2 Samuel 21: Saul’s house of peace

Chapter 20 ends on a very similar narrative structure compared to chapter 8 – an end of a period of David’s life and a summation of whom is in charge of what ministry.  The remaining chapters of 2 Samuel therefore are overarching conclusions to a grand coverage of David’s magnificent typological life of Christ throughout these two books.   

Like the end of Genesis where a famine brought Abram to Egypt (Genesis 12:10); Isaac went to the Philistines (Genesis 26:1); Israel to Egypt (Genesis 42:5); from Bethlehem in Judah to Moab (Rush 1:1); and now in the time of David.  Famine is a time when the children of God are banished from home and are brought to an alien land where they are refined by fire and recognize it is the LORD who provides (Psalm 33:19; 37:19) – the greatest famine of which being the famine of the Word of God Himself (Amos 8:11).   

Yet, this three year famine is caused by the breaking of peace between the Israelites and Amorites (v.2 – the Gibeonites are from the remnant of the Amorites).  What is interesting is that throughout the Pentateuch, the Amorites were always enemies of God (as the descendants of Canaan – Genesis 10:16; the promise of the Israelites entering the land of the Gentiles – Exodus 3:8, 23:23; the eventual dispossession of the Amorites – Numbers 32:39; Joshua 24:18; Judges 11:23).  However, the oddity here is that there is an unwritten and unrecorded peace between Israel and the Amorites (perhaps the same peace as mentioned in 1 Samuel 7:14), this oath (v.2 – Israel taking an oath – שׁבע) broken by Saul (the implications of breaking oaths c.f. Numbers 30:2; 1 Samuel 14:24).  

It is interesting how David is trying to make atonement between Saul’s household and Gibeon – Israel as a corporate body of Saul when he was king of Israel, experiencing the famine as a result of Saul’s sin.  Yet Israel is now ousted from the grasp of Saul and David stands between the Israelites and Gibeonites.  What does David do?  Will he give up the seven sons of the house of Saul to mediate between Israel and Gibeon (v.6)? 

Instead, the wrath of the LORD was mediated through David’s giving up of the seven sons, excluding Mephibosheth.  Mephibosheth stood under the oath of David; David effectively, like Christ, propitiated the wrath which was meant to be experienced by Mephiboseth.  Mephibosheth should have been hanged.  However, it is the other seven sons of Saul’s household who are hanged, the seven perishing together: “They were put to death in the first days of harvest, at the beginning of barley harvest” (v.9).  Such is the effect of Christ’s death on the cross, these iniquitous seven sons of Saul’s household representing the iniquitous Son of God on the cross; their deaths ending the famine upon the beginning of barley harvest, just as the Feast of Harvest occurred between the Passover and the Feast of Ingathering  (Exodus 23:16; Matthew 13:39), for it is only now that the famine is over – and that the Holy Word of the Father can be received and that the harvest begins until the Ingathering at the Day of Resurrection. 

The chapter however does not end here.  Where in the story of the mediation between the Gibeonites and the Israelites completely hinged upon David’s decision to propitiate God’s wrath by the sevenfold son-sacrifice (akin to the sacrifice of the sevenfold lambs in Job 42:8), in the story of the Philistines’ return we see David’s followers walking with David in his footsteps.  Where David had fought Goliath (1 Samuel 17), now four giants (going by the names of Ishbi-benob; Saph; Goliath; and the six-fingered giant – all are defeated by the hands of Abishai, Sibbecai, Elhanan, and Jonathan.  Is this not the picture of the book of Acts in our current age of the harvest prior to the Ingathering, the miracles of toppling giants by standing by the true Rock?  Such is the implication of Christ’s victory, that the harvest is plentiful and workers are capable of wrecking such havoc against the champions of the world of spiritual Gentiles.   

Yet, this picture of peace, achieved as a causal effect of Christ’s gospel work, is coupled with the solemn but noble picture of Rizpah who had clearly understood the work of mediation and propitiation.  We do not spit on our sacrifice with contempt – but rather, we love the Christ who died in our place.  So Rizpah ensured that neither birds nor beasts would come upon the corpses day or night, that prompted David to retrieve Saul and Jonathan’s bones from the clutches of the enemies and restore them deep in the soil of the father’s clan (c.f. 1 Samuel 31; Saul from the clan of Benjamin and anointed as king in 1 Samuel 9:1).  Such is the love of Rizpah that David, our Christ, shall go to all lengths to retrieve the one sheep (Matthew 18:12)!  Just as the true peace was achieved in the defeat of the four giants of Philistine, so also the famine only responded to the plea for the end of the famine upon the final restoration of Saul’s household in bringing the bones back to the heart of Canaan from the filthy hands of the Ashtaroth worshippers and thus redeeming the house of Saul by David’s covenant with Jonathan and providing the true beth-shan (house of peace / ease; c.f. Isaiah 2:2-4).

2 Samuel 20: The wise woman and the son of Zeruiah

In the midst of David’s mercy towards his enemies in chapter 19, we are immediately met with a Benjaminite who has led Israel astray.  Chapter 19 ended with a quarrel, where Judah welcomed David first without Israel’s participation, and immediately in chapter 20 we see the lofty Israelites jumping onto the bandwagon of Sheba soon after Absalom’s death.   

Yet, the narration of chapter 20 does not introduce us to David’s reaction to Sheba’s rebellion.  Rather, we are told that David put his ten concubines under guard and provided for them, but did not go in to them, living as if in widowhood to the day of their death (v.3).  This picture is in response to 2 Samuel 16:22 – perhaps implying that the concubines no longer belonged just to David as they were soiled by Absalom and became tools in shaming David’s kingship.  Like a widow without children and without further inheritance as none of them had David or anyone else as their husband, so also are those (Proverbs 17:6) who align themselves to Satan as their true baal, as their true lord and husband – for by him, no childbirth may result (contrary to the blessing of those who are born under righteous parents – Proverbs 20:7).  For what goodness can come out of any other seed than the Seed of the Father?  What children can come from the flesh and not by the Spirit? (c.f. Genesis 16:4).     

Upon seeing this clear-cut imagery of David and Absalom’s households, we are then brought to see Amasa, temporarily made commander of the army, lead the pursuit against Sheba’s rebellion.  Yet, the son of Zeruiah is instead appointed due to Amasa’s delay after three days (v.4-5) though eventually he managed to catch up with them (v.7-8).  However, soon we perceive that he is but among the list of those wrongfully murdered by Joab.  Uriah.  Abner.  Absalom.  Amasa.  These are but a number of the men whom Joab treacherously killed – though seemingly by the direction of David, Joab’s vengeful streak has been becoming more and more apparent throughout the past 19 chapters of 2 Samuel.  The irony of his deceit is displayed in v.8, revealed for all to see – and yet Amasa is blind to Joab’s murderous inclination.   

What, therefore, is the significance of Amasa’s death in chapter 20 by Joab the murderous man, who (like in chapter 18) became the responsible army commander to achieving victory for Israel (by executing Absalom) and achieving victory against Sheba’s rebellion (v.22)?  Is it not just an extension of Joab trying to hide the blood and flesh of the satan which runs through him?   

Note carefully v.11-13: whoever favors Joab… let him follow Joab.  David is placed in second place; not only that, but the LORD is entirely absent.  The men only stopped to look at poor Amasa – the man who was the object of David’s affection (2 Samuel 19:13).  This same man, the commander of David’s army, is now lying on the ground wallowing in his blood and entrails on the ground.  Who stopped to bury this man?  “And anyone who came by, seeing him, stopped.  And when the man saw that all (my emphasis) the people stopped, he carried Amasa out of the highway into the field and threw a garment over him” (v.12).  All the men stopped to see this injustice being done (though the narrative is silent on the judgment of this scenario) and yet all they did was watch.  Is this not the sin of Adam, that he did not prevent the serpent from continually deceiving Eve?  Is this not the sin of the neighbour (Deuteronomy 22:8)?  Yet, the innocent blood of Abel (Matthew 23:35; Hebrews 12:24) cries out and no one rushes to save Amasa.  Instead, he is lamely covered by a garment (Isaiah 26:21 and Jeremiah 9:1; contrast to Ezekiel 16:8), when he should be covered by the garment of righteousness (Isaiah 61) and the corner of His glorious robe (Ezekiel 16) – but all the men return to mindlessly following Joab (v.13) and not the LORD – desensitized to the madness of this son of Zeruiah. 

As if the poor attempt at concealing the innocence behind the deaths of Uriah, Abner, Absalom and Amasa were not enough – the Hebrew language is itself a witness against Joab’s treachery.  He arrives at Abel of Beth-maacah.  Abel, though not identical in vowels to the name of Adam’s second son, uses the same Hebrew root characters; and Maacah is the name of Absalom’s mother.  Yet, Joab’s connection to these two is that Abel is the first man to die since the foundation of the world, murdered innocently by his brother – just as Joab has murdered David’s flesh Amasa (2 Samuel 19:13) and Absalom mercilessly.  Furthermore, the second connection is revealed by the wise woman’s query: 

2Sa 20:19  I am one of those who are peaceable and faithful in Israel. You seek to destroy a city that is a mother in Israel. Why will you swallow up the heritage of the LORD?” 

Indeed, why will Joab swallow up the heritage of the LORD?  Joab’s denial in v.20 is now especially profound given Amasa’s painful and unwarranted death earlier in the chapter.  More ironically, Joab has already swallowed up the heritage of the LORD – of his lord David, by murdering Absalom, the son of this mother Maacah which bears the same name as the city.  Maacah, the mother of Absalom is a true mother in Israel, though spiritually Beth-maacah may be the birthplace of spiritual sons of God – the Hebrew word-play surely brings out the guilt of Joab in the emblematic stories of Abel and Absalom as Maacah’s son.  Notice how the chapter ends in an anti-climax – does Joab win the battle?  Is he the one to defeat Sheba in a long-drawn heroic and dramatic battle? 

No – instead, we are left with a loquacious wise women, who in her wisdom (first stated in v.16 and repeated in v.22) cut off the head of Sheba.  Joab and his men did not walk in wisdom; yet the woman, in her wisdom, accomplished a clean cut victory in the battle without so much as Joab’s assistance.  His works could not save him; his hands are covered with the blood of the innocent; his military achievements fall drastically short in the face of the shame of this wise woman whose wisdom triumphs Joab’s physical might.  While the people worked together (v.22) in the meadow of the house of Maacah (Abel of Beth-maacah) to destroy this rebellious son of the Benjaminites, Joab’s trumpet call only led to the disperse of people rather than uniting them to worship before the LORD and before David (v.22). 

2 Samuel 19: Love your enemies

David, the man after God’s heart (1 Samuel 13:14; Jeremiah 3:15; Hebrews 10:22– similar phrase used with regards to Samuel in 1 Samuel 2:35; 1 Samuel 16:7, using the same Hebrew phrase lebab לֵבָב, also indicates our heart as defining our standing before God, that this new heart is the same as that clean heart of Christ referred to in Psalm 24:4), weeps for his son who was crucified on the oak and murdered by Joab despite his personal plea for mercy.  Is it right for Joab to bark at his king?  This bloodthirsty and vengeful soldier can be hugely contrasted to the latter half of this chapter.  Where Joab screams for victory, David ushers it in peacefully.  Where Joab stabbed the three branches (shebet שֵׁבֶט standing for rod, staff, or branch) into the centre (literally into the heart, leb לֵב, of Absalom – contrasting the death of Absalom’s heart and the life of David’s heart) of Absalom’s being as he hung between heaven and earth (chapter 18v.9), David chose to pardon his enemies (2 Samuel 19:12).  Though Joab secured a bloody victory for Israel, it is David’s mercy which is the true source of unity in the kingdom.  Where Joab fought and won by might and by worldly means (chapter 18v.12), David wept and embraced his enemies (v.6).  Joab, along with Abishai, these sons of Zeruiah are but implied as adversaries to David (v.22) – and not contributors to the everlasting kingdom prophecied in 2 Samuel 7.   

Yet, what is also significant, is the lethargic response to the king’s victory.  This is because of v.10 – “Absalom, whom we anointed over us, is dead in battle”. The man whom they anointed over them, the man which the LORD did not choose to be king, is now dead.  Why are they not returning as a bride to the bridegroom?  This is the immediate accusation which David brings to his people.  Yet, unlike Joab, he does not command obedience by brute force.  Instead, David identifies with them in flesh and blood as one body with them (v.13 – c.f. Romans 12:5) – such unity only found in the marital relationship of Adam and Eve, man and woman (Ephesians 5:22-33). 

This marriage call immediately beckons the likes of Shimei and the men of Judah and Benjamin; Ziba and his fifteen sons and his twenty servants, both coming from places like the Bahurim, rushing down to the Jordan and crossing the ford to bring over the king’s household and to do his pleasure (v.16-17).  What a beautiful picture of the LORD who loves and is loved in return!  Is this not the picture of the parable of the rebellious son (Luke 15:11) yearning for forgiveness (v.19)?  Is this not a prophetic picture of Isaiah 2:1-4 (the law going out of Zion and all the nations flowing up to the mountain of the LORD), of the fellowship of the bride returning to the true bridegroom rather than the false imposter Absalom who is nailed to the oak, a picture of the crushed serpent (Numbers 21)?  Shimei has sinned (v.20), and yet David as a type of Christ forgives man of his sins (v.23) though he deserved death.  Such an oath, such forgiveness, can only be given by the LORD God Himself whom David is representing like The Angelic Mediator.   

Not only do we receive a picture of the rebellious, but also a picture of the meek and humble – of Mephibosheth who has, until now, been portrayed by Ziba as a deserter of the kingdom trying to reclaim it for the lineage of Saul (2 Samuel 16).  Instead, what we see in v.24-30 is that David is referred to as like a sent one of God (v.27 – angel), Mephibosheth understanding clearly that Saul, like Absalom, is but a king anointed and chosen by men (2 Samuel 15) doomed to death (v.28).  It is upon this that Mephibosheth is granted a share of Ziba’s land (though it is rightfully Mephibosheth’s: 2 Samuel 9:9-11), yet the beauty of Mephibosheth’s repentance is the gripping of this angel of God himself (contrary to the elder son in the parable of the two sons in Luke 15 who had worked for his inheritance of the land and not for the Father’s embrace); is the embrace of serving his lord the king who mediates on his behalf to restore this cursed man from the house of Saul.   

Besides the facets of Shimei and Mephibosheth’s stories, we also read about Chimham who inherits the blessing of Barzillai.  “Chimham shall go over with me, and I will do for him whatever seems good to you, and all that you desire of me I will do for you” (v.38).  Unlike Shimei and Mephibosheth, Barzillai need not apologise for sins committed.  Instead, David extends his mercy through Barzillai to Chimham, now David’s new servant to enjoy the pleasant, the food, the drink, the voice of singing men and singing women (v.35).  With the threefold story of these three men, this brings chapter 19 to a close – though opening with Joab’s plea for David to love his kinsmen and not only his enemies, what we see instead is David’s act of mercy shaming the wrathful and vengeful sons of Zeruiah.  What we see instead is David embracing those who do not deserve such a great reward (v.36b), rather than embracing those who achieved victory by murdering David’s son despite his plea for mercy (2 Samuel 18:5).   

What is interesting is the internal strife of Judah and Israel; the lofty latter party who had been first persecuting David under Absalom’s name (2 Samuel 15:13) now wishes to be the first in receiving David with open arms.  Yet, in their discussions Judah had already taken action as David had swayed the heart of all the men of Judah as one man (v.14); yet the chapter is silent on Israel’s response.  Like the parable of the labourers (Matthew 20), who is last shall be first, and who is first shall be last.  Much like Jesus’ ministry in Israel causing jealousy amongst his disciples (Luke 22:24-27), so also David’s actions emulate what Christ shall do in his incarnate ministry.

2 Samuel 18: Man after God’s heart

David’s mercy is immediately compared with Absalom’s ruthlessness; where the latter wished his father to be dead, David’s first command to Joab, Abishai and Ittai is that they are to be merciful (v.4).  Yet, in the irony of Absalom’s own vanity failing him (2 Samuel 14:25-27 – v.9), whereupon he was suspended between heaven and earth (v.9b), he was murdered by three branches in Joab’s hands.  Where David desired mercy, Joab desired raw justice.  Absalom was David’s own son, whom he felt did not deserve to hang on the oak tree between heaven and earth; whom he loved dearly.  However, justice requires the sin to be paid, just as the Father had sent his beloved begotten Son to die on our behalf (John 3:16).  Though David desired such mercy, Joab understood the ramifications of providing mercy in the face of the one, when he understood that Absalom’s death would bring certain peace within Israel.  It is here that we see the sense of Christ’s painful death on the cross – a necessary though saddening act for our salvation.  That is why day two of creation was not good, as the waters were parted between the heavens; as Christ himself hung on the cross between heaven and earth on the tree, so here we see Absalom as a type of Christ’s necessary sacrifice, however painful it is for the father to bear.   

Though God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Absalom’s line ends here.  He had no children – the only evidence left of his existence is on a pillar after his own name, called Absalom’s hand (v.18).  So also, in Christ’s death on the cross we see the wrathful judgment of the Father on the Son.  Yet, unlike us who are baptized into his death and resurrection (Romans 6), Absalom’s death on the oak is a perverted typology of Christ’s death.  Where Christ rose again, Absalom remained dead – and that is the truth for all those standing outside of Christ.  Where Christ was crucified, so also the rest of the world who stand outside of him.  Yet, Where Christ rose again, the rest will but experience their second deaths.   

And it is from v.19 onwards that we see how the news is brought to David; though Ahimaaz the priestly son brought good news of deliverance, the non-Israelite Cushite, as a second messenger, delivered the more accurate news and addressed David’s true concern.  The Cushite may have ran first (v.21), but came second in delivering the news – and though Ahimaaz was eager to share of the good news (v.23) to outrun the Cushite, his news fell on deaf ears (v.25).  In both instances, David said “Is it well with the young man Absalom” (v.29 and v.32)?   

It is important that we stand back here and look at the sparse but noteworthy participation of Gentiles in David’s army – from Ittai the Gittite who had no obligation to cling onto David, who was instead gloriously made into a commander of a third of David’s army (v.2); to the Gentile who though coming second, was able to display the fuller truth.  Here we may see an allegory of the priestly line of Ahimaaz seeing but the grander picture of Israel’s restoration under David’s kingship; yet it is in the end times after Christ’s work on the cross that the Gentiles can equally if not more fully proclaim that they have witnessed the death of Christ.   

So also, we ask – is it well with our beloved Son Christ Jesus?  In both instances, David displayed such affection for his son, and cared only secondarily for the victory of the Israelites.  David is ultimately a man of compassion, not a man of war.  How true it is in v.33 that this is Yahweh’s heart for his people, as David was a man after Yahweh’s heart (1 Samuel 13:14; Jeremiah 3:15; Hebrews 10:22) –  

And the king was deeply moved and went up to the chamber over the gate and wept. And as he went, he said, “O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would I had died instead of you, O Absalom, my son, my son!”

 

What beautiful and soothing words!  And they are not words from an irresponsible king; they are not words from a king who did not seek the victory of Israel.  No – these are simply words of a father who would have rather sacrificed his own flesh rather than the flesh of his son; and here is the great gospel love of the Father and the Son portrayed back in Genesis 22: that the LORD would indeed provide the lamb for the burnt offering, though Isaac be made into a type of Christ.  Yet here is a more graphic portrayal of Absalom’s death in achieving Israel’s peace; and indeed, what true good news which both Ahimaaz and the Cushite can both preach, representing the world of Israel and the Gentiles, were they to stand under the banner of the victorious Christ who united heaven and earth in his death, resurrection and ascension. 

2 Samuel 17: The false fellowship against the Glorious Trinity

In 2 Samuel 17 we see Psalm 2 played out in entirety.  The ‘wicked counsel’ of men against the chosen counsel of Hushai, the type of Christ, interceding on behalf of the spiritual Israelite church.  Note how the wickedness of Ahithophel’s counsel is not in the destruction of all the men who went with David – rather, the focus is on one man (v.3).  His belief is that the death of this One Man will ‘liberate’ all men, and the people will be at peace – and there is a certain sense of irony here which is echoed in the words of the Pharisee in Acts (Acts 5:34-40).  

Yet, this plan is flawed in the LORD’s eyes – because the king is not fighting the king.  Thus comes in Hushai’s grand plan – to unite all the heretics of Israel, meanwhile commending David and his men.  Note especially v.11 where Hushai encourages Absalom to fight David, the heretical son against the father, the angel Satan against the Father who created him.   

 (8)  Hushai said, “You know that your father and his men are mighty men, and that they are enraged, like a bear robbed of her cubs in the field. Besides, your father is expert in war; he will not spend the night with the people.  (9)  Behold, even now he has hidden himself in one of the pits or in some other place. And as soon as some of the people fall at the first attack, whoever hears it will say, ‘There has been a slaughter among the people who follow Absalom.’  (10)  Then even the valiant man, whose heart is like the heart of a lion, will utterly melt with fear, for all Israel knows that your father is a mighty man, and that those who are with him are valiant men.  (11)  But my counsel is that all Israel be gathered to you, from Dan to Beersheba, as the sand by the sea for multitude, and that you go to battle in person.  (12)  So we shall come upon him in some place where he is to be found, and we shall light upon him as the dew falls on the ground, and of him and all the men with him not one will be left.  (13)  If he withdraws into a city, then all Israel will bring ropes to that city, and we shall drag it into the valley, until not even a pebble is to be found there.”   

Note what words Hushai uses:  mighty (v.8), valiant (v.10), lion-hearted (v.10), valiant (again – v.10).  And under Hushai’s counsel where David and his men are portrayed positively powerful despite being exiled, what is equally important behind Hushai’s loyal words (to David and his men) is explained in v.14: 

(14)  And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, “The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel.” For the LORD had ordained to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, so that the LORD might bring harm upon Absalom.   

The key purpose of Absalom receiving Hushai’s counsel is “so that the LORD might bring harm upon Absalom”.  Through the going out of the false king, only then can the true king return from death.  This imagery is thoroughly carried forward into the passing over of the fords of the wilderness in v.16.  Yet, before we reach the passing of the fords, we come to see a stark imagery of the two sons of Zadok the priest, Jonathan and Ahimaaz, being forced to hide inside a well though they were waiting beside one (En-rogel).  In the providence of God, we see here a picture of the priestly sons hidden in the depth of the earth, in the well, and ascending out of the well to deliver the implied message behind this imagery of baptism (v.16-21). 

 (22)  Then David arose, and all the people who were with him, and they crossed the Jordan. By daybreak not one was left who had not crossed the Jordan.  (23)  When Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his donkey and went off home to his own city. He set his house in order and hanged himself, and he died and was buried in the tomb of his father.  (24)  Then David came to Mahanaim. And Absalom crossed the Jordan with all the men of Israel.  (25)  Now Absalom had set Amasa over the army instead of Joab. Amasa was the son of a man named Ithra the Ishmaelite, who had married Abigal the daughter of Nahash, sister of Zeruiah, Joab’s mother.  (26)  And Israel and Absalom encamped in the land of Gilead.  (27)  When David came to Mahanaim, Shobi the son of Nahash from Rabbah of the Ammonites, and Machir the son of Ammiel from Lo-debar, and Barzillai the Gileadite from Rogelim,  (28)  brought beds, basins, and earthen vessels, wheat, barley, flour, parched grain, beans and lentils,  (29)  honey and curds and sheep and cheese from the herd, for David and the people with him to eat, for they said, “The people are hungry and weary and thirsty in the wilderness.” 

And so, upon David’s crossing of the Jordan (v.22 onwards), we see a physical portrayal of Romans 6:3-5: 

Rom 6:3-5  Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  (4)  We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.  (5)  For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 

David, taking the first step crossing through the waters of the Jordan is leading his men further away from the Promised Land; and yet, in doing so, Hushai’s counsel may be fulfilled that Absalom and his men may too walk this path of death.  Yet, unlike Jonathan and Ahimaaz who had ascended out of the well just as David and his men do not plan to stay on the outer side of Jordan, so also Absalom and his men shall be ‘baptised’ into the death of Christ (v.24) but not rise with Him for they planned to murder the King of the true church and try to force the bride into Satan’s hand.  This is the true picture of the crossing of the Jordan, in direct contrast with the first picture of crossing the Jordan into the Promised Land in Joshua 3.   

And it is in immediate response to this picture of death-baptism that Ahithophel saw that his counsel was defeated – the result of which is death, not only of king Absalom but also indirectly of himself.  His action of suicide is merely an action of receiving his firstfruit of death which is inevitable as he understood the meaning behind Absalom and his men crossing the waters of Jordan.  He is but a precursor to Judas – this man, who once walked alongside David as his counselor (2 Samuel 15:12) but like Judas has not recognized that the true David’s victory will bring life even to the rejected Judas and Ahithophel.  Rather than side with the children of light, he would rather remain in darkness as both men hang themselves in shame – and above all, in persistent disbelief that Jesus is a greater king of redemption than the satanic Absalom.   

Even this can be seen in the fellowship of Absalom and the fellowship of David and his men – Christ is all about feasting: evangelism and spiritual warfare are but tools of the period of the wilderness.  In faith, hope and love, the greatest of these three is love (1 Corinthians 13:13), for in new creation our pinnacle source of joy is partaking in the intra-trinitarian love of the Three Persons.  David is brought food from the rejected (v.27-29) – the pastureless (Lodebar); the inbreds (Ammonites); and the fullers (‘tramping’ the cloth in washing – Rogelim) – and yet, this is at the very place which Jacob called God’s camp – Mahanaim (v.24 c.f. Genesis 32:2).    How beautiful it is that the LORD would eat with us in the wilderness, to serve and be served in the wilderness, despite the ravenous wolves trying to persecute Him and kill Him?  What a stark contrast between the suicide of Ahithophel and the calmness of the loving fellowship of David and his men?  This is the beauty of the Trinitarian family and the love of God transcending even the evil counsel of Ahithophel (and the oath of Saul which was poorly made when the men were hungry – c.f. 1 Samuel 14:26-27) and turning his counsel into one which is ironically true.  For it is indeed in the death of Absalom, the evil king, that the bride will return to David, the true king.