Absalom (part 18)

So here is an answer.  This, as should be well understood by now, was completely un-necessary.  Seemingly, David was not a threat to Absalom.  David had resolved to leave his destiny in the hands of his God.  Along with that, and based on the mournful response that David makes when he eventually (after the unfolding of the events to come) receives word of Absalom having been struck down and killed, one can even imagine that David asked for his God’s blessing and favor to fall upon the one whom He (God) had seen fit to place in the role of king, having given him favor with the people of that God. 

No, David did not and could not have seen himself as being unlawfully or unjustly removed from the throne of Israel; and if he truly was the man after the Creator God’s own heart, and if he truly served under a special anointing of that God, it would have been incumbent upon him to seek and to serve his God’s will, even if that meant that he was not to be the king.  Based on what he had done and had not done, as he delivered oppression and usurped justice (with morality-related mistakes to which fallen humans are prone as secondary issues), David would have been justified in believing in this way and acting accordingly.     

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which was really part of his service to David, he invokes the memory of the covenant promise that Israel’s God had originally made to Abraham.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 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 becomes 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 one can find, from either the Lord of Israel 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.  

Absalom (part 16)

Everything was going well for Absalom.  He had taken the throne.  He had secured the support of one of his father’s chief advisors.  His efforts at fostering a sense of justice and peace through brotherhood with the people seemed to have been effective, as Absalom had “won the loyalty of the citizens of Israel” (2 Samuel 15:6b).  The narrative of exile and exodus that he had been creating for himself had paid off, as “the people were starting to side with Absalom” (15:12b).  Even his father had been told that “The men of Israel are loyal to Absalom!” (15:13b). 

Due to this loyalty and support, Absalom entered Jerusalem peacefully (15:37b), apparently encountering no resistance.  To go with all of this, Hushai the Arkite, another one of his father’s servants, came to Absalom in Jerusalem and said “I will be loyal to the one whom the Lord, these people, and all the men of Israel have chosen.  Moreover, whom should I serve?  Should it not be his son?  Just as I served your father, so I will serve you” (16:18b). 

                          

Now, Absalom did not know that Hushai had attempted to go with David, and had gone back to Jerusalem at David’s request for the expressed purpose of countering the advice that Ahithophel would provide to Absalom (15:34).  So as far as Absalom would have been concerned, these words from Hushai, that were actually words of deception that were put in Hushai’s mouth by David, were simply further evidence that his plan had been successful, and that the God of Israel was favoring him in his efforts. 

As one reads through this story (which seems to have a place of importance in the life of David and the history of Israel), it would be easy to conclude that even David himself seems to have been resigned to the possibility that Absalom’s exodus to kingship, and his own exile from the throne, was part of the Creator God’s will, as again, the promise to David was that he would have a dynasty on the throne.  The rule of Absalom most certainly fit within that framework.  To go along with that, David would have been none too surprised that this was part of his God’s judgment upon him for his failures as king (Uriah, Amnon).  Witness to this is that he has taken only mild measures to retain his position, involving Zadok, Abiathar, and Hushai in that effort. 

Thinking about this for a moment, when David employs Zadok and Abiathar (along with their sons) as spies, it is a bit of a perversion of their role (as priests) to represent the people before their God.  Nevertheless, this resignation is partly indicated (among other things that have already been explored) by the fact that David sends the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem, and his saying “If I find favor in the Lord’s sight He will bring me back and enable me to both see it and His dwelling place again” (15:25b).  That was said together with “However, if He should say, ‘I do not take pleasure in you,’ then He will deal with me in a way that He considers appropriate” (15:26).  Additionally, the words that David spoke in the wake of being cursed and assaulted (rocks thrown) by Shimei, only points to his understanding that all of this might very well have been his God’s will. 

So as was said, everything was going swimmingly for Absalom.  He had led his peaceful insurrection, and it has been accomplished by winning the hearts of the people.  In essence, according to the historic narrative of Israel, he was Moses and he was leading Israel in a new exodus movement with the Lord of Israel on his and their side.  Indeed, Absalom, if he would have been so inclined, could have stood before the people and said “just as the Lord fought for Israel in Egypt, rescuing a people by the acts of His mighty hand, so He has again fought for Absalom and Israel, delivering me to the throne of His people, by the singular working of His powerful, saving might.” 

Reinforcing such a thought, he has now even heard it said, by one of his father’s trusted servants, that he (Absalom) was anointed by both Israel’s Lord and the people.  To that point, any such mention of anointing (in the mold of Saul and David) had been completely absent from the narrative.  Upon this, his revolution was complete.  Absalom was king.  The covenant God was going to fulfill the promises to David through him.  Then, in the midst of this, the tide turned.  Everything changed.  Events began to unfold that would unravel Absalom’s victory.        

Saul's Final Exile (part 1 of 2)

Near the close of the first book of Samuel, we learn about the not-so-surprising way in which Saul’s life was brought to an end.  Saul’s death is tightly connected with his visit to the witch at Endor, and it serves as yet another example of God’s covenant faithfulness, as it relates to the issues of the subjugation and redemption (exile and exodus) of His chosen people.  The story of Saul’s visit begins with a reminder that Samuel had died, which provides a basis for Saul’s fear at the assembly of the Philistines against him and Israel. 

God’s anointing, along with the kingdom, as we know, has already been removed from Saul and he has been vexed with a troubling spirit from the time that such was pronounced against him.  Most assuredly, he had taken his eyes off of Israel’s God, no longer trusting in His faithfulness towards His people, and instead, had put his trust in another man, that being Samuel.  It was probably the case that, since it was Samuel that had given voice to the stripping of the anointing and kingdom from Saul, that Samuel was the one with whom Saul had hoped to restore a relationship of trust, rather than the God for whom Samuel spoke.  The new challenge being offered by the Philistines caused Saul to be “absolutely terrified” (1 Samuel 28:5), and even though we read that “Saul inquired of the Lord” (28:6a), this inquiry, as we would expect, was met with silence on God’s behalf, so he quickly turned to the idea of inquiring of “a medium” (28:7). 

We need not recount the full story of Saul’s visit, but rather, jump straight to the reported interaction between Samuel and Saul that has apparently been facilitated by this medium.  “Samuel said to Saul, ‘Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?’  Saul replied, ‘I am terribly troubled!  The Philistines are fighting against me and God has turned away from me.  He does not answer me---not by the prophets nor by dreams.  So I have called on you to tell me what to do’.” (28:15)  Samuel’s response is a representative report of the epitome of God’s promised cursing for disobedience in relation to the covenants related to His commandments.  He says, “Why are you asking me, now that the Lord has turned away from you and has become your enemy?” (28:16)  This should remind us of the blessing and cursing passages from Deuteronomy, which are instrumental in interpreting and understanding Israel’s history, as well as the Bible’s meta-narrative, which is the story of exile and exodus (from cover to cover).

Samuel’s words to Saul are a startling re-phrasing of Deuteronomy 28:15, which reads, “But if you ignore the Lord your god and are not careful to keep all His commandments and statutes…” (28:15a), which would cause Saul to reflect on the events that had brought him to the point of this interaction---especially the Amalekite situation, “then all these curses will come upon you in full force” (28:15b).  By his own words, Saul has expressed to Samuel that he is confused by the Lord’s response---or lack thereof---in the face of the current conflict that has come upon him and Israel.  This falls right in line with additional words from Deuteronomy, which state that “The Lord will send on you a curse, confusing you and opposing you in everything you undertake until you are destroyed and quickly perish because of the evil of your deeds, in that you have forsaken Me” (28:20).  Could there be a more stark example that Saul had forsaken the Lord, in that here he was, consulting a medium, and rousing the spirit of a dead prophet of Israel? 

Samuel tells Saul, “The Lord has done exactly what I prophesied!  The Lord has torn the kingdom from your hand and has given it to your neighbor David!” (28:17)  Just in case Saul had not made the connection, or had somehow forgotten the basis for this turn of events for him, Samuel reminds him that it was because “you did not obey the Lord and did not carry out His fierce anger against the Amalekites,” that “the Lord has done this thing to you today” (28:18).  Briefly recounting the history of Amalek and Israel, we recall that it was Amalek that first met Israel during their exodus from Egyptian exile (subjugation).  Amalek had fought against Israel, attempting to subjugate them in the midst of their exodus.  This was the reason why, when Israel would later encounter Amalek, that God demanded the total annihilation of Amalek and everything related to Amalek.  Saul did not carry this out in full.  Because of this failure, Amalek would attempt to re-subjugate Israel many years later, in the person of Haman, the son of Hammadetha the Agagite (Agag was the king of Amalek that Saul initially spared, but Samuel later executed).  This would serve to indicate that even though Agag was not spared from the sword, many in Amalek were, meaning that the failure to carry out God’s clear commandments had far-reaching repercussions.  In light of the fall of man, and in the ironically bright glare of the darkness by which we are surrounded on a daily basis in this world, it is not difficult to understand the nature of the reach of those repercussions.