- 12-
Great as Absalom's crime had been, we can readily understand, that popular sympathy
would in large measure be on the side of the princely offender. He had been provoked
beyond endurance by a dastardly outrage, which the king would not punish because the
criminal was his favorite. To the popular, especially the Eastern mind, the avenger of
Tamar might appear in the light of a hero rather than of an offender. Besides, Absalom
had everything about him to win the multitude. Without any bodily blemish from head
to foot, he was by far the finest-looking man in Israel. Common report had it that,
when obliged once a year, on account of its thickness, to have his long flowing hair
cut, it was put, as a matter of curiosity, in the scales, and found amounting to the
almost incredible weight of twenty shekels.^7 How well able he was to ingratiate
himself by his manners, the after history sufficiently shows. Such was the man who
had been left in banishment these three years, while Amnon had been allowed - so far
as the king was concerned - to go unpunished!
Whether knowledge of this popular sympathy or other motives had induced Joab's
interference, there seems no doubt that he had repeatedly interceded for Absalom;^8
until at last he felt fully assured that "the heart of the king was against^9 Absalom"
(14:1).
In these circumstances Joab resorted to a not uncommon Eastern device. At Tekoah,
about two hours south of Bethlehem, lived "a wise woman," specially capable of aiding
Joab in a work which, as we judge, also commanded her sympathy. Arrayed in
mourning, she appeared before the king to claim his interference and protection. Her
two sons - so she said - had quarreled; and as no one was present to interpose, the one
had killed the other. And now the whole family sought to slay the murderer!
True, he was guilty - but what mattered the "avenging of blood" to her, when thereby
she would lose her only remaining son, and so her family become extinct? Would the
death of the one bring back the life of the other - "gather up the water that was spilt"?
Was it needful that she should be deprived of both her sons? Thus urged, the king
promised his interference on her behalf. But this was only the introduction to what the
woman really wished to say. First, she pleaded, that if it were wrong thus to arrest the
avenging of blood, she would readily take the guilt upon herself (ver. 9). Following up
this plea, she next sought and obtained the king's assurance upon oath, that there
should be no further "destroying" merely for the sake of avenging blood (ver.11).
Evidently the king had now yielded in principle what Joab had so long sought. It only
remained to make clever application of the king's concession. This the woman did; and,
while still holding by the figment of her story (vers. 16, 17), she plied the king with
such considerations, as that he was always acting in a public capacity; that lost life
could not be restored; that pardon was God like, since He "does not take away a soul,
but deviseth thoughts not to drive away one driven away;"^10 and, lastly, that, to her and
to all, the king was like the Angel of the Covenant, whose "word" was ever "for rest."
(^)