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. 

Love On John's Terms (part 19)

In the fourth chapter of John, Jesus’ talk of water is linked to Jacob.  The context of everything following the feeding of the five thousand, in the sixth chapter, including His talk of water, is the Moses-and-Deuteronomy-linked statement about “the Prophet who is to come into the world” (6:14b).  Here again, Jesus’ talk of water, when offered to a people that lived in expectation of a messiah and of their God’s working on their behalf to bring about another exodus, and who had a constant consciousness of their history of exile and exodus (especially their primary exodus story), is linked back to Moses.  Upon Jesus’ declaration concerning water, “some of the crowd begin to say, ‘This really is the Prophet!’” (7:40b)  For the author’s purpose, this would almost have to be directly connected to the similar words spoken in the sixth chapter, following the feeding of the multitude. 

Whereas in the sixth chapter Jesus is linked to Moses by the provision of bread, here He is linked to Moses by the provision of water.  This, of course, is connected to the remembrance of the flowing of water from a rock during Israel’s time in the wilderness.  For these people, the Creator God’s love is expressed in such ways, and Jesus is to be seen as the embodiment of that expression of love.  It becomes more and more clear, as the story progresses along, that love is expressed by means of bread and water, and that these things, being the staples of human existence as well as the points of reference by which Jesus is recognized as the Messiah, are far from being simply spiritual terms.   

In the eighth chapter of John, the author offers a very brief reminder of Jesus’ dealings with the Samaritan woman of chapter four.  In verse forty-eight of this chapter, in response to an extended monologue by Jesus, “The Judeans reply, ‘Aren’t we correct in saying that you are a Samaritan and are possessed by a demon?’”  Naturally, this mention of “Samaritan,” within a continuous narrative in which the listener or the reader will have learned about the Samaritan woman and the response of a group of Samaritans that came to believe in Jesus as Messiah, is thought-provoking.  The response from Jesus is “I am not possessed by a demon, but I honor my Father---and yet you dishonor Me” (8:49). 

With what is known at this point, it is not surprising to find Jesus completely dismissing the negative statement leveled against the Samaritans, and responding only to the accusation that He is possessed by a demon.  The Judeans are here shown to be putting Samaritans and demons on the same level, but the hearer knows that this is ridiculous.  This seems to be yet another subtle indicator of the nature of the love, modeled by Jesus through this Gospel presentation, that is to be practiced by the Johannine community and of course the wider body of believers.

From there, the story moves to Jesus’ healing of a man that had been born blind.  In that story, Jesus declares Himself to be “the light of the world” (9:5b), which builds on a concept introduced in the first chapter and built on in the eighth chapter.  With this, Jesus adds to declarations of Himself as both bread and water (evidences of love).  As it has been well-established that these statements about bread and water are Moses and exodus related statements, and acknowledging that taking a dogmatic stand in this area would not be warranted, it stands to reason that Jesus’ speaking of Himself as the light of the world might tie in to the same theme, calling to mind the pillar of fire that was said to have accompanied Israel in the wilderness.   

Christ's Peace (part 2 of 2)

It is possible to see further evidence that Jesus might very well have been thinking of “peace” in the context that has been suggested when He appears before Pilate.  While standing before the man who represented Rome and its might, and having been questioned as to whether or not He was “the King of the Jews” (John 18:34), Jesus replied by saying, “My kingdom is not from this world” (18:36a).  Just as the peace He was going to provide was not going to come in the way that the world provided, so He was also not going to establish His kingdom as the world does. 

Elaborating on the point made, Jesus thus continued on to say, “If My kingdom were from this world, My servants would be fighting to keep Me from being handed over to the Jewish authorities” (18:36b).  Had they fought to establish Jesus’ kingdom, then the “peace” of that kingdom would have been achieved in the same way as the Roman peace had been achieved.  This peace, as can be seen when one glances through the history of the Roman empire, was not terribly peaceful outside of the city of Rome itself, as the years at which Rome was not at war or putting down rebellions in order to extend or preserve its peace were few and far between. 

Finally, providing a significant underscore to what He has insisted concerning His kingdom and the nature of what it brings, Jesus adds, “But as it is, My kingdom is not from here” (18:36c).  With this, He reinforces the point that He has just made, saying, “As you can see, I have no servants fighting for Me.  So yes, though I am a King, as you have said, My kingdom is dramatically different from any that has come before, is going to be established and inaugurated in a radically different way than you could possibly imagine, and it will be extended through the foolish means of telling people about the fact that I was crucified and raised up from the grave.”   

After His Resurrection, when Jesus appears to His disciples, the author of the Gospel calls attention to the theme that has been created, as Jesus revisits His talk of peace (with its underlying kingdom sensibility) says, “Peace be with you.  Just as the Father has sent Me, I also send you” (20:21).  Could this not have served as a reminder of words that He had previously spoken to His disciples in regards to the peace that He was leaving with them and giving to them?  His crucifixion had just taken place at the hands of the Romans, so it would have been quite natural for His disciples to be harboring a substantial measure of hostility towards them, hardly thinking of peace nor desiring peace to be visited upon them. 

In the midst of that possible mindset, Jesus comes to remind them that His kingdom was to be established according to His means.  He came and reminded them that they were to extend the knowledge of the Creator God, and of the Creator God as demonstrated through the mission of the Christ, to the peoples of all nations, including those very Roman soldiers that had nailed Him to His cross.  Indeed, to that end, the disciples would have had the very example that Jesus had provided them, not only in remembrance of His daily course of life in which He routinely engaged with Gentiles, but in that He had asked the Father to forgive those that were involved in the terrible ordeal. 

How could they do this?  How could they extend His peace?  At this point, all indications are that they were fearful of the Jews and angry at the Romans.  Clearly, Jesus was special.  Sure, it was easy for Him to say that they needed to put aside their fear and their anger, and to go out of that place with Jesus’ mindset of “as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”  For them, doing this was going to be a bit more difficult.  It is understandable that Jesus would know this, so “after He said this, He breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’.” (20:22)  With that, a new creation (heavy Genesis/garden/Adam imagery at work here) springs forth, and His disciples were covenanted to carry the Gospel message of Jesus as Lord of all, representing the Creator God and His purposes of renewal and recreation, and of peaceful submission to Him and His claim to rule.  This would stand in stark contrast to the Caesar of Rome’s demand, at the point of the sword, to bow the knee in exchange for his version of peace.