Subscribe to receive each blog post via email:

Bookmark and Share

February 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28    

Books for the Journey:

Statistics, Feeds, Copyrights & Email:

« May 28th One Year Bible Readings | Main | May 30th One Year Bible Readings »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

2 Samuel 14:1-15:22

As a shepherd, there is one thing that David knew, protect the sheep. As king of Israel standing as the chief shepherd to God’s people, was David protecting the sheep of God’s pasture by bringing Absalom back to Jerusalem? Mike, I am going in the opposite direction that you have taken regarding the restoration of Absalom. And my premise is this: You cannot make peace with someone who has war in their heart I don’t care what the relationship is or with whom.

Clearly Absalom continued holding a grudge against his father (Hindsight is always 20/20), and David was operating out of his emotions and sentiment grieving for Absalom, not based on a godly or biblical principal. In the pattern of sacrificial offerings, there is a clear outline of the way to godly reconciliation/forgiveness and it is not by presenting a “Fellowship” offering first. What is offered up first is the Whole Burnt offering, and then the Sin offering, after that the Thanksgiving and Fellowship offering can then be presented. The pattern for establishing intimacy with people can be found in how God directs us to establish intimacy/restoration with Him. There is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood. Nothing like that was ever initiated by Absalom. Or if it was, then the “sacrifice” was one only in act and not heartfelt.

David’s relationship with Absalom was never broken David was always his father. What was broken or what needed to be established was their fellowship. Was there really ever any fellowship, true fellowship and intimacy with his children outside of Solomon?

Yesterday I spoke of the elephant being in the room and no one acknowledging it or speaking of it. What David did was to bring the elephant back into the room and that room was probably already crowded with a lot more of them all he did was increase the size of the heard.

Internal sores/abscesses must me lanced no matter how painful the procedure. When we leave them to fester inside the body, we cause more problems, possibly death, then if they were attended to. You can’t heal a would by saying its not there it must be attended too and that was not followed. Because Absalom could gather together an army of co-conspirators, including Bathsheba’ grandfather, shows how the internal wound festered inside the body of Israel.

If the son was to be brought back then the reason why he killed and ran should have been addressed with all the pain that would bring.

If a man willfully sheds the blood of a person [and keeps the guilt of murder upon his conscience], he is fleeing to the pit (the grave) and hastening to his own destruction; let no man stop him! (Proverbs 28:17 AMP)

Grace and peace,
Ramona

Mike and Ramona make good points, here's one more thing to throw into the mix. Amnon was David's first born and obvious heir. Ramona is right, his sin should have been dealt with and wasn't, and that was David's fault. The second born was Chilaeb but since he is never mentioned after his birth he probably didn't live long or maybe something else disqualified him taking the throne. Next in line is Absalom and he wants to be king. He is vain and arrogant. He thinks he can do a better job than his father but I think David knew better. When it came to obvious enemies like Goliath, David was bold and decisive but the subtle enemies from within are harder to deal with. Mike and Ramona both pointed out the difficulty of separating emotion from the right action to take. What SHOULD David have done? That's a difficult question, especially since we don't know all that was said between father and son. Maybe David told Absalom, "You're welcome here but the throne is going to Solomon." Who knows? I think the bottom line here, though, is that David is reaping what he sowed when he had Uriah killed.

I don't know who is right on this, but I prefer to take away from this reading that David was acting out of grace and love. I have observed from reading through the bible, that many of the heirs to the throne are spoiled brats, and many become terrible kings. David had been a lowly shepherd, but he became a great king, a "man after God's own heart."
Also, Absalom was extraordinarily handsome, which probably added to his elevated opinion of himself, and the people falling for whatever scheme he proposed. This is indeed a very sad story.

7Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.

The comments to this entry are closed.