Verses 1-21
In Accordance With What He Sees To Be The King’s Desire, Joab Successfully (But Unwisely) Works To Bring About The Return Of Absalom Through a Wise Woman (2 Samuel 14:1-21 ).
As so often throughout David’s reign Joab, who otherwise was totally loyal, felt that he had in this instance a right to interfere in the affairs of David when he considered that it might be to his own benefit. He had done it in the case of Abner, when it had seemed that Abner might usurp his position as commander-in-chief, even though he had some justification in that case, in that he was exacting blood vengeance on behalf of his family (2 Samuel 3:27). He will later do it in the case of Amasa, another commander chosen by David, ostensibly because of his failure to carry out military orders, but no doubt also because he too had usurped his position as commander-in-chief (2 Samuel 19:13; 2 Samuel 20:10). He will later even do it by seeking to promote Adonijah’s claims to the throne as the eldest surviving son, over against Solomon, possibly because he knew that he was not popular with Solomon (see 1 Kings 2:5-6). Yet he was certainly steadfastly loyal to David in every other way, at least while David was still active, and he had shared with him his wilderness years. What he probably did have in mind was that as Absalom was the eldest son, and therefore heir presumptive, if he could put Absalom in his debt, then once Absalom succeeded to the throne after David’s death he would remember what he owed to Joab.
But his interference here, while possibly with the best of intentions because as David’s cousin he knew David’s thoughts better than most, would undoubtedly bring catastrophe on Israel. We should remember that by his actions Absalom had already rebelled against the throne once. It should therefore have been clear to all that he was not to be trusted. Yet Joab, by the use of deceit, persuaded David to let him return to Jerusalem against David’s own better judgment, thus eventually doing David great harm. The truth was that if Absalom was to return he should really have returned to enter a City of Refuge, where his case could be decided. Alternatively he should not have been allowed to return at all. What was not right on any account was to gloss over his sin in accordance with Joab’s suggestion through the wise woman. (It is ironic that the one whose only defence in the case of his killing of Abner was that he was obtaining blood vengeance, should in the case of Absalom take up a different position). So as a result of Joab’s interference David allowed himself to be jockeyed into the unacceptable position of allowing Absalom to return under safe conduct, while being unwilling to have dealings with him because of his sin, both factors which undoubtedly led to Absalom’s rebellion.
We must recognise that the only reason why Absalom should want to return from his honoured position in the court of the king of Geshur would be in order to establish his right to succeed to the throne of Israel, so that once he became aware of how David felt about him he would have recognised that his succession was unlikely to be approved by David. We can see why, in his view, this would leave him with only one alternative, an attempted coup. There was no way that Absalom would have been willing to live peacefully under Solomon’s rule, or even Adonijah’s. He would therefore have been best left in Geshur, which he would have been had it not been for Joab’s intrigues.
One important lesson, therefore, that comes out of this narrative is that we should be wary as to whose advice we listen to, especially if it conflicts with our own conscience, and even though it tends to be in line with our inclinations. In this case we have YHWH on the one hand secretly acting on David’s behalf and protecting him against the full consequences of his own sin, and on the other we have Joab secretly acting against David’s best interests, although not fully aware of it, because he primarily had in mind his own best interests.
Analysis.
a Now Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived that the king’s heart was against/toward Absalom (2 Samuel 14:1).
b And Joab sent to Tekoa, and fetched from there a wise woman, and said to her, “I pray you, feign yourself to be a mourner, and put on mourning apparel, I pray you, and do not anoint yourself with oil, but be as a woman who has for a long time mourned for the dead, and go in to the king, and speak on this manner to him.” So Joab put the words in her mouth (2 Samuel 14:2-3).
c And when the woman of Tekoa spoke to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, and did obeisance, and said, “Help, O king” (2 Samuel 14:4).
d And the king said to her, “What ails you?” And she answered, “Of a truth I am a widow, and my husband is dead. And your handmaid had two sons, and they two strove together in the field, and there was none to part them, but the one smote the other, and killed him. And, behold, the whole family is risen against your handmaid, and they say, ‘Deliver him who smote his brother, that we may kill him for the life of his brother whom he slew, and so destroy the heir also.’ Thus will they quench my coal which is left, and will leave to my husband neither name nor remainder upon the face of the earth” (2 Samuel 14:5-7).
e And the king said to the woman, “Go to your house, and I will give charge concerning you.” And the woman of Tekoa said to the king, “My lord, O king, the iniquity be on me, and on my father’s house, and the king and his throne be guiltless.” And the king said, “Whoever says anything to you, bring him to me, and he shall not touch you any more” (2 Samuel 14:8-11).
f Then she said, “I pray you, let the king remember YHWH your God, that the avenger of blood destroy not any more, lest they destroy my son.” And he said, “As YHWH lives, there shall not one hair of your son fall to the earth” (2 Samuel 14:11).
e Then the woman said, “Let your handmaid, I pray you, speak a word to my lord the king.” And he said, “Say on.” And the woman said, “Why then have you devised such a thing against the people of God? For in speaking this word the king is as one who is guilty, in that the king does not fetch home again his banished one. For we must necessarily die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again, neither does God take away life, but devises means, so that he that is banished continue not as an outcast from him” (2 Samuel 14:12-14).
d “Now, therefore, seeing that I am come to speak this word to my lord the king, it is because the people have made me afraid, and your handmaid said, ‘I will now speak to the king, it may be that the king will perform the request of his servant. For the king will hear, to deliver his servant out of the hand of the man that would destroy me and my son together out of the inheritance of God” (2 Samuel 14:15-16).
c “Then your handmaid said, ‘Let, I pray you, the word of my lord the king be comfortable, for as an angel of God, so is my lord the king to discern good and bad, and YHWH your God be with you” (2 Samuel 14:17).
b Then the king answered and said to the woman, “Do not hide from me, I pray you, anything that I shall ask you.” And the woman said, “Let my lord the king now speak.” And the king said, “Is the hand of Joab with you in all this?” And the woman answered and said, “As your soul lives, my lord the king, none can turn to the right hand or to the left from anything that my lord the king has spoken, for your servant Joab, he bade me, and he put all these words in the mouth of your handmaid. To change the face of the matter has your servant Joab done this thing, and my lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are in the earth” (2 Samuel 14:18-20).
a And the king said to Joab, “Behold now, I have done this thing. Go therefore, bring the young man Absalom back” (2 Samuel 14:21).
Note that in ‘a’ Joab perceives David’s attitude towards Absalom, and in the parallel David gives Joab permission to bring Absalom back. In ‘b’ Joab calls on the wise woman of Tekoa to go to David and puts words into her mouth, and in the parallel she admits that Joab sent her and that what she has spoken have been words put into her mouth by Joab. In ‘c’ she pleads to David for help, and in the parallel she is grateful for his ‘helpfulness’. In ‘d’ she tells the story of her son who has slain his brother and is in danger of blood vengeance, pleading his cause, and in the parallel she speaks of David as having given his assurance that he will deliver her son out of the hands of the avenger of blood. In ‘e’ she prays that the king might be guiltless in respect of his concession, and in the parallel she draws out that he is guilty because in giving the concession he has demonstrated his inconsistency. Centrally in ‘f’ the woman deals with the main issue, the setting aside of the right of blood vengeance.
‘ Now Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived that the king’s heart was against (or ’toward’) Absalom.’
How we translate and interpret this verse will depend on our view of 2 Samuel 13:39. The ancient Aramaic translation preserved in the Targum, which probably dates back to before the time of Christ, translates as ‘and Joab the son of Zeruiah knew that the heart of the king was to go out against Absalom’ (the verb being read in from 2 Samuel 13:39. Apart from ‘perceived’ there is no verb in the Hebrew text). It will be observed that the Targum agrees with the way that we have translated 2 Samuel 13:39 (and incidentally disagrees with the Rabbinic ideas). Thus we have the alternatives of either seeing this as referring to David’s antagonism towards Absalom in view of what he had done, possibly including attempts to have him extradited, or as seeing it as referring to his yearning love for Absalom, a love which is certainly revealed later. But the latter does not sit well with David’s being unwilling to allow Absalom into his presence even when he had been allowed to return to Jerusalem. Indeed had he yearned for him so affectionately he could undoubtedly have arranged a reconciliation a good time before, instead of waiting for a few years.
So our view is that what the text means is that Joab perceived the anger and antagonism that was still in David’s heart towards Absalom because he had slain Amnon, with the result that Absalom was still under the threat of blood vengeance from David and his family, while aware that in his heart David still had genuine affection for Absalom. And that he acted on that basis for his own interests, seeing Absalom as a possible heir to the throne, but never dreaming that Absalom would openly rebel.
‘ And Joab sent to Tekoa, and fetched from there a wise woman, and said to her, “I pray you, feign yourself to be a mourner, and put on mourning apparel, I pray you, and do not anoint yourself with oil, but be as a woman who has for a long time mourned for the dead, and go in to the king, and speak on this manner to him.” So Joab put the words in her mouth.’
In the course of carrying out his plan Joab sent for a wise woman from Tekoa. It is noteworthy that while David would have sent for a prophet, Joab sent for a secular wise woman. He was not concerned for YHWH’s will but for his own. Such women were seen as wise women because they were old and experienced and had gained a reputation for behaving and speaking wisely (compare 2 Samuel 20:16). The fact that Solomon was noted for ‘wisdom’ might point to the fact that David encouraged such people, something of which Joab would be well aware. Her being seen as a ‘wise woman’ was probably by popular opinion rather than there being at this time a class of ‘wise men and women’. They would follow later.
He called on the woman to pretend to be a mourner, one who was in long term mourning for the death of a long dead husband. Thus she was to wear recognised mourning clothes, and was not to anoint herself with oil, as most Israelite women would do on approaching the king. The aim was in order to move David’s tender heart in her favour (Joab knew his man).
Then he gave her the gist of what he wanted her to say. The fact that Joab ‘put words into her mouth’ is stressed twice (see also 2 Samuel 14:19). The woman was not necessarily therefore coming forward with the truth. She was putting forward Joab’s case.
‘ And when the woman of Tekoa spoke to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, and did obeisance, and said, “Help, O king.” ’
We should note here that the wise woman appears to have had no difficulty in approaching the king with her request, which gives the lie to Absalom’s claim later on that David was not open to being approached by his people (2 Samuel 15:3-4). Such a right of approach to Israel’s leading figure had long been a principle of Yahwism (and in fact was practised by many other kings who, even when very cruel, paradoxically liked to be seen as the ‘father’ or ‘shepherd’ of their people). Consider for example Exodus 18:15-16; Judges 4:4-5; 1 Samuel 7:15-16.
When she approached she made the usual obeisance to the king, falling on her face before him. This was a requirement for all who approached the king. Joab had to act similarly (2 Samuel 14:22). (It would be the same for all who approached David when he was sitting in state, even though it is often not mentioned. The exception may have been the royal family, although even they would have had to make some act of deference). Then she made to the king a plea for his assistance, crying, ‘Give me your help, O king’.
‘ And the king said to her, “What ails you?” And she answered, “Of a truth I am a widow, and my husband is dead. And your handmaid had two sons, and they two strove together in the field, and there was none to part them, but the one smote the other, and killed him. And, behold, the whole family is risen against your handmaid, and they say, ‘Deliver him who smote his brother, that we may kill him for the life of his brother whom he slew, and so destroy the heir also.’ Thus will they quench my coal which is left, and will leave to my husband neither name nor remainder upon the face of the earth.”
When the king asked her what her problem was she claimed that she was a widow with two sons, one of whom had accidentally killed the other in a fight. The result was that the whole family were demanding blood vengeance against the surviving son, reminding themselves at the same time that he was the heir to his father’s property. In other words their thoughts were more of taking over the dead man’s inheritance, than of really wanting justice. Justice and blood vengeance were simply the excuse. We can see how cleverly Joab’s words, put into the woman’s mouth, were designed to move the king’s sense of justice and fairplay.
And then the wise woman pointed out what this would mean for her. She would lose her one hope in life, the one thing that she lived for, the one desirable ‘burning coal’ that was left to her. His life would be snuffed out and quenched. And the further result would be that her husband’s name would not be preserved in Israel. Note that every new element that she introduced was describing what was seen in Israel as the most important things in life, indeed as every Israelite’s right; land inheritance, a son to support and care for his widowed mother, and the maintenance of a man’s name through his descendants. And they were all being threatened by greedy men who were making justice their excuse.
‘ And the king said to the woman, “Go to your house, and I will give charge concerning you.”
The wise woman’s words had won David over to her side (as Joab had known they would) and so he informed her to be afraid no longer. He assured her that he himself would issue a royal decree that the son should not be harmed. The son would then be under royal protection and to harm him would then be a direct affront to the king. (It would be the equivalent of being in a City of Refuge). This decision was, in fact, to go against established precedent and the laws of the land, but possibly David had Cain in mind in making his decision, which was a case where YHWH Himself had set aside the recognised principle of blood vengeance (the setting aside of which was of course the point to be made later).
‘ And the woman of Tekoa said to the king, “My lord, O king, the iniquity be on me, and on my father’s house, and the king and his throne be guiltless.” ’
The woman then nobly took on herself and her son all the guilt that might accrue from the decision, thereby acknowledging that she recognised that an ancient and sacred right was being set aside for her sake. This would impress the king with her clear intention of goodwill towards him, even if it was beyond her power to grant it. It would also remind the listener how serious the request was that she was making.
It is indicative of the authority that David felt that he now had, and even to some extent of his new royal arrogance, that he felt able to so override a longstanding principle of justice in such a case. It is apparent from this that he was becoming more and more despotic.
‘ And the king said, “Whoever says anything to you, bring him to me, and he shall not touch you any more.” ’
The king then assured the woman that all that she had to do if her relatives caused trouble, was refer her adversaries to the king. If they had anything further to say she was to bring them to him. Then she could be sure that they would not touch her any more, (if they wanted to live).
‘ Then she said, “I pray you, let the king remember YHWH your God, that the avenger of blood destroy not any more, lest they destroy my son.” And he said, “As YHWH lives, there shall not one hair of your son fall to the earth.” ’
Following up on this the woman now drew attention to and emphasised the main point, and that was that David was setting aside the right of blood vengeance. And apparently wanting him to realise what a serious thing that was to her, she called on David to recognise that he had made his promise in the presence of YHWH his God. Let him remember this in any action he took in the future.
Aware that the woman still appeared to be in need of assurance, David gave her what she sought, his solemn oath before YHWH that not one hair of her son’s head would fall to the earth (there is no doubt a poignancy in this phrase in the writer’s mind in that Absalom’s death would later be caused by his hair, which was one of his main features).
‘ Then the woman said, “Let your handmaid, I pray you, speak a word to my lord the king.” And he said, “Say on.” ’
Acknowledging the king’s goodness the woman then asked if she could put a further request to the king for a boon. And David replied, ‘Say on.’
‘ And the woman said, “Why then have you devised such a thing against the people of God? For in speaking this word the king is as one who is guilty, in that the king does not fetch home again his banished one.” ’
The woman then carefully put her new point as though it was a kind of aside, brought to her mind by what David has done for her ‘son’ (it was in order to make this new point appear as secondary that she shortly returned to speaking again about her own supposed case. She wanted to keep up the deception). She asked why, if he could make such a decision about setting aside blood vengeance in the case of a son of hers, he did not do the same in the case of his own banished son Absalom? Did he not realise that by being so obstinate he was actually harming the people of God who longed for Absalom’s presence once again among them? So while the king was not to be held guilty for what he has done for her ‘son’, he was definitely to be seen as ‘like one who is guilty’ for not fetching home his ‘banished one’. (Note how she carefully avoided actually describing him as guilty. He was merely ‘like one who is guilty’. He was after all the king).
“ For we must necessarily die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again, nor does God take away life, but devises means, so that he that is banished continue not as an outcast from him.”
She then pointed out that while we must all necessarily die, becoming like water spilled on the ground which is gone for ever, nevertheless God holds life as precious, and thus, rather than taking away people’s lives, devises means by which they may come once more into His presence, and no longer be banished outcasts (i.e. through offerings and sacrifices). The implication was that David should be God-like and devise means for bringing back his own banished outcast, Absalom, without seeking his life, because life is precious.
“ Now, therefore, seeing that I am come to speak this word to my lord the king, it is because the people have made me afraid, and your handmaid said, ‘I will now speak to the king, it may be that the king will perform the request of his servant. For the king will hear, to deliver his servant out of the hand of the man that would destroy me and my son together out of the inheritance of God.’ ”
Recognising that her request might appear somewhat forward she then hastily pointed out that the reason that she had made the request was because when people had heard that she was approaching the king they had put pressure on her to bring up Absalom’s case, so much so that they had ‘made her afraid’. And that was why, confident that the king would hear her concerning her son, as he now graciously had, she had assured the people that perhaps he might also be willing to hear their request on Absalom’s behalf. The impression that she intended give was that she was very grateful indeed for what David had done for her, but that Absalom had won the hearts of the people as the king’s handsome son, and that it was due to their longing for his return that she had added this further request, a request which she hoped he would also hear.
“ Then your handmaid said, ‘Let, I pray you, the word of my lord the king be comfortable, for as an angel of God, so is my lord the king to discern good and bad, and YHWH your God be with you.”
She then expressed her hope that David’s response would be ‘comfortable’, that is, comforting to his people, having in mind that they all saw him as like a messenger (angel) of God (compare 1 Samuel 29:9), one who discerned what was really good and really bad (or ‘discerning everything’, that is, everything that lay between two extremes). And she closed off with the prayer that YHWH his God would be with him, especially in his making the right decision.
‘ Then the king answered and said to the woman, “Do not hide from me, I pray you, anything that I shall ask you.” And the woman said, “Let my lord the king now speak.” ’
The cleverness of the woman’s approach is evident. By her story she had persuaded the king to abrogate the principle of blood vengeance in the case of her dead husband’s son and heir, and she wanted him to think that her approaching the king had meanwhile been taken advantage of by his concerned people in order to persuade him to abrogate the principle of blood vengeance in the case of Absalom. That, of course, being only a secondary reason for her visit. But she was thereby ‘pulling his strings’ and making him feel guilty for behaving unjustly towards Absalom, in that he could show mercy towards the son and heir of another, but not to his own son and heir
David, however, was a very shrewd man, and he was beginning to recognise behind her approach the hand of another who had also seemingly been trying to persuade him to bring Absalom back. So he challenged her not to hide from him anything that he should ask of her, to which she basically agreed.
‘ And the king said, “Is the hand of Joab with you in all this?” And the woman answered and said, “As your soul lives, my lord the king, none can turn to the right hand or to the left from anything that my lord the king has spoken, for your servant Joab, he bade me, and he put all these words in the mouth of your handmaid. To change the face of the matter has your servant Joab done this thing, and my lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are in the earth.”
He then challenged her as to whether it was Joab who was behind her words. The woman was taken totally by surprise, for she had thought that she had duped David into accepting her account as true, and that all was going well. We may see it as very probable, therefore, that she suffered some trepidation, for to lie to the king was a serious offence. Thus she recognised that her best plan was to confess all, pinning the blame squarely on Joab. Perhaps by that means, she hoped, he would spare her life.
So she expressed her deep admiration at the way that the king knew everything that was going on, discerning even which way people turned, whether to left or right, and admitted that it was indeed ‘his servant Joab’ who had ordered her to approach the king and what was more had ‘put the very words into her mouth’ (it was thus his fault not hers). Then she went on to point out that Joab’s aim had been to ‘change the face of the matter’ (in other words alter the king’s mind), but that the king was ‘wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God’, and clearly knew everything that was on earth. Even David was not immune to this kind of excessive flattery, the kind of flattery so often offered to kings in those days.
‘ And the king said to Joab, “Behold now, I have done this thing. Go therefore, bring the young man Absalom back.” ’
The writer then loses interest in the woman and proceeds to what resulted from her intervention. It appears from what follows that David felt bound by the decision that he had made on oath, even though it had been obtained by false pretences, and therefore felt that he must act on it, for he now recognised that what he had promised the woman applied to Absalom, and him alone. The result was that ‘the king’ called Joab into his presence and informed him somewhat abruptly that he could go and bring Absalom back. He was clearly acknowledging by this that he felt that he had committed himself by his promise and oath to the woman and must therefore honour what he had promised, even though it was against his inclination. This is brought out by the fact that later he would not acknowledge Absalom or allow him into his presence. It indicated that he was not at all pleased about having been manipulated in this way.
It is this fact that he felt reluctantly bound by the decision that he had reached, even though he had been duped into it, that explains why he acted so against his inclinations in allowing Absalom back, and then would not acknowledge him when he did arrive. Joab had, in fact, served him a very bad turn, something which would rebound on him in the future. Note that he described his decision so obtained as ‘this thing’. So his instruction to Joab that because he (David) had ‘done this thing’ he (Joab) could go and bring Absalom back, must be seen as very reluctantly given. He was learning that kings should be very careful before they made oaths about something which set aside the Law, even when it appeared relatively unimportant. For a king was bound by his sworn word.
(We today would not feel bound by a promise obtained under false pretences, but things were seen differently in those days (compare Joshua 9:3-27). Once a promise was made by a king on oath it was seen as totally binding, and it would appear that David recognised that his oath related to what the woman had really wanted, which was to bring back Absalom and not execute on him blood vengeance, and that in fact that was the only thing that she had wanted This interpretation is the only real explanation of his behaviour in calling Absalom back but not acknowledging him. While it is true that Absalom had not slain his brother by accident, nevertheless he had seen himself as carrying out the just sentence of the Law on someone who had committed incest. Thus it was open to him to argue that as the king’s son with responsibilities for ensuring the carrying out the Law (2 Samuel 8:18), and as the grandson of the king of Geshur whose granddaughter had been humiliated, he was only doing his duty. Of course, what David mainly had against him was that he had slain his own firstborn in this way. Had it been anyone else he would have approved of Absalom’s action).
Be the first to react on this!
