Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ 2 Samuel

[Crazy Painter]

After reading the story of Absalom in the bible, I think he was a character in a tragedy. He loves his sister, but he chose the wrong way to take revenge for her.

[jimwalton]

Absalom's life is a train wreck from start to finish, despite his position of privilege and his promise as a person. He was conceited, narcissistic, calculating, vengeful, angry, and callous. The Bible doesn't have a single good thing to say about him. His is the story of failure despite advantage, pride instead of humility, foolish instead of wise, self-honoring rather than other-centered, and complete godlessness.

[Crazy Painter]

Thank you for your comments. It's so exciting to know someone notices the same thing as me. English is not my native language. So there are some points in your comments that I can not understand very well. What does 'his promise as a person' mean?

I totally agree with you. When he died, he was such a bad guy. But I wonder if he can be a good person if David or some else did different things.

He killed Amnon for his sister. He took revenge because of her. If David punished Amnon for his deeds, Absalom may put down his sword. What I mean is not that David is the one who is responsible for the tragedy. It's just not all Absalom's fault.

I like a saying in a book, "The prophet", that as a single leaf turns not yellow but with the silent knowledge of the whole tree, So the wrong-doer cannot do wrong without the hidden will of you all.

[jimwalton]

> What does 'his promise as a person' mean?

I meant that he had everything going for him. There could have been every expectation that he'd have a great, long, and successful life. He was handsome, in a position of power, wealthy, probably had the best education, and was in a position of privilege. There was much promise for his life that he could be healthy, wealthy, and wise.

> But I wonder if he can be a good person if David or some else did different things.

David was not a good father. His children were immoral, disobedient, rebellious, and corrupt. There is no indication in any text that David was a good dad, but instead a miserable failure in that regard.

> What I mean is not that David is the one who is responsible for the tragedy.

David is not responsible for either Amnon's or Absalom's sin, but David obviously didn't raise his boys well.

In addition, though, David's response is terrible. He was furious (2 Sam. 13.21), but there is no public denunciation of Amnon and no defending the honor of Tamar. No justice comes from David, not even any words of comfort or kindness for his daughter. Just anger. But not only does he not denounce Amnon, he doesn't take any action, either. What a failure.

> "The prophet",

By Kahlil Gibran?

[Crazy Painter]

> By Kahlil Gibran?

Yes. I love this book so much.

In God's sight, David is righteous. so is Eli. But both David and Eli are not good fathers. Is that so difficult to be a good father?

> but there is no public denunciation of Amnon

I suppose that's because David had done the same thing as Amnon. So he felt so ashamed and could not take courage to denounce Amnon.

[jimwalton]

> In God's sight, David is righteous. so is Eli. But both David and Eli are not good fathers. Is that so difficult to be a good father?

It's interesting that in the Bible we have almost ZERO examples of good fathers, even though we are given several of good mothers. I don't really know why this is so. One guess might be to show that God is our true Father, but that's stretching things. We know there are good fathers among us. I don't really know what that is.

In God's sight, David and Eli, along with lousy-dad Lot, are considered righteous. It's by the grace of God alone that we in our sins can be deemed righteous in His eyes.

> I suppose that's because David had done the same thing as Amnon. So he felt so ashamed and could not take courage to denounce Amnon.

For sure. The incest of David’s son Amnon (2 Sam. 13.1-9) and his murder by his brother Absalom (vv. 20-29) reenact David’s own heinous sins. This is the tragic story of "Monkey See, Monkey Do." David's sin is mirrored and amplified in his children. David’s sin was adultery followed by love and marriage, as well as passive murder. Amnon’s sin is rape followed by aversion and hatred, and that is followed with deceit and murder at the hands of his brother, Absalom.

[Crazy Painter]

> It's interesting that in the Bible we have almost ZERO examples of good fathers, even though we are given several good mothers.

Is Abraham a good father? In order to get a wife for his son, he sent his servant to go to his own relatives and asked his servant to not to get a local girl as his daughter-inlaw.

> In God's sight, David and Eli, along with lousy-dad Lot, are considered righteous.

Which verses show that Lot is righteous? Is that because angels talked with him before?

> It's by the grace of God alone that we in our sins can be deemed righteous in His eyes.

Thank God. We are not perfect, but we find favor in his eyes.

With regard to David, I think being a sinner and qualification to teach are independent. Although he's a sinner, he still could choose to teach his kids the right paths. But he did not. So his inaction made his sin more heinous.

As for Amnon and Absalom, If they learned God's words carefully, this tragic story may not happen. God's words are crucial to our own life, because people around you are not always right.

> Amnon’s sin is rape followed by aversion and hatred, and that is followed with deceit and murder at the hands of his brother, Absalom.

I don't recall anything about deceit. Can you explain a little more?

[jimwalton]

> Is Abraham a good father? In order to get a wife for his son, he sent his servant to go to his own relatives and asked his servant to not to get a local girl as his daughter-inlaw.

We don't know much about his fathering. He did seek out a non-Canaanite as wife for his son, which is a good thing, but he also let Sarah throw Ishmael out of the camp (Gn. 21.8-14), and Ish and his mom, Hagar, almost died in the wilderness. Without much else to go on, I would say he's not ideal, but we hardly know anything. Regardless, he's tough to preach a positive Father's Day sermon about!

> Which verses show that Lot is righteous? Is that because angels talked with him before?

2 Peter 2.7. We can talk about more if you want. Someone asked a few weeks ago specifically about Lot, and I wrote out a lengthy answer. But I don't want to just dump that on you. If you want it, you can ask for it, and I'll back up the dump truck.

> Although he's a sinner, he still could choose to teach his kids the right paths. But he did not. So his inaction made his sin more heinous.

Agreed.

> As for Amnon and Absalom, If they learned God's words carefully, this tragic story may not happen. God's words are crucial to our own life, because people around you are not always right.

Also agreed. Regardless of our upbringing and examples, we are all still responsible for our values and decisions. Everyone gets to set their own course (decisions, character) in the midst of the course that others set for us (upbringing, education, influences). Some people grow up in horrible situations and turn about fantastic; some grow up in fantastic situations and turn out horrible. Amnon and Absalom made their own choices.

> I don't recall anything about deceit. Can you explain a little more?

The whole setup to Amnon's murder is a deceit. First of all, Absalom was enraged and hated Amnon (2 Sam. 13.22), but he stayed quiet for two years. Revenge is juiciest when the victim is unsuspecting and unwatchful.

Then Absalom two years later casually invites all the king's sons to come for a feast. This is a conspiracy, for sure—a carefully planned strategy. When the ruse looks like it's going to fail (13.25), Absalom makes sure that Amnon at least comes (vv. 26-27). Knowing he has tricked Amnon into his grip, he orders his assassins to strike when the moment is ripe (v. 28). Verse 32 makes explicit Absalom's duplicity.

[Crazy Painter]

> If you want it, you can ask for it, and I'll back up the dump truck.

For sure. I'd like to know. I am curious about Lot. In my mind, he was a greedy coward. I'm not a fan of him.

And thanks for your explanation about deceit.

[jimwalton]

Lot is a mixed bag full of tensions and contradictions, and this text in Peter highlights the tensions that are so clear in Genesis 19. Lot was concerned for the angels and did everything in his power to protect them. He believed their message about the destruction of the city and tried to get his family to come with him. He somehow stood apart from the citizens of Sodom, and yet not too far apart. When it comes right down to it, he caves in to their demands for a sexual victim. We learn that he has not done a good job of raising his daughters, and he obviously didn't impress his alleged godliness on his sons-in-law. But he did eventually obey the angels and followed their direction, even though once outside the city he negotiated for a different destination.

In a horrible situation, Lot make a horrific decision. He attempts to mediate the situation by striking a compromise at the expense of his daughters.
Dr. John Walton speculates, "It's possible that he is not offering his daughters to be gang-raped as much as he is saying, 'I would as soon have you violate my family members as violate those whom I have taken in and offered hospitality!' It might be the same as saying sarcastically to your mortgage company, 'Why don’t you just take the clothes off my children’s backs and the food off their plates?' If this is the case, his statement is meant to prick the conscience of the mob. Just as they would (hopefully) not consider treating a citizen’s daughters in this way, so the same inhibitions should protect his guests."

I think it's more accurate to see Lot as a morally and spiritually confused man. What he is suggesting is a horrid Catch 22 compromise. His moral compromises, the character of the city, and the circumstances of the evening have brought him to an untenable place. He cannot maintain his integrity, protect his guests, protect his family, and indulge his neighbors and friends all at the same time. But why, given the choices, would he give away his daughters to be ravaged? Well, he can't give away his wife (that's adultery and punishable by death); he can't give away his guests (that's pederasty and punishable by death); he can't give away himself (it demeans his status in the community, and sex between equals is not what they were after, but a superior-to-submissive penetration common in their era). His only "moral" option, given the horror of his paradox, is to give away his daughters to placate his attackers, assume his daughters will get over it (sleeping around may have been more common in their era [cf. Gn. 38.13-26]), and "I'll somehow survive this night." It was a horrid conundrum, an impossible moral dilemma, and a life-threatening situation. As Jean Valjean said in Les Miserables, "If I speak, I am condemned; if I stay silent, I am damned."

Peter is honest about this. We learn in 2 Pet. 2.7 that he was distressed by the lives of the people around him (which is true, as far as we can tell), and in 2.8 Pete says Lot was tormented in his soul. Lot was certainly "righteous" in comparison to his neighbors, and he was allowed to enabled to escape destruction. It's possible that 2 Peter 2.20-22 is just as much a commentary on Lot as it is on Peter's audience.

By calling Lot "righteous," Peter is not equating righteousness with blamelessness. Peter's point is that if God rescued someone like Lot, Peter's audience/readers can have some hope of their own deliverance in and through Jesus. We don't need to be sinless and perfect to receive salvation. And Lot was far from sinless and perfect.