Is Absalom as much of a fool as he is brave for standing up and usurping David's throne? Absalom portrays his mark of bravery by revolting against the man who took down Goliath, but he unnecessarily places David off his thrown and gets himself killed. The faults David undergoes after being crowned king are the only instances that Absalom can legitimize his revolt and to question David's righteousness, but instead they actually show marks of David's morality that Absalom does not see. Absalom does not show characteristics similar to when David is successful in dealing with the surrounding Philistines and Absalom makes a fool out of himself when he ends up with no grounds for revolution besides for selfishness.…show more content…
A great king should be able to raise his own army to do his task, not rely on the congregation of people willing to stab David's back. David does show acts of weakness in his character first when he commits adultery with Bathsheba and then sends his mistress's husband to his demise in battle. The author portrays David as thought he is a closet pervert lusting (11:13), but David's run with lust only further prove his legitimacy for being a king when he has remorse (12:13) because morally sound people will avoid committing the same sin twice. The fact that he sends off Uriah depicts a moment a weakness for David. Because man cannot be all-around great, David has a run with committing a sin, but by doing this, it shows what someone should do when a sin is committed and that David continues to prove himself as a worthy king. In addition, this creates a contrast to how Absalom deals with people who commit sins and accents how noble of a man David is, which also gives the idea how Jerusalem is benefited more by having David as king instead of Absalom. Absalom does not show the heroism that David has shown fighting Goliath and moving the Ark, which leaves him much unqualified for becoming a noble king. Absalom has no selfless reasons for taking over the throne because the sole reason he has left for taking the throne is so that he can take it for himself. He
A great king should be able to raise his own army to do his task, not rely on the congregation of people willing to stab David's back. David does show acts of weakness in his character first when he commits adultery with Bathsheba and then sends his mistress's husband to his demise in battle. The author portrays David as thought he is a closet pervert lusting (11:13), but David's run with lust only further prove his legitimacy for being a king when he has remorse (12:13) because morally sound people will avoid committing the same sin twice. The fact that he sends off Uriah depicts a moment a weakness for David. Because man cannot be all-around great, David has a run with committing a sin, but by doing this, it shows what someone should do when a sin is committed and that David continues to prove himself as a worthy king. In addition, this creates a contrast to how Absalom deals with people who commit sins and accents how noble of a man David is, which also gives the idea how Jerusalem is benefited more by having David as king instead of Absalom. Absalom does not show the heroism that David has shown fighting Goliath and moving the Ark, which leaves him much unqualified for becoming a noble king. Absalom has no selfless reasons for taking over the throne because the sole reason he has left for taking the throne is so that he can take it for himself. He
Related
- Better Essays
shakespeare influences
- 16068 Words
- 65 Pages
the greatest Southern aristocrat to his children 's doomed battle with the poisoned inheritance passed down from a materialistic and defeated landed gentry. These situations are closely associated with Faulkner 's art. In the Sound and fury and Absalom, Absalom!, Faulkner 's tragic paradigms
- 16068 Words
- 65 Pages
Better Essays