Absalom (part 10)

“So the king and all the members of his royal court set out on foot” (2 Samuel 15:16a).  This is Israel’s exodus from Egypt, but applied in reverse.  It is the oppressive king that is fleeing, rather than the people.  This is the king of Israel, who represents the people, going into exile rather than leading them to and then in their promised land.  David, whether directly or indirectly, through the situation that he created by not dealing with Amnon, and by not dealing with Absalom, is delivering the people that are loyal to him into exile.  Their march is not one of exodus, in power and glory, but rather one of fear and shame.  Not all of the members of the royal household left Jerusalem however, as “the king left behind ten concubines to attend to the palace” (15:16b).  This becomes significant later on, as this allows for the fulfillment of a “prophecy” that had previously been given to David. 

Like Israel, but again in reverse, “The king and all the people set out on foot, pausing at a spot some distance away” (15:17).  This should cause a reflection upon Israel’s flight from Egypt, in that they paused at the Red Sea, and then again at the mountain of God.  It should also serve as a contrast to what it is that is happening with the two events.  Drawing attention to the fact that he knew that he was going into exile, “the king said to Ittai the Gittie, ‘Why should you come with us?  Go back and stay with the new king, for you are a foreigner and an exile from your own country… Today should I make you wander around by going with us?’” (15:19,20b) 

David asks Ittai, who already lives in a state of exile, why he wants to continue in exile.  H then uses the language of wandering, which present thoughts of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness after their faithless response to the call to enter the land of promise.  Ittai, however, refused to leave David, saying “As surely as the Lord lives and as my lord the king lives, wherever my lord the king is, whether dead or alive, there I will be as well!” (15:21)  Clearly, not all is lost for David.  This response from Ittai seems to boost David’s spirits a bit.  Perhaps he began to think that if this man would not forsake him, then perhaps the Lord God of Israel had not completely forsaken him either. 

One must take note of a startling fact.  That fact is that the first mention of the Lord God of Israel in relation to David’s situation and in the midst of Absalom’s insurrection, comes from this foreigner Ittai who is living in exile.  It seems that David had forgotten about his Lord.  To make the point, the author does not have David mentioning his Lord since the twenty-second verse of chapter twelve, as he does so in connection with the death of the child that was born to he and Bathsheba.  As one can be sure that these books of Samuel are both historical and theological treatises, this mention of Israel’s God by Ittai is quite striking.  It seems to jar something within David. 

After this reminder of the Lord, it is said that “All the land was weeping loudly as all these people were leaving.  As the king was crossing over the Kidron valley, all the people were leaving on the road that leads to the desert” (15:23).  This is understandable.  Jerusalem, after all, is the capital of the country.  Many that lived there would have served the king in official government positions.  With David fleeing and a new king on the way, it would not be unreasonable for these people to believe themselves, at the least, as out of a job, and at the worst as liable to be put to death by Absalom so that he can appoint his own people into government positions---people that he can trust to be loyal to him and to serve him well.  Along with that, “Zadok and all the Levites who were with him were carrying the Ark of the Covenant of God” (15:24a).  For some reason, they were taking the Ark of the Covenant with them, as if somehow it was only David that could legitimate its presence there in Jerusalem, rather than the other way around, with the Ark serving to legitimate the rule of the Creator God’s people by its presence near the throne. 

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.  

No One Knows The Hour (part 2)

It might be of interest to note that, in order to call Jeremiah to mind, Jesus quotes the from the eleventh verse of the seventh chapter.  He may have been able to quote from another portion of the section provided above, but He did not.  He references the portion of Jeremiah’s polemic that speaks of “robbers.”  The Greek word translated as “robber” in Matthew is “leston.”  Now this is not to be found in Matthew’s narrative, but in the Gospel of John the man named Barabbas is described as a “robber,” using a derivation of the same Greek word used by both Jesus and Jeremiah. 

Matthew merely mentions the fact that Barabbas was a “notorious prisoner.”  Presumably, the people in Jerusalem knew who and what he was.  According to Mark, Barabbas “had committed murder during an insurrection” (15:7), and Luke also mentions the insurrection and murder (23:19).  This is interesting, as the Greek term applied to Barabbas by the author of John, which is the same one that is directed to the Temple authorities by Jesus, carries with it the notion of insurrection and revolution---going well beyond simple thievery.  Little wonder then that Barabbas was, to use Matthew’s language, a notorious prisoner. 

It is appropriate to here marvel at the genius of the author, as ironically, through His triumphal entry, Jesus is stirring thoughts of an insurrection to be carried out against the Romans, whereas those that run the Temple are carrying out an insurrection against the very God that they believe is going to act to deliver them from the power of Rome.  Ultimately, as is well known, Barabbas, the one that seeks to participate in revolutionary activity that may have the effect of driving the Romans from Jerusalem and from Israel through armed conflict, is the man that is released rather than Jesus.  Also in a horrific ironic twist, eventually the people of Israel will undertake a violent resurrection against Rome that will result in the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem, so that the very place in which Jesus stands and speaks will be thrown down to the ground.      

Matthew is not the only Gospel in which Jesus words about the day and hour are reported.  Mark records these words as well.  In the thirteenth chapter Jesus is heard to say “But as for that day or hour no one knows it---neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son---except the Father” (13:32).  Without any intervening material such as that which is to be found in Matthew, Mark moves immediately to Jesus saying “Watch out!  Stay alert!  For you do not know when the time will come” (13:33). 

Luke presents a similar narrative to what is heard in both Matthew and Mark, though it has its own differences that are peculiar to Luke’s presentation of Israel’s Messiah.  Luke does not have Jesus offering an opinion on whether or not one can know the day or the hour of the coming of the Son of Man, but he does alludes to it when he writes “But be on your guard so that your hearts are not weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of the life, and that day close down upon you suddenly like a trap.  For it will overtake all who live on the face of the earth.  But stay alert at all time, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that must happen, and to stand before the Son of Man” (21:34-36). 

Pilate's Dilemma (part 3 of 3)

We must disabuse ourselves of the idea that Jesus was crucified between two common criminals or “thieves.”  Crucifixion would not be employed for something so relatively benign as thievery.  Crucifixion was designed and employed to remind subject people of their place in the world.  Barabbas too was more than a thief.  Barabbas had been arrested and was being held for insurrection.  It is quite likely that Jesus, who is now being accused of an insurrection of His own, is taking the cross that had been intended for Barabbas, and is crucified along with Barabbas’ cohorts.  Ironically, as an insurrectionist, Barabbas was actively agitating against Rome, most likely doing so by inciting the people of Israel to a violent revolution in which he himself had already taken up arms.  Given the tide of a popular opinion in that day then, there is little wonder that the people are reported to have requested the release of Barabbas instead of Jesus. 

So Barabbas was imprisoned and was most likely awaiting death, having been charged with the type of things that a great many of the people would have preferred to see Jesus doing, which was attempting to effect the overthrow of Roman rule through violent rebellion.  As had been made clear, Jesus was not doing that, so yes, though He had healed the sick and restored people to life, He had also stirred up hopes that He was apparently not going to take steps to fulfill, so “away with Him!  If He is going to fail to do what we expect our messiah to do, He is a failure and must suffer the fate of all failed messiahs.” “Crucify Him!” (27:22b)  “Crucify Him!”  (27:23b)

Pilate, obviously conflicted with the knowledge that Jesus had truly done nothing that would provide sufficient and legitimate grounds for the infliction of such a punishment, had said, “Why?  What has He done?” (27:23a); but again, the tide of popular opinion had turned.  The court of public opinion was speaking.  Ironically, there was always the under-current that Roman action against popular, potential messiah figures would induce rioting by the populace, as riot and revolution was the goal of those that rose to prominence under the messianic banner.  In this case, however, Pilate was seeing that the people were going to riot if he failed to crucify this particular, potential messiah (27:24) that was unwilling to induce rioting or the usual type of revolution.  This was a strange turn of events.  This group of people, in all of their expectations and fervor, were now demanding what can only be understood as an unjust execution by crucifixion, especially in the absence of evidence of violence and attempted overthrow that would normally render the judgment as obvious and necessary.

As we move forward in the story and conclude our study we find Barabbas released, with Jesus flogged and handed over to be crucified (27:26).  Having been handed over, “They stripped Him and put a scarlet robe around Him, and after braiding a crown of thorns, they put it on His head.  They put a staff in His right hand, and kneeling down before Him, they mocked Him: ‘Hail, king of the Jews!’” (27:28-29).  Such activities are fairly standard in accompaniment of crucifixions.  If someone was deluded enough to envision themselves as a king, then they would receive their coronation.  While we see rightfully see this as the mocking for which it was clearly intended, we can also understand the pragmatism on display here in this case. 

Pilate, like most politicians, was concerned for his position and his future, and imperial actions such as crucifixions were most likely accompanied by reports to his superiors in Rome.  So just to be on the safe side, seeing as how he had condemned this man to crucifixion for His claim to be a king in spite of his reservations because there was appeared to be no evidence ready at hand that suggested any harm to Rome or to Caesar in this statement, a rather standard coronation ceremony was conducted, with all the necessary mock royal emblems and honors.  Now, having been presented as a king, by and to Roman soldiers no less, this Jesus fellow could safely be sent to the cross; and Pilate, having “washed his hands before the crowd” (27:24b), could be done with the whole messy ordeal.