Hairline cracks in Absalom’s power: evil is not invincible
2 Sam 16:15-23
Long before Communism fell in Hungary, my Dad used to say that a corrupt government built on oppression and lies cannot stand forever. He was convinced that eventually the regime would fall and spent his life preparing my brother and me for that time. He taught us Western languages and instilled in us a different perspective than what was available through Hungarian media at the time. Despite his firm belief, he did not quite expect the collapse to happen so suddenly in his own lifetime. Yet, in retrospect, the invisible cracks became obvious to historians studying the era, even though those who lived through it could only see an invincible power. David’s story likewise shows Absalom as a seemingly unstoppable force with all Israel on his side (2 Sam 16:15) against David’s meagre six hundred (2 Sam 15:14, 18). David’s one hope, Hushai, feigns allegiance to Absalom but is doubted (2 Sam 16:17) and not immediately admitted to the royal council (note how he must be summoned; 2 Sam 17:5). Further, the advice of Ahithophel is considered on a par with inquiring directly from God (2 Sam 16:23)! What could David show against such an overwhelming force?
Hairline cracks in Absalom’s power
Yet, looking more closely, the hairline cracks in the new power become visible. Ahithophel’s advice that Absalom should sleep with the king’s concubines (2 Sam 16:21) is a politically shrewd move, a decisive claim to the throne through exercising royal privileges. There is no turning back from such an act, so that Absalom’s followers will rise or fall with him, whereas a less conclusive act might have led to reconciliation between father and son but punishment of Absalom’s supporters. On the other hand, Ahithophel’s advice is utterly destructive in a moral sense. It is the kind of grasping for power through illegitimate means that God has condemned throughout Saul and David’s story. Absalom’s ready agreement to Ahithophel’s advice (2 Sam 16:22) likewise shows his moral corruption. David, at least, understood how wrong such an action was when he sinned with Bathsheba in secret and tried to cover it up. Absalom, on the other hand, commits rape/adultery and what the Bible considers incest (Lev 18:6, 8),[1] and does so in open defiance of God. Thus, God’s judgment of death already hangs over him (Lev 20:10-11).
Hints in the narrative
Ahithophel’s advice and Absalom’s despicable act are born out of their moral corruption, they nevertheless fulfil what Nathan prophesied to David as the consequences of his sin (2 Sam 12:11-12). Thus, Ahithophel’s advice ironically turns out to be the very thing people thought it would be, the word of God (2 Sam 16:23), though God did not intend the evil that was perpetrated thereby. Again, it is ironic that Ahithophel, who is considered the wisest of counsellors, proves to be utterly foolish in choosing Absalom’s side instead of recognising the Lord’s will for David to be king.[2] Thus, the narrative is full of subtle hints that all is not what it seems. God condemns the kind of methods Absalom uses to gain dominance and so his bid for power will not stand: evil is not invincible. Although David himself acted in similar ways when corrupted by power, the difference is that he repented while Absalom was too far gone even to be confronted. As the story unfolds, both the usurper and his advisor will destroy themselves.
God’s justice will prevail
Once again, the Bible teaches us a lesson ‘on the big screen’, in a dramatic incident and in full technicolour, but the truth is, we experience unfair treatment and injustice in everyday contexts, too. It may be an exacting boss with double standards, a manipulative co-worker, a church context that is exploitative, a selfish friend we depend on, a family member taking advantage. Sometimes, the nature of the relationship is such that we cannot easily stand up for ourselves and can only do what David did, remove ourselves from the situation and trust God’s justice. God created a moral universe in which people will eventually reap what they sow. Often this becomes visible even in this life because sin has a way of emptying out and destroying a person. But even if not, we trust in God’s ultimate justice.
[1] Incest in Israelite thinking is viewed somewhat differently from modern understanding. The Bible describes married couples as becoming ‘one flesh’ (Gen 2:24) by virtue of their union. Disrupting such a union through adultery by a blood relative of one of the parties is seen as incest. Thus, the son having sex with his stepmother is considered an incestuous act against the father, not the stepmother, who is not a blood relative. Note the distinction in Lev 18:7-8, where sex with one’s biological mother is double incest (uncovering the nakedness of the mother and the father), whereas sex with a stepmother is incest in relation to the father (‘his nakedness’ v.8). Although Lev 20:10-11 prescribes the death penalty for both parties in adultery/incest, this is because the relationship is assumed to be consensual, whereas in Absalom’s case, the concubines had no choice.
[2] While the story does not explain Ahithophel’s defection from David, it is sometimes suggested that he may have been Bathsheba’s grandfather (his son was called Eliam [2 Sam 23:34] and Bathsheba’s father was also called Eliam [2 Sam 11:3], though we cannot be sure that the two are the same). If so, then Ahithophel’s defection to Absalom (2 Sam 15:12) is readily explained, as is his advice that would not only move Absalom’s case forward but re-pay David for what he had done to Bathsheba. It is a tantalising possibility, though it is peripheral to the storyline in 2 Samuel and not highlighted, so we need to be careful not to build too much on a potential connection.
If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.