A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14

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.


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.


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.


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


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!


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


7/20

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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Documents

A Familial or Political Decision? Family and Political Relationships in Shmuel Bet 14