Absalom (part 4)

Continuing on then, the Absalom story moves along to his insurrection against his father, King David.  Clearly, it is not going to be a mystery as to why this insurrection is going to take place.  Absalom feels slighted by his father.  As far as he was concerned, his father, having never spoken out against nor condemned his son Amnon for his heinous crime against Absalom’s sister (the rape of Tamar), at least according to the Scriptural record, was by extension in complicit agreement with the action. 

Surely, Absalom felt that, having waited two years for some type of movement, his father was never going to take action in this matter, so he would have to take justice into his own hands.  The fact that he had been forced to flee from home when he carried out what he saw as just retribution against Amnon, with his father not reaching out to him for three years, would have to have been galling.  His self-imposed exile would come to be interpreted as a banishment, with Absalom never receiving the honor that he believed was due to him for avenging the shame that had been brought to his sister and his family. 

His actions, as far as he was concerned, constituted a measured response.  He did not respond like Simeon and Levi of old, following the rape of their sister.  He did not slaughter an entire community of men because of the actions of just one individual.  No, he simply carried out that which should have been carried out by his father.  Absalom could have reasoned that his father should have thanked him for fulfilling the obligation that he was obviously refusing to carry out, but he did not. 

Even when he was called out of exile and invited to return to Jerusalem, his father still maintained an effective position of banishment, forcing him to remain separate from the king and not allowing him to see his father’s face.  When summoned from Geshur, surely Absalom felt that his father had finally come to his senses, realizing that Absalom had acted justly in dispatching Amnon with prejudice, with this dispatching taking place after a two year period of patient waiting. 

When finally summoned to the throne room, it had been seven years since the rape of his sister had been perpetuated, five years since he had dealt Amnon death’s fatal blow, and two years since he had returned to Jerusalem.  Even then, the summon for Absalom had not been solely the desire of the king, but had come at the request of Joab, who, having had his fields set ablaze by Absalom in order to gain his attention, reluctantly agreed to intercede to the king on behalf of his frustrated son, doing so because now the issue was of personal consequence.  So when Absalom comes before the king, it was only because of Joab’s influence over David (which was significant because of what Joab knew about the Bathsheba/Uriah incident), which meant that David was still not going to look favorably upon his son. 

While he must have been grateful to finally see him, as David kissed an Absalom that was bowed down before him with his face to the ground, based upon what follows, one can be confident that David’s response was not what Absalom had long desired.  At this point, because of all that had happened (or not happened) in regards to the situation of the rape, it probably became quite clear, at least in Absalom’s mind, that his father had forfeited the legitimate and moral right to rule the Creator God’s people.  Thus Absalom would take matters in to his own hands in order to correct the prevailing issue of injustice as he saw it.  

Compassionate Brother (part 15)

One could go on at great length in discussing the honor and shame connotations so as to be able to gain a more robust reading of Scripture, but it seems as if the point has been made.  Considerations of honor and shame are more than necessary if there is a desire to rightly understand the stories and movement of Scripture, as this cultural component looms large.  Approaching the text from this angle allows a reader to make sense of the stories on their own terms, rather than reading terms and ideas into them (however noble or uplifting those things might be) that simply are not there. 

Additionally, as was previously said, proceeding along these lines allows for the narrative to be heard as it would have been heard by the people for whom it was written, while also allowing for a better comprehension of the movement of Scripture, and therefore an enhanced ability to comprehend and serve the God that is said to be revealed in and through those Scriptures.  This then, of course, allows a divine image-bearer to better understand the words and deeds of the God that was made manifest in human form, that being Jesus of Nazareth.    

So what has been seen in the course of this study?  What is it that prompted travel down the path that has revealed that Esau, perhaps surprisingly, was the compassionate brother?  To answer that question, the story of Jacob must be reviewed in broad terms.  Jacob, as is known, was one of two sons.  He was the younger of fraternal twins.  In a deceptive and dishonorable action, he secured for himself the blessing of his (purportedly dying---a deception in its own right) father---a blessing that rightfully belonged to his brother.  This generated anger on behalf of his brother, and most likely on the part of his father as well (due to the shame that would have been generated by the deception).  It is said that his brother was determined to kill him, so rather than staying, Jacob left, putting distance between himself and those that he had dishonored, ending up in the house of his uncle Laban. 

As was seen, Jacob lived a rather interesting and tumultuous life.  In particular, the report of his wives competing for his attention and his affection, with them offering up their female servants as wives to their husband, is revealed as being rather riotous.  When one considers the lifestyle, the adjective “wild” comes to mind.  By all indications he worked very hard for his uncle.  It appears to be the case that his labor served to increase his uncle’s wealth (and honor), but when it came to his own wealth, possessions, and honor, though he had surreptitiously secured the blessing of his father (which promised the richness of the earth along with plenty of grain and new wine), it was as if his life was gripped by famine.  Seeking to rectify this situation, he struck a deal with his uncle.  Though at first it seems like a legitimate agreement, closer inspection reveals that Laban may very well have intended to cause Jacob to become discouraged and despondent over his situation, possibly hopeful that this would result in Jacob leaving (and leaving behind his wives and children that would have been the property of his uncle). 

Eventually, after realizing that there was nothing more to be gained by staying where he was, and continuing to live in what was going to be a difficult and ultimately unsatisfying situation, Jacob expresses a desire to return to his father’s house.  He shares with his wives the reasons for acting on this desire.  However, there is the problem of his dishonored and angry brother, not to mention the dishonored and angry father, whose son had brought shame on the entire family.  Jacob had no idea how Esau would respond, and he figured that it was likely that he would meet up with Esau somewhere along the journey to his father’s house.  With this in mind, he devises a plan by which he will attempt to soothe his brother, even if it means dishonor for himself. 

Terms Of The Covenant (part 2 of 2)

What the Creator God is presumed to have said to Judah through Jeremiah, the same God effectively and presumably said to Adam, which was “Obey me and carry out the terms of the agreement exactly as I commanded you.  If you do, you will be My people and I will be your God” (Jeremiah 11:4b).  Had Adam been faithful to the covenant conditions that had been delivered to him, death would not have come upon him and (again, presumably) the creation over which he was given dominion. 

The Scriptural narrative suggests that Eden and the covenant God’s creation would have remained in the state of perfection in which it was delivered to man.  If His chosen people were faithful, Israel’s God promised to “keep the promise I swore on oath to your ancestors to give them a land flowing with milk and honey” (11:5a).  “Milk and honey” could certainly also be rendered as “fertile fields and fine pastures,” which could also serve as a description of the land into which man had been placed before the curse of his covenant failure caused it to be overrun with thorns and thistles.

It is possible to hear the Creator God not only speaking to the people of Judah, but to all that would eventually come to be His covenant people, as He says, “I solemnly warned your ancestors (Israel & Adam respectively) to obey Me.  I warned them again and again, every since I delivered the out of Egypt until this very day” (11:7).  Obviously, Adam was not personally delivered out of Egypt, though He was placed, as Israel would eventually be, in a land of the Creator God’s choosing. 

The described paths of Adam and Israel converge again, as one reads “But they did not listen to Me or pay any attention to Me!” (11:8a).  Clearly, this could be said of both, which lends credence to seeing Adam as the embodiment of Israel in the creation narrative.  “Each one of them,” the Creator God says, “followed the stubborn inclinations of his own wicked heart.  So I brought on them all the punishments threatened in the covenant because they did not carry out its terms as I commanded them to do” (11:8b). 

For His covenant people, the punishment was the curse that Jeremiah insisted was on its way; and for Adam and all of humankind, the punishment was death.  Why?  Because the Creator God is faithful to His covenants, even if and when those that are charged to be His image-bearers are not.  The Creator God of Israel demanded and expected trust, but the story of Scripture indicates that He did not receive it.  He expected these creatures that had been made in His image to reflect His glory, but they failed.        

For Israel and for Adam (and all the descendants of Adam), it could be said, “The people of Judah and the citizens of Jerusalem have plotted rebellion against Me…  They too have paid allegiance to other gods and worshiped them” (11:9,10b).  Both rebelled and, for all practical purposes, fell into idolatry.  Israel found itself bowing to the gods of the surrounding nations, whether by choice or through force, whereas Adam, beginning the idolatry with which each of his progeny (according to the Scriptures) is afflicted, seems to have bowed down to and worshiped himself, making himself the measure of all things, in trustful worship of the creature rather than the Creator.  The sovereign Lord’s response to this is consistent, as He says, “those gods will by no means be able to save them when disaster strikes them” (11:12b).  A redeemer would be necessary.