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.  

No One Knows The Hour (part 35)

This line of thinking becomes especially poignant when one considers that Jesus’ dealings with and in the Temple are a central feature of the Gospel accounts, and that all three make it more than clear that it is this ongoing clash with the Temple authorities, culminating in Jesus’ enacted judgment (in the mold of Jeremiah) against the Temple that ultimately resulted in the collusion with the Roman authorities that was productive of His death by crucifixion. 

While this can be said, it is more than possible that Mark did in fact write His Gospel before the Temple had come to its end, as is often posited.  Mark’s Gospel lacks the embellishments (in the sense of a more rounded-out presentation) on Jesus’ life that are to be found in Matthew and Luke, with this lack of embellishment being quite understandable.  If Mark writes before the Temple’s fall, whereas Matthew and Luke write after the fall and because of that fall, then it is understandable that Mark’s account would be more direct and straightforward, lacking the material details and stories to be found in the narratives on offer in Matthew and Luke.  Understandably, composing their accounts of Jesus in a post-Temple-fall world, Matthew and Luke could be far more comfortable relating more of Jesus’ life story, as preserved and transmitted via the oral tradition. 

Together with these important realizations, if one also holds to the idea that the early church, having rightly comprehended what Jesus meant by His fall-of-the-Temple-focused discourse (as recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21), tightly connected the fall of the Temple with the coming of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days in order to receive His kingdom, then the heavy inclusion of all of the Son of Man language throughout the Gospels makes even greater sense.  While this study will not take the time to offer an in-depth review of all of the mentions of the Son of Man, it is worth taking a bit of time to review and to draw out some conclusions and inferences that would have been obvious to Jesus’ original audience. 

In a superficial review, one cannot help but notice that John has the fewest uses of “Son of Man.”  Mark clocks in with the next fewest, while both Matthew and Luke are replete with its usage (Luke nearly doubling Mark’s count, while Matthew more than doubles Mark’s usage).  While John obviously pursues its agenda on a different path than do the synoptics, Mark’s relative restraint in using the term is understandable if it is, in fact, cautiously and expectantly composed before the fall of the Temple.  If Jesus presents Himself as the Danielic Son of Man, while tying the expected reign of the Son of Man to the fall of the Temple, it would not be odd to see a pre-Temple-fall composition being a bit more judicious in the use of the term.  If both Matthew and Luke are composed and disseminated post-Temple-fall, then all things considered, it would make far more sense to include far more Son of Man language. 

Of course, one does not simply assert that a lack of details in indicative of a pre-fall composition, as Mark could certainly have been just as precise and non-verbose, as opposed to his evangelistic counterparts, while writing after the Temple’s fall.  Once a position has been achieved in which it possible to correctly and contextually hear Jesus’ Son of Man language within His crystal clear, prophetical, and predictive speech about the coming fall of the Temple, doing so in the light of Daniel’s seventh chapter, it would be a tremendous dis-service to fail to reflect on a few of its appearances prior to the Temple speech in which Jesus connects the Temple’s fall with the Son of Man’s arrival and kingdom acquisition.