Ahithophel - Glenn Conjurske
Ahithophel
by Glenn Conjurske
In II Samuel 16:23 we read the following remarkable statement concerning Ahithophel: “And the counsel of Ahithophel, which he counselled in those days, was as if a man had enquired at the oracle of God: so was all the counsel of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom.” This man was among the wisest of the wise. So profound was his wisdom that to ask the counsel of Ahithophel was as good as inquiring at the oracle of God. Wisdom is the understanding of how to accomplish our ends, whatever those ends may be, whether temporal or spiritual, and whether good or evil. Such wisdom stands upon a thorough understanding of human nature, of the nature of plants and animals and the forces of nature, of the relationship between causes and effects. It consists of knowing how men, or things animate or inanimate, will respond to the influences which we bring to bear upon them. The man who sits on the back of his stubborn mule and kicks and spurs and beats and curses has little wisdom. For all his endeavors, yet the mule stands still. Wisdom ties a bunch of hay to a stick, and holds it before the mule’s nose. He moves to reach the hay, but of course moves the hay with him. Such is the manner of wisdom, and such wisdom Ahithophel possessed in such an astonishing degree that he spoke always as an oracle of God. Whatsoever a man wished to do, let him but ask Ahithophel, and the way would be made plain, as much so as if he had asked the Lord himself.
Such a man could not be ignored. We read therefore in I Chronicles 27:33, “And Ahithophel was the king’s counsellor.” David stood in need of such wisdom, in order to rule the people of God, and fight the battles of the Lord, and he had sense and humility enough to make use of it. Where the rash and the proud go on in their own way, disdaining to ask counsel of men wiser than themselves, probably never suspecting that anyone else might know better than themselves, and where the hyperspiritual spurn to ask the counsel of any man, declaring that the word of the Lord is quite sufficient for them, the wise and the spiritual ask counsel, and are glad to avail themselves of the wisdom of the wise. Ahithophel’s wisdom, therefore, raised him to the highest platform of honor and usefulness under the administration of King David.
But what astonishing thing is this which we read of this man? “So was all the counsel of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom.” What sort of man could stand “both with David and with Absalom”? What sort of man could lend his wisdom to the designs of both David and Absalom? Surely Ahithophel was as destitute of character as he was rich in wisdom. And this has something to teach us concerning the nature of wisdom. Wisdom is not a purely spiritual thing. Neither is it the exclusive property of the spiritual, or of the godly. The ungodly may be wise in their own sphere—-wiser indeed than the children of light. Wisdom is that understanding which gives us the capacity to accomplish our ends, whether those ends are good or evil, and that wisdom may reach its highest point in those who are the most wicked. In fact, it does so. Who more wicked than the devil, and yet who more wise? The wisdom of Satan is apparent wherever we turn in this world—-apparent in its sports and other entertainments, in its commerce, in its education, in its technology, in its religion, and in the internationalism and global ideology which prevail at the present day. The devil knows how to accomplish his own ends. He knows how to secure and hold the hearts of men. He knows how to triumph over the cause of Christ. He knows how to bring the whole world together at his feet, worshipping the beast, and the dragon which gives him his power. All this is the fruit of his wisdom, and all of it turned to ends which are never anything but wholly wicked. What wonder, then, to see a man possessed of wisdom as the oracle of God, and yet entirely destitute of character? Such a man was Ahithophel.
The wisdom of such a man could not be hid. He was a legend in his own time. The wisdom of Ahithophel, like that of Lorenzo Dow, and like that of Solomon, formed the subject of many a wondering conversation, wherever men associated together at their leisure. When Absalom, therefore, led the nation in rebellion against the throne of David, he felt it a plain necessity to secure the services of Ahithophel. Who would go to war against the oracle of God? Who could prevail against the oracle of God? Absalom could never feel his cause secure, so long as the oracle of God was the counsellor of David. He must secure the oracle of God for himself. Absalom, therefore, “sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David’s counsellor, from his city, even from Giloh, while he offered sacrifices.” Ahithophel, we know, obeyed the summons, for he had no character. Off he goes, from offering sacrifices to God, to offering his wisdom to Absalom. A grain of loyalty to him he had served so long, a grain of gratitude, a grain of righteousness, would have led him to spurn this invitation, but he was destitute of all. To Absalom, therefore, he goes, so that he who dispensed wisdom as the oracle of God yesterday to establish the purposes of David, shall today dispense that same wisdom to overturn them.
Why this? Has David changed? Is the man who was worthy of his service yesterday unworthy of it today? No. No such thing. But what does Ahithophel care about worth? It is advantage which concerns him. David has not changed, but David’s circumstances are altered. When David rode high, Ahithophel rode with him. When David was cast off, Ahithophel cast him off also.
But it is one thing to cast off David, and another to embrace Absalom. Yet to Ahithophel, David and Absalom are all one. It was nearness to the throne which he wanted, and he cared not who sat upon it. His wisdom was unerring, as the oracle of God, and would serve as well to establish the purposes of Absalom, as the purposes of David. And Ahithophel cared not a whit which purposes were established, so long as he maintained his own station and honor.
David soon hears that Ahithophel is gone over to Absalom. Such news would fly upon the wings of the wind. The oracle of God which had served David so well is now against him. Such news must fall heavy upon the already prostrated heart of David, and he immediately lifts up his voice to God, saying, “O LORD, I pray thee, turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness.” But David well knew that he had asked a hard thing. Can the oracle of God be turned to foolishness? Perhaps this was too much to hope. The counsel of a wise man is wise, and is not so easily turned to foolishness. But if the counsel of Ahithophel was as the oracle of God indeed, as it was with both David and Absalom, yet Absalom was no David. It may be a hard thing to expect foolish counsel from a man so wise as Ahithophel, yet if he be a fool who hears it, the end is gained all the same. The son of Solomon received wise counsel, but paid no heed to it. David knew well enough that Absalom would receive wise counsel from Ahithophel, yet that counsel might be defeated, if the ears of Absalom could be turned away from hearing it. He therefore turns to his friend, Hushai the Archite, and says, “If thou return to the city, and say unto Absalom, I will be thy servant, O king; as I have been thy father’s servant hitherto, so will I now also be thy servant: then mayest thou for me defeat the counsel of Ahithophel.” So much as David had trusted in the counsel of Ahithophel in times past, so much he fears it now. So much as he trusted it when it was for him, so much he must fear it when it is against him. But Hushai had been “the king’s companion,” when Ahithophel had been only his counsellor, and Hushai is yet to be trusted. He is sent therefore upon the dangerous and difficult mission, to defeat the counsel of Ahithophel.
The counsel of Ahithophel is good—-well adapted, that is, to establish the purpose of Absalom, though utterly evil in itself. First, “Go in unto thy father’s concubines.” Make thyself as odious as possible to thy father David. Make the breach between you irreparable. Such counsel was both good and wicked. Morally it was wicked, but Scripture calls it “good counsel,” for it was admirably adapted to the end in view. It reveals to us not only the depth of Ahithophel’s wickedness, but the depth of his wisdom also. He is not content to give mere military advice for the battle. He views the whole situation. He understands all the emotions which obtain between David and Absalom. He will deal with those first, ere he offers a word of counsel concerning the military conquest. “Go in unto thy father’s concubines.” That being done, he preaches courage, and decision, and action. Defeat David quickly, while his heart is discouraged, and before he has time to recover himself or strengthen himself. In all this we see what surpassing wisdom may dwell in a man who is evil and despicable, and utterly destitute of character.
But Hushai was very wise also—-wise enough to recognize the excellency of the counsel of Ahithophel, and wise enough to understand how to defeat it. Where Ahithophel had spoken to inspire courage and decision and action, Hushai speaks to inspire discouragement and indecision and delay. He first preaches up the strength and the wisdom of the adversary. David is a man of war. David is wise, and will not lodge with the people. In this he spoke precisely as the unbelieving spies had done at Kadesh-Barnea, concentrating all the attention of the people on the strength of the adversary. And as the people of Israel believed the discouraging report of the unbelieving spies, so Absalom also hearkened to the discouraging counsel of Hushai, and set aside the inspiring counsel of Ahithophel. There is something in the heart of man which naturally tends in that direction, especially in the heart of the wicked. Faith and a good conscience may make a man as bold as a lion, but the wicked flee when no man pursueth. Absalom certainly had no faith, and the very cause in which he was engaged was such as to preclude a good conscience. He therefore naturally inclined to the counsel of discouragement and delay. This counsel was artfully given, with a promise of ultimate victory by present delay, and of greater glory by a grander scheme. “ I counsel that all Israel be generally gathered unto thee, from Dan even to Beer-sheba, as the sand that is by the sea for multitude; and that thou go to battle in thine own person.” Thus Hushai counts upon the pride of Absalom’s heart, as well as the fearfulness which belongs to an evil conscience, and by all this prevails to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, with counsel which Hushai himself knew very well to be bad, “For the LORD had appointed to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the LORD might bring evil upon Absalom.”
Ahithophel doubtless understood all this well enough. He who is capable of giving good counsel is capable also of recognizing bad. He knew that his own counsel was good, and Hushai’s bad. He knew that the issue of following the counsel of Hushai would be to bring evil upon Absalom. Had the good counsel of Ahithophel come from a good man, he would doubtless have felt pity for the infatuated Absalom. He would have intreated and expostulated. He would have set himself to prove the superiority of his good counsel, and so to save the deluded Absalom from his fate. But we see nothing of this in Ahithophel. He cared no more for Absalom than he did for David. He cared only for Ahithophel. He thinks only of Ahithophel. Till now he had been sought and honored and followed. His counsel was as the very oracle of God, and he reigned supreme in his sphere. Now his counsel is rejected, and his pride cannot bear it. “And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and arose, and gat him home to his house, to his city, and put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died, and was buried in the sepulchre of his father.”
Thus does pride carry men headlong to destruction—-for it was nothing other than pride which moved Ahithophel to hang himself. That pride had doubtless been growing for a long time. He was as an undefeated boxer, perhaps crowing, “I am the greatest,” in his heart if not with his lips. He was universally acclaimed, always sought, always followed. His pride was therefore grown to such proportions that he could not bear a single defeat. And here we see also that the most unerring wisdom may dwell in the same man with the most senseless folly. Thus the matter stands when wisdom is destitute of character. A moment ago he was in the calmest possession of all the faculties of reason. He sees all exigencies, all possibilities. He understands all causes and effects, and gives counsel as the oracle of God. But now his counsel is rejected. He is offended, indignant, humiliated, and “Fire in the heart sends smoke into the head.” Passion reigns, and calm reason is thrust out. Men will no more behold him as the undefeated Ahithophel, but now as the man whose counsel has been set aside for that of his rival. Therefore they shall no more behold him at all. He must kill himself. Here we see too that he was as profane as he was proud—-much more profane, indeed, than Esau. Esau will sell his birthright to save his life. Ahithophel will throw away his life to save his pride.
Nor does this passion reign for a moment only. The counsel of the great Ahithophel has been once rejected, and the great Ahithophel can never more bear the humiliation. He does not take his life in a sudden fit of passion, which momentarily clouds the reason. No, but as it were in a reasoned and deliberate passion, which scorns all the claims of sense and reason, that it might indulge itself in the pure wilfulness of passion. He acts coolly and deliberately. He saddles his ass, rides to his city, sets his house in order, and hangs himself. Here is the acme of folly.
Two things, then, are apparent in the life of Ahithophel. The first is that the most unerring wisdom may dwell in the same soul with the most consummate folly. The second is that that same wisdom may also dwell in a man who is utterly destitute of character. What a grand mistake it is, then, to admire a man on the basis of what we see in his mind. And a greater mistake still to follow such a man, or to suppose him good because he is wise.
Glenn Conjurske