Politics and religion (2); Joab and Absolom

2 Samuel has a particular interest for students of history, as the only book of the Bible where it’s possible to follow the messy details of politics.
It can be read around (and may have been written around) the career of David’s nephew Joab, the son of his sister Zeruiah.
He spends the book, apart from a brief interval, as the leader of David’s armies.

The biggest crisis which he faced in David’s reign was caused by the troubled young man Absolom.

Absolom was third, in order of age, among the sons of David.
His first reason for being troubled was the forcing of Tamar, his full sister, at the hands of their half-brother Amnon.
When David heard about the event, he was very angry but did nothing. Through some combination of weakness and indulgence, the older David was never able to control his family’s behaviour.
Absolom took her under his wing, instead, and waited for an opportunity to avenge her.

A couple of years later he held a “sheep-shearing”, which was obviously a festive occasion (the pastoral equivalent of a harvest supper).
Absalom invited his brothers, got them all drunk, and gave the signal for his servants to attack Amnon and kill him.
Then he fled for refuge to (his grandfather) Talmai king of Geshur.

Absolom stayed in exile for three years.
Meanwhile, Joab could see that his father needed little prompting to take him back.
So Joab briefed a woman from Tekoa to act out a part in front of the king. She was to tell him the story of her own son, threatened with punishment for the murder of his brother, and win him round to a decision that her son should be pardoned.
Then she applied the moral to the case of Absalom.
David recognised Joab’s hand in the business, but agreed to allow Absolom to come back.
The only catch was that he was not to be allowed into the king’s presence.
After a couple of years under this restriction, Absolom thought he would appeal to David through Joab, but Joab refused to come to him.
Then the servants of Absolom received fresh instructions; they were to set fire to the barley in one of Joab’s fields, which succeeded in attracting his attention.
The end-result, through Joab’s agency, was that Absolom was reconciled with his father.

The returned Absolom was the idol of the people.
He was the Prince William of his time (just as Prince Charles was the Prince William of his own time).
He was without blemish, and one of the marks of his beauty was the speedy growth of his hair.
It was weighed at the end of each year, when he had it cut, and came to a full two hundred shekels “by the king’s weight”.
He made a big public display of wealth and power, with “a chariot and horses and fifty men to run before him”.
He also set out to convince the people that he would make a more sympathetic ruler than his father.
“Absolom used to rise early and stand beside the way of the gate; and when any man had a suit to come before the king for judgement…Absolom would say to him “See, your claims are good and right; but there is no man deputed by the king to hear you…Oh, that I were a judge in the land! Then every man with a suit or a cause would come to me and I would give him justice”…So Absolom stole the hearts of the men of Israel.”
Finally he came out into the open and had himself proclaimed king in Hebron.

Seeing that he had lost the people at large, David abandoned Jerusalem and fled across the Jordan with his remaining followers.
Absolom moved north to occupy the city.
On advice, he carried out the symbolic act of taking over David’s concubines, which was a way of proclaiming his succession;
“They pitched a tent for Absolom upon the roof, and Absolom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel”.
He was also advised to send twelve thousand men to pursue David’s party while they were “weary”; they would panic and flee, David could be struck down, and the coup would then be complete and irreversible.
But he followed instead the (deliberately bad) advice of a friend whom David had left “embedded” in Jerusalem, that it would be better to wait and gather a larger army from the whole of Israel.
The actual result of this advice was that David himself, taking refuge in Mahanaim, was given time to recover and gather his own forces.

When Absalom was ready, his army crossed the Jordan in pursuit of David.
David sent out his troops in three brigades, two of them led by Joab and his brother Abishai.
His men did not want him to put himself in danger, and they probably did not want him to interfere in the running of the battle, so he stayed behind in Mahanaim and awaited events.
Absalom put his own army under the command of another of David’s nephews, Amasa the son of Abigail.
The two armies met in pitched battle in the forest of Ephraim and Absolom’s army was defeated with great slaughter.

Joab was told that Absolom was caught in the branches of a tree.
“Then why haven’t you killed him?” asked Joab.
But what about the king’s instruction to the commanders? “Deal gently for my sake with the young man Absolom”.
Joab said “I will not waste time like this with you”, and took three darts in his hand to kill Absolom himself.

On the news that the battle had been won, the king rejoiced.
On the further news, that Absolom was dead, the king mourned.
This completely undercut the sense of triumph in his army, so Joab read the old man a lecture which was positively brutal;
“You have today covered with shame the faces of all your servants, who have this day saved your life…I perceive that if Absolom were alive and all of us were dead today, then you would be pleased.
Now therefore arise, go out and speak kindly to your servants; for I swear by the Lord that if you do not go, not a man will stay with you this night.”
So the king went out to greet his victorious army, and to smile for the cameras, as it were.
And he may have thought, not for the first time, that the sons of Zeruiah were too hard for him.

Where is the theology in this story?
In the absence of any direct intervention by God, though the characters frequently appeal to his name, we can only learn about him indirectly.

In the first place, we can recognise real politics in the details of this narrative.
Gibbon described history as a record of the “crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind”.
“What it’s all about is the dirt”, as one of my tutors used to say.
We can see from the rough-and-tumble nature of these relationships, tinged with brutality and treachery, that events are taking place in the real world.
This is history, not legend.
And the implication is that the relation between the God of Israel and his people is embedded in the world of history, not restricted to the world of legend.
In many cultures, stories about the gods belong only to the world of legend, and the gods are correspondingly distant.
This God maintains himself close to his people, in the middle of real-world events.

It’s obvious enough, in the second place, that the protagonists in these events are filled with flaws.
Even David has his weaknesses, and he ignores the spirit of at least one of the laws of Moses.
This is evidence that a good relationship with God does not depend on being perfect, and that must be encouraging for the rest of us.
These are real people, in short, and God is prepared to work with them as real people.

Finally, if this is God promoting the kingdom of David and developing his own plans, he’s clearly working very indirectly, which says something about his methods.

Source information

This story is told over 2 Samuel chs. 13-19

The family connections are spelled out in 1 Chronicles ch2 vv13-16 and ch3 vv1-4. 2 Samuel tends to play them down, which will be partly a way of putting distance between David and the “bad guy” Joab.
I think Joab’s official responsibility as commander would have been leading the armed levies of Judah, what we might now call “the militia”. But in practice he evidently took charge on the battlefield whatever units were involved.

a reply to: DISRAELI

From my perspective, Yahweh's (Son of God) dividing of God's image (both male and female) is a problem for him as he tries to be God in the OT. David is a good example of the problems that arise from the division of male and female. The Snake was the creation of the Yahweh (Genesis 3). Desire between the male and female is the result of the division. When we examine the entire story of 1 and 2 Samuel, the story is war, bloodshed and grief for humanity. David's family is not exempt.

Genesis 9

9 Elohim blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fertile, increase in number, and fill the earth. 2 All the wild animals and all the birds will fear you and be terrified of you. Every creature that crawls on the ground and all the fish in the sea have been put under your control. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be your food. I gave you green plants as food; I now give you everything else.

4 “But you are not to eat meat with blood in it. (Blood is life.) 5 In addition, I will demand your blood for your life. I will demand it from any animal or from any person. I will demand the life of any person who kills another person.

6 Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans his blood will be shed,
because in his image, Elohim made humans.

7 Be fertile, and increase in number. Spread over the earth, and increase.”

---Note verse 6. For Yahweh (Son of God), this is the problem he encounters for himself as he prompts man to shed blood. When he is the Son of God hanging on the cross, he fulfills verse 6 of the passage above. He IS the Son of David as the kinsman Redeemer of mankind. We are saved from the Snake he created by dividing the image.

In the OT, Yahweh promised a 'Day of the Lord'. His own words:

Malachi 3

6 “I, Yahweh, never change. That is why you descendants of Jacob haven’t been destroyed yet. 7 Since the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my laws and have not followed them. Return to me, and I will return to you,” says Yahweh Tsebaoth.

“But you ask, ‘How can we return?’

8 “Can a person cheat Elohim? Yet, you are cheating me!

“But you ask, ‘How are we cheating you?’

“When you don’t bring a tenth of your income and other contributions. 9 So a curse is on you because the whole nation is cheating me!

10 “Bring one-tenth of your income into the storehouse so that there may be food in my house. Test me in this way,” says Yahweh Tsebaoth. “See if I won’t open the windows of heaven for you and flood you with blessings. 11 Then, for your sake, I will stop insects from eating your crops. They will not destroy the produce of your land. The vines in your fields will not lose their unripened grapes,” says Yahweh Tsebaoth. 12 “All nations will call you blessed because you will be a delightful land,” says Yahweh Tsebaoth.

God Elohim (Father) is Love. Love keeps no records of wrongs and HIS will is to give and receive only, and never take. I assume Jesus learned this lesson when he was humbled by Elohim (Father) and Ruach Elohim (Mother / Holy Spirit of God).

When Yahweh selected one nation from the Rainbow of nations, he made yet another mistake. What was Elohim's promise?

Genesis 9

8 Elohim also said to Noah and his sons, 9 “I am going to make my promise[a] to you, your descendants, 10 and every living being that is with you—birds, domestic animals, and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ship—every living thing on earth. 11 I am making my promise to you. Never again will all life be killed by floodwaters. Never again will there be a flood that destroys the earth.”

12 Elohim said, “This is the sign of the promise I am giving to you and every living being that is with you for generations to come. 13 I will put my rainbow in the clouds to be a sign of my promise to the earth. 14 Whenever I form clouds over the earth, a rainbow will appear in the clouds. 15 Then I will remember my promise to you and every living animal. Never again will water become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember my everlasting promise to every living animal on earth.”

17 So Elohim said to Noah, “This is the sign of the promise I am making to all life on earth.”

---The Father overrules the Son. Yahweh choose ONE nation from the Rainbow. Elohim promised to bless ALL nations. This is why we see Yahweh fail over and over again in the OT. The next thing we wait on is for Christ to come back and demonstrate this love for his enemies. It MUST happen or we know the Son has not made good on HIS word.

a reply to: AlephBet
You're not really focussing on the story of Joab and Absolom.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: AlephBet
You're not really focussing on the story of Joab and Absolom.

The story of Absalom is the story of Yahweh. David is Yahweh's chosen King to lead to the seed of the Messiah. Little did he know, but the seedline would require Yahweh to be that king as a Kinsman. It is possible, I suppose, that Yahweh knew.

To see why this is, you must define the name.

Avshalom means "Father of Peace," or the "Father is Peace." Peace was made with the Mother (Holy Spirit) when the dove descended on Jesus at His baptism. The Father (Elohim) then says He Loves the Son and He is well pleased with Him. Why? Because the Son fulfilled Genesis 9:6 and atoned for the bloodshed.

The Father is a peacemaker, while the Son brought war. Absalom's name reveals this. If you do some research forward into the history that follows, you will know why. Again, this IS the story of Absalom.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: AlephBet
You're not really focussing on the story of Joab and Absolom.

Absalom lived for three years in exile under the protection of his grandfather. He was a rebellious son superficially reconciled to his father two years after returning to Jerusalem. Today, the Son of God has been away for 2000 years, or two days. What happens when Jonah prays from the belly of the fish?

a reply to: DISRAELI

Something else that is interesting. Note that he rode a mule, had no blemish and hung on a tree to his death. Who does that sound like? What does that make David as Father?

2 Samuel 14
25 But in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty: from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him.
2 Samuel 18
9 And Absalom met the servants of David. And Absalom rode upon a mule, and the mule went under the thick boughs of a great oak, and his head caught hold of the oak, and he was taken up between the heaven and the earth; and the mule that was under him went away.
2 Samuel 18
10 And a certain man saw it, and told Joab, and said, Behold, I saw Absalom hanged in an oak.
2 Samuel 18
14 Then said Joab, I may not tarry thus with thee. And he took three darts in his hand, and thrust them through the heart of Absalom, while he was yet alive in the midst of the oak.

Joab plays a part as well. Thrust him through is similar to that of the sword of the soldier piercing Christ.

Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

a reply to: DISRAELI

Hello DISRAELI, and May Peace be upon you. I enjoyed reading your condensed summary of Absalom. Do you have any further personal insights or opinions about the Biblical narrative?

In the case of Absalom, the events critically highlight David's corruption and fall from grace. Can it truly be said that Absalom was the antagonist? Or had David become the antagonist himself?

"And the implication is that the relation between the God of Israel and his people is embedded in the world of history, not restricted to the world of legend.
In many cultures, stories about the gods belong only to the world of legend, and the gods are correspondingly distant.
This God maintains himself close to his people, in the middle of real-world events."

If you gather a group of people under one banner, give them a god by a unique name, and direct them to procreate together and avoid losing their cultural identity,... then you can always point at and identify these people as unique and synonymous with their religion. Because they were originally rallied under their unique god, we can always say that the people are the people of such-and-such god, and correlate their motivations and actions to that of their religion.

A people becoming synonymous with a unique deity by adherence and association is not proof of the God maintaining himself close to the people,... on the contrary, it is proof of the people maintaining themselves close to their chosen god.

Your reasoning would have us conclude that Allah is a powerful god indirectly working through the Muslims. Or that Siddhartha Gautama is a powerful god that works indirectly through the Buddhists. Etc., etc., etc.

The gods and deities of man may very well be the conceptual manifestations of archetypal qualities that we collectively fear, revere, or idolize.

"Even David has his weaknesses, and he ignores the spirit of at least one of the laws of Moses.
This is evidence that a good relationship with God does not depend on being perfect, and that must be encouraging for the rest of us.
These are real people, in short, and God is prepared to work with them as real people."

When a people, by worship, become synonymous with the religion or their god, we can always attribute every gain amongst the people as a blessing from their god, while counting every misfortune as a test or punishment.

It is mankind's intellect that separates humans into groups of association under certain religions, ideologies, castes, or various social groupings. We, humans, do this to ourselves and others.

a reply to: AlephBet

Hello my dear brother AlephBet.

Thank you for sharing such an insightful correlation between (David & Absalom), (Yahweh & Jesus), and (Jesus & The Father). It would seem as though certain concepts are repeatedly mirrored in Biblical narrative. Very interesting.

May Peace be with you.

a reply to: DISRAELI

a reply to: DISRAELI

I really think Joab had a right to do that, after all, if the king of Israel doesn't uphold the law, then there can be no respect for the law.

Absalom ruined Tamar's life and knowing she was no longer a virgin in those times, her life was destroyed. She would no longer even be marriageable and not only that, she was raped.

The writers of this passage seem hesitant to address the rape issue, so it must have been a highly political subject, not only was she a princess (as we think of princesses), she would no longer be eligible for a political marriage and in those days she would have been killed for not being a virgin and married to a man from a politically rival group.

Even if David responded to punishing Absalom, then the controversy might have been greater. David should have sent Absalom away to a far country and had him killed there, but that's my opinion.

What is the theology in this? God is not pleased when we take it upon ourselves to placate our own favorite problems and never address the higher value of justice. People are destroyed when we don't stop the problems early on. We have to make the choice of what is most important to what we rule. Clearly the epitome of failed parental leadership which filters down to every part of our lives.

David had a choice, either defend his daughter who was innocent and much weaker or play the game of defending a rapist because you don't want to look bad in front of others. Who had to save face here? David apparently thought he did. I believe God allowed Absalom to be killed, remember that God also killed Eli the prophet for allowing his sons to continue in raping women. Eventually, it will catch up with you if you continue to allow your children to do these things.

If for political reasons, send Absalom away and have him killed there. But if it wasn't political, then execute Absalom in front of everyone and defend every girl that had been raped. He couldn't change the law but he had to obey the law, and he didn't.

Tamar should have sued her father and demanded justice. I am sure if she appealed to Nathan, then David would have had to do something right. Nathan caught David in the adultery with Bathsheba and let him know God was not pleased. The kingdom could have been saved but through bad paternal leadership, the kingdom was lost several generations later because no one seems to have cared so much about God later on.

The further away each generation gets from God, the greater their kingdoms are lost. That's the theology because their family's downfall was at the moment Absalom raped Tamar and took from her the respect and pride she had as a daughter of the king and made her life worthless.

David should have upheld the law and had Absalom executed. That's my opinion. That way people would have known that even the king kept the law. As Billy Jack said, when the law breaks the law, then there is no more law, just the fight for survival.

originally posted by: Sahabi
If you gather a group of people under one banner, give them a god by a unique name, and direct them to procreate together and avoid losing their cultural identity,... then you can always point at and identify these people as unique and synonymous with their religion.

My premise that their God was "maintaining himself close to them" wasn't just based on that.
It's also based on the contact and communication through the medium of the prophets.
If I had been challenged to demonstrate it for David's time, I would have pointed to the interventions of Nathan as showing a close interest being maintained.
Before his time, Samuel. After his time, Elijah.
The key to the religion of old Israel is this two-way communication, which comes to a climax, from the Christian viewpoint, in the person of Jesus.
"In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to to us by a Son" (Hebrews ch1 vv1-2)
I have chosen, if you want to put it that way, to accept all these communications as valid.

a reply to: WarminIndy
You have put your finger on the problem that David was very lax in his attitude to law and justice. This wasn't just about being indulgent to his family. If he had been more diligent about giving justice to his people, Absolom would not have been able to win their hearts. Solomon may have learned from that.
There is another interesting theological issue in the fact that a man who played fast and loose with the law so many times (one day I'm doing a thread on it) can still be called "a man after God's own heart".

Having said that, I suspect that one of the reasons why these stories are being told in such detail is a retrospective justification for the execution of Joab in 1 Kings ch2. It can't be a coincidence that three of the stories in 2 Samuel involve Joab killing somebody.

a reply to: WarminIndy
Also I've just noticed that the twists and turns of this very complex story have confused you on one point.
Absolom did not rape Tamar.
Tamar was raped by Amnon.
The offence of Absolom, which sent him into exile, was killing Amnon in revenge for the rape of Tamar (he took up her cause because she was his full sister, sharing the same mother).

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: WarminIndy
Also I've just noticed that the twists and turns of this very complex story have confused you on one point.
Absolom did not rape Tamar.
Tamar was raped by Amnon.
The offence of Absolom, which sent him into exile, was killing Amnon in revenge for the rape of Tamar (he took up her cause because she was his full sister, sharing the same mother).

I realized that after I posted it. I was very tired at that moment. I had to lie down and take a nap and I woke up in the middle of it realizing that I had said the wrong person.

Amnon should have been executed, yes. Absalom should never have been placed in that position, but he was an elder brother and knew the ramification of her being destroyed like that. It left her, a daughter of Israel, in devastation, which was many of the curses against Israel.

I believe it safe to say that the daughters of Israel, Bat Zion, has been "raped" over and over again throughout history. God had always called Israel his wife, but throughout history Israel has either been raped or fell into adultery. David did fall into adultery and the consequences were a dysfunctional family.

Tamar did put on the sackcloth and ashes and did lament, she even had to go so far as to beg to be married to Amnon, which would have definitely broken the law more. It was already incest and a violent act. You have to think about the world she lived in, she was ruined for life. She could never marry nor have protection for the rest of her life and if she can't even be protected in her own family, then how would the king be able to defend his nation?

If you are faithful in the little things, you will be ruler over much. That's what happened though, he lost control of his family and then the family lost the kingdom, because of their own need to save face.

Remember that it was his friend that conspired in the plan to rape Tamar.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Remember that it was his friend that conspired in the plan to rape Tamar.

And that friend was a cousin, a nephew of David.
As were Joab and Abishai, of course.
The whole famly was swamping that court.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Remember that it was his friend that conspired in the plan to rape Tamar.

And that friend was a cousin, a nephew of David.
As were Joab and Abishai, of course.
The whole famly was swamping that court.

I think that really makes David more real, because of all the details of court intrigue. But really, have you not noticed the correlation of what happens in some churches? Pastors of churches that have family members in control and they can't seem to learn how to get past the church politics and then end up doing things every knows they do, and then later when people get tired of it, they tear the church up and divide the congregation.

I see the correlation, so this is very much a cautionary tale. David was like the pastor of a church, he allowed his family members to run rampant and cause trouble and then covered it up. I've seen it many times.

a reply to: WarminIndy
I'm an Anglican, I've never had occasion to be part of that kind of church.
But I can certainly see how that would happen.

As for "making him more real", that's exactly my way of thinking.
There's no reason why anyone should claim all this to be "made-up fable".

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: WarminIndy
I'm an Anglican, I've never had occasion to be part of that kind of church.
But I can certainly see how that would happen.

As for "making him more real", that's exactly my way of thinking.
There's no reason why anyone should claim all this to be "made-up fable".

You would think that if they were trying to make David like a great hero, they would leave out those parts, but they included it. Someone was sure interested in recording the court intrigues.

That's the one thing most people don't know from the Bible, it does say all the good, the bad and the ugly of every person it talks about. They were real people who did very real things that we should be learning from them what to do and what not to do.

a reply to: WarminIndy
Possibly some of the information is being recorded by the prophets and their disciples, who would be more likely to keep a critical eye on what was happening and try to see things from the Lord's viewpoint.
Also, as I suggested above, some of the stories might be putting the case against Joab and justifying his later removal. The prosecution case is summed up in 1 Kings ch2 vv5-6, David's instructions to Solomon; "Do not let his grey head go down to Sheol in peace".

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: WarminIndy
Possibly some of the information is being recorded by the prophets and their disciples, who would be more likely to keep a critical eye on what was happening and try to see things from the Lord's viewpoint.
Also, as I suggested above, some of the stories might be putting the case against Joab and justifying his later removal. The prosecution case is summed up in 1 Kings ch2 vv5-6, David's instructions to Solomon; "Do not let his grey head go down to Sheol in peace".

And one of the things to notice, when Saul became king, it removed the tribe of Dan from being judges. But that's what people wanted, a king just like their neighbors. God warned them and then God gave them what they wanted.

Joab couldn't be a judge anyway because now David was a judge, so by becoming king, he removed the tribe of Dan from its rightful place as the judges.

There was already a family war between Judah and Benjamin, because David was from Judah and Saul was from Benjamin. So all the rest of the tribes were probably pretty annoyed by the pettiness of this whole thing. The Levites managed to maintain their position though.

People think entire tribes were lost to assimilation with neighbors or taken away, I don't see that as the case. Certainly many were, but not all. As Reuben is recorded in Revelation, then Reuben will come back one day. So you think that because Joseph married the daughter of a priest of On, that threw him out of his birthright so it was passed on to Manasseh and Ephraim?

Unless Joab were of Dan, then he couldn't be a judge anyway. Ever since the kingdom was split and then lost, there had been no judges any more from Dan, so it is possible that Dan will come back and judge, or has that been lost forever?