The Anatomy of a Rebellion - Glenn Conjurske

The Anatomy of a Rebellion

by Glenn Conjurske

And it came to pass after this, that Absalom prepared him chariots and horses, and fifty men to run before him. And Absalom rose up early, and stood beside the way of the gate: and it was so, that when any man that had a controversy came to the king for judgment, then Absalom called unto him, and said, Of what city art thou? And he said, Thy servant is of one of the tribes of Israel. And Absalom said unto him, See, thy matters are good and right; but there is no man deputed of the king to hear thee. Absalom said moreover, Oh that I were made judge in the land, that every man which hath any suit or cause might come unto me, and I would do him justice! And it was so, that when any man came nigh to him to do him obeisance, he put forth his hand, and took him, and kissed him. And on this manner did Absalom to all Israel that came to the king for judgment: so Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel. And it came to pass after forty years, that Absalom said unto the king, I pray thee, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the LORD, in Hebron. For thy servant vowed a vow while I abode at Geshur in Syria, saying, If the LORD shall bring me again indeed to Jerusalem, then I will serve the LORD. And the king said unto him, Go in peace. So he arose, and went to Hebron. But Absalom sent spies throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, As soon as ye hear the sound of the trumpet, then ye shall say, Absalom reigneth in Hebron. (II Samuel 15:1-10).

In the course of Absalom we see the method of rebellion, which varies but little from one case to another. Rebellion is fomented by two means. The first and most prominent of them is to breed discontent. The second, which follows of course, or is present by implication, is for the author of the rebellion to ingratiate himself in the minds and hearts of the people, as the benefactor who will give them better things.

This is a sorry business, and those who engage in it are doing precisely the work of the devil. This was exactly the method which the devil used in the Garden of Eden. He first went to work to breed discontent, even in Paradise itself, and then offered to give what God had withheld.

It must be understood that rebellion against authority is wrong. I realize that there are deep and difficult questions involved in this, and I dare not go so far as to say that rebellion against rightful authority can never be justified. We know that disobedience is sometimes right. The Hebrew midwives disobeyed Pharaoh, and were blessed of God for it. So Moses’ mother also. Daniel and the three Hebrew children disobeyed the powers that were, and with the evident and miraculous sanction of God. I have known of cases of wives disobeying their husbands, with the signal blessing of God. But none of these are examples of rebellion. They are instances of disobedience to a particular command from a rightful authority, but not of a wholesale repudiation of that authority, or of a resistance to that authority in general. Rebellion is the repudiation of the authority of the powers that be, and if “there is no power but of God,” it is certainly wrong to repudiate that authority.

But I understand that an abuse of authority naturally incites rebellion. “Fathers,” the Bible says, “provoke not your children to wrath.” (Eph. 6:4). Fathers are rightful authorities, who have their authority from God, yet by an abuse of that authority they may provoke their children to wrath, and that wrath will of course be directed against the father, and invariably against his authority. The misconduct of those who hold authority always weakens their authority in the eyes of the people.

An abuse of authority naturally incites rebellion, but still I cannot see that God sanctions it. Just the contrary. He admonishes us to submit even to those powers who abuse their authority. “Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.” (I Pet. 2:18). “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers,” says Paul, “for there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God.” (Rom. 13:1). And this though the only powers which Paul knew, whether Jew or Gentile, were ungodly, and persecuted the church. When we hear modern professors of Christianity claim that their rulers have forfeited their right to rule, because they banish God from the classroom, or allow abortion, this is just pride and self-will. These are sons of Zeruiah, who would take off King Saul’s head, while David refused to lift up his hand against “the Lord’s anointed.” The Roman government under which Paul wrote banished God from the earth, and burnt and beheaded and crucified those who would bring him back, yet Paul requires submission to that government, and calls it “a minister of God to thee for good.” (Rom. 13:4).

Yet there may be cases of such extreme abuse of authority that God may wink at the repudiation of that authority. I cannot prove that there is, but I dare not say there is not. We may have a hint in that direction in
I Corinthians 7:10-11, where we read, “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband. But if she do depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.” For a wife to depart from her husband is certainly to repudiate his authority. Paul commands her not to do so, and yet immediately allows for an exception, for what reason he does not say. I have long supposed that this may apply to wives who are so abused that their situation is simply intolerable. The same may be true when the subjects of a realm are so abused. God may wink at their rebellion. I do not say he will, but I dare not say he will not. God is not a tyrant, and in ordaining authority he never meant to sanction tyranny.

It is safe to say, however, that most of the cases of rebellion in the history of the world have little or nothing to do with any abuse of authority. The widespread rebellion against parental authority in modern times, and against all authority in general, does not stem from any abuse of that authority, but rather from the passions of pride and self-will, which are diligently instilled in men from their cradles, under the names of freedom and democracy. No man is perfect, and there may be some faults in both the character and the administration of every man who holds authority, yet God knows that as well as we do, and still he ordains authorities, and requires our submission to them.

Those who foment rebellion of course find something wrong with the authorities, and it will be wonder enough if they do not find everything wrong with them, and nothing right. If they can find no wrong, they will invent or imagine some. If they can find any wrong, they will magnify it. If they cannot magnify the facts, they will magnify the gravity of them, making grave crimes of things which they are guilty of themselves, or which the whole human race is guilty of, and so breed discontent, and of course ingratitude, by hook or by crook.

This was the method of Absalom. “See,” said he, “thy matters are good and right; but there is no man deputed of the king to hear thee.” Whoever the man, and whatever his grievance, “the king” was at fault in it. He had deputed no one to hear it. If this was a fault in David’s administration, it was a trivial one, but we are not so sure that it was a fault. David’s own door was yet open to those who had grievances, and what need was there to depute anyone else? True, the man with a grievance must go to Jerusalem to speak to the king, but this was not necessarily evil. The multiplication of judges makes it too easy to sue. This leads naturally to the multiplication of cases—-the majority of them either trivial or unrighteous—-and this in turn multiplies strife and discontent. “The Lord raised up judges,” we are told (Judges 2:16), but he raised up but one at a time. Of Deborah we read, “And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.” (Judges 4:4-5). This was of the Lord, and it was nothing different from David’s administration. We are not so sure, then, that the matter which Absalom used to foment discontent and ingratitude in Israel was any fault at all. If it was a fault, it was not a serious one.

But trivial or imagined faults will serve the purpose of the fomenters of discontent and ingratitude as well as real and serious ones, for it is a fact that it is very easy to breed discontent, especially discontent with authorities. The sinful heart of man has a natural dislike for authority. Those who stir the coals of discontent and fan the flames of ingratitude always have the advantage, for those passions are too natural to the fallen hearts of men. The agitators against authority use those passions to the full. This is how labor unions operate. They find or imagine some abuse in the authorities, and dwell upon that, artfully keeping out of sight, meanwhile, all of the good in the employers, and all the good in the situation of the laborers. They do not go to the management with their supposed grievances, but preach them to all the employees, until they have turned a shop full of happy workers into discontented agitators. By this means one Absalom may turn the hearts of the whole nation. When I lived in Madison twenty-five years ago, I worked in two different hospitals, first one, and then the other. At the first there was a labor union—-to which I did not belong—-and I found an undercurrent of discontent pervading the place. Many of the workers were lazy besides. At the second there was no union, and I found the employees in general hard workers, and happy with their jobs. The difference between the two places was so striking that I could not help but notice it immediately. No doubt the spirit of discontent brought in the union at the first hospital, but it was no doubt some union agitators who brought in the spirit of discontent.

Those who split churches operate upon exactly the same principle, and the authority in the church is always the object of their attacks. The fomenters of discontent know nothing of gratitude, but proceed after the pattern of the devil himself, who kept all the goodness of God out of sight, and said never a word to Eve of all the blessings of Paradise, but spoke only of the one thing which he could discover which God had withheld from her. The devil’s followers in this evil business cannot always be so bold, for the very goodness of a good man will act as a strong barrier to their assaults. They must therefore tread gingerly, at least at first, and praise the virtues of the good man very earnestly, only to follow with, “BUT . . . , BUT . . . ,” he has this defect, and that fault (however trivial), until at length the lean and ill-favored kine have devoured up the fat and goodly ones, and all his goodness is swallowed up by a few trivial faults. This is the work of the devil, yet it is often done by pious Christians, who raise factions against the authorities in the church. They do not go to the authorities with their grievances, at least not until they have talked them about the church, and raised a strong faction to support them.

But there are two sides to every question, and certainly two sides to this one. It is a great evil to raise factions in the church against a God-appointed authority, but we know too well that the places of leadership in many churches are filled with men who are certainly not called of God—-men who are not apt to teach, whose children are not subject to them with all gravity, who are greedy of filthy lucre, and who are not blameless, sober, or vigilant, many of them novices and unspiritual besides. We can hardly suppose it a virtue to continue such men in authority. Nevertheless, it is a much greater evil to use the methods of Absalom to depose them. An unqualified but true-hearted elder is a small evil compared to a fomenter of discontent and discord. Far better to endure the misadministration of an unqualified elder than to foment the spirit of rebellion, which is founded in pride and self-will and envy, and issues in resentment and slander and vengeance.

Whatever the authorities in the church may be, those who raise such passions against them are doing the work of the devil. Such men cannot lead the saints to green pastures and still waters. The real and only bond of union in the factions which they create is opposition to the leadership. Such a bond is much worse than worthless while it lasts, and it will not last long after the leadership is deposed, or the faction departs for “greener pastures.” I was once the object of such an attack myself, a strong and of course passionate faction being raised against me, primarily by the tongues of a couple of women. When this faction had gained strength, their expressed intention was to put me out, and go forward without me. Failing in that, the whole faction departed, but no two of them remained long together.

No one in authority is without fault, yet when passions run high the most trivial (or imaginary) faults are magnified into high crimes, and pursued with a relentlessness which only evil passions can inspire. When such passions reign, something will be found against the man in authority, though the charges may be so frivolous as to be actually ridiculous. A prominent Independent Baptist preacher was once bitterly opposed by his church board because he bought a whole case of toilet tissue, to save money, instead of buying one roll at a time. I heard this from his own mouth. But the fact is, “the issue of the tissue,” as he called it, was not the issue at all. The only real difficulty was the wrong passions in his opposers. When I was the object of a similar attack a number of years ago, one of the women who was prominent in opposing me, after bringing many charges against me which were either false or frivolous, and failing to convict me of anything beyond the trivial, at length settled upon “A bishop must be blameless,” and relentlessly insisted upon the most rigorous interpretation of “blameless,” as though it must mean “perfect.” Her own husband, who was against me himself, sat beside her, and by reason and Scripture refuted her interpretation of that verse, but to no avail. She was not moved by reason, but passion. Passion is the very essence of rebellion, and this is evil regardless of the character of the authority. Whether David were angel or devil, the spirit, manner, and course of Absalom was wholly evil, without so much as one mitigating feature.

Observe, Absalom made it his business to speak to everyone concerning this fault or supposed fault of David, and so bred discontent and ingratitude throughout the land. If he had been an upright man, if he had cared one whit for the good of the people, he would have spoken to David concerning his supposed fault. But no. All the talk was about David, and none of it to him. This is the method of all who foment discontent and ingratitude and rebellion. It is the method of all who seek to undermine the authority of pastors and elders in the church. If they speak to the pastor at all, it will be after they have aired out their passions to the rest of the people, and secured support for their position. When that is done, they may go to their pastor with boldness, even with impudence, and claim the agreement and support of such and such prominent persons in the church, though if they did not capitalize upon the wrong kind of passions they might have no support at all.

Observe also, none of these men came to Absalom with any grievance against David. He went to them, to instill in their minds a grievance against David which they had never imagined. In this he worked in the same manner as the labor union agitators. Alas, so prone is the human heart to discontent and ingratitude that the men of Israel never inquired after the character of either David or his detractor, but allowed one of the worst men on earth to carry them away in rebellion against one of the best.

Observe too that Absalom succeeded in corrupting the whole realm without ever leaving his place at the king’s gate. He spoke to all who had some grievance, and turned the discontentment of their hearts against David. Those thus corrupted would be sure to corrupt others, for men (to say nothing of women) who are possessed by such passions will never hold their tongues.

And while he thus turned the hearts of Israel against David, he stole them for himself, with suave and smooth courtesy, and with flattery. With a sinister cunning worthy of the devil himself, “it was so, that when any man that had a controversy came to the king for judgment, then Absalom … said unto him, See, thy matters are good and right.” Absalom, who had murdered his brother, Absalom, who had set Joab’s field on fire because Joab failed to respond to his call, Absalom, whose heart was even now set against that good father to whom he owed all that he had, Absalom was the last man on earth who had any business to speak of “good and right.” He cared nothing about either good or right. But he knew that such talk would take well with the people. When any man came to the king for judgement, whether his cause were good or bad, whether he were angel or devil, Absalom would fawn upon him with “See, thy matters are good and right.” Men love to hear that their own matters are “good and right,” and will naturally adhere to the man who tells them so. But was every man in the right who came to David to complain of his neighbor? Did the party which was in the wrong never come to seek a judgement in his favor? Can it be supposed that a righteous judge would have told every man that came to him that his own matters were “good and right”? But Absalom cared nothing for “good and right,” and could therefore flatter every man who came, and this had its effect.

In all this we see the usual method of those who labor to weaken or undermine the influence of the authorities. The question of what is submerged in the question of who. David’s conduct was always wrong, and the matters of every other man in Israel “good and right.” This was neither reason nor righteousness, but only passion, and evil passion besides.

The American revolution is of course much glorified by the ungodly, and the American church, more influenced by the intoxicating principles of liberty and democracy than by the word of God, has generally regarded it in the same light. But can the American revolution—-can any revolution—-be justified from the Scriptures? The Bible says, “There is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God.” (Rom. 13:1-2). This seems plain enough. But every revolution proceeds upon the principle that the powers that be are not of God. The American revolution proceeded upon the principle that the existing authority was not of God, and that resistance to that power was not only legitimate, but righteous and godly. And why? “Taxation without representation” was the ostensible issue, but what is the evil of that? As a plain matter of practical fact, it would be difficult to say wherein their taxation without representation was any worse than the taxation with representation under which America groans today. It will of course be said that it is “a matter of principle”—-the most common meaning of which is, a matter by which to justify belligerence and self-will. The plain fact is, as “a matter of principle,” to resist the authority for “taxation without representation” is in fact to resist the existence of authority itself. It is to assert that authority must originate with the populace, or operate only by the consent of the populace, or within the limitations imposed by the populace. This is in fact to assert that the governed have the right to govern the governor, which in essence is to say that authority as such—-authority which comes down from God—-has no right to exist. If every man were wise and righteous—-if every man were fit to govern himself and his governors too, as democracy assumes and asserts—-there would be no call for the existence of authority. But the matter does not stand so. The fact that God has ordained authorities indicates that every man is not competent to govern himself, and it surely proves that every man does not have the right to govern himself. “Foolish people,” says Francis Asbury, “will think they have a right to govern themselves as they please; aye, and satan will help them.” Was there ever an apter comment on American democracy?

I know that there are deep and difficult questions here. We often see the power which is ordained of God acting resolutely against God. Moreover—-and what man is more likely to feel—-the power which is ordained of God as a minister to the people for good is often seen to work directly against the good of the people. The powers that be are often ungodly, unscrupulous, and tyrannical. What then? The Roman power under which Paul lived was ungodly and tyrannical, and yet Paul commanded submission to it. He commanded submission to the power which crucified Christ, and imprisoned and beheaded himself. Surely if there were ever occasion to breed discontent with the authorities, it was in the time of the apostles, and yet all that the apostles have to say on the subject is directly the reverse of that.

It is most true that the saints of God, as well as the people in general, often suffer under the regime of the powers that be, but does this give them the right to repudiate them, to overturn them? The Bible says, No. When the Lord stood before Pilate, “Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.” (John 19:10-11). The power which Pilate had to put Christ to death, or to release him, was given to him from above, and Christ submitted to that authority and to that death, unrighteous as they both were.

The recourse of the saints is not in rebellion or revolution, but in faith and patience. “If ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, happy are ye.” (I Pet. 3:14). David suffered for righteousness under Saul, yet so far from resisting Saul’s authority, he everywhere upheld it. When David stood over Saul, while Saul slept, “Then said Abishai to David, God hath delivered thine enemy into thine hand this day: now therefore let me smite him, I pray thee, with the spear even to the earth at once, and I will not smite him the second time. And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not, for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless? David said furthermore, As the Lord liveth, the Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come to die; or he shall descend into battle, and perish. The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the Lord’s anointed.” (I Sam. 26:8-11). David could speak thus precisely because he had faith, and this is the proper recourse of the saints under tyrannical rulers.

But observe, David spoke so also because he understood that Saul’s authority came from God. Absalom knew nothing of this, or cared nothing about it. He could therefore repudiate God-ordained authority, and assume that authority to himself, with the same complacency with which he put off his coat or put on his shoes. “But Absalom sent spies throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, As soon as ye hear the sound of the trumpet, then ye shall say, Absalom reigneth in Hebron.” And soon enough he was reigning in Jerusalem, while David fled across Jordan. Absalom was on the throne, and David removed from it, but the fact remained that David was “the Lord’s anointed,” and Absalom was nothing, though he was, for the moment, the choice of the fickle multitude.

But there are deep and difficult questions here also. Israel was a theocracy. There is no civil theocracy on the earth today. The secular powers are ordained of God, but they are not anointed of the Lord. It must be otherwise in the church, where those whom the Holy Ghost has made overseers are certainly anointed of the Lord as well as ordained of God. To repudiate such authority is as much to reject the Lord’s anointed as Absalom did, and those who do so no more become the Lord’s anointed by their declaration of independence than Absalom did. Yet in the secular realm, where none can pretend to the anointing of the Lord, “the powers that be are ordained of God,” and we suppose that if one overturns another, it must be the authority which is in power which is ordained of God. It is a fact that God has often used rebellions and revolutions to remove one power, and establish another, and when that is done, the new power is as much ordained of God as the old one. Yet the saints of God have no business in the rebellion. It is none of their sphere. It is against faith and against the plain command of God. And perhaps the worst of it is, the spirit and method of rebellion are absolutely destructive of virtue and spirituality. These tender plants cannot live in the atmosphere of rebellion. This is true whether the rebellion is in the nation, the family, or the church. To breed discontent, where men were contented before, is a sorry business on any account, but to breed discontent where gratitude and deference are called for is the very work of the devil.

But I must turn to another facet of the matter, which I hope has been in the minds of my readers throughout this article. If “the powers that be are ordained of God,” it would seem that the only necessary qualification for the secular powers is that they are in office. If they are in office, we have no right to resist them. Likewise of parental authority. No child has the right to repudiate his parents’ authority because he does not approve of their ways—-nor even because God does not approve of their ways. It is far otherwise, however, in the church of God. There are specific and stringent qualifications for elders in the church, and no child of God has any call to submit to the authority of those who fail to meet those qualifications. It is really an evil to be content in such a situation. It is the fruit of lukewarmness. Ecclesiastical tyranny is one of the greatest evils under the sun, and incompetence and misadministration in church authorities is a great evil also. It is a plain fact that there are many ecclesiastical authorities which have no right to exist, and which ought to be either deposed or abandoned. But where this must be done, it must be done in a Christian manner. No man has any right to do evil that good may come, and no man therefore has any right to set himself against the authorities in the church after the manner of Absalom.

Yet it remains a fact that men will never move to do anything about such situations unless they first become discontented there. Might it not be the work of the Lord to make men discontented in an evil situation? Indeed, is it not the very work of an evangelist to make the prodigal discontented in the far country? It is certain he will never leave the far country so long as he is contented there. To breed discontent, then, may be the work of the Lord.

Whether among the godly or the ungodly, I cannot help but look upon it as a hopeful sign when I see a man become discontented. But there is more than one kind of discontent, and it is certain that most of the discontent on the earth is evil. On two different occasions during the past couple of years I have received phone calls from men obviously discontented with the present state of the church. At first sight, this is hopeful. Only the most ignorant or the most lukewarm could be contented with the church as it is today. But as I listened to these men talk, I soon observed that none of their discontent was with their own state. Both of them talked incessantly, so that I could scarcely speak at all. This is a pretty certain mark of pride. And the one word which was most prominent in the speech of both of them was “they.” They do this—-they won’t do that—-they don’t understand—-they are ignorant—-they are worldly, etc. Such discontent is worse than worthless, and those who talk so, and expect me to encourage or countenance them, are sure to be disappointed.

It is true that the prodigal was discontented with his circumstances and his surroundings, and this it was which first moved him with thoughts of returning to his Father, but above all he condemned himself. He did not arise and go to his Father, and say to him, “Father, they sent me into the fields to feed swine, they took no notice of me in my want, they had no compassion,” etc. No, but “Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.” The evangelist who stirs up discontent in the heart of the complacent sinner does well, so long as he leads him to blame himself for his troubles. Rebels and revolutionaries never operate on this plan. They rather set to work to stir the passions of the prodigal against his employer, for the indignity put upon him in sending him into the fields to feed swine (while the employer enjoyed the luxury of a fine house and good food!), against the uncaring populace, which took no notice of his need, against the rulers of the land, who allowed such evils, etc. There is a vast difference between discontent with my circumstances, my sin, and myself, and discontent with my circumstances and the authorities over me. The rebellious in heart always labor to stir up the latter. This was the way of Absalom. This is the essence and spirit of rebellion, and it is always wrong, even where the authorities themselves are evil or unqualified. It is wrong because its very essence consists of wrong passions and evil deeds. Who can tell of a rebellion, a revolution, a church split, a repudiation of civil, ecclesiastical, or parental authority, which proceeded upon the principles of quiet humility and gentle love? In the church of God such a thing may be, but rarely is.

But there is yet another facet of this subject of which I wish to speak. How ought the powers that be to deal with those who labor to undermine their authority? It commonly happens that the authority is the last to know it when some disaffected person is at work to destroy his position or authority. The rebellious generally work in secrecy, and do all their talking behind the backs of the authorities. They know to whom they may speak freely, to whom they must speak guardedly, and to whom they dare not traduce the authority at all. Adonijah knew whom to invite to his rebellious uprising. “But me,” says Nathan the prophet, “even me thy servant, and Zadok the priest, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and thy servant Solomon, hath he not called.” (I Kings 1:26). David, of course, knew nothing of it. Neither did David know anything of Absalom’s stealing the hearts of the men of Israel. But had he known it, what ought he to have done? It could hardly have been right for him to stand idly by and allow the sinister process to go forward, but what could he have done to stop it? Remember, all that Absalom was doing at that point was speaking, and we have all been indoctrinated concerning the “fundamental right” of every human being to the “freedom of speech.” But is this right?

Whatever may be said for the freedom of speech in the civil realm—-and I do not meddle with that—-I believe it one of the greatest of mistakes in the family or the church. Who can believe that a father ought to stand idly by while one of his sons secretly works, by means of “free speech,” to breed discontent in the family and undermine his father’s authority? Exactly what should be done in such a case I do not pretend to say. I only affirm that such activity ought to be stopped, by whatever means the case requires. Any father who would knowingly allow such talk to continue is a fool. Likewise in the church of God. Any member of the church who seeks to breed discontent, by speaking against the elders behind their backs, ought to be put out of the church, immediately and peremptorily, before he has opportunity to raise a faction. His course is both sinful and destructive. There is no reason to allow it, and every reason to curb it.

It will be said—-especially by those who are guilty of such practices—-that this makes the elders untouchable. It puts them beyond reproof. I say, it does no such thing. Absalom might have spoken to David at any time concerning his supposed fault, but it was not his purpose to correct David, but to dethrone him. In the church this may be necessary. Some elders doubtless ought to be put out of their office—-not necessarily for any crime, but simply because they are unfit for the position, and ought never to have taken such a place to begin with. But if this must be done, it may be done without any of the sinister tactics or the evil passions of rebellion.

To conclude, Absalom is one of the worst characters to stain the pages of Holy Scripture. He is the embodiment of self-will, and of all the evil spirit and tactics of rebellion. Yet he has followers enough, many of whom delude themselves with the fancy that their cause and their ways are righteous.

Glenn Conkurske