LESSON FOURTEEN - ACCOUNTABILITY, A KEY TO

PERSONAL CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

Introduction: We are to “tell the truth in love,” “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ,” and obey scriptures’ teaching for when someone is overtaken in a fault. This emphasis suggests we are to be accountable to each other and help each other grow. But, in recent years we have almost exclusively emphasized comfort, mercy, tolerance, compassion, empathy, and sympathy. It is good to understand those softer virtues—but we have applied them inappropriately. According to scripture, we are to confront, hold people accountable, and help each other grow in character. Judgment “begins in the household of God.” We have produced a generation of comfortable Christians whose life- style and standards of behavior are not much different from the world’s. We have not grown in personal character as we could have.

The Bible interprets the Bible. Every text must be interpreted in view of what is said in the rest of the Bible. This helps us avoid extremes. Consider fasting in view of what the Bible says about feasting. Consider mercy in view of what the Bible says about accountability, justice and the correction of each other. Here we will address accountability, not because mercy is not biblical, but because undue emphasis on only mercy denies us the accountability we need to grow in personal character as God would have us.

Second Samuel chapters 13 – 19 discuss very interesting history full of ethical lessons for believers. David’s son, Amnon, raped Tamar, David’s daughter by another wife by whom he also bore Absalom—Absalom and Tamar were siblings; Absalom then killed Amnon and feared to return to Jerusalem. Absalom, did, however, return to the capitol, stole the hearts of Israel, and marched against his father’s armies, whereupon David nobly fled rather than see bloodshed in Jerusalem; David humbly loved his rebellious son right up to Absalom’s death; David is eventually restored to Jerusalem. We pick up the story in chapter 14 where a pivotal tactical error occurs—David does not hold his son accountable, but is soft on crime.

II Samuel 14

I BANISHMENT

Joab knew how the land lay, that David is thinking of the brilliant, but good for nothing Absalom and devised a clever story sufficiently like the real situation and put it in the mouth of a widow who could receive pity from David. The widow pled that the “only burning coal” in her hand would not be “put out” (vs.7). The king’s sympathy was aroused, as a merciful king, who gave his word and then his oath that the offender should be safe. The woman had David in a trap—since he has promised to waive justice and absolve her guilty son.

The wise woman’s saying went deep into the heart of the king. She turned the king’s oath against him and required him to bring back his own guilty and unrepentant son. She implied that human power is most noble when penalties are abandoned and wanderers are restored.

Now, lay aside the metaphor of the widow’s “two sons” and Absalom as well. Who are the banished? This woman laid to heart the great, awful truth that sin results in separation from God. They are not necessarily glaring criminals, but the whole human race is included. As Cain was banished, and had taken flight, now Absalom had taken flight and was banished. So all of us in the human race generally, and from time to time each of us individually, are both banished and take flight from the presence of a holy God who loves righteousness and hates evil. We cannot be blessedly and peacefully close to God unless we are also far from sin.

God’s love will never abandon us, so He is always available, but our sin interferes. Two flat polished plates of metal can adhere, can be close, but if there is sand between, they are not comfortable together; they grate against each other. So our sin separates us from God. He resists our sin and we flee from his holiness. We are both at flight and banished, and both of these conditions are self-inflicted—they are our fault.

David’s dilemma: David was Absalom’s king and had to consider law and justice, but David was also Absalom’s father and his heart cried out for his son. A banished son is still a son for whom the loving father yearns. Only the redeemed are true “sons of God,” since only in a broader sense, the heavenly father—like David—yearns for fellowship with His banished sons and daughters and designed a way to satisfy His own sense of justice and restore them to himself—to make them true sons and daughters.

God’s love moves around the worst, the most unworthy, the most rebellious in the far-off land, and does not desire the death of the banished sinner, but rather that he would turn from his sin, repent, and live—not only have life, but life abundant. There are some here whom God wants to restore.

II MEANS

In the woman’s parable, she says in verse 14 that “he (God) devises ways so that a banished person may not remain estranged from him.” God works to restore the banished, to heal the relationship. He not only brings the son geographically from one place to another, but psychologically, emotionally and relationally turns hearts toward, instead of away, from each other. And he deals effectively with the issue that originally produced the banishment. It was a major task that required God to “devise ways.” David did it, but did it poorly. God did it and did it right—it cost’s Jesus’ life.

But there is a problem – The whole drift of popular thinking today goes in the direction of a superficial and easy gospel – “Oh, of course, God forgives. Isn’t God, love? Is not God, our Father?” People forget that there are formidable obstacles to even divine forgiveness. The gospel, which says “God will pardon, of course!” sounds very charitable, but at the bottom is very cruel. Why?

People are right in believing that certainly God must pardon, but are fatally wrong in not recognizing that the only kind of forgiveness He can give is also consistent with His just laws. It means a great deal whether a man seeks to be good or bad. God’s pardon is not a mere good natured winking at transgression. If that were the case, the judge is condemned when the guilty is acquitted.

David, therefore, struck a fatal blow to his family and kingdom’s judicial system when he weakly let his son off without a penalty. And God too—if we could imagine this—would destroy the justice on which His kingdom is built were He to lightly forgive with a kind of weak love that indulged the sinner with no requirement of repentance. The story before us illustrates that not every act of mercy makes a man better.

The Absalom who experienced shallow-grace came back unsoftened, without one touch of gratitude toward his father in his base heart, without the least gleam of a better nature dawning upon him, and went flaunting about the court until his viciousness culminated in his unnatural rebellion. The pardon we receive must entail an element which will change our wills and desires from evil—we call it “conversion”—or we will need the pardon again too soon. Superficial notions of our sins are contented with superficial remedies.

If once we feel ourselves struggling in the black flood of sin’s awful river, we need a firmer anchor on the bank than is given by some rootless tree or other. We must clutch something that will withstand a strong pull, if we are to be drawn from the muddy waters.

God had to “devise ways.” Even God cannot—especially God cannot—by an arbitrary act pardon a sinful man. His nature and law forbid it. Even God had to devise means—and the very one who was alone qualified to take vengeance, took it not, but found a remedy. “Love found a way to redeem my soul, Love found a way that could make me whole; Love sent my Lord to the cross of shame, Love found a way, O praise his holy name.” Love did not just forgive; it found a way to justly forgive. Payment of the penalty was made by Jesus and if we only repent we receive our pardon. David’s problem was not that he forgave, but that he forgave without requiring repentance.

It appears that Joab—also a murderer—may have had a wrong motive for seeking favor with Absalom. If Absalom owed Joab a favor, Joab would stand a chance of remaining commander of the armies were Abaslom to rule instead of David. Both Joab and Absalom were rascals. Motives to be merciful can be ulterior. The rascal, Joab, seized an opportunity to give undue mercy because he wanted eventually to receive undue mercy. True biblical mercy, however, has elements of penalty paid, repentance, conversion, and genuine restoration. Absalom’s restoration had none of those elements.

III PARABLES

There is a similarity in the tactic of Joab and that of Nathan who both told David a parable. Both times, when David pronounced judgment, he was caught in his own words.

David was influenced by parables. One was given by the Lord through Nathan, truthful and uncomplimentary, which produced repentance in David; the other by Joab, deceitful and complimentary, which produced a poor decision of leniency for Absalom. One brought great blessing; the other, brought great trouble in his family; one aroused him to do what he ought to do—repent of his sin with Bathsheba, the other gave the king an excuse to do what he wished to do—be lenient toward Absalom.

But notice the dissimilarities between the son in the story and the real son, Absalom. Her son did it without malice or intent, in hasty passion in a field. Absalom had held a grudge, had his men kill his brother maliciously in his home as his brothers sat at the table together with many witnesses. She had only one son. David had many. Furthermore, she claims that “We must die” (vs. 14). But this was not true. David had other sons including recently born Jedidiah, a name God gave Solomon, which means loved of God. Yet David was persuaded by her faulty logic.

Three years in exile was followed by two years of house arrest without seeing the king. In both the three and the two-year periods, Absalom was treated better than he deserved. Yet his spirit was not humbled, his pride not mortified and instead of being thankful that his life was spared, he thought himself sorely wronged that he was not restored to the grandeurs of the King’s court.

IV APPEARANCE

In vs. 25 & 26 Absalom is described as handsome, but we read nothing of his devotion, wisdom, or having a heart toward God. To be handsome is poor commendation for a person with nothing else commending him. Many a polluted, deformed soul dwells in a good-looking, well built, and handsome body. Handsome Absalom’s was polluted with blood and deformed with desire for his brother’s life and his father’s throne. In his body was no blemish, but his mind and spirit were bruised, twisted, wounded, and ambitious. Pity the parent who raises handsome sons and beautiful daughters who know nothing of virtue, honesty, work, courtesy, and character. These are virtues that are truly handsome and beautiful.

The ancients were accustomed to give much care to hair. Curiously, David promised the widow that, “not one hair of your son’s head will fall to the ground.” By interesting contrast to the fictitious son in the widow’s parable, Absalom, David’s own son, had rich luxurious hair that was cut annually, and weighed about three pounds each time. So luxurious was Absalom’s hair that when doing battle against his father’s army riding his mule through the forest, that luxurious hair was caught in a tree and, in contrast to David’s promise that the widow’s son’s hair would not fall to the ground, would not let Absalom down to the ground in safety, but rather hung him up. Absalom was caught by his lovely hair and Joab thrust three javelins into his heart as he hung on the oak tree. Cursed beautiful hair! Outward appearance has no comparison with inward character.

A fair body is also a gift of God, but what does physical beauty help, if there is no fair soul living on the inside? On the other hand, a deformed and ugly man who has beauty of soul is worth much in the sight of God. The Lord looks at the heart.

V WEAKNESS (THAT LOOKED LIKE MERCY)

Absalom pretended to love and want to see the king’s face, but actually he wanted to supplant him. He cannot do his father mischief until he is restored to him. This snake cannot sting again until he is close enough to strike.

Absalom’s character is shown in that, instead of treating Joab kindly, he forces Joab’s attention by burning his fields. Sampson could think of no worse thing to do to his enemies than to burn their fields and Absalom does this to the very one who had helped him return from banishment. Absalom’s character of haughty revenge was shown in setting the field on fire.

Notice verse 32 where Absalom’s speech had words that sounded good to the loving, dotting, and forgiving father. “I want to see the king’s face and if I am guilty of anything let him put me to death.” In fact, the opposite was true. See how easily wise and good men may be imposed upon by their own children that design ill, especially when they are blindly fond of them. Absalom’s words and bowing (vs.33) testifies to his sincerity, but his heart was far from it. Absalom is unrepentant and with savage defiance challenges his father to either kill him or release him.

David, at first, did not grant a full pardon. He still remembered Absalom’s murder of his brother Amnon and Absalom had given no hint of repentance. Yet David was already guilty of (1) weakness in not punishing Amnon for raping Tamar and then (2) not punishing Absalom for killing Amnon and (3) allowing an unrepentant Absalom to return to Jesusalem. Next, a greater weakness is shown in (4) allowing an emboldened defiant son greater liberties in Jerusalem! David was soon to taste the bitter fruits of his faulty weakness towards Absalom.