Deeper Commentary
2Sa 14:1 Now Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived that the king’s
heart was towards Absalom-
We wonder at Joab's motives. Did he do this because he wanted David
to get what he wanted, which was Absalom's return? Or because he wanted
Absalom to be king? Men seek for power. Some want to be the king who is
crowned (Absalom would be a parade example). Others like Joab want to be
the kingmaker, rejoicing that their power gave power to others. Biblical
history is designed to help us realize that all the types of characters we
meet have been around before, and we are to learn from how the Bible
records their behaviour. But the Biblical record is often purposefully
open, inviting us to imagine the possible situations and motivations.
Hence the word translated "towards" is intentionally ambiguous. It can
also mean "against", as in 2 Sam. 14:13; Dan. 11:28. In which case, Joab
is seeking to bring Absalom back to Jerusalem and to manipulate David
concerning Absalom. Such are the games people play, to this day; see on
:24. If indeed David's heart was yearning for Absalom, we
have to ask why Joab needed to persuade David to recall Absalom to
Jerusalem. And why, after Absalom returned, did David refuse to meet him
for some time? On :7 and :24 I suggest some reasons for this, if we retain
the translation that David's heart was "toward" Absalom. However, it is
clear that there is now tension between David and Joab. This again is
understandable in view of the Uriah debacle, whereby David had used Joab
to arrange the murder of Uriah with the deaths of other soldiers to cover
it. All because David had stayed behind the battle front and slept with
Uriah's wife. In the military fraternity, such behaviour is despicable,
and surely Joab despised David from that day forward. David's behaviour
left him bereft of his former supporters and condemned to a lonely life-
although that too was intended to bring him closer to God and to the hope
of his future Messianic Son.
2Sa 14:2 Joab sent to Tekoa and fetched there a wise woman and said to
her, Please act like a mourner, and please put on mourning clothing and
don’t anoint yourself with oil, but be as a woman who has mourned a long
time for the dead-
This continues the theme of subliminal suggestion in the previous
chapter; see on 2 Sam. 13:6. This chapter is all about that. We get the
impression that after the sin with Bathsheba, the once strong man David
became the subject of all manner of manipulation. I
have suggested before that if he had adequately repented and stayed like
that, he would not have lost his moral compass and would not have been
reduced to the weak figure he was. David walks right into the woman's
deceptive story just as he does into Nathan's parable. The woman was
"wise" or crafty, the same word used of Jonadab who likewise manipulated
David (2 Sam. 13:3). The record is developing how David is repeatedly
deceived and manipulated, as he had done with Uriah.
2Sa 14:3 Go in to the king, and speak like this to him. So Joab put the
words in her mouth-
As noted on :2, the situation here recalls how Jonadab manipulated
Amnon and put words and ideas in his head. Here Joab manipulates a woman
in order to pursue his own agenda regarding Absalom.
2Sa 14:4 When the woman of Tekoa spoke to the king, she fell on her face
to the ground, showed respect and said, Help, O king!-
This recalls how David had fallen with his face to the ground begging
God somehow for a way forward after he had heard that all his sons had
died (2 Sam. 13:31). This is another connection with the events of 2 Sam.
13.
2Sa 14:5 The king said to her, What ails you? She answered, Truly I am a
widow, and my husband is dead-
Immediately David would have thought of how he had made Bathsheba a
widow by murdering her husband.
2Sa 14:6 Your handmaid had two sons, and they both fought together in the
field, and there was no one to part them, but the one struck the other and
murdered him-
"Strove / fought" is the word used by Solomon in Prov. 13:10: "Pride
only breeds quarrels, but with ones who take advice is wisdom". This is
true, but so many of Solomon's Proverbs include some self
justification. "Quarrels" is the word used here in the parable about the
strivings between David's sons. He is implying that all the
quarrels about his being the one to have the throne merely came from
pride, and the wise will accept Solomon's kingship. He harnesses Divine
truths in order to justify himself, and this is a warning for all who
claim to hold Divine truth.
Two brothers fatally fighting in a field recalls Cain and Abel. The similarity is so clear that it must have been purposeful. Joab knows that Cain was not slain for his fratricide. However, Cain was exiled- and David could surely have played on this similarity to keep Absalom exiled. But instead he ends up swearing that nobody will harm the murderer. His spiritual sensitivity is not, it seems, at its best.
2Sa 14:7 Behold, the whole family has risen against your handmaid and they
say, ‘Deliver him who struck his brother, that we may kill him for the
life of his brother whom he murdered, and so destroy the heir also’. Thus
they would quench my coal which is left, and would leave to my husband
neither name nor remainder on the surface of the earth-
It would appear that the legislation about the cities of refuge
wasn't being practiced at this time. The parallel in David's family would
suggest that "the whole family" wanted to kill Absalom, although it could
be that they felt likewise about Amnon. The woman is arguing that the
Mosaic laws about the avenging of blood didn't take into account her
feelings as the mother of the brother who had to be slain. And further,
the principle of keeping the name of the dead alive would be broken. She
correctly argues that principles are in conflict in this case; and this is
often the situation when any legal code, including the Mosaic, is applied.
Thus the Lord brings out the point that priests "worked on the Sabbath" to
circumcise a child. The reason for these clashes of principle within
Divine law was in order to force people to perceive the spirit of the law,
and follow that and not the letter. The very structure of the Mosaic law
was therefore actually designed to guard against legalistic approaches to
it.
"The whole family" suggests all David's family were against Absalom. The emphasis on "the whole family" reflects the situation in David's family, and that includes Bathsheba. David alone was sympathetic to Absalom, just as the woman alone in her family was sympathetic to her son. Perhaps this is one reason for the apparent contradiction [depending upon the translation we choose] between David's heart being with Absalom, and yet keeping him in exile and refusing to meet him when he did return. Likewise we wonder whether Bathsheba was now manipulating David so that her son Solomon would be in line for the throne rather than Absalom. Repeatedly now, David presents as under the influence of others and having very little personal power of decision as king. He would've been far better to resign as king and focus upon the wonderful promise of his future Messianic Son and his own assurance of salvation. We also note that the hearts of Israel were with Absalom. So we see yet a further fracture within Israel, between the people generally and the royal family.
"My coal which is left" is the image of a fire going out apart from one live coal. A man and his descendants are called a light. It is used of David in 2 Sam. 21:17, and specifically of David's descendant in Ps. 132:17. The story is hitting at David's weakest and most essential point, i.e. that he was desperate for a physical descendant to continue his throne. But he ought not to have been so sensitive to this if he trusted in the promise of 2 Sam. 7 that his future descendant, after his death, would be God's Son who would build a house / family for both God and David.
Joab knew that David considered Absalom his only coal on the
hearth. His hopes were set on him alone as the heir to his throne. David
has other sons including Solomon, but Joab perceived that David considered
Absalom his one and only. And so he puts this position in the mouth of the
woman. Had David had more faith and focus on the promises of 2 Sam. 7
about his seed, he would not have had these obsessions. This explains his
extreme grief when Absalom dies.
"Rose up against" is the same phrase used in 2 Sam. 12:11 of how evil who
rise up against David from his own house. He is being set up to see the
woman as himself, and he naturally wants to show mercy to her as he wanted
it for himself. He wanted the consequence of sin, evil rising up against
him from his own house, to be abrogated; and so he is eager to do this for
the woman. In Ps. 3:1 David uses the same phrase to complain that many
have risen up against him, lamenting the consequences of his sins. The
context there is Absalom's rebellion. He uses the phrase about the wicked
rising against him, wishing their judgment, in Ps. 54:3; 86:14; 92:11.
The argument that her husband would be left with no name in the earth, meaning he would lose his inheritance, is tantamount to saying that the woman would be left in the same position as Naomi. David, as a descendant of Ruth and also Naomi, would immediately have sensed the difficulty for the woman and been inclined, given his ancestry, to decide for her. It was indeed a cunningly devised scenario that manipulated him into saying "yes". Just as he had used all his cunning against Bathsheba and Uriah.
2Sa 14:8 The king said to the woman, Go to your house, and I will give a
command concerning you-
The slayer of innocent blood was to be slain without pity: "you shall
put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with
you" (Dt. 19:13). But David seems to have stepped up to a higher level
when he told the woman of Tekoah that he would protect her son from
revenge murder, after he had slain another man. The woman
pointed out that if her son was slain, the inheritance would be lost in
her husband's name. Here was a case where two principles seemed to be at
variance: the need to slay the guilty, and the need to preserve the
inheritance. The higher level was to forgive the slayer of innocent blood,
even though the Law categorically stated that he should be slain. The Law
of Moses is full of such examples of where different levels of response
are offered. Thus in the case of adultery, a man could apply the trial of
jealousy (Num. 5), kill his wife, divorce her- or, forgive her, as Hosea
did. The very existence of these different levels of response is designed,
as they are today, to elicit our maximum level of response. For it surely
is always a case of "my utmost for His highest", and a minimalist response
to His grace is self evidently inappropriate. And yet again
we wonder whether as with bringing the ark to Zion and not disciplining
Amnon, David was acting above the law in an inappropriate way.
What should David have done? There was Mosaic legislation protecting those being hunted by revengers of blood. Their cases were to be fairly judged, and refuge given in a city of refuge. This woman implies that the family want to kill her son in order to take the and inheritance for themselves; and there was Mosaic legislation to ameliorate that. But David ignores all this, as he does when it comes to responding to Amnon's rape of Tamar. He instead himself gives a 'commandment', again showing himself to be above the law and playing God.
2Sa 14:9 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 iniquity" in view would perhaps refer to the disobedience which
she was suggesting to the laws about the avenging of blood. She wanted
more than what David had said, she wanted a concrete pronouncement from
him as it were abrogating obedience to that law. And she said she would
bear the iniquity of doing so. But this is not how guilt for sin or
abrogating God's law is to be dealt with. David was being provoked to
consider taking upon himself the "sin" of not demanding Absalom's blood be
shed, and indeed restoring him.
2Sa 14:10 The king said, Whoever says anything to you, bring him to me,
and he shall not touch you any more-
So David is waiving the
Mosaic law concerning bloodguiltiness, as he did the need to stone rapists (2 Sam. 13:21). When others tried
to do these kind of things, they were severely punished by a God who
insisted upon serious obedience to His Law. Consider how Saul was
condemned for offering sacrifice instead of a priest (1 Sam. 13:10-13);
and Uzziah likewise (2 Chron. 26:16-19). When the woman of Tekoah
basically suggested that the Mosaic laws about the rights of the revenger
of blood be repealed, David seems to agree. When Amnon seeks to rape
his sister Tamar, she suggests that he ask David to allow them to marry-
and surely, she says, he will agree. Yet this too would have been counter
to the spirit of the Law about marriages to close relatives. Yet David
went beyond the Law so often; and it is this which perhaps led him to
commit the sin of presumption in his behaviour with Bathsheba.
Right
afterwards he comments about the man who stole his neighbour’s sheep, that
it must be restored fourfold; whereas the Law only stipulated double,
David felt he so knew the spirit of the Law that he could break the letter
of it- in any context. And this was his [temporary] downfall.
As we go through the life of David, it is evident he went along roads few others have travelled. For example, who else would offer his sacrifice upon the altar and then start strumming his harp in praise as he watched the animal burn (Ps. 43:4 Heb.)? This was a new paradigm in Israelite worship. Like Job, David had no precedents in past spiritual history from which he could take comfort (Job 5:1). David knew God well enough to act like the High Priest even when he was not a Levite (2 Sam. 6:13-20; and 2 Sam. 19:21 = Ex.22:28), he came to understand that God did not require sacrifices, he came to see that the Law was only a means to an end. David’s sons, although not Levites, were “priests” (2 Sam. 8:18 RV). He could say that the Lord was his inheritance [a reference to how he as the youngest son had lost his?], and how he refuses to offer the sacrifices of wicked men for them (Ps. 16:4,5; 119:57)- speaking as if he was a Levite, a priest, when he was not. He knew that the ideal standard for married life was one man: one woman, and yet he was somehow able to flout this and still be a man after God's own heart. He broke explicit Mosaic commandment by marrying Saul's wives and also his daughter.
2Sa 14:11 Then she said, Please let the king remember Yahweh your God so
that the avenger of blood destroy not any more, lest they destroy my son.
He said, As Yahweh lives, not one hair of your son shall fall to the
earth-
As explained on :10, this is David waiving parts of God's law, and yet
doing so from an understanding of grace and pity. And of course the whole
situation was designed to lead him to agree to apply these principles to
Absalom. But the parody is that Absalom's famous hairs did
fall to the ground and were the cause of his death. David's oath that the
murderer's hairs would not fall to the earth was in fact not for him to
make; for God ensured this did in fact happen to Absalom. Again David is
presented as duped and powerless, just as Uriah and Bathsheba were whom he
in turn had abused whilst he had power.
2Sa 14:12 Then the woman said, Please let your handmaid speak a word to my
lord the king. He said, Say on-
The woman isn't prepared to leave things at the level of subliminal
appeal. Perhaps now she speaks on her own behalf, and no longer following
the script Joab had given her. The next verses appear to be her own more
spiritual argument, at the end of which she basically admits she has been
set up to say the script she just has; but despite that, in spiritual
terms, she can see a good case for having Absalom back.
2Sa 14:13 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 bring home again his banished one-
The woman understood the implications of the promise in
Eden when she tells David that “neither doth God respect any person: yet
doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him” (2 Sam.
14:14 AV). Whom did God banish? Adam, and all his children. But God ‘devised
means’ through the promises of Gen. 3:15 so that this banishment was not
permanent expulsion. The means devised was the death and resurrection of
His Son, the seed of the woman. But the woman’s point was that therefore,
David ought to restore his sinful son, whom he had banished- for “the king
does not fetch home again his banished” (2 Sam. 14:13). Her point was that
as God sought to restore His banished sons, through the pain and cost to
Him of the blood of His Son, so we ought to likewise be inspired to win
back the banished. And so we look to those banished from ecclesial life by
disfellowship, church politics, personal animosities of past decades, or
simply their own outright sins; or those marginalized by poverty,
education, disability, health, geography… these are the banished whom we
ought to be winning back. And the power in all this arises from the
implications of those promises in Eden. Truly the woman of Tekoah was, as
she is described, a “wise woman”.
2Sa 14:14 For we must die, and are as water split on the ground, which
can’t be gathered up again; neither does God take away life, but devises
means that he who is banished not be an outcast from him-
Literally, dying we shall die. But that was indeed the wages
of sin defined in Eden. Like David, she struggled with accepting the
consequences for sin. But she correctly reasons that despite that curse,
God devises means to save us out of that just judgment. And again she is
correct that we should reflect that in our judgments and efforts for
others' salvation.
Her point was that as God in some sense breaks His own laws, e.g. that sin leads to permanent death, so surely David likewise could have the same spirit of grace and bring about the salvation of someone rightly appointed to death. See on :13. It could be argued that her logic is wrong, for the wages of sin is indeed death and God in that sense does take away life. But perhaps her point is that God indeed told Adam that in the day he sinned he would die; but in His grace, He didn't carry out that sentence immediately. Just as Nineveh wasn't destroyed in 40 days as God had stated. Instead, God gave more time- in the hope that Adam would not have to be outcast, and His purpose was to bring Adam back into Eden. That was why God didn't make Adam die "in the day" that he ate of the fruit. And so, the woman reasons, if God's attitude to death and punishment shows such grace, we surely ought to not insist upon His law of death for sinners being immediately obeyed. We should follow His example of letting His grace and hope for our restoration be stronger than the need to punish sin with death.
"God doth not take away life, but devises devices (lit. thinks thoughts, cp. :13 and Dan. 6:14 "the king [Darius]... set his heart on Daniel to save him; and he struggled until the going down of the sun to save him") to the end that he may not [utterly] banish a banished one". This is an allusion to God’s grace in sparing David’s life when he had deserved death for despising Yahweh's word, adultery and murder. Despite the law stating that, God 'thought thoughts' to get David out it. We think of the king thinking thoughts all night to try to get Daniel out of the prescribed death sentence. All God's work with man through His Son is in effect the same, a thinking of thoughts to save us from our rightful desert, which is death. And Joab knew this would appeal to David's spiritual mind, and he asks David [through the woman] to do the same for Absalom. We likewise are to reflect God's plan for us in likewise seeking to restore the banished and devising devices to save people from what they deserve. Legalistic judgmental Christianity and church politics is the exact opposite of this.
The argument was that death is final, and so we may as well try to reconcile with each other in this life. David had made it clear that he held out no hope to ever again see his first child by Bathsheba. And now he is taken in by similar reasoning- that he ought to reconcile with Absalom because this life is all we have for relationships. This could tacitly reflect a lack of faith in resurrection and future judgment; again, a lack of faith in the promises of 2 Sam. 7.
2Sa 14:15 Now therefore seeing that I have 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’-
The woman has now totally departed from the script Joab had given
her, contrasting positively with how in the previous chapter, Absalom
followed Jonadab's script exactly. She admits she has been put up to what
she has done. And she seems to be saying that despite this, she does
indeed see the logic in the request. See on :12.
2Sa 14:16 For the king will hear, to deliver his servant out of the hand
of the man who would destroy me and my son together out of the inheritance
of God-
I suggested on :12,15 that she admits she has been set up with
her story. So I think here she means "the king would have heard
me, had I really been in such a case as I presented to him". The
woman claims the avengers would destroy both her son and herself. To slay
her was definitely outside of the scope of blood revenge. But David
doesn't seek to apply God's commandments, he just gives his own
commandment above Divine law. In the parallel being created between the
woman and David, he likewise feared death at the hands of his own family.
Absalom is recorded as seeking his death, but quite possibly other sons
wanted it as well, as they all madly scrabbled for the throne. Truly David
had enemies from within his own house, from the house of Saul, from about
every opportunist.
2Sa 14:17 Then your handmaid said, ‘Please let the word of my lord the
king bring rest; for as an angel of God, so is my lord the king to discern
good and bad. May Yahweh your God be with you’-
See on :20. Adam's choice in Eden was that of everyman in every sin;
it was a choice between a total "yes" or a total "no" to God. The desire
was to know "good and evil"; and this term is used as an idiom for
"everything" (Gen. 24:50; 2 Sam. 14:17,20), the whole area in between good
and bad / evil is in this sense "everything" (cp. Gen. 31:24; 2 Sam.
13:22). Adam and Eve were attracted by the possibility of experiencing
everything, of having the total knowledge, the omniscience, which is with
God alone. Their failure was more than simply eating a fruit; it involved
rebellion and pride, a desire to be equal with God.
In this context, the woman means that she recognizes David's great sensitivity and wisdom, and knows that he would see through her story as a put up situation. But she truly respects him and wishes Yahweh to be with the king. Indeed it seems David was well known for his sensitivity and the ability to hide things from him (see on 2 Sam. 18:13). His wide life experience mixed with his spirituality led to this sensitivity.
2Sa 14:18 Then the king answered the woman, Please don’t hide anything
from me that I ask you. The woman said, Let my lord the king now speak-
David uses the words of Joshua to Achan (Josh. 7:19), possibly
implying he thinks she has sinned and needs to repent for her part in this
ruse to manipulate him.
2Sa 14:19 The king said, Is the hand of Joab with you in all this? The
woman answered, As your soul lives, my lord the king, no one can turn to
the right hand or to the left from anything that my lord the king has
spoken; for your servant Joab, he urged me, and he put all these words in
the mouth of your handmaid-
The woman's honesty is commendable, and she contrasts well with
Absalom in the parallel situation of the previous chapter, who was
manipulated by Jonadab. "Urged" is the usual word "commanded", as if
Joab had in some way ordered or even manipulated this women to in turn try
to manipulate David.
David is duped by Absalom, even although he has premonitions
about what is happening. Exactly the same is done to David by Amnon asking
for permission to have Tamar visit him; and likewise Joab tricks David in
2 Sam. 14, even though David suspects what is going on ("Is not the hand
of Joab with you in all this?"). In these, and other, incidents, we see
David being treated as he had treated Uriah- he was deceived by David,
although he surely had a strong premonition about what was really going
on.
2Sa 14:20 to change the face of the matter has your servant Joab done this
thing-
AV "to bring about this form of speech", in other words, the entire
performance from her had been designed to David pronounce that the law
about the avenging of blood could be suspended in her case; and thereby
set a legal precedent for the return of Absalom.
My lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to
know all things that are on the earth-
David's soul was broken as a result of his own mistakes and his general
experience of life. David's depression resulted in him manifesting all the
classic characteristics of the highly strung person. But it led him to his
great sensitivity and almost telepathic ability to enter into other's
problems was legendary throughout Israel, and this was one of the things
which endeared him to his people (1 Sam. 22:22; 2 Sam. 14:17,20; 18:13)-
and there is a powerful similarity here with our relationship with the
Lord Jesus Christ.
The woman thought that Angels know everything and therefore David was
like an Angel. Angels don’t know everything. Yet the woman’s
immature concept isn’t corrected.
2Sa 14:21 The king said to Joab, Behold now, I have done this
thing. Go therefore, bring the young man Absalom back-
"Bring... back" is the word also used for the return of the exiles. I
have suggested that all the historical records were rewritten with the
exiles in view. This theme of those who deserved to stay in exile being
restored by grace was appropriate to them; although most refused to accept
they had done anything wrong, and preferred the life in exile.
2Sa 14:22 Joab fell to the ground on his face, showed respect, and blessed
the king. Joab said, Today your servant knows that I have found grace in
your sight, my lord O king, in that the king has performed the request of
his servant-
Clearly Joab had previously asked David to restore Absalom,
so it was obvious the woman had been set up by Joab."Performed the request of his servant" uses the very words of :20
"Your servant Joab has done [s.w. "performed"] this thing [s.w.
"request"]". Joab absolutely accepts he had manipulated the woman, and we
sense he is ecstatic that he has got his way. There is no record of any
contact between him and Absalom at this stage. As discussed on :1, we are
still left wondering whether Joab wants this because he wants David to get
what he wants; or whether he wants to play the kingmaker in making Absalom
king, although he later falls out with Absalom and turns against him.
2Sa 14:23 So Joab arose and went to Geshur, and brought Absalom to
Jerusalem-
Joab was certainly enthusiastic for Absalom's return, personally
going to Geshur to escort him. It was a round trip of 500 km., a major
journey. See on :1 and :22 as to his motives.
2Sa 14:24 The king said, Let him return to his own house, but let him not
see my face. So Absalom returned to his own house, and didn’t see the
king’s face-
If David was indeed still longing to see Absalom as he was in 2 Sam.
13:39, we wonder why he would say this. I discussed on :1 how the word
translated "towards" is intentionally ambiguous. It can also mean
"against", and we are left guessing whether David's heart is towards or
against Absalom; and that affects how we understand Joab's game plan. The
narrative creates suspense and has all the elements of a good story, as
the readership is left wondering about these things. This was a paradigm
in literature far ahead of its time in contemporary writings. David may
have changed his feelings about Absalom when he perceived that in fact
Absalom wanted the throne from David. Or perhaps the ambiguity in the
narrative reflects David's own mixed feelings. Part of him indeed wanted
to see Absalom (2 Sam. 13:39), and he shared the argument of the woman of
Tekoah about showing him grace. But another part of him recognized that
Absalom wanted to kill him as he had Amnon, in order to take the throne
for himself.
Allowing Absalom to come to live in Jerusalem but keeping him a
captive of the court, unable to meet David, suggests David only half
forgave him, because to 'see the face' meant to have all sin or offence
forgiven. David thus failed to reflect the total forgiveness he had
received, despite his repentance not being very long lasting nor deep.
Instead he made an issue with the quality of Absalom's repentance. Had he
disciplined and forgiven Absalom, as God had done to him, the rebellion
may well not have happened. And he ought to have focused his sons upon the
great promises of 2 Sam. 7 concerning the future king, thereby making
present kingship meaningless.
According to how we translate, David's heart was for Absalom
but he refused to speak with him nor see his face. As discussed on :7, one
explanation of that apparent contradiction is that Bathsheba's influence
may have been exerted to keep Absalom in disgrace for the sake of Solomon.
In this case, the David who once controlled and used Bathsheba is now
having the same done to him by Bathsheba. We recall how later, Bathsheba
reminds David that he has promised her that her son Solomon will be his
heir to the throne. Clearly she had manipulated him to get this out of
him.
2Sa 14:25 Now in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as
Absalom for his beauty: from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his
head there was no blemish in him-
Absalom is presented as similar to Saul- externally attractive to
Israel, and apparently the man born to be king according to his
appearance. "No blemish" is the language of how the High Priest and
sacrifices were to be. His "crown" of hair would then be associated with
the High Priest's mitre, imitated by the uncut hair of the Nazirite. All
this suggests that potentially he could indeed have been a priest-king.
There were many potential ways forward for the promises to David to be
fulfilled, and perhaps he was one of them. And yet they all came to
nothing, Solomon especially, until they came to full term in the work and
person of the Lord Jesus.
2Sa 14:26 When he cut the hair of his head (now it was at every year’s end
that he cut it; because it was heavy on him, therefore he cut it); he
weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels, after the king’s
weight-
Immediately we sense his vanity, cutting his own hair and weighing
it. Possibly he was a Nazirite and was making a big show of
renewing the vow every year, thus hiding his vanity behind a front of
religious piety. LXX "two hundred shekels according to the royal shekel", GNB "about
five pounds according to the royal standard of weights" David had
apparently standardized the weight of a shekel. This would have been the
equivalent to the "shekel of the sanctuary" often mentioned in the law of
Moses. The priests were intended to have a standard shekel which was kept
in the sanctuary; but it seems David did this priestly work by creating
such a shekel. This is yet another example of David acting as priest and
spiritual leader of Israel, effectively as High Priest.
2Sa 14:27 To Absalom there were born three sons and one daughter, whose
name was Tamar: she was a woman of a beautiful appearance-
This woman was named after Absalom's sister whom Amnon had raped. LXX
adds “and she became the wife of Roboam the son of Solomon, and bare him
Abia" although that contradicts 1 Kings 15:2; 2 Chron. 11:20-22. According
to 2 Sam. 18:18, Absalom had no sons. Perhaps his three sons of 2 Sam.
14:27 had died in their youth or childhood. for infant mortality was high
in those times. Or maybe he had fallen out with them, and they had
disowned each other.
LXX adds: "And there were born to Absalom three sons and one
daughter, and her name was Tamar: she was a very beautiful woman, and she
becomes the wife of Rehoboam son of Solomon, and she bears to him Abijah".
If LXX is correct then this incestuous marriage was used by God in the
line of His Son: "Solomon begot Rehoboam, Rehoboam begot Abijah, Abijah
begot Asa" (Mt. 1:7).
2Sa 14:28 Absalom lived two full years in Jerusalem; and he didn’t see the
king’s face-
To see a king's face implies acceptance by him. So as discussed
above, David's longing to see Absalom in 2 Sam. 13:39 had changed.
Something had changed, and I suggest that may have been because he
perceived that Absalom wanted him dead because he wanted the throne.
2Sa 14:29 Then Absalom sent for Joab, to send him to the king; but he
would not come to him: and he sent again a second time, but he would not
come-
Joab had clearly promised Absalom that he could get him an audience
with the king. But something had changed; perhaps Absalom had made clear
his plans to kill his father and become king. Or
there had been some personal fallout between Absalom and Job. Or maybe
Joab decided that his own pride and power could not or would not be best
served by being a kingmaker to Absalom, but would be better served by
continued loyalty to
David.
2Sa 14:30 Therefore he said to his servants, Behold, Joab’s field is near
mine, and he has barley there. Go and set it on fire. Absalom’s servants
set the field on fire-
We note how the ruling classes of Israel had their own forms of
livelihood. Saul still retained his farm, Absalom had sheep, Joab grew
barley. There was no very developed system of taxation for the ruling
classes to live off. Again, the record has absolute internal consistency.
Likewise in 2 Sam. 23:11, Shammah defended a field of barley because
it was valuable to the Israelites. And in this we have a corroboration of
this record with how Absalom had burnt Joab's field of barley. We may
wonder why Joab slew Absalom. It could have been that to lose a field of
barley was to lose food for many months or even a year. It was therefore a
major loss to Joab. As Shammah defended a field of barley with his life,
so Joab was so vengeful at the loss of his field of barley that he later
slew Absalom.
All these dramas were related to David's sin with Bathsheba. He had a neighbour, Uriah, to whom he did great wrong because of the fire of his own lust. And so here too we see neighbours in similar conflict and David's son Absalom behaving nastily against his own neighbour. We note too how Absalom makes two attempts to get his way and then in frustration, acts foolishly and violently. Likewise David tried twice to manipulate Uriah (2 Sam. 11:8,13) and in frustration plots violence against him after those two frustrations.
2Sa 14:31 Then Joab arose and came to Absalom to his house and said to
him, Why have your servants set my field on fire?-
The plan of getting Joab to come to him certainly worked, although it
was a desperate one.
2Sa 14:32 Absalom answered Joab, Behold, I sent to you saying, ‘Come here,
that I may send you to the king to say, Why have I come from Geshur? It
would be better for me to be there still. Now therefore let me see the
king’s face; and if there is iniquity in me, let him kill me’-
Job had had a change of mind as to how Absalom could best serve his
own interests of pride and power, and the result of that was that Absalom
was left in limbo. There certainly was iniquity in Absalom because he had
slain his brother Amnon. We see here how conscience for sin so easily
declines over time, and the passage of the years works a kind of pseudo
atonement. But God's dealing with sin is not like this. We may forget
about past sins or the wonder of having been forgiven them, but God
doesn't (2 Pet. 1:9).
Absalom is asking for David to regard him as either guilty or
innocent; to slay him for his sin of murdering Amnon, or forgive him and
allow him to live a normal life. Absalom complains that living in this
half-forgiveness is an unbearable position. David saw Absalom play out
before his eyes the case of a person who was only half forgiven, or who
felt that way whilst the one they had offended awaited their fuller
penitence. This was exactly how David was. God was waiting for fuller
penitence and David like Absalom was miserable until he would reach that
point. David was waiting fuller penitence from Absalom, but it seems to me
that this was just what God was waiting for from David. Absalom should
either be kept in exile, slain- or totally forgiven. But David was
operating a policy in between those Biblical options, just as many
churches and individuals do today in struggling to accept others. And so
providence made such a case play out before David's eyes to bring him to
understand that semi penitence is an unbearable position both for the
sinner and for God the forgiver.
2Sa 14:33 So Joab came to the king and told him; and when he had called
for Absalom, he came to the king, and bowed himself on his face to the
ground before the king: and the king kissed Absalom-
We are not told the content of their discussion or whether David formally
extended forgiveness to Absalom. The next we read in 2 Sam. 15 is that
Absalom is moving freely in Jerusalem and garnering support for his
putsch. The depth of coverage of the record varies; we are given detailed
descriptions of Tamar kneading the dough for the cakes she made Amnon,
whereas here, when we would love to know what David and Absalom said to
each other- there is nothing. Did Absalom repent? Did David forgive? What
was the role of Joab? I suggest that this is intentional, because these
records are designed to promote our reflection and imagination, so that we
might enter deeper into the characters portrayed.
Under the law, Absalom should have died. But David thinks that he can just lift the entire consequence for Absalom's sin; just as he expects God to remove all the consequences of his sin, and chafes at any suffering because of his sins. We recall how he begged God not to slay his first son by Bathsheba, but that request wasn't heard. The hollowness of David's life is shown by how he kisses Absalom yet clearly with misgivings, and then Absalom goes on to use kisses to usurp David (2 Sam. 15:5).
Previous Chapter
