Abstract
This article demonstrates that the punishment eventually imposed upon Absalom was not only due to Nathan's oracle in 2 Samuel 12, but was also the outcome of Absalom's own deeds. Absalom's narrative thus contributes to the structuring of the account according to the model of dual causality. On the divine level, Absalom is an instrument in God's hands to punish David, according to the rule of ‘punishing children for the iniquity of parents’ (Exod. 20.5; 34.7; Num. 14.18; Deut. 5.9); on the earthly level, however, Absalom is unaware of divine will, and he is motivated to act erroneously by his own bad nature—his ambitiousness, his narcissism, and similar traits—when he rebels against his father.
1. Introduction
The complex relationship between divine intervention and human error in the Absalom narrative has received much critical attention. This article discusses the correspondence between the divine intention to punish David and the human tendencies of Absalom, claiming that the overriding divine plan does not, in fact, contradict the understanding that Absalom's downfall was divine retribution for his own human errors. There are conflicting scholarly opinions regarding the claim that there is correspondence between the divine intention to punish David and the human tendencies of Absalom. Nathan's oracle will be fulfilled according to the divine plan, but this does not contradict the concurrent phenomenon of divine retribution punishing Absalom as responsible for his own errors.
The title of the present study was inspired by Gillian Keys, who stated: ‘Thus David's initial victory over Absalom is demonstrated as the result of divine intervention, and not of human error’.
1
Following the same line of thought and similarly relying on 2 Sam. 17.14 (‘For the LORD had ordained to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, so that the LORD might bring ruin on Absalom’;
The key narrational aside… portrays Yahweh as opposed to Absalom but gives no reason for the deity's opposition… Yahweh's opposition to Absalom need not be viewed as opposition to Absalom per se, but rather support of David, Yahweh's chosen king.
Both Keys and Noll thus view divine intervention as being the sole reason for Absalom's downfall. In addition, they both point to the divine preference for David over Absalom. Other scholars, however, view Nathan's oracle in 2 Sam. 12.11 as the reason for Absalom's punishment. 4
In contrast, Eichrodt 5 holds that Pharaoh (in Exod. 7–12) and Absalom are punished not only through divine action, but also due to their wrongdoings. Similarly, Sternberg characterizes Absalom's fate thusly: ‘Saul, David, and Absalom get their just deserts’. 6 However, neither Eichrodt nor Sternberg discusses Absalom's sins in detail. 7
In the present study I will argue that Absalom's ‘errors’ or misdeeds as they are described in 2 Samuel 13–20 support Eichrodt's argument rather than that of Keys and Noll, and indicate the significance of Absalom's own personal choices in bringing about his punishment. 2 Samuel 17.14 has an important role in the Absalom Narrative, as many scholars have pointed out. 8 However, exclusive focus on this verse cannot be used to discount the place of human deeds as a meaningful factor determining human fate.
2. The Meaning of the Phrase לעהעראיבה
In addition to its inclusion in 2 Sam. 17.14, the phrase לעהעראיבה appears five time in the book of Kings, in each instance referring to a punishment for the sin of an individual or a nation: 1 Kgs 9.9; 14.10; 21.29; 2 Kgs 21.12; 22.16. In 2 Samuel 13–20, the word הער is a leitmotif which conveys divergent meanings:
Nathan tells David in 2 Sam. 12.10, after the Bathsheba affair: ‘Thus says the LORD: “I will raise up trouble (הער) against you from within your own house”’.
In the story of Amnon and Tamar (2 Sam. 13.16), Tamar regards both her rape by Amnon and her banishment from the room as הער (NRSV: ‘wrong’).
2 Samuel 15.14 relates: 9 ‘Then David said to all his officials who were with him at Jerusalem, “Get up! Let us flee, or there will be no escape for us from Absalom. Hurry, or he will soon overtake us, and bring disaster (הערה) down upon us, 10 and attack the city with the edge of the sword.”’
In 2 Sam. 16.8, Shimei son of Gera says to David: ‘See, disaster (הער) has overtaken you; for you are a man of blood’; concerning this verse, Campbell correctly observes: ‘The “evil” in which David finds himself evokes both past and present, connoting the evil that David has done and in which he now finds himself enmeshed and trapped’. 11
I shall now divide Absalom's deeds as portrayed in 2 Samuel 13–20 into two separate categories: deeds that are presented as a punishment inflicted upon David in response to Bathsheba's story and those which are presented as stemming from Absalom's own flawed nature.
3. Absalom's Deeds That Are Related to Bathsheba's Story
a. The Murder of Amnon
In 2 Sam. 13.23–29 Absalom orders his men to murder Amnon. Though there is a certain identification on the part of the reader with Absalom's motives for his actions, 12 the narrator does not take the murder lightly. While it was not committed directly by Absalom, he is nevertheless considered the murderer, 13 having taken the law into his own hands and acted without authority. 14 Therefore, Absalom is punished ‘measure for measure’. 15 In order to murder Amnon, Absalom uses his squire; similarly, Joab orders his squire to kill Absalom. 16 These murders are a part of the legacy of the sword that will not depart from David's house.
b. Absalom's Rebellion against His Father
According to 2 Samuel 15–19, Absalom is also accused of harboring an intent to kill his father, thus fulfilling Nathan's oracle in 2 Sam. 12.10 that predicts David's son rising against him. After Shimei curses David and casts stones at him, David tells Abishai and all his servants: ‘My own son seeks my life’ (2 Sam. 16.11). This claim is also realized in 2 Sam. 17.3–4, wherein we read of Ahithophel's advice and Absalom's reaction thereto: 17
‘I will bring all the people back to you as a bride comes home to her husband. You seek the life of only one man, and all the people will be at peace.’ The advice pleased Absalom and all the elders of Israel.
In addition, the narrator refers to Absalom's deeds as a רשק (‘conspiracy’, 2 Sam. 15.12, 31), 18 to which the phrase ןלמב דיאשנ (‘prostrated himself before the king’) also refers (2 Sam. 18.28). 19
c. Adultery
In 2 Sam. 16.21–22 Absalom sleeps with his father's concubines, in accordance with Ahitophel's advice. This sin fulfills Nathan's oracle in 2 Sam. 12.11–12, echoing David's behaviour in this story: both David and Absalom took other men's women while those men were on the battlefield. 20 It is likely that the narrator is also referring back to Reuben and Bilhah's relationship in Genesis 35, and linking it to Absalom's act. 21 In Carlson's opinion, Absalom violated the law in Deut. 23.1, 22 his sin being all the more grave due to its public nature.
4. Deeds Not Related to Bathsheba's Story
a. Absalom Obtained a Chariot and Horses (2 Samuel 15.1)
When describing Absalom as obtaining a chariot and horses in 2 Sam. 15.1, the narrator alludes to Deut. 17.16, which states that the king ‘must not acquire many horses for himself’. The negative evaluation of Absalom is reinforced by alluding to Samuel's denunciation of kingship in 1 Sam. 8.11 as well. 23
b. Deception
Absalom deceives the people in Jerusalem and steals their hearts, 24 deceives his father, and deludes the people coming to Hebron, who believe that they are accompanying him to pay his vow payment 25 (albeit it is unclear whether or not there ultimately was a vow). 26 If indeed a vow was never made, then this is a religious violation, and not merely a prank. In contrast to David, who, when he mentions God, does so with deep faith, 27 these incidents reveal that when Absalom refers to God it is a camouflage for rebellion.
5. The Analogous Stories of Absalom and Rehoboam
The teleological remark in 2 Sam. 17.14 is reminiscent of a similar statement that was made concerning the story of Rehoboam in 1 Kgs 12.15. 28 However, the similarity between the narratives goes even deeper. In both stories, kings from the House of David seek advice; they receive contradictory counsel; and the worthy advice is ultimately not heeded. In the case of Rehoboam, the referral to God's acts does not exempt him from responsibility. 29 In similar fashion, the two stories place responsibility on the human character while simultaneously commenting on God's intervention in their respective affairs.
6. Summary and Conclusions
In this study I have proposed an understanding of Absalom's narrative as relaying the consequences of incidents resulting simultaneously from both human error and divine intervention. Absalom's misdeeds help to show that the punishment eventually imposed upon Absalom was not only due to Nathan's oracle in 2 Samuel 12, but was also the outcome of Absalom's own deeds. Absalom's narrative thus contributes to the structuring of the account according to the model of dual causality. 30
On the divine level, Absalom is an instrument in God's hands to punish David, according to the rule of ‘punishing children for the iniquity of parents’ (Exod. 20.5; 34.7; Num. 14.18; Deut. 5.9); on the earthly level, however, Absalom is unaware of divine will, and he is motivated to act erroneously by his own bad nature—his ambitiousness, his narcissism, and similar traits—when he rebels against his father. In that way, there is a correspondence between the divine intention to punish David and the human tendencies of Absalom. Nathan's oracle will be fulfilled according to the divine plan, but this does not contradict divine retribution punishing Absalom as responsible for his own errors.
Footnotes
1.
G. Keys, The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the ‘Succession Narrative’ (JSOTSup, 221; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), p. 112. This argument stands in direct opposition to what she says in p. 135: ‘In many ways these acts should be seen as punishments for David's crimes, as he suffers because of them. However, as well as being punishments for David's crimes, they are also crimes in themselves and as such receive their own due punishment. The agents of their punishment though, are human—Amnon meets death at the hands of Absalom, who is in turn forced into exile. On the other hand, Yahweh himself is seen to intervene in the matter of David's punishment in ch. 12.’
2.
This translation is also reflected in the Jewish Publication Society's T
3.
K.L. Noll, The Faces of David (JSOTSup, 242; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 70, 74.
4.
T.G.C. Thornton, ‘Solomonic Apologetic in Samuel and Kings’, CQR 149 (1968), pp. 159–66; D.M. Gunn and D.N. Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 82; Keys, The Wages of Sin, p. 137; J. Grossman, ‘The Design of the “Dual Causality” Principle in the Narrative of Absalom's Rebellion’, Bib 88 (2007), pp. 558–66.
5.
W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (trans. J.A. Baker; Philadelphia: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1967), II, pp. 178–79. Bar-Efrat writes concerning Absalom that ‘seine Taten sind schwere Sünden aus böser Absicht’. See S. Bar-Efrat, Das Zweite Buch Samuel. Ein narratologisch-philologischer Kommentar (BWANT, 181; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2009), p. 177. This evaluation is very general and is not demonstrated in further discussion. Song-Mi Suzie Park concludes that Absalom ‘acts unwisely and, consequently, causes his own downfall’. Park finds three sins in the Absalom narratives: he kills his half-brother Amnon, tries to take his father's throne, and sleeps with his father's concubines. However, Park likewise does not develop this point. Furthermore, as we shall see below, there are additional sins in this narrative. See Song-Mi Suzie Park, ‘The Frustration of Wisdom: Wisdom, Counsel, and Divine Will in 2 Samuel 17:1–23’, JBL 128 (2009), pp. 453–67 (465).
6.
M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), p. 361.
7.
J.C. Exum (Tragedy and Biblical Narrative: Arrows of the Almighty [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992], p. 138) examines whether Yahweh has answered in this verse David's prayer in 2 Sam. 15.13. Cf. G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (trans. D.M.G. Stalker; New York: Harper & Row, 1962), I, p. 315.
8.
G. von Rad, ‘The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Ancient Israel’, in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh and London: Oliver & Boyd, 1966), pp. 199–200; P.K. McCarter Jr, II Samuel (AB, 9; New York: Doubleday, 1984), p. 387; R.P. Gordon, I and 2 Samuel: A Commentary (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1986), p. 281. H.W. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel: A Commentary (trans. J.W. Bowden; OTL; London: SCM Press, 1964), p. 352, calls this verse a ‘glimpse behind the scenes’. Cf. J. Rosenberg, King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), p. 185. Frank Polak defended its originality in his ‘David's Kingship: A Precarious Equilibrium’, in H.G. Reventlow et al. (eds.), Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature (JSOTSup, 171; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), pp. 124–27. Cf. I.L. Seeligmann, Gesammelte Studien zur Hebraïschen Bibel (FAT, 41; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), p. 265. For a diachronic analysis of the Absalom narrative, see S. Seiler, Die Geschichte von der Throngefolge Davids (2 Sam. 9–20; 1 Kön 1–2): Untersuchungen zur Literarkritik und Tendenz (BZAW, 267; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1998), pp. 150–52; T.A. Rudnig, Davids Thron: Redaktionskritische Studien zur Geschichte von der Thronnachfolge Davids (BZAW, 358; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2006), p. 228; K.-P. Adam, ‘Motivik, Figuren und Konzeption der Erzählung vom Absalomaufstand’, in M. Witte et al. (eds.), Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur ‘Deuteronomismus’-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (BZAW, 365; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2006), pp. 183–211.
9.
Polak, ‘David's Kingship’, pp. 131–32.
10.
Cf. HALOT. BDB translates ‘thrust’. On עער, see C. Dohmen and D. Rick's entry in TDOT, XIII, pp. 560–90; Winfried Thiel, ‘“Evil” in the Book of Kings’, in H.G. Reventlow and Y. Hoffman (eds.), The Problem of Evil and its Symbols in Jewish and Christian Tradition (JSOTSup, 366; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), pp. 2–13.
11.
A.F. Campbell, 2 Samuel (FOTL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), p. 150.
12.
See Yairah Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), pp. 138–40.
13.
J.L. Jensen, ‘Desire, Rivalry and Collective Violence in the “Succession Narrative”’, JSOT 55 (1992), pp. 39–59 (54), argues that Absalom is ‘less guilty’ since he did not kill Amnon with his own hands.
14.
K.W. Whitelam, The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel (JSOTSup 12; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979), p. 131; J. Krašoveç, Reward, Punishment, and Forgiveness: The Thinking and Beliefs of Ancient Israel in the Light of Greek and Modern Views (VTSup, 78; Leiden: Brill, 1999), p. 284. For a discussion of the reason for David's refraining from punishing Absalom, see G. Hens-Piazza, Of Methods, Monarchs, and Meanings: A Sociorhetorical Approach to Exegesis (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996), pp. 95–96, and the literature cited therein.
15.
According to Carmichael, Absalom was punished measure for measure: he violated his father's command when he rebelled against him, and Joab violated his father's command when he put down the rebellion. However, this correlation is a general one, with no actual basis in the text. See C. Carmichael, The Spirit of Biblical Law (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1996), p. 142.
16.
Keys, Wages of Sin, p. 137.
17.
Conroy, Absalom, p. 111.
18.
Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, p. 302.
19.
Conroy, Absalom, p. 73.
20.
Jensen, ‘Desire’, p. 47 regards Absalom as imitating David in this behaviour. Hill tries to explain the rationale behind leaving David's concubines in Jerusalem. See A.E. Hill, ‘On David's “Taking” and “Leaving” Concubines (2 Samuel 5:13; 15:16)’, JBL 125 (2006), pp. 129–39. Strangely, McCarter views this sin as the sole reason for Absalom's being rejected as David's successor. See P.K. McCarter, Jr, ‘Plots, True or False: The Succession Narrative as Court Apologetic’, Int 35 (1981), pp. 355–67 (359).
21.
R. de Hoop, Genesis 49 in its Literary and Historical Context (OTS, 39; Leiden: Brill, 1999), p. 513; K. Stone, Sex, Honour, and Power in the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup, 234; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), p. 125.
22.
R.A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel (trans. E.J. Sharpe and S. Rudman; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964), p. 180.
23.
R. Schiff, ‘The Stylistic Means for the Ethical Evaluation of the Characters in the Narratives of the Book of II Samuel’ (MA thesis, Bar-Ilan University, 1976 [Hebrew]), p. 82; M. Garsiel, The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies and Parallels (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1985), p. 72; M.J. Steussy, David: Biblical Portraits of Power (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999), pp. 84–85. According to Malul, ‘royal chariot or cart and the 50 runners were part of those formal legal proceedings, specifically underlining the main function of the king in the ANE—rather than merely reflecting regal pomp’. See M. Malul, ‘Absalom's Chariot and Fifty Runners (II Sam. 15:1) and Hittite Laws §198 Legal Proceedings in the Ancient Near East’, ZAW 122 (2010), pp. 44–52 (51). Even if Malul is correct in his comparison with Hittite Laws, it is doubtful whether the narrator wished to present Absalom in this manner. As Fokkelman and Bovati rightly claim, there is an irony in Absalom's declaration in 2 Sam. 15.4, in which he promises to judge only those who have elected him for a judge! See P. Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts, and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible (trans. M.J. Smith; JSOTSup, 105; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), p. 186 n. 40; J.P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Book of Samuel (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981), pp. 167–68. Cf. R. Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. III. 2 Samuel (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1993), p. 150.
24.
T.W. Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup, 147; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), p. 195; Conroy, Absalom, p. 152.
25.
H. Hagan, ‘Deception as Motif and Theme in 2 Sam. 9–20; 1 Kgs 1–2’, Bib 60 (1979), pp. 301–26; T.W. Cartledge, 1 & 2 Samuel (Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2001), p. 558; R.-J. Frontain, ‘The Trickster Tricked: Strategies of Deception and Survival in the David Narrative’, in V.L. Tollers and J. Maier (eds.), Mappings of the Biblical Terrain: The Bible as Text (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1990), pp. 170–92; Krašoveç, Reward, pp. 286–90.
26.
For discussion and earlier bibliography on this matter, see J. Berlinerblau, The Vow and the ‘Popular Religious Groups’ of Ancient Israel: A Philological and Sociological Inquiry (JSOTSup, 210; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), p. 108. On the one hand, D.M. Gunn (The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation [JSOTSup, 6; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978], p. 21) is correct when he writes that readers do not know whether Absalom actually deceived people regarding David's administration. On the other hand, this insight is true only from a historical point of view. From a literary point of view, the author makes great efforts to convey to the reader a negative evaluation of Absalom. The absurdity in Absalom's promise was also pointed out by H.J. Boecker, Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East (trans. J. Moiser; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980), p. 47.
27.
W. Brueggemann, ‘David and his Theologian’, CBQ 30 (1968), pp. 156–81, and ‘On Coping with Curse: A Study of 2 Sam. 16.5–14’, CBQ 36 (1974), pp. 175–92.
28.
R. Boer, Jameson and Jeroboam (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), pp. 155–57; Z. Weisman, Political Satire in the Bible (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), p. 104.
29.
J.T. Walsh, 1 Kings (Berit Olam; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996), pp. 165, 168. However, M.A. Sweeney (I and II Kings [OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2007], p. 171) holds that ‘Rehoboam has done nothing to justify divine punishment’. On Rehoboam in the
30.
See B.H. Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996), p. 233. Yairah Amit previously argued that there is a tendency toward secularization of the biblical narratives, beginning from the eighth century