“So he said to his servants, ‘See, Yo’av’s field is close to mine, and he has barley there; go, and set it on fire.” Avshalom’s servants set the field on fire. Then Yo’av got up, went to Avshalom at his house and asked him, ‘Why did your servants set my field on fire?‘”-2 Samuel 14:30-31
So, whaddaya do if a homie whose attention you’ve been trying to get constantly ignores you?
You arrange to have his fields burned down, that’s what you do.
Well, that’s exactly what Absalom did to Joab.
Absalom tried to reach out to him twice and was rebuffed both times.
Therefore, he saw no choice but to take drastic action.
He ordered his servant to set fire to Joab’s barley fields.
And boy, did that do the trick.
Once Joab heard Absalom’s servant had set his fields ablaze, he confronted Absalom.
Absalom told him he wasn’t too happy with the way things were and demanded to meet his father.
Absalom then went on to say…
“If I’m guilty of anything, he can kill me.”
Of course, Absalom knew there was less than zero chance of that happening.
At this point, he was doing everything he could to achieve his end of getting an audience with the king.
So Joab gave the word, and it happened.
David permitted Absalom to come to him.
When they finally met, Avishalom demonstrated proper royal manners and bowed down before the king.
We’re then told David kissed him.
Now, don’t think this kiss was a gesture of affection or an indication that David had forgiven Absalom for having Amnon killed.
This is made even clearer in the original Hebrew.
The sages point out that a LAMED is used as a prefix to Absalom’s name in this verse.
In Hebrew, the letter lamed (ל), when used as a prefix, means “to,” “toward,” “for,” or “concerning.”
So, if the text says something like “David kissed l’Avishalom” (לְאַבְשָׁלוֹם)…
Rather than just Avishalom…
The lamed adds an interpretive nuance.
Using lamed in this way creates emotional distance.
It’s not just “David kissed Absalom” as a son…
But rather “David kissed to Absalom” or “concerning Absalom.”
This was almost like a formal or perfunctory act, rather than an affectionate and heartfelt reconciliation.
Are you following me here?
This grammatical choice signals that David’s kiss was NOT genuine affection or forgiveness.
It was more of a social formality.
In Middle Eastern culture, even today, it’s common to greet someone with a kiss out of courtesy, even if emotions are neutral or distant.
So, when David kissed Avishalom after Joab intervened, it may have seemed like reconciliation on the surface.
But it wasn’t.
The presence of the lamed suggests that David still harbored emotional or spiritual distance.
I know it seems like I’m getting overly technical here.
But this is important, man!
The lamed as a prefix subtly communicates tension and unresolved conflict.
It’s important to grasp this because it’s gonna make Absalom’s later betrayal all the more understandable.
Ya feel me here?
Alrighty, let’s switch over to the takeaway.
Notice how much power Joab had.
All he had to do was send a request to the King, and it was done.
Remember, Joab was second in command over all Israel.
Given Joab’s status, it’s almost certain David would grant whatever he asked.
This was similar to Joseph’s relationship to Pharaoh in Egypt.
We were told:
“You shall be over my house,
And all my people shall order
themselves as you command.
Only as regards the throne
will I be greater than you.”
— Genesis 41:40
“Pharaoh said to Joseph,
‘See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.’”
— Genesis 41:41
The relationship between Moses and God is another fascinating example of delegated power.
God didn’t just send Moses to Egypt.
He invested him with divine authority to act as His representative before Pharaoh.
He even called Moses “God” (Elohim) in that context.
“See, I have made you Elohim to Pharaoh,
and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.”
— Exodus 7:1
Here, the word “Elohim” (אֱלֹהִים) is normally used for God Himself, but in this case, God uses it to describe Moses’ role.
That’s a huge deal, homies.
Finally, and I think you know where I’m going with this, Yeshua had a similar relationship to his Father in Heaven.
It follows the same pattern of delegated authority, but with even greater weight and spiritual depth.
Like Moses, Joseph, and Joab, Yeshua was authorized to act on behalf of someone greater, in his case, God the Father.
But unlike the others, his role was not just earthly or political.
It was eternal and spiritual.
Over and over, Yeshua emphasized that his authority was not his own, but came directly from his Father.
“I can do nothing of myself: as I hear,
I judge… because I seek not my own will,
but the will of the Father who sent me.”
—John 5:30
“My teaching is not mine,
but His who sent me.”
—John 7:16
“The Father who sent me has Himself
given me a commandment
—what to say and what to speak.”
—John 12:49
Just like Moses was “Elohim to Pharaoh,” Yeshua was God’s direct representative to the world, entrusted with God’s words, works, and authority.
Of course, we all know the Christians take this to a whole other idolatrous level and make out Yeshua to be God Himself.
I need to remind them homies that Yeshua didn’t act independently.
He was sent with full authority to speak, judge, forgive, and give life, but always in harmony with the Father’s will.
Yeshua himself said he was NOT the originator of the power.
He was the faithful agent of it.
Ya feeling me here?
“The Son can do nothing by himself;
he can do only what he sees his Father doing…”
— John 5:19
In fact, the language Yeshua uses echoes royal envoys or ambassadors, but with the intimacy of a Father-Son relationship.
Alrighty, let’s bring this to a close.
So yes, Yeshua operated with divine authority.
He was empowered to forgive sins, raise the dead, judge righteously, and reveal the Father to mankind.
But the bottom line is, he was NOT operating as God the Father.
He was operating as the One sent by the Father.
Big difference there, homies.
He represented the Father so perfectly he could say:
“Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”
— John 14:9
Does that mean Yeshua WAS the Father?
NO!
It means he was the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15).
He was the perfect agent of God’s will, character, and authority.
Joab was not David, but he had the authority to act on behalf of David.
Joseph was not Pharaoh, but he had the authority to act on behalf of Pharaoh.
Moses was not God, but he had the authority to act on behalf of Adonai.
Finally, Yeshua was NOT God the Father, but he had the authority to act on his behalf.
A plain, simple reading of the text will make that clear to even a third grader.
Alrighty, I think I’ve beaten this horse to death enough today.
See ya all next time.
CONNECTING THIS TEACHING WITH THE NEW TESTAMENT
“Then Yeshua came to them and said,
‘All authority in heaven and
on earth has been given to me.
Therefore go and make disciples
of all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit'”
-Matthew 28:17-19
Which is easier:
to say to this paralyzed man,
‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say,
‘Get up, take your mat and walk’?
But I want you to know that the Son of Man
has authority on earth to forgive sins.”
So he said to the man,
‘I tell you, get up,
take your mat and go home.’”
-Mark 2:9-11
“He is the radiance of the glory of God
and the exact imprint of his nature, and
he upholds the universe by the word of his power.
After making purification for sins,
he sat down at the right hand
of the Majesty on high,”
-Hebrews 1:3
NEXT TIME WE BEGIN 2ND SAMUEL CHAPTER 15
Leave a Reply