Hushai, the one that had sent back to Jerusalem, by David, to serve as a “double-agent” in Absalom’s court, suggested a different strategy than that of Ahithophel. He reminded Absalom of the fact that his father was, most certainly, a warrior, and that the men with him were quite brave (2 Samuel 17:10). In that light, he suggests that “all Israel from Dan to Beer Sheba---in number like the sand of the sea!---be mustered to you, and you lead them personally into battle” (17:11b). How interesting it is that Hushai just happens to toss in, almost as an aside, a description of the people of Israel as being as numerous as the sand on the seashore. In his advice to Absalom, which was really part of his service to David, he invokes the memory of the covenant promise that God originally made to Abraham. It is probably this, more than anything else that he said, that inspires Absalom to be partial to Hushai’s advice. After all, what proud, self-respecting Israelite would not be moved to act when regaled with such speech, as the person on the receiving end of such words would now be connected with the great patriarchal father?
Hushai adds: “We will come against him wherever he happens to be found. We will descend on him like the dew falls on the ground. Neither he nor any of the men who are with him will be spared alive---not one of them! If he regroups in a city, all Israel will take up ropes to that city and drag it down to the valley, so that not a single pebble will be left there!” (17:12-13) Hushai is definitely engaging in some pronounced hyperbole here. Though we know that he does not believe or desire that such things will happen, he uses terms such as “All Israel,” and, in reference to those with David, says that “not one of them” will be spared. These things are quite unlikely, yet for some reason, they are appealing to Absalom. “Absalom and all the men of Israel said, ‘The advice of Hushai the Arkite sounds better than the advice of Ahithophel” (17:14a). So Absalom is heeding advice that is directed towards attacking and killing his father and his father’s men. This is his fatal mistake.
Following the report of the favorable response to Hushai’s advice, the author adds what is obviously a retroactive application of what was ultimately manifested as Divine displeasure with Absalom, no doubt because of the course of action that was now going to be undertaken, saying “the Lord had decided to frustrate the sound advice of Ahithophel, so that the Lord could bring disaster upon Absalom” (17:14b). This is the first negative connotation that we can find, from either the Lord or from man, in the story of Absalom’s insurrection and coming to power. To this point, Absalom could very well lay claim to being a leader and deliverer for Israel in the mold of Moses. To this point, the portrayal of David as being similar to Pharoah, David’s removal as being similar to Pharaoh’s loss of power over Israel, and Absalom’s exodus from his own exile as akin to Israel’s exodus from Egypt under Moses, was effective, and perhaps, knowing what we know about David, even appropriate. However, it is at this point that Absalom, for some unknown reason, though he was receiving advice to do this, departs from the epic narrative that he has been creating for himself.
As we think back to the story of Israel’s exodus, the one thing we do not find is Moses taking it upon himself to raise his hand against the one from whom Israel was being delivered. Remember, Moses had attempted to start the revolution in Egypt, on behalf of Israel, with his killing of the Egyptian taskmaster. This failed to accomplish the goal that Moses had in mind, and he was sent into his own personal exile. When he returned, he was gifted with the ability to lead an exodus that was peaceful, at least as it related to the actions of the people. As we have seen, Absalom has effectively mirrored this. Though he was not, as far as we are told, attempting to start a revolution through his killing of Amnon, it was that killing that resulted in his own exile away from Jerusalem. It was during that time, no doubt, that the seeds of a plan to take the throne began to germinate, because he was treated unjustly due to his execution of justice.
Returning to the exodus story, let us be clear that Israel conducted no demonstrations of violence against Egypt. The Egyptians, on the other hand, experienced the violent power of Israel’s God, which serves to remind us of the fact that Moses left it to the God of Israel to bring judgment and destruction, in the way that He saw fit. Then, after the death of the firstborn, which saw Pharaoh finally relent from his stubborn stance and practically demand that Israel depart from Egypt, the last things Moses was going to do was turn around and attempt to kill Pharaoh. In that case, God had already judged Pharaoh, so what good would that do? What would that prove? Even after Pharaoh came out after Moses and Israel, Moses did not send men to confront Pharaoh and his army. Rather, he continued to trust the God that delivers to fight on behalf of His people. Had Moses and Israel raised their hands against Egypt in any way, things might have turned out quite differently, as it would have been an indication that they did not fully trust that their covenant God was able to rescue them from their foreign subjugation.
Absalom would have been wise to heed this example. Instead, because he believes that it is now incumbent upon him to go out after his father, he is forsaking the power of God to solidify his kingship and to carry out His promises to David through Absalom. Israel did not turn back and fight against Egypt, rather, they looked forward, preparing themselves to face the enemies to come. Absalom should have done the same, looking forward as well, in a spirit of thankfulness, rather than allowing for the entrance of a spirit that has to be described as nothing more than vengeful. Had he not been vindicated already? Had he not been exalted? Had God not fought his battles for him? Absalom should never have turned back, so as to bring further suffering on his deposed father. It is this that would ultimately bring David vindication through suffering (from exile to exodus), while bringing suffering to Absalom in the wake of what had been his vindication (exodus to exile).
No comments:
Post a Comment