Absalom (part 22 of 22)

Having made this crossing of the Jordan (leaving the Promised Land), Absalom will never cross back.  It is not insignificant that Absalom’s crossing of the Jordan coincides with blessings beginning to come David’s way.  It is reported that “When David came to Mahanaim,” men came to him and “brought bedding, basins, and pottery utensils.  They also brought food for David and all who were with him, including wheat, barley, flour, roasted grain, beans, lentils, honey, curds, flocks, and cheese” (2 Samuel 17:27a,28-29a). 

Remarkably (or perhaps not so remarkably), this provision of food and supplies for David and the people with him sounds like what is to be found in the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy.  There, along with the copious listing of curses that will come upon the covenant God’s people for failure to adhere to the terms of the covenant, one also finds the promise of blessings.  It is written: “If you indeed obey the Lord your God and are careful to observe all His commandments… the Lord your God will elevate you above all the nations of the earth.  All these blessings will come to  you in abundance if you obey the Lord your God: You will be blessed in the city and blessed in the field.  Your children will be blessed, as well as the produce of your soil, the offspring of your livestock, the calves of your herds, and the lambs of your flocks.  Your basket and your mixing bowl will be blessed.  You will be blessed when you come in and blessed when you go out” (28:1-6).  One can almost certainly imagine David reflecting upon these promised blessings as he receives the items that are being brought to him at Mahanaim. 

If he is thinking in such ways, then it is at this point that he knows that his God has turned things in his favor, that truly he is still the anointed one of Israel, and that Absalom should not have raised his hand (or contemplated raising his hand) against him.  After contemplating the blessings related to sustenance, David could go on to consider what follows in Deuteronomy, which is “The Lord will cause your enemies who attack you to be struck down before you; they will attack you from one direction but flee from you in seven different directions… The Lord will designate you as His holy people just as He promised you… Then all the peoples of the earth will see that you belong to the Lord, and they will respect you” (28:7,9-10).  It is after he receives the gifts that, for him, could serve to indicate the return of the Creator God’s favor and to remind him of the anointing and promise of his God that had been placed upon his life and his rule, that “David assembled the army that was with him.  He appointed leaders of thousands and leaders of hundreds.  David then sent out the army” (18:1-2a). 

David knew that Israel’s God was going to be with him and that his return to the throne was now but a foregone conclusion.  With full knowledge that the change of events was instigated by Absalom’s agreement to unnecessarily raise his hand in violence against his father, when David sends out the army he says “For my sake deal gently with the young man Absalom” (18:5b).  This, of course, does not happen, as Joab, David’s general (who has no fear of reprisal from David for a variety of reasons), has Absalom executed at the first opportunity to do so, which presented itself relatively quickly.  In fact, Absalom was struck down in the very first military engagement of his kingship, which is extraordinarily telling.  As was said before, once Absalom crossed the Jordan, thus departing from his exodus and going into exile, he would never cross back.  The only thing that was waiting for him on the other side was the completion of the curses of exile, which was death---dragged into the subjugation of creation’s great and foreign power.        

Absalom (part 19)

To this point, the portrayal of David as being similar to Pharoah, David’s removal as being similar to Pharaoh’s loss of power over Israel, and Absalom’s exodus from his own exile as akin to Israel’s exodus from Egypt under Moses, was effective, and perhaps, knowing what is known about David, even appropriate.  However, it is at this point that Absalom, for some unknown reason, though he was receiving advice to do this, departs from the epic narrative that he has been creating for himself. 

As one thinks back to the story of Israel’s exodus, one thing that is not be found in that story is Moses taking it upon himself to raise his hand against the one from whom Israel was being delivered.  Remember, Moses had attempted to start the revolution in Egypt on behalf of Israel, with his killing of the Egyptian taskmaster.  This failed to accomplish the goal that Moses had in mind, and he was sent into his own personal exile.  When he returned, he was gifted with the ability to lead an exodus that was peaceful, at least as it related to the actions of the people.  As has been seen, Absalom has effectively mirrored this.  Though he was not, as far as the story goes, attempting to start a revolution through his killing of Amnon, it was that killing that resulted in his own exile away from Jerusalem.  It was during that time, no doubt, that the seeds of a plan to take the throne began to germinate, perhaps primarily because he was treated unjustly due to his execution of justice. 

Returning to the exodus story then, it is clear that Israel conducted no demonstrations of violence against Egypt.  The Egyptians, on the other hand, experienced the violent power of Israel’s God, which serves as a reminder of the fact that Moses left it to the God of Israel to bring judgment and destruction in the way that He saw fit.  Then, after the death of the firstborn, which saw Pharaoh finally relent from his stubborn stance and practically demand that Israel depart from Egypt, the last thing Moses was going to do was turn around and attempt to kill Pharaoh. 

In that case, the Creator God had already judged Pharaoh, so what good would that do?  What would that prove?  Even after Pharaoh came out after Moses and Israel, Moses did not send men to confront Pharaoh and his army.  Rather, he continued to trust the God that delivers to fight on behalf of His people.  Had Moses and Israel raised their hands against Egypt in any way, things might have turned out quite differently, as it would have been an indication that they did not fully trust that their covenant God was able to rescue them from their foreign subjugation. 

Absalom would have been wise to heed this example.  Instead, because he was convinced to believe that it was incumbent upon him to go out after his father, he essentially forsook the power of the Creator God to solidify his kingship and to carry out His promises to David through Absalom.  Israel did not turn back and fight against Egypt, rather, they looked forward, preparing themselves to face the enemies to come.  Absalom should have done the same, looking forward as well, in a spirit of thankfulness, rather than allowing for the entrance of a spirit that has to be described as nothing more than vengeful.  Had he not been vindicated already?  Had he not been exalted?  Had Israel’s God not fought his battles for him?  Absalom should never have turned back so as to bring further suffering on his deposed father.  It is this that would ultimately bring David vindication through suffering (with his own story of exile to exodus), while bringing suffering to Absalom in the wake of what had been his own vindication, and sending Absalom from exodus to exile.   

Absalom (part 15)

In the Deuteronomic curses, Moses informs the Creator God’s people that one of the curses that will come upon them for their failure to obey their God’s commands (of which David was certainly guilty) would be that “You will be engaged to a woman and another man will rape her” (Deuteronomy 28:30a).  This is not strictly analogous to what Nathan has told David, or to what it has been suggested that Absalom do, as neither this God’s threat through Nathan nor Ahithophel’s suggestion to Absalom carries with it (at least on the surface) the connotation of violence or force, but it can probably be thought of as being connected closely enough to drive home the point to David that he has violated his God’s commands. 

Additionally, Ahithophel apparently sees a close enough connection in that it will play well into Absalom’s ongoing effort to show himself as a true deliverer in the mold of Moses, thereby allowing Absalom to continue co-opting the most powerful story of Israel’s history for his own purposes.  Furthermore, it adds to Absalom’s claim to be a just man and the one that is used by the covenant God to deliver justice to Israel.  This is especially and strikingly so if Absalom is the means by which the prophecy (judgment) related to cursing that had been delivered to David by Nathan is fulfilled. 

This merely cements the notion that David is no longer fit to be king, while also pointing to the fact that the story of Bathsheba and David, and the oppression and injustice that the story entails, has been made known in Israel.  If it has not, then there is no real point in Absalom engaging in sexual relations with his father’s concubines, unless it is also being used to indicate that just as David has forsaken these wives of his, that he has also forsaken his care of the people of Israel as well. 

The second part of Ahithophel’s response to the request to provide advice to Absalom is to say that “All Israel will hear that you have made yourself repulsive to your father.  Then your followers will be motivated to support you” (2 Samuel 16:21b).  Yes, Ahithophel suggests that this will be viewed by the people as Absalom being willing to be cursed by his very own father, if it indeed means justice for Israel.  This is powerful symbolism.  Absalom will be seen to be willing to bear that pain and shame on behalf of the people, with this becoming a messianic role.  In a society based upon honor and shame, this is a calculated move (though also prophetically fulfilling) to win further sympathy from the people. 

Does this aid Absalom in his desire to be seen as Moses?  Absolutely!  Moses was willing to forsake his father’s (Pharoah’s) house so as to identify himself with the people suffering under the oppression of the king.  Thinking beyond that however, this might also be an attempt to entice David to retaliate against Absalom, who up to this point has not lifted up his hand (nor asked anybody else to lift up their hand) against his father. 

David has left willfully.   He has abandoned his throne and fled from Jerusalem and Absalom has peacefully entered to take that throne.  There has been no bloodshed, violence, or loss of life (except Amnon many years prior, but that has only tangential bearing on the events at hand at that time).  If David now turns and raises sword and spear against Absalom and his supporters, then David is most certainly to be likened to Pharaoh, who allowed Israel to depart from Egypt and from his oppression peacefully, but then had a change of heart and set out to recover the Israelites (and his power) by violent means.    

Joshua's Battles (part 3)

The questions here posed are legitimate.  The same questions existed shortly after Jesus’ day, as His apostles were carrying the message of His paradoxical all-conquering victory via death and Resurrection into the world.  To wit, in the second letter of Peter, one is able to read questioning words like “Where is His promised return?  For ever since our ancestors died, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation” (2 Peter 3:4). 

In the face of the message that Jesus had conquered death, hearers in that day were no less able than “astute observers” today (who always think that they are the first to notice that there is evil all around them), to take in their surroundings and see violence, death, and inexplicable destruction, and say “Nothing much has changed.  Things pretty much look the same way that they have always looked.”  It’s a legitimate observation, so how is the question to be answered? 

Naturally, this is a difficult issue that has plagued all that have ever posited a God of love and a victorious Messiah.  As they fought to take possession of that which they believed had been promised to them, Israel would have been tempted to pose the same type of statement and its implied question to their God.  They could easily cast a collective gaze upwards and say, “Lord, You promised this land to our ancestors and to us.  You brought us out of Egypt.  You directed us to cross the Jordan and to re-claim that which you said is ours.  Why don’t these people know this?  You brought plagues on Egypt, parted the Red Sea, destroyed the Egyptian army, and gave us food and water in the wilderness, so why not just drive these people from the land with the obvious mighty power of your outstretched arm?  Would that not be easier?  Would that not be a greater demonstration of your power than us having to carry out these campaigns?” 

One could even imagine the covenant people attempting to employ some reverse psychology on the Creator God by saying, “Seriously, Lord, if you just drive them out, then you will get all the glory.  If we have to do battle against these people and these rulers, then we might get some of the glory too.  We don’t want that.  You don’t really want that, do you?” 

How might the God of Israel be disposed to respond to such thinking?  After all (and putting aside the potential ploy at reverse psychology), based on the reported experience of Israel in their journey out of and from Egypt, these are legitimate points.  Returning then to the eleventh chapter of Joshua so as to pick up where this study left off, and in response to the concerns of the covenant people of the Creator God, it is said that “the Lord determined to make them obstinate so they would attack Israel.  He wanted Israel to annihilate them without mercy, as He had instructed Moses” (11:20). 

Without getting sidetracked by the thought that this, in isolation, paints the picture of something less than a loving God, one finds that though the land had been given to Israel, and though the people of the land had been handed over to Israel, the Creator God wanted His people to annihilate them (though some could certainly see such reports as after-the-fact justification).  Regardless, the narrative suggests that Israel’s God did in fact desire that His people have a hand in the battle. 

Indeed, Scripture seems to suggest that the Creator God wanted to work through His people and empower His people to come alongside Him and work with Him to deal with and overcome that which despoiled, defaced, and decimated their land of promise---that first part of the creation that was to be redeemed through the care and stewardship of His covenant people.  In the end then, Israel should have been compelled to point to their God, and the power of their promise-making God, as the means by which they emerged victorious. 

David & Goliath: A Battle With Death (part 6 of 7)

Many in Israel believed that their messiah would rise up, sparking and leading a revolution, and conducting a military revolt that would conquer the Romans and drive them out of the land of promise, thus ending their God’s curse upon His people and their long and futile exile.  This mindset led to the rise and fall of many false messiahs, many uprisings, and many needless and fruitless deaths.  Apparently, many had forgotten that their beloved King David, when confronted with an enemy whose defeat seemed like a hopeless cause, before slinging a stone and chopping off a head, somewhat ironically stood and said, “it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves.” 

When it came to fighting His battle, Jesus, though eschewing David’s particular methods as they are cataloged in the Scriptural narrative of Israel’s history, did not forget other words that David was said to have uttered.  Thus, as Jesus approached the place of His battle with His particular enemy, He could join with David and say, “the battle is the Lord’s, and He will deliver you into our hand” (1 Samuel 17:47b).  Ultimately, when His followers and those that came to believe in His Resurrection came to grasp the significance of that to which they had been witness, Jesus would be understood to have mysteriously defeated death, and in so doing ushered in His kingdom in a way unlike that of all of the kingdoms of the world. 

However, rather than engage in what would have been the customary and expected violence of military conflict, doing battle with sword and spear as had so many to mixed ends, Jesus would be the one to suffer violence.  In that suffering, He would both literally and figuratively take all of the blows that His and His God’s enemy could deliver, and still emerge victorious through a Resurrection. 

Truly, in His arrest, His trial, and His crucifixion, Jesus would prove that the battle belonged to the one He called Lord.  Though on the surface it seems as if Jesus was delivered into the hands of His enemy, just as it would have seemed to everybody in David’s day that he was marching forward to his own destruction and to that which would result in Israel’s subjection to its enemy, the Lord God of Israel did indeed deliver Jesus’ enemy into His hands, as it would eventually come to be said of Him that He claimed the keys of death (Revelation 1:18). 

Because Jesus figuratively took those keys, those that called Him Lord and King came to believe that death, though still demonstrating its own power in the world, would no longer have the ability to lock away a people and keep them in exile from the plans, place, and purposes of their God.  Both David and Jesus would willfully and against all odds engage in battle as representatives for their people, putting defeat and subjection on the line, and both would emerge victorious.  Their peoples (Israel and humanity) would gain victory in their victories. 

In Jesus’ victory, all the people of that land (that being the land of Israel) should have recognized that Israel has a God, and that its God was embodied by and revealed through their resurrected Messiah King, Jesus of Nazareth.  In line with the covenant as expressed to Abraham and upon which their perception of the world was based, this reality would be first embraced by Israel, and then shared with the world.         

Israel & Adam (part 1 of 2)

Israel was set apart to the Lord; they were like the firstfruits of a harvest to Him. – Jeremiah 2:3a  (NET)

There are interesting similarities to be found between Adam (and Eve) and Israel.  As it is well-nigh possible that the story of Adam is the story of Israel in microcosm, while also being the pre-story for the existence of Israel and the explanation for the superiority of Israel’s God, the similarities make perfect sense. 

In terms of the Scriptural narrative, Adam, of course, was the first of humankind.  He is also represented as the first person to enter into a covenant with the Creator God.  By comparison, Israel was chosen out of all humankind, beginning with Abraham, to be the special, covenant people for the Lord.  As Adam is said to have strayed from the Lord in the matter of the fruit and the rebellion from his simple charge, the actions of God’s chosen, special covenant people would later cause their God to ask why “they strayed so far from Me” (2:5b). 

That straying was highlighted by the prophet Jeremiah and marked by the fact that “They paid allegiance to worthless idols, and so became worthless to Me” (2:5c).  Essentially, they were following the path of Adam, who paid attention (allegiance) to the words of the serpent, as reported by his wife, and thereby relinquished the responsibilities that had been given to Him by God, bringing a curse upon the earth.  It could be said that Adam became worthless to God, and humankind (forsaking covenant responsibility) became a liability in creation. 

The covenant God said to Israel through His prophet Jeremiah: “I brought you into a fertile land so you could enjoy its fruits and its rich bounty” (2:7a).  Likewise, humankind had been delivered into a perfect creation, a fertile land, given responsibility for stewardship and dominion over that creation.  Instruction was provided such that all but one small part of its fruits and its rich bounty could be enjoyed.  However, because Adam could not restrict himself to that which God had offered for Him to enjoy, that perfect creation of God “was ruined in the sight of God; the earth was filled with violence” (Genesis 6:11). 

Because of Adam’s actions, “God saw the earth, and indeed it was ruined, for all living creatures on the earth were sinful” (6:12).  That is, they had been subjected to corruption and decay because of humankind’s rebellion and faithlessness to the obligations of the covenant as divine image-bearer.  Similarly, Israel had been delivered into the bountiful land but God said that they had “defiled it,” adding that “you made the land I call My own loathsome to Me” (Jeremiah 2:7b).

The Lord goes on to ask, “Has a nation ever changed its gods (even though they are not really gods at all)?  But My people have exchanged Me, their glorious God, for a god that cannot help them all!” (2:11).  The question that is asked and answered concerning Israel, working back through Adam, can then be equally applied to all of humankind.  Just as Israel stooped and fell to the worship of other gods, so too did Adam (first, according to Israel’ story).  For whom did Adam exchange his allegiance?  First, his allegiance went to his wife.  Secondly, it went to the serpent, for the one that could effectively countermand the directives of their Creator, causing humankind to break faith with their God, is the one that is trusted and so worshiped.

Set Free (part 5)

In the sixth verse of the eighth chapter of Romans, Paul relates that “the outlook of the flesh is death, but the outlook of the Spirit is life and peace” (8:6).  Seizing on these terms of “death,” “flesh,” “life,” and “peace,” as well as putting them into a context that would have been familiar to his audience, one can’t help but think about the “pax Romana” (Roman peace) and the repeated attempts to overthrow foreign powers that had been undertaken by members of the nation of Israel throughout the years leading up to Paul’s day.

The nationalism that surrounded the traditions represented by the works of the flesh is the same nationalism that fomented and sustained the revolutionary fervor against the Roman oppressors that was so prevalent in Israel in the days of Jesus and Paul.  Paul, with an undoubted knowledge of the words of Jesus as were then being communicated as part of an oral tradition prior to the composition of the Gospels, and ears to hear, on multiple levels, the message that Jesus was communicating to His countrymen, makes the point to Jews here in Rome, who might be tempted to support or take up arms with their brethren in Judea against the Romans if and when the time would come, that a life outlook that is dictated by holding to those things of the flesh, especially those which ultimately represented a fervent and hyper-nationalism, is death. 

Conversely, the outlook of the Spirit---with its understanding that the kingdom of the Creator God was established through what Jesus the Christ and Lord had done, without the use of sword or shield, and in which He suffered all of the violence and death---caused a looking upon of all men that believed in Jesus as heirs of the blessings of that kingdom, infusing a Spirit-empowered love and missionary compassion to extend the kingdom of their God to all peoples by the preaching of the Gospel, and the eternal life and peace to be had in union with Christ.    

Finishing the thought that was begun in the sixth verse, Paul writes that “the outlook of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to the law of God, not is it able to do so” (8:7).  If it is remembered that the law was designed to allow God’s covenant people to effectively bear His image and shine as lights in the world that would engender their God’s blessing and draw all men to their God so as to bring them under the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, while reflecting on the fact that Israel failed to uphold the minimum requirements of the law (resulting in destruction, deportation, and ongoing exile), and later turning the law into a barrier of hostility that effectively kept those that were not a part of Israel from entering into covenant, then one is able to understand why Paul speaks of the outlook associated with the works of the flesh as being hostile to God and not submitting to the purpose of God’s laws.  The law, which was not problematic in and of itself, was being perverted in its use, and could not serve in its intended capacity.   

So now it is better known why Paul would go on to write that “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:7).  Based on this examination, one can be justified in reading this as “Those who insist upon the tradition-bound works of the flesh that serve to isolate the covenant God’s people, while serving to stoke revolutionary sentiment against the Roman rulers of the day, cannot please the Creator God.” 

There was a widely held sentiment in that day that the Creator God’s people must act on behalf of their God.  Unfortunately, thoughts about that action generally took the route of a need for violent overthrow and expulsion of the Romans from their land of promise.  This would ultimately result in the destruction of Jerusalem, which Paul, readily understanding what he would have know of Jesus’ words to this effect, foresaw.  Furthermore, this belies an underlying lack of trust in the covenant faithfulness of their God, and His power to do that which He had promised.  The adherence to the flesh was the basis for their inability to please their God, as can be gleaned from the author of the letter to the Hebrews, when one reads that “without faith it is impossible to please Him” (11:6a).