Absalom (part 21)

Returning to the text of Absalom’s story, Hushai, after gaining Absalom’s ear, passes along to David the news of both his and Ahithophel’s 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 it 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 his God’s favor returning upon him. 

David 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 also proved to be less than beneficial.  In this unwarranted plan to attack David without provocation, as (according to the narrative on offer), David has not actively said or done anything to defeat what he feels might very well be the work of the Creator God, Absalom has now turned oppressor. 

Absalom is no longer Moses, but rather Saul.  He is no longer rescuing the people from subjugation, but he is 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 to said subjects.  

With Absalom’s approval of Hushai’s plan, events begin to unfold rather quickly.  David is advised to move quickly, lest he be caught, and he does so along with all his people.  Ahithophel, who appears to be sensing oncoming defeat in addition to having his advice ignored in favor of that of Hushai, kills himself.  David and those with him have crossed the Jordan River, symbolically leaving the land of Israel, and going to Mahanaim (2 Samuel 17:24a).  Following the plan, “Absalom and all the men of Israel had crossed the Jordan River” (17:24b) as well. 

One may be predisposed to read by that quickly, but perhaps such should not be the case.  Crossing the Jordan was of tremendous significance in the history of Israel.  Following the exodus and Israel’s time in the wilderness, the crossing of the Jordan meant that they had crossed over into the land of the Creator God’s promise.  It was, in a sense, the completion of the exodus, though the exodus would never truly complete, as exodus would prove to be an ongoing process of deliverance, rescue, redemption, and salvation, which must be worked out diligently. 

Even after Israel crossed into their promised land, they still had to take the land, drive out its occupants, and crush the rampant idolatry (which they would fail to do).  In the days of John the Baptist, baptism in the Jordan River was a clear signal of a new exodus movement and a submission to the claims of the coming kingdom of their God, just as baptism in this day is a sign of departure from exile into a life of exodus (a constant entering into the Creator God’s mission and purpose) and submission to the covenant God’s King, that being Jesus the Messiah.  David, already in a self-imposed exile from Jerusalem and his throne, crosses the Jordan as he flees Absalom, who is now, unfortunately, intent upon killing his father. 

This does carry some meaning for David, though it carries far greater meaning for Absalom.  After crossing the Jordan River in his pursuit of his father, as he leads the men of Israel in this pursuit and as he goes forth to violently raise his hand against his father, he is going into another exile.  With this exile, and with what it is going to mean for him, his father is now being rescued from subjugation and delivered from his oppressor.  By this, Absalom has reversed the exodus that he has experienced.  He has completely reversed the Moses-oriented narrative that he had created for himself.  

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 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. 

This Is My Covenant With You (part 2 of 2)

We find out in the book of Joshua that Israel failed to keep this covenantal requirement during their years in the wilderness.  They failed to continue their expression of gratitude to the grace shown them by their supreme patron, thus dishonoring themselves.  Should we not find this to be quite odd?  This was God’s covenantal requirement, and Israel had clearly seen their covenant God acting on their behalf, fulfilling His age-old promises, in both their deliverance and their time in the wilderness before re-entering their Promised Land.  Yet they failed to exercise this requirement that would have been quite basic to their honor-and-shame-defined world.  Perhaps they were waiting to see if the God that rained down plagues on the Egyptians, led them in pillars of cloud and fire, parted the Red Sea, delivered manna daily, and made water flow from rocks, could actually bring them into the place that He had for them?  If He managed that, then they could trust Him, and then, they would express their gratitude by re-engaging in this covenant requirement, showing their God that they were willing to once again trust Him and accept His covenant. 

It seems as if there might very well have been an underlying attitude that they were doing God a favor by fulfilling and then continuing the practice of circumcision as a sign of covenant.  That attitude appears to be well reflected in the fact that, rather than look to the requirement as a sign and symbol of gratitude to their God for His demonstration and extension of grace, mercy and faithfulness to them as children of Abraham, it became a source of pride and a basis for excluding other peoples from the blessings associated with the covenant.  God had told Abraham that through him, and then through his descendants as well, all nations would be blessed; and part of Israel’s charge was to be a light to the nations.  Israel, however, held up the very thing that symbolized a covenant that was designed to extend His blessings to all peoples, and pointed to it as the sign of their God’s favor on them and them alone.  They were not actively seeking to extend the honor of their patron by loudly sharing about His good deeds, which would be the standard practice of grateful clients. 

Israel, not unlike we find through the history of Christendom through this very day, took a gift of God and used it to build walls of separation, so as to keep God’s blessing all to themselves (as if the covenant God was ever going to bless Israel---or anyone else for that matter---in its maintaining of exclusionary practices).  Rather than seeking to expand their patron’s clientele and the implied kinship group of their patron, which would have been customary, they acted to limit the influence and honor of their patron, whilst limiting his roster of clientele.  The sign of the covenant became a tradition that basically served to indicate that they were graciously choosing to be God’s people, and by extension, that the God owed them His blessings.  It seems as if Israel accepted the premise that their God was limited, that the things with which He could bless them were a limited good, and that the honor that could be gained by being in His patronage was a limited good, so they had to protect their own interest by limiting who could participate in their God’s circle of grace.

Circumcision, the symbol of God’s covenant faithfulness, and the mark that served to indicate recognition of the Creator God as one’s patron, was also meant to consistently remind God’s people of their responsibilities in accordance with that covenant, which included extending the covenant family of their patron, and the associated blessings, to include all the peoples of the world.  If the responsibilities were forsaken, then the symbol itself was pointless.  The one that has been brought into the covenant, and then proceeds to shrink back from the covenantal duties to be the light that extends God’s blessings, instead throwing up walls and barriers and exclusionary principles, brings shame and dishonor to both himself and his patron, and might as well not even bear the marks of covenant.  God said to Abraham that “Any uncircumcised male…will be cut off from his people---he has failed to carry out My requirement” (Genesis 17:14).  This is very strong “shaming” language.   

Making an application then, if we find ourselves falling into patterns of separation that keep us from being covenantal people in line with God’s covenantal purposes, which is the continued extension of the Christ’s kingdom through the preaching of the Gospel that goes forth with Resurrection power for eternal life (here and now) for all who believe; but instead, find ourselves withdrawing into the walls of our churches in a supposed fostering of holiness as we await the “end times,” or making and keeping Christianity a private and eminently personal matter between us and God that is almost entirely concerned with getting and staying saved so that we can simply escape earth and spend eternity in heaven, or encouraging a mentality of “us against the world,” we dishonor our patron and fail as His clients.  It is likely that God would see that as nothing less than a failure to carry out what He requires from His chosen people, and a dishonoring slap in the face to Him.  God’s warning to us is that such a person is not part of His covenant people---they are cut off.      

Preparing For The King (part 2)

As we read through Luke, and as it relates to a people being prepared to receive their king, we have to keep in mind that this writing had a specific purpose.  That purpose is stated in what came to be recognized as the first four verses of the work.  There, we read, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the words have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (1:1-4). 

So what we there find is that this work is directed to a man referred to as “most excellent Theophilus.”  Scholarship and archaeology have come to point out that the title “most excellent,” when used preceding a name in official communication with stated purposes not unlike what we find here in Luke, was often directed towards Roman government officials of what was called “The Equestrian Order.”  This must be borne in mind because of the language that we will find being used, beginning with the record of Gabriel informing Zechariah, that he “was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news” (1:19b). 

This use of “good news” is not to be taken lightly, and along with Luke’s purpose of presenting a global king and kingdom, it demands to be heard within its immediate cultural context so as to grasp its import and impact.  The Greek word used here for “good news” is “evangelisasthai,” which is a derivation of “evangelion,” the word that is commonly rendered as “gospel.”  Because the word that is presented as “good news” was generally and primarily reserved and used in reference to the Emperor (Caesar) or to events that enhanced the glory of the Roman empire, this would have been highly impactful to this Roman government official to whom this book was directed.    

As Theophilus continued reading (or listening as it was shared by a tradent), he would come to the story of Mary.  With Mary, the language of preparation for a King would become even stronger and more pronounced.  As the author communicates a similar experience to that of Zechariah, the angel Gabriel appears to Mary, telling her that she had “found favor with God” (Luke 1:30).  Favor, in a world defined by honor and shame, and in which the patron and client relationship was prevalent, pervasive, and determinative, would have been a crucial component of the message to Mary, and it would not have been lost on someone such as Theophilus, who, like everyone else in his world, would have been well-versed in the dynamics of the patron client relationship, and the ongoing desire to secure favor from a patron. 

It is worth digressing for just one moment to point out that Mary had not found this favor through any efforts of her own, but that God’s favor was being bestowed upon her, the evidence of which would be the fact that she was told that she would “conceive and bear a son,” and that she would “call His name Jesus” (1:31).  This was most definitely the unmerited favor of God poured out upon Mary, and she is placed in the position of client to her patron, the Creator God of Israel, now owing Him service, gratitude, and loyalty. 

This name, Jesus, which means “Jehovah Saves,” was quickly followed up by a few more titles.  The kingly language comes at us and Theophilus quite quickly, as we read that “He will be great” (1:32a), that He “will be called the Son of the Most High” (1:32b), that “the Lord God will give to Him the throne of His father David” (1:32c), that “He will reign over the house of Jacob forever” (1:32d), and that “of His kingdom there will be no end” (1:32e).  Is there any doubt as to the mission of Jesus and what Luke desires to make known about Him?  A bit further on we read that Jesus shall be called “the Son of God” (1:35b).  That’s quite an impressive list to read, especially in a world that is ruled by Caesar, and is the one for whom such language (especially “son of god”) is generally reserved.