04. The woman of Tekoah
CHAPTER IV (c) “ THE WOMAN OF TEKOAH “
“ THE Woman of Tekoah came to the king and fell on her face to the ground and did obeisance and said, * Help, O King.’ And the king said to her, ’ What is the matter? ’ And she said, 1 1 am a mourning woman, a widow, and my husband is dead. I had two sons who strove together in the field where there was no one between them to separate them; and the one attacked the other and killed him. Behold, now, the whole clan has risen up against thine handmaid and said, “ Give up him that smote his brother and we shall kill him for the life of his brother whom he slew and thus shall we also destroy the heir.” So shall they quench my coal which is left that there be preserved to my husband neither a name nor a remainder upon the face of the earth.’
“ And the king said to the woman, ’ Go to thine house and I shall command concerning thee.’ But the Tekoan woman said to the king, ’ O my lord, the king, the iniquity be upon me and my father’s house, and the king and his throne be guiltless.’ 1 And the king said, ’ Who- 1 The words probably mean “ I and my father’s house shall suffer, not the king and his throne.” ever speaks to thee, bring him to me and he shall not touch thee any more.’ Then she said, ’ Let the king remember the Lord thy God so that the avenger of blood may not further destroy lest they extirpate my son.’ And he said, ’ As the Lord liveth there shall not fall one hair of thy son to the ground! ’ Then the woman said, ’ Let thine handmaid speak a word, I pray, unto my lord, the king ’; and he said, ’ Speak.’ And the woman said: ’ Wherefore hast thou devised such a thing against the people of God? And by the king’s speaking this word he is as one guilty in that the king doth not bring home again his banished one. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt upon the ground which cannot be gathered up again; and God taketh not life away but deviseth devices not to banish from him a banished one.’ “ 2 Sam. xiv. 4-14. This amazing story which achieved its purpose so dexterously and subtly introduces another type of the narratives of fact. It is an acted parable and is one of a group which made their appeal along somewhat similar lines. In all probability its plan was borrowed from one of the ancient stories told around camp fires, as it does not suggest the freshness and originality of Nathan’s parable. Though the aim of both stories was the same to procure a judgment from David which might be turned to good purpose against him they approached their purpose along widely different channels. Tragedy overhangs both. In each of them the king’s conscience must be awakened. His own guilt is brought vividly before him in one instance by direct accusation and in the other by the underlying insinuation that the king himself had known what it was to be banished through sin.
Whereas Nathan can directly interpret and apply his parable the Tekoahite finds it necessary to pursue her dialogue and action in order to give the interpretation.
Taken by itself the above story lacks the natural appeal of Nathan’s which, taken alone, is a story that impresses itself upon the mind. This acted parable requires its explanation in order to be fully appreciated, and at each stage of the unfolding of the meaning we seem to see a man standing in the shadows controlling and directing the whole stage-management of the various scenes. That man is Joab, the brave but astute and blood-thirsty leader of David’s army, the man who knew the secret of the king’s blackest sin and who would later give David cause to lament the day that he had sent that fatal letter to him concerning the murder of Uriah. Again, though this parable lacks the high spiritual tone of Nathan’s, it possesses in germ what has become a precious theological conception of God which is particularly set forth in the parable of the Prodigal Son and is frequently emphasised in the teaching of Jesus, e.g. It is not the Father’s will that one of His children should perish (Mat 18:14). The parable’s historical setting lies between two of the saddest tragedies in Bible history.
Following upon a most dishonourable act by Amnon, David’s eldest son, when he ravished Tamar, his half-sister, Absalom, the king’s beloved son, had awaited his opportunity for revenge and two years later he murdered Amnon under cruel and deceitful circumstances. Thus the king was reminded of Nathan’s words that the sword would not depart from his house. The second tragedy was that in which the young man Absalom’s vanity, disobedience and lust for power reached their consummation and caused to be wrung from a father’s heart that had already been broken amid sorrows, disappointments and remorse these immortal words, “ Oh my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would God I had died for thee, Absalom, my son, my son! “ Absalom was banished from the king’s court after Amnon’s death, but aided by Joab he plotted to be recalled. When Joab saw that the occasion was opportune he devised the fictitious story which was narrated and acted so skilfully by the woman of Tekoah.
There are individual opinions upon the opening words of Chapter xiv all dependent upon the meaning of the word translated in the Authorised PARABLES OF FACT
Version as ’ towards.’ It may be derived from ^N (towards) or hj> (against), but great support is given to the view that it should be * against ’ by the fact that in the only other instance in the Old Testament where the word f?s is used with that for ’ heart ’ (Daniel xi. 28) the meaning cannot be other than ’ against ’ or * at enmity with.’ It was quite natural for the king’s heart to be against Absalom whilst the father’s heart yearned for his return. We are not justified in reading into the word a forced meaning prompted by the king’s deep grief when Absalom was slain.
Rather should we be guided by the facts that a strong appeal was necessary to cause the king to relent and lift the ban; also, that even when he sanctioned a return from banishment he would not permit his son to come into his presence. May it not be that Joab hoped for much from the restoration of Absalom to favour?
Absalom was heir to the throne and we can understand how Joab was displeased when he observed “ that the king’s heart was against Absalom.” Not far from Bethlehem was Tekoah, made famous in Biblical history as the home of Amos.
There lived the shrewd and very wise woman whom Joab secured to fulfil his plans. We cannot but admire her clever acting and her bold, courageous reasoning; she manifests a deep penetration and insight into human character, is quick in repartee and exceptionally tactful, painstaking and persevering to achieve her object. Not until her story is completed and a sacred pledge of security and fulfilment obtained from the king, does she proceed to enlighten him as to the purpose of her story. That she succeeds so well in obscuring from him so long the deeper meaning of her words, adds to the value of her narrative. A charge may be laid against this parable and others of a similar nature that it cannot be regarded as a true parable because the woman very obviously acted it, and made it up on a fiction knowing it to be such. It is true that when compared with certain parables it does not bear the same stamp of possibility in truth as does that of the Ewe Lamb or of the Vineyard, but we might set it against such New Testament parables as those of the ’ Ten Virgins,’ or * The Judgment ’ (’ Inasmuch ’) or ’ The Labourers in the Vineyard,’ in all of which the truth possibility is no greater than in the story told by the Woman of Tekoah. The real want of truth lies in her action because her own character is interwoven with the tale she unfolds. THE HEIR The first part of the story deals with the heir whose death will mean the extirpation of a family and name. This was a calamity to be averted if at all possible, and on this point the woman pleads well. She professes real and deep mourning. The Hebrew text strengthens an interpretation which may seem redundant in its description, but is very necessary to the woman’s narrative. She mourns as a mother who has just had one of her two sons killed, and thus she emphasises the fact that she is a mourning woman; that is, her loss has been quite recent. She is also a widow through the death of her husband. Though sounding like a pleonasm this description is also essential to her story because otherwise she could not effect so powerful an appeal to preserve the name and remainder to the family. By the code of laws then prevailing the relatives of the family were justified in seeking blood-vengeance, a life for a life, upon the son who slew his brother. The widow makes no complaint against the law, knowing that the king must uphold the law. What she endeavours to secure is mercy which will somehow operate to prevent the clan from rooting out entirely her husband’s seed. To describe her son as her coal and remainder is adroit since it awakens a natural pity and sympathy. Let him be slain and the embers cannot be rekindled. THE KING The second part is concerned with the king. The tender chords of the king’s heart are reached by the woman’s dejection and plea. When her words play upon these chords the king cannot withstand an impulse to defend the woman, though he knows the danger to himself in so setting aside the customs of his people. It has been made clear to him that the clan seek blood more in order to destroy the heir than to inflict legal punishment. Rather than that the king should be compromised by his compassionate resolution, the woman disarms him of all suspicion and astutely encloses him within her net by offering to bear all the responsibility herself. The mother-love and spirit of sacrifice are thus very forcibly presented to David, and his earlier resolve is strengthened into firm determination.
He will risk punishment upon anyone who may speak against her a bold step even for the king in face of the recognised laws. Under her strong pleading that a sacred promise be given that the avenger of blood will not be permitted to destroy her son, he swears that her son will be saved. THE FATHER The king has spoken. The parable is ended. Its meaning is now unfolded, and it concerns David not as a king but as a father. Having satisfied herself that the king’s determination is fixed, the suppliant reveals to him by clever suggestion and innuendo as also by logical reasoning that a king who can thus abrogate the law for her son can surely take steps to preserve his own heir and son. By his decree in her favour he condemns his own action and is guilty of wrong in not restoring his banished son. Can the father-heart resist her argument “ we must needs die and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again “?
Thus, using what was probably a familiar saying she proceeds to compare David’s attitude as king and father with the love and compassion of God who, whilst He does not seek to return a soul after He has taken it away, yet lovingly plans that a banished child be not kept in exile.
Amnon is dead. He cannot be brought back.
Absalom is yet alive and is both son and heir.
If the king should hesitate to bring him back surely the father will have mercy. The reasoning is sound and very personal because it reminds the king of God’s mercy to him when he stood condemned to death for his own sin.
It may be said that it was only David the king who relented, and that David the father did not forgive his son because he would not allow the returned exile to see him and that by so doing he encouraged him in his treachery to the throne. Such an interpretation can scarcely be accepted. The obverse may be the truer explanation. Whilst the father’s heart would cry, “ Come home; come home;” the king must observe as far as possible the requirements of the law.
There are aspects of this story which find a sympathetic chord in every heart, and the most important experience depicted is that which suggests that there arise occasions when we are called upon to decide between contending principles such as faced David when law and love, king and father were contending within his breast. Occasions arise such as that when Napoleon was faced by a mother whose son had been sentenced to death; when the great soldier said that it was justice which must be observed she replied that she asked for mercy and not justice. Many parents have known the perplexity of David’s mind and heart when a child who had done an irreparable wrong to the parent sought to be restored to the love and fellowship of the home. There are cases where husband and wife have reached a serious impasse and the conflict which has to be waged between right and wrong, truth and love, almost rends the soul. Where truth will pain love would soothe and where to do the right may mean offence to another, to do wrong will leave a lasting sense of shame.
Employers face the crisis when asked to reinstate their former servants who have wronged them, and employees also face the conflict when honesty is asked to prevail over duty and obedience to a dishonest master.
What is the Christian attitude in such cases? In the light of Gospel teaching the three words, ’ heir, king and father,’ have a powerful application, in which we may see the message which Jesus came to teach and fulfil. Acting under His guidance we are brought to make wise decisions because just as the Tekoan woman won the heart of David by reference to God’s mercy so are our hearts strengthened to do that which is acceptable to God by reference to what God has done for us and others. Sin banishes us from God. When we sin we become aware that we have somehow alienated ourselves from Him. We become God’s banished heirs. The law may exact its full pound of flesh but the King can pardon. Where the law decrees death the King can give life. What the law could not do God has done for His people through the gift and sacrifice of Jesus. He has devised means for bringing us home because Jesus came to seek and to save the lost the banished ones.
God does more than forgive. He restores us and reinstates us. He makes us heirs and jointheirs. He awaits the homecoming of the wanderer and His token of love is not the King’s pardon but the Father’s kiss. Therefore “ Being all fashioned of the selfsame dust, Let us be merciful as well as y ust”
LONGFELLOW, Tales of a Wayside Inn. because “... earthly power doth then show likest God’s When mercy seasons justice.”
SHAKESPEARE, Merchant of Venue.