Absalom
Typological treatment in the corpus
Absalom, the son of David who usurped his father’s throne, is identified by Jones in The Struggle for the Birthright as a type of the “bad figs of Judah” — the priestly leaders who rejected Jesus as Messiah and seized his throne. Absalom’s revolt is for Jones a prophetic pattern of the rejection narrative in the Gospels.
Biblical anchoring
| Reference | Context |
|---|---|
| 2Sam. 13:1-22 | Amnon’s assault on Tamar — the cause of Absalom’s revolt |
| 2Sam. 15:1-12 | Absalom undermines David’s authority and proclaims himself king in Hebron |
| 2Sam. 15:14 | David flees Jerusalem — prophetic pattern of Jesus’ rejection |
| 2Sam. 18:9-15 | Absalom’s death in the terebinth — end of the usurpation |
| Matt. 21:38 | ”This is the heir; come, let us kill him and have his inheritance” |
Typological exposition by author
Stephen E. Jones
In The Struggle for the Birthright, Jones establishes a systematic typological connection between Absalom’s revolt and the Jewish leaders who rejected Jesus:
“The entire conflict between Absalom and David was prophetic of the conflict between the bad figs of Judah and Jesus, the Son of David.”
Jones points out that Absalom justified his revolt by appealing to “justice”: David had done nothing after Amnon’s assault on Tamar. The people demanded justice, and Absalom seized power. In precisely the same way, Jones argues, the Jewish leaders justified their rejection of Jesus: God was doing nothing about the injustice of Roman rule. Their appeal to justice led to the usurpation of Jesus’ throne.
This pattern of misplaced demands for justice reveals, for Jones, a structural dynamic that recurs throughout salvation history. Absalom’s grievance was not without foundation — Amnon’s act deserved judgment. But the response to the absence of justice — seizing power oneself — reproduced the pattern that the priestly leaders would repeat centuries later. The typological connection rests on a defining question: when God appears to be silent, does one choose patience or usurpation? David and Jesus chose the former; Absalom and the chief priests the latter:
“Absalom disagreed with David for apparently doing nothing after Amnon raped Tamar. He demanded ‘justice,’ and when none was forthcoming, he overthrew David and usurped his throne. Likewise, in Jesus’ day the people disagreed with God for seeming to do nothing about Rome’s ‘rape’ of people of Judah. The people prayed to God to do them ‘justice,’ and when none was forthcoming, they overthrew King Jesus and usurped His throne.”1
The key formulation for Jones is Matt. 21:38 — the parable of the murderous tenants: the priestly leaders knew Jesus was the Heir and killed him precisely for that reason, just as Absalom knew his father was king and usurped the throne precisely for that reason.
Matt. 21:38 is for Jones not merely a proof-text but the hermeneutical key to the entire David–Absalom typology: the crime was deliberate, not born of ignorance. This deepens the typological mirroring. Just as Absalom seized David’s throne precisely because he knew who David was, so the chief priests killed Jesus because they knew who he was. The usurpation was theologically qualified: a purposeful attempt to overturn God’s plan by eliminating the Heir. The Absalom typology thereby belongs to the most serious category of moral responsibility: revolt undertaken with full knowledge and deliberate intent. This is what distinguishes it structurally from types that depict Jesus’ rejection as arising from ignorance or human frailty — it concerns not unknowing refusal but conscious revolt:
“Absalom knew that his father was the king, and for that reason he usurped the throne. Likewise, so also did the chief priests know that Jesus was the Heir. They killed Him because they knew who He was. It was a deliberate revolt and rebellion to seize His inheritance.”1
Absalom’s revolt was initially successful but ultimately failed — just as the priestly leaders’ act of rejection was temporarily successful but will eschatologically fail.
The deliberate nature of the usurpation is theologically decisive for Jones: not ignorance but conscious revolt. This deepens the typological mirroring. Absalom was confident his plan would succeed — his revolt was initially broadly supported. The chief priests were likewise confident: Pilate conceded, the crowds cried ‘crucify him,’ and Jesus died. From a human perspective both were successful. But Jones reads Scripture as a book that consistently distinguishes between temporary success and eschatological judgment. Every David–Absalom scene ends with the restoration of the anointed and judgment upon the usurper. The structure is irresistible. Jones concludes: “Thus, the revolt of Absalom, though immediately successful, ultimately failed. This story is prophetic of the story of Jesus. The chief priests were immediately successful in their plot to overthrow King Jesus, but their effort ultimately will fail.”1
The eschatological implication of this typological pattern extends, in Jones’ theology, beyond the mere failure of the usurpation. Within his broader theology of the apokatastasis, the rejection of Christ is the necessary phase leading toward universal restoration: precisely because the chief priests rejected Jesus, his blood was shed; precisely because his blood was shed, atonement became possible for all. The failure of Absalom’s usurpation did not result in his total destruction — Absalom died, but the house of David survived and flourished. Equally, for the rejecting leaders of Judah, their failure heralds not their final condemnation but their ultimate inclusion in God’s plan of restoration. Jones explicitly links the Absalom pattern to his apokatastasis theology: no usurpation is so radical as to place it beyond the reach of God’s universal atonement. The revolt ends not in eternal condemnation, but in the restoration that Jones regards as the eschatological completion of David’s kingship in Christ.
Related types
- Connected: david, ahithophel, solomon, saul