All posts by randymccracken

I am a teacher at Calvary Chapel Bible College York and the author of "Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel".

Tel Megiddo

 

 Tel Megiddo

Model of Tel-Megiddo
Model of Tel Megiddo

Did you know that recent excavations at Tel Megiddo have uncovered a massive Canaanite temple complex that dates to the 4th millenium BC (3500-3000)? This is an extraordinary find as archaeologists believed that Canaan during this period only consisted of small towns and villages with cities only apprearing in the early 3rd millenium. The details of this find and its interesting ramifications can be found at the Biblical Archaeology Society’s website (biblicalarchaeology.org). Unfortunately, you may need to have a membership to view the article, but you can also see a brief report by one of the excavators at the following site: Revelations from Megiddo.

The photo of the Canaanite altar below (the round stone structure in the middle of the picture) gives bible readers an idea of what a Canaanite altar looked like and the enormity of its size.

Canaanite altar and temple complex area at Tel Megiddo. Photo from 2006. Recent excavations have exposed more of this area.
Canaanite altar and temple complex area at Tel Megiddo. Photo from 2006. Recent excavations have exposed more of this area.

But some of you might say I’ve gotten ahead of myself. What is so important about Tel Megiddo anyway? Tel Megiddo is most popularly known by the name given in Revelation 16:16 – “Armageddon” (mountain of Megiddo), the place where the last battle is to be fought between the Lord and his enemies (But see my more recent article entitled: Where Will the Battle of Armageddon Be Fought? for a different solution!). Actually Tel Megiddo has experienced many battles over the centuries, and even though the city was destroyed in the 4th-5th century BC, battles have continued to be fought in its vicinity up to modern times (this includes Napolean, and General Allenby’s battle with the Turks in 1917 during WWI).

History at Tel-Megiddo

Tel Megiddo’s location at the head of the Jezreel Valley guarding the way of the Via Maris (way by the Sea), the ancient trading route between Mesopotamia and Egypt, made it a key player in international politics in ancient times. Archaeologists have uncovered between 20-25 layers (depending who you read!) of civilization spanning 6 millenia.

This photo shows an example of the number of layers of ancient Megiddo
This photo shows an example of the number of civilization layers at Tel Megiddo

Although Joshua initially defeated the king of Megiddo (Josh. 12:21), Megiddo did not fall under Israelite control until probably the time of David. The Bible tells us that Solomon fortified Megiddo and made it one of his royal cities (1 Kgs. 9:15). Although some dispute this, many scholars believe that the remains of the northern palace and the city gates can be dated to Solomon’s building activity.

Remains of the northern palace at Megiddo
Remains of the northern palace at Tel Megiddo
The gate complex at Megiddo
The gate complex at Tel Megiddo

Megiddo is also the place where two kings of Judah died. The ungodly Ahaziah died there after being wounded by King Jehu of Israel (2 Kgs. 9:27), while the godly King Josiah was killed in battle as he attempted to block Pharaoh Neco who was advancing to help the Assyrians against the Babylonians at Carchemish (Syria) in 609 BC (2 Kgs. 23:29-30; 2 Chron. 35:20-24).

The Ever-Changing Nature of Archaeology

There are a number of excellent websites that have more thorough articles on Megiddo such as the Jewish Virtual Library (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org), or you can just google “Megiddo.” My purpose here is first, to introduce people to this interesting site, and most importantly, to show how new excavations continue to transform knowledge in the field of archaeology. Some archaeologists will assert that archaeological data frequently contradicts the biblical account. But archaeology is an ever-changing field as new discoveries are made. No one thought that ancient Canaan of the 4th millenium had any significant cities. This recent discovery changes a former archaeological dogma into what is now known to be an incorrect assumption. There are thousands of ancient mounds yet to be investigated with the archaeologist’s spade, not to mention the fact that even those sites that are being  (have been) excavated are only partially uncovered. This research is incredibly exciting, as new information is constantly being uncovered about the world of the Bible, but with so much more to yet discover, we should also be cautious about accepting as solid fact, every theory that is offered by archaeologists.

Next time I will look at a site (Tel-Qayifa), and a discovery from another site (an inscription from Tel-Dan), that has challenged liberal archaeological theories concerning the nonexistence of David and a Davidic kingdom.

(All photos by Randy & Gloria McCracken. Permission is granted to use these photos free of charge for educational purposes only)

Teach the Text Commentary on 1&2 Samuel

Teach the Text Commentary on 1&2 Samuel

1&2 Samuel Teach the Text Commentary Series
1&2 Samuel Teach the Text Commentary Series

Robert B. Chisholm Jr., 1&2 Samuel, Teach the Text Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013).

General Observations on the Teach the Text Commentary Series

The “Teach the Text Commentary Series” was commissioned to help the busy pastor and to fill a void in commentaries that are both scholarly, and yet practical. The aim is to present the “big picture” of a biblical book by dividing it “into carefully selected preaching units, each covered in six pages” (p. ix). There are 5 main areas of focus within these 6 pages: 1) Big Idea; 2) Key Themes; 3) Understanding the Text (this is the longest section including such subjects as context, outline, historical and cultural background, interpretive insights, and theology); 4) Teaching the Text; and 5) Illustrating the Text (pp. xi-xii). It is important to keep this structure and the necessary restrictions in mind when evaluating each commentary in this series.

Such an approach is clearly not intended to be exhaustive. So is there room for a commentary series with this more generalized approach? I believe there is. My own classroom teaching experience has demonstrated to me the need for students to gain the “big picture” of a biblical book. It is important to be able to summarize the main themes and key ideas of a book. Oftentimes people read or study a biblical book and have no idea of how to summarize its main message(s). The “Big Idea” and “Key Themes” features of this series go a long way in aiding the reader to achieve this goal. Therefore, the structure of the Teach the Text Commentary series is not only helpful to the pastor, who may be consulting it for his weekly sermon, it is also beneficial for the beginning student.

Before making specific remarks on Chisholm’s 1&2 Samuel commentary, I would also like to add that the “Teach the Text Commentary Series” is attractively presented. Each hardback volume is printed on heavy-duty paper which is ideal for the many helpful maps, photos, and illustrations contained in each commentary.

Comments on 1&2 Samuel Commentary

Chisholm begins his commentary on 1&2 Samuel with a brief 7-page introduction. He summarizes these books by noting the three main characters (Samuel, Saul, and David) and by stating, “David is the focal point of the story” (p.1). Saul acts as a foil to David, while “Samuel’s support of David becomes foundational to the narrator’s defense of David” (pp. 1-2). The high point of the book is the Lord’s covenant with David, securing his dynasty and proving faithful even in the midst of David’s sin. Chisholm divides 1&2 Samuel into 7 sections based on “its major plot movements, revolving around the theme of kingship” (p. 4). His outline is as follows: 1) Prelude to Kingship (1 Sam. 1-7); 2) Kingship inaugurated (1 Sam. 8-12); 3) Kingship Fails (1 Sam. 13-15); 4) Kingship in Limbo (1 Sam. 16-31); 5) Kingship Revived (2 Sam. 1-10); 6) Kingship Threatened and Preserved (2 Sam. 11-20); and 7) Epilogue (2 Sam. 21-24). One potential weakness is that this outline is not clearly delineated in the commentary that follows. Perhaps Chisholm’s reason for ignoring this is because he does not find “clear-cut structural markers” in the text (p. 4), but sees the divisions above as related to plot development.

Chisholm packs a lot of information and insight into each 6-page unit of commentary. The information provided on historical and cultural background, though not found in every section, is very helpful for the beginning reader and student. Topics include foreign gods such as Baal or Dagon, divination, the Amalekites, or documents of the ancient Near East that have parallels with biblical material. This information enriches the presentation, as do the color photos that frequently accompany them. At times Chisholm includes side boxes that deal with special issues such as “The Problem of Genocide” or “The Legal Background of Tamar’s Request.”

Two characteristics of Chisholm’s exegesis that I found particularly helpful include his attention to certain words, and parallels and/or contrasts between biblical characters. Chisholm does an excellent job of paying attention to words or phrases found in 1&2 Samuel and demonstrating their connection with another incident in 1&2 Samuel (or the Former Prophets, meaning Joshua-2 Kings). For example, he notes that the expression “terror filled his heart” in 1 Samuel 28:5, in reference to Saul, only occurs one other time in 1-2 Samuel. It is found in the story of Eli’s demise as his “heart trembled over the fate of the ark of God” (p. 184). This kind of verbal connection suggests the author is comparing the circumstances of Saul and Eli. Similarly, Chisholm frequently points out similarities between incidents or characters in 1&2 Samuel with other biblical characters or incidents. One example is the similarities between the actions of Absalom in 2 Samuel 13-14 with Abimelech in Judges 9 (p. 252). This attention to biblical typology is extremely helpful when interpreting a narrative text (see my discussion in Family Portraits, p. 11).

Considering the constraints placed upon him by the commentary’s design (6 pages per literary unit), Chisholm’s overall treatment of the text of 1&2 Samuel is excellent. There is, however, one exception. Although 2 Samuel 2:1-5:5 can legitimately be viewed as a structural unit, treating it in the 6-page format does it a great injustice. This material is too important and too theologically rich to be skimmed over so briefly. Dividing this section by episodes, or even by chapters, would have been a better approach. This imbalance is all the more noticeable when the following section (2 Sam. 5:6-25), arguably less “meaty” than 2 Samuel 2-4, is given the full 6-page treatment. (For Chisholm’s reasoning on this see my interview with him which was conducted after this review.)

Perhaps the greatest challenge in writing a commentary of this kind is providing illustrations for the text. This is certainly a subjective task. Certain illustrations will ring true with some, while others will find them unhelpful. While I would not endorse the use of every illustration suggested in this commentary (and I’m sure the author would not expect me to! ), I do believe that Chisholm has done an admirable job in handling a difficult task (Another insight I learned from the interview with Chisholm was that he wasn’t responsible for any of this material). The editors themselves point out that this section of the commentary is intended to provide “general ideas” and to “serve as a catalyst for effectively illustrating the text” (p. xii).

In conclusion, Chisholm’s commentary achieves the aims of this series admirably. He is a scholar of high caliber and is a well-established expert on the entire corpus of the Former Prophets. Pastors, students, and others wanting to become grounded in the message of 1&2 Samuel will benefit greatly from this commentary. I used it for my own 1&2 Samuel class this past semester and will continue to do so in the future. I heartily recommend it to others.

(I am grateful to Baker Books for providing this copy of 1&2 Samuel, Teach the Text Commentary Series, in exchange for a balanced review).

Grace in 3D

Grace in 3D

Did you know that there is a depth of meaning to the word “grace” which is frequently overlooked by the modern church? In my last article, we noticed the connection between obedience and grace and I promised that we would further investigate the meaning of grace. Grace is often defined as “unmerited favor,” or “getting what I don’t deserve.” Although these are accurate definitions, they only communicate one aspect of the Greek word charis (grace).
We often find that a 3-dimensional representation of something is much more effective than simply seeing it in 2-dimensional form. Hence the popularity of new 3D movies and televisions. Similarly, it is disturbing to hear Christians speak of grace 1-dimensionally (the definition noted above), when in fact the New Testament authors’ usage encompasses more. Grace has been put on a diet by many well-meaning Christians and has lost its well-rounded meaning in favor of a more slimmed-down version. This is not done intentionally; it is usually the result of a lack of knowledge of the 1st century cultural context in which this word occurs. Recovering this context reveals that there are two other important aspects to the meaning of grace. Recapturing the 3-dimensional nature of this word, strengthens what is quickly becoming an anaemic theology of grace within the evangelical church, and, most importantly, allows us to walk more fully in the grace that God has bestowed.

Grace and Patronage

The Roman world of the 1st century was a world of limited goods. This means that a lot of things necessary for existence were in short supply. There were no shopping malls, large department stores, and there certainly was no eBay. This meant that people had to depend on others who could supply whatever their need might be. These people were called “patrons.”

Patronage (picture taken from http://www.coopertoons.com/merryhistory/martial/valeriusmartial.html)
Patronage (picture taken from http://www.coopertoons.com/merryhistory/martial/valeriusmartial.html)

Patronage was a way of life in the Roman world; everyone had one or more. Much can be learned from examining the concept of patronage, but, for our purposes, the most important thing is that the word “grace” was part of the everyday vocabulary. A patron was able to supply what I could never obtain on my own. This was called an act of grace, and it is the definition that we are most familiar with. For example, Paul talks about the “grace in which we stand” (Rom. 5:2) which we have received through God’s act of love in sending His Son to die for us “while we were still sinners” and “when we were [His] enemies” (Rom. 5:8, 10). Because of my sin, reconciliation with God is beyond my grasp. I don’t have the necessary resources in and of myself to make reconciliation possible, but Jesus, who lived a perfect life, does (Rom. 5:18-19). In Christ’s act on the cross I receive a forgiveness that I could never obtain on my own. That is grace, and it is the good news that was preached by the early church!
However, in the world of patronage, grace was much more than the act of giving what could never be earned, it was also the gift itself. Whether the gift was food, legal help, paying off debts, etc., it was called “grace.” There are a number of examples of this usage in the NT. For instance, when Paul writes, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23), the word “gift” in Greek is charisma––grace. When Paul is speaking of the “gifts” of the Spirit given to the church in Romans 12:6, the word he uses is charismata, from which we get our word “charismatic,” as in charismatic gifts. Therefore, grace is not only the act of giving; it is the gift itself.
Third, and most important for our discussion, the word grace includes the meaning of giving thanks. We still use it this way today. When we ask someone to “say grace” we mean, “Will you give thanks for the food?”

Grace and giving thanks
Grace and giving thanks

Our English word “grace” comes from the Latin gratia and has entered Spanish and Italian in the forms of gracias and gratze which mean “thanks.” All these words are derived from the Greek verb eucharisto (notice the word charis––see e.g., Rom. 1:8). The important point here, is that everyone in the Roman world who received “grace” (meaning both the undeserved act, as well as the gift) would expect to give “grace” (meaning “thanks”) in return. The Roman philosopher Seneca pictured grace as a dance between 3 sisters which consisted of the act of giving (grace), the gift received (grace), and the recipient giving thanks (grace) for the gift. As long as each one of these ingredients was present, the dance of grace continued in a flowing unbroken way. No honorable person (see my article on honor under “Cross-Examination”) would ever consider not returning thanks for the gift received. This means that, although a person could never pay for the grace given, they were expected to respond with gratitude. Grace begets grace!
If a person could never repay their patron for the grace they had received, then what did giving of thanks consist of? In the Roman world, gratitude was expressed in several different ways: 1) The recipient of grace would freely proclaim the name of his benefactor and tell everyone he came into contact with about the generosity of his patron. This increased the honor of his patron. 2) Each morning a person would appear before his patron and find out if there was anything he could do for him or her that day. 3) One would always be loyal to their patron, defending them against accusations, and even going to battle with them if necessary. These, and other actions, were ways in which an individual could express thanks (grace) for a gift (grace) they could never repay (grace).

The Complete Circle of Grace

Hopefully it is not hard to see the parallels for the Christian. The Christian has received a gift (grace), they don’t deserve and could never repay (grace). This is where modern conversations about grace frequently end, but biblically speaking it is not the end of the grace-conversation. Just because we can never repay what God has done for us in Christ, doesn’t mean that there is nothing for us to do! Like the people of the ancient world, we should continually give thanks to our Patron (God). We give thanks by praising His name, and by telling others about Him (this is worship and evangelism). We seek Him out each day to see what He would have us to do, and we defend His name and even go to battle with Him, if necessary. All of these responses are ways of saying “thank you” for a gift we can never repay. Notice that all of these responses involve acts of obedience! This is why a life lived “under grace” is an obedient life (Rom. 6:14-23––see last week’s article). Why settle for a 1 or 2-dimensional view of grace when we can, and should, have it in 3D! For the doctrinal health of the church we need to restore this biblical 3D portrait of grace to our modern theology. Like love and marriage, grace and obedience go hand in hand.

Many of my insights on patronage and grace are indebted to David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture. Please check out his book on this link from amazon.

The Difference Between Legalism and Obedience (Romans 5-8)

The Difference Between Legalism and Obedience (Romans 5-8)

Did you know that Christians are called to be slaves of obedience? Many today resist this notion. It sounds too legalistic or works oriented. In fact, at first glance, it doesn’t sound appealing at all. Slavery suggests domination and control. We in the western world desire to promote freedom and don’t want to be enslaved to anyone or anything. Even Christians will quickly point to Paul’s admonition: “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1–ESV). We will also point out, and rightly so, that Christians are “saved by grace through faith…not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9). The Bible’s affirmation that we are saved by grace through faith, is an important teaching that sets Christianity apart from other world religions which often emphasize earning God’s favor through good works. However, this important distinction, along with a fear of sounding “legalistic” has caused some to shy away from the important biblical teaching on obedience. This article examines the difference between legalism and obedience.

Slaves of Obedience

The same apostle (Paul) who told the Galatians to stand firm in their freedom and not submit to a yoke of slavery, also tells the Romans that those who have come to Christ have become slaves of obedience and righteousness (Rom. 6:16, 18). In fact, the context in which Paul uses these phrases concerns his discussion that Christians are under grace, not under the law (Rom. 6:14-15). However, Paul maintains that the grace that we as Christians are under was achieved by one Man’s (Jesus’) righteous act (Rom. 5:18). Paul describes this act as an act of obedience that will make many righteous (Rom. 5:19). This obedient act that brings righteousness to many is the death of Jesus on the cross (Rom. 6:3-10). But Jesus did not stay dead; he was resurrected by the Father (Rom. 6:5, 9, 10). The example left by Jesus is therefore one of obedience through death which brings righteousness and life (Rom. 5:21).

obedience
Paul connects these same key words (obedience, death, righteousness, and life) with what happens to people who give their lives to Christ. First, we die with Christ and our old man is crucified (Rom. 6:3-6). Therefore, we are to reckon ourselves as dead (Rom. 6:11). Sin no longer has control over a dead person (Rom. 6:14). By this death, we are not only set free from sin, we are also imitating the obedience of Jesus who obediently went to the cross (Phil. 2:8). By grace we are transferred from the reign of sin to the reign of obedience leading to righteousness (Rom. 6:16). This is not to infer that our obedience makes us righteous; rather, it is the obedience of Jesus (his death) that makes us righteous (Rom. 5:18). But our decision to die with Christ is a form of obedience which produces the fruit of righteousness (Rom. 6:22). Thus, our lives become a mirror image of our Savior and of the gospel message! It would be a supreme contradiction if those who were delivered from sin continued to let sin reign (Rom. 6:1-2), and those who gave their lives to the Obedient One, refused to be obedient! Therefore, obedience is a natural outcome of grace and this is also why Paul speaks of “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26–ESV). This grace is enhanced through the gift of the Holy Spirit which enables us to live obediently so “that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:4–NKJV).

Legalism and Obedience Contrasted

On the other hand, Paul contrasts the obedient life of righteousness produced by grace with the life of sin under the law. This is because the law arouses sinful passions which lead to death (7:5). Although the law itself is good (7:12), sin takes advantage of the law through the weakness of our flesh and produces disobedience (7:8-15). This often comes in the form of hypocrisy by judging others while we practice the same things (Rom. 2:1-5; 21-24). This is why Paul can state that those under the law are lawless (6:19)! Legalism1This is the difference between legalism and true obedience. Legalism is proud and self-righteous (10:3), and results in robbing God of His glory (1:21). Obedience demonstrates humility through dying to self and surrendering control to God, which gives Him the glory. Simply put: legalism is the result of a hard heart, while obedience is the result of a humble heart.
In conclusion, the word “reign” is used frequently by Paul in Romans 5:12-6:23. Paul indicates that we will be ruled by something (much as Bob Dylan said years ago, “You Gotta Serve Somebody”). We will either be ruled by sin, or by obedience and righteousness––there are no other options. The problem is that we are not stronger than our desires. If we try to maintain our autonomy, we will become the pawn of sin. But if, on the other hand, we surrender our lives and die with Christ, we will find true freedom through a life of obedience. In the end, what we are ruled by determines our eternal outcome (5:21; 6:23), and that is the difference between legalism and obedience.
In our next article, I will look more closely at the meaning of grace.

Important or Impotent: How Many Sons Did Absalom Have?

Important or Impotent: How Many Sons Did Absalom Have?

Did you know that 2 Samuel 14:27 states that Absalom had 3 sons, but in 2 Samuel 18:18 Absalom says that he has no son? In the previous article on Absalom’s hair I pointed out this apparent contradiction and promised to offer an explanation. The easiest way of explaining away the contradiction (frequently suggested by commentators) is that Absalom’s sons must have died prematurely. I believe this whitewashes the problem (the text gives no hint that the sons died) and obscures what the biblical author is seeking to accomplish.

Writing Technique in 1&2 Samuel

The author(s) of 1&2 Samuel seems to be fond of using inconsistencies in the story as a literary technique that causes the reader to pause and reconsider something stated earlier in the narrative. There are numerous examples of this, but perhaps the best is when Saul was commanded to wipe out Israel’s enemy, the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:1-3).

Samuel slays Agag
Samuel slays Agag

Although the story makes clear that Saul is disobedient in sparing the king of the Amalekites, Agag (15:9), he appears to be the only human survivor. Subsequently, he is put to death by Samuel (15:33), which seems to put an end to all of the Amalekites. However, in the chapters surrounding the death of Saul, we are not only reminded that he was disobedient by not wiping out the Amalekites (1 Sam. 28:18), but Amalekites appear all over the place! (1 Sam. 27:8; 30:1-18; 2 Sam. 1:8, 13). This often puzzles readers, and may appear contradictory. In fact, it is a masterful way of surprising the reader and driving home the message that Saul was far more disobedient than we realized!
This same writing technique is at work in the two statements about Absalom’s sons (or lack thereof). The first important observation is to notice where these statements occur. The author uses the two statements about Absalom’s children (2 Sam. 14:27; 18:18) to bracket the account of Absalom’s rebellion. As discussed in the last article, the notice about Absalom’s hair and children, is a statement of power and virility. It causes the reader to think of him as a mighty warrior and a formidable foe. The second statement (“I have no son”) occurs immediately after Absalom’s death and burial, and metaphorically reveals the truth of the matter: Absalom was not a mighty warrior, nor a real threat to the kingdom. He was not as important as he appeared; in fact, he was impotent.

Isn’t There Still a Contradiction About How Many Sons Absalom Had?

While this might seem like a plausible explanation as far as the literary technique goes, it still leaves the obvious questions: so exactly how many sons did Absalom have, and aren’t the two passages still contradictory? The answer to these questions is found in examining the two texts carefully. 2 Sam. 14:27 is an objective statement by the biblical narrator that Absalom had 3 sons and 1 daughter. A fundamental rule of biblical interpretation is: you can trust the biblical narrator because he always tells the truth (see my book Family Portraits, p. 9 for a brief discussion on this point). Therefore, we can be confident that Absalom did indeed have 3 sons and 1 daughter.
Notice, however, that the statement about having no son in 2 Sam. 18:18 is not made by the narrator, but by Absalom himself. Could Absalom be wrong? This hardly seems likely. Absalom would surely know how many sons he has, and so would all who know him, therefore, this too must be an accurate statement. But if the narrator and Absalom contradict each other, how can they both be right? I suggest we are asking the wrong question. The important question is not “how many sons,” but rather, at what time in his life did Absalom make this assertion? Although the narrator puts this statement after Absalom’s death and burial, it is clear that it happened  at some point in Absalom’s past. The author is merely reporting it posthumously. 2 Sam. 18:18 is actually very vague about when Absalom uttered these words. It simply says, “in his lifetime.” In other words, Absalom’s statement is taken from some unspecified time in his life. The statement should not be viewed chronologically, as if it had to have occurred after the observation in 2 Sam. 14:27. This can mean that when Absalom initially uttered it, it was true. In fact, it is obvious from this statement that Absalom used having no son as a justification for erecting a monument to himself. Later on, however, he fathers 3 sons and a daughter. So Absalom ends up with the best of both worlds: He gets a monument to himself plus, later on, 3 sons and a daughter!

Absalom appears important by having 50 men run alongside his chariot
Absalom appears important by having 50 men run alongside his chariot

This recognition reveals the hypocrisy of Absalom. A character study demonstrates that he is a master at making things appear other than they really are (see chapter 24 in Family Portraits).
The biblical author cleverly captures this by taking Absalom’s statement about not having a son out of its chronological context (which he tells us he is doing by the statement, “in his lifetime”) and putting it at the end of his life. The reader notices the contradiction between 14:27 and 18:18 and, by carefully examining the passages, concludes that Absalom is not what he appears to be. Absalom’s humiliating death and burial become conclusive proof of this fact, and all those who were beguiled by his charm and good looks now appear foolish. The message is sobering: we may be able to mask who we really are for awhile, but at some point, whether in life or in death, the truth will ultimately be revealed. Better to be honest and real while we live. Better to live with integrity, than to allow death to unmask the ugly truth about us. Thank heaven for a God who sees and accepts us just as we are, if we are only willing to remove the mask and let Him in.