Furthermore, as we examine the potential of Absalom positioning himself as a new Moses and leading a new exodus, we remember that Israel’s Egyptian exodus was carried out with no bloodshed. Moses had attempted such and failed, earning only a personal exile, which eventually resulted in his calling by God. Israel did not rise up en masse to overthrow and defeat Egypt by means of violence. They did not have to resort to war. Rather, their God worked for them. He brought Israel low through plagues and the eventual death of the firstborn. The only blood that was shed throughout the entirety of the time in which the plagues ran their course was that of the lambs that were shed on behalf of the households of Israel. The only bloodshed that preceded deliverance and exodus was that of sacrifice. What bloodshed do we see in the run-up to Absalom’s insurrection? Only that of sacrifice, when Absalom offered sacrifices in Hebron (2 Samuel 15:12). Quite rightly, if we desire to take a step here to make a connection to Jesus, Jesus could have spoken to a people that considered themselves to be a people in exile, under oppression, and reminded them that God delivered Israel and gave them exodus without the people having to rise up in rebellion in order to cast off that yoke.
Following the death of the firstborn in Egypt, Pharaoh sent Israel out of the land. Their exodus was begun through the intervention of God alone. Israel did not have to resort to the force of arms for even a single moment. Neither did Absalom. David departed from Jerusalem, going into exile much like Pharaoh, his army, and the land of Egypt (which was soon to be over-run by the Amalekites), and Absalom entered into Jerusalem without having to physically raise his hand against his father (15:37). Absalom could use this fact to point out that yes, God was showing favor upon him, and by extension, showing favor to Israel, delivering a kingdom into his hand. This could have been used as evidence that he had, in fact, been raised up like Moses, and that David had been deposed from the position of power, much like Pharaoh. Beyond that, Absalom could make it very clear that he did not lift up his hand against the Lord’s anointed, following the noble example that had been set by his previously non-oppressive father, who, when give the chance, had refrained from striking out against Saul.
Back to David, and back to his exilic experience, we meet up with him as he “reached Bahurim” (16:5). “There a man from Saul’s extended family named Shimei son of Gera came out, yelling curses as he approached. He threw stones at David and all of King David’s servants, as well as all the people and the soldiers who were on his right and left. As he yelled curses, Shimei said, “Leave! Leave! You man of bloodshed, you wicked man! The Lord has punished you for all the spilled blood of the house of Saul, in whose place you rule. Now the Lord has given the kingdom into the hand of your son Absalom. Disaster has overtaken you, for you are a man of bloodshed!’” (16:5b-8) Those that were with David, understandably, did not appreciate being cursed at and having stones thrown at them. One of them, Abishai, ever the loyal fellow, said “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over and cut off his head!” (16:9b) Not only did David not allow him to do this, he said “If he curses because the Lord has said to him, ‘Curse David!’, who can say to him, ‘Why have you done this?’” (16:10b) To that David added, “Leave him alone so that he can curse, for the Lord has spoken to him. Perhaps the Lord will notice my affliction and this day grant me good in place of his curse” (16:11b-12). With his final remark, and its mention of affliction, we get a small glimpse of to David’s insight into this exile.
Surely, the curses and stones being hurled at David from this man served as a vivid demonstration of the Deuteronomic curses and the exile in which those curses are enfolded. Thus, this man, as David rightly surmised, was being used by God (at that point), to bring David’s failures to mind. Additionally, Abishai’s use of the term “dead dog,” which the author was sure to mention here in the telling of this story, had to have been a reminder to David of Mephibosheth’s response to David, when he was restored to his lands and given a place at the king’s table. He referred to himself as a “dead dog,” undeserving of such treatment by the king. That event, perhaps more so than any other in the life of David, saw him demonstrating the compassion of God, in a way that would most definitely have served to allow him to shine as a light to the nations and to reflect the glory of God into the world, as he lifted up the grandson of his enemy. If that was a consideration, David could not then help but be reminded of the way he had honored his God and his kingship, before he began robbing (wives and lives and justice) from his people. Yes, to return to an issue previously raised, which was that of David himself going into exile, in light of a later promise to Israel that the sign of their exile would be the eternal rule of a Davidic king, we know that David was eventually returned to Jerusalem and re-established as king. If David himself could go into exile and be exodus-ed from that exile and restored to the kingship, then so too could Israel (Judah) be exiled to Babylon and subjected to a foreign nation, while trusting in their God’s promise to return them to their land.
No comments:
Post a Comment