While it is true that we have spent a great deal of time and space dealing with Absalom, it simply must be said that his story is truly and fascinatingly compelling, as it presents and ties together (as we have seen) multiple themes that run deep in Scripture. Therefore, his story lends itself to drawing many conclusions about God’s working, God’s mission, and what God desires for His people (for all time), as it serves as something of a climactic turning point in the history of Israel.
Now, we have concluded that Absalom’s downfall came because he agreed with the idea of raising his hand against God’s anointed, thereby demonstrating that he did not fully trust God and the promises of God upon which he may very well have been relying. Is this sort of conclusion justified? Apart from the example of Moses and Israel, which was an example and path from which Absalom was deviating, was there another example that he could have followed? Of course there was. It was the example that had been set by his own father, before he had been corrupted by the power of the throne. In the first book of Samuel, there are two occasions on which David had the opportunity to kill Saul, his oppressor and subjugator. However, he did not seize upon either of those opportunities to do so. In fact, David felt guilty for cutting off an edge of Saul’s robe (1 Samuel 24:4). Of course, to this point Absalom had not even gone that far. In response to his own action, David said, “May the Lord keep me far away from doing such a thing to my lord, who is the Lord’s chosen one, by extending my hand against him. After all, he is the Lord’s chosen one” (24:6).
A short while later, David calls out to Saul and says “Even though I have not sinned against you, you are waiting in ambush to take my life” (24:11b). In the case of Absalom, up until the point that Ahithophel and Hushai speak, there has been no talk, on either the side of David or Absalom, about one attempting to take the other’s life. Certainly, we can say that part of the judgment of God that came upon Saul was related to his ongoing desire to physically and violently raise his hand against one that God had anointed. Absalom should have continued in the attitude modeled by David and said, “May the Lord judge between the two of us” (24:12a), which had already apparently been happening in Absalom’s favor based on the fact of the peaceful exchange of power. David continued with words upon which Absalom should have seized, saying “may the Lord vindicate me over you, but my hand will not be against you” (24:12b).
Absalom already had the support of the people, and David himself was willing to accept Absalom’s exaltation as king. David had been disgraced and humiliated. The last thing that Absalom needed to do was to take action that would draw attention, and perhaps even sympathy, upon David. Instead, it may very well have been better to completely forget about his father. Surely, his attempted actions against David might have been perceived as a spiteful type of “kicking a man while he is down,” which would serve to elicit the sympathy and condolences of the people, while creating an unfavorable opinion of Absalom as an oppressive ruler that, after all, is not all that interested in justice. Now, David will be able to turn his words against Absalom, and paint him as a king who has had the hand of God removed from him, like that which Saul experienced, and say “Who has the king of Israel come out after? Who is it that you are pursuing? A dead dog? A single flea? May the Lord be our judge and aribtrater. May He see and arbitrate my case and deliver me from your hands” (24:14-15). David will now be able to turn the tables on Absalom, and make his plea for justice, when such, to that point, has been Absalom’s cry.
Returning to the text of Absalom’s story, we find that Hushai, after gaining Absalom’s ear, passes along to David the news of both his and Ahithophels advice, along with Absalom’s response to that advice. Knowing his own history, and reflecting upon his previous time in exile, this must have been somewhat heartening for David. Obviously, there would be a level of sadness, in that he now learns that his son thinks that is a good idea to have him dispatched from existence, but there would be a level of encouragement, because he could see this as a sign of God’s favor returning upon him. He could reflect upon the fact that he did not raise his hand against Saul, and that he had been ultimately rewarded for his restraint. He could think about the fact that Saul came out after him, and though Saul’s efforts at striking David down proved unsuccessful, Saul’s efforts clearly proved to be less than beneficial. In this unwarranted plan to attack David without provocation, as David has not actively said or done anything to defeat what he feels might very well be the work of God, Absalom has now turned oppressor. He is no longer Moses, but rather, Saul. He is no longer rescuing the people from subjugation, but instead, attempting to subjugate his father, who is also now his subject. Yes, David and the men with him are now Absalom’s subjects, and therefore it is incumbent upon Absalom to secure blessings for them. This is quite difficult to do if one is plotting to bring death.
No comments:
Post a Comment