The relation between this king and his general are indeed complicated, especially concerning David's reaction to Joab killing Abner. David responds with the following detailed curse in II Samuel 3 on Joab's descendants:
“May the house of Joab never be without one who has a discharge, or who is leprous, or who holds a spindle, or who is slain by the sword, or who lacks bread!” (v. 29)
And David follows this up in v. 39 by dealing with Joab himself: “Today I am without power, even though I am the anointed ruler, for these men, the sons of Zeruiah, are to violent for me. The LORD requite the evildoer according to his wickedness!” D.F. Payne calls the first half of verse 39 “an unusual confession of weakness on David's part.” McCarter claims that the final sentence in this verse must have been added by a later scribe, but Tsumura counters by pointing to a Dead Sea scroll fragment which contains that “missing” piece.
Then much later when David was almost on his death-bed, he instructs Solomon to have Joab killed, with the words:
“Act then, according to your wisdom, but do not let his gray head go down to Sheol in peace.” (I Kings 2:6)
This whole incident brings up a host of questions in the reader's mind. Why was David so upset when Joab's actions appeared to be a cut-and-dried case of justified vengeance by Joab on the killer of his brother? Or did Joab have other motives in mind as well? What was the exact nature of the curse? Was it ever fulfilled? Why did David delay the punishment of Joab for so long? Did David have any hidden motives for wishing Joab's death? Each of these issues will be addressed in chronological order.
The necessary background for understanding this story begins with the army of Saul in the north under Abner being at war with David's forces under Joab. During the conflict, Joab's brother Asahel confronts Abner and in essence forces Abner to kill him. Then Abner becomes disillusioned with his role in the conflict and approaches David with a plan to unite all of Israel under David's rule. David dismisses him in peace, but Joab secretly follows Abner and kills him in cold blood.
David's Anger
“He can scarcely have tacitly supported Joab's subsequent actions, for the murder of Abner was an embarrassment to him.” (D.F. Payne) Keep in mind that David did not gain at all by Abner's death since Abner was intending to help David unify the Northern and Southern Kingdoms under David's rule.
Joab's Motive
This brings us to another question above since it appears that Joab was only meting out an eye for an eye to bring the murderer of his brother to justice. Cogan explains: “Unlike blood shed during war, murder in peacetime was actionable [I Kings 2:5], and Joab was thus guilty on two counts, since both Abner and Amasa [see II Samuel 20:9-12 for that event] were at peace with David at the time they were struck down.” At this point, we might ask how David's later request for Joab's assassination during a time of peace was any different from Joab's actions.
But did Joab have another reason in mind for his cynical and bloody deed? D.R. Davis offers his opinion that “envy of position may have been Joab's actual motive, with vengeance over Asahel providing a partial and useful justification. Joab seemed to subvert the kingdom by revenge; more likely it was out of fear that he would lose that place he coveted for himself [i.e. commander of the combined army of Israel and Judah].”
Davis first compares this with the arguments of the disciples as to who would be the greatest in the kingdom. And then he brings it even closer to home by stating, “Joab is not dead, only transmuted. Some of us know him all too well.”
David's Curse
Next we are faced with the nature of the curse itself. Baldwin explains that “these five afflictions would be signs of the Lord's righteous judgment on Joab's action, and future generations would note how the curse was fulfilled.” The word “fulfilled” implies that David's words were prophetic, which may or may not be a correct way to view them. J.B. Payne certainly looks at them in this manner and counts them among his 737 separate enumerated prophecies found in the Bible. As to its fulfillment, he states that “information about the 'father's house' is lacking, but Joab is known to have paid for his crimes with his life; see I K 2:31-34...”
But if this curse really is a form of prophecy, then at least part of it is fulfilled by David himself when he later urges Solomon to kill Joab. And there actually is an OT precedent for this sort of fulfillment in the book of Esther when Boaz prays to God that Ruth will be taken care of, a prayer which Boaz later fulfills himself.
It was popularly believed that those with various skin conditions were being cursed by God, and we have the example of Miriam to demonstrate the truth of that belief, at least in her particular case. The other curses of a violent death or poverty are self explanatory. But the comment regarding the spindle needs some clarification.
Interestingly, Tsumura points to an ancient Akkadian curse which says, “May all the gods called by name in this treaty spin you around like a spindle, may they make you like a woman before your enemy.” However, David's mention of “spindle” seems to point to something else. D.R. Payne says that “who holds the spindle” means “fit for only women's work, effeminate.” In the same vein, Alden says, “it seems that David wished for the male descendants of Joab to be either effeminate or disabled because it was women and the crippled who did the tasks of weaving.” Concerning that second possibility, some scholars propose the translation “crutch” in place of “spindle.” Alden's judgment is that “crutch' has little support other than that the logic of the verse demands it.”
Joab's Delayed Punishment
Perhaps the most puzzling part of the whole story is why David would chastize Joab mildly for his actions, continue to use him as general and trusted adviser for years more, but then make it one of his final wishes that Joab be executed rather than die a normal death. G.H. Jones is similarly puzzled concerning this issue: “Although David felt obliged to avenge such blood, no explanation is given for the delay until he could pass the responsibility on to Solomon.”
House feels it was due to lack of courage to punish Joab himself. Alternatively, C.G. Martin says, “David's failure to deal with Joab at the time was a major blunder, partly occasioned by the uncertain law at the time about blood-feud.”
One additional possibility is a phenomenon I have noted at work. My boss did not really like one of the chemists in my group, but he continued to support him despite some things that employee did. The reason was that the chemist had some technical information valued by our customers and the company still had need for his expertise. But once the market reasons for keeping him disappeared, he was promptly demoted. Remember that Joab, for most of his career, was a valuable and trusted general and adviser to David. But when David was about to die, Joab became dispensible.
Other suggested motives for David's eventual change of attitude have been suggested by House:
1. He wanted to clearly distance himself from Joab's slayings.
Cogan notes that there is an alternative reading of I Kings 2:5 that supports this explanation: According to this revised text, David says that there is blood on “my girdle, on my loins, and my sandals on my feet” instead of the blood being on Joab. “David is thus pictured as being driven to clear his name, even after his demise, of suspicion of collusion in these murders.”`
2. He was afraid that unavenged blood would pose a danger to his future dynasty.
“More likely is the view that David was anxious to hand on a dynasty free from blood-guilt and curse. Solomon's words in vv. 33,45 confirm this...” (C.G. Martin)
3. Joab might be a threat challenging Solomon's leadership.
Joab's occasional self-serving actions would certainly have given credence to this suspicion.
4. David wanted to destroy the only person who knew of his conspiracy to kill Uriah.
Whatever the exact reason or reasons, this deathbed counsel has been called “vindictive” by Hill, criticized as “petty spite” by others, and called “wise counsel” by another.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments