A defense of Absalom

[BornInMarch]

In the Old Testament, Absalom is the son of King David who revolted and attempted to usurp his father’s throne. Despite orders to take him alive, David’s commander Joab stabbed Absalom to death.

Now, the first instance where I found rooting for this guy was when he killed Amnon, who raped Absalom’s sister Tamar. I’ll admit, I might have been influenced a bit by media (which often portrays hunting down and killing rapists out of revenge to be a good thing). But I did some more research, and found out that King David flat out refused to punish Amnon. In other words, there was nobody else Absalom could go to if he wanted to see Amnon punished. This is not just a problem for Tamar: statistically speaking, rapists usually go after multiple victims. This meant that Amnon was a danger to other people and that by killing him, Absalom ensured he would not be a threat to anyone ever again. At the very least: it is proof that Absalom loved his sister Tamar very much. So much, he even named his daughter after her.

But Absalom did revolt against David and try to steal his throne, that is surely inexcusable right? Perhaps, but it could still be understood.

Arguably, David was a weak king. He was handed down authority to rule over the Chosen People by God Personally, and King David seemed to use this authority like a toy on a few occasions. David slept with the wife of his loyal subject Uriah, and send the poor man on a suicide mission to die so David could have Bathsheba for himself. Then David angered God with a pride-motivated census, and when given the choice of punishments he chose a plague that killed thousands of his own over having to flee for three months (which might have resulted in less loss of life). Finally, David allowed a rapist to go free, in direct defiance of biblical law (which demanded rapists be executed) simply because the rapist in question happened to be his son.

Given all this, I can see how Absalom could become disillusioned and believe that his father was no longer fit to rule. The pardoning of Anmon could have easily been the straw that broke the camal’s back. There certainly is a precedence: after all, if Saul could be deemed an unfit King, surely David could as well. It is possible that Absalom honestly believed in his heart that God wanted him to save the Chosen People from an unworthy King. If Absalom was wrong to revolt, then he could still have been committing a wrong with good intentions. It is telling that he gained support by promising Justice (as apposed to promising wealth or glory).

David himself even order his soldiers to take Absalom alive. Whether this was because he wanted to keep his son under house arrest, or because he still intended for Absalom to succeed him, I do not know.

I’m not saying Absalom was perfect: him sleeping with the Royal Concubines is less-than-admirable (scholars debate whether or not they consented, and that is a discussion best left for another thread altogether), and he did revolt against his father. However, I am saying that Absalom seemed to have redeeming qualities.

You do not have to agree with me, but please keep it civil and calm. This is supposed to be a level-headed discussion, not an argument.

 

[petra22]

To me, it seems like a father who loves his sons. Both of them, all of them…? He understood that sons sometimes do bad things, but you still love them. He loved his first born and he loved Absalom. What if you had a son who took liberties with your daughter, say in his teen years… (it’s been on TV lately…) would you disown your son? or consider it a fault of your raising??? what?

 

[BornInMarch]

To me, it seems like a father who loves his sons. Both of them, all of them…? He understood that sons sometimes do bad things, but you still love them. He loved his first born and he loved Absalom. What if you had a son who took liberties with your daughter, say in his teen years… (it’s been on TV lately…) would you disown your son? or consider it a fault of your raising??? what?

I wouldn’t do nothing.

David wasn’t just a father, he was a king. He had an obligation to his people to protect them from rapists and other dangerous individuals, even ones who happen to be his son. Was Tamar not a subject of Israel and entitled to protection under the law?

If it was my son, I would have consoled him to repent. Then I would have punished him in accordance with the laws. It would be a very difficult thing to do, but it would have to be done.

 

[GEddie]

While I would not use “weak” and “King David” in the same sentence (a weak man doesn’t face a giant with a slingshot!) your major points are good.

In essence, the familial turmoil with which KD was faced was a direct punishment for his actions regarding Bathsheba. The prophet Nathan told him that “the sword would not depart from his house” as a result. The sword first appeared in Absalom’s hand, and after Solomon, would divide the kingdom itself.

KD’s sexuality blinded him to a glaringly obvious moral wrong, just as later his devotion to his sons would blind him to a developing royal crisis.

Absalom still did very wrong, and it cost him his life, to go up against a “man after God’s own heart.” But like Tamar, he was a victim of familial sin running its course, and we can hope that in the end he got to Purgatory.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[10gr8kids]

I can sympathize with Absalom in how he felt toward his half-brother for what he’d done to his sister. I am also sure he had redeeming qualities. However, I think about David and his words when others tried to convince him to kill Saul.

“The LORD forbid that I should do this thing to my master, the Lord’s anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the LORD.”

It is obvious that Absalom was not as concerned with doing God’s will as with doing his own. David, of course, was not perfect, yet he did repent. I also tend to think Absalom probably had an idea that King David did not intend to pass the throne to him, which is the reason for Absalom to try and take it by force, more so than King David’s lack of good leadership.

 

[BornInMarch]

While I would not use “weak” and “King David” in the same sentence (a weak man doesn’t face a giant with a slingshot!) your major points are good.

In essence, the familial turmoil with which KD was faced was a direct punishment for his actions regarding Bathsheba. The prophet Nathan told him that “the sword would not depart from his house” as a result. The sword first appeared in Absalom’s hand, and after Solomon, would divide the kingdom itself.

KD’s sexuality blinded him to a glaringly obvious moral wrong, just as later his devotion to his sons would blind him to a developing royal crisis.

Absalom still did very wrong, and it cost him his life, to go up against a “man after God’s own heart.” But like Tamar, he was a victim of familial sin running its course, and we can hope that in the end he got to Purgatory.

ICXC NIKA.

I should clarify what I meant by weak. There are different types of strengths, and it is possible to be strong in one situation and weak in another. For example, a man who will charge fearlessly into battle might not be willing to face the fact that his son did something unspeakably awful.

As for going against a man chosen by God, remember that Saul was also chosen by God and later rejected.

I am in agreement, however, that Absalom did do something very wrong: when he was considering seizing the throne for himself (whether modivated by selfishness or genuine desire to give Israel a just king), he proceeded on his own. He SHOULD have prayed to God for guidance first to see what he should do.

 

[Gorgias]

As for going against a man chosen by God, remember that Saul was also chosen by God and later rejected.

That’s the point.

Although later rejected by God, Saul did not deserve assassination, and so David refused to kill him. Absalom, however, did not learn the lesson his father was teaching: he was all about vigilante justice.

Looking at the rape of Tamar with the same lens that we do in the 21st century, however, misunderstands the context of 2 Samuel 13. It’s not that Tamar did not consent to the sex – it’s that she did not consent to sex that did not lead to marriage. She was willing to marry Amnon – and even begged for this both before and after the rape – but, once he had had his way with her, Amnon no longer wanted her. He took her virginity and then refused to take her as his wife. As a result, Absalom should have pressed for justice as called for under the Mosaic law, but didn’t. *David *should have pressed for justice, but didn’t. Justice would have called for marriage, not execution. But, Absalom took matters into his own hands and set up the situation in which Amnon was killed.

As others have mentioned, this is David’s sin coming back to haunt him. David took a woman who was not his (but married her rather than fall under the consequences of the law); Amnon took a woman who was not his, but let her bear the consequences alone (thus, David is punished twice, in his son and in his daughter). David had a man killed rather than follow the justice prescribed by Mosaic Law; Absalom had a man killed rather than follow the justice prescribed by Mosiac law (and thus, David is punished twice, in his (murdered) son and in his (outlaw) son).

 

[BornInMarch]

The verse Deuteronomy 22:25-28 states that if a man rapes a woman who is betrothed to someone else, he must be put to death. It is not stated in the bible whether or not Tamar was betrothed to someone else, but given that she is a King’s daughter it is a possibility.

But Justice in this case did not call for marriage, because Amnon also committed incest. The verse Deuteronomy 27:22 explicitly forbids brothers and sisters to have sex, so Amnon should have been punished for that if nothing else. That David did nothing at all (not even locking Amnon under house arrest or disinheriting him) is him failing to fulfill his duties as a king.

David’s sins wouldn’t have come back to haunt him if he didn’t commit them in the first place. Maybe if he had a little bit of restraint, he would have reigned in his family a little and perhaps Absalom would not have become disillusioned in him enough to revolt.

 

[Gorgias]

The verse Deuteronomy 22:25-28 states that if a man rapes a woman who is betrothed to someone else, he must be put to death. It is not stated in the bible whether or not Tamar was betrothed to someone else, but given that she is a King’s daughter it is a possibility.

That’s really, really reaching.

No – it’s not reasonable to presume that she was betrothed. Therefore, the notion that capital punishment is the appropriate recourse is likewise inappropriate. Rather, the law states that the woman whose virginity (i.e., marriageability) was taken must be restored to honor and be made a wife – as Tamar herself offered and requested!

But Justice in this case did not call for marriage, because Amnon also committed incest. The verse Deuteronomy 27:22 explicitly forbids brothers and sisters to have sex, so Amnon should have been punished for that if nothing else.

Agreed. But, that curse does not call for the death penalty… does it? :nope:

That David did nothing at all (not even locking Amnon under house arrest or disinheriting him) is him failing to fulfill his duties as a king.

Umm… that’s what I’ve already said.

David’s sins wouldn’t have come back to haunt him if he didn’t commit them in the first place. Maybe if he had a little bit of restraint, he would have reigned in his family a little and perhaps Absalom would not have become disillusioned in him enough to revolt.

The Bible doesn’t frame it up that way. It says that, what happened to David’s family wasn’t a question of his ‘restraint’ with them – it was a matter of David facing the music for his prior lack of restraint with Bathsheeba!

 

[GEddie]

David’s sins wouldn’t have come back to haunt him if he didn’t commit them in the first place. Maybe if he had a little bit of restraint…

Well, yeah. Uncommitted sins are not punished, Voltaire notwithstanding.

But, really, if the chick who talked to snakes had shown some restraint, we’d all be immortal and nekkid!!!

Still, KD had some choices other than death for Amnon; he could have banished him from the kingdom or assigned him to a remote outpost, etc.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I’m absolutely with you in your empathy for the mixed up characters in that family (and don’t bracket Tamar in “mixed up” till further notice - incidentally she had given up on her dad’s ability to listen, and the faction ridden atmosphere pervading them all).

I read somewhere that Absalom was fleeing on a mule when his hair got caught in a branch, affording his assassin of the opportunity to indeed take him alive as ordered. The mule and hair are symbolic, I can’t remember what of! Even the branch may be!

David had “his” family on a pedestal, therefore Amnon caught him off guard in wrongdoing. Didn’t his dad know what kind of “tricks” he got up to all those years, probably far less serious and easily corrected.

By the time Absalom joins in, David starts to know - belatedly - how to handle it - take him alive.

Is David’s attitude an over-reaction to being the hidden son of Jesse? Eight is God’s number of fulfilment, the origin of which is often hidden, so I read (I can’t remember where). Jesse was “replete” with sons. Samuel had to say, “I happen to know you are hiding one”.

How far back in Jesse’s family did the emotional “rot” go? Nearly all the Bible characters had their favourites and unfavourites anyway.