NOTES ON THE INTERNATIONAL LESSON.
By W. N. Glenn
THE rebellion of Absalom was a marked incident in the reign of David, and the causes which combined to bring about such a state of affairs are worthy the attention of all who profess to serve God. Willful, ungrateful, and disobedient as Absalom was, it is evident that the foundation of the trouble was laid by the king himself. DAVID had taken to himself many wives, which was strictly forbidden on the part of those who should become kings when they should come into the land of Canaan. Deut. 17:17. He had taken a heathen woman for a wife, the daughter of a neighboring king, probably to gain some political advantage. Such alliances have always been fatal to the servants of God, having led directly to the destruction of the world by the flood; to the loss of part of Lot's family in Sodom; to the overthrow of Samson, Solomon, Ahab, and many others, even to this day. Absalom was the son of this heathen wife. Another prolific source of trouble arose from the king's weakening character through his many carnal indulgences. As a consequence the duties of his office were sadly neglected. He disregarded the wants of the people, and failed to adjust their causes of complaint between each other. He himself ceased to “sit in the gate,” as was the custom of Eastern kings, and there was no one deputed to administer justice, and the people were no doubt justly dissatisfied with his growing selfishness and neglect of their interests. He had also pampered Absalom, and allowed him, after a long banishment from his presence, to force his439way into favor through an act of gross incendiary (chap. 14: 28-33), without any manifestation of penitence. Thus did the once noble and beloved king gradually yield his control and lose the respect and allegiance of the people—the sad result of “sowing to the flesh.” ABSALOM had no qualification for a king, but was well adapted to the work of raising an insurrection. He was of fine personal appearance, and possessed a suavity of manner calculated to captivate the multitude. He sought the good-will of the people, but not for their good; he worked through deception for his own aggrandizement. He was a typical politician, and it was a merciful providence that prevented his success, although the measure of punishment meted out to his father was merited. “It must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” Matt. 18: 7. Absalom’s total unfitness for a king is manifested in various points. Such an attempt to overthrow and even murder his father was a flagrant violation of the fifth commandment, that could never secure the approval of God. His manner of judging was very deficient; he told every one, “Thy matters are good and right,” without hearing the other side. He longed to be a judge in Israel, without regard to his incapacity. As Matthew Henry said, “Those commonly are most ambitious of preferment that are least fit for it; the best qualified are the most modest and self-diffident.” His flattery of the people, and his hypocritical religious pretension crown him as a schemer without one redeeming quality; but he has many characteristic counterparts in the political world to-day, kissing the people and paying vows to the Lord merely to gain honor and profit for themselves. NEXT to Absalom himself, the most influential character in the rebellion was Ahithophel, David’s principal counselor. His position and acknowledged wisdom had great weight in the nation, and nothing appears to have disturbed the king more than his complicity in the traitorous plot. David, feeling the weight of his former counselor’s opposition, earnestly besought the Lord that Ahithophel’s counsel might be turned into foolishness. It can hardly be said that, from a military stand-point, Ahithophel’s advice to Absalom was foolish; but “Absalom and all Israel” were moved to accept the counter advice of Hushai, David’s friend in disguise, and thus the king gained advantage. “For the Lord had appointed to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the Lord might bring evil upon Absalom.” Chap. 17: 14. Here is a striking example of how God can “destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent” (1 Cor. 1: 19), when they are arrayed against his designs. And it is just so regarding the truths of the gospel; they are hidden from the wise and prudent and revealed unto babes. Matt. 11: 25; see also Isa. 29: 13-16, and 1 Cor. 1: 26. Verily, “the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.” Ahithophel is regarded by some commentators as a type of Judas, who betrayed the Saviour. However this may be to a certain extent, there is a limit to the parallel—Ahithophel was grandfather to Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, and had personal reason to be disgusted with the king’s course, although not therefore excusable for taking part in the rebellion. DAVID evidently understood to some extent why this evil had been permitted to come upon him, and he humbly submitted himself and his servants to the fate of a flight, in order to save the city from the consequences of an attack on his account. Kitto says: “The conduct of David throughout, his goodness, resignation, and patience, is clearly evinced in all these trying scenes.” And Dr. Chalmers observes: “This marks strongly his subdued and right spirit, partly induced, we doubt not, by the conscious humility of his own transgressions. He fell, but it was the fall of the upright, and he rose again, submitting himself meekly, in the meantime, to the will of God.” The third psalm is inscribed as “A psalm of David when he fled from Absalom his son.” Though the child of God may stumble and fall, he will ever be, like David, submissive to reproof and to whatever punishment the Lord may impose upon him. David never resented the censure of Heaven, and was ever willing to fall into the hands of the Lord and trust to his mercy. See chapter 24: 14. In this especially is he an example for the Christian, who should at all times be thankful for that reproof or correction which to the Lord seemeth necessary for his protection against his own wrong inclinations, or the temptations of the enemy.