Exegesis Paper

4/17

ARCH 211

Josh Joseph

Across many disciplines, practices, or arts the value of context is never overstated. Things and

ideas are often hard to understand outside of the situations in which they lie. The same goes for

the Scriptures. Using cultural and historical lenses to read a text has often been understood as a

tool for clergy, scholars, and theologians instead of your everyday reader. It should not be this

way though, as new depths within the texts are reached when these perspectives are put to use.

When looking at history, large amounts of time go into studying various circumstances because

no event happened within a vacuum. The Bible is not a historical book, but the same principles

apply. Nothing within the cannon is there by accident, even the details that are often skipped

over. Another piece of the puzzle is the geographical aspect, or where things happen. This goes

hand in hand with history, as it is vital to know locations to understand the story. Within

geography, there is also topography, which looks at the landscape and its role. Mountains, rivers,

hills, valleys, and the like are key, and though the reader does not need to have maps memorizes,

a basic mental understanding of the area is very valuable. Culture ties this all together, as the

nations and people groups separated by geography create their own customs, religions,

languages, and institutions, and we read how these different cultures interacted in their histories.

This paper will look at 2 Samuel 14:1-24 through these lenses, compare and contrast them, and

seek to reach deeper insight into what is being communicated in this passage.
2 Samuel 14:1-24 is the story of Joab attempting to convince King David to bring his son

Absolom back from exile. This was an abnormal situation, as princes lived within the area that

they would one day inherit. What led to this conundrum? It begins with David. He ascended to

the throne after the failure of Saul, becoming a superstar in the process(1 Samuel 18). Despite

these qualities, David did have his negatives, including his many concubines. This specifically

led to the problems seen in the passage. Within royal families during this time, there would be

high levels of conflict between members. For example, in Judges 9, Abimlilek son of Gideon

kills nearly all of his brothers after becoming king, a common practice. David had a problematic

relationship with his children, repeatedly not stepping up to his fatherly role. One son of his,

Amnon, rapes his sister Tamar, and David does nothing about it. In a society that placed a lot of

weight on reputation and shame, especially when it came to women, Tamar’s life was ruined.

And as her brother, within the patriarchal society, Absolom was essentially her protector and was

responsible for her in the case of David’s death. As expected, he is enraged and the king’s lack of

action leads to animosity and tension. Two years later he avenges his sister, inviting all the

princes to dinner and striking Amnon down, fleeing afterward. The intrigue here is that he did

not need to flee, his father wanted him back. The real motive is for Absolom to plan a coup, a

plan which he most likely devised during those two years. A perfect storm of perceived

favoritism, the rape of his half-sister, and the societal push for men to acquire dominance and

power led to the dangerous man Absolom would become.

There are some important locations within this story, namely Jerusalem. The capital city is where

David established his throne and the center of these events. Absolom’s left the capital for Geshur,

a region about 70 miles away, and stayed there for three years(2 Samuel 13:38). This detail

seems minor and is not elaborated on, but bears great significance when placed within the larger
context. The distance between Absolom and David was great, requiring a trip across the Jordan

River. Absolom would later cross this river in a hunt for his father. This gap began long before as

Absolom had his sheepshearers far away in Hazor. This disparity is representative of the

emotional gap between the father and son, even when they were in the same city. In two years

when Absolom returned, he did not speak to his father, in large part due to his father’s request.

Another important detail is who Absolom flees to. The King of Geshur, Talmai, is also the

grandfather of Tamar and Absolom. Absolom has inherited some of his father’s strategic

tendencies, and it shows with this move. The land of Geshur was located in the region of

modern-day Golan Heights, northeast of the Sea of Galilee, and had a strong Aramean culture.

Understanding the historical significance of Geshur and its political relationships provides an

even deeper context for Absolom's strategic move. Talmai would surely welcome Absolom due

to family ties, and would not be as favorable towards David due to his mishandling of the

situation with Tamar. Absolom would receive refuge in the case of revenge, and time to conjure

up a plan to take the throne. Joab is not the only person looking at the map and planning his

moves step by step. As David’s military commander, he is also David’s protector. At this time,

Absolom is the primary threat. In addition, Amnon was a friend of Joab, so he does not have

Absolom’s well-being in mind. If Absolom was in Jerusalem, he would be much easier to

monitor and maintain and would limit the degree to which the prince could devise his plan. This

would prove to be a mistake, as Absolom would quickly establish favor among the people of

Israel, expanding out to places like Hebron. The geography of this story brings to light several

unknown details and plays a vital role in how the various individuals act. This view is important

not only in this text but throughout the Bible, as God orchestrates the redemptive narrative.

Certain events happen in certain regions for a specific purpose, and this text illustrates that.
To fully grasp the interactions between these key characters and the events that unfolded, it is

crucial to examine the cultural aspects at play within the passage. Both David's and Absolom's

decisions were shaped by the cultural norms of that time, particularly in terms of shame, honor,

and power dynamics prevalent in a patriarchal society. David's inability to address Amnon's

assault on Tamar stemmed from a deeply embedded culture of male dominance, which not only

perpetuated but also complicated already strained familial relationships. Moreover, Absolom's

desire for power and control over his father's kingdom can also be traced back to societal

expectations of male figures in positions of authority. The culture surrounding royal families

during this period often resulted in vendettas that turned very bloody quickly, and generational

consequences ensue. This strife was prevalent in David’s house, and this story is a clear example.

There are multiple cultural factors at play during this time that affect the family dynamics within

the house of David. One was the impetus of this whole drama, polygamy. It is clear that David

had multiple children with multiple wives, and this had disastrous consequences. This was not an

uncommon practice among men of high status, especially monarchs. This is still practiced today

in certain countries. There were a variety of incentives, especially the ability to expand one’s

reach and power through progeny and to expand that reach beyond one’s lifetime. Despite this

draw, there are a variety of setbacks. David had already been told by the prophet Nathan that his

home would be full of calamity. Children of different mothers were less loyal to each other, and

often there would be favoritism given to the children of certain mothers. This occurred with

Rebekah and Leah as the children of Rebekah were favored as Jacob loved her better. The same

can be seen in the story of David, where certain children are favored more than others, leading to

tension and rivalries among siblings. In addition, the concept of revenge and blood feuds was

prevalent in this society, as seen in Absolom's actions against Amnon for the rape of Tamar. This
cultural norm encouraged acts of aggression and violence as a means of seeking justice,

perpetuating conflict within the family.

Another cultural aspect to consider is the importance of honor and reputation among royalty and

their subjects. Public opinion held significant weight, and individuals in positions of power

needed to maintain a favorable image in the eyes of others. This could explain David's reluctance

to confront Amnon publicly regarding Tamar, as it could tarnish his reputation.

The non-literary factors of geography and culture play heavily into this text and are important in

the analysis of any text. By looking at these external factors, I found discoveries that I had not

seen in the past. One that was particularly striking was the metaphorical and physical distance

between David and Absolom. This detail seems commonplace and mundane, and I passed it as I

was reading the passage, but it is key to the text, and unlocked new levels of understanding.