Absalom (part 7)

It would not be difficult to imagine that, along with the telling of his own story of what he considered to be poor treatment at the hands of his father, that Absalom also “went public” with the Bathsheba incident in order to continue the efforts towards painting his father as an oppressive ruler in the mold of a Pharaoh that needed to be defeated by Israel’s God, doing so through the agency of another Moses. 

After receiving the approval of his father to go to Hebron to offer the aforementioned sacrifice, “Absalom sent spies through all the tribes of Israel” (2 Samuel 15:10a).   Here again there is another allusion to Moses and the exodus of Israel, in that Moses sent spies into the promised land.  Yes, it has become readily apparent that Absalom wanted to be seen as a great deliverer within Israel, raised up by their God to liberate from oppression and servitude.  This sending of spies would play very well into the narrative that he was attempting to create.  Not only that, but this sending of spies might also very well cause the people to remember the other famous sending of spies, which would have been to Jericho before that city was defeated.  This, of course, would invoke thoughts of Israel’s great general Joshua, and the people’s actual entering into and conquering of the promised land under his leadership. 

Remember, Absalom has been quite patient.  It has been at least four years since his coming before the king, at least six years since his return to Jerusalem, at least nine years since his flight to Geshur, and at least eleven years since his brother raped his sister.  With such a patient demeanor on display, without a doubt he must also have been considered as an astute observer of the people and of Israel’s history. 

His time spent at the gates, as he was gaining the respect of the people, would have put him in a position to ascertain what types of symbols and symbolism would resonate with the people when the time came for him to lead another exodus of sorts.  If such was his mindset, then part of his interaction with the people---if he was indeed positioning himself as a Moses/Joshua type of leader, with his increasingly out-of-touch father as a new Pharaoh---would have been an insistence that, under David, Israel was in something of another exile (or at least heading that way), with all of the curses of exile that would be sure to follow if the people failed to rally around him and support his leadership, while encouraging others to do the same.  So the spies were sent through the land and instructed “When you hear the sound of the horn, you may assume that Absalom rules in Hebron” (15:10b). 

The breadth of Absalom’s influence is further demonstrated in that he “sent for Ahithophel the Gileonite, David’s adviser, to come from his city, Giloh” (15:12b).  Ahithophel was a highly respected adviser to David, and if he has been convinced that Absalom is the one to follow, then one can well understand the words that followed, which report that “The conspiracy was gaining momentum, and the people were starting to side with Absalom” (15:12c). 

What was it about Absalom that attracted the people to him and away from David?  Was it because “in all Israel everyone acknowledged that there was no man as handsome as Absalom,” and that “From the sole of his feet to the top of his head he was perfect in appearance” (14:25)?  While this is an “attractive” option, it is unlikely.  David himself, when first introduced into the Scriptural narrative, is said to have “attractive eyes and a handsome appearance” (1 Samuel 16:12b).  When Saul is introduced as king of Israel, he is described as standing “head and shoulders above them all” (1 Samuel 10:23b).  Further, Samuel says, “Do you see the one whom the Lord has chosen?  Indeed, there is no one like him among all the people!” (10:24b)  

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.  

Raising Lazarus For Glory (part 1)

When Jesus heard this, He said, “This sickness will not lead to death, but to God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” – John 11:4  (NET)

Prior to making this statement, Jesus had received a message about a good friend.  In that message, He had been told that “the one You love is sick” (11:3b).  As an aside, it should be noted that Lazarus is the only man in the New Testament of whom it is said that Jesus loved him, while here it can also be learned that “Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus” (11:5).  It is fascinating to consider that it is these people alone that are of spoken of in this way (Jesus loved him/them), and spoken of this way here in this Gospel alone, which makes an internal claim to be authored by the disciple whom Jesus loved (21:20,24). 

Upon hearing this, Jesus---the one that had demonstrated power to turn water into wine, who is said to have pronounced from afar the healing of the son of a royal official in Capernaum, reported to have healed a long-crippled man at the pool of Bethesda, multiplied a few loaves and fishes to feed a multitude of people, walked on water, and gave sight to a man that had been blind from birth---did not run to Lazarus’ bedside and He did not pronounce healing from afar, though presumably, based on His track record and what is reported about Him, He could have done so.  The author reports that He simply replied to the message by saying that “This sickness will not lead to death, but to God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”  Additionally, having heard this report about the one (the only individual in Scripture) that Jesus is specifically said to have loved, somewhat oddly, “He remained in the place where He was for two more days” (11:6b). 

So what did Jesus mean by this statement concerning sickness, death, the Son of God, and glory?  Many conclusions can be drawn.  As possible answers are considered, it must be remembered that these Gospel narratives were not compositions of random occurrences.  Rather, the Gospels, John included, are continuous narratives.  As continues narratives that leave out some details of Jesus’ life, while including and highlighting others, are designed to tell a story that is subsequently designed to prompt the reader of the story to draw a conclusion about the person upon Whom they are focused. 

When Jesus said that this sickness would lead to God’s glory, was He indicating a knowledge that Lazarus was going to die, and that He was going to go and call him forth from the tomb, thus bringing glory to the Creator God?  This is possible and simple, but it seems to be unlikely.  In fact, it is probably as unlikely as the idea that the man that had been born blind, about whom can be read in the ninth chapter of John, spent an entire lifetime suffering in blindness and darkness so that one day Jesus could come along and heal Him and the God of Israel could be glorified through the healing.  That would seem like nothing more than a great, cosmic joke by a prankster god unworthy of praise.  That does not seem like the type of God that Jesus is said to reveal.  

Considering the record of the man that was born blind, Jesus said that this condition existed “so that the acts of God may be revealed through what happens to him” (9:3b).  Thus, that case would seem to  less about the healing and more about Jesus’ Messianic claims, as the fall-out over the healing, as recorded in the Gospel narrative that must be read as a continuous and connected story, would ultimately center on questions about Jesus as Messiah and Jesus’ presenting Himself as the Good Shepherd, which carried patently messianic undertones.  Through the healing, the acts of the Creator God were in fact revealed, in that one of the widely held expectations about Israel’s messiah was that he would be the physical, human embodiment of the faithful and covenant God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that He would be acting on behalf of Israel to fulfill His promises to them.  In addition to that, through the healing, the reader, who has been introduced into the Johannine story about the true divine image-bearer with the words “In the beginning,” is given a glimpse into what the Creator God had always intended for humanity.