Rebellion Finally Crushed (20:1–22)

1Now a troublemaker named Sheba son of Bicri, a Benjamite, happened to be there. He sounded the trumpet and shouted,

“We have no share in David,

no part in Jesse’s son!

Every man to his tent, O Israel!”

2So all the men of Israel deserted David to follow Sheba son of Bicri. But the men of Judah stayed by their king all the way from the Jordan to Jerusalem.

3When David returned to his palace in Jerusalem, he took the ten concubines he had left to take care of the palace and put them in a house under guard. He provided for them, but did not lie with them. They were kept in confinement till the day of their death, living as widows.

4Then the king said to Amasa, “Summon the men of Judah to come to me within three days, and be here yourself.” 5But when Amasa went to summon Judah, he took longer than the time the king had set for him.

6David said to Abishai, “Now Sheba son of Bicri will do us more harm than Absalom did. Take your master’s men and pursue him, or he will find fortified cities and escape from us.” 7So Joab’s men and the Kerethites and Pelethites and all the mighty warriors went out under the command of Abishai. They marched out from Jerusalem to pursue Sheba son of Bicri.

8While they were at the great rock in Gibeon, Amasa came to meet them. Joab was wearing his military tunic, and strapped over it at his waist was a belt with a dagger in its sheath. As he stepped forward, it dropped out of its sheath.

9Joab said to Amasa, “How are you, my brother?” Then Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him. 10Amasa was not on his guard against the dagger in Joab’s hand, and Joab plunged it into his belly, and his intestines spilled out on the ground. Without being stabbed again, Amasa died. Then Joab and his brother Abishai pursued Sheba son of Bicri.

11One of Joab’s men stood beside Amasa and said, “Whoever favors Joab, and whoever is for David, let him follow Joab!” 12Amasa lay wallowing in his blood in the middle of the road, and the man saw that all the troops came to a halt there. When he realized that everyone who came up to Amasa stopped, he dragged him from the road into a field and threw a garment over him. 13After Amasa had been removed from the road, all the men went on with Joab to pursue Sheba son of Bicri.

14Sheba passed through all the tribes of Israel to Abel Beth Maacah and through the entire region of the Berites, who gathered together and followed him. 15All the troops with Joab came and besieged Sheba in Abel Beth Maacah. They built a siege ramp up to the city, and it stood against the outer fortifications. While they were battering the wall to bring it down, 16a wise woman called from the city, “Listen! Listen! Tell Joab to come here so I can speak to him.” 17He went toward her, and she asked, “Are you Joab?”

“I am,” he answered.

She said, “Listen to what your servant has to say.”

“I’m listening,” he said.

18She continued, “Long ago they used to say, ‘Get your answer at Abel,’ and that settled it. 19We are the peaceful and faithful in Israel. You are trying to destroy a city that is a mother in Israel. Why do you want to swallow up the LORD’s inheritance?”

20“Far be it from me!” Joab replied, “Far be it from me to swallow up or destroy! 21That is not the case. A man named Sheba son of Bicri, from the hill country of Ephraim, has lifted up his hand against the king, against David. Hand over this one man, and I’ll withdraw from the city.”

The woman said to Joab, “His head will be thrown to you from the wall.”

22Then the woman went to all the people with her wise advice, and they cut off the head of Sheba son of Bicri and threw it to Joab. So he sounded the trumpet, and his men dispersed from the city, each returning to his home. And Joab went back to the king in Jerusalem.

The concentric literary arrangement of Absalom’s conspiracy comes to closure with this unit. Chapter 20 corresponds to the beginning of the rebellion narrated in 15:1–12. Here David reenters Jerusalem but still must contend with the conspiracy’s aftermath, which consists mostly of Sheba’s revolt among the northern tribes. Though the revolt is easily quelled, it exposes a dangerous fragility in the union of the kingdom.64 David rightly understands the seriousness of the northern revolt, even if the danger it poses is more for the future than the immediate present (20:6): “Now Sheba son of Bicri will do us more harm than Absalom did.”

Sectional rivalry among the tribes of Israel emerges during David’s return to Jerusalem, indicating that Absalom’s revolt itself is symptomatic of a larger problem (19:41–43). Absalom seems to have simply played on regional jealousies in order to arouse support for his personal ambitions. Apparently, David has held north and south together in a unified kingdom through the sheer force of his personality. It is a personal union, effected through his skills and charisma.65 But after Absalom’s rebellion, David returns to Jerusalem a weakened monarch. In the wake of one disaster, a greater disaster looms because the tribes threaten to break into open civil war.

An unscrupulous individual named Sheba capitalizes on the instability in the north and takes the opportunity to incite a rebellion (20:1–2).66 The description of him as “a troublemaker” uses the expression “man of Belial,” which is the Old Testament way of describing someone who is at least a worthless scoundrel (here, b^eliyyaʿal).67 However, some have argued on the basis of etymology that the expression more specifically denotes “man of hell, hellfiend, damnable fellow,” assuming a compound word meaning something like “[the place of] not-coming-up,” or better, “of no return.”68 His cry of revolution in 20:1 is similar to that of secessionists after Solomon’s death (1 Kings 12:16) and may be a conventional rallying cry for traditionalists in the north.69 Consistent with the extended narrative, it portrays rebellion and raises questions of loyalty. The phrase “all the men of Israel” (20:2) denotes the geography of the secessionists, not the extent of their rebellion.

The information about the ten concubines seems bizarre for contemporary readers (20:3; cf. 15:16; 16:21). Their presence in the royal court may indicate how much the Israelite monarchy embraced the royal ideology of the ancient Near East.70 David’s action in confining them to house arrest for the remainder of their lifetimes may be an act of repentance. On the other hand, royal women have played an important political role in Israel’s early monarchy, as illustrated elsewhere in 1-2 Samuel (see comments on 2 Sam. 3:6–7). Sexual relations with a king’s wife or concubine was tantamount to a claim to that king’s throne and appears to have been common in the ancient Near East when a king was replaced with a new dynasty.71 Beyond these historical realities, the narrator’s inclusion of this reference to the fate of the innocent victims of Absalom’s conspiracy illustrates “the human tragedy so often found among the women in David’s life.”72

Joab is a ruthless general.73 The citizenry must have resented him for his cruel treatment of any potential rivals in the military (3:26–27). When David returned to the throne after Absalom’s conspiracy, he promised to replace Joab with Amasa as the commander of the army (19:13). Since Amasa himself commanded Absalom’s army during the revolt, this is a certain compromise meant to appease those who objected to Joab’s leadership (17:25). However, in Amasa’s first assignment as the commander of the army for David, he fails (20:5). When he is unable to assemble the army of Judah to confront Sheba, David decides to take action. After all, delay tactics served David well in his own defense of the throne against Absalom. Timing is everything; allowing Sheba to fortify his defenses might result in defeat for the army of Judah.

David understands that Absalom’s rebellion posed a threat to the king, whereas Sheba’s revolt threatens the kingdom itself.74 He can ill afford to delay in responding to the threat, and perhaps he is having doubts about Amasa’s loyalty. His solution is to send out his crack troops (the Kerethites and Pelethites, see comments on 15:18) as an advance party under the leadership of Joab’s brother, Abishai (1 Sam. 26:6). When Amasa meets the group near Gibeon, Joab shows himself again to be merciless in his treatment of any rival, even one related by birth.75 Amasa greets Joab as an ally, but Joab strikes him down in a single blow. As Amasa draws his last breath, no one cares beyond removing him as a mere inconvenience from the path so the troops can get on with their business (20:12–13). As elsewhere, our historian defends David’s innocence in the whole affair and does not hesitate to blame Joab.76

As it turns out, Sheba’s revolt is not serious. After going through “all the tribes of Israel,” he is apparently able to garner only a limited force. Joab (who appears fully in control again) is able to corner easily this rebel force in the northern town of Abel Beth Maacah.77 But ironically, in the midst of all this military power and strategy, it is a “wise woman” who intervenes and delivers the town from destruction.78 Her persuasive use of words and skillful rhetoric save the town and the kingdom.

This passage has verbal parallels with 14:1–20, which narrates David’s interview with the wise woman of Tekoa.79 Thus, these “wise woman” passages serve as bookends on either side of Absalom’s conspiracy (chs. 15–19). In both cases, a wise woman defended Israel’s integrity and David’s self-respect. But she does so through the use of wisdom rooted in the most ancient religious traditions of Israel. This is the contrast created by her presence: Her power is not generated by political machinations like that of David or Joab. “She stands as an alternative to the relentlessness of David and the ruthlessness of Joab.”80 In the face of such peaceful and persuasive power, even Joab must relent and end the violence.

David’s Officials (20:23–26)

Bridging Contexts

THIS UNIT’S LITERARY power and classic themes have inspired modern authors. Especially moving is the image of David’s profound grief over the loss of Absalom (18:33–19:4). While David at other times is capable of eloquent laments (e.g., over Saul; see 1:19–27), the tragic death of Absalom leaves him using unique language, which seems to throb with his inconsolable sobs and weeping. This portrait of the passionate king has inspired literary giants such as George Gordon Lord Byron and William Faulkner.82

However, as Christian readers we recognize a deeper, more meaningful power in these texts beyond their sheer literary greatness. The theological import of this passage is complex in its presentation but clear in its powerful central themes. In a word, this unit is about rebellion.

That rebellion is connected by means of an unbroken chain of cause-and-effect links to David’s own personal sin; in this narrative his personal failure becomes familial and national. Moreover, this rebellion raises questions of loyalty, loyalty to one’s commitments to God and fellow humans. It also raises troubling questions about power and the proper uses of power, confronting us again with an important subtheme of 1-2 Samuel. Finally, Absalom’s conspiracy gives us further insight into one of the overarching questions of the books of Samuel: Who may serve suitably as messiah, the anointed king of Israel?

Consequences of sin. In order to build a bridge effectively from this narrative to contemporary readers, we must first consider the relationship between the narrative and its preceding context. Several literary features reveal the intended connections between it and the immediately preceding units, specifically chapters 10–12 and 13–14. For example, Absalom’s abuse of David’s concubines is an obvious fulfillment of Nathan’s curse against David, which is pronounced because of David’s sin (cf. 16:22 with 12:11–12). Again, the presence of Absalom as a character in the unit devoted to Amnon’s rape of Tamar (chs. 13–14) prepares us for Absalom’s conspiracy narrated here. Such literary features also communicate the intended theological connection between sin and unmitigated consequences.

Thus, the book’s very structure invites us to see the troubles in David’s family and kingdom as the natural consequences of David’s sin committed in chapters 10–12. David’s private and personal sins are linked in a cause-and-effect continuum with subsequent sins within his own family, which eventually explode into public rebellion and national tragedy.

One potential problem for the present-day reader is this causal connection itself, because it means several other people suffer as a result of David’s sin with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah. David reaps in this narrative what he has sown in chapters 10–12. That much is clear. But what of Tamar and David’s ten concubines? Why must they also suffer the punishment? As we have noted elsewhere, we should avoid confusing what are natural consequences of sin with actual punishment for sin (see comments on 12:13–25). The Old Testament honestly faces the sad fact that others suffer when we sin.

The great confession of faith in the Old Testament asserts boldly that Yahweh is a “compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion, and sin.” This much we love to celebrate. But the confession continues: “Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”83 We should also learn to celebrate this portion of the confession, because it teaches that God does not allow sin to continue unpunished indefinitely. Furthermore, the love and compassion of God are proven by the fact that he allows the consequences of sin to filter through to the fourth generation while maintaining his love to thousands of generations (cf. Ex. 20:5–6). God limits the life span of sin, while his love lasts forever.

Rebellion. As a text narrating rebellion, we learn much about rebellion. Though biblical Hebrew is rich in words for the semantic field “rebellion,” we have few such specifics in this text.84 Absalom’s conspiracy is termed a qešer (15:12), and those who participated in it are “conspirators” (qoš^erim, 15:31). This term frequently refers to rebellious conniving that is political as here, though rebellion against Yahweh may also be involved.85

However, specific terminology is not determinative here because biblical narrative frequently teaches by illustration rather than explication. So here the narration itself teaches much about the nature of rebellion without labeling it as such. Absalom comes to power by duping the men of Israel (15:6). He intentionally keeps them in the dark (15:1186) until it is too late for them to express reservations. This is no legitimate claim to the throne but a duplicitous and insidious power play using strictly human power structures for legitimacy.

Likewise, Sheba is an unscrupulous rapscallion who maliciously takes advantage of the political weakness after Absalom’s conspiracy (20:1). Such rebellion is accomplished in the dark among conniving miscreants, who rely on secrecy and trickery to acquire power. But the anointed one—Yahweh’s anointed—patiently waits for the Lord’s time and place to become king. The location of Absalom’s conspiracy and Sheba’s revolt in the books of Samuel alongside the narratives of David create a striking contrast. Even though these rebellions are the consequence of David’s sin, David himself is still the example of the messiah. Samuel anointed him, but he refuses to demand the throne in his timing. Yahweh’s anointed (our historian’s way of designating “the legitimate holder of royal authority”) is not a power-hungry rebel. There are proper and holy ways to become king of Israel, and Absalom and Sheba represent the opposite. Rebellion itself is antithetical to righteous patience, respect, and reverence for God’s will.

Loyalty. Furthermore, such rebellion raises questions of loyalty. Absalom’s rebellion is itself an expression of a son’s disloyalty, and it forces everyone else in Israel’s young monarchy to choose sides between the king and his son. Who will be loyal to David? When the king is compelled to flee Jerusalem, he learns who his loyal friends are. On the eastern outskirts of the city, he pauses to consider the loyalty of those risking their lives by going with him (15:17–18). Ironically, it is foreign troops attached to David personally who prove the most loyal (esp. the Kerethites and Pelethites) and foreigners in the Transjordan who support him in his most desperate hour (17:27–29).

The disloyalty of someone who was a trusted friend, such as Ahithophel, is devastating news; the fidelity of Hushai a source of hope. Zadok and Abiathar (and their sons Ahimaaz and Jonathan) prove their loyalty to David beyond doubt. Then there are those whose loyalties are unknown (Ziba and Mephibosheth) and those who take the opportunity to make public their hatred for David (Shimei and Sheba). Through it all the reader is forced to ask: Will David remain loyal to Yahweh? At every turn, David passes the test.

Power. As we have seen throughout the books of Samuel, the use of power has been a subtheme for this historian. It should not surprise us that Israel’s first historians, who carefully narrate the rise and establishment of Israel’s monarchy, are interested in this topic. Obviously, Absalom and Sheba are examples of individuals who abuse their power. David represents a man who has learned (finally!) how to use power judiciously. Joab presents perhaps the most complex example. He appears loyal to David, though the reader is forced to wonder if Joab is motivated simply by his need to preserve his access to power. At times he appears unconcerned about divine mandate or royal decree while he uses his military might ruthlessly.

One of the great ironies of the narrative occurs near the end when Joab encounters the wise woman of Abel (20:15–22). While the famous general brings all his awesome military power to bear against the city of Abel in order to defeat the rebel Sheba, the unnamed woman used only her words of wisdom. Her power was of a different sort, with different origins. Joab’s power was observable and awe-inspiring; hers unassuming and rational. The narrative seems to lift the two as examples of power conceived differently and used differently. In the end, we may conclude that the wise woman of Abel is more powerful than the general.

Messiah. Finally, Absalom’s conspiracy contributes generally to one of the overarching questions of the books of Samuel: Who may serve suitably as messiah, the anointed king of Israel? David’s devout resignation while fleeing Jerusalem is expressed most vividly in the conditional clauses of his speech to Zadok concerning the ark of the covenant (15:25–26):

“Take the ark of God back into the city. If I find favor in the LORD’s eyes, he will bring me back and let me see it and his dwelling place again. But if he says, ‘I am not pleased with you,’ then I am ready; let him do to me whatever seems good to him.”

As we argued in the Original Meaning section, this is no blind fatalism, as though David sees his future as some predetermined and inevitable destiny reflecting either God’s punishment or pleasure. In such a state, the king of Israel would have nothing to do but wait it out, tarrying long enough to see how God would settle the dispute with Absalom. Instead, David appears here as one who has finally learned not to grasp at every means available to manipulate, to maneuver in order to control the final outcome. He certainly takes action to meet the challenge of Absalom’s rebellion, but not by seizing the ark of the covenant and turning it to his advantage. In this portrait at least, David is an anointed one content to submit to God’s will, even when that will is so far unknowable.

Thus, the hints of parallels in the New Testament’s passion narratives between Jesus and David as anointed one are appropriate.87 David’s procession through the Kidron Valley and up the Mount of Olives anticipates Jesus’ Maundy Thursday walk to the Mount of Olives and has been called David’s Via Dolorosa.88 Just as David submitted to the will and authority of Yahweh, so Jesus chose submission rather than resistance (Matt. 26:39). In this and many other ways, the books of Samuel deliberately emphasize the Davidic ideal while at the same time portraying the disappointing shortcomings of David himself. By addressing these questions about the nature of Israel’s monarchy and the one who may suitably serve as king, 1-2 Samuel move Israel forward along the messianic continuum that finds its fulfillment in the Gospels.89

Contemporary Significance

Contemporary Significance

REBELLION AND ABUSE OF POWER. Rebellion is a topic we all know well. Most of us have plenty of experience at it! Our world is in need of hearing this narrative’s message on the nature and consequences of human rebellion. However, it may be helpful first to make another brief comment on the role of this extended narrative in 2 Samuel as a whole.

The Absalom story, as we have seen, is intentional about relating this conspiracy and its aftermath to David’s own sins; there is a clear cause-and-effect pattern here. We also recognize a well-known pattern from the Bible’s classic text on sin (Gen. 3–11); that is, when unchecked, sinful actions tend to grow until they become both more extensive and more intensive. So here, David’s personal sin (chs. 11–12) evolves into a family trait that plagues his family for years (chs. 13–14) and eventually becomes a national characteristic that plagues the rest of his reign (chs. 15–20). Just as David “sent” and “took” Bathsheba (review the significance of those terms at 11:4), so Amnon took Tamar, and Absalom took the kingdom.

The warnings of the wise prophet Samuel have become a reality. Kings are takers, and they will take your children, the best of your fields and vineyards, a tenth of your grain, your servants, and a tenth of your flocks, and they will make them all their own (1 Sam. 8:11–18). What began as a personal sin of passion in David’s heart quickly becomes a plague threatening the entire people of God. This portion of the book illustrates the principle we all know too well to be true: “After the first blush of sin comes its indifference,” and subsequently more sin.90

We have seen that vocabulary alone is inadequate to illustrate the Old Testament’s understanding of rebellion (see Bridging Contexts section). Rather than specific terminology, this narrative illustrates rebellion as disloyalty expressed through an abuse of power, which further illustrates a broad definition of sin itself. Indeed, it may be safely assumed that sin includes a willful, disloyal quality, in that someone else (God or human) is defied or hurt. “The willful disregard or sacrifice of the welfare of others for the welfare or satisfaction of the self is an essential quality of the concept of sin.”91 St. Augustine understood sin to contain this element of rebellion, since it involves a turning “away from the universal whole to the individual part.”92 So rebellion is a rejection of the greater and more desirable whole in order to satisfy the desires or longings of the individual.

The greatest danger in all of this, and the point at which many Christians get into trouble, is that rebellion can often look like vocation. In other words, we easily justify our rebellion because it appears to be a way to accomplish something we are genuinely called to accomplish. Taking Absalom as our departure point, it is clear that he, as crown prince, had at his disposal large amounts of legitimate power. He could probably assume that he would one day become David’s successor and rule all Israel. Over time, he began to believe he had no reason to wait for David’s (and God’s!) timing. As David sent and took Bathsheba simply because he could, so Absalom took the kingdom because he believed it was eventually to be his anyway, and he had the ability to take it. It was one way of fulfilling his calling.

This is often the nature of temptation. In fact, temptations are hard to recognize because they regularly offer us ways to take control and use our own power (God-given power!) to falsely realize a true vocation.93 Rebellion is often a distortion of our calling, an evil means to accomplish a righteous aim. Thus, Matthew’s third recorded temptation of Jesus was a temptation to abuse his power (Matt. 4:8–10; second in Luke’s sequence, Luke 4:5–8). God intended for Jesus to reign supreme over all the kingdoms of the earth. Alone in the desert, the devil offered him precisely a quick way to obtain “all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.” Could any vice have been more tempting to Jesus?

The abuse of God-given power to accomplish a God-given mission is a great temptation for contemporary believers today. Absalom serves precisely in this way as a warning for all of us who fail to resist this temptation. Henri Nouwen has argued that rebellion, or the abuse of God-given power, is one of the great weaknesses of the modern church:

When I ask myself the main reason for so many people having left the Church during the past decades in France, Germany, Holland, and also in Canada and America, the word “power” easily comes to mind. One of the greatest ironies of the history of Christianity is that its leaders constantly gave into the temptation of power—political power, military power, economic power, or moral and spiritual power—even though they continued to speak in the name of Jesus, who did not cling to his divine power but emptied himself and became as we are…. Every time we see a major crisis in the history of the Church, such as the Great Schism of the eleventh century, the Reformation of the sixteenth century, or the immense secularization of the twentieth century, we always see that a major cause of rupture is the power exercised by those who claim to be followers of the poor and powerless Jesus.94

When Nouwen attempts to explain why the temptation of power seems so irresistible, he concludes, “It seems easier to be God than to love God, easier to control people than to love people, easier to own life than to love life.”95

There may also be lessons here about human relationships in general and the need to forge better families within the church. David’s inability to relate to and influence his children certainly contributes to his problems. Nouwen emphasizes the connection between how we relate to those around us and the temptation to abuse our power:

One thing is clear to me: the temptation of power is greatest when intimacy is a threat. Much Christian leadership is exercised by people who do not know how to develop healthy, intimate relationships and have opted for power and control instead. Many Christian empire-builders have been people unable to give and receive love.96

Who of us can deny the church has suffered great misdeeds by those more committed to personal empire-building than character-building? In this and many other ways, David and Absalom serve as warnings to today’s believers about rebellion and the abuse of power.

David’s Return (19:8b–43)

8bMeanwhile, the Israelites had fled to their homes. 9Throughout the tribes of Israel, the people were all arguing with each other, saying, “The king delivered us from the hand of our enemies; he is the one who rescued us from the hand of the Philistines. But now he has fled the country because of Absalom; 10and Absalom, whom we anointed to rule over us, has died in battle. So why do you say nothing about bringing the king back?”

11King David sent this message to Zadok and Abiathar, the priests: “Ask the elders of Judah, ‘Why should you be the last to bring the king back to his palace, since what is being said throughout Israel has reached the king at his quarters? 12You are my brothers, my own flesh and blood. So why should you be the last to bring back the king?’ 13And say to Amasa, ‘Are you not my own flesh and blood? May God deal with me, be it ever so severely, if from now on you are not the commander of my army in place of Joab.’”

14He won over the hearts of all the men of Judah as though they were one man. They sent word to the king, “Return, you and all your men.” 15Then the king returned and went as far as the Jordan.

Now the men of Judah had come to Gilgal to go out and meet the king and bring him across the Jordan. 16Shimei son of Gera, the Benjamite from Bahurim, hurried down with the men of Judah to meet King David. 17With him were a thousand Benjamites, along with Ziba, the steward of Saul’s household, and his fifteen sons and twenty servants. They rushed to the Jordan, where the king was. 18They crossed at the ford to take the king’s household over and to do whatever he wished.

When Shimei son of Gera crossed the Jordan, he fell prostrate before the king 19and said to him, “May my lord not hold me guilty. Do not remember how your servant did wrong on the day my lord the king left Jerusalem. May the king put it out of his mind. 20For I your servant know that I have sinned, but today I have come here as the first of the whole house of Joseph to come down and meet my lord the king.”

21Then Abishai son of Zeruiah said, “Shouldn’t Shimei be put to death for this? He cursed the LORD’s anointed.”

22David replied, “What do you and I have in common, you sons of Zeruiah? This day you have become my adversaries! Should anyone be put to death in Israel today? Do I not know that today I am king over Israel?” 23So the king said to Shimei, “You shall not die.” And the king promised him on oath.

24Mephibosheth, Saul’s grandson, also went down to meet the king. He had not taken care of his feet or trimmed his mustache or washed his clothes from the day the king left until the day he returned safely. 25When he came from Jerusalem to meet the king, the king asked him, “Why didn’t you go with me, Mephibosheth?”

26He said, “My lord the king, since I your servant am lame, I said, ‘I will have my donkey saddled and will ride on it, so I can go with the king.’ But Ziba my servant betrayed me. 27And he has slandered your servant to my lord the king. My lord the king is like an angel of God; so do whatever pleases you. 28All my grandfather’s descendants deserved nothing but death from my lord the king, but you gave your servant a place among those who sat at your table. So what right do I have to make any more appeals to the king?”

29The king said to him, “Why say more? I order you and Ziba to divide the fields.”

30Mephibosheth said to the king, “Let him take everything, now that my lord the king has arrived home safely.”

31Barzillai the Gileadite also came down from Rogelim to cross the Jordan with the king and to send him on his way from there. 32Now Barzillai was a very old man, eighty years of age. He had provided for the king during his stay in Mahanaim, for he was a very wealthy man. 33The king said to Barzillai, “Cross over with me and stay with me in Jerusalem, and I will provide for you.”

34But Barzillai answered the king, “How many more years will I live, that I should go up to Jerusalem with the king? 35I am now eighty years old. Can I tell the difference between what is good and what is not? Can your servant taste what he eats and drinks? Can I still hear the voices of men and women singers? Why should your servant be an added burden to my lord the king? 36Your servant will cross over the Jordan with the king for a short distance, but why should the king reward me in this way? 37Let your servant return, that I may die in my own town near the tomb of my father and mother. But here is your servant Kimham. Let him cross over with my lord the king. Do for him whatever pleases you.”

38The king said, “Kimham shall cross over with me, and I will do for him whatever pleases you. And anything you desire from me I will do for you.”

39So all the people crossed the Jordan, and then the king crossed over. The king kissed Barzillai and gave him his blessing, and Barzillai returned to his home.

40When the king crossed over to Gilgal, Kimham crossed with him. All the troops of Judah and half the troops of Israel had taken the king over.

41Soon all the men of Israel were coming to the king and saying to him, “Why did our brothers, the men of Judah, steal the king away and bring him and his household across the Jordan, together with all his men?”

42All the men of Judah answered the men of Israel, “We did this because the king is closely related to us. Why are you angry about it? Have we eaten any of the king’s provisions? Have we taken anything for ourselves?”

43Then the men of Israel answered the men of Judah, “We have ten shares in the king; and besides, we have a greater claim on David than you have. So why do you treat us with contempt? Were we not the first to speak of bringing back our king?”

But the men of Judah responded even more harshly than the men of Israel.

According to the concentric structure we have seen in this portion of the book devoted to Absalom’s conspiracy, we are now ready for David’s return to Jerusalem. This unit corresponds to David’s departure narrated in 15:13–16:14. As geography has played an important role in the structure to this point, so here we begin with a debate about how David will be brought back into the royal capital city. Furthermore, the so-called “meeting scenes” of 15:13–16:14 raised concerns that are resolved here with a corresponding set of meeting scenes as David returns to Jerusalem. However, even as these concerns are being resolved, a new conflict emerges in this passage that has potential to be more devastating than Absalom’s rebellion, namely, hostilities between the northern and southern tribes.57

Though David’s men have won the battle and Absalom is dead, the conflict is far from settled. Absalom’s demagoguery tapped into legitimate complaints against David, especially in Judah where the rebellion started (15:10). Now that Absalom is dead, the pro-David voices return. He is, after all, the one who defeated the Philistines, and it is not likely that the nation will find a better ruler. These pro-David voices among the northern tribes argue that they should move quickly to bring David back into power in Jerusalem (19:9–10).

However, Judah is apparently slower to act, and David realizes he can never rule effectively in Jerusalem without Judah’s support. He sends messengers to the “elders of Judah” (cf. 1 Sam. 30:26; 2 Sam. 2:1–4), stressing his kinship with them and offering to make Amasa the general of the Israelite army (19:11–13; see 17:25). This is a bold offer, which presumably addresses complaints about Joab’s leadership as well. David’s strategy works. All Judah acts to bring David back across the Jordan River. They meet him at Gilgal to escort him back into the city (which itself causes resentment among those tribes omitted from this reception, see 19:41).

(1) At this point in the narrative, we read of three encounters corresponding to the meetings David had on his way out of Jerusalem across the river into the Transjordan (15:13–16:14).58 First comes Shimei, who, of course, is anxious to make amends for his severe cursing of David (19:16–23). As a relative of King Saul, it might have been expected that David would simply execute Shimei for his treason, which is the recommendation of David’s trusted troops (esp. Abishai, 19:21). Shimei hopes to dissuade David by offering the support of a thousand Benjamite soldiers and displaying genuine repentance (“I have sinned,” 19:20). David’s magnanimity is a picture of a true anointed one, who is confident enough of his reign to forgive a man like Shimei.59

(2) David meets Mephibosheth, who argues fervently for his innocence against the slander of Ziba (19:24–30; see 16:3).60 He has lived as though in mourning since David’s departure from Jerusalem, which would be an easy check against Ziba’s accusation, especially since neither man could possibly have foreseen the outcome of the conflict between David and Absalom. But this is a case of conflicting testimonies and counterclaims, and David sees immediately that he will never be able to sort it all out (just as we as readers are left in the dark, though most assume Mephibosheth’s innocence). David’s compromise leaves Mephibosheth with something and still rewards Ziba for his support during the crisis. In the end, we have to consider Mephibosheth the loser since a portion of his estate goes to Ziba. The point of the narrative, however, is likely that both men are less than unblemished, and the house of Saul is finally discredited.61

(3) David meets the aged Barzillai the Gileadite (19:31–39). Barzillai had been part of the delegation from the Transjordan that supported David during the crisis (17:27–29). David always appears ready to reward loyalty, and he wants particularly to reward the powerful Barzillai. The Transjordan was often a place of unrest for kings in Jerusalem, and having such a strong ally ensconced permanently in the palace and indebted to the royal treasury would be desirable for David. But Barzillai is beyond caring for palace attractions (19:35) and prefers instead to live out the rest of his life at home. In his place he offers Kimham, assumed by most interpreters to be one of his younger sons.62

Unfortunately, the end of Absalom’s conspiracy is not the end of difficulties for David (as Nathan predicted, 12:10). The final paragraph of this unit illustrates the divide between Judah and the northern tribes (19:40–43). The tenuous union in national Israel is achieved only through the strong personal leadership of David. But even during his reign the union threatens to dissolve into intertribal conflict at the slightest provocation. The problem may be intimated in the reference to “all the troops of Judah and half the troops of Israel” accompanying David across the Jordan River (19:40). Tensions escalate when the Israelites (here meaning northern Israelites) complain that Judah has been given pride of place in the celebratory parade across the river (19:41). The people of Judah respond with an appeal to their closer kinship to David (19:42), to which the Israelites counter that they have more tribes represented in David’s leadership (19:43).

The narrator leaves us with the alarming note that the debate continues without detailing specifically what the Judahites say in response to this last Israelite complaint: “The men of Judah responded even more harshly than the men of Israel.” Such acrimony sets the stage for the open conflict described in chapter 20. Thus, the aftermath of the Absalom rebellion provides an instigation for another, thus again illustrating the truth of Nathan’s prophecy (12:10).63

Rebellion Finally Crushed (20:1–22)

Bridging Contexts

THIS UNIT’S LITERARY power and classic themes have inspired modern authors. Especially moving is the image of David’s profound grief over the loss of Absalom (18:33–19:4). While David at other times is capable of eloquent laments (e.g., over Saul; see 1:19–27), the tragic death of Absalom leaves him using unique language, which seems to throb with his inconsolable sobs and weeping. This portrait of the passionate king has inspired literary giants such as George Gordon Lord Byron and William Faulkner.82

However, as Christian readers we recognize a deeper, more meaningful power in these texts beyond their sheer literary greatness. The theological import of this passage is complex in its presentation but clear in its powerful central themes. In a word, this unit is about rebellion.

That rebellion is connected by means of an unbroken chain of cause-and-effect links to David’s own personal sin; in this narrative his personal failure becomes familial and national. Moreover, this rebellion raises questions of loyalty, loyalty to one’s commitments to God and fellow humans. It also raises troubling questions about power and the proper uses of power, confronting us again with an important subtheme of 1-2 Samuel. Finally, Absalom’s conspiracy gives us further insight into one of the overarching questions of the books of Samuel: Who may serve suitably as messiah, the anointed king of Israel?

Consequences of sin. In order to build a bridge effectively from this narrative to contemporary readers, we must first consider the relationship between the narrative and its preceding context. Several literary features reveal the intended connections between it and the immediately preceding units, specifically chapters 10–12 and 13–14. For example, Absalom’s abuse of David’s concubines is an obvious fulfillment of Nathan’s curse against David, which is pronounced because of David’s sin (cf. 16:22 with 12:11–12). Again, the presence of Absalom as a character in the unit devoted to Amnon’s rape of Tamar (chs. 13–14) prepares us for Absalom’s conspiracy narrated here. Such literary features also communicate the intended theological connection between sin and unmitigated consequences.

Thus, the book’s very structure invites us to see the troubles in David’s family and kingdom as the natural consequences of David’s sin committed in chapters 10–12. David’s private and personal sins are linked in a cause-and-effect continuum with subsequent sins within his own family, which eventually explode into public rebellion and national tragedy.

One potential problem for the present-day reader is this causal connection itself, because it means several other people suffer as a result of David’s sin with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah. David reaps in this narrative what he has sown in chapters 10–12. That much is clear. But what of Tamar and David’s ten concubines? Why must they also suffer the punishment? As we have noted elsewhere, we should avoid confusing what are natural consequences of sin with actual punishment for sin (see comments on 12:13–25). The Old Testament honestly faces the sad fact that others suffer when we sin.

The great confession of faith in the Old Testament asserts boldly that Yahweh is a “compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion, and sin.” This much we love to celebrate. But the confession continues: “Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”83 We should also learn to celebrate this portion of the confession, because it teaches that God does not allow sin to continue unpunished indefinitely. Furthermore, the love and compassion of God are proven by the fact that he allows the consequences of sin to filter through to the fourth generation while maintaining his love to thousands of generations (cf. Ex. 20:5–6). God limits the life span of sin, while his love lasts forever.

Rebellion. As a text narrating rebellion, we learn much about rebellion. Though biblical Hebrew is rich in words for the semantic field “rebellion,” we have few such specifics in this text.84 Absalom’s conspiracy is termed a qešer (15:12), and those who participated in it are “conspirators” (qoš^erim, 15:31). This term frequently refers to rebellious conniving that is political as here, though rebellion against Yahweh may also be involved.85

However, specific terminology is not determinative here because biblical narrative frequently teaches by illustration rather than explication. So here the narration itself teaches much about the nature of rebellion without labeling it as such. Absalom comes to power by duping the men of Israel (15:6). He intentionally keeps them in the dark (15:1186) until it is too late for them to express reservations. This is no legitimate claim to the throne but a duplicitous and insidious power play using strictly human power structures for legitimacy.

Likewise, Sheba is an unscrupulous rapscallion who maliciously takes advantage of the political weakness after Absalom’s conspiracy (20:1). Such rebellion is accomplished in the dark among conniving miscreants, who rely on secrecy and trickery to acquire power. But the anointed one—Yahweh’s anointed—patiently waits for the Lord’s time and place to become king. The location of Absalom’s conspiracy and Sheba’s revolt in the books of Samuel alongside the narratives of David create a striking contrast. Even though these rebellions are the consequence of David’s sin, David himself is still the example of the messiah. Samuel anointed him, but he refuses to demand the throne in his timing. Yahweh’s anointed (our historian’s way of designating “the legitimate holder of royal authority”) is not a power-hungry rebel. There are proper and holy ways to become king of Israel, and Absalom and Sheba represent the opposite. Rebellion itself is antithetical to righteous patience, respect, and reverence for God’s will.

Loyalty. Furthermore, such rebellion raises questions of loyalty. Absalom’s rebellion is itself an expression of a son’s disloyalty, and it forces everyone else in Israel’s young monarchy to choose sides between the king and his son. Who will be loyal to David? When the king is compelled to flee Jerusalem, he learns who his loyal friends are. On the eastern outskirts of the city, he pauses to consider the loyalty of those risking their lives by going with him (15:17–18). Ironically, it is foreign troops attached to David personally who prove the most loyal (esp. the Kerethites and Pelethites) and foreigners in the Transjordan who support him in his most desperate hour (17:27–29).

The disloyalty of someone who was a trusted friend, such as Ahithophel, is devastating news; the fidelity of Hushai a source of hope. Zadok and Abiathar (and their sons Ahimaaz and Jonathan) prove their loyalty to David beyond doubt. Then there are those whose loyalties are unknown (Ziba and Mephibosheth) and those who take the opportunity to make public their hatred for David (Shimei and Sheba). Through it all the reader is forced to ask: Will David remain loyal to Yahweh? At every turn, David passes the test.

Power. As we have seen throughout the books of Samuel, the use of power has been a subtheme for this historian. It should not surprise us that Israel’s first historians, who carefully narrate the rise and establishment of Israel’s monarchy, are interested in this topic. Obviously, Absalom and Sheba are examples of individuals who abuse their power. David represents a man who has learned (finally!) how to use power judiciously. Joab presents perhaps the most complex example. He appears loyal to David, though the reader is forced to wonder if Joab is motivated simply by his need to preserve his access to power. At times he appears unconcerned about divine mandate or royal decree while he uses his military might ruthlessly.

One of the great ironies of the narrative occurs near the end when Joab encounters the wise woman of Abel (20:15–22). While the famous general brings all his awesome military power to bear against the city of Abel in order to defeat the rebel Sheba, the unnamed woman used only her words of wisdom. Her power was of a different sort, with different origins. Joab’s power was observable and awe-inspiring; hers unassuming and rational. The narrative seems to lift the two as examples of power conceived differently and used differently. In the end, we may conclude that the wise woman of Abel is more powerful than the general.

Messiah. Finally, Absalom’s conspiracy contributes generally to one of the overarching questions of the books of Samuel: Who may serve suitably as messiah, the anointed king of Israel? David’s devout resignation while fleeing Jerusalem is expressed most vividly in the conditional clauses of his speech to Zadok concerning the ark of the covenant (15:25–26):

“Take the ark of God back into the city. If I find favor in the LORD’s eyes, he will bring me back and let me see it and his dwelling place again. But if he says, ‘I am not pleased with you,’ then I am ready; let him do to me whatever seems good to him.”

As we argued in the Original Meaning section, this is no blind fatalism, as though David sees his future as some predetermined and inevitable destiny reflecting either God’s punishment or pleasure. In such a state, the king of Israel would have nothing to do but wait it out, tarrying long enough to see how God would settle the dispute with Absalom. Instead, David appears here as one who has finally learned not to grasp at every means available to manipulate, to maneuver in order to control the final outcome. He certainly takes action to meet the challenge of Absalom’s rebellion, but not by seizing the ark of the covenant and turning it to his advantage. In this portrait at least, David is an anointed one content to submit to God’s will, even when that will is so far unknowable.

Thus, the hints of parallels in the New Testament’s passion narratives between Jesus and David as anointed one are appropriate.87 David’s procession through the Kidron Valley and up the Mount of Olives anticipates Jesus’ Maundy Thursday walk to the Mount of Olives and has been called David’s Via Dolorosa.88 Just as David submitted to the will and authority of Yahweh, so Jesus chose submission rather than resistance (Matt. 26:39). In this and many other ways, the books of Samuel deliberately emphasize the Davidic ideal while at the same time portraying the disappointing shortcomings of David himself. By addressing these questions about the nature of Israel’s monarchy and the one who may suitably serve as king, 1-2 Samuel move Israel forward along the messianic continuum that finds its fulfillment in the Gospels.89

Contemporary Significance

Contemporary Significance

REBELLION AND ABUSE OF POWER. Rebellion is a topic we all know well. Most of us have plenty of experience at it! Our world is in need of hearing this narrative’s message on the nature and consequences of human rebellion. However, it may be helpful first to make another brief comment on the role of this extended narrative in 2 Samuel as a whole.

The Absalom story, as we have seen, is intentional about relating this conspiracy and its aftermath to David’s own sins; there is a clear cause-and-effect pattern here. We also recognize a well-known pattern from the Bible’s classic text on sin (Gen. 3–11); that is, when unchecked, sinful actions tend to grow until they become both more extensive and more intensive. So here, David’s personal sin (chs. 11–12) evolves into a family trait that plagues his family for years (chs. 13–14) and eventually becomes a national characteristic that plagues the rest of his reign (chs. 15–20). Just as David “sent” and “took” Bathsheba (review the significance of those terms at 11:4), so Amnon took Tamar, and Absalom took the kingdom.

The warnings of the wise prophet Samuel have become a reality. Kings are takers, and they will take your children, the best of your fields and vineyards, a tenth of your grain, your servants, and a tenth of your flocks, and they will make them all their own (1 Sam. 8:11–18). What began as a personal sin of passion in David’s heart quickly becomes a plague threatening the entire people of God. This portion of the book illustrates the principle we all know too well to be true: “After the first blush of sin comes its indifference,” and subsequently more sin.90

We have seen that vocabulary alone is inadequate to illustrate the Old Testament’s understanding of rebellion (see Bridging Contexts section). Rather than specific terminology, this narrative illustrates rebellion as disloyalty expressed through an abuse of power, which further illustrates a broad definition of sin itself. Indeed, it may be safely assumed that sin includes a willful, disloyal quality, in that someone else (God or human) is defied or hurt. “The willful disregard or sacrifice of the welfare of others for the welfare or satisfaction of the self is an essential quality of the concept of sin.”91 St. Augustine understood sin to contain this element of rebellion, since it involves a turning “away from the universal whole to the individual part.”92 So rebellion is a rejection of the greater and more desirable whole in order to satisfy the desires or longings of the individual.

The greatest danger in all of this, and the point at which many Christians get into trouble, is that rebellion can often look like vocation. In other words, we easily justify our rebellion because it appears to be a way to accomplish something we are genuinely called to accomplish. Taking Absalom as our departure point, it is clear that he, as crown prince, had at his disposal large amounts of legitimate power. He could probably assume that he would one day become David’s successor and rule all Israel. Over time, he began to believe he had no reason to wait for David’s (and God’s!) timing. As David sent and took Bathsheba simply because he could, so Absalom took the kingdom because he believed it was eventually to be his anyway, and he had the ability to take it. It was one way of fulfilling his calling.

This is often the nature of temptation. In fact, temptations are hard to recognize because they regularly offer us ways to take control and use our own power (God-given power!) to falsely realize a true vocation.93 Rebellion is often a distortion of our calling, an evil means to accomplish a righteous aim. Thus, Matthew’s third recorded temptation of Jesus was a temptation to abuse his power (Matt. 4:8–10; second in Luke’s sequence, Luke 4:5–8). God intended for Jesus to reign supreme over all the kingdoms of the earth. Alone in the desert, the devil offered him precisely a quick way to obtain “all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.” Could any vice have been more tempting to Jesus?

The abuse of God-given power to accomplish a God-given mission is a great temptation for contemporary believers today. Absalom serves precisely in this way as a warning for all of us who fail to resist this temptation. Henri Nouwen has argued that rebellion, or the abuse of God-given power, is one of the great weaknesses of the modern church:

When I ask myself the main reason for so many people having left the Church during the past decades in France, Germany, Holland, and also in Canada and America, the word “power” easily comes to mind. One of the greatest ironies of the history of Christianity is that its leaders constantly gave into the temptation of power—political power, military power, economic power, or moral and spiritual power—even though they continued to speak in the name of Jesus, who did not cling to his divine power but emptied himself and became as we are…. Every time we see a major crisis in the history of the Church, such as the Great Schism of the eleventh century, the Reformation of the sixteenth century, or the immense secularization of the twentieth century, we always see that a major cause of rupture is the power exercised by those who claim to be followers of the poor and powerless Jesus.94

When Nouwen attempts to explain why the temptation of power seems so irresistible, he concludes, “It seems easier to be God than to love God, easier to control people than to love people, easier to own life than to love life.”95

There may also be lessons here about human relationships in general and the need to forge better families within the church. David’s inability to relate to and influence his children certainly contributes to his problems. Nouwen emphasizes the connection between how we relate to those around us and the temptation to abuse our power:

One thing is clear to me: the temptation of power is greatest when intimacy is a threat. Much Christian leadership is exercised by people who do not know how to develop healthy, intimate relationships and have opted for power and control instead. Many Christian empire-builders have been people unable to give and receive love.96

Who of us can deny the church has suffered great misdeeds by those more committed to personal empire-building than character-building? In this and many other ways, David and Absalom serve as warnings to today’s believers about rebellion and the abuse of power.

David’s Retreat (15:13–16:14)

13A messenger came and told David, “The hearts of the men of Israel are with Absalom.”

14Then David said to all his officials who were with him in Jerusalem, “Come! We must flee, or none of us will escape from Absalom. We must leave immediately, or he will move quickly to overtake us and bring ruin upon us and put the city to the sword.”

15The king’s officials answered him, “Your servants are ready to do whatever our lord the king chooses.”

16The king set out, with his entire household following him; but he left ten concubines to take care of the palace. 17So the king set out, with all the people following him, and they halted at a place some distance away. 18All his men marched past him, along with all the Kerethites and Pelethites; and all the six hundred Gittites who had accompanied him from Gath marched before the king.

19The king said to Ittai the Gittite, “Why should you come along with us? Go back and stay with King Absalom. You are a foreigner, an exile from your homeland. 20You came only yesterday. And today shall I make you wander about with us, when I do not know where I am going? Go back, and take your countrymen. May kindness and faithfulness be with you.”

21But Ittai replied to the king, “As surely as the LORD lives, and as my lord the king lives, wherever my lord the king may be, whether it means life or death, there will your servant be.”

22David said to Ittai, “Go ahead, march on.” So Ittai the Gittite marched on with all his men and the families that were with him.

23The whole countryside wept aloud as all the people passed by. The king also crossed the Kidron Valley, and all the people moved on toward the desert.

24Zadok was there, too, and all the Levites who were with him were carrying the ark of the covenant of God. They set down the ark of God, and Abiathar offered sacrifices until all the people had finished leaving the city.

25Then the king said to Zadok, “Take the ark of God back into the city. If I find favor in the LORD’s eyes, he will bring me back and let me see it and his dwelling place again. 26But if he says, ‘I am not pleased with you,’ then I am ready; let him do to me whatever seems good to him.”

27The king also said to Zadok the priest, “Aren’t you a seer? Go back to the city in peace, with your son Ahimaaz and Jonathan son of Abiathar. You and Abiathar take your two sons with you. 28I will wait at the fords in the desert until word comes from you to inform me.” 29So Zadok and Abiathar took the ark of God back to Jerusalem and stayed there.

30But David continued up the Mount of Olives, weeping as he went; his head was covered and he was barefoot. All the people with him covered their heads too and were weeping as they went up. 31Now David had been told, “Ahithophel is among the conspirators with Absalom.” So David prayed, “O LORD, turn Ahithophel’s counsel into foolishness.”

32When David arrived at the summit, where people used to worship God, Hushai the Arkite was there to meet him, his robe torn and dust on his head. 33David said to him, “If you go with me, you will be a burden to me. 34But if you return to the city and say to Absalom, ‘I will be your servant, O king; I was your father’s servant in the past, but now I will be your servant,’ then you can help me by frustrating Ahithophel’s advice. 35Won’t the priests Zadok and Abiathar be there with you? Tell them anything you hear in the king’s palace. 36Their two sons, Ahimaaz son of Zadok and Jonathan son of Abiathar, are there with them. Send them to me with anything you hear.”

37So David’s friend Hushai arrived at Jerusalem as Absalom was entering the city.

16:1When David had gone a short distance beyond the summit, there was Ziba, the steward of Mephibosheth, waiting to meet him. He had a string of donkeys saddled and loaded with two hundred loaves of bread, a hundred cakes of raisins, a hundred cakes of figs and a skin of wine.

2The king asked Ziba, “Why have you brought these?”

Ziba answered, “The donkeys are for the king’s household to ride on, the bread and fruit are for the men to eat, and the wine is to refresh those who become exhausted in the desert.”

3The king then asked, “Where is your master’s grandson?”

Ziba said to him, “He is staying in Jerusalem, because he thinks, ‘Today the house of Israel will give me back my grandfather’s kingdom.’”

4Then the king said to Ziba, “All that belonged to Mephibosheth is now yours.”

“I humbly bow,” Ziba said. “May I find favor in your eyes, my lord the king.”

5As King David approached Bahurim, a man from the same clan as Saul’s family came out from there. His name was Shimei son of Gera, and he cursed as he came out. 6He pelted David and all the king’s officials with stones, though all the troops and the special guard were on David’s right and left. 7As he cursed, Shimei said, “Get out, get out, you man of blood, you scoundrel! 8The LORD has repaid you for all the blood you shed in the household of Saul, in whose place you have reigned. The LORD has handed the kingdom over to your son Absalom. You have come to ruin because you are a man of blood!”

9Then Abishai son of Zeruiah said to the king, “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over and cut off his head.”

10But the king said, “What do you and I have in common, you sons of Zeruiah? If he is cursing because the LORD said to him, ‘Curse David,’ who can ask, ‘Why do you do this?’”

11David then said to Abishai and all his officials, “My son, who is of my own flesh, is trying to take my life. How much more, then, this Benjamite! Leave him alone; let him curse, for the LORD has told him to. 12It may be that the LORD will see my distress and repay me with good for the cursing I am receiving today.”

13So David and his men continued along the road while Shimei was going along the hillside opposite him, cursing as he went and throwing stones at him and showering him with dirt. 14The king and all the people with him arrived at their destination exhausted. And there he refreshed himself.

As we have noted, the narrative of Absalom’s rebellion is partially structured by geography. This present unit is dominated by David’s quick departure from Jerusalem and the meeting scenes that occur on the way to the Transjordan. The opening paragraphs begin David’s flight and exile from Jerusalem (15:13–23). He wisely discerns that he will need time to organize his forces and prepare for a defense against Absalom (15:14). Otherwise all will be lost, and lost quickly. His route takes him from the royal palace out of the city, down into the Kidron Valley and “toward the desert,” which implies across the Mount of Olives (15:23, 30). Though fleeing for his life, David’s popularity among the country citizens is apparent by the loud weeping as he and his entire entourage cross the valley. “Prefiguring the passion of another anointed King centuries later,” this narrative is full of sadness and anguish.16

While this long and sad processional is taking place, David pauses to consider the loyalty of those risking their lives to go with him and perhaps to evaluate the combat readiness of his troops. The reference to “a place some distance away” from the city is likely the last building on the eastern outskirts of Jerusalem, which may have been a well-known landmark.17 The text emphasizes especially the foreign troops who have remained loyal to David over the years. The phrase “Kerethites and Pelethites” connotes a royal bodyguard he assembled while living in exile at Ziklag (15:18).18 These men were professional troops distinct from Israel’s regular army and were often instrumental in initial offensives against an enemy, while Israel’s regular army was usually held in reserve for the final assault.19 These crack troops were attached directly to the king and were loyal only to him.

David’s magnanimous spirit and the fierce loyalty of his men are illustrated in the exchange with Ittai the Gittite (15:19–22). Having only just joined David’s royal bodyguard, it seems unfair for Ittai to risk his life and family by getting involved in this dispute. David grants him a full pardon and releases him from his commitments. Ittai’s moving statement of devotion to David, whether in life or death, is reminiscent of Ruth’s classic expression of loyalty to Naomi (15:21; cf. Ruth 1:16–17).

The next portion of the narrative (15:24–16:14) continues David’s flight from the city. Now begins the series of so-called “meeting scenes.” David first encounters Zadok the priest, then Hushai, Ziba, and Shimei. The action is delayed while important speeches carry forward the salient ideas in this unit.

These scenes portray David’s reactions under fire. He has several decisions to make. What role will the ark of the covenant play in this drama? Should he concede defeat as the just punishment of God and live in exile in the desert, as he had done in his youth when Saul was king? How should he respond to the news that his most valued counselor has defected to the conspiracy? David calmly works through his grief with resolve and wisdom, always with a righteous deference to Yahweh’s will. Here David becomes exemplary once again, this time in his blend of devout resignation with sagacious action.20 He is a man of great faith, but also of great planning and strategy. He is being humbled by the course of political events, but he need not be naïve.

(1) As to the meeting with Zadok, David’s resignation expressed in 15:25–26 is not simple fatalism. Rather, he seems to acknowledge the events as the just punishment for his sins, and he submits to the will of God, whatever the outcome. But the outcome remains in doubt, as the double conditional clauses make clear. If, on the one hand, his punishment proves to be a temporary humiliation, then Yahweh will graciously restore David, and he will once again worship God before the ark of the covenant in Jerusalem. Therefore, he sends the ark back into the city. If, on the other hand, his punishment should prove fatal, David is prepared to accept whatever seems right in God’s judgment. The NIV’s “then I am ready” (15:26) is literally “here I am” (hin^eni). Often a common greeting, this utterance is sometimes a more subtle indication that a servant hears and obeys, and it takes on special theological significance when someone hears and obeys the divine call (Gen. 22:1, 11; Ex. 3:4; Isa. 6:8). At this sad moment in his life, David is not the least bit grasping or manipulative. He appears utterly submissive to Yahweh’s will.

We should not move too quickly past David’s decision to send the ark of the covenant back into Jerusalem. As we have seen in 1-2 Samuel, the ark is the most important symbol of God’s approval among the unified tribes of Israel. In the past, Israelites tried to turn possession of the ark into political or military advantage in attempts essentially to manipulate God (1 Sam. 4:1b–11; 2 Sam. 6:1–19). But David illustrates here that he has learned to see beyond personal ambition and accomplishment. He would rather be right in his relationship with Yahweh than be the winner of this conflict. He refuses to turn possession of the ark to political advantage, but he humbly trusts God to do what is best in his life.

At the same time, David will also do whatever he can to answer Absalom’s challenge. His most pressing need is information: What is Absalom doing and when is he doing it? When he turns Zadok and Abiathar back into Jerusalem, David sees the opportunity to establish a system of priestly spies to inform him of Absalom’s activities (15:27–28). The venerated priests will themselves learn the most up-to-date information available, and they will use their sons, Ahimaaz and Jonathan, as runners to carry the news to David, who sets “the fords in the desert” as the rendezvous point.21 This ring of espionage agents will eventually serve David well.

(2) As if David needs more bad news, he learns that his trusted counselor, Ahithophel, is among the conspirators (15:31). In a text revolving around the question of loyalty, this news of a disloyal adviser is devastating. But again, we see a combination of faith and strategy. David’s prayer is that Yahweh will turn Ahithophel’s counsel—otherwise always dependable—into foolishness. But this is followed immediately by David’s arrangement with Hushai the Arkite (15:32–37).22 Hushai returns to Jerusalem prepared to serve as a double agent. He will offer his services to Absalom, but his mission will be to counter the advice of Ahithophel. David also informs Hushai of the ring of priestly spies prepared to carry the information to the king in the desert. The suspense and intrigue begin to build.

(3) The remainder of this section narrates two episodes linked to David’s relationship to the house of Saul: the encounters with Ziba and Shimei. Just beyond the summit of the Mount of Olives, David meets Ziba (16:1–4). The background information in chapter 9 has prepared us for this encounter. Ziba was the steward of Saul’s house and the person responsible for Mephibosheth’s welfare (9:9–11). The motives for his support of David during the crisis are unclear, but he may have seen the insurrection as an opportunity to ingratiate himself to David at Mephibosheth’s expense.23 Mephibosheth himself will deny the charges in 19:24–28, and it seems likely that Ziba is the scoundrel of the two.

Regardless of who is duplicitous, the picture of a representative of Saul’s house meeting and supporting David at this moment is somehow ironic. David is, after all, running from his own son, just as he once ran from Saul. This image contributes to the theme of loyalty in this extended narrative. Who is loyal to whom? Absalom is certainly not loyal, nor is Ahithophel. Mephibosheth is rumored not to be loyal, while Ziba appears to go the second mile because of his loyalty to David. Through it all, we wonder whether David will be loyal to Yahweh.

(4) The last episode, also related to the house of Saul, is the cursing by Shimei (16:5–14). As the king and his retinue pass his town, Shimei takes the opportunity to pour down on them insults and stones. He is a member of Saul’s “family” (mišpaḥah), which is the clan section or next smallest unit in a tribe and emphasizes his blood relationship with Saul.24 Like the narrator, Shimei believes David deserves the current crisis, but for different reasons. The narrator is clear in connecting Absalom’s rebellion with David’s adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah; Shimei assumes David is harvesting what he has sown by replacing the house of Saul (16:8).

It seems likely that Shimei is expressing the resentment of others who felt David’s rise to power (and the ascendancy of Judah over Benjamin) was illegitimate and not condoned by Yahweh.25 But 1-2 Samuel have been partially devoted to refuting such a claim and to defending the legitimacy of David by emphasizing his innocence in the process of becoming king. Shimei is right that David is accursed, but not in his assessment of the reasons. Nor is Shimei justified in pronouncing the curse himself, which he subsequently regrets (19:19–20; for his eventual punishment, see 1 Kings 2:8–9, 36–46).

When Abishai offers to bring an end to such blasphemy, David demurs. Now is not the time for further violence, especially against the family of Saul, the former anointed of Yahweh. Moreover, David wants to be submissive to the Lord’s will in every respect. Perhaps this curse is itself from God, even if wrongly motivated by its human agent, Shimei (16:10–11). David’s response, therefore, displays a decisive image of loyalty in a context crying out for loyalty. Even these many years after Saul’s death and in such extreme circumstances in which his own son and close advisers have proven disloyal, David by contrast remains loyal to Saul, the anointed of the Lord (cf. 1 Sam. 26:9–11), and to Yahweh’s will, whatever his own fate.

Ahithophel’s Advice Defeated (16:15–17:23)

Bridging Contexts

THIS UNIT’S LITERARY power and classic themes have inspired modern authors. Especially moving is the image of David’s profound grief over the loss of Absalom (18:33–19:4). While David at other times is capable of eloquent laments (e.g., over Saul; see 1:19–27), the tragic death of Absalom leaves him using unique language, which seems to throb with his inconsolable sobs and weeping. This portrait of the passionate king has inspired literary giants such as George Gordon Lord Byron and William Faulkner.82

However, as Christian readers we recognize a deeper, more meaningful power in these texts beyond their sheer literary greatness. The theological import of this passage is complex in its presentation but clear in its powerful central themes. In a word, this unit is about rebellion.

That rebellion is connected by means of an unbroken chain of cause-and-effect links to David’s own personal sin; in this narrative his personal failure becomes familial and national. Moreover, this rebellion raises questions of loyalty, loyalty to one’s commitments to God and fellow humans. It also raises troubling questions about power and the proper uses of power, confronting us again with an important subtheme of 1-2 Samuel. Finally, Absalom’s conspiracy gives us further insight into one of the overarching questions of the books of Samuel: Who may serve suitably as messiah, the anointed king of Israel?

Consequences of sin. In order to build a bridge effectively from this narrative to contemporary readers, we must first consider the relationship between the narrative and its preceding context. Several literary features reveal the intended connections between it and the immediately preceding units, specifically chapters 10–12 and 13–14. For example, Absalom’s abuse of David’s concubines is an obvious fulfillment of Nathan’s curse against David, which is pronounced because of David’s sin (cf. 16:22 with 12:11–12). Again, the presence of Absalom as a character in the unit devoted to Amnon’s rape of Tamar (chs. 13–14) prepares us for Absalom’s conspiracy narrated here. Such literary features also communicate the intended theological connection between sin and unmitigated consequences.

Thus, the book’s very structure invites us to see the troubles in David’s family and kingdom as the natural consequences of David’s sin committed in chapters 10–12. David’s private and personal sins are linked in a cause-and-effect continuum with subsequent sins within his own family, which eventually explode into public rebellion and national tragedy.

One potential problem for the present-day reader is this causal connection itself, because it means several other people suffer as a result of David’s sin with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah. David reaps in this narrative what he has sown in chapters 10–12. That much is clear. But what of Tamar and David’s ten concubines? Why must they also suffer the punishment? As we have noted elsewhere, we should avoid confusing what are natural consequences of sin with actual punishment for sin (see comments on 12:13–25). The Old Testament honestly faces the sad fact that others suffer when we sin.

The great confession of faith in the Old Testament asserts boldly that Yahweh is a “compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion, and sin.” This much we love to celebrate. But the confession continues: “Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”83 We should also learn to celebrate this portion of the confession, because it teaches that God does not allow sin to continue unpunished indefinitely. Furthermore, the love and compassion of God are proven by the fact that he allows the consequences of sin to filter through to the fourth generation while maintaining his love to thousands of generations (cf. Ex. 20:5–6). God limits the life span of sin, while his love lasts forever.

Rebellion. As a text narrating rebellion, we learn much about rebellion. Though biblical Hebrew is rich in words for the semantic field “rebellion,” we have few such specifics in this text.84 Absalom’s conspiracy is termed a qešer (15:12), and those who participated in it are “conspirators” (qoš^erim, 15:31). This term frequently refers to rebellious conniving that is political as here, though rebellion against Yahweh may also be involved.85

However, specific terminology is not determinative here because biblical narrative frequently teaches by illustration rather than explication. So here the narration itself teaches much about the nature of rebellion without labeling it as such. Absalom comes to power by duping the men of Israel (15:6). He intentionally keeps them in the dark (15:1186) until it is too late for them to express reservations. This is no legitimate claim to the throne but a duplicitous and insidious power play using strictly human power structures for legitimacy.

Likewise, Sheba is an unscrupulous rapscallion who maliciously takes advantage of the political weakness after Absalom’s conspiracy (20:1). Such rebellion is accomplished in the dark among conniving miscreants, who rely on secrecy and trickery to acquire power. But the anointed one—Yahweh’s anointed—patiently waits for the Lord’s time and place to become king. The location of Absalom’s conspiracy and Sheba’s revolt in the books of Samuel alongside the narratives of David create a striking contrast. Even though these rebellions are the consequence of David’s sin, David himself is still the example of the messiah. Samuel anointed him, but he refuses to demand the throne in his timing. Yahweh’s anointed (our historian’s way of designating “the legitimate holder of royal authority”) is not a power-hungry rebel. There are proper and holy ways to become king of Israel, and Absalom and Sheba represent the opposite. Rebellion itself is antithetical to righteous patience, respect, and reverence for God’s will.

Loyalty. Furthermore, such rebellion raises questions of loyalty. Absalom’s rebellion is itself an expression of a son’s disloyalty, and it forces everyone else in Israel’s young monarchy to choose sides between the king and his son. Who will be loyal to David? When the king is compelled to flee Jerusalem, he learns who his loyal friends are. On the eastern outskirts of the city, he pauses to consider the loyalty of those risking their lives by going with him (15:17–18). Ironically, it is foreign troops attached to David personally who prove the most loyal (esp. the Kerethites and Pelethites) and foreigners in the Transjordan who support him in his most desperate hour (17:27–29).

The disloyalty of someone who was a trusted friend, such as Ahithophel, is devastating news; the fidelity of Hushai a source of hope. Zadok and Abiathar (and their sons Ahimaaz and Jonathan) prove their loyalty to David beyond doubt. Then there are those whose loyalties are unknown (Ziba and Mephibosheth) and those who take the opportunity to make public their hatred for David (Shimei and Sheba). Through it all the reader is forced to ask: Will David remain loyal to Yahweh? At every turn, David passes the test.

Power. As we have seen throughout the books of Samuel, the use of power has been a subtheme for this historian. It should not surprise us that Israel’s first historians, who carefully narrate the rise and establishment of Israel’s monarchy, are interested in this topic. Obviously, Absalom and Sheba are examples of individuals who abuse their power. David represents a man who has learned (finally!) how to use power judiciously. Joab presents perhaps the most complex example. He appears loyal to David, though the reader is forced to wonder if Joab is motivated simply by his need to preserve his access to power. At times he appears unconcerned about divine mandate or royal decree while he uses his military might ruthlessly.

One of the great ironies of the narrative occurs near the end when Joab encounters the wise woman of Abel (20:15–22). While the famous general brings all his awesome military power to bear against the city of Abel in order to defeat the rebel Sheba, the unnamed woman used only her words of wisdom. Her power was of a different sort, with different origins. Joab’s power was observable and awe-inspiring; hers unassuming and rational. The narrative seems to lift the two as examples of power conceived differently and used differently. In the end, we may conclude that the wise woman of Abel is more powerful than the general.

Messiah. Finally, Absalom’s conspiracy contributes generally to one of the overarching questions of the books of Samuel: Who may serve suitably as messiah, the anointed king of Israel? David’s devout resignation while fleeing Jerusalem is expressed most vividly in the conditional clauses of his speech to Zadok concerning the ark of the covenant (15:25–26):

“Take the ark of God back into the city. If I find favor in the LORD’s eyes, he will bring me back and let me see it and his dwelling place again. But if he says, ‘I am not pleased with you,’ then I am ready; let him do to me whatever seems good to him.”

As we argued in the Original Meaning section, this is no blind fatalism, as though David sees his future as some predetermined and inevitable destiny reflecting either God’s punishment or pleasure. In such a state, the king of Israel would have nothing to do but wait it out, tarrying long enough to see how God would settle the dispute with Absalom. Instead, David appears here as one who has finally learned not to grasp at every means available to manipulate, to maneuver in order to control the final outcome. He certainly takes action to meet the challenge of Absalom’s rebellion, but not by seizing the ark of the covenant and turning it to his advantage. In this portrait at least, David is an anointed one content to submit to God’s will, even when that will is so far unknowable.

Thus, the hints of parallels in the New Testament’s passion narratives between Jesus and David as anointed one are appropriate.87 David’s procession through the Kidron Valley and up the Mount of Olives anticipates Jesus’ Maundy Thursday walk to the Mount of Olives and has been called David’s Via Dolorosa.88 Just as David submitted to the will and authority of Yahweh, so Jesus chose submission rather than resistance (Matt. 26:39). In this and many other ways, the books of Samuel deliberately emphasize the Davidic ideal while at the same time portraying the disappointing shortcomings of David himself. By addressing these questions about the nature of Israel’s monarchy and the one who may suitably serve as king, 1-2 Samuel move Israel forward along the messianic continuum that finds its fulfillment in the Gospels.89

Contemporary Significance

Contemporary Significance

REBELLION AND ABUSE OF POWER. Rebellion is a topic we all know well. Most of us have plenty of experience at it! Our world is in need of hearing this narrative’s message on the nature and consequences of human rebellion. However, it may be helpful first to make another brief comment on the role of this extended narrative in 2 Samuel as a whole.

The Absalom story, as we have seen, is intentional about relating this conspiracy and its aftermath to David’s own sins; there is a clear cause-and-effect pattern here. We also recognize a well-known pattern from the Bible’s classic text on sin (Gen. 3–11); that is, when unchecked, sinful actions tend to grow until they become both more extensive and more intensive. So here, David’s personal sin (chs. 11–12) evolves into a family trait that plagues his family for years (chs. 13–14) and eventually becomes a national characteristic that plagues the rest of his reign (chs. 15–20). Just as David “sent” and “took” Bathsheba (review the significance of those terms at 11:4), so Amnon took Tamar, and Absalom took the kingdom.

The warnings of the wise prophet Samuel have become a reality. Kings are takers, and they will take your children, the best of your fields and vineyards, a tenth of your grain, your servants, and a tenth of your flocks, and they will make them all their own (1 Sam. 8:11–18). What began as a personal sin of passion in David’s heart quickly becomes a plague threatening the entire people of God. This portion of the book illustrates the principle we all know too well to be true: “After the first blush of sin comes its indifference,” and subsequently more sin.90

We have seen that vocabulary alone is inadequate to illustrate the Old Testament’s understanding of rebellion (see Bridging Contexts section). Rather than specific terminology, this narrative illustrates rebellion as disloyalty expressed through an abuse of power, which further illustrates a broad definition of sin itself. Indeed, it may be safely assumed that sin includes a willful, disloyal quality, in that someone else (God or human) is defied or hurt. “The willful disregard or sacrifice of the welfare of others for the welfare or satisfaction of the self is an essential quality of the concept of sin.”91 St. Augustine understood sin to contain this element of rebellion, since it involves a turning “away from the universal whole to the individual part.”92 So rebellion is a rejection of the greater and more desirable whole in order to satisfy the desires or longings of the individual.

The greatest danger in all of this, and the point at which many Christians get into trouble, is that rebellion can often look like vocation. In other words, we easily justify our rebellion because it appears to be a way to accomplish something we are genuinely called to accomplish. Taking Absalom as our departure point, it is clear that he, as crown prince, had at his disposal large amounts of legitimate power. He could probably assume that he would one day become David’s successor and rule all Israel. Over time, he began to believe he had no reason to wait for David’s (and God’s!) timing. As David sent and took Bathsheba simply because he could, so Absalom took the kingdom because he believed it was eventually to be his anyway, and he had the ability to take it. It was one way of fulfilling his calling.

This is often the nature of temptation. In fact, temptations are hard to recognize because they regularly offer us ways to take control and use our own power (God-given power!) to falsely realize a true vocation.93 Rebellion is often a distortion of our calling, an evil means to accomplish a righteous aim. Thus, Matthew’s third recorded temptation of Jesus was a temptation to abuse his power (Matt. 4:8–10; second in Luke’s sequence, Luke 4:5–8). God intended for Jesus to reign supreme over all the kingdoms of the earth. Alone in the desert, the devil offered him precisely a quick way to obtain “all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.” Could any vice have been more tempting to Jesus?

The abuse of God-given power to accomplish a God-given mission is a great temptation for contemporary believers today. Absalom serves precisely in this way as a warning for all of us who fail to resist this temptation. Henri Nouwen has argued that rebellion, or the abuse of God-given power, is one of the great weaknesses of the modern church:

When I ask myself the main reason for so many people having left the Church during the past decades in France, Germany, Holland, and also in Canada and America, the word “power” easily comes to mind. One of the greatest ironies of the history of Christianity is that its leaders constantly gave into the temptation of power—political power, military power, economic power, or moral and spiritual power—even though they continued to speak in the name of Jesus, who did not cling to his divine power but emptied himself and became as we are…. Every time we see a major crisis in the history of the Church, such as the Great Schism of the eleventh century, the Reformation of the sixteenth century, or the immense secularization of the twentieth century, we always see that a major cause of rupture is the power exercised by those who claim to be followers of the poor and powerless Jesus.94

When Nouwen attempts to explain why the temptation of power seems so irresistible, he concludes, “It seems easier to be God than to love God, easier to control people than to love people, easier to own life than to love life.”95

There may also be lessons here about human relationships in general and the need to forge better families within the church. David’s inability to relate to and influence his children certainly contributes to his problems. Nouwen emphasizes the connection between how we relate to those around us and the temptation to abuse our power:

One thing is clear to me: the temptation of power is greatest when intimacy is a threat. Much Christian leadership is exercised by people who do not know how to develop healthy, intimate relationships and have opted for power and control instead. Many Christian empire-builders have been people unable to give and receive love.96

Who of us can deny the church has suffered great misdeeds by those more committed to personal empire-building than character-building? In this and many other ways, David and Absalom serve as warnings to today’s believers about rebellion and the abuse of power.

Ahithophel’s Advice Defeated (16:15–17:23)

15Meanwhile, Absalom and all the men of Israel came to Jerusalem, and Ahithophel was with him. 16Then Hushai the Arkite, David’s friend, went to Absalom and said to him, “Long live the king! Long live the king!”

17Absalom asked Hushai, “Is this the love you show your friend? Why didn’t you go with your friend?”

18Hushai said to Absalom, “No, the one chosen by the LORD, by these people, and by all the men of Israel—his I will be, and I will remain with him. 19Furthermore, whom should I serve? Should I not serve the son? Just as I served your father, so I will serve you.”

20Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give us your advice. What should we do?”

21Ahithophel answered, “Lie with your father’s concubines whom he left to take care of the palace. Then all Israel will hear that you have made yourself a stench in your father’s nostrils, and the hands of everyone with you will be strengthened.” 22So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and he lay with his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.

23Now in those days the advice Ahithophel gave was like that of one who inquires of God. That was how both David and Absalom regarded all of Ahithophel’s advice.

17:1Ahithophel said to Absalom, “I would choose twelve thousand men and set out tonight in pursuit of David. 2I would attack him while he is weary and weak. I would strike him with terror, and then all the people with him will flee. I would strike down only the king 3and bring all the people back to you. The death of the man you seek will mean the return of all; all the people will be unharmed.” 4This plan seemed good to Absalom and to all the elders of Israel.

5But Absalom said, “Summon also Hushai the Arkite, so we can hear what he has to say.” 6When Hushai came to him, Absalom said, “Ahithophel has given this advice. Should we do what he says? If not, give us your opinion.”

7Hushai replied to Absalom, “The advice Ahithophel has given is not good this time. 8You know your father and his men; they are fighters, and as fierce as a wild bear robbed of her cubs. Besides, your father is an experienced fighter; he will not spend the night with the troops. 9Even now, he is hidden in a cave or some other place. If he should attack your troops first, whoever hears about it will say, ‘There has been a slaughter among the troops who follow Absalom.’ 10Then even the bravest soldier, whose heart is like the heart of a lion, will melt with fear, for all Israel knows that your father is a fighter and that those with him are brave.

11“So I advise you: Let all Israel, from Dan to Beersheba—as numerous as the sand on the seashore—be gathered to you, with you yourself leading them into battle. 12Then we will attack him wherever he may be found, and we will fall on him as dew settles on the ground. Neither he nor any of his men will be left alive. 13If he withdraws into a city, then all Israel will bring ropes to that city, and we will drag it down to the valley until not even a piece of it can be found.”

14Absalom and all the men of Israel said, “The advice of Hushai the Arkite is better than that of Ahithophel.” For the LORD had determined to frustrate the good advice of Ahithophel in order to bring disaster on Absalom.

15Hushai told Zadok and Abiathar, the priests, “Ahithophel has advised Absalom and the elders of Israel to do such and such, but I have advised them to do so and so. 16Now send a message immediately and tell David, ‘Do not spend the night at the fords in the desert; cross over without fail, or the king and all the people with him will be swallowed up.’”

17Jonathan and Ahimaaz were staying at En Rogel. A servant girl was to go and inform them, and they were to go and tell King David, for they could not risk being seen entering the city. 18But a young man saw them and told Absalom. So the two of them left quickly and went to the house of a man in Bahurim. He had a well in his courtyard, and they climbed down into it. 19His wife took a covering and spread it out over the opening of the well and scattered grain over it. No one knew anything about it.

20When Absalom’s men came to the woman at the house, they asked, “Where are Ahimaaz and Jonathan?”

The woman answered them, “They crossed over the brook.” The men searched but found no one, so they returned to Jerusalem.

21After the men had gone, the two climbed out of the well and went to inform King David. They said to him, “Set out and cross the river at once; Ahithophel has advised such and such against you.” 22So David and all the people with him set out and crossed the Jordan. By daybreak, no one was left who had not crossed the Jordan.

23When Ahithophel saw that his advice had not been followed, he saddled his donkey and set out for his house in his hometown. He put his house in order and then hanged himself. So he died and was buried in his father’s tomb.

At this point in the book, the geographical arrangement of the extended narrative comes to the foreground. Now the text shifts scenes from David’s departure from Jerusalem and the so-called “meeting scenes” to events in Jerusalem and its environs. The focus of this section is the conflicting advice of Ahithophel and Hushai, which essentially prepares the reader for the military conflict to follow.

The opening paragraph (16:15–19) reminds us of the narrative’s central theme, that is, loyalty. When Absalom and his supporters come to Jerusalem, he seems assured of success, not only because David is on the run but because Ahithophel is “with him” (16:15). Ahithophel always seemed right, and his counsel was respected and valued by everyone as though he inquired directly from God (16:23).26 His support of Absalom’s rebellion gives it respectability and strength (15:12). Upon learning that his trusted counselor failed to remain loyal, David prayed that the Lord would turn Ahithophel’s counsel into foolishness, and he enlisted Hushai to make it possible (15:31–37). Now the question becomes: Will Hushai be loyal, or will he too join the conspiracy?

When Hushai meets Absalom, he repeats the standard loyalty oath (16:16): “Long live the king!” This phrase (only two words in Heb.) is used frequently in the historical books to denote the popular acclamation of a king (1 Sam. 10:24; 1 Kings 1:25, 34, 39; 2 Kings 11:12). It implies more than warm good wishes for a new king; rather, it formally accepts the royal authority of the king and may actually serve as a sort of pledge of allegiance.27 In this context, the expression raises further the question: Does Hushai intend to support Absalom or David? By pledging loyalty to “the king,” does he mean the young usurper king or the banished King David? In some examples of this expression, the name of the king is included, thereby removing all doubt about one’s loyalty (1 Kings 1:25): “Long live King Adonijah!” By contrast, Hushai’s use of the phrase is ambiguous, though Absalom certainly assumes he is the intended object of his loyalty (see 2 Sam. 17).28 The reader hopes (and will soon learn) that Hushai has David in mind.

Absalom may have become suspicious, so he pushes Hushai further about his loyalty to David. Is this the way Hushai expresses love for his friends (16:17)? The implication is that Absalom can do without Hushai’s support if, in fact, he is so fickle. The term translated “love” in NIV is ḥesed, which as we have seen several times in this commentary has to do with covenant loyalty and faithfulness (translated “loyalty” by NRSV and NJPS). In the Old Testament, ḥesed is needed in situations in which one member of a covenant partnership is in a position to render help or aid to the other, who is in need and unable to help the other. Here David is in need of Hushai’s assistance, though whether Hushai is willing and capable is still in doubt. The motivation for aid is simply the enduring relationship between the two covenant partners. This loyalty is particularly necessary in situations where its performance is in question.29

Absalom’s question puts Hushai in a tight spot. He must justify his decision to abandon David and defend his right to advise Absalom, all while convincing Absalom that he is a counselor to be trusted. This is a delicate balancing act, but Hushai can only hope to deceive Absalom later by winning his confidence now. His response is the picture of diplomacy, and it admirably convinces Absalom that Hushai is great in wisdom and can be trusted (16:18–19).

Nonetheless, Hushai’s task is a difficult one. Ahithophel’s counsel is nearly always right, as though God himself has spoken from Mount Sinai (16:23). His first piece of advice is rather strange: Absalom should appear publicly sleeping with David’s royal harem (16:21). As we have seen elsewhere in this commentary, royal women played a significant political role in these ancient societies (see comments on 2 Sam. 3:6–7). Sexual relations with a king’s wife or concubine was tantamount to a claim to that king’s throne and appears to have been common in the ancient Near East when a king was replaced with a new dynasty.30 Absalom quickly obeys Ahithophel’s advice, which must have given the impression to the inhabitants of Jerusalem that the insurrection is in fact successful and Absalom is king (16:22). It also constitutes a definite and irreversible break between Absalom and David. There is no turning back now; the insurrection will run its course.31

Of course, Absalom’s appearance with David’s concubines is also the fulfillment of Nathan’s pronouncement to David in 2 Samuel 12:11–12:

This is what the LORD says: “Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.”

This explicit intertextuality ties together the events of chapters 13–20 (i.e., the sexual and violent acts of David’s family) with the king’s own violent and sexual sins in chapter 11. The unfolding of Nathan’s curse “forms a dominant force in the succeeding chapters” and draws a cause-and-effect connection between Bathsheba and Tamar, between Uriah and Absalom.32 David continues to reap what he has sown.

The conflict between Ahithophel’s counsel (16:20–17:4) and Hushai’s (17:5–14) is not unlike our own English wisdom proverbs: “Strike while the iron is hot” and “Look before you leap.” Ahithophel advocates striking while David’s position is weakened, while Hushai argues that only a carefully planned and well-staffed attack will be successful against so experienced an opponent as David. Of course, as readers we are privy to information unavailable to Absalom. David is especially vulnerable just now, and Ahithophel’s advice is right. But Absalom has no such information, and Hushai’s speech is once again impressive, especially the subtle reminders of David’s abilities in guerrilla warfare and his use of propaganda (17:8–10). Absalom and all the men of Israel are persuaded, and Ahithophel’s advice is disregarded (17:14a).

This was indeed a remarkable achievement for Hushai, whose oratory skills must have been stellar. However, lest the reader place too much credit on Hushai’s rhetorical flare, the narrator intrudes with a rare, explicitly stated theological assessment (17:14b): “For the LORD had determined to frustrate the good advice of Ahithophel in order to bring disaster on Absalom.”33 This pronouncement is the turning point—the moment at which the reader learns how the story will end. Yahweh has determined that Ahithophel’s advice becomes null and void,34 advice that is admittedly “good” advice. This being true, the suspense is over. God has acted, and we have only to follow the course of events as Absalom’s otherwise successful rebellion comes to ruin and David is restored to the throne.

The next portion of this unit shows David’s espionage ring in action (17:15–22). The sons of Zadok and Abiathar (Jonathan and Ahimaaz) are well positioned to take reports of Ahithophel’s advice to David, who is waiting at the Jordan River (as previously arranged; see 15:27–29, 35–36). The two younger priests narrowly escape capture. En Rogel (17:17) is a spring located approximately six hundred feet south of the confluence of the Hinnom and Kidron Valleys, only a short distance south of the Spring Gihon.35 Bahurim was a Benjamite village on the road from Jerusalem as one moves east into the Jordan Valley en route to the Transjordan.36

The informants manage to avert attention thanks to the benevolent aid of an unnamed couple in Bahurim, and they successfully reach David with the vital information. The text reads like a suspenseful spy novel at this point, with everything resting on the shoulders of two individuals. But the reader knows the secret agents will succeed at this high-stakes game. Yahweh has decreed that Ahithophel’s advice will become null and void, and now he turns the news of events in Jerusalem to David’s advantage. David and everyone with him cross the river and head to Mahanaim in order to prepare for the coming battle (17:22).

The brief note on Ahithophel’s ignoble death is surprising (17:23). We can only assume this seasoned politician realizes his cause is irreversibly lost once Absalom rejects his advice. David’s prayer has been answered (15:31). The miraculous acceptance of Hushai’s advice over Ahithophel’s gives David time to prepare for battle. As a result Absalom has lost the strategic advantage, and the rebellion can only fail. Once David is restored to power, Ahithophel is sure to face a torturous death, probably not unlike Absalom’s (18:14–15). Ahithophel, the veteran politician and counselor, is wise enough to see he can have no future in a restored Davidic kingdom. He does what he can to avoid falling into the hands of David’s men.

Most scholars admit the remarkable parallels with Matthew’s report of Judas’s death (Matt. 27:5): suicide by hanging, betrayal of the Son of David, the ascent of the Mount of Olives, and so on. It is even likely that Gethsemane, where Jesus’ betrayal was enacted, is near the place where David learns of Ahithophel’s betrayal (15:30–31).37 Thus, the author of the first Gospel has fashioned his report of Judas with his eye on this account of David’s traitor, just as he shaped his good news about Jesus as the promised Messiah from the line of David (Matt. 1:1–17).

Absalom’s Forces Defeated (17:24–19:8a)

Bridging Contexts

THIS UNIT’S LITERARY power and classic themes have inspired modern authors. Especially moving is the image of David’s profound grief over the loss of Absalom (18:33–19:4). While David at other times is capable of eloquent laments (e.g., over Saul; see 1:19–27), the tragic death of Absalom leaves him using unique language, which seems to throb with his inconsolable sobs and weeping. This portrait of the passionate king has inspired literary giants such as George Gordon Lord Byron and William Faulkner.82

However, as Christian readers we recognize a deeper, more meaningful power in these texts beyond their sheer literary greatness. The theological import of this passage is complex in its presentation but clear in its powerful central themes. In a word, this unit is about rebellion.

That rebellion is connected by means of an unbroken chain of cause-and-effect links to David’s own personal sin; in this narrative his personal failure becomes familial and national. Moreover, this rebellion raises questions of loyalty, loyalty to one’s commitments to God and fellow humans. It also raises troubling questions about power and the proper uses of power, confronting us again with an important subtheme of 1-2 Samuel. Finally, Absalom’s conspiracy gives us further insight into one of the overarching questions of the books of Samuel: Who may serve suitably as messiah, the anointed king of Israel?

Consequences of sin. In order to build a bridge effectively from this narrative to contemporary readers, we must first consider the relationship between the narrative and its preceding context. Several literary features reveal the intended connections between it and the immediately preceding units, specifically chapters 10–12 and 13–14. For example, Absalom’s abuse of David’s concubines is an obvious fulfillment of Nathan’s curse against David, which is pronounced because of David’s sin (cf. 16:22 with 12:11–12). Again, the presence of Absalom as a character in the unit devoted to Amnon’s rape of Tamar (chs. 13–14) prepares us for Absalom’s conspiracy narrated here. Such literary features also communicate the intended theological connection between sin and unmitigated consequences.

Thus, the book’s very structure invites us to see the troubles in David’s family and kingdom as the natural consequences of David’s sin committed in chapters 10–12. David’s private and personal sins are linked in a cause-and-effect continuum with subsequent sins within his own family, which eventually explode into public rebellion and national tragedy.

One potential problem for the present-day reader is this causal connection itself, because it means several other people suffer as a result of David’s sin with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah. David reaps in this narrative what he has sown in chapters 10–12. That much is clear. But what of Tamar and David’s ten concubines? Why must they also suffer the punishment? As we have noted elsewhere, we should avoid confusing what are natural consequences of sin with actual punishment for sin (see comments on 12:13–25). The Old Testament honestly faces the sad fact that others suffer when we sin.

The great confession of faith in the Old Testament asserts boldly that Yahweh is a “compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion, and sin.” This much we love to celebrate. But the confession continues: “Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”83 We should also learn to celebrate this portion of the confession, because it teaches that God does not allow sin to continue unpunished indefinitely. Furthermore, the love and compassion of God are proven by the fact that he allows the consequences of sin to filter through to the fourth generation while maintaining his love to thousands of generations (cf. Ex. 20:5–6). God limits the life span of sin, while his love lasts forever.

Rebellion. As a text narrating rebellion, we learn much about rebellion. Though biblical Hebrew is rich in words for the semantic field “rebellion,” we have few such specifics in this text.84 Absalom’s conspiracy is termed a qešer (15:12), and those who participated in it are “conspirators” (qoš^erim, 15:31). This term frequently refers to rebellious conniving that is political as here, though rebellion against Yahweh may also be involved.85

However, specific terminology is not determinative here because biblical narrative frequently teaches by illustration rather than explication. So here the narration itself teaches much about the nature of rebellion without labeling it as such. Absalom comes to power by duping the men of Israel (15:6). He intentionally keeps them in the dark (15:1186) until it is too late for them to express reservations. This is no legitimate claim to the throne but a duplicitous and insidious power play using strictly human power structures for legitimacy.

Likewise, Sheba is an unscrupulous rapscallion who maliciously takes advantage of the political weakness after Absalom’s conspiracy (20:1). Such rebellion is accomplished in the dark among conniving miscreants, who rely on secrecy and trickery to acquire power. But the anointed one—Yahweh’s anointed—patiently waits for the Lord’s time and place to become king. The location of Absalom’s conspiracy and Sheba’s revolt in the books of Samuel alongside the narratives of David create a striking contrast. Even though these rebellions are the consequence of David’s sin, David himself is still the example of the messiah. Samuel anointed him, but he refuses to demand the throne in his timing. Yahweh’s anointed (our historian’s way of designating “the legitimate holder of royal authority”) is not a power-hungry rebel. There are proper and holy ways to become king of Israel, and Absalom and Sheba represent the opposite. Rebellion itself is antithetical to righteous patience, respect, and reverence for God’s will.

Loyalty. Furthermore, such rebellion raises questions of loyalty. Absalom’s rebellion is itself an expression of a son’s disloyalty, and it forces everyone else in Israel’s young monarchy to choose sides between the king and his son. Who will be loyal to David? When the king is compelled to flee Jerusalem, he learns who his loyal friends are. On the eastern outskirts of the city, he pauses to consider the loyalty of those risking their lives by going with him (15:17–18). Ironically, it is foreign troops attached to David personally who prove the most loyal (esp. the Kerethites and Pelethites) and foreigners in the Transjordan who support him in his most desperate hour (17:27–29).

The disloyalty of someone who was a trusted friend, such as Ahithophel, is devastating news; the fidelity of Hushai a source of hope. Zadok and Abiathar (and their sons Ahimaaz and Jonathan) prove their loyalty to David beyond doubt. Then there are those whose loyalties are unknown (Ziba and Mephibosheth) and those who take the opportunity to make public their hatred for David (Shimei and Sheba). Through it all the reader is forced to ask: Will David remain loyal to Yahweh? At every turn, David passes the test.

Power. As we have seen throughout the books of Samuel, the use of power has been a subtheme for this historian. It should not surprise us that Israel’s first historians, who carefully narrate the rise and establishment of Israel’s monarchy, are interested in this topic. Obviously, Absalom and Sheba are examples of individuals who abuse their power. David represents a man who has learned (finally!) how to use power judiciously. Joab presents perhaps the most complex example. He appears loyal to David, though the reader is forced to wonder if Joab is motivated simply by his need to preserve his access to power. At times he appears unconcerned about divine mandate or royal decree while he uses his military might ruthlessly.

One of the great ironies of the narrative occurs near the end when Joab encounters the wise woman of Abel (20:15–22). While the famous general brings all his awesome military power to bear against the city of Abel in order to defeat the rebel Sheba, the unnamed woman used only her words of wisdom. Her power was of a different sort, with different origins. Joab’s power was observable and awe-inspiring; hers unassuming and rational. The narrative seems to lift the two as examples of power conceived differently and used differently. In the end, we may conclude that the wise woman of Abel is more powerful than the general.

Messiah. Finally, Absalom’s conspiracy contributes generally to one of the overarching questions of the books of Samuel: Who may serve suitably as messiah, the anointed king of Israel? David’s devout resignation while fleeing Jerusalem is expressed most vividly in the conditional clauses of his speech to Zadok concerning the ark of the covenant (15:25–26):

“Take the ark of God back into the city. If I find favor in the LORD’s eyes, he will bring me back and let me see it and his dwelling place again. But if he says, ‘I am not pleased with you,’ then I am ready; let him do to me whatever seems good to him.”

As we argued in the Original Meaning section, this is no blind fatalism, as though David sees his future as some predetermined and inevitable destiny reflecting either God’s punishment or pleasure. In such a state, the king of Israel would have nothing to do but wait it out, tarrying long enough to see how God would settle the dispute with Absalom. Instead, David appears here as one who has finally learned not to grasp at every means available to manipulate, to maneuver in order to control the final outcome. He certainly takes action to meet the challenge of Absalom’s rebellion, but not by seizing the ark of the covenant and turning it to his advantage. In this portrait at least, David is an anointed one content to submit to God’s will, even when that will is so far unknowable.

Thus, the hints of parallels in the New Testament’s passion narratives between Jesus and David as anointed one are appropriate.87 David’s procession through the Kidron Valley and up the Mount of Olives anticipates Jesus’ Maundy Thursday walk to the Mount of Olives and has been called David’s Via Dolorosa.88 Just as David submitted to the will and authority of Yahweh, so Jesus chose submission rather than resistance (Matt. 26:39). In this and many other ways, the books of Samuel deliberately emphasize the Davidic ideal while at the same time portraying the disappointing shortcomings of David himself. By addressing these questions about the nature of Israel’s monarchy and the one who may suitably serve as king, 1-2 Samuel move Israel forward along the messianic continuum that finds its fulfillment in the Gospels.89

Contemporary Significance

Contemporary Significance

REBELLION AND ABUSE OF POWER. Rebellion is a topic we all know well. Most of us have plenty of experience at it! Our world is in need of hearing this narrative’s message on the nature and consequences of human rebellion. However, it may be helpful first to make another brief comment on the role of this extended narrative in 2 Samuel as a whole.

The Absalom story, as we have seen, is intentional about relating this conspiracy and its aftermath to David’s own sins; there is a clear cause-and-effect pattern here. We also recognize a well-known pattern from the Bible’s classic text on sin (Gen. 3–11); that is, when unchecked, sinful actions tend to grow until they become both more extensive and more intensive. So here, David’s personal sin (chs. 11–12) evolves into a family trait that plagues his family for years (chs. 13–14) and eventually becomes a national characteristic that plagues the rest of his reign (chs. 15–20). Just as David “sent” and “took” Bathsheba (review the significance of those terms at 11:4), so Amnon took Tamar, and Absalom took the kingdom.

The warnings of the wise prophet Samuel have become a reality. Kings are takers, and they will take your children, the best of your fields and vineyards, a tenth of your grain, your servants, and a tenth of your flocks, and they will make them all their own (1 Sam. 8:11–18). What began as a personal sin of passion in David’s heart quickly becomes a plague threatening the entire people of God. This portion of the book illustrates the principle we all know too well to be true: “After the first blush of sin comes its indifference,” and subsequently more sin.90

We have seen that vocabulary alone is inadequate to illustrate the Old Testament’s understanding of rebellion (see Bridging Contexts section). Rather than specific terminology, this narrative illustrates rebellion as disloyalty expressed through an abuse of power, which further illustrates a broad definition of sin itself. Indeed, it may be safely assumed that sin includes a willful, disloyal quality, in that someone else (God or human) is defied or hurt. “The willful disregard or sacrifice of the welfare of others for the welfare or satisfaction of the self is an essential quality of the concept of sin.”91 St. Augustine understood sin to contain this element of rebellion, since it involves a turning “away from the universal whole to the individual part.”92 So rebellion is a rejection of the greater and more desirable whole in order to satisfy the desires or longings of the individual.

The greatest danger in all of this, and the point at which many Christians get into trouble, is that rebellion can often look like vocation. In other words, we easily justify our rebellion because it appears to be a way to accomplish something we are genuinely called to accomplish. Taking Absalom as our departure point, it is clear that he, as crown prince, had at his disposal large amounts of legitimate power. He could probably assume that he would one day become David’s successor and rule all Israel. Over time, he began to believe he had no reason to wait for David’s (and God’s!) timing. As David sent and took Bathsheba simply because he could, so Absalom took the kingdom because he believed it was eventually to be his anyway, and he had the ability to take it. It was one way of fulfilling his calling.

This is often the nature of temptation. In fact, temptations are hard to recognize because they regularly offer us ways to take control and use our own power (God-given power!) to falsely realize a true vocation.93 Rebellion is often a distortion of our calling, an evil means to accomplish a righteous aim. Thus, Matthew’s third recorded temptation of Jesus was a temptation to abuse his power (Matt. 4:8–10; second in Luke’s sequence, Luke 4:5–8). God intended for Jesus to reign supreme over all the kingdoms of the earth. Alone in the desert, the devil offered him precisely a quick way to obtain “all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.” Could any vice have been more tempting to Jesus?

The abuse of God-given power to accomplish a God-given mission is a great temptation for contemporary believers today. Absalom serves precisely in this way as a warning for all of us who fail to resist this temptation. Henri Nouwen has argued that rebellion, or the abuse of God-given power, is one of the great weaknesses of the modern church:

When I ask myself the main reason for so many people having left the Church during the past decades in France, Germany, Holland, and also in Canada and America, the word “power” easily comes to mind. One of the greatest ironies of the history of Christianity is that its leaders constantly gave into the temptation of power—political power, military power, economic power, or moral and spiritual power—even though they continued to speak in the name of Jesus, who did not cling to his divine power but emptied himself and became as we are…. Every time we see a major crisis in the history of the Church, such as the Great Schism of the eleventh century, the Reformation of the sixteenth century, or the immense secularization of the twentieth century, we always see that a major cause of rupture is the power exercised by those who claim to be followers of the poor and powerless Jesus.94

When Nouwen attempts to explain why the temptation of power seems so irresistible, he concludes, “It seems easier to be God than to love God, easier to control people than to love people, easier to own life than to love life.”95

There may also be lessons here about human relationships in general and the need to forge better families within the church. David’s inability to relate to and influence his children certainly contributes to his problems. Nouwen emphasizes the connection between how we relate to those around us and the temptation to abuse our power:

One thing is clear to me: the temptation of power is greatest when intimacy is a threat. Much Christian leadership is exercised by people who do not know how to develop healthy, intimate relationships and have opted for power and control instead. Many Christian empire-builders have been people unable to give and receive love.96

Who of us can deny the church has suffered great misdeeds by those more committed to personal empire-building than character-building? In this and many other ways, David and Absalom serve as warnings to today’s believers about rebellion and the abuse of power.

Ahithophel’s Advice Defeated (16:15–17:23)

15Meanwhile, Absalom and all the men of Israel came to Jerusalem, and Ahithophel was with him. 16Then Hushai the Arkite, David’s friend, went to Absalom and said to him, “Long live the king! Long live the king!”

17Absalom asked Hushai, “Is this the love you show your friend? Why didn’t you go with your friend?”

18Hushai said to Absalom, “No, the one chosen by the LORD, by these people, and by all the men of Israel—his I will be, and I will remain with him. 19Furthermore, whom should I serve? Should I not serve the son? Just as I served your father, so I will serve you.”

20Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give us your advice. What should we do?”

21Ahithophel answered, “Lie with your father’s concubines whom he left to take care of the palace. Then all Israel will hear that you have made yourself a stench in your father’s nostrils, and the hands of everyone with you will be strengthened.” 22So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and he lay with his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.

23Now in those days the advice Ahithophel gave was like that of one who inquires of God. That was how both David and Absalom regarded all of Ahithophel’s advice.

17:1Ahithophel said to Absalom, “I would choose twelve thousand men and set out tonight in pursuit of David. 2I would attack him while he is weary and weak. I would strike him with terror, and then all the people with him will flee. I would strike down only the king 3and bring all the people back to you. The death of the man you seek will mean the return of all; all the people will be unharmed.” 4This plan seemed good to Absalom and to all the elders of Israel.

5But Absalom said, “Summon also Hushai the Arkite, so we can hear what he has to say.” 6When Hushai came to him, Absalom said, “Ahithophel has given this advice. Should we do what he says? If not, give us your opinion.”

7Hushai replied to Absalom, “The advice Ahithophel has given is not good this time. 8You know your father and his men; they are fighters, and as fierce as a wild bear robbed of her cubs. Besides, your father is an experienced fighter; he will not spend the night with the troops. 9Even now, he is hidden in a cave or some other place. If he should attack your troops first, whoever hears about it will say, ‘There has been a slaughter among the troops who follow Absalom.’ 10Then even the bravest soldier, whose heart is like the heart of a lion, will melt with fear, for all Israel knows that your father is a fighter and that those with him are brave.

11“So I advise you: Let all Israel, from Dan to Beersheba—as numerous as the sand on the seashore—be gathered to you, with you yourself leading them into battle. 12Then we will attack him wherever he may be found, and we will fall on him as dew settles on the ground. Neither he nor any of his men will be left alive. 13If he withdraws into a city, then all Israel will bring ropes to that city, and we will drag it down to the valley until not even a piece of it can be found.”

14Absalom and all the men of Israel said, “The advice of Hushai the Arkite is better than that of Ahithophel.” For the LORD had determined to frustrate the good advice of Ahithophel in order to bring disaster on Absalom.

15Hushai told Zadok and Abiathar, the priests, “Ahithophel has advised Absalom and the elders of Israel to do such and such, but I have advised them to do so and so. 16Now send a message immediately and tell David, ‘Do not spend the night at the fords in the desert; cross over without fail, or the king and all the people with him will be swallowed up.’”

17Jonathan and Ahimaaz were staying at En Rogel. A servant girl was to go and inform them, and they were to go and tell King David, for they could not risk being seen entering the city. 18But a young man saw them and told Absalom. So the two of them left quickly and went to the house of a man in Bahurim. He had a well in his courtyard, and they climbed down into it. 19His wife took a covering and spread it out over the opening of the well and scattered grain over it. No one knew anything about it.

20When Absalom’s men came to the woman at the house, they asked, “Where are Ahimaaz and Jonathan?”

The woman answered them, “They crossed over the brook.” The men searched but found no one, so they returned to Jerusalem.

21After the men had gone, the two climbed out of the well and went to inform King David. They said to him, “Set out and cross the river at once; Ahithophel has advised such and such against you.” 22So David and all the people with him set out and crossed the Jordan. By daybreak, no one was left who had not crossed the Jordan.

23When Ahithophel saw that his advice had not been followed, he saddled his donkey and set out for his house in his hometown. He put his house in order and then hanged himself. So he died and was buried in his father’s tomb.

At this point in the book, the geographical arrangement of the extended narrative comes to the foreground. Now the text shifts scenes from David’s departure from Jerusalem and the so-called “meeting scenes” to events in Jerusalem and its environs. The focus of this section is the conflicting advice of Ahithophel and Hushai, which essentially prepares the reader for the military conflict to follow.

The opening paragraph (16:15–19) reminds us of the narrative’s central theme, that is, loyalty. When Absalom and his supporters come to Jerusalem, he seems assured of success, not only because David is on the run but because Ahithophel is “with him” (16:15). Ahithophel always seemed right, and his counsel was respected and valued by everyone as though he inquired directly from God (16:23).26 His support of Absalom’s rebellion gives it respectability and strength (15:12). Upon learning that his trusted counselor failed to remain loyal, David prayed that the Lord would turn Ahithophel’s counsel into foolishness, and he enlisted Hushai to make it possible (15:31–37). Now the question becomes: Will Hushai be loyal, or will he too join the conspiracy?

When Hushai meets Absalom, he repeats the standard loyalty oath (16:16): “Long live the king!” This phrase (only two words in Heb.) is used frequently in the historical books to denote the popular acclamation of a king (1 Sam. 10:24; 1 Kings 1:25, 34, 39; 2 Kings 11:12). It implies more than warm good wishes for a new king; rather, it formally accepts the royal authority of the king and may actually serve as a sort of pledge of allegiance.27 In this context, the expression raises further the question: Does Hushai intend to support Absalom or David? By pledging loyalty to “the king,” does he mean the young usurper king or the banished King David? In some examples of this expression, the name of the king is included, thereby removing all doubt about one’s loyalty (1 Kings 1:25): “Long live King Adonijah!” By contrast, Hushai’s use of the phrase is ambiguous, though Absalom certainly assumes he is the intended object of his loyalty (see 2 Sam. 17).28 The reader hopes (and will soon learn) that Hushai has David in mind.

Absalom may have become suspicious, so he pushes Hushai further about his loyalty to David. Is this the way Hushai expresses love for his friends (16:17)? The implication is that Absalom can do without Hushai’s support if, in fact, he is so fickle. The term translated “love” in NIV is ḥesed, which as we have seen several times in this commentary has to do with covenant loyalty and faithfulness (translated “loyalty” by NRSV and NJPS). In the Old Testament, ḥesed is needed in situations in which one member of a covenant partnership is in a position to render help or aid to the other, who is in need and unable to help the other. Here David is in need of Hushai’s assistance, though whether Hushai is willing and capable is still in doubt. The motivation for aid is simply the enduring relationship between the two covenant partners. This loyalty is particularly necessary in situations where its performance is in question.29

Absalom’s question puts Hushai in a tight spot. He must justify his decision to abandon David and defend his right to advise Absalom, all while convincing Absalom that he is a counselor to be trusted. This is a delicate balancing act, but Hushai can only hope to deceive Absalom later by winning his confidence now. His response is the picture of diplomacy, and it admirably convinces Absalom that Hushai is great in wisdom and can be trusted (16:18–19).

Nonetheless, Hushai’s task is a difficult one. Ahithophel’s counsel is nearly always right, as though God himself has spoken from Mount Sinai (16:23). His first piece of advice is rather strange: Absalom should appear publicly sleeping with David’s royal harem (16:21). As we have seen elsewhere in this commentary, royal women played a significant political role in these ancient societies (see comments on 2 Sam. 3:6–7). Sexual relations with a king’s wife or concubine was tantamount to a claim to that king’s throne and appears to have been common in the ancient Near East when a king was replaced with a new dynasty.30 Absalom quickly obeys Ahithophel’s advice, which must have given the impression to the inhabitants of Jerusalem that the insurrection is in fact successful and Absalom is king (16:22). It also constitutes a definite and irreversible break between Absalom and David. There is no turning back now; the insurrection will run its course.31

Of course, Absalom’s appearance with David’s concubines is also the fulfillment of Nathan’s pronouncement to David in 2 Samuel 12:11–12:

This is what the LORD says: “Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.”

This explicit intertextuality ties together the events of chapters 13–20 (i.e., the sexual and violent acts of David’s family) with the king’s own violent and sexual sins in chapter 11. The unfolding of Nathan’s curse “forms a dominant force in the succeeding chapters” and draws a cause-and-effect connection between Bathsheba and Tamar, between Uriah and Absalom.32 David continues to reap what he has sown.

The conflict between Ahithophel’s counsel (16:20–17:4) and Hushai’s (17:5–14) is not unlike our own English wisdom proverbs: “Strike while the iron is hot” and “Look before you leap.” Ahithophel advocates striking while David’s position is weakened, while Hushai argues that only a carefully planned and well-staffed attack will be successful against so experienced an opponent as David. Of course, as readers we are privy to information unavailable to Absalom. David is especially vulnerable just now, and Ahithophel’s advice is right. But Absalom has no such information, and Hushai’s speech is once again impressive, especially the subtle reminders of David’s abilities in guerrilla warfare and his use of propaganda (17:8–10). Absalom and all the men of Israel are persuaded, and Ahithophel’s advice is disregarded (17:14a).

This was indeed a remarkable achievement for Hushai, whose oratory skills must have been stellar. However, lest the reader place too much credit on Hushai’s rhetorical flare, the narrator intrudes with a rare, explicitly stated theological assessment (17:14b): “For the LORD had determined to frustrate the good advice of Ahithophel in order to bring disaster on Absalom.”33 This pronouncement is the turning point—the moment at which the reader learns how the story will end. Yahweh has determined that Ahithophel’s advice becomes null and void,34 advice that is admittedly “good” advice. This being true, the suspense is over. God has acted, and we have only to follow the course of events as Absalom’s otherwise successful rebellion comes to ruin and David is restored to the throne.

The next portion of this unit shows David’s espionage ring in action (17:15–22). The sons of Zadok and Abiathar (Jonathan and Ahimaaz) are well positioned to take reports of Ahithophel’s advice to David, who is waiting at the Jordan River (as previously arranged; see 15:27–29, 35–36). The two younger priests narrowly escape capture. En Rogel (17:17) is a spring located approximately six hundred feet south of the confluence of the Hinnom and Kidron Valleys, only a short distance south of the Spring Gihon.35 Bahurim was a Benjamite village on the road from Jerusalem as one moves east into the Jordan Valley en route to the Transjordan.36

The informants manage to avert attention thanks to the benevolent aid of an unnamed couple in Bahurim, and they successfully reach David with the vital information. The text reads like a suspenseful spy novel at this point, with everything resting on the shoulders of two individuals. But the reader knows the secret agents will succeed at this high-stakes game. Yahweh has decreed that Ahithophel’s advice will become null and void, and now he turns the news of events in Jerusalem to David’s advantage. David and everyone with him cross the river and head to Mahanaim in order to prepare for the coming battle (17:22).

The brief note on Ahithophel’s ignoble death is surprising (17:23). We can only assume this seasoned politician realizes his cause is irreversibly lost once Absalom rejects his advice. David’s prayer has been answered (15:31). The miraculous acceptance of Hushai’s advice over Ahithophel’s gives David time to prepare for battle. As a result Absalom has lost the strategic advantage, and the rebellion can only fail. Once David is restored to power, Ahithophel is sure to face a torturous death, probably not unlike Absalom’s (18:14–15). Ahithophel, the veteran politician and counselor, is wise enough to see he can have no future in a restored Davidic kingdom. He does what he can to avoid falling into the hands of David’s men.

Most scholars admit the remarkable parallels with Matthew’s report of Judas’s death (Matt. 27:5): suicide by hanging, betrayal of the Son of David, the ascent of the Mount of Olives, and so on. It is even likely that Gethsemane, where Jesus’ betrayal was enacted, is near the place where David learns of Ahithophel’s betrayal (15:30–31).37 Thus, the author of the first Gospel has fashioned his report of Judas with his eye on this account of David’s traitor, just as he shaped his good news about Jesus as the promised Messiah from the line of David (Matt. 1:1–17).

Absalom’s Forces Defeated (17:24–19:8a)

Bridging Contexts

THIS UNIT’S LITERARY power and classic themes have inspired modern authors. Especially moving is the image of David’s profound grief over the loss of Absalom (18:33–19:4). While David at other times is capable of eloquent laments (e.g., over Saul; see 1:19–27), the tragic death of Absalom leaves him using unique language, which seems to throb with his inconsolable sobs and weeping. This portrait of the passionate king has inspired literary giants such as George Gordon Lord Byron and William Faulkner.82

However, as Christian readers we recognize a deeper, more meaningful power in these texts beyond their sheer literary greatness. The theological import of this passage is complex in its presentation but clear in its powerful central themes. In a word, this unit is about rebellion.

That rebellion is connected by means of an unbroken chain of cause-and-effect links to David’s own personal sin; in this narrative his personal failure becomes familial and national. Moreover, this rebellion raises questions of loyalty, loyalty to one’s commitments to God and fellow humans. It also raises troubling questions about power and the proper uses of power, confronting us again with an important subtheme of 1-2 Samuel. Finally, Absalom’s conspiracy gives us further insight into one of the overarching questions of the books of Samuel: Who may serve suitably as messiah, the anointed king of Israel?

Consequences of sin. In order to build a bridge effectively from this narrative to contemporary readers, we must first consider the relationship between the narrative and its preceding context. Several literary features reveal the intended connections between it and the immediately preceding units, specifically chapters 10–12 and 13–14. For example, Absalom’s abuse of David’s concubines is an obvious fulfillment of Nathan’s curse against David, which is pronounced because of David’s sin (cf. 16:22 with 12:11–12). Again, the presence of Absalom as a character in the unit devoted to Amnon’s rape of Tamar (chs. 13–14) prepares us for Absalom’s conspiracy narrated here. Such literary features also communicate the intended theological connection between sin and unmitigated consequences.

Thus, the book’s very structure invites us to see the troubles in David’s family and kingdom as the natural consequences of David’s sin committed in chapters 10–12. David’s private and personal sins are linked in a cause-and-effect continuum with subsequent sins within his own family, which eventually explode into public rebellion and national tragedy.

One potential problem for the present-day reader is this causal connection itself, because it means several other people suffer as a result of David’s sin with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah. David reaps in this narrative what he has sown in chapters 10–12. That much is clear. But what of Tamar and David’s ten concubines? Why must they also suffer the punishment? As we have noted elsewhere, we should avoid confusing what are natural consequences of sin with actual punishment for sin (see comments on 12:13–25). The Old Testament honestly faces the sad fact that others suffer when we sin.

The great confession of faith in the Old Testament asserts boldly that Yahweh is a “compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion, and sin.” This much we love to celebrate. But the confession continues: “Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”83 We should also learn to celebrate this portion of the confession, because it teaches that God does not allow sin to continue unpunished indefinitely. Furthermore, the love and compassion of God are proven by the fact that he allows the consequences of sin to filter through to the fourth generation while maintaining his love to thousands of generations (cf. Ex. 20:5–6). God limits the life span of sin, while his love lasts forever.

Rebellion. As a text narrating rebellion, we learn much about rebellion. Though biblical Hebrew is rich in words for the semantic field “rebellion,” we have few such specifics in this text.84 Absalom’s conspiracy is termed a qešer (15:12), and those who participated in it are “conspirators” (qoš^erim, 15:31). This term frequently refers to rebellious conniving that is political as here, though rebellion against Yahweh may also be involved.85

However, specific terminology is not determinative here because biblical narrative frequently teaches by illustration rather than explication. So here the narration itself teaches much about the nature of rebellion without labeling it as such. Absalom comes to power by duping the men of Israel (15:6). He intentionally keeps them in the dark (15:1186) until it is too late for them to express reservations. This is no legitimate claim to the throne but a duplicitous and insidious power play using strictly human power structures for legitimacy.

Likewise, Sheba is an unscrupulous rapscallion who maliciously takes advantage of the political weakness after Absalom’s conspiracy (20:1). Such rebellion is accomplished in the dark among conniving miscreants, who rely on secrecy and trickery to acquire power. But the anointed one—Yahweh’s anointed—patiently waits for the Lord’s time and place to become king. The location of Absalom’s conspiracy and Sheba’s revolt in the books of Samuel alongside the narratives of David create a striking contrast. Even though these rebellions are the consequence of David’s sin, David himself is still the example of the messiah. Samuel anointed him, but he refuses to demand the throne in his timing. Yahweh’s anointed (our historian’s way of designating “the legitimate holder of royal authority”) is not a power-hungry rebel. There are proper and holy ways to become king of Israel, and Absalom and Sheba represent the opposite. Rebellion itself is antithetical to righteous patience, respect, and reverence for God’s will.

Loyalty. Furthermore, such rebellion raises questions of loyalty. Absalom’s rebellion is itself an expression of a son’s disloyalty, and it forces everyone else in Israel’s young monarchy to choose sides between the king and his son. Who will be loyal to David? When the king is compelled to flee Jerusalem, he learns who his loyal friends are. On the eastern outskirts of the city, he pauses to consider the loyalty of those risking their lives by going with him (15:17–18). Ironically, it is foreign troops attached to David personally who prove the most loyal (esp. the Kerethites and Pelethites) and foreigners in the Transjordan who support him in his most desperate hour (17:27–29).

The disloyalty of someone who was a trusted friend, such as Ahithophel, is devastating news; the fidelity of Hushai a source of hope. Zadok and Abiathar (and their sons Ahimaaz and Jonathan) prove their loyalty to David beyond doubt. Then there are those whose loyalties are unknown (Ziba and Mephibosheth) and those who take the opportunity to make public their hatred for David (Shimei and Sheba). Through it all the reader is forced to ask: Will David remain loyal to Yahweh? At every turn, David passes the test.

Power. As we have seen throughout the books of Samuel, the use of power has been a subtheme for this historian. It should not surprise us that Israel’s first historians, who carefully narrate the rise and establishment of Israel’s monarchy, are interested in this topic. Obviously, Absalom and Sheba are examples of individuals who abuse their power. David represents a man who has learned (finally!) how to use power judiciously. Joab presents perhaps the most complex example. He appears loyal to David, though the reader is forced to wonder if Joab is motivated simply by his need to preserve his access to power. At times he appears unconcerned about divine mandate or royal decree while he uses his military might ruthlessly.

One of the great ironies of the narrative occurs near the end when Joab encounters the wise woman of Abel (20:15–22). While the famous general brings all his awesome military power to bear against the city of Abel in order to defeat the rebel Sheba, the unnamed woman used only her words of wisdom. Her power was of a different sort, with different origins. Joab’s power was observable and awe-inspiring; hers unassuming and rational. The narrative seems to lift the two as examples of power conceived differently and used differently. In the end, we may conclude that the wise woman of Abel is more powerful than the general.

Messiah. Finally, Absalom’s conspiracy contributes generally to one of the overarching questions of the books of Samuel: Who may serve suitably as messiah, the anointed king of Israel? David’s devout resignation while fleeing Jerusalem is expressed most vividly in the conditional clauses of his speech to Zadok concerning the ark of the covenant (15:25–26):

“Take the ark of God back into the city. If I find favor in the LORD’s eyes, he will bring me back and let me see it and his dwelling place again. But if he says, ‘I am not pleased with you,’ then I am ready; let him do to me whatever seems good to him.”

As we argued in the Original Meaning section, this is no blind fatalism, as though David sees his future as some predetermined and inevitable destiny reflecting either God’s punishment or pleasure. In such a state, the king of Israel would have nothing to do but wait it out, tarrying long enough to see how God would settle the dispute with Absalom. Instead, David appears here as one who has finally learned not to grasp at every means available to manipulate, to maneuver in order to control the final outcome. He certainly takes action to meet the challenge of Absalom’s rebellion, but not by seizing the ark of the covenant and turning it to his advantage. In this portrait at least, David is an anointed one content to submit to God’s will, even when that will is so far unknowable.

Thus, the hints of parallels in the New Testament’s passion narratives between Jesus and David as anointed one are appropriate.87 David’s procession through the Kidron Valley and up the Mount of Olives anticipates Jesus’ Maundy Thursday walk to the Mount of Olives and has been called David’s Via Dolorosa.88 Just as David submitted to the will and authority of Yahweh, so Jesus chose submission rather than resistance (Matt. 26:39). In this and many other ways, the books of Samuel deliberately emphasize the Davidic ideal while at the same time portraying the disappointing shortcomings of David himself. By addressing these questions about the nature of Israel’s monarchy and the one who may suitably serve as king, 1-2 Samuel move Israel forward along the messianic continuum that finds its fulfillment in the Gospels.89

Contemporary Significance

Contemporary Significance

REBELLION AND ABUSE OF POWER. Rebellion is a topic we all know well. Most of us have plenty of experience at it! Our world is in need of hearing this narrative’s message on the nature and consequences of human rebellion. However, it may be helpful first to make another brief comment on the role of this extended narrative in 2 Samuel as a whole.

The Absalom story, as we have seen, is intentional about relating this conspiracy and its aftermath to David’s own sins; there is a clear cause-and-effect pattern here. We also recognize a well-known pattern from the Bible’s classic text on sin (Gen. 3–11); that is, when unchecked, sinful actions tend to grow until they become both more extensive and more intensive. So here, David’s personal sin (chs. 11–12) evolves into a family trait that plagues his family for years (chs. 13–14) and eventually becomes a national characteristic that plagues the rest of his reign (chs. 15–20). Just as David “sent” and “took” Bathsheba (review the significance of those terms at 11:4), so Amnon took Tamar, and Absalom took the kingdom.

The warnings of the wise prophet Samuel have become a reality. Kings are takers, and they will take your children, the best of your fields and vineyards, a tenth of your grain, your servants, and a tenth of your flocks, and they will make them all their own (1 Sam. 8:11–18). What began as a personal sin of passion in David’s heart quickly becomes a plague threatening the entire people of God. This portion of the book illustrates the principle we all know too well to be true: “After the first blush of sin comes its indifference,” and subsequently more sin.90

We have seen that vocabulary alone is inadequate to illustrate the Old Testament’s understanding of rebellion (see Bridging Contexts section). Rather than specific terminology, this narrative illustrates rebellion as disloyalty expressed through an abuse of power, which further illustrates a broad definition of sin itself. Indeed, it may be safely assumed that sin includes a willful, disloyal quality, in that someone else (God or human) is defied or hurt. “The willful disregard or sacrifice of the welfare of others for the welfare or satisfaction of the self is an essential quality of the concept of sin.”91 St. Augustine understood sin to contain this element of rebellion, since it involves a turning “away from the universal whole to the individual part.”92 So rebellion is a rejection of the greater and more desirable whole in order to satisfy the desires or longings of the individual.

The greatest danger in all of this, and the point at which many Christians get into trouble, is that rebellion can often look like vocation. In other words, we easily justify our rebellion because it appears to be a way to accomplish something we are genuinely called to accomplish. Taking Absalom as our departure point, it is clear that he, as crown prince, had at his disposal large amounts of legitimate power. He could probably assume that he would one day become David’s successor and rule all Israel. Over time, he began to believe he had no reason to wait for David’s (and God’s!) timing. As David sent and took Bathsheba simply because he could, so Absalom took the kingdom because he believed it was eventually to be his anyway, and he had the ability to take it. It was one way of fulfilling his calling.

This is often the nature of temptation. In fact, temptations are hard to recognize because they regularly offer us ways to take control and use our own power (God-given power!) to falsely realize a true vocation.93 Rebellion is often a distortion of our calling, an evil means to accomplish a righteous aim. Thus, Matthew’s third recorded temptation of Jesus was a temptation to abuse his power (Matt. 4:8–10; second in Luke’s sequence, Luke 4:5–8). God intended for Jesus to reign supreme over all the kingdoms of the earth. Alone in the desert, the devil offered him precisely a quick way to obtain “all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.” Could any vice have been more tempting to Jesus?

The abuse of God-given power to accomplish a God-given mission is a great temptation for contemporary believers today. Absalom serves precisely in this way as a warning for all of us who fail to resist this temptation. Henri Nouwen has argued that rebellion, or the abuse of God-given power, is one of the great weaknesses of the modern church:

When I ask myself the main reason for so many people having left the Church during the past decades in France, Germany, Holland, and also in Canada and America, the word “power” easily comes to mind. One of the greatest ironies of the history of Christianity is that its leaders constantly gave into the temptation of power—political power, military power, economic power, or moral and spiritual power—even though they continued to speak in the name of Jesus, who did not cling to his divine power but emptied himself and became as we are…. Every time we see a major crisis in the history of the Church, such as the Great Schism of the eleventh century, the Reformation of the sixteenth century, or the immense secularization of the twentieth century, we always see that a major cause of rupture is the power exercised by those who claim to be followers of the poor and powerless Jesus.94

When Nouwen attempts to explain why the temptation of power seems so irresistible, he concludes, “It seems easier to be God than to love God, easier to control people than to love people, easier to own life than to love life.”95

There may also be lessons here about human relationships in general and the need to forge better families within the church. David’s inability to relate to and influence his children certainly contributes to his problems. Nouwen emphasizes the connection between how we relate to those around us and the temptation to abuse our power:

One thing is clear to me: the temptation of power is greatest when intimacy is a threat. Much Christian leadership is exercised by people who do not know how to develop healthy, intimate relationships and have opted for power and control instead. Many Christian empire-builders have been people unable to give and receive love.96

Who of us can deny the church has suffered great misdeeds by those more committed to personal empire-building than character-building? In this and many other ways, David and Absalom serve as warnings to today’s believers about rebellion and the abuse of power.

Absalom’s Forces Defeated (17:24–19:8a)

24David went to Mahanaim, and Absalom crossed the Jordan with all the men of Israel. 25Absalom had appointed Amasa over the army in place of Joab. Amasa was the son of a man named Jether, an Israelite who had married Abigail, the daughter of Nahash and sister of Zeruiah the mother of Joab. 26The Israelites and Absalom camped in the land of Gilead.

27When David came to Mahanaim, Shobi son of Nahash from Rabbah of the Ammonites, and Makir son of Ammiel from Lo Debar, and Barzillai the Gileadite from Rogelim 28brought bedding and bowls and articles of pottery. They also brought wheat and barley, flour and roasted grain, beans and lentils, 29honey and curds, sheep, and cheese from cows’ milk for David and his people to eat. For they said, “The people have become hungry and tired and thirsty in the desert.”

18:1David mustered the men who were with him and appointed over them commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds. 2David sent the troops out—a third under the command of Joab, a third under Joab’s brother Abishai son of Zeruiah, and a third under Ittai the Gittite. The king told the troops, “I myself will surely march out with you.”

3But the men said, “You must not go out; if we are forced to flee, they won’t care about us. Even if half of us die, they won’t care; but you are worth ten thousand of us. It would be better now for you to give us support from the city.”

4The king answered, “I will do whatever seems best to you.”

So the king stood beside the gate while all the men marched out in units of hundreds and of thousands. 5The king commanded Joab, Abishai and Ittai, “Be gentle with the young man Absalom for my sake.” And all the troops heard the king giving orders concerning Absalom to each of the commanders.

6The army marched into the field to fight Israel, and the battle took place in the forest of Ephraim. 7There the army of Israel was defeated by David’s men, and the casualties that day were great—twenty thousand men. 8The battle spread out over the whole countryside, and the forest claimed more lives that day than the sword.

9Now Absalom happened to meet David’s men. He was riding his mule, and as the mule went under the thick branches of a large oak, Absalom’s head got caught in the tree. He was left hanging in midair, while the mule he was riding kept on going.

10When one of the men saw this, he told Joab, “I just saw Absalom hanging in an oak tree.”

11Joab said to the man who had told him this, “What! You saw him? Why didn’t you strike him to the ground right there? Then I would have had to give you ten shekels of silver and a warrior’s belt.”

12But the man replied, “Even if a thousand shekels were weighed out into my hands, I would not lift my hand against the king’s son. In our hearing the king commanded you and Abishai and Ittai, ‘Protect the young man Absalom for my sake.’ 13And if I had put my life in jeopardy—and nothing is hidden from the king—you would have kept your distance from me.”

14Joab said, “I’m not going to wait like this for you.” So he took three javelins in his hand and plunged them into Absalom’s heart while Absalom was still alive in the oak tree. 15And ten of Joab’s armor-bearers surrounded Absalom, struck him and killed him.

16Then Joab sounded the trumpet, and the troops stopped pursuing Israel, for Joab halted them. 17They took Absalom, threw him into a big pit in the forest and piled up a large heap of rocks over him. Meanwhile, all the Israelites fled to their homes.

18During his lifetime Absalom had taken a pillar and erected it in the King’s Valley as a monument to himself, for he thought, “I have no son to carry on the memory of my name.” He named the pillar after himself, and it is called Absalom’s Monument to this day.

19Now Ahimaaz son of Zadok said, “Let me run and take the news to the king that the LORD has delivered him from the hand of his enemies.”

20“You are not the one to take the news today,” Joab told him. “You may take the news another time, but you must not do so today, because the king’s son is dead.”

21Then Joab said to a Cushite, “Go, tell the king what you have seen.” The Cushite bowed down before Joab and ran off.

22Ahimaaz son of Zadok again said to Joab, “Come what may, please let me run behind the Cushite.”

But Joab replied, “My son, why do you want to go? You don’t have any news that will bring you a reward.”

23He said, “Come what may, I want to run.”

So Joab said, “Run!” Then Ahimaaz ran by way of the plain and outran the Cushite.

24While David was sitting between the inner and outer gates, the watchman went up to the roof of the gateway by the wall. As he looked out, he saw a man running alone. 25The watchman called out to the king and reported it.

The king said, “If he is alone, he must have good news.” And the man came closer and closer.

26Then the watchman saw another man running, and he called down to the gatekeeper, “Look, another man running alone!”

The king said, “He must be bringing good news, too.”

27The watchman said, “It seems to me that the first one runs like Ahimaaz son of Zadok.”

“He’s a good man,” the king said. “He comes with good news.”

28Then Ahimaaz called out to the king, “All is well!” He bowed down before the king with his face to the ground and said, “Praise be to the LORD your God! He has delivered up the men who lifted their hands against my lord the king.”

29The king asked, “Is the young man Absalom safe?”

Ahimaaz answered, “I saw great confusion just as Joab was about to send the king’s servant and me, your servant, but I don’t know what it was.”

30The king said, “Stand aside and wait here.” So he stepped aside and stood there.

31Then the Cushite arrived and said, “My lord the king, hear the good news! The LORD has delivered you today from all who rose up against you.”

32The king asked the Cushite, “Is the young man Absalom safe?”

The Cushite replied, “May the enemies of my lord the king and all who rise up to harm you be like that young man.”

33The king was shaken. He went up to the room over the gateway and wept. As he went, he said: “O my son Absalom! My son, my son Absalom! If only I had died instead of you—O Absalom, my son, my son!”

19:1Joab was told, “The king is weeping and mourning for Absalom.” 2And for the whole army the victory that day was turned into mourning, because on that day the troops heard it said, “The king is grieving for his son.” 3The men stole into the city that day as men steal in who are ashamed when they flee from battle. 4The king covered his face and cried aloud, “O my son Absalom! O Absalom, my son, my son!”

5Then Joab went into the house to the king and said, “Today you have humiliated all your men, who have just saved your life and the lives of your sons and daughters and the lives of your wives and concubines. 6You love those who hate you and hate those who love you. You have made it clear today that the commanders and their men mean nothing to you. I see that you would be pleased if Absalom were alive today and all of us were dead. 7Now go out and encourage your men. I swear by the LORD that if you don’t go out, not a man will be left with you by nightfall. This will be worse for you than all the calamities that have come upon you from your youth till now.”

8So the king got up and took his seat in the gateway. When the men were told, “The king is sitting in the gateway,” they all came before him.

The war to determine who will be king in Jerusalem takes only one battle on a single day (18:6–8). This unit describes preparations for that battle and the quick end of hostilities. But our narrator is more interested in the personal aspects than in the military details, so the passage is dominated by the specifics of Absalom’s death and the emotional impact it has on David.

The action takes place in the Transjordan, having moved now from the halls of power in Jerusalem. Heading east, David and his entourage crossed the Jordan Valley at the close of the previous section (17:22). In the opening verse here, Absalom and “all the men of Israel” enter the Transjordan and set up camp in Gilead (17:24–26). Interestingly, Mahanaim was the center of Ish-Bosheth’s power (2:8–9), and the northern Transjordan area was important for Saul’s reign.38 The irony of David escaping from Absalom and finding shelter here is heightened when he is met by friendly local authorities who support him and his troops with much needed provisions (17:27–29). It is possible to speculate about Ammonite and Gileadite strategies to support a weakened central government in Jerusalem.39 However, in this extended narrative, in which the central theme is the need for loyalty in a time of rebellion, it is also possible the narrator wants to contrast these erstwhile enemies of Israel in territories that once belonged to King Saul with the traitorous Absalom and Ahithophel. When David’s own son and closest adviser forsake him, he finds loyal friends in interesting places.

Apparently Hushai’s delay tactics have given David enough time to reach Mahanaim, which is presumably well fortified, and has provided time to organize his supporters into three companies (18:1–2).40 He originally planned to join the troops in the field but is dissuaded by their pleas that he will be worth more in the city than in the field of battle (18:3). Thus, the conflicting pieces of advice from Hushai and Ahithophel continue to set the pattern for the outcome of the war. Ahithophel’s strategy centered on the hopes of striking only David, so that Absalom could acquire all of David’s supporters for his own cause and unite all Israel in a renewed national force (17:2–3). But this strategy was dependent on moving quickly to kill David before he could escape into the Transjordan. By contrast, Hushai specifically encouraged Absalom to muster a large contingent of troops from all Israel and to lead them himself in the battle (17:11). When the Lord turned Ahithophel’s good advice into folly, it indeed doomed Absalom to disaster (17:14).

The account of the actual battle is brief (18:6–8). The rebellion has a superior force, “the army of Israel,” and it appears to command an impressive advantage. Implicit in the words of David’s men (“you are worth ten thousand of us,” 18:3) is the realization that they are grossly outnumbered. The location of the “forest of Ephraim” is uncertain, though with most commentators, we should assume it was east of the Jordan River, probably south or southwest of Mahanaim.41 The significance of the forest, however, is clear: It is difficult terrain for fighting and gives the advantage to David’s men.42 It is even possible to imagine that David and Joab intentionally draw Absalom into a trap. By choosing Mahanaim as David’s headquarters, they effectively choose a battle site amenable to David’s private warriors, who specialize in guerrilla warfare.43 Thus, the forest of Ephraim is part of a larger military stratagem intended to counter the superior numbers of Absalom’s army. The historian is content to make passing reference to the outcome (18:8): “The forest claimed more lives that day than the sword.”

In fact, the biblical historian seems little interested in the details of David’s victory. As we have said, this narrative is more interested in the specifics of Absalom’s gruesome death and its impact on David. The tone of this portion of the narrative leaves the reader in doubt about whether this is indeed a victory at all, or rather a defeat for David. “The battle is no doubt a victory; the coup is defeated and David returns in power. Yet David returns in grief, and the grief nearly overrides the victorious power.”44 The sorrow of the king seems to permeate the remainder of the text as it relates the death of Absalom (18:9–18) and the report of his death to David (18:19–19:7).

The historian tells us that Absalom’s head is caught in a tree and the mule rides on, leaving him dangling between heaven and earth (18:9). The symbolism of Absalom’s predicament is related to the use of the mule during the early monarchy as the usual mount for princes and kings (rather than the horse or jackass, see 2 Sam. 13:29; 1 Kings 1:33, 38, 44; 10:25; 18:5). As Absalom has lost his mule from under him, so he has also lost his royal seat.45

There may be further symbolism intended in Absalom’s suspension “between heaven and earth” (lit. trans. of NIV “in midair”; cf. NRSV and NJPS). He has become “a nowhere man.”46 His rebellion has left him without the ground beneath his feet, unable to fulfill his life as prince or king and incapable of serving in the kingdom of God. He is “suspended between life and death, between the sentence of a rebel and the value of a son, between the severity of the king and the yearning of the father.”47 David’s troops do not have to hunt him down in order to kill him. Absalom’s own sedition has left him helplessly suspended, powerless to defend himself, much less to lead a rebellion against David.

How did Absalom get his head caught in a tree? Beginning with the Jewish historian Josephus (A.D. 37–100), most interpreters have assumed Absalom became entangled by his luxuriant hair, taking this as an implicit reference to 14:26.48 If in fact this text has in view the previous mention of Absalom’s proud head of hair, this “hanging” emphasizes the tragedy of Absalom’s death. He is the paradigmatic promising young man brought to ignoble death by his own pride.49

The description of Absalom’s death occupies the center of this section.50 David’s prebattle instructions are preoccupied with Absalom’s safekeeping (18:5): “Be gentle with the young man Absalom for my sake.” Once Absalom is captured, one of Joab’s men reminds him (and us!) of David’s concerns (18:12). After his death is reported to David, the king’s severe and prolonged mourning threatens to drive the entire Israelite army into desertion (19:7). The narrative may be partly intended to defend David’s innocence in the death of Absalom, laying the blame entirely at the feet of Joab. Beyond the historical explanations and justifications, the text also seems to mourn with David the loss of an excellent son.

We have seen foreigners deliver to David what they thought would be received as good news before. When Joab sends a “Cushite” to David with the news of Absalom’s death, one recalls the Amalekite who reported Saul’s death (1:1–16; see also 4:9–11). Instead of good news, David saw the report as evidence the Amalekite was blasphemous and had him executed. However, in that case, the Amalekite actually claimed to have killed Saul himself, which was David’s stated reason for the harsh response (1:14–16). Joab takes no chances here. This will not be unmitigated good news for David, and he refuses to send Ahimaaz son of Zadok.51

The account of the two messengers running to David slowly builds suspense as we are forced to wait for David’s reactions (18:19–19:7).52 Ahimaaz appears to have been genuinely ignorant about the specifics of Absalom’s death (“I saw great confusion … but I don’t know what it was,” 18:29).53 When he is forced to “stand aside” and wait for the Cushite to deliver the vital piece of missing information, we as readers are also left waiting for the moment when David learns of Absalom’s death. We may have anticipated at least an ambivalent response: David rejoicing because of the military victory but melancholy because of the death of the prince. But there is no joy here—only grief.

David’s powerful sense of loss (“If only I had died instead of you,” 18:33) towers over the landscape of this narrative, turning the army’s spectacular military achievement into defeat (19:2). His anguished “my son” is repeated five times in 18:33 (and another three times in 19:4) and reflects David’s inconsolable attempt to fathom the loss. He seems to gather the past, with all his own sins and those of his family, into this one defining moment of sorrow. When all is said and done, David cannot begin to resolve the incompleteness of his loss.54

Life must go on, even if David cannot bear to imagine it without Absalom. If we see David here as “more father than king,”55 it is Joab who makes the kingship possible. He takes the role of the realist, who forces David to continue with life without trying to talk him out of his grief (19:5–7). Joab is a man who understands power, so that this passage makes a contribution to the book’s subtheme of the uses and abuses of power. With David’s inconsolable grief, we learn that the lust for power often brings only sorrow and suffering to the powerful. Power often corrupts, and those who grasp for it (Absalom) as well as those who retain it (David) often find that power is incapable, in and of itself, of providing either joy or fulfillment.56

David’s Return (19:8b–43)

Bridging Contexts

THIS UNIT’S LITERARY power and classic themes have inspired modern authors. Especially moving is the image of David’s profound grief over the loss of Absalom (18:33–19:4). While David at other times is capable of eloquent laments (e.g., over Saul; see 1:19–27), the tragic death of Absalom leaves him using unique language, which seems to throb with his inconsolable sobs and weeping. This portrait of the passionate king has inspired literary giants such as George Gordon Lord Byron and William Faulkner.82

However, as Christian readers we recognize a deeper, more meaningful power in these texts beyond their sheer literary greatness. The theological import of this passage is complex in its presentation but clear in its powerful central themes. In a word, this unit is about rebellion.

That rebellion is connected by means of an unbroken chain of cause-and-effect links to David’s own personal sin; in this narrative his personal failure becomes familial and national. Moreover, this rebellion raises questions of loyalty, loyalty to one’s commitments to God and fellow humans. It also raises troubling questions about power and the proper uses of power, confronting us again with an important subtheme of 1-2 Samuel. Finally, Absalom’s conspiracy gives us further insight into one of the overarching questions of the books of Samuel: Who may serve suitably as messiah, the anointed king of Israel?

Consequences of sin. In order to build a bridge effectively from this narrative to contemporary readers, we must first consider the relationship between the narrative and its preceding context. Several literary features reveal the intended connections between it and the immediately preceding units, specifically chapters 10–12 and 13–14. For example, Absalom’s abuse of David’s concubines is an obvious fulfillment of Nathan’s curse against David, which is pronounced because of David’s sin (cf. 16:22 with 12:11–12). Again, the presence of Absalom as a character in the unit devoted to Amnon’s rape of Tamar (chs. 13–14) prepares us for Absalom’s conspiracy narrated here. Such literary features also communicate the intended theological connection between sin and unmitigated consequences.

Thus, the book’s very structure invites us to see the troubles in David’s family and kingdom as the natural consequences of David’s sin committed in chapters 10–12. David’s private and personal sins are linked in a cause-and-effect continuum with subsequent sins within his own family, which eventually explode into public rebellion and national tragedy.

One potential problem for the present-day reader is this causal connection itself, because it means several other people suffer as a result of David’s sin with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah. David reaps in this narrative what he has sown in chapters 10–12. That much is clear. But what of Tamar and David’s ten concubines? Why must they also suffer the punishment? As we have noted elsewhere, we should avoid confusing what are natural consequences of sin with actual punishment for sin (see comments on 12:13–25). The Old Testament honestly faces the sad fact that others suffer when we sin.

The great confession of faith in the Old Testament asserts boldly that Yahweh is a “compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion, and sin.” This much we love to celebrate. But the confession continues: “Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”83 We should also learn to celebrate this portion of the confession, because it teaches that God does not allow sin to continue unpunished indefinitely. Furthermore, the love and compassion of God are proven by the fact that he allows the consequences of sin to filter through to the fourth generation while maintaining his love to thousands of generations (cf. Ex. 20:5–6). God limits the life span of sin, while his love lasts forever.

Rebellion. As a text narrating rebellion, we learn much about rebellion. Though biblical Hebrew is rich in words for the semantic field “rebellion,” we have few such specifics in this text.84 Absalom’s conspiracy is termed a qešer (15:12), and those who participated in it are “conspirators” (qoš^erim, 15:31). This term frequently refers to rebellious conniving that is political as here, though rebellion against Yahweh may also be involved.85

However, specific terminology is not determinative here because biblical narrative frequently teaches by illustration rather than explication. So here the narration itself teaches much about the nature of rebellion without labeling it as such. Absalom comes to power by duping the men of Israel (15:6). He intentionally keeps them in the dark (15:1186) until it is too late for them to express reservations. This is no legitimate claim to the throne but a duplicitous and insidious power play using strictly human power structures for legitimacy.

Likewise, Sheba is an unscrupulous rapscallion who maliciously takes advantage of the political weakness after Absalom’s conspiracy (20:1). Such rebellion is accomplished in the dark among conniving miscreants, who rely on secrecy and trickery to acquire power. But the anointed one—Yahweh’s anointed—patiently waits for the Lord’s time and place to become king. The location of Absalom’s conspiracy and Sheba’s revolt in the books of Samuel alongside the narratives of David create a striking contrast. Even though these rebellions are the consequence of David’s sin, David himself is still the example of the messiah. Samuel anointed him, but he refuses to demand the throne in his timing. Yahweh’s anointed (our historian’s way of designating “the legitimate holder of royal authority”) is not a power-hungry rebel. There are proper and holy ways to become king of Israel, and Absalom and Sheba represent the opposite. Rebellion itself is antithetical to righteous patience, respect, and reverence for God’s will.

Loyalty. Furthermore, such rebellion raises questions of loyalty. Absalom’s rebellion is itself an expression of a son’s disloyalty, and it forces everyone else in Israel’s young monarchy to choose sides between the king and his son. Who will be loyal to David? When the king is compelled to flee Jerusalem, he learns who his loyal friends are. On the eastern outskirts of the city, he pauses to consider the loyalty of those risking their lives by going with him (15:17–18). Ironically, it is foreign troops attached to David personally who prove the most loyal (esp. the Kerethites and Pelethites) and foreigners in the Transjordan who support him in his most desperate hour (17:27–29).

The disloyalty of someone who was a trusted friend, such as Ahithophel, is devastating news; the fidelity of Hushai a source of hope. Zadok and Abiathar (and their sons Ahimaaz and Jonathan) prove their loyalty to David beyond doubt. Then there are those whose loyalties are unknown (Ziba and Mephibosheth) and those who take the opportunity to make public their hatred for David (Shimei and Sheba). Through it all the reader is forced to ask: Will David remain loyal to Yahweh? At every turn, David passes the test.

Power. As we have seen throughout the books of Samuel, the use of power has been a subtheme for this historian. It should not surprise us that Israel’s first historians, who carefully narrate the rise and establishment of Israel’s monarchy, are interested in this topic. Obviously, Absalom and Sheba are examples of individuals who abuse their power. David represents a man who has learned (finally!) how to use power judiciously. Joab presents perhaps the most complex example. He appears loyal to David, though the reader is forced to wonder if Joab is motivated simply by his need to preserve his access to power. At times he appears unconcerned about divine mandate or royal decree while he uses his military might ruthlessly.

One of the great ironies of the narrative occurs near the end when Joab encounters the wise woman of Abel (20:15–22). While the famous general brings all his awesome military power to bear against the city of Abel in order to defeat the rebel Sheba, the unnamed woman used only her words of wisdom. Her power was of a different sort, with different origins. Joab’s power was observable and awe-inspiring; hers unassuming and rational. The narrative seems to lift the two as examples of power conceived differently and used differently. In the end, we may conclude that the wise woman of Abel is more powerful than the general.

Messiah. Finally, Absalom’s conspiracy contributes generally to one of the overarching questions of the books of Samuel: Who may serve suitably as messiah, the anointed king of Israel? David’s devout resignation while fleeing Jerusalem is expressed most vividly in the conditional clauses of his speech to Zadok concerning the ark of the covenant (15:25–26):

“Take the ark of God back into the city. If I find favor in the LORD’s eyes, he will bring me back and let me see it and his dwelling place again. But if he says, ‘I am not pleased with you,’ then I am ready; let him do to me whatever seems good to him.”

As we argued in the Original Meaning section, this is no blind fatalism, as though David sees his future as some predetermined and inevitable destiny reflecting either God’s punishment or pleasure. In such a state, the king of Israel would have nothing to do but wait it out, tarrying long enough to see how God would settle the dispute with Absalom. Instead, David appears here as one who has finally learned not to grasp at every means available to manipulate, to maneuver in order to control the final outcome. He certainly takes action to meet the challenge of Absalom’s rebellion, but not by seizing the ark of the covenant and turning it to his advantage. In this portrait at least, David is an anointed one content to submit to God’s will, even when that will is so far unknowable.

Thus, the hints of parallels in the New Testament’s passion narratives between Jesus and David as anointed one are appropriate.87 David’s procession through the Kidron Valley and up the Mount of Olives anticipates Jesus’ Maundy Thursday walk to the Mount of Olives and has been called David’s Via Dolorosa.88 Just as David submitted to the will and authority of Yahweh, so Jesus chose submission rather than resistance (Matt. 26:39). In this and many other ways, the books of Samuel deliberately emphasize the Davidic ideal while at the same time portraying the disappointing shortcomings of David himself. By addressing these questions about the nature of Israel’s monarchy and the one who may suitably serve as king, 1-2 Samuel move Israel forward along the messianic continuum that finds its fulfillment in the Gospels.89

Contemporary Significance

Contemporary Significance

REBELLION AND ABUSE OF POWER. Rebellion is a topic we all know well. Most of us have plenty of experience at it! Our world is in need of hearing this narrative’s message on the nature and consequences of human rebellion. However, it may be helpful first to make another brief comment on the role of this extended narrative in 2 Samuel as a whole.

The Absalom story, as we have seen, is intentional about relating this conspiracy and its aftermath to David’s own sins; there is a clear cause-and-effect pattern here. We also recognize a well-known pattern from the Bible’s classic text on sin (Gen. 3–11); that is, when unchecked, sinful actions tend to grow until they become both more extensive and more intensive. So here, David’s personal sin (chs. 11–12) evolves into a family trait that plagues his family for years (chs. 13–14) and eventually becomes a national characteristic that plagues the rest of his reign (chs. 15–20). Just as David “sent” and “took” Bathsheba (review the significance of those terms at 11:4), so Amnon took Tamar, and Absalom took the kingdom.

The warnings of the wise prophet Samuel have become a reality. Kings are takers, and they will take your children, the best of your fields and vineyards, a tenth of your grain, your servants, and a tenth of your flocks, and they will make them all their own (1 Sam. 8:11–18). What began as a personal sin of passion in David’s heart quickly becomes a plague threatening the entire people of God. This portion of the book illustrates the principle we all know too well to be true: “After the first blush of sin comes its indifference,” and subsequently more sin.90

We have seen that vocabulary alone is inadequate to illustrate the Old Testament’s understanding of rebellion (see Bridging Contexts section). Rather than specific terminology, this narrative illustrates rebellion as disloyalty expressed through an abuse of power, which further illustrates a broad definition of sin itself. Indeed, it may be safely assumed that sin includes a willful, disloyal quality, in that someone else (God or human) is defied or hurt. “The willful disregard or sacrifice of the welfare of others for the welfare or satisfaction of the self is an essential quality of the concept of sin.”91 St. Augustine understood sin to contain this element of rebellion, since it involves a turning “away from the universal whole to the individual part.”92 So rebellion is a rejection of the greater and more desirable whole in order to satisfy the desires or longings of the individual.

The greatest danger in all of this, and the point at which many Christians get into trouble, is that rebellion can often look like vocation. In other words, we easily justify our rebellion because it appears to be a way to accomplish something we are genuinely called to accomplish. Taking Absalom as our departure point, it is clear that he, as crown prince, had at his disposal large amounts of legitimate power. He could probably assume that he would one day become David’s successor and rule all Israel. Over time, he began to believe he had no reason to wait for David’s (and God’s!) timing. As David sent and took Bathsheba simply because he could, so Absalom took the kingdom because he believed it was eventually to be his anyway, and he had the ability to take it. It was one way of fulfilling his calling.

This is often the nature of temptation. In fact, temptations are hard to recognize because they regularly offer us ways to take control and use our own power (God-given power!) to falsely realize a true vocation.93 Rebellion is often a distortion of our calling, an evil means to accomplish a righteous aim. Thus, Matthew’s third recorded temptation of Jesus was a temptation to abuse his power (Matt. 4:8–10; second in Luke’s sequence, Luke 4:5–8). God intended for Jesus to reign supreme over all the kingdoms of the earth. Alone in the desert, the devil offered him precisely a quick way to obtain “all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.” Could any vice have been more tempting to Jesus?

The abuse of God-given power to accomplish a God-given mission is a great temptation for contemporary believers today. Absalom serves precisely in this way as a warning for all of us who fail to resist this temptation. Henri Nouwen has argued that rebellion, or the abuse of God-given power, is one of the great weaknesses of the modern church:

When I ask myself the main reason for so many people having left the Church during the past decades in France, Germany, Holland, and also in Canada and America, the word “power” easily comes to mind. One of the greatest ironies of the history of Christianity is that its leaders constantly gave into the temptation of power—political power, military power, economic power, or moral and spiritual power—even though they continued to speak in the name of Jesus, who did not cling to his divine power but emptied himself and became as we are…. Every time we see a major crisis in the history of the Church, such as the Great Schism of the eleventh century, the Reformation of the sixteenth century, or the immense secularization of the twentieth century, we always see that a major cause of rupture is the power exercised by those who claim to be followers of the poor and powerless Jesus.94

When Nouwen attempts to explain why the temptation of power seems so irresistible, he concludes, “It seems easier to be God than to love God, easier to control people than to love people, easier to own life than to love life.”95

There may also be lessons here about human relationships in general and the need to forge better families within the church. David’s inability to relate to and influence his children certainly contributes to his problems. Nouwen emphasizes the connection between how we relate to those around us and the temptation to abuse our power:

One thing is clear to me: the temptation of power is greatest when intimacy is a threat. Much Christian leadership is exercised by people who do not know how to develop healthy, intimate relationships and have opted for power and control instead. Many Christian empire-builders have been people unable to give and receive love.96

Who of us can deny the church has suffered great misdeeds by those more committed to personal empire-building than character-building? In this and many other ways, David and Absalom serve as warnings to today’s believers about rebellion and the abuse of power.