Politics and religion (2); Joab and Absolom

originally posted by: WarminIndy
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?

I don't quite understand that suggestion.
Manasseh and Ephraim were Joseph's children.
Between them, the two tribes are "the house of Joseph".

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: WarminIndy
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?

I don't quite understand that suggestion.
Manasseh and Ephraim were Joseph's children.
Between them, the two tribes are "the house of Joseph".

I understand.

In Revelation, Joseph is mentioned again, that's why I was asking.

a reply to: WarminIndy
I have a theory about the list of names in Revelation (it was in my Revelation thread on that chapter).
You'll be aware that in Genesis, when the twelve sons of Jacob become the twelve tribes, the list changes slightly.
The name of Levi drops out, being set apart, and Joseph becomes two tribes.

If you compare the Revelation tribal list with the Genesis tribal list, there are TWO names missing.
Dan and Ephraim.
I don't think it's a coincidence that these are the two tribes housing "calf images" in the northern kingdom. So they symbolise "unfaithfulness".
To replace them two names have been brought back in from the list of "sons of Jacob".
Levi and Joseph.
Levi was famously "faithful" at Shiittim and other episodes, and Joseph was faithful in the episode of Potiphar's wife.

In other words, two names associated with unfaithfulness have been replaced by two names associated with faithfulness.
This list symbolises a faithful version of God's people replacing an unfaithful version.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: WarminIndy
I have a theory about the list of names in Revelation (it was in my Revelation thread on that chapter).
You'll be aware that in Genesis, when the twelve sons of Jacob become the twelve tribes, the list changes slightly.
The name of Levi drops out, being set apart, and Joseph becomes two tribes.

If you compare the Revelation tribal list with the Genesis tribal list, there are TWO names missing.
Dan and Ephraim.
I don't think it's a coincidence that these are the two tribes housing "calf images" in the northern kingdom. So they symbolise "unfaithfulness".
To replace them two names have been brought back in from the list of "sons of Jacob".
Levi and Joseph.
Levi was famously "faithful" at Shiittim and other episodes, and Joseph was faithful in the episode of Potiphar's wife.

In other words, two names associated with unfaithfulness have been replaced by two names associated with faithfulness.
This list symbolises a faithful version of God's people replacing an unfaithful version.

I see, that does make sense.

Dan won't ever come back to judge.

David and the Law of Moses

On the subject of incest, the Law says;
“If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a shameful thing, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people”. Leviticus ch20 v17
And on the subject of rape, the Law says;
“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, then…she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not put her away all his days”. Deuteronomy ch22 vv28-29

What happened in David’s case;
Amnon, one of the sons of David, violated his half-sister Tamar, daughter of David by a different wife.
When the struggle began, one of her arguments was “Speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you”.
That is, she assumed, and was probably right to assume, that David would be willing to disregard the incest prohibitions in order to give his son what he wanted.
After the event, Amnon compounded the offence by rejecting her instead of keeping her with him;
“This wrong in sending me away is greater than the other which you did to me”.
In her eyes, since she had been put to shame and prevented from marrying anyone else, the situation could only be rescued by turning it into a permanent liaison of some kind.
But David would not enforce even that solution.
When he heard about the rape, he was angry, but did nothing.
In other words, he was condoning Amnon’s breach of two different laws.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Yes, exactly.

I am so glad now someone is addressing this issue because for so many years no one would talk about it, like it was some kind of disgrace to talk about the sins of people in the Bible.

I wrote an essay on this same subject three years ago and too many people acted like it was a terrible thing to talk about. I had reached the same conclusions as you and was amazed at how many people are willing to act like these things never happened.

a reply to: WarminIndy
Yes, and the other side of the coin is that others want to home in on the weaknesses of these people and expoit them as a stumbling block.
Only a year or so back somebody started a thread on why wasn't David executed after the Bathsheba episode, and claiming that it must be an embarassment for Christians to have David as an ancestor of Christ.
You might have been one of the people who replied and tried to explain.
I can't remember the poster's name, without hunting for it through back threads.

There are two more threads in this little series, one about the aftermath of this story, and one about the succession crisis at the end of the reign.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: WarminIndy
Yes, and the other side of the coin is that others want to home in on the weaknesses of these people and expoit them as a stumbling block.
Only a year or so back somebody started a thread on why wasn't David executed after the Bathsheba episode, and claiming that it must be an embarassment for Christians to have David as an ancestor of Christ.
You might have been one of the people who replied and tried to explain.
I can't remember the poster's name, without hunting for it through back threads.

There are two more threads in this little series, one about the aftermath of this story, and one about the succession crisis at the end of the reign.

I don't remember that thread, maybe I spoke on it, I don't know.

Why would people think we would be embarrassed about that? We all know who was in His ancestry so it matters little.

But I was thinking today, history repeated itself in the Hasmonean Dynasty of the Herods. They certainly weren't the best examples of kings in court. Even Herodius had her daughter Salome dance for her uncle, to get the head of John the Baptist. She got it too.

That would have been incest also, but it doesn't record that they actually did anything more, but her mother prostituted her daughter to kill someone.

Maybe there is correlation there.

a reply to: WarminIndy
Do you remember a Muslim poster who made a habit of finding issues in the New Testament and telling us what it really meant? It was one of his.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: WarminIndy
Do you remember a Muslim poster who made a habit of finding issues in the New Testament and telling us what it really meant? It was one of his.

The only name coming to mind right now is Sk0rpi0n

a reply to: WarminIndy
David's adultery

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: WarminIndy
David's adultery

LOL, I never saw that thread but I guessed correctly that it was Sk0rpi0n who would have made a thread like that.

He fails to see the difference, Mohammed was always excused for his behavior but David was not excused. He might have not been executed, but it was made very clearly to him where he stood with God.

I think the biggest difference in how they perceive the Bible compared to the Quran is that the Bible hides nothing about the people it talks about. We are never expected to emulate David or any other person except Jesus, because when Jesus came He came to set it right.

David's adultery is merely symptomatic of Israel's continuing adultery against God, but if we look at other people in the Bible we can see that the thread of mercy and grace runs continually throughout, and that's what people need to understand, God is longsuffering, to a point. Even Hosea bought Gomer out of slavery after she was taken captive during prostitution. Hosea represents the ultimate love that we find in Jesus.

I see that David repented, and because of his repentance is why he was not executed. God desires mercy and I believe that David was just like most men, but that he realized when he failed, he admitted fault. Had he never admitted fault, then he could have let Bathsheba be executed, but he manned up and took the blame.

It is probably what we would call a generational curse, the sins passed on to his sons, but God has mercy still because God could have taken them all out. David is never excused for what he did, but it was a stay of execution, just like today when someone is on death row and they ask the governor for a pardon so they are not executed.

It is the circumstances we need to look at, David having Uriah killed was bad enough, but David really only sinned against Uriah and Bathsheba. He had to go down to the grave with that sin, he was pardoned, but never excused.

I see that is the difference in the Christian view of the Bible and the Muslim view, we never excuse the actions of people in the Bible like Muslims excuse Mohammed. We are under no compunction to emulate David, because David wasn't the Messiah. Reading of David, he did indeed regret what he did, and he did put on the sackcloth and ashes to mourn for the child that died. Repentance, that's what God desires.

I think people believe that just because the law said that one could be stoned then everyone was, but under the same law, God also desires mercy and grace and the only other time we read of any stoning was the woman caught in adultery. God would rather people just drop it and show mercy, because that is the theme throughout the Bible. Even then, before the NT, God was still working with grace toward people.

Court politics

There was no space in the OP to look at another aspect of politics, viz. the jostling for position around the king.
This happens at every royal court.
“Fain would I climb, yet fear I to fall”, wrote Sir Walter Raleigh (scratching the line on a pane of glass).
The Queen’s tart reply was scratched underneath.
“If thy heart fails thee, climb not at all”.

One of the minor characters in the story of Absolom is Jonadab, another of David’s nephews (by his brother Shimei). Jonadab is described as “a very crafty man”. He makes two appearances, which are enough to tag him as cold-hearted and unscrupulous.
On his first appearance, he‘s the crony who puts into Amnon’s mind the trap which enables him to seize hold of Tamar.
The next time we see him, though, he seems to have transferred his allegiance to Absolom. When the first rumours of the death of Amnon reach the court, the first report is that “all the king’s sons have been slain”. Jonadab is the one who blandly assures the king that this report is false; “Amnon alone is dead, for by the command of Absolom this has been determined from the day he forced his sister Tamar”. This tells us two things; that Jonadab knew about the plot in advance, and that he had done nothing to forewarn Amnon. He had evidently decided that Amnon was the wrong horse to back.

When Absolom claims the throne, he is able to call upon the services of Ahithophel, one of the king’s counsellors
“In those days the counsel which Ahithophel gave was as if one consulted the oracles of God; so was all the counsel of Ahithophel esteemed”.
Yet Absolom summons him from his home, where he has returned. We don’t know the background, but there may have been some kind of estrangement from David. Recent advice had included some unwelcome truths? Absolom is acting on his counsel when he “goes in to” David’s concubines, but rejects the further advice to pursue David urgently. Ahithophel is clear-sighted enough to see all the consequences of this mistake, so he goes back home and hangs himself.

The young cousin Amasa, as we saw in the OP, advances himself by accepting the post of Absolom’s commander.
This is necessary because David does find loyalty, especially among his military men, like Joab and Ittai.
Hushai the Archite is not a military man, but “the king’s friend”. He’s willing to accompany the king, but David sends him back to the city, for the specific purpose of pretending to join Absolom and misleading him.

There are two priestly families in this narrative. Abiathar and his son Jonathan are the current representatives of the family which has been responsible for care of the Ark. The family of Zadok and his son Ahimaaz seem to have been priests of the “high place” in Gibeon (1 Chronicles ch16 v39). When the first family makes the wrong choice at the later succession crisis, Zadok’s family will become the new custodians of the Ark and ancestors of the later “High Priests”.
But this story places both families in Jerusalem side by side. When they offer to bring the Ark with David, he sends them back to the city. However, the two sons soon find themselves in a “spy-chase” drama, as they escape from Jerusalem to find David and take him information about Absolom’s plans.
After the battle, Ahimaaz manoeuvres himself into a position to bring “good tidings”, always a good move in a royal court. There is both good news and bad news, because the battle is won but Absolom has been killed. Ahimaaz outruns the official messenger, presents the good news, and pretends to know nothing more. “Let the other man be the one who spoils the mood”. Sir Walter would have loved that ploy.

There is the selfless loyalty of Barzillai the Gileadite, a very rich man, and possibly the leading figure on the eastern side of the Jordan. He keeps the exiled king supplied with provisions at Mahanaim. When David is returning to Jerusalem, he invites Barzillai to join him there. Barzillai demurs, on grounds of age, and offers (his relative?) Chimcham instead.

Finally, there is the delicate position of the house of Saul and other leaders of Benjamin.
David has given his protection to Mephibosheth, a lame son of Jonathan. He gave him the lands which belonged to his grandfather Saul, and the family of Ziba (one of Saul’s former servants) were instructed to work the land for his benefit.
When David goes into exile, Ziba meets him with provisions and claims that Mephibosheth prefers to remain in Jerusalem, hoping for the restoration of his own family to the throne. Ziba gets the reward he was angling for, the promise that everything David gave to Mephibosheth will be transferred to himself.
When David returns from exile, Mephibosheth complains (and I believe him) that this was a trick on Ziba’s part. He was too lame to travel, but he had never been anything but loyal to David.
David then divides the property between them, because he can’t be bothered to do the work of sorting out the truth (exactly the same flaw which cost him the people’s loyalty in the first place).

The case of Shimei the son of Gera, who may have been their top man outside the immediate family, is less ambiguous.
He gloats unashamedly when David goes into exile, and has to back-track hastily when the king returns.

Almost none of these people make any great impact on the world after their brief appearance in this story.
That, in itself, points out a good moral on the “greasy pole” of struggling for position at court.

For information;
This thread is the sequel to
Joab and Abner
The story of Absolom's rebellion has an aftermath which will be covered in the next thread.