a familial or political decision? family and political relationships in shmuel bet 14
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14
1/20
A Familial or Political Decision?
Political and Familial Relationships in Shmuel Bet
14
By Akiva Weisinger
One of the more shocking narratives in the Hebrew Bible is that which
describes the attempted rebellion of Avshalom against his father, David. Part
of its emotional impact comes from the intertwining of familial relationships
with political relationships. Avshaloms rebellion pains David not just because
his kingdom is in jeopardy, but because his own flesh and blood has rebelled
against him. Obviously, something has gone horribly wrong in this familial
relationship, setting up the political intrigue that follows. Thus, in order to
understand the reasons for Avshaloms rebellion, we must investigate the
familial relationship between him and his father leading up to the rebellion,
not just the political state of Davids kingdom. Investigating what political
causes there were for rebellion ignores an important aspect of Avshaloms
character. The question is not why someone would rebel against Davids
kingdom. Rather the questions that must be asked are: What prompts a son
to rebel against his own father? What kind of father has a son who rebels
against him? Doing so will give us a fuller picture of Avshaloms character
and motives, giving us a clearer understanding of his rebellion.
-
7/30/2019 A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14
2/20
The most logical place to start analyzing this father-son relationship is
Shmuel 2, Chapter 14. This chapter has Yoav, Davids general hiring a wise
woman from Tekoa in order to convince David to bring back Avshalom, who
had been in Geshur for 3 years. Avshalom had fled to Geshur after having his
half-brother Amnon murdered to avenge the rape of his sister Tamar. From
the fact that Avshalom had run away, and from the fact that Yoav felt the
need to intercede on his behalf, we may be able to infer that there had been
some sort of breach in the relationship between David and Avshalom, which
had been caused by Avshaloms vengeful murder of Davids son. However,
finding such a breach proves to be difficult. The last verse in Chapter 13
contains the only glimpse the text provides into Davids relationship with
Avshalom. It reads (13:39) VaTichal David Hamelech Latzet el Avshalom ki
nicham al Amnon ki met1. There are many obstacles to properly interpreting
this verse. The verb VaTichal has a feminine subject, thus cannot be said
to be referring to David himself. Furthermore, the verb Latzet, usually
translated as to go out seems either ambiguous or out of place. What does
going out to Avshalom mean in this context? Furthermore, what is the
nature of the causal relationship between the yet-untranslated action of
David in the first half of 39, and the death of Amnon in its second half.
The first translation we can posit for this verse is to insert the word
nefesh as the subject of VaTichal, which translates as And it
1 Due to the fact I am unsure how to insert Hebrew into the text in a way that does not messup the formatting, I have transliterated all Hebrew text. This transliteration does not claim tobe in any way systematic or correct.
-
7/30/2019 A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14
3/20
yearned2 , and to translate Latzet in its simplest sense as to go out.
Thus, the verse reads And Davids soul yearned to go out to Avshalom, for
he was consoled about Amnon, because he was dead. Thus, Davids feelings
towards Avshalom are of parental longing, not of anger or negativity. This
answer has the advantage of maintaining the cause and effect implied by the
verse. Because he has been consoled of Amnons death, having realized he
is dead, the parental longing for Avshalom returns. However, translating the
verse in this manner produces many other problems. First of all, if David
longs for Avshalom like a loving father towards a beloved son, why is Yoav
needed to intervene in order to bring Avshalom back. Why didnt David, as a
loving father, bring him back himself? This question is further emphasized by
the choice of the verb latzet. Why doesnt such a loving father want to
actively bring him back, and only wants to go out to Avshalom.
Furthermore, if David indeed longs towards Avshalom in this manner, when
Avshalom why does David command that Avshalom not see his face?
Locking away a man who you have ostensibly yearned after seems to be
nonsensical.
The second reading, presented by Robert Alter, is to read VaTichal not as an
expression of yearning, but in the sense of finished, or depleted, and
latzet as to sally forth3. Thus, the verse translates as: And Davids urge
2 Similar to usage in Devarim 28:32 http://concordances.org/hebrew/3616.htm3 He similarly translates bshaat tzet mlachim in 11:1. Robert Alter, The David Story(New
York, New York: W.W Norton and Company, 1999) 249.
-
7/30/2019 A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14
4/20
to sally forth against Avshalom was spent, for he was consoled about Amnon,
who was dead4. This translation has the advantage of fitting better with the
story to follow. This gives David a negative attitude towards Avshalom, which
Yoav can now intercede to change. However, we are still left with a number
of issues. Number one, from a purely subjective perspective, it is hard to say
that this reading is readily apparent. The interpretation of latzet as to
sally forth against, though fitting better with the narrative, does not seem to
be the most readily apparent reading. Second of all, this interpretation,
though an improvement, still fails to explain elements of the story. Saying
Davids urge to retaliate against Avshalom was spent does not necessarily
imply negative feelings, it merely seems to imply a level of indifference. If
so, what is Yoav noticing when he sees that Davids heart is still al
Avshalom? We may answer that now that Davids urge to retaliate is spent,
his parental longing takes over, but that brings us back to all the problems
we had with the first reading.
The third way of reading this verse, presented by Richard G. Smith5
combines the previous two readings for the first half, reading VaTichal as
And it yearned, and latzet as to sally forth, making Davids attitude
towards Avshalom wholly negative. In response to the difficulty raised by the
latter half of the verse, which seems to imply David being comforted over
Amnon, Smith interprets the root N-kh-m as to be aggrieved, a
4 Alter, 2745 Smith, Richard G. The Fate of Justice And Righteousness During Davids Reign:NarrativeEthics And Rereading The Court History According to 2 Samuel 8:15-20:26 (New York, New
York: T&T Clark, 2009) 158-161
-
7/30/2019 A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14
5/20
deepening of negative emotion, and thus reads the verse And Davids soul
yearned to sally forth against Avshalom, for he was aggrieved about Amnon,
for he was dead. Smith further correctly notes that Yoavs intervention to
David lacks any sort of appeal to parental longing, which might have been
expected if David indeed harbored any paternal feelings towards Avshalom6.
While this interpretation fits best with the immediate narrative that follows, it
is difficult to say that David had absolutely no parental feelings towards
Avshalom at all, from both a realistic view of human nature and moments in
the narrative that follow, most notably Davids plea to his army to not harm
Avshalom7, and his emotional meltdown after Avshaloms death8.
Furthermore, the explanation of n-kh-m as aggrieved seems to assume
David has a much more positive view of Amnon that might be absolutely
necessary. 13:21 has David extremely upset about Amnons rape of Tamar;
though we do not see David doing taking action in response, David is far
from unaware of Amnons unsavory character. Thus, to speak of David as
being completely negative towards Avshalom, having no hint of
understanding of Avshaloms motives, seems unlikely. Additionally, the same
caveats applied to the second reading apply here, that this reading fails to
immediately impress itself upon the reader9.
The more readings are rejected, the more it becomes apparent that the
problem is not the fact that the verse is unclear. The problem is that the
6 Smith, 1627 2 Shmuel, 18:58 2 Shmuel 19: 1-69 If it was really that simple, Smith wouldnt be the only one to say it!
-
7/30/2019 A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14
6/20
story itself is unclear. There are conflicting elements within the story itself, in
regards to the relationship between David and Avshalom. Davids attitude
towards Avshalom is complicated, and defies simplistic explanation that can
be sorted into neat boxes marked positive or negative. It is eminently
possible that all three readings can coexist, all being subtly implied by the
skilled author of narrative. Each of these three readings contain truthful
elements of Davids emotional state, and the most effective way to convey
this ambiguity and confusion is by describing it in an ambiguous and
confusing fashion.
David is both the father of Avshalom and the father of Amnon. On one
hand, as the father of Amnon, he is filled with anger and wants the death of
his son avenged. On the other hand, as Avshaloms father, he loves
Avshalom unconditionally. If Avshalom had not been his son, it would have
been easier to take. He could accept the anger and be done with it, perhaps
even act on it and avenge Amnon. But now that it is his own son who was the
murderer, his parental love prevents his anger from expression. He cant
love his son because he wants revenge, and he cant get revenge because
he loves his son. The two urges wrestle within him, and effectively paralyze
him. How does he deal with it? Some ambiguities within the language of the
end of Chapter 13 may provide a window to Davids mind. Verse 37, when
describing Avshaloms flight, says regarding David Vayitabel al bno kol
hayamim, which is translated as and he mourned for his son, all the days.
Now, while the plain meaning of the verse clearly talks about Amnon, there
-
7/30/2019 A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14
7/20
may be something deeper being implied here. By using bno instead of
Amnon, not even mentioning Amnons name, the author subtly leaves
open the possibility that Avshalom is the dead son being mourned for here.
This provides an insight into Davids state of mind. David, confronted by
conflicting feelings for a murderous son and a murdered son, mourns for
both of them. With Avshalom effectively deemed to be deceased, he no
longer has to be torn between his desire for revenge and his love for his
child. He can get closure regarding Amnon. He can love both departed
children, without compromise.
With that in mind, we can look at verse 39 with a slightly adjusted
version of the second reading. David wants to avenge the death of his son,
but by carrying on as if Avshalom is dead, the desire for vengeance goes
away. And just as in verse 37, a verb is left ambiguous to alert us to the
subtleties of Davids emotional state, here too, the verb met is left
ambiguous. Thus, the verse can be read. And Davids desire to sally forth
against Avshalom was spent, for he was consoled regarding Amnon, for he
(Avshalom) was dead. It is the attempted repression of Avshaloms
existence that enables David to move on from Amnons death.
However, this proves no rest for David. Because if he is comforted
about Amnon, and has accepted his death and moved on from its emotional
pain, it means the anger at Avshalom has disappeared. With that, Avshalom
springs to life in Davids mind. Avshalom is still his son, despite the fact he
-
7/30/2019 A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14
8/20
has done something wrong. David yearns to be reunited with Avshalom, to
turn around and flee this emotional conflict and embrace him as a son again.
Yes, hes mourned for him and written him off for dead, but he knows thats
a lie.And Davids soul pined to go out to Avshalom, for he was comforted
about Amnon, because he (Amnon/Avshalom) was dead.
Davids mind reacts to Avshaloms mental resurrection by snapping
him back to reality. Yes, Avshalom is his son. But he killed his other son. Yes,
said son was imperfect, and probably deserved it. But what father makes
such distinctions? What father fails to feel pain when his son is killed, no
matter how bad hes gotten? Avshalom has caused David great pain, and for
this, revenge must be taken. And Davids soul pined to sally forth against
Avshalom, for he was aggrieved about Amnon, for he was dead. But,
Avshalom is his son, too. He cant love one and not the other. He has to go
on pretending that when Avshalom had Amnon killed, he lost two sons. He
cant bear to pick a side in this fight.And then the cycle of emotions
repeats itself. Constantly going back and forth between these three modes,
Davids attitude towards Avshalom is as confusing and contradictory as the
verse that conveys it. All three readings are correct, but inadequate on their
own, as the verse conveys all three simultaneously.
Once we have established Davids attitude at the beginning of Chapter
14, we can investigate what Yoav hopes to accomplish with his intervention.
What problem is Yoav hoping to solve? The text states in 14:1 that Yoav was
-
7/30/2019 A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14
9/20
moved to action by his knowledge that the heart of the king was on (al)
Avshalom. Alter correctly notes that al is ambiguous and can either mean
on, or against.10The text seems to be continuing its theme of describing
Davids state in ambiguous terms. This would seem to indicate that Yoav
understands Davids emotional state completely. However, as we shall see,
Yoavs intervention fails to take into account crucial elements of Davids
attitude towards Avshalom. Rather, we will posit that Yoav has his own,
flawed understanding of Davids feelings towards Avshalom, and it is upon
this flawed understanding that his intervention is based.
In order to understand Yoavs perception of the situation, let us take a
look at the characters history. If there is anything about Davids situation
that Yoav can relate to, it is the desire for avenge the death of a family
member. Yoav saw his brother Asahel struck down by Avner Ben Ner, Shauls
captain
11
, and though Avner outruns Yoav enough to be able to temporarily
call off hostilities, Yoav cannot get the memory of Avners spear struck
straight through his brother12 out of his mind. So it is only a manner of time
before Yoav exacts his revenge, and though he claims to be acting for
political purposes, the narrator makes sure to inform us of Yoavs real
intentions: for the blood of Asahel, his brother13. Two possibilities emerge
from this knowledge of Yoavs backstory. Number one, Yoav may view
10 Alter, 27511 2 Shmuel, 2:18-2412 2 Shmuel 2:23 Howbeit he refused to turn aside; wherefore Abner with the hinder end ofthe spear smote him in the groin, that the spear came out behind him; and he fell downthere, and died in the same place13 2 Shmuel 3:27 Translations from mechon-mamre.org, unless otherwise noted.
-
7/30/2019 A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14
10/20
Avshalom with some degree of favor, as he understands Avshaloms
motivations to avenge wrong done to a sibling perhaps better than most.
Number two, Yoavs personality tends towards vengeance, and thus, Yoavs
perception of Davids situation may be tinged by his own vengeful
personality. As the Talmud Bavli on Yevamot 117a observes, As water
reflects, so is the heart of one man to man. Yoav sees Davids struggles as
mirroring his own, thus assuming that David must desire revenge on Avshalom for
Amnons death. While it is true that David is upset at Avshalom, it is but one aspect
of his conflicting emotions, as we have seen. Yoav sees David as Amnons vengeful
blood redeemer, forgetting that David is also Avshaloms loving parent.
What, then, is Yoavs objection to David taking revenge? To answer this, we
may look at the ending of the Yoav-Avner story. David, upon hearing of Yoavs
actions, proclaims his own innocence in regards to Avners death, condemns Yoav
with some of the harshest invective in all of the Hebrew Bible, and publically
mourns for Avner. Does David have an ulterior motive for engaging in such a public
display? The text seems to imply so, stating that all the people took notice of it,
and it pleased them; whatsoever the king did, pleased all the people. So all the
people and all Israel understood that day that it was not of the king to slay Abner
the son of Ner14. By killing Avner, a presumably popular general (evidenced by all
the people mourning him in 3:3215), Yoav risked David losing much needed popular
support from the people, and where it not for Davids public display of remorse, the
text implies that is exactly what would have happened. Yoavs actions were selfish,
putting his lust for blood above the greater good. Avenging the death of a loved one
14 2 Shmuel 3:37-3815 Though admittedly, that could be referring to all the people that were with David, thestress
-
7/30/2019 A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14
11/20
may feel as if it is absolutely obligatory, but there are often more pressing concerns
that must be attended to.
We will posit, for the purpose of understanding our chapter, that Yoav has
learned his lesson from this episode, that family grudges must occasionally be put
aside for political reasons. Thus, having accepted that Yoav views David as dead set
on revenge, the goal of his intervention is clear: Convince David that, although
revenge is quite a noble and tempting course of action, there are pressing political
concerns that merit his attention. However, in the vengeful state Yoav imagines
David to be in, David is unable to see what the potential consequences of such
revenge would be. Trying to convince David to bring back Avshalom by way of a
discussion is bound to fail16. Thus, Yoav hires someone totally foreign to the King,
the Tekoite Woman, to present Yoavs case to David by way of parable. Yoavs plan
is to use this performance to shift Davids perspective away from his perspective as
aggrieved parent to enable him to see his situation from political perspective. Unlike
Yoav, who has a personal relationship with David, this woman is an outsider who
only relates to David as a monarch. In her speech, she obviously does not refer to
David by name, and speaks with a high level of deference, asking permission to
make points, and flattering before providing rebuke. Moreover, we see many
appeals to the office of the King17 and his responsibilities to the people18 and to
God19, which would serve to put David into that mindset. It is thus hoped that by
hearing his case presented in a way that will force him to see it through a political,
16 It is also possible that Yoav has attempted this before, which would explain the necessityfor a proxy17 2 Shmuel 14:9, The King and his throne18 2 Shmuel 14:13 'Wherefore then hast thou devised such a thing against the people ofGod?,19 2 Shmuel 14:11 'I pray thee, let the king remember the LORD thy God
-
7/30/2019 A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14
12/20
rather than a personal perspective, David eyes will be opened to the political
advantages of bringing Avshalom back, which will become apparent in the parable.
To accomplish this goal, Yoav has the Tekoite Woman20 dress up as a widow
and present her case before the king, which goes as follows: She is a widow, her
husband is dead, and she had two sons, one of which rose up and murdered the
other. Now, her family members wish to avenge themselves upon the killer son,
leaving the woman with no heir, and thus, no estate in the land. Yoav, through the
Tekoite Woman, has presented David with a conflict of two competing values. On
one hand, the clan members have a right to enact strict justice and avenge the
death of the murdered son. On the other hand, doing so, while seeming to be just,
would harm a lot more people than it would help. It would have disastrous effects
for the widow in question, who will be left without a provider, and with the loss of
her only heir, cause the disappearance of her husbands name and the loss of her
portion of land. To answer the question, David must decide which value has higher
priority, the right of the clan to exact justice, or societal stability21. Yoav wants
David to choose the second option, upholding societal stability over the need for
justice and vengeance, so that Avshalom can be reinstated on that basis22. Yoav
seems to be implying that removing an heir to the throne from his position is not a
20 The role of the Tekoite Woman in relation to Yoav, as in how much of what is spoken isYoav and how much is the Womans is an interesting topic but beyond the scope of thispaper. We will assume that the core message is Yoavs, and that Yoav instructs her to seek aspecific answer, but the form in which it takes (besides for the initial parable) is a product ofthe Womans quick thinking and skilled improvisation. Furthermore, it is beyond the scope of
this paper to fully explicate the meaning of the often cryptic words of the Woman, and wewill follow Smiths reading unless otherwise noted.21 Between Kant and Machiavelli, more or less. Yoavs position is somewhat Machiavellian, ashe views the stability of the regime as more important than morality, but Machiavelli wouldnot agree that positions in society are in any way divinely ordained. However, Machiavellimay approve of the political utility of stating such a belief. Kant however, would have justicedone even if the world perishes (which is a misquotation but an accurate reflection of hisphilosophy), and accordingly, would have Avshalom put to death regardless of politicalexpedience.22 Smith, 165
-
7/30/2019 A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14
13/20
decision that will just stay within Davids family. Rather, the removal of an heir from
his rightful place will have detrimental effects on society as a whole. Yoav sees
societal order as a top priority. People belong in their rightful place, like the Tekoite
Woman belongs in her family inheritance. And when David removes his son from
his rightful place out of a sense of vengeance, as Yoav likely understands the
situation, it can only lead to a breakdown of society.
However, David does not take the bait. David responds to the Tekoite Woman
by telling her to go to her house, and he will give her further instruction. This seems
to imply that David will make sure that the woman will keep her house and
property, but has made no promises regarding her son. With this, David shrewdly
avoids prioritizing one value over the other. The clan will get its vengeance, and the
widow keeps her portion of land23. Yoav would interpret Davids answer as refusing
to relinquish his right for revenge in light of societal concerns. Just because
something will have detrimental effects on society does not mean it becomes
morally acceptable to let a murderer go free. Davids answer tries to provide the
greatest good for the greatest number. This was not the response that Yoav had
hoped for, as David has refused to prioritize societal stability over vengeance.
Accordingly, the Tekoite Woman presses David further. She places all liability
on her and her fathers house, absolving the King and his throne of all liability. This
implies that the King may have been concerned that he would be liable for letting a
murderer go unpunished, but he should not be concerned about doing so, as she is
willing to take full responsibility for the murder, as long as her place in society is
assured24. This responds specifically to Davids previous point. Just like the widow is
willing to forgo justice because the effects of such an approach would ruin her, the
23 Smith, 16524 Smith, 165
-
7/30/2019 A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14
14/20
nation will be able to accept the consequences of letting a murderer go free, if it
stands to benefit in the long run.25 David responds that the one who speaks to
you, bring him to me and he will not touch you anymore. Though it is unclear what
David is referring to, as the Tekoite Woman has said nothing about herself being
placed in physical danger26, the essential point here is that David once again
refuses to protect the fratricidal son, only giving further assurance to the widow that
he will do the best he can to protect her27.
The woman responds to Davids second refusal by appealing to divine
authority and Davids role as king. She pleads with David, 'I pray thee, let the king
remember the LORD thy God, that the avenger of blood destroy not any more, lest
they destroy my son.'28 She links the issue of the kings responsibility to establish
societal order and prevent outbreaks of violence to the Kings religious obligations
to his God. In effect, she tells David not to shirk his role as King by letting the clan
murder her fratricidal son. Finally, David says what Yoav wants him to, that 'As the
LORD liveth, there shall not one hair of thy son fall to the earth. He has proven
himself willing to prioritize a stable, if unjust peace over a bloody justice.
Now that David has taken the bait, the Tekoite Woman springs the trap on
him. After respectfully asking David for permission to speak, she asks the king how
he is willing to issue such a ruling in her case yet do the opposite to Gods people,
by failing to return his banished one. We see from the fact that she presents
25
Alternatively, She contrasts two social institutions, the house of her father and the Kingsthrone, a familial institution and a political institution. She implies that the murder was acrime that that can be dealt with within the family, but allowing her son to be killed inrevenge is a societal issue that is the Kings responsibility to attend to. In this distinction is acoded jibe at David, insinuating that he should have the good sense to prevent his familydisputes from becoming potential political issues, and if he doesnt act in his role of Kingsoon, things will get out of hand.26 A weak point in Smiths reading, but it works well otherwise.27 Smith, 16628 2 Shmuel 14:11
-
7/30/2019 A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14
15/20
Davids situation as a crime against the people that she (and by extension, Yoav) is
not concerned about Davids unfairness to Avshalom. Nor is this an appeal to
Davids parental feelings towards his banished son. It is solely a political point, that
a failure to return Avshalom will be a crime against the people. There is no moment
analogous to Natans You are the man29 because it is not Yoavs goal to get David
to identify emotionally with the widows situation. On the contrary, the point is to
remove him from an emotional stake in the matter and introduce some objectivity
to Davids perspective, and make him see things from a kings point of view rather
than a family members. She calls him an angel of god, able to discern between
good and bad30, presumably not bound by emotions and familial biases. On that
basis, she wants David to return Avshalom to his inheritance of God31 for, while
God does not revive the dead, we can still return the banished,32 thus it is useless to
remain mad about something you can do nothing about (Amnons death) while not
fixing a repairable situation (Avshaloms banishment).33
Davids reaction to the Tekoite Womans speech is curious. Before
announcing his decision, he first correctly guesses that Yoav is the origin of this
speech, almost as if he cannot contain his pride at having figured this out. What tips
David off? As we have seen, Yoav has a penchant for enacting revenge, as seen by
his actions with Avner Ben Ner. But that is only half the picture. What makes Yoavs
desire for revenge interesting is that he sincerely believes that he is acting solely
for political interests, despite the fact his ulterior motives are obvious to anyone
around him. In the story of his revenge against Avner, after Avner comes to David
29 2 Shmuel 12:730 2 Shmuel 14:1731 2 Shmuel 14:1632 2 Shmuel 14:14, Smiths reading33 Smith, 167-175
-
7/30/2019 A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14
16/20
offering his services, Yoav comes to David alleging that Avner is a double agent, an
accusation so ludricous and so transparently biased that the text seems to imply
that David ignores it. Yet Yoav kills Avner believing he is doing something politically
expedient, even though the verse tells us the real reason: for the blood of Asahel
his brother.34 Yoavs fundamental flaw is he places too much stock in his ability to
separate personal interests and intelligent political analysis. He believes that the
two can be separated totally. He does not realize the immense difficulty of such a
task.
The advice of the Tekoite Woman, advising David put aside all his personal feelings
and accept Avshalom back for no other reason than its political advisability, must
have smacked of Yoavs nave faith in the ability of man to place mind over matter.
Nevertheless, David attempts to take Yoavs advice, perhaps at his wits end.
He instructs Yoav to bring back et hanaar et Avshalom, impersonalizing
Avshalom, pretending him to be some random lad who it is merely politically
expedient to return. But once Yoav actually gets up and does so, and Avshalom is
back in Jerusalem, he realizes he cannot act this charade. He cannot pretend life
has returned to normal just because it is politically advisable to do so. He cannot
look at Avshaloms face and pretend nothing has happened, that Avshalom has
caused him no pain. He cant totally get rid of his conflicted emotions for political
expedience. He issues a command that he not see Avshaloms face, thus evading
the negative emotions that would arise every time he does. He has accepted Yoavs
political argument in theory, but cannot bring himself to put it into practice.
The text now directs our attention to Avshalom. Who is he, and what
motivates him? What does he do in the years that his father refuses to go see him?
34 2 Shmuel 3:27
-
7/30/2019 A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14
17/20
What is his attitude towards his father? Our first description of Avshalom is an
impressive one, a physically peerless specimen with almost parodically extravagant
hair that weights 200 Shekalim (5 pounds35). He has 4 children, three sons and a
daughter, and despite his physical attractiveness, there is no indication of any
hedonistic flaws. At this point in the narrative, Avshalom looks absolutely perfect in
every sense. But then the text sly clues us in to his inner demons. His daughters
name is Tamar, the same name as the raped sister he avenged. Just like the tragic
figure she shares a name with, this Tamar is also described as woman of a fair
countenance36. It appears that the injustice done to Tamar still bothers him.
Beneath that flawless exterior, lurks a dangerously uncompromising soul. He
believes in a simplistic, black and white justice, with no mitigating factors ever
entering into the discussion. If he were a judge, he tells the people at the start of his
rebellion, every man who hath any suit or cause might come unto me, and I would
do him justice!37, as opposed to every other judge who presumably is swayed by
other issues. He thinks his father should be completely fine with the fact he has
dispatched with such a despicable human being. But yet, the verse continues, he
sits in Jerusalem for two years and the King, his own father, will not acknowledge his
existence. He cannot understand why. Why else would he bring Avshalom back from
Geshur, if not an admittance that Avshalom was right to kill Amnon? But then, why
would he refuse to see him?
Avshalom, therefore, attempts to force the issue and get a definitive answer.
He asks Yoav repeatedly for an audience with the king. Yoav, perhaps now more
aware of Davids state of mind, refuses to do so. So Avshalom commands his
35 Figure provided by http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/units/weight/weight.bibshekel.en.html.36 2 Shmuel, 14:2737 2 Shmuel 15:4
http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/units/weight/weight.bibshekel.en.htmlhttp://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/units/weight/weight.bibshekel.en.htmlhttp://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/units/weight/weight.bibshekel.en.htmlhttp://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/units/weight/weight.bibshekel.en.html -
7/30/2019 A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14
18/20
servants to set Yoavs portion of land on fire. Yoav, who had been so concerned for
the political implications of denying Avshalom his portion in the land, watches as his
portion literally goes up in smoke38. Avshalom does not care for politics or societal
order, and seems to be mocking, intentionally or not, the value Yoav places in such
ideas. Yoav asks Avshalom incredulously, what motive he could possibly have for
burning down a field. Avshalom eloquently speaks out his dilemma. Why would the
king bring me back from a comfortable life in Geshur to treat me like a stranger? If
Im right, see me, but, if there be iniquity in me, let him kill me39. Avshalom does
not care or recognize Davids emotional ties to his other son, and does not
understand Yoavs political perspective. Either I am right, or I am wrong. If I am
right, I should be accepted back as if nothing happened, emotions be damned. If I
am wrong, kill me, politics be damned. Let justice be done, though the world perish.
Although Avshalom does get his audience with his father, he does not get
either of his two wishes. His actions are not vindicated by David, nor is he
castigated and condemned for death. Though Davids emotions may be still conflict
within him, and he preferred not to face them head on, when he is forced to
confront face to face, he takes Yoavs advice. He forgets he has any feelings
towards Avshalom, for good or for bad, and he acts like theyve never met40. When
confronted with Avshalom, David treats him as a regular subject. No father son
relationship exists. The text describing Avshaloms encounter with the king betrays
no special relationship. Avshalom comes before him and bows, like any other
subject. The King kisses him, but theres no fatherly affection behind it; it is The
King who kisses Avshalom, not David, his father. If one were to take that verse
38 Smith, 17939 2 Shmuel 14:3240 To paraphrase a great Jewish poet
-
7/30/2019 A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14
19/20
and replace Avshaloms name with any other citizen, the scene does not seem out
of place. This is the worst possible outcome for Avshalom. Not only is not
vindicated, the king, his own father, no longer cares enough about him to be upset
at him. He would prefer the king condemn him to death, because then at least
Avshalom knows he is willing to act and is not compromised in pursuit of justice.
Because of the events of the last few chapters, Avshalom comes to see his father as
both weak and corrupt, both for letting off Amnon without punishment, and
paradoxically, for not condemning Avshalom himself.
Having now gone through Chapter 14 in all its intricacies, we can now answer
the questions we started off with. Davids relationship with Avshalom is a conflict
between his love for Amnon and his love for Avshalom, and he cannot fully integrate
those two roles into a sensible whole, thus effectively paralyzing him. Both
Avshalom and Yoav do not understand this, from opposing directions. Yoav thinks
that political evaluation should be able to allow David to overcome his conflicted
feelings, while Avshalom thinks that an evaluation of what is just should allow David
to overcome his love for Amnon. Neither of them are correct, and they both
underestimate the power of such emotions. In Avshaloms case, this lack of
communication proves tragic, as Avshalom concludes he can and must overthrow
his weak and corrupt father, who clearly no longer loves him. But Davids love for
Avshalom never totally leaves, even in the height of the rebellion. He commands his
soldiers, even in the final battle, to not hurt Avshalom, and when he find out that
Avshalom has indeed been killed, he becomes highly emotional, crying 'O my son
Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! would I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son,
my son!41'. Clearly, David still retains a paternal love for Avshalom, and always has,
41 2 Shmuel 19:1
-
7/30/2019 A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14
20/20
something which Yoav, true to form, does not understand, berating David for the
political implications of expression of such feelings.42Yoav does not understand that
despite what Avshalom has done to him, Avshalom remains his son43. It is this
emotional realism and complex characterization, masterly woven into the
intertwining of various political and familial relationships which makes the Avshalom
narrative one of the most gripping in all of the Hebrew Bible.
42 2 Shmuel 19: 6-743 On a personal note, I always used to read that passage and side totally with Yoav, until Iexpressed this view to someone who told me You cannot judge David until you yourselfhave children. I cede the point to them