side as another, referring on certain concrete cases, could bring quite a lot of proofs for its own reason. But what, if are right those who find that there is a justice in the world, and those who find that there is not? Or, more exactly what if none of them is right? Maybe, such notions as justice and reward for sin or righteousness, for what is happening in our world are not applicable.

God's will is violated by one man, but the disaster fall on all the people. Of course, this person is the ruler of the people, their leader, but all the same … Indeed, it turns out then that the life of man in God's eyes is nothing, that the collective punishment for the fault of one man is norm for Him, in brief it thus turns out that God is already similar not to God at all, but to somebody completely different.

But indeed, after the fall, the world was in particular under the power of this "different! If so, then everything is set up. But then in the non-transformed world it doesn’t come to seek either for justice, or for adequate reward for sin or for righteousness. We can find all this only in the Kingdom. Or receive, if God intervenes directly in the situation. If of course, is found the one who will ask Him for that.

Everyone has probably often heard that there is still justice in the world, that the evil a person has done comes back to him, and other sayings of that sort, which perhaps help a person come to terms with the injustice taking place in the world. And yet one hears even more often that there is no justice in the world, that troubles often fall on the heads of those who do not deserve them at all, while those who have fully deserved them by their deeds, on the contrary, prosper.

So who is right? After all, both sides, pointing to certain concrete cases, could offer plenty of evidence for their own correctness. But what if both those who think there is justice in the world and those who think there is none are right? Or, more precisely, what if both are wrong? Perhaps concepts such as justice and retribution for sin or righteousness do not apply at all to what happens in our world. One person violates God's will, and disaster falls on the whole people. Of course, that one person is the ruler of the people, its head, and yet... For then it turns out that human life is nothing in God's eyes, that collective punishment for the guilt of one person is the norm for God; in short, it turns out that God no longer resembles God, but someone entirely different.

But after the fall, the world fell under the power precisely of this "other one." If so, everything falls into place. But then in the untransformed world there is no point in looking either for justice or for proper retribution for sin or righteousness. All this can be found only in the Kingdom. Or received, if God directly intervenes in the situation. If, of course, there is someone to ask Him for it.