An Unfortunate Reconciliation
Samuel • Sermon • Submitted
0 ratings
· 5 viewsUsually, the restoration of a relationship is a very good thing. As Christians, we should desire reconciliation and be quick to forgive. When David welcomed Absalom, however, the reconciliation of father and son precipitated Absalom's revolt. Why was something that should have been good turned into evil?
Notes
Transcript
I. Why did Joab go to elaborate lengths to restore the relationship?
I. Why did Joab go to elaborate lengths to restore the relationship?
There are two ways to translate David’s attitude toward Absalom. Either he had calmed down and missed his son, or those same words can mean quite the opposite
“David ceased to pursue after Absalom” 13:39
The King’s heart was against Absalom 14:1.
Knowing Hebrew lets me know that there are two options. It doesn’t help me figure out which one is right. The context will inform.
The King did not act until pressured by Joab. If he wanted to bring his son home, why didn’t he?
Once Absalom was back, David refused to see him for two years. If he wanted to see his son again, he had a pretty funny way of showing it.
It makes more sense if David was angry, and intended to punish his son, but his resolve faded over time as his anger subsided. David was known to be overly lenient with his sons. I think this changed with Solomon, but he was still operating this way with his adult sons. 1 Kings 1:6
(And his father had not rebuked him at any time by saying, “Why have you done so?” He was also very good-looking. His mother had borne him after Absalom.)
But why would Joab care about pressuring David to be reconciled with his son?
Joab is a military man and a calculating, stone-cold killer as well. He doesn’t seem the sort of guy to get all touchy-feely. he has an angle for nearly everything else. What’s his angle here? Bible doesn’t say, but I think we can get some clues.
David is getting older. He isn’t the invalid that he became later in 1 kings 1, but he started having kids only once he became king at age 30. Absalom is the third child, though of a different wife than the first two. He could have been only months younger than Amnon, but David had to be at least 31 when he was born, maybe more. But Absalom is an adult now, and the entire story take five years to this point. Two full years after the rape of Tamar, and three more that Absalom is in exile. David is probably getting close to 60 at this point. He isn’t as young as he used to be, and quite a few of Israel’s kings didn’t even make it to 60.
There are several psalms that reference David’s illness, yet there’s no mention of David being sick until the very end of his life. Ps 41:5, 7-8. There’s no way of knowing for sure when these Psalms were written, but if his health was starting to fade, it would make sense that people would start whispering about it in the courts.
My enemies speak evil of me: “When will he die, and his name perish?”
All who hate me whisper together against me; Against me they devise my hurt.
“An evil disease,” they say, “clings to him. And now that he lies down, he will rise up no more.”
Absalom is now the heir apparent. David hasn’t yet appointed Solomon to be king, and Amnon is dead. There was another son between them, but there’s no record of him outside of lists of David’s sons, so probably Chileab died in childhood. David has not defined what will happen once he dies. That’s a recipe for national chaos.
So Joab likely is trying to restore Absalom to secure the throne after David’s death. He isn’t trying to hurt David, and he certainly doesn’t care about anybody’s feelings. He wants national peace.
But while David’s anger has subsided, he is still mad enough to banish Absalom. He hasn’t stopped mourning for him, but he is still mad. So Joab concocts an elaborate story to force David’s hand. He is likely trying to take a page out of Nathan the Prophet’s book. But unfortunately for David, while Joab means well his wisdom doesn’t compare to God’s.
II. Is the Woman Correct in her made-up story?
II. Is the Woman Correct in her made-up story?
We are clearly told that this story does not come from God, but rather from Joab. So the author may be telling us what actually happened, even if it wasn’t the right thing. That this entire story ended up with Absalom plotting to overthrow David would suggest that something is off somewhere.
Joab is a stone-cold killer who has murdered for a much lesser offence than that which provoked Absalom. He isn’t going to care about the murder, and he is likely to justify it with the same justification that he had used already.
“we die anyway”. Yes, but God clearly specified the punishment of murder is death because the Image of God is in man. Gen 9:6
“Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.
“God devises means to bring his banished home again.” Does he? What is missing here is repentance. Anyone who repents and turns to God is forgiven, including the sin of Murder. There are parallels here with Cain. It is possible that Joab made up this story with Cain in mind. But two things are different
Cain lived before God delegated the punishment of murder to mankind. Prior to the Flood, mankind didn’t have the right to punish murder. God left that prerogative to himself.
Cain did receive some mercy, in that God protected him from being killed. However, he definitely was banished forever Gen 4:13-14
And Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear!
Surely You have driven me out this day from the face of the ground; I shall be hidden from Your face; I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth, and it will happen that anyone who finds me will kill me.”
“If they execute my son, I and my dead husband will lose our name and remnant.”
An inheritance was extremely important in ancient Israel, and an heir was essential to pass on the Lord’s gift of the land.
Quite a few laws in the Torah were created to solve the problem of someone dying with no heir.
The idea of a tribe being eliminated broke the tribes of Israel after the battle with Benjamin
However, there was a reason murder ought to be punished that directly ties into the inheritance question.
The elders of the city are not to pity the murderer, because murder pollutes the land with innocent blood. Deut 19:11-13.
“But if anyone hates his neighbor, lies in wait for him, rises against him and strikes him mortally, so that he dies, and he flees to one of these cities,
then the elders of his city shall send and bring him from there, and deliver him over to the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.
Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with you.
This kind of pollution cannot be wiped away with sacrifices, but only with the blood of the one who shed it Num 35:33-34. Therefore if people are soft on murder, the entire land will become so polluted that all Israel will be exiled. Then neither the woman nor anybody else will have a remnant on the land.
So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.
Therefore do not defile the land which you inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell; for I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel.’ ”
However, Joab clearly doesn’t care about that, as he polluted the house of Israel with his murders. Because David wasn’t strong enough to execute him, the guilt of that murder hung on him and his house, and Joab didn’t care because he killed again after killing once 1 Kings 2:31.
Then the king said to him, “Do as he has said, and strike him down and bury him, that you may take away from me and from the house of my father the innocent blood which Joab shed.
Thus, I cannot see how this would form a real exception to the general rule. It’s heartwrenching, and that was the point of the story. But the guilt of innocent blood is serious, and allowing it to pollute the land makes who inherits what a moot point anyway.
This perhaps explains David’s reluctance to rule on the issue. The right thing to do clashes with feelings in this case. At first, he wants to give himself time to think. that’s wise, to make sure he is choosing from principle, not feelings. When pressed, however, he gives in to the feelings of the case, and this opens the door to the pressure to call Absalom back.
This also explains the rather odd statement from the women “let the iniquity be on me.” She seeks to take the blame for the bad decision, to weaken the king’s resistance to giving in. Once she gets an opening, she invokes God’s name to extract an oath out of the King. this allows her to make the King feel guilty for allowing her to have her son when it is not right, while still holding the hard line on Absalom.
III. Why did Joab ignore Absalom?
III. Why did Joab ignore Absalom?
Absalom’s beauty. The OT narrative almost never gives physical descriptions of its characters. When it does there’s a reason. In this case, it’s foreshadowing. His good looks helps him win hearts. His hair (5lbs per year!) is what gets him caught.
His sons apparently all died young 2 Sam 18:18. His daughter, Tamar, was obviously named after Absalom’s sister. He hasn’t forgotten what happened. It still drives him.
Absalom clearly doesn’t think he did anything wrong. He boldly declares that the king should kill him if he has sinned. He knows it won’t happen. He knows his father well. David can’t bring himself to dole out the real punishment for murder.
But he fled to Geshur, so he believes that David thinks differently. Since Absalom nursed the grudge for two years and killed over it, he must be pretty angry at his father. He would probably say that David is too permissive, and that he doesn’t really care about justice.
This anger, of course, boiled over in his attempt to kill David, later. There’s no repentance, and no love for his father, either. So why does he want to see “the king’s face”?
Absalom really wants to be King. He is next in line to the throne, a fact which probably did not escape him. He has clearly been planning this, and he coldly and carefully executes that plan in the next chapter. But David’s refusal to see him isn’t just about relationship. Absalom is almost a prisoner in his own house. Not going to the King’s court cuts him off from all political power. Without at least appearing to get back in David’s good graces, he will never be able to carry out his plan.
So if that’s true, why does Joab ignore him, after he spent so much effort to bring him back, just so Absalom can succeed his father? Once Joab gets Absalom back, he realizes that the young man is dangerous. Joab is at this stage still loyal to David. He now realizes that Absalom is a political liability and stops helping. Two years go by like this.
Absalom, however, was smart as well as handsome. After two attempts to get Joab’s attention fail, he decides to take drastic action. He knows that the law states that whoever burns another’s field must pay for the loss of crops. Exod 22:6 But the expense is nothing to him. He wants the throne and doesn’t care who gets hurt to get it. Joab must confront Absalom to get his payment, so he is forced to talk to Absalom.
“If fire breaks out and catches in thorns, so that stacked grain, standing grain, or the field is consumed, he who kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.
Conclusion
Justice needs to be based on moral principle, not feelings. David allowed his feelings to dictate his choices. When he was angry, he was prepared to do something, though perhaps even then not enough. But because the choice wasn’t based on principle, when the feeling died away, his resolve failed.
Reconciliation without repentance isn’t good for anyone.
Character, the other missing factor in everyone’s decisions, is of utmost importance.
An attitude of forgiveness doesn’t depend on other’s actions, but your ability to restore relationship in a way that benefits everyone, does depend on others.