Sermon Tone Analysis
Overall tone of the sermon
This automated analysis scores the text on the likely presence of emotional, language, and social tones. There are no right or wrong scores; this is just an indication of tones readers or listeners may pick up from the text.
A score of 0.5 or higher indicates the tone is likely present.
Emotion Tone
Anger
0.16UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.2UNLIKELY
Fear
0.17UNLIKELY
Joy
0.15UNLIKELY
Sadness
0.54LIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.57LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.08UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.84LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.66LIKELY
Extraversion
0.15UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.48UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.65LIKELY
Tone of specific sentences
Tones
Emotion
Language
Social Tendencies
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
*32*
*Attacked by Absalom*
2 Samuel 17:1–18:18
Absalom was not content with obtaining Jerusalem and the palace and the concubines and many other things that went with the monarchy.
No, he must go after David and destroy him.
It is hard for decent people to imagine the condition of Absalom’s mind which moved him to diligently pursue his father to kill him.
One can understand someone outside the family usurping the throne and going after the blood of the one who had been on the throne.
But a son with blood in his eye for his father is hard for one to understand apart from the knowledge that when once a man is given up to sin, nothing is sacred, nothing is off limits, nothing is too gross.
Those so given up to sin will, however, have to reckon with God about their great sin; and judgment is at the end of the road for the unrepentant.
Absalom learned this fact very forcefully when he was abruptly and ignominiously introduced to judgment in his attack upon David.
To examine this attack by Absalom upon his father David, we will consider the counsel for the attack (2 Samuel 17:1–23), the camps in the attack (2 Samuel 17:24–18:5), and the conquest over the attack (2 Samuel 18:6–18).
*A.
THE COUNSEL FOR THE ATTACK*
Both Absalom and David received counsel regarding the attack by Absalom upon David.
The counsel for Absalom plotted the offense of the attack while the counsel for David prepared for the defense against the attack.
One man, Hushai, gave counsel to both Absalom and David.
We will be instructed in some important lessons as we look at the counsel these two men received regarding the attack by Absalom upon David.
*1.
The Counsel for Absalom*
Absalom received counsel regarding his attacking David from both Ahithophel, the traitor of David who had given his support to Absalom, and Hushai, the friend of David disguised as a loyalist of Absalom.
Here we look at the differing counsel of these two men and the surprising choice Absalom made regarding which counsel to follow.
/The counsel from Ahithophel/.
The first to give counsel to Absalom was Ahithophel.
We note the selfishness in his counsel, the speed in his counsel, the slaying in his counsel, the serenity in his counsel, and the support for his counsel.
First, the/ selfishness/ in his counsel.
“Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Let me now choose out twelve thousand men, and I will arise and pursue after David this night” (2 Samuel 17:1).
Ahithophel was thinking of himself and how he could gain personally when he gave this counsel about attacking David.
This self-centeredness in his counsel is seen in “me . . .
I . . .
I . . .
I . . .
I” (2 Samuel 17:1–3).
In contrast, Hushai’s advice given later about attacking David was “we . . .
we . . .
all Israel . . .
we” (2 Samuel 17:12,13).
Ahithophel wanted to be the hero!
“Like other kingmakers, Ahithophel had put himself too forward.
He asked for twelve thousand men to be placed under his command that he might smite David, and so be not only Absalom’s counsellor but also his commander-in-chief” (R. P. Smith).
Vain men attract vain men.
Absalom was full of vanity and so attracted Ahithophel who was likewise full of vanity.
Not long after this counselling session, both of these men were dead; and vanity played a large part in their deaths.
Pride slays, but humility gives life.
Second, the/ speed/ in his counsel.
“I will arise and pursue after David this night . . .
while he is weary and weak handed” (2 Samuel 17:1,2).
Ahithophel did not want to delay the attack upon David.
He wanted to pursue the attack that very night while David was unprepared.
While his counsel to attack David was very wicked (David should not be attacked but honored), yet the advice for a speedy attack shows wisdom regarding opportunity.
Ahithophel knew one cannot delay in regards to opportunity.
David was very vulnerable to attack at first, and Ahithophel knew that.
David needed time to get prepared.
That first night he would indeed be “weary and weak.”
Therefore, Ahithophel counseled to strike while the iron is hot.
Opportunity passes by quickly; if you do not speedily capitalize on it, you will lose it.
Third, the/ slaying/ in his counsel.
“I will smite the king only” (2 Samuel 17:2).
Ahithophel’s counsel promised to avoid an unpopular slaughter of soldiers.
He knew that David was the chief target.
Kill him and the opposition is finished, for they no longer could rally around David.
The principle of Ahithophel’s counsel was not evil in itself, just the application was.
The principle says to attack the source of the problem if you want to end the problem.
Nations need to practice this principle regarding crime.
As an example, they need to attack alcohol; for it is a major source of much crime.
Failure to attack and stop alcohol has resulted in a continuous problem with alcohol-inspired crime.
Churches need to practice this principle, too; especially in regards to church dissidents.
Vote out a few dissident persons from the church membership, and things will be a lot better at church.
Fourth, the/ serenity/ in his counsel.
“So all the people shall be in peace” (2 Samuel 17:3).
Ahithophel’s counsel promised serenity for society.
But it was a false promise, for killing God’s Anointed One was definitely not the way to peace!
The one that needed to be killed to bring peace to Israel was Absalom, for he was the disturber of peace.
Mankind has devised many peace plans that have left out God and His Anointed One Jesus Christ, and such plans will never bring true peace.
The wicked are forever saying, “Peace, peace; when there is no peace” (Jeremiah 6:14).
Fifth, the/ support/ for his counsel.
“And the saying pleased Absalom well, and all the elders of Israel” (2 Samuel 17:4).
Ahithophel’s advice met with much support.
In the record given in our text of this support for Ahithophel’s counsel, we learn of the accord, the animosity, and the associates in the support.
The/ accord/ in support.
Support for Ahithophel’s counsel was unanimous.
Both Absalom and the elders approved.
Accord of men does not mean approval with God, however.
Attacking God’s Anointed One will never meet with Divine approval no matter how great is the accord of man.
Be careful that you do not base your decisions upon what man approves rather than what God approves.
“Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished” (Proverbs 11:21).
The/ animosity/ in the support.
The support for Ahithophel’s counsel revealed great animosity for David.
It especially shows Absalom’s animosity for David.
The statement, “the saying [about killing David] pleased Absalom well,” indicates how great Absalom’s animosity was for David.
Absalom was so wicked that he rejoiced in a plan aimed at killing his father.
The/ associates/ in the support.
Absalom’s associates were revealed in the support of Ahithophel’s counsel.
That “all the elders of Israel” supported Ahithophel’s counsel revealed how far reaching was Absalom’s conspiracy against David.
Also it shows how foolish these men were who followed Absalom.
They followed an untried and unproven man instead of David who had proven time and again his gallantry in warfare and his skills in administration.
We expect the lowly person to be taken in by the gushy, hugging and kissing politician; but we would hope for better judgment from the “elders.”
But, unfortunately, age and position do not guarantee wisdom.
Only a right relationship with God does.
/The counsel from Hushai/.
“Then said Absalom, Call now Hushai the Archite also, and let us hear likewise what he saith” (2 Samuel 17:5).
Though there was accord in the support for Ahithophel’s counsel, yet Absalom still called for Hushai to give counsel.
This seems strange to natural thinking, but the explanation is that God’s hand is in all of this, as we will see more about later.
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9