Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - 2 Samuel 14:1 - 14:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
When Joab perceived that the king's heart was against Absalom, he sent for a cunning woman from Tekoah, to work upon the king and change his mind, so that he might grant forgiveness to Absalom. 2Sa 14:1 is understood by the majority of commentators, in accordance with the Syriac and Vulgate, as signifying that Joab learned that the king's heart was inclined towards Absalom, was well disposed towards him again. But this explanation is neither philologically sustained, nor in accordance with the context. לֵב, written with עַל and without any verb, so that הָיָה has to be supplied, only occurs again in Dan 11:28, where the preposition has the meaning “against.” It is no argument against this meaning here, that if David had been ill disposed towards Absalom, there would have been no necessity to state that Joab perceived it; for we cannot see why Joab should only have perceived or noticed David's friendly feelings, and not his unfriendly feelings as well. If, however, Joab had noticed the re-awakening of David's good feelings towards Absalom, there would have been no necessity for him to bring the cunning woman from Tekoah to induce him to consent to Absalom's return. Moreover, David would not in that case have refused to allow Absalom to see his face for two whole years after his return to Jerusalem (2Sa 14:24). Tekoah, the home of the prophet Amos, the present Tekua, two hours to the south of Bethlehem (see at Jos 15:59, lxx). The “wise woman” was to put on mourning, as a woman who had been mourning for a long while for some one that was dead (הִתְאַבֵּל, to set or show herself mourning), and to go to the king in this attire, and say what Joab had put into her mouth.
2Sa 14:4
The woman did this. All the old translators have given as the rendering of הָאִשָּׁה וַתֹּאמֶר “the woman came (went) to the king,” as if they had read וַתָּבֹא. This reading is actually found in some thirty Codd. of De Rossi, and is therefore regarded by Thenius and the majority of critics as the original one. But Böttcher has very justly urged, in opposition to this, that וַתֹּאמֶר cannot possibly be an accidental corruption of ותבא, and that it is still less likely that such an alteration should have been intentionally made. But this remark, which is correct enough in itself, cannot sustain the conjecture which Böttcher has founded upon it, namely that two whole lines have dropt out of the Hebrew text, containing the answer which the woman of Tekoah gave to Joab before she went to the king, since there is not one of the ancient versions which contains a single word more than the Masoretic text. Consequently we must regard וַתֹּאמֶר as the original reading, and interpret it as a hysteron-proteron, which arose from the fact that the historian was about to relate at once what the woman said to the king, but thought it desirable to mention her falling down at the feet of the king before giving her actual words, “Help, O king,” which he introduces by repeating the word וַתֹּאמֶר.
2Sa 14:5-7
When the king asked her, “What aileth thee?” the woman described the pretended calamity which had befallen her, saying that she was a widow, and her two sons had quarrelled in the field; and as no one interposed, one of them had killed the other. The whole family had then risen up and demanded that the survivor should be given up, that they might carry out the avenging of blood upon him. Thus they sought to destroy the heir also, and extinguish the only spark that remained to her, so as to leave her husband neither name nor posterity upon the earth. The suffix attached to וַיַּכֹּו, with the object following (“he smote him, the other,” 2Sa 14:6), may be explained from the diffuseness of the style of ordinary conversation (see at 1Sa 21:14). There is no reason whatever for changing the reading into יַכּוּ, as the suffix ow, though unusual with verbs הל, is not without parallel; not to mention the fact that the plural יָכּוּ is quite unsuitable. There is also quite as little reason for changing וְנַשְׁמִידָה into וְיַשְׁמִידוּ, in accordance with the Syriac and Arabic, as Michaelis and Thenius propose, on the ground that “the woman would have described her relatives as diabolically malicious men, if she had put into their mouths such words as these, 'We will destroy the heir also.' “ It was the woman's intention to describe the conduct of the relations and their pursuit of blood-revenge in the harshest terms possible, in order that she might obtain help from the king. She begins to speak in her own name at the word וְכִבּוּ (“and so they shall quench and”), where she resorts to a figure, for the purpose of appealing to the heart of the king to defend her from the threatened destruction of her family, saying, “And so they shall quench the burning coal which is left.” גַּחֶלֶת is used figuratively, like τὸ ζώπυρον, the burning coal with which one kindles a fresh fire, to denote the last remnant. שׁוּם לְבִלְתִּי: “so as not to set,” i.e., to preserve or leave name and remnant (i.e., posterity) to my husband.
This account differed, no doubt, from the case of Absalom, inasmuch as in his case no murder had taken place in the heat of a quarrel, and no avenger of blood demanded his death; so that the only resemblance was in the fact that there existed an intention to punish a murderer. But it was necessary to disguise the affair in this manner, in order that David might not detect her purpose, but might pronounce a decision out of pity for the poor widow which could be applied to his own conduct towards Absalom.
2Sa 14:8-10
The plan succeeded. The king replied to the woman, “Go home, I will give charge concerning thee,” i.e., I will give the necessary commands that thy son may not be slain by the avenger of blood. This declaration on the part of the king was perfectly just. If the brothers had quarrelled, and one had killed the other in the heat of the quarrel, it was right that he should be defended from the avenger of blood, because it could not be assumed that there was any previous intention to murder. This declaration therefore could not be applied as yet to David's conduct towards Absalom. But the woman consequently proceeded to say (2Sa 14:9), “My lord, O king, let the guilt be upon me and upon my father's house, and let the king and his throne be guiltless.” כִּסֵּא, the throne, for the government or reign. The meaning of the words is this: but if there should be anything wrong in the fact that this bloodshed is not punished, let the guilt fall upon me and my family. The king replied (2Sa 14:10), “Whosoever speaketh to thee, bring him to me; he shall not touch thee any more.” אֵלַיִךְ does not stand for עָלַיִךְ, “against thee;” but the meaning is, whoever speaks to thee any more about this, i.e., demands thy son of thee again.
2Sa 14:11
The crafty woman was not yet satisfied with this, and sought by repeating her petition to induce the king to confirm his promise on oath, that she might bind him the more firmly. She therefore said still further: “I pray thee, let the king remember Jehovah thy God, that the avenger of blood may no more prepare destruction, and that they may not destroy my son.” The Chethib הַרְבִּית is probably a copyist's error for הַרְבֹות, for which the Masoretes would write הַרְבַּת, the construct state of הָרְבָּה, - a form of the inf. abs. which is not commonly used, and which may possibly have been chosen because הַרְבֶּה had become altogether an adverb (vid., Ewald, §240, e.). The context requires the inf. constr. הַרְבֹות: that the avenger of blood may not multiply (make much) to destroy, i.e., may not add to the destruction; and הַרְבִּית is probably only a verbal noun used instead of the infinitive. The king immediately promised on oath that her son should not suffer the least harm.
2Sa 14:12-14
When the woman had accomplished so much, she asked permission to speak one word more; and having obtained it, proceeded to the point she wanted to reach: “And wherefore thinkest thou such things against people of God? And because the king speaketh this word, he is as one inculpating himself, since the king does not let his own rejected one return.” כְּאָשֶׁם, “like one who has laden himself with guilt,” is the predicate to the clause וגו וּמִדַּבֵּר. These words of the woman were intentionally kept indefinite, rather hinting at what she wished to place before the king, than expressing it distinctly. This is more particularly applicable to the first clause, which needs the words that follow to render it intelligible, as כָּזֹאת חָשַׁבְתָּה is ambiguous; so that Dathe and Thenius are wrong in rendering it, “Why dost thou propose such things towards the people of God?” and understanding it as relating to the protection which the king was willing to extend to her and to her son. חָשַׁב with עַל does not mean to think or reflect “with regard to,” but “against” a person. Ewald is quite correct in referring the word כָּזֹאת to what follows: such things, i.e., such thoughts as thou hast towards thy son, whose blood-guiltiness thou wilt not forgive. אֱלֹהִים עַל־אַם, without the article, is intentionally indefinite, “against people of God,” i.e., against members of the congregation of God. “This word” refers to the decision which the king had pronounced in favour of the widow. הָשִׁיב לְבִלְתִּי, literally, in not letting him return.
In order to persuade the king to forgive, the crafty woman reminded him (2Sa 14:14) of the brevity of human life and of the mercy of God: “For we must die, and (are) as water spilt upon the ground, which is not (cannot be) gathered up, and God does not take a soul away, but thinks thoughts, that He may not thrust from Him one expelled.” Although these thoughts are intentionally expressed quite generally, their special allusion to the case in hand can easily be detected. We must all die, and when dead our life is irrevocably gone. Thou mightest soon experience this in the case of Absalom, if thou shouldst suffer him to continue in exile. God does not act thus; He does not deprive the sinner of life, but is merciful, and does not cast off for ever.
2Sa 14:15
After these allusions to David's treatment of Absalom, the woman returned again to her own affairs, to make the king believe that nothing but her own distress had led her to speak thus: “And now that I have come to speak this word to the king my lord, was (took place) because the people have put me in fear (sc., by their demand that I should give up my son to the avenger of blood); thy handmaid said (i.e., thought), I will indeed go to the king, perhaps the king will do his handmaid's word,” i.e., grant her request.
2Sa 14:16
“Yea, the king will hear, to save his handmaid out of the hand of the man that would destroy me and my son from the inheritance of God.” אֲשֶׁר must be supplied before לְהַשְׁמִיד: who is to destroy, i.e., who is seeking to destroy (vid., Gesenius, §132, 3). “The inheritance of God” was the nation of Israel (as in 1Sa 26:19; cf. Deu 32:9).
2Sa 14:17
“Then thine handmaid thought, may the word of my lord the king be for rest (i.e., tend to give me rest); for as the angel of God (the angel of the covenant, the mediator of the blessings of divine grace to the covenant-nation), so is my lord the king to hear good and evil (i.e., listening to every just complaint on the part of his subjects, and granting help to the oppressed), and Jehovah thy God be with thee!”
2Sa 14:18-19
These words of the woman were so well considered and so crafty, that the king could not fail to see both what she really meant, and also that she had not come with her petition of her own accord. He therefore told her to answer the question without disguise: whether the hand of Joab was with her in all this. She replied, “Truly there is not (אִם) anything to the right hand or to the left of all that my lord the king saith,” i.e., the king always hits the right point in everything that he said. “Yea, thy servant Joab, he hath commanded me, and he hath put all these words into thy servant's mouth.” אִשׁ is not a copyist's error, but a softer form of יֵשׁ, as in Mic 6:10 (vid., Ewald, §53c, and Olshausen, Gramm. p. 425).
2Sa 14:20
“To turn the appearance of the king (i.e., to disguise the affair in the finest way) Joab hath done this; my lord (i.e., the king), however, is wise, like the wisdom of the angel of God, to know all that is (happens) upon earth.” She hoped by these flattering words to gain the king completely over.