02 When Forgiveness Is Only for Show (2 Samuel 14)

Krisan Marotta: Welcome to the Wednesday in the Word podcast. I'm Krisan Marotta. Today we'll be looking at 2 Samuel chapter 14. This is the second talk in our series on the rebellion of Absalom from the Old Testament book of 2 Samuel. You can find links and lecture notes related to the talk on our website at wednesdayintheword.com slash Absalom2. Glad you joined us. Well, appearances can be deceiving. That's what we're going to talk about today. I think the first time I learned this lesson, I was a child, and I learned this with cocoa powder. How many of you have done that, right? You know, despite my mother's warnings that I did not want to taste the cocoa powder, the minute her back was turned, you know, I got a big spoonful and went, oh it's just, you know, it's not fair that something that looks like chocolate and smells like chocolate doesn't taste like Hershey's. And my children learned the same thing when they were, you know, cooking. It's like you have to try that the hard way. So the conflict between appearance and reality is kind of at the heart of our story today. And as we're going to go through the chapter, what we're going to see is that while everything looks good or like it's all working right on the outside, uh nothing has really changed on the inside. So we're in 2 Samuel chapter 14 today, and we're picking up the story with the return of Absalom. And this chapter occurs three years after the close of chapter 13 and five years after the rape of Tamar. So we know that from 1323, which tells us Absalom waited two years after the rape to murder his brother, and then 1338 tells us he was in Gesher for three years. There's two main scenes, two big scenes in this chapter, verses 1 through 22, which are the scheming that secures Absalom's return. And then 23 to the end of the chapter, so 23 to 33, which is the scheming that gets him back into David's presence. So before we kind of go through the story, I want you to note that there's a key word in this chapter, it's face. It may, if you looked, it may not always be obvious because some of the phrases that are translated in the king's presence are literally see the king's face. So the word is in every scene. It's in, you don't have to write these down, but if you're scanning your homework, you'll see it in four, uh verse four, verse seven, verse twenty, verse twenty-two, verse twenty-four, twenty-eight, thirty-two, and thirty-three. And I'm going to point some of the more significant ones of those out to you. But all through this you see people talking about being in the king's face, uh seeing the king's face, being in his presence or not, or falling on their face before the king. It's kind of the so I just wanted to point that out. And let me remind you, there was a translation ambiguity that we saw at the end of chapter 13 that I want to pick up again today. So 1339, uh, some English translations render it David longed to go out to Absalom, the idea being in reconciliation, for he was comforted concerning Amnon, since Amnon was dead, the idea being, well, he couldn't do anything about it, so he wanted to reclaim his other lost son. But many other commentators, Bruce Walkie among them, and I agree with him, think that that should be translated. Absalom longed to go out in war against, or David longed to go out against Absalom in war, for he was grieved that Amnon was dead. And I think that second translation makes much more sense with how the story unfolds. The idea is that David is so enraged with Absalom that he wants to hunt him down and kill him. And so in 14.1, we have the same kind of ambiguity. It says, now Joab, the son of Zarariah, knew the king's heart went out to Absalom. And the ambiguity there is how does his heart go out? The the idea carries that he has very strong emotions, and the context is supposed to tell you whether these strong emotions are positive or negative emotions. So it's the same ambiguity. Did Joab know that David wanted to go out to reconcile, or did he want to go out against Absalom in war? And I think it makes much more sense to think that he that David is still angry and wants to go out and like take revenge on Absalom. So his heart is against Absalom because that gives Joab a problem. If Joab had to persuade the king not to take a direction he wanted to take, that requires careful diplomacy and scheming, which is what we have in the chapter. But if Joab has to nudge the king to take a direction that he's already inclined to go, so if if David wanted to reconcile, it wouldn't take all this scheming. And it also explains why one how when Absalom finally does come back to court, David refuses to see him. If he was longing to reconcile with him, then when he comes back, why would he refuse to see him? Okay, so that that's just kind of some of the translations issues in notes. Let me review where we are in the story. In case you weren't here last week, you'll recall that Amnon, David's oldest son and presumed heir to the throne, was lusting after his half-sister Tamar, who was Absalom's full sister. And with the help of his crafty cousin Jonadab, he contrives this plan to get Tamar alone in his house, in his bedroom where he rapes her, and then immediately after that hates her and tosses her out. But Tamar refuses to go pub go silently. She goes out in mourning, proclaiming the wrong done to her. And both Absalom and David react with anger, but David fails to act. And he's the only one who can act because he is both father and king. It is up to him to enact justice. But he does nothing. So Absalom waits two full years and then he invites all his brothers to a sheep shearing festival, which would have been a time of great festivity, and he waits until Amnon is drunk and then has his servants kill him. So the rest of David's sons flee back to the palace and Absalom goes into exile. He goes to Gesher, which is his the country of his grandfather. He's the son of a princess of Gesher, so he's basically fleeing to his other side of the family. So for David to go out against Absalom now would be to provoke a war with Gesher. And I what I think is going on is Joab, who is David's top military general, says, okay, this is not a good idea. We don't want to go to war with Gesher. And so he is trying to act in a way that he thinks is in the country's best interest. He wants to reconcile father and son to avert another war. Now the irony, of course, is that by bringing Absalom home, he's going to provoke a civil war. But he couldn't have done that. Okay, so that's where we are in the story. Let's pick up in 14, 1 through 3. And I'm only going to read uh kind of the key verses of the chapter, just to remind you, the chapters we're doing from now on are pretty long, so we expect that you're familiar with the story when you come here and that you already know kind of the basics at least of what's going on. And of course, you all spend hours on doing your homework, so that I don't need to tell you that, right? It's not going to homework. Okay. So 14 1 through 3. Now Joab, the son of Zariah, who was, of course, David's sister, knew that the king's heart went out to Absalom. And Joab sent to Tacoah and brought from there a wise woman and said to her, Pretend to be a mourner and put on mourning garments. Do not anoint yourself with oil, but behave like a woman who has been mourning many days for the dead. Go to the king and speak thus to him. So Joab put words in her mouth. So Joab devises his plan. He gets a wise woman to come before the court uh come before David and ask for his mercy. And her the incidents she relates to him, she gives him three incidents. Each one is explained in increasing length and increasing intensity. So the first one is verse 5, and it takes only one line. She says, Death struck her husband, making her a widow. And then in verse 6, which is now three lines, she says, Death struck a second time with even more severe consequences. Her two sons, like Cain and Abel, are out in the field, they quarrel, and one kills the other. And then finally in verse 7, which now takes five lines, so we're increasing the severity and the intensity, she says she's now standing alone against the rest of her family who are demanding blood revenge. They want to kill her only remaining son in vengeance for the death of the other son. So she's pleading the case to David, saying, if this happens, my husband will have neither name nor heir on the face of the earth. But also notice if they kill her remaining son, all her property would probably go to them. Because as a widow, she wouldn't inherit, but it would go to the extended family. So there's some kind of questionable justice. Do they really want revenge or are they after her property? So the legal facts of the case necessitate that David has to rule between these two conflicting principles. There was a right to exact blood revenge, but there's also very much in the law about the survival of the house of a father, that if that a name on a tribe was not supposed to die out, and you were not supposed to kill the only remaining son. So the question is justice or mercy? Which principle do we is uh takes precedence over the other? And I think by crafting her story to resemble the Cain and Abel story, she's kind of leaning David that direction, saying, you know, remember, God Himself, in the case of Cain and Abel, granted mercy and put the mark of protection on Cain. So in a clash between justice and mercy, then, of course, God Himself chose mercy, so she's kind of pushing him that direction. And her plan works. David grants her the ruling, he promises to give an issue of decree, which I think is something like a restraining order, saying, you know, the relatives can't go near your son. But she's not satisfied, so she presses him further. And verses eight to uh nine to ten, she says, No, I want something more concrete. So she gets David to personally to promise to personally intervene. So if anyone threatens her life, uh he will intervene. And she's still not satisfied. And in nine in verse eleven, she asks him to take an oath, to invoke the name of the Lord, to prevent any of this revenge from happening. And David gives her her oath, and now she has him in her trap. Now she brings up Absalom. So look at verse twelve. Then the woman said, Please let your servant speak a word to my Lord the king. He said, Speak. And the woman said, Why then have you planned such a thing against the people of God? For in giving this decision the king convicts himself, inasmuch as the king does not bring his banished one home again. We must all die. We are like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again, but God will not take away a life, and he devises means so that the banished one will not remain an outcast. So this is the set I didn't mention her earlier metaphor in verse 7. She talks about coal and quenching her coal, which is the idea of putting out her metaphorical fire, her house would have have no air in ending the family line. Now she brings up this image of water seeping away into the ground, which is kind of this image of life lost too early. So it's spilled and it can't be brought back, and it's evoking the memory of probably Amnon, but also what could happen to Absalom. And the two symbols of the coal, which is fire and water, are the symbols of life and death, and they link the two stories. So essentially she's pressing David, saying, okay, God himself granted mercy over justice. Remember Cain and Abel? Didn't God take the initiative to bring the banished one home? Doesn't he always search for the lost and the broken and the outcasts? So what about you? Shouldn't you bring Absalom home? And at this point, David realizes Joab is behind the story. Don't know quite how he did that, except he must have known him pretty well by this time. So he confronts the woman with her with his suspicions, and she admits Joab put her up to it. In fact, literally, verse 20 is he did it to turn the face of the matter. So it's to turn the face around. It's another appearance of our key word. And David says, Okay, call Joab to me, and he promises to bring Absalom home. So the scene begins with the woman on her face before King David, and it ends with Joab on his face before the king. And on the outside, it looks like we have great success. Everything's moving along, Absalom's on his way home, and all is right with the world, right? Well, let's compare her parable to Nathan's parable in chapter 12. Because the two parables look like they're wisdom, but they're not. Nathan's is wisdom, but hers is not. And I want to point that out to you. The key difference is notice that Nathan's parable is designed to awake King David's conscience. So his conscience is dormant, it's sleeping, he or he's in denial about the wrongs he has committed, and Nathan's parable is designed to awake that conscience and spur him to action. The woman's parable is designed to quench his conscience. So she's trying to get him to do something that he probably ought not do, uh, show uh leniency that he that may not be wise. So the question is, is her parable really wisdom? Is this looks like wisdom? They call her a wise woman, but is it really wisdom? Because notice how the cases are not parable. The w are parallel. The woman says that her sons get into a fight on the spur of the moment, and kind of in the heat of anger and passion, one son kills the other. That's an accidental slain that falls under the rules of manslaughter. We're told Absalom's deed was premeditated. For two years he planned this out, and he nursed his hatred, and he methodically planned murder. So you have to ask, are those two cases equally deserving of mercy? Now we can say the accidental slain might deserve mercy, but is premeditated, calculated murder equally deserving of the same kind of mercy? So I think that's that's where he's saying it's it's um he's she's trying to get David to do something that he ought not to do to quench his conscience, which is already aroused. Now, from Absalom's perspective, the plan is working beautifully. Because he's secured revenge for his sister. He's removed the brother that stood between him and the throne, cost him a few years in exile, but hey, that's a small price to pray, right, if you get the throne of Israel. Now he's coming home scot-free. But there's one small catch. He comes home, but he can't come into David's presence. So we have this reconciliation that appears to be reconciliation, but it's not really reconciliation. Um look at uh verses 23 through 28. So Joab arose and went to Gesher and brought Absalom to Jerusalem. And the king said, Let him dwell apart in his own house, for he is not to come into my presence. That is literally, he is not to see my face. So Absalom lived apart in his own house and did not come into the king's presence, that is, to see the king's face. So David's not looking at Absalom, but all of Israel is. Listen to this. Now in all Israel there was no one so much to be praised for his handsome appearance as Absalom. From the sole of his foot to the crown of his head, there was no blemish in him. And when he cut it, the hair of his head, for it was for at the end of every year he used to cut it, when it was heavy on him he cut it. He weighed the hair of his head two hundred shekels by the king's weight. So Absalom lived two full years in Jerusalem without coming into the king's presence, or literally without seeing the king's face. So Absalom is back, but he's in limbo. And he spends two more years like this, being home but not home, being reconciled but not reconciled. And interspersed in between the comments about he's back but he's not back, we get this description of his physical perfection. Now, that ought to serve as like all kinds of red flags ought to go off to us Bible students, because the Bible rarely ever describes anyone's physical appearance. It's very rare, and they only uh it's only in the text when it's highly significant. So you'll recall the last person who we saw who was so beautifully described was Saul. He was described Israel's first king as handsome, the picture of perfection, and we know how that story turned out. So I think this is another one of those warnings. On the outside, Absalom looks like he's every inch the handsome young virile king, but he is not God's chosen king. And now, while David is not looking at him, everybody else in the kingdom seems to be looking at him and remarking on how physically attractive he is, and as we'll see in the next chapter, they pay a lot of attention to him. So you've got this contrast of uh between David and his son. Now, David is, shall we say, mature by now. He's probably haggard from all his years on the run in the wilderness, uh, the many battles and wars he's fought in. Uh think how our presidents age in office. He's probably aged in office by this point. So you have the old decrepit man and the young, gorgeous heir apparent. And the question is, which one should be king? And I think that's the question the text is raising us. Who is better suited to be king? Do is should our king be the, you know, the young, gorgeous Hollywood hunt type, or the old, decrepit, wrinkly queen king, you know, who follows God's heart. And so there's kind of this appearance versus reality thing going on here, too. Who is the king we really need? Okay, so Absalom lives in limbo without seeing the king's face for two more years, and then again decides to take matters into his own hands. He appeals to Joab for intervention, and Joab ignores him. So Absalom decides to get Joab's attention by setting his fields on fire. And I think again, revealing kind of his spoiled character. I mean, how extreme is that? Does that think of all the damage, the economic damage, the damage to Joab's family, the the their livelihood depends on this? So he's basically saying, I'm gonna get whatever I want, take whatever I want, and he uh it works, he gets Joab's attention. So look at verse 32 and 33. Absalom answered Joab, so the we're picking up the story where Joab is confronting him about why did you set my fields on fire? So in 32, Absalom answered Joab, Behold, I sent word to you, come here that I may send you to the king to ask why have I come from Gesher? It would be better for me to be there still. Now therefore, let me go into the king's presence. That is literally, let me see his face, and if there is guilt in me, let him put me to death. Then Joab went to the king and told him, and he, that is David, summoned Absalom. So he came to the king and bowed himself on his face to the ground before the king, and the king kissed Absalom. So now we have reconciliation, or so it seems. Absalom is taking a calculated risk. He says, Okay, let the king either execute me or receive me. And he's pretty sure it's now two more years, so now we're seven years from the rape at this point, or no, nine. Wait, did I add that right? It's two more years past the time he came home. And so he's saying, okay, if David was going to execute me, he would have done it by now. He would have convened the trial, he would have done whatever and made his ruling. So it's a pretty safe bet that David is not going to, after all this time, put him to death. So he's saying, okay, I'm forcing the issue. Receive me or execute me. And all he has to do is fall on his face before David, you know, a little groveling, and now he's regained everything he l he has lost. You know, what a marvelous day. He's now back in the king's presence, he's now the heir apparent, he's standing in line to the throne, and all it cost him was three years with his grandfather. Not a not a bad day's work. Okay, so what does this chapter teach us? We have this wisdom in a parable that is not really wisdom. So it looks like wisdom on the outside, but it's not really trying to inspire David to do the right thing. We have this young, physically perfect king who looks great on the outside, but he's not the king that God wants. We have this restoration and return from exile that is not really restoration. He's back, but he's in limbo. And then finally we have this reunion of father and son, but it's not really a reunion. Notice in 32 and 33, David is referred to six times as the king and zero times as father. So you have this kind of on the surface, it looks like things are moving along splendidly. The prodigal son's home, the father's welcomed him with a kiss, the son is physically perfect and without blemish, he's the heir apparent, all appears to be right. But that's only on the outside. Look at what is missing from the chapter. When does David inquire of the Lord? I mean, remember how frequently in the wilderness years we ran into that phrase, and David inquired of the Lord, should I go here or should I go there? David inquired of the Lord, should I fight this battle or should I stay home? You think he might have, should I bring Absalom back or not? You know? He's got Nathan around. He could have asked Nathan, he could have asked the priest, he could have gone to the ark and prayed, but we have no mention that he sought guidance. In any way. So, in addition to that, there's no mention of him seeking God's guidance. We see him reacting rather than ruling. Instead of going out and taking initiative, he's responding to situations that are brought to him. So the woman comes to him, Joab comes to him. He doesn't seek God's presence, formulate a plan based on that, and after seeking divine guidance, then form a plan of action. Instead, he just reacts to what's brought to him. So that's on David's side, but I think we're also missing true repentance on Absalom's side. And to get at this, I want to compare the parable that Jesus tells of the prodigal son with the return of Absalom. So if you have your Bibles, look at Luke 15. If you don't have your Bibles, it's a pretty familiar passage, and I'm sure you can you'll remember as we go along. But I want you to look at this. Think of the scene we just read, verse 33, at the end of chapter 15, and that reunion of father and son with this reunion. So this is Luke 15. I'm going to start in verse 11. Jesus is speaking, and he said, There was a man who had two sons, and the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the share of the property that is coming to me. And he divided his property between them. Let me just set the stage for you here. What the prodigal is saying is, Dad, I wish you were dead. He's saying, I want my inheritance now. I can't wait for you to die. So give me my share of the property. And then notice that Father not only does this outrageous thing, he divides it between them. So the older son's getting his share of the property too. So to ask for your inheritance was a grievous offense. It's something the younger son should not have done. At the father's death, two-thirds of property would have gone to the older son, and the younger son would have gotten one-third, and he's saying, Dad, don't want to wait for that. I want it now. So for the father to grant this request is an unbelievable sign of love. It's just, it was unheard of. And by giving him the property and letting him sell it, he is also saying, I release you from obligation. So there was a case where he could have given his son the property and the son would kind of work it and hold it in trust and be required to support his father in his old age. So the father is still benefiting from it and being cared for from the proceeds of the land. If the son sells it, now the father has nothing in his old age. So he is not only giving him the money, he's releasing him from his future obligations. Now, the older son is expected to intervene. He's supposed to, oh no, I couldn't possibly take my share of the heritage. This is a horrible thing my younger brother has done. So he's supposed to protest his brother's arrogance, reaffirm his loyalty to his father, and then try to mediate in the dispute to reconcile them. But he says nothing. He should know the request is wrong, and he says nothing. So there's a sense in which he's a prodigal too, because he kind of says, ooh, I get my money now too. Okay, so he profits from the deal. So what I want you to see is there are two lost sons in this parable. Okay, so the parable goes on. This is verse Luke 15, 13. Not many days later, the younger son gathered all that he had and took a journey into the far country, where he squandered his property and reckless living. And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of the country who sent him into the fields to feed pigs. And he was longing to be fed with the pods that the pigs ate, and no one gave him anything. But when he came to himself, he said, How many of my father's hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish with hunger? Now, a couple of details here I want you to notice before we get to the big reunion scene. The prodigal turns his portion of the inheritance into cash by selling the property and leaving the country. That was an affront to the community. You were not to shell the to sell the family estate. It was a significant part of your identity, so that would have been another offense he committed. And then to take that money and spend it among the Gentiles is just heaping insult on injury. Because now you've not only lost the property, you've squandered the proceeds among the Gentiles. So this is a major break. He has burned all his bridges. So he goes to this far country and he sinks to an unbelievable low. Because we should assume this man is a Jew, and Jews do not herd pigs. You can just kind of on the face of that. You know, pigs are unclean, they're not allowed to raise them, they're not allowed to be around them, and he could no longer have practiced his religion because he would have been so unclean. He couldn't have observed it. He's in regular contact with these unclean animals. And even if he's starving, so presumably the owner of the fields would have butchered the pigs and then given him like the less desirable portions to the herder. That's was typically what happened. He couldn't even eat them. They were not even if he was starving. Those are not the things a Jew is supposed to eat. So he has really hit bottom in this parable. So 1518, I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants. Now notice we don't hear any words from Absalom. I'm going to come back to that in a minute. But the son has reached the end of his rope here in the parable, but he has not yet repented. And the reason we know that is because he devises a plan that will allow him to come home and maintain his pride and independence. When he says, Let me be let me be as your hired men, that's his plan, as one of the hired servants, a hired worker was a free man. He could come and go from the estate. He usually lived independently in the local village and then came to work on the land. His social status was the same as the landowner. So for this prodigal to be treated as a hired person would be, okay, I'll have my own independent income. You'll pay me for the work I do. My social status will be the same as my father and my brother, so he can maintain his pride and independence. And presumably, if he's, you know, budgets well and he's careful, he could eventually repay some of what he's lost. So that's his plan. That gets kind of gets him back into a living, but it doesn't restore the relationship with his father. So he's offering a solution that might allow him to make up for what is lost and to save himself, but that's not really a plan for forgiveness. Okay, now this next scene in the parable is the one I want you to compare to David and Absalom. So this is Luke 15, 20. So, and he arose, and that's the prodigal, he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion and ran and embraced him and kissed him. Now, the scene we have with David and Absalom is David waiting on his throne or in his throne room. Absalom comes, falls on his face before the ground before him on the ground, and there's probably a kiss on the cheek, which was the sign of reconciliation. But what you have in this parable is the father running to the son. Now, think about what would have happened. The son has offended the whole community. And at that time, the community lived in a village and the fields were out surrounding the village. So it's not like we think of the Wild West where the farm is off way outside of town. The son is probably gonna have to come into the village to find his father. And as he approaches, the community's gonna hear he's back, they're gonna a crowd's gonna start gathering, they're probably gonna mock him and jeer him and scoff at him, and he will have to walk through this crowd, humiliating himself on his way to see his father. Instead, you have his father running through the crowd to the sun, so taking the humiliation on himself. And an eastern uh farmer or a landowner in the Middle East never runs anywhere. So to hike up your robes and expose your legs and run was considered humiliating. Uh men just did not do that. That was not accepted behavior. And in fact, there we've had cases even today where European pastors are unable to gain acceptance in Eastern communities because they walk too fast. It's just considered undignified. So you have the the Jesus' audience would have been going, oh, he ran to the sun through the crowd. Um while he was still a long way off, his father saw him, felt compassion for him, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. So he runs the gauntlet for his son, taking that humiliation on himself. And if that isn't enough, then he kisses his son and embraces him. So he's publicly saying, I'm reconciling myself to this son, and then they probably would have walked back into the village arm in arm. So just like in 2 Samuel, we have this kiss as a sign of reconciliation and forgiveness. That was typically what happened at the end of a contract or at the end of a mediation when there was a breach. And now the prodigal responds in Luke 15, 21, the son said to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before you I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Notice his response, and what's missing from it? His plan is missing. That part about let me be one of your hired servants is no longer in the text. So I think what's happened here is we've seen this unbelievable display of love from his father, and it broke his son's pride. Now he's asking forgiveness. Now he's saying, he's recognized, I cannot repay what I've done, I cannot, I've sinned against you, I'm no longer worthy. So now, if he comes back in as a son, he's gonna have to live on the estate and be fed from his brother's property, which would be humiliating because now everything legally belongs to his brother. He would be under his father's full authority, so there's no independence, and he will have no way to make reparations because he's presumably not going to be earning anything. So coming back as a son is not the ideal solution for him if he wants to maintain his pride. But his pride, I think, has been shattered by his father's unbelievable love. He's saying, How can I possibly repay you for saying, I wish you were dead? How can I probably repay what I have lost? And that is true repentance. But if that's not enough, look what the father goes on to do. Twenty-two, this is Luke 15, 22 to 24. The father said to his servants, Bring quickly the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and shoes on his feet, and bring the fattened cap and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate it. For this my son was dead and is alive again. He was lost and is found, and they begin to celebrate. So he compounds grace upon grace for his son. He's giving him a what is completely and totally undeserved, and he's going out of his way to communicate that to the community. So telling the servants to dress him is telling them they are to treat him like a son should be treated. They are to show him proper respect. Putting the best robe on him, a robe which most certainly must have belonged to his father, is saying he's accepted as a son, he's backed as part of the family. The ring most likely is a signet ring, which is like having his father's signature. So it's a sign that he's trusted. It gives him his father's authority. And the shoes are a sign of him being a free man, not a servant, because shoes were a luxury and they were only worn by free men. They were not worn by slaves. So he's saying he's back, he's my son, you treat him as respect, he has my full authority, and then he kills a calf for a feast, not a goat, which means the feast is going to be large. So he's inviting everyone. The bigger the animal, the larger the feast. And that ensures that the son will now be reconciled to the village as well. So we see in this prodigal a servant who plans to confess and compensate, but the father demonstrates this unexpected, incredible outpouring of undeserved love. He's overcome by that grace, and he comes back in a son. And that's repentance. So repentance is not something we do to gain God's favor, so there's nothing we can do, but it's this recognition of our complete and total failure before God, our moral bankruptcy, and saying, I'm no longer worthy, and then accepting this unmerited grace that God offers us. Okay, just to finish the parable, notice we still have a broken relationship because we still have the older son, and that's where Jesus goes next. So in Luke 15, 25, now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing, and he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. And he said to him, Your brother has come, your father has killed the fatted calf because he has received him back safe and sound. But he was angry and refused to come in. His father came out and entreated him. Okay, so the banquet's being held, and what was supposed to happen is the oldest son was expected to stand at the door and greet all the guests and play hosts. And it was a gesture of respect to say, My son is your servant. He will be here to make sure you have enough wine or to whatever the host was supposed to do. So the whole older son is expected to come and play host, and instead he stands outside the door and he won't go in. And that's an insult. That's an insult to his father. Um and his father is expected to fly into rage and probably discipline him. And we've seen this before in the Bible, if you remember the story of Queen Esther. Remember, Queen Vashti was summoned to appear before the king, Ahazarus, at the wedding, and she refuses to come into his presence and he deposes her for it. It's the same kind of offense here. The son is expected to come into his father's presence and play host. So the father humiliates himself by going out to the son. He's not supposed to go out and get him, the son is supposed to come to him. And the father's not expected to uh ignore his guest, he's expected to ignore his uh spoiled son. So the fact that the father goes out is a is a gesture of grace and love to his older son. And what does he do when he gets out there? He doesn't yell at him, he doesn't berate him, he entreats him. This is 1529. He answered his father, look, these many years I have served you, I have never disobeyed oh, the son's now talking, I've never disobeyed your command. You never gave me a young goat that I might celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours came who devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him. So the son doesn't respond to the graze. He says, Look, I want what's due me. I've been here, I've towed the line, I've worked, literally, he says, I've slaved for you, I've never disobeyed you, even though he did just publicly humiliate him. And he says, You never gave me even a baby goat, a kid to celebrate with my friends, no, not with my family, but with my friends, and he's basically saying, I want my rights, I want what's do me. So he's kind of a hypocritical saint. The prodigal was estranged and rebellious while he was absent, but the older son is estranged and rebellious while pres present. He is asking to be treated his his rights. Let's keep the book and let's keep the law and I want what's dooming. And the father says to him, Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. It is fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this brother was dead and is alive. He was lost as in and is found. So the father again seeks rest restoration. Um he should have flown into rage here at his son's insult, but instead he shows love again. And notice in contrast to the son's lack of title, the father begins with a title. He uses an affectionate note son. Titles were used in every address in the parable up to this point, except the son. The older son uses no title, again, it disrespect. So he says, You're the heir. You're not work, you're not work for hire. This is not work for recompense. Everything that is mine is yours. How can I possibly give you any more? And he's pleading with him to understand grace. Now, what's missing from the parable is the older son's response. And Jesus has set it up so that you have one is lawless without the law, that's the prodigal, and one is lawless with the law, that's the older son. They both rebel, they both break their relationship with their father, they both break his heart, and they both receive an outpouring of grace. The father humiliates himself for both of them, he entreats both of them, and one responds and says, I am unworthy, and accepts that grace, and the other says, No, I want what's due to me. He responds with self-righteousness, believing that he has something due. Now, Jesus tells this parable to the Pharisees, that's how the chapter begins, and I think he's trying to get the Pharisees who would probably have identified with the older son to say, Will you respond to grace? And that's kind of the context in Luke. But what for our purposes, I want to now compare that to David and Absalom, to show you what's missing. So back in Samuel 14, what chapter are we on? Yeah, 2 Samuel 14. We have this wisdom that's not wisdom in the parable. We have the young, beautiful, perfect king who's not the right king. We have restoration that's not restoration, and we have a reunion in father and son, but it's not really a reunion. Because reconciliation is more than just receiving the external legal consequences or removing the external legal consequences. And what we see with David is that's all their reconciliation appears to be. It appears as if they've gone through the motions required for legal forgiveness, but there's no grace, there's no love, there's no relationship. So we've just got everything legally cleared up, but there's no true repentance. We don't hear any words from Absalom to say I was wrong. We don't hear any words from David to say I should have acted. There's no admissions or of guilt. There's no David gives him nothing to show he's back in his good graces. So Absalom goes through all the required motions of falling on his face before his father and kissing his feet, but you never hear him say, Father, I have sinned, and I'm not worthy to be called your son. There's none of that humble broken heart that the prodigal displayed. So that raises the question. Remember, I told you we're going to talk about appearances and reality. Sometimes we can deceive ourselves. We can go through all the motions on the outside. We can go to church, we can study our Bible, we can be on committees, we can do whatever it looks like to be religious on the outside, but have no change of heart on the inside. And because the truth is we're the prodigals. We like to think of ourselves in David's positions, or maybe uh the father, but we're the ones who have broken the relationship with our Heavenly Father. We're the ones who squander his blessings. So the question of 2 Samuel 14 is do you have true repentance? Have you just gone through the motions like Absalom did? Or are you standing outside the door demanding your rights, saying, Well, I'm good enough, I'm not like those people over there, I haven't done those bad things. I'm sure that I, you know, if you add it all up, I'm good enough to get into the feast. Or are you like the prodigal son who says, I am not worthy, and all you have to do is accept the invitation? Because the picture in the New Testament is that God humiliated himself for us to death on the cross. He sent his son to die in our behalf to take not only the legal consequences that were due to us, but the humiliation, the mocking, and he showed this unbelievable love. So your heavenly father is running to you with his robes hiked up, arms outstretched, ready to welcome you back into the family. It's a grace beyond measure, generosity that we do not deserve. And the only question is, do we approach him like Absalom and the older son, demanding what we think is owed us, or do we fall at his feet like the prodigal with a humble, grateful heart, knowing that we are no longer worthy, but because of the blood of Jesus Christ, we are forgiven. It's an amazing picture of love. Now, as we're going to go on in the story, we're gonna see that the fact that David and Absalom didn't reconcile is going to create a whole lot of problems in the next chapter. Um, but that that's for next week. All right, let me uh pray first, and I'll give you a chance to ask some questions. Father, we just thank you for being a God who loves us, and that you go to unspeakable lengths, like the Father in the parable, to bring us back to you. And we pray that we would not be taken in by outward appearance in ourselves or in others, but that we would look beyond, that you would give us the eyes to see what's true and what's right, who we are and who you are, and that even though we don't deserve it in our because of our sinfulness, you did what we could never do to pay the penalty for our sins, to send your son to die in our place, so that we might be reconciled as full daughters of your kingdom. And Jesus knowing that.