Absalom (part 17)

Absalom appears to be enjoying the Creator God’s favor upon his life and his kingship.  He has suffered in exile, and now he has been vindicated from that suffering.  He has been delivered to the kingship of the covenant people of the covenant God.  Much like Israel, it could be said that he had “taken the land.”  The demonstration of that ongoing Scriptural theme of exile and exodus has been well demonstrated, and above all things, it shows that he is not only now of kinship with Moses, but also Israel itself (from Egypt to the Promised Land), of Jacob (to Haran and back to Canaan), and Abraham (from Ur to Canaan, and from Egypt to Canaan).  It cannot be emphasized enough that he can consider himself to have been vindicated by his God, with evidence of such, following his long ordeal, that he is hailed as Israel’s king.  It must be further emphasized, quite strenuously, that his ascension to the throne (the completion of his personal exodus journey) has been accomplished without resort to military operations. 

As has been previously pointed out, he has not had to raise his hand against Israel’s anointed king.  The people can freely support him in good conscience, knowing full well that David appears to have abdicated willingly.  If indeed the Bathsheba/Uriah incident has been made public knowledge, which seems like a reasonable proposition because of Absalom’s actions with David’s concubines (wives) in sight of the people, that was meant to be a demonstration of the judgment pronounced against him by the Creator God through the prophet Nathan, then David’s peaceful abdication would have seemed altogether appropriate, with Absalom’s peaceful taking of power (in this context) completely understandable. 

Then, the unraveling begins.  Absalom quickly moves from the place of apparent favor and blessing of Israel’s God, with an implicit sanction of his kingship (because of his role in delivering prophesied and embarrassing judgment for David) with David slinking quietly away into the background, into the opposite situation.  Almost immediately upon becoming secure upon the throne, Absalom begins to see his station slipping from him.  To a point, he had been growing in favor with man (and apparently) with God, but this now turns.  Absalom starts to fall into the Creator God’s disfavor, and David begins to regain in favor. 

This can’t simply be because David had been anointed by God to replace Saul and lead the covenant people, as the Creator God is free to work through Absalom (according to the promise to David) to cause His people to be a light to the nations and to reflect His glory into the world, so there must be a signal reason why this takes place.  Did Absalom have his own Bathsheba situation?  Not as far as the Scriptures report.  Did he fail to execute justice as did David in the situation with Amnon and Tamar.  Again, not as far as is known.  So what was it?  Why is the Creator God’s blessing suddenly removed from him?  What is it that causes the people to slowly begin to turn from Absalom and reinstitute their support of David? 

The answer is found in the first few verses of the seventeenth chapter of the second book of Samuel.  What does this passage say?  There it is reported that, “Ahithophel said to Absalom, ‘Let me pick out twelve thousand men.  Then I will go and pursue David this very night.  When I catch up with him he will be exhausted and worn out.  I will rout him, and the entire army that is with him will flee.  I will kill only the king and will bring the entire army back to you.  In exchange for the life of the man you are seeking, you will get back everyone’.” (17:1-3a)  What was Absalom’s response to this?  In what should be a surprise, based on how things have gone and what has been accomplished to that point, it is said that “This seemed like a good idea to Absalom and to all the leaders of Israel” (17:4).  Though Absalom would also seek out further advice and eventually act upon advice contrary to what was offered by Ahithophel, the point is that this seemed like a good idea to Absalom. 

Absalom (part 8)

In the case of both Saul and David, the case could be made that both were attractive in appearance, but it was not their physical appearance that drew the people to them, but rather their leadership.  A grave injustice is done to the people of Israel in Absalom’s day when they are treated as creatures of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, who are bombarded with images of beauty on a daily basis and asked to follow the leadership (in various areas of concern) of those that are thought of as “the beautiful people”.  Absalom’s culture was not one of mass media.  Indeed, one can imagine that Absalom would have been unknown, by appearance, to the majority of the people over which he desired to rule. 

With that said, there must have been something far more substantial to Absalom’s position and to his claims that would enable him to win the allegiance of so many within Israel.  An appeal to their history, set against the possibilities of sharing in either the blessing or cursing of their God, and presented within the context of Israel’s great story of redemption from Egyptian bondage---if Absalom could successfully make the desired exile and exodus connections in the hearts and minds of the people---would have a powerful effect within the nation.  An additional benefit is that this would enable a revolution that could consist of very little bloodshed, with their God acting on behalf of them and their new leader, just as He had done against Egypt and Pharaoh.   

Moving forward then to David’s response to Absalom’s proclamation as king at Hebron, it is interesting to look at it in the light which has been created for it by Absalom, while also looking at it from the perspective of the God that had anointed David as king over His people.  Immediately after learning that the people were siding with Absalom, it is said that “a messenger came to David and reported, ‘The men of Israel are loyal to Absalom!” (2 Samuel 15:13)  What is David’s response to this news?  Does he assert that he is king?  Does he attempt to derail the coup that is taking place?  Not at all.  Rather, “David said to all his servants who were with him in Jerusalem, ‘Come on!  Let’s escape!  Otherwise no one will be delivered from Absalom!’” (15:14a)  This would play nicely into the narrative that Absalom is attempting to both build upon and create.  His father, when challenged, flees. 

This would be a clear sign to Absalom’s supporters that the protective and supporting hand of Israel’s God had been removed from David and was being transferred to Absalom, though he, unlike Saul and David (and every other previous leader of Israel since Moses) had not been anointed to the position of king.  Absalom could point to this response and make the point that exile was coming to David.  This would have been poetic justice for Absalom, in that it was he who was previously forced to flee from Jerusalem.  At the same time though, it should not be forgotten that his flight was not altogether unfortunate, as his being able to tell a story which included fleeing must have been quite important in his gaining influence and favor with the people. 

David is clearly fearful.  Perhaps he too feels that rule is being stripped from him, as the Bathsheba incident would certainly have never been far from his mind.  Indeed, if Saul had been rejected as king for not following out the Creator God’s orders and executing all of the Amalekites (along with their animals), then should David be surprised if he ultimately comes to be rejected as king because of his oppressive and high-handed actions against Uriah?  Yes, the prophet Nathan had informed David that God had forgiven him and that he would not die as a result of what he had done, but nothing had been said about his own kingship in that incident.  He had received the promise that the Lord God of Israel would build him a dynastic house (7:11), but that was before he had Uriah murdered.  Besides, Absalom was his very own son, so the Creator God could very well be faithful to His promise in that regard by showing favor to Absalom and removing David as king. 

Solomon & Shimei (part 1 of 3)

Early in his reign, Solomon has Adonijah (his brother) and Joab (general of the army) dispatched.  Following that, Solomon turns his attention to a man named Shimei.  He does so because Shimei is mentioned within his father’s dying words.  David said to Solomon: “Note well, you still have to contend with Shimei son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurin, who tried to call down upon me a horrible judgment when I went to Mahanaim” (1 Kings 2:8a).  This is not entirely true, so David seemed to have been employing exaggeration with some effect.  What Shimei is recorded to have said to David was “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!” (2 Samuel 16:7) 

Apart from a subjective rhetorical flourish when Shimei declares that the Lord is punishing David for the spilled blood of the house of Saul, this cursing by Shimei rings true.  David was not punished for bloodshed related to the house of Saul, but rather, it was the blood spilled within his own house (Absalom’s slaying of Amnon as a result of Amnon’s rape of Tamar), as well as the blood spilled by his own command (David using Israel’s enemies to have Uriah murdered), that had led to the situation which gave Shimei the opportunity to speak forth such words.  Beyond the improper of attribution of the spilling of blood there mentioned, it is difficult to find fault with Shimei’s message to David.  At that point, since David was fleeing Jerusalem, Absalom, by all appearances, had taken the kingdom.  With the peaceful transfer of power, one could easily look upon Absalom’s taking of the throne as having divine sanction. 

With regard to referring to David as a man of bloodshed, it must be said that Shimei does not appear to be incorrect in his assessment.  If we were to look ahead to the first book of the Chronicles, we would there find a record of David speaking to Solomon and saying “My son, I really wanted to build a temple to honor the Lord my God.  But the Lord said to me: ‘You have spilled a great deal of blood and fought many battles.  You must not build a temple to honor Me, for you have spilled a great deal of blood on the ground before Me” (1 Chronicles 22:7-8).  Apparently, God Himself referred to David as a man of bloodshed. 

It’s useful here to consider, if the blood David spilled in battle was (according to the Scriptural record) almost entirely at the Lord’s direction, why that same God would use the fact of spilled blood as a reason to bar David from building His Temple.  The most likely reason is that a temple constructed by a king that was known to have waged vigorous military campaigns, and through those campaigns to have extended his territory and his power, would be seen as a temple constructed in honor of a conquering, warring, subjugating god that would bear a great deal of resemblance to the gods of the surrounding nations.  A temple built to honor such a god would simply be one amongst many.  This point is drawn out by what the Lord is reported to have said to David after making mention of his acts of bloodshed, which was “Look, you will have a son, who will be a peaceful man.  I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side.  Indeed, Solomon will be his name; I will give Israel peace and quiet during his reign.  He will build a temple to honor Me; he will become My son, and I will become his Father.  I will grant to his dynasty permanent rule over Israel” (22:9-10). 

The temple to be built by Solomon would not be constructed by a man of war, nor could it be perceived as a symbol of military conquest, which would have been common in that day.  The Temple that would be honoring to God alone (rather than a temple that would be partly honorific for David) would be built by one known as a peaceful man, though the fact that blood was spilled in abundance at the beginning of Solomon’s reign seems a bit troubling in this light.  Nevertheless, this Temple that was to be associated with rest and peace and quiet would be raised into existence by one about whom God spoke of as being His son.  This Temple would be the symbol of a permanent rule over the people of God, and by extension, over the territory occupied by that people.  Here, the analogies to the One that would eventually come, as a Son, in place of the Temple, and Who would raise up an eschatological Temple to God, are so stark and clear that they need not even be detailed. 

Reverting our attention now to David and his directives concerning Shimei that were passed along to Solomon, we find him moving from a recounting of the Shimei situation in connection with his escape from Jerusalem, to his dealings with Shimei upon his return to Jerusalem, and saying “He came down and met me at the Jordan, and I solemnly promised him by the Lord, ‘I will not strike you down with the sword.’” (2:8b).  To this David added, “But now,” speaking to Solomon, “don’t treat him as if he were innocent.  You are a wise man and you know how to handle him; make sure he has a bloody death” (2:9).  In the record of the Kings, these are the final words of David.  Ironically, and in a way that probably indicates that the author wants this to be acknowledged, these last words of David have to do with him calling for the bloody death of the man that had referred to him as a man of bloodshed.      

Upsetting The Lord (part 2 of 2)

Having asked the incredulity-laced question of David, Nathan goes on to inform him that “the sword will never depart from your house” (2 Samuel 12:10a).  Why will this happen?  Through His prophet, God says it is because “You have despised Me by taking the wife of Uriah the Hittite as your own!” (12:10b)  This is akin to Israel’s despising their God by adopting the ways of the people around them, especially in the area of the worship of their gods.  Also, based on the context of the story of the rich man and the poor man, and the taking of the poor man’s lamb, it is not so much the taking of another man’s wife for which God is providing this judgment upon David, but (in the search for the greater subtext in which we are to be engaged ) the oppressive behavior in which David has engaged that should gain our attention. 

David was charged to protect Uriah, but rather, became a predator towards him.  David was supposed to be a deliverer for God’s people, but instead, he becomes an oppressor.  David is supposed to be used by their God, first and foremost, to bring the blessings of exodus.  Instead, David becomes the bringer of death---that which represents cursing and exile---to an individual, and also to a child.  David has presumptuously abused the power and the position that has been given to him by God, and therefore, judgment will come to him.  The same thing happened to the Pharaoh of Egypt that forgot Joseph, and by extension, the blessings of the God of Joseph and his people that blessed Egypt and made it the powerful nation that it had become.  Later on, the same thing would happen to Babylon and its king (Nebuchadnezzar), that would be raised up by God for a particular purpose in relation to His people, but then overstep the boundaries which God had set for it.  With that, judgment came to Babylon, just as it had come to Egypt, and just as it was now coming, in a different measure, to David. 

The language of cursing and exile is spoken to David, as, having already heard that the sword will never depart from his house, he also hears from the Lord that “I am about to bring disaster on you from right inside your own household!  Right before your eyes I will take your wives and hand them over to your companion.  He will have sexual relations with your wives in broad daylight!  Although you have acted in secret, I will do this thing before all Israel, and in broad daylight” (12:11-12).  In Deuteronomy, one of the curses to come upon Israel for its failure to abide by the Lord’s commands is that “You will be engaged to a woman and another man will rape her” (28:30).  This may be harsh language, but this is about David feeling the weight of the boot of oppression, and experiencing humiliation, scorn, and ridicule (28:37).  His is a greater responsibility, and with the words of Nathan, David is quickly brought to realize his failure to live up to that responsibility. He exclaims, “I have sinned against the Lord!” (12:13b) 

David is fully aware of the oppression that he has wrought.  He is fully cognizant of the fact that he has failed.  He knows that all of the words that have been spoken to him---representative of exile---will come to pass, and that the sword will never depart from his house and that he will be humiliated before the people.  He knows that he must suffer these things, and with the confession that he has failed to live up to what was expected of him, and that he has failed to be a light to his people and to the surrounding nations, and that he has failed to adequately reflect the glory of God into the world (that he has sinned), he hopes that he will be vindicated through the suffering and come to experience an exodus.  Hearing David’s confession, Nathan says, “Yes, and the Lord has forgiven your sin.  You are not going to die” (12:13c). 

The finality of exile was not going to be David’s lot.  These words of forgiveness do inform David that there will be exodus on the other side of the exile that he is going to experience.  Yes, the sword will forever be there in his house.  Yes, he was going to have his wives taken from him.  Yes, he was going to be an object of ridicule.  Yes, he himself was going to be subject to an oppressor in a physical exile, as the declaration in his regards to his wives would come about in connection with the rebellion of Absalom which was soon to come.  The forgiveness of sin which, throughout Israel’s history, was always accompanied by a turning to the Lord, meant that God had responded favorably to His people’s confession and set about bringing their return from exile to pass, was now David’s experience as well.  “Nonetheless,” says Nathan, “because you have treated the Lord with such contempt in this matter,” which was a clear allusion to Israel’s idolatry and therefore a sign to David that there was going to be judgment, “the son who has been born to you will certainly die” (12:14).  

Upsetting The Lord (part 1 of 2)

The life of David most certainly has positives and negatives.  The low-light for King David comes when he had sent out Joab and the army to do battle with and ultimately defeat the Ammonites.  It is then that David enters in to his adulterous affair with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, who was one of David’s trusted servants and soldiers.  The story is familiar, so it needs only a brief recapitulation before we examine it in relation to our overall project so as to connect it with exile and exodus and the all-encompassing faithfulness of God. 

David does not go out to battle, but rather, stays back in Jerusalem.  There, he sees Bathsheba and determines that he must have her for himself, at least temporarily.  He summons her to him during her period of ovulation (of which she is well aware), they engage in intimate activity, she returns home, she finds that she is pregnant, and she sends words of such to David.  So as to cover up his regrettable actions, and perhaps also to spare Bathsheba from the shame of accusations of harlotry, David summons her husband home from the battle, so that he and his wife might engage in the activity in which married couples generally engage after long periods of separation from each other.  Naturally, this would then be able to account for her pregnancy.  As we know, Uriah, strangely enough (though he does offer up what appear to be legitimate and honorable reasons) did not act as David expected, even after David’s repeated attempts to get him to do so.  At this point, David feels as if he has no choice but to make arrangements to have Uriah killed in battle, which is precisely what occurs. 

After Bathsheba goes through a requisite period of grieving for her husband “David had her brought to his palace.  She became his wife and she bore him a son” (2 Samuel 11:27b).  Now, even though we are informed that Uriah had “not gone down to his house” (11:10b), and that, rather, “in the evening he went out to sleep on his bed with the servants of his lord” (11:13b), we could posit the possibility of a relative disbelief amongst anybody that knew that he had returned to Jerusalem, that he did not engage in any type of sexual relations with his wife.  After all, his house was near David’s residence.  Furthermore, the fact that his wife was pregnant would have been clear evidence to a relatively disengaged and disinterested observer that he had in fact visited her.  So when he is killed, Bathsheba now gains sympathy from the surrounding community, rather than scorn and shame.  David, by taking the pregnant widow of a deceased warrior into his royal harem, is viewed by the people as something of a savior for Bathsheba and her child, as well as being the king who desires to honor the fallen dead.  The epithet to this marriage, however, is that “what David had done had upset the Lord” (11:27c). 

Such an interesting statement.  David “had upset the Lord.”  What was it that upset the Lord?  As we glance through the Biblical record, what do we find in David’s behavior that would have upset the Lord?  Was it not going out to battle?  Lust?  Adultery?  Betrayal?  Pre-mediated murder?  As the story is presented, we have quite the list from which to choose.  Beyond the surface of the text, there is, quite possibly, pride and hubris on the part of David, as he may very well have enjoyed a bit of basking in the adulation of his people, through taking in the pregnant widow and offering to raise the son of his servant as the son of the king.  So what upset the Lord?  Naturally, it was all of those things.  More importantly though, it was what all of those things represented, which was oppression and injustice. 

When the prophet Nathan comes to David, he tells him a story of a rich man and a poor man.  The rich man had a great many flocks and herds, while the poor man had only a single lamb, for which he provided a tender and loving care.  Nathan goes on to tell David a story of oppression, in which the rich man, in need of food to provide hospitality to a visitor, takes the one and only lamb of the poor man, and provides it as food to his guest.  David, as he had been in the case of the abusive treatment of his men at the hands of the king of Ammon, is rightly indignant.  He expresses outrage at this act of oppression and exclaims “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this deserves to die!” (12:5)  David referred to the actions of the rich man in the story as a “cold-hearted crime” (12:6).  Nathan responds to this correct and insightful declaration by the king by informing him that “You are that man!” (12:7b). 

Following this assertion, Nathan recounts God’s faithful actions towards David, beginning with his being chosen as king (evocative of Israel’s being chosen by God), and his rescue from Saul (evocative of Israel’s rescue from Egypt).  To that, Nathan adds talk of David being given his master’s house and wives and the “house of Israel and Judah” (12:8).  This is not at all dissimilar to what the Lord had done for Israel as a whole, bringing them into the promised land, with fields that they did not plant, and houses that they did not build.  What’s more, says Nathan, as we are clearly now ensconced in a mindful polemic against Israel for which David is a proxy (though he is most assuredly guilty), “And if all that somehow seems insignificant, I would have given you so much more as well!  Why have you shown contempt for the word of the Lord by doing evil in My sight?” (12:8b-9a)  Yes, this is what God effectively asks of Israel, as this is the story of Israel, as they waver between exile and exodus, inexplicably choosing exile and its curses over exodus and its blessings on a regular basis.  This story is now being embodied by David, which is appropriate, as the king of Israel does stand as the representative for the people.  David is choosing the path of exile.  Though he is embodying the larger story of Israel, he is also embodying Egypt, the oppressor of God’s people.  Though we are dealing with a specific instance related to a specific individual, we are being reminded of the grand framework and plan of God.