by
Damien F. Mackey
Achitophel was none other than the “wise” (ḥākām) royal counsellor, Jonadab.
The idyllic love between prince Solomon and the Shunammite is reflected in the Song of Songs. But there is also much tension there, the pair having to endure a wait, opposition from hot-headed “brothers” (Song of Songs 1:6): “My mother’s sons [brothers] were angry with me …”.
Then, into this halçyon pastoral scene of sun, vineyards, flocks, goats, shepherds, lillies, valleys and fruit trees – a veritable Garden of Eden – there will emerge a bitter and cunning “adviser”.
Like the serpent of old.
This dark character will bring down Amnon. And he will leave the Shunammite “desolate”.
He will foment Absalom’s rebellion, forcing King David to leave his city of Jerusalem in tears. And he will finally, like Judas, commit suicide.
Here is how the terrible and long-ranging conspiracy began to unfold (2 Samuel 13:1-2):
“In the course of time, Amnon son of David fell in love with Tamar, the beautiful sister of Absalom son of David. Amnon became so obsessed with his sister Tamar that he made himself ill. She was a virgin, and it seemed impossible for him to do anything to her”.
Enter Jonadab (vv. 3-4): “Now Amnon had an adviser named Jonadab son of Shimeah, David’s brother. Jonadab was a very shrewd man. He asked Amnon, ‘Why do you, the king’s son, look so haggard morning after morning? Won’t you tell me?’
Amnon said to him, ‘I’m in love with Tamar, my brother Absalom’s sister’.”
There is so much to know about this Jonadab.
Some translations present him as Amnon’s “friend”, but “adviser” (as above) will turn out to be by far the more suitable rendering of the Hebrew rēa‘ (רֵעַ).
For, no “friend” of Amnon’s was Jonadab!
Commenting on this Hebrew word, Andrew E. Hill (assistant prof. of OT at Wheaton College, Illinois) writes (http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/30/30-4/30-4-pp387-390-JETS.pdf):
“Jonadab is an acknowledged “friend” (réa’) of Amnon …. While it is possible that he was a close personal friend of Amnon since he was a cousin, it seems more likely that the word here connotes a special office or association with the royal family (especially in light of his role as a counselor in David’s cabinet; cf. 13:32-35). During Solomon’s reign, Zabud … has the title of priest and “king’s friend” (ré‘eh hammelek, 1 Kgs 4:5). It may well be that with Jonadab (and others?) this cabinet post has its rudimentary beginnings in the Davidic monarchy”.
Another key Hebrew word used to describe Jonadab is ḥākām (חָכָם), variously understood as meaning “wise”, or just “crafty” or “shrewd”.
Before we consider further this important word, we need to know what was the criminal advice that Jonadab had given to the king’s lovesick oldest son, Amnon. It was this (2 Samuel 13:5): “‘Go to bed and pretend to be ill’, Jonadab said. ‘When your father comes to see you, say to him, ‘I would like my sister Tamar to come and give me something to eat. Let her prepare the food in my sight so I may watch her and then eat it from her hand’.’”
Clear and unequivocal advice from a man described as ḥākām, but also coldly calculated advice with deep undertones and ramifications of which the manipulative Jonadab was fully aware.
Andrew E. Hill, again, offers this explanation of the adjective ḥākām:
“Even more significant, Jonadab is called a “wise” man (hãkãm, 2 Sam 13:3). The majority of translators take this to mean “crafty” or “shrewd” due to the criminal nature of his advice to Amnon.” Yet S. R. Driver noted that “subtil” “is scarcely a fair paraphrase: the text says that Jonadab was wise.” He concludes that had the writer intended to convey a meaning of “shrewd” or “crafty” he would have used ´ãrôm or another such word (cf. Gen 3:1)”.
- P. Smith remarked that “Jonadab [Amnon’s] cousin and intimate friend [sic] was a very wiseman,though in this case his wisdom was put to base uses”.
“Most recently K. P. McCarter interprets Jonadab to be “very wise,” while acknowledging that our English connotation of “wise” may be a misleading translation. …. I concur with Driver and the others cited on the understanding of Jonadab as a very wise man. In addition, I posit that the ploy suggested by Jonadab to Amnon for the seduction of Tamar was known to him by virtue of his standing in the royal court as a sage”.
Hill will also cite the view of H. P. Müller, that the Hebrew word may pertain to learning:
“… after the beginning of the monarchy, it is commonly understood that the root ḥkm refers above all to the academic wisdom of the court and the ideals of the class entrusted with it”. Furthermore, recent study has shown considerable Egyptian influence on a wide range of OT literary types, most notably Hebrew wisdom.’ In recognition of this fact, R. N. Whybray states that
we cannot dismiss the considered opinion of S. Morenz, who claims that the presence at Solomon’s court of bilingual officials with a competent knowledge of Egyptian writing must be regarded, in view of what we now know of that court and its diplomatic relations with Egypt, as absolutely beyond question; and what is true of Solomon’s court may reasonably be supposed to be true of David’s also. ….
…. Given this Egyptian influence in the Israelite united monarchy and the knowledge of and access to Egyptian literature, my contention is that Jonadab was not only skilled in the academic wisdom of the royal court but also had some familiarity with Egyptian literature”.
This “Egyptian” element needed to be included here because soon the suggestion will be made that Jonadab may have had an Egyptian-name alter ego.
The Plot Thickens
Andrew E. Hill begins his discussion of adviser Jonadab, in his close association with Amnon, by referring to the puzzlement that Jonadab’s actual rôle in this has caused commentators. Hill gives these “two reasons” why he thinks that commentators may be puzzled about Jonadab:
- because of the ill-fated advice he gave to the crown prince Amnon (2 Sam 13:3-5), and
- on account of his uncanny foreknowledge of the events surrounding Absalom’s vengeful murder of Amnon (13:32-35).
Such ‘puzzled’ commentators, and indeed Hill himself – who will lament “the almost annoying paucity of material for careful analysis [of Jonadab]” – would greatly benefit here, I believe, from a recognition of Jonadab’s alter ego. Jonadab, it is here suggested, was none other than the legendary counsellor, “Achitophel” (Ahitophel), which may possibly be an Egyptian name: something like Rahotep, or Aahotepra, with the pagan theophoric (Ra) once again dropped. Thus, e.g., [R]ahotep (or Ahhotep) = Ahitoph- plus the Hebrew theophoric –el (“God”).
King David was no fool. He would see right through the trickery of e.g. Joab (and others), who would then be forced to concede, for example (2 Samuel 14:20): ‘Your servant Joab did this to change the present situation.My lord has wisdom like that of an angel of God – he knows everything that happens in the land’.
Yet even the ‘angelic’ David is said to have greatly valued the advice of Achitophel (16:23): “Now in those days the advice Achitophel gave was like that of one who inquires of God. That was how both David and Absalom regarded all of Achitophel’s advice”.
He may even have advised the ageing King David to take into his service “a young virgin”.
Achitophel was, I propose, none other than the “wise” (ḥākām) royal counsellor, Jonadab.
Credit, then, to Andrew E. Hill for being able to get behind Jonadab’s conspiracy without his having, to assist him, this crucial (as I see it) Achitophel connection.
I can now disclose Hill’s giveaway title, “A Jonadab Connection in the Absalom Conspiracy?” (JETS 30/4, Dec., 1987, 387-390).
The virgin Tamar’s foreign-ness may perhaps be adduced from what she will say in shocked reaction to Amnon’s attempt to seduce her based on advice from Jonadab. “Such a thing should not be done in Israel!
Here is the account of it, with King David now also making an appearance in the drama (2 Samuel 13:6-11):
“So Amnon lay down and pretended to be ill. When the king came to see him, Amnon said to him, ‘I would like my sister Tamar to come and make some special bread in my sight, so I may eat from her hand’.
David sent word to Tamar at the palace: ‘Go to the house of your brother Amnon and prepare some food for him’. So Tamar went to the house of her brother Amnon, who was lying down. She took some dough, kneaded it, made the bread in his sight and baked it. Then she took the pan and served him the bread, but he refused to eat.
‘Send everyone out of here’, Amnon said. So everyone left him. Then Amnon said to Tamar, ‘Bring the food here into my bedroom so I may eat from your hand’. And Tamar took the bread she had prepared and brought it to her brother Amnon in his bedroom. But when she took it to him to eat, he grabbed her and said, ‘Come to bed with me, my sister’.”
Tamar responds pleadingly to Amnon (2 Samuel 13:12-14): “‘No, my brother!’ she said to him. ‘Don’t force me! Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don’t do this wicked thing. What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you’. But he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her”.
What “should not be done in Israel”, as Tamar had said, might, perhaps, have been more acceptable in another country, in Egypt for instance. But then Tamar will add, somewhat surprisingly (v. 14): ‘Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you’.
Moses Maimonides (C12th AD) would comment as follows on this text (op. cit., 8:8):
“If she conceived during the first intercourse [with her captor] the child is a convert. [However] the child is not regarded as [the soldier’s] son, because his mother was a non-Jew. The court must immerse him [or her in a ritual bath and convert the child] in their capacity as a court [with authority to do so]. Tamar was [conceived] from [David’s] first intercourse with a ‘captive woman,’ but Absalom was conceived after David married [Tamar’s mother]. Thus, Tamar was Absalom’s sister only from his mother [but she was not related to David or his son Amnon], and therefore would have been permitted to [marry] Amnon. This is why Tamar said to Amnon ‘speak to the king; for he will not withhold me from you’.”
We are not surprised to find, moreover, that contemporary (according to our historical revision) Egyptian love poetry was echoing that of Davidic (Solomonic) Israel. Andrew E. Hill again:
“The particular issue in question is Jonadab’s counsel to Amnon to feign illness (probably not too difficult since he was already “haggard”) and then make an innocent request of King David who would no doubt come and inquire about the crown prince’s health (2 Sam 13:4-5). This same motif occurs in the Egyptian love poetry of the New Kingdom …. One song is translated as follows by W. K. Simpson:
Now I’ll lie down inside
and act as if I’m sick.
My neighbors will come in to visit,
and with them my girl.
She’ll put the doctors out,
for she’s the one to know my hurt.
Here the scenario is slightly different and the cast of characters has changed.
The basic story line remains the same, however. The man in love pretends to be stricken with a malady. Naturally, visitors concerned about his well-being will arrive, and out of all this the young man will eventually end up alone with his lover so that she can attend to his “needs”.”
Far more stark and brutal, though, is the biblical version. And it all bodes ill for Amnon.
Hill continues: “In the case of Amnon there is no reciprocation on the part of Tamar, and he must coerce her to have sexual relations with him (13:11-15). While Amnon achieved a degree of immediate gratification in this release of pent-up lust for Tamar, the more long-term ramifications of the misdeed are entirely predictable. …”.
Hill is undoubtedly quite correct in his estimation that Jonadab fully knew what he was doing, even if he may be wrong in suggesting that the latter was using Egyptian love poetry for his precedent (more likely, I think, the Egyptians picked it up later from the Tamar incident). According to Hill: “Unlike those who view this counsel of Jonadab to Amnon as bad advice because it concerned itself only with methods and failed to calculate the consequences, I am convinced that Jonadab knew full well the ultimate outcome of his counsel…. The illness ploy, borrowed from Egyptian love poetry [sic], was maliciously designed to exploit Amnon’s domination by sensuality (a trait he shared with his father David)”.
What was the psychologically astute Jonadab (Achitophel) really up to? And why?
Jonadab, according to Hill, was not actually serving Amnon’s interests at all. He was cunningly providing Absalom with the opportunity to bring down his brother, Amnon, the crown prince:
“… I am inclined to see Jonadab as a co-conspirator with Absalom in the whole affair, since both men have much to gain. Absalom’s desires for revenge against Amnon and ultimately his designs for usurping his father’s throne are clearly seen in the narrative (cf. 13:21-23, 32; 15:21-6). Amnon, as crown prince, stands in the way as a rival to the ambitions of Absalom. Absalom and Jonadab collaborate to remove this obstacle to kingship by taking advantage of a basic weakness in Amnon’s character. The calculated plotting of Absalom and Jonadab is evidenced by the pointed questioning of Tamar by Absalom after her rape and his almost callous treatment of a sister brutishly violated and now bereft of a meaningful future (almost as if he expected it, at least according to the tone of the statements in the narrative; cf. 13:20-22). While a most reprehensible allegation, it seems Tamar may have been an unwitting pawn of a devious schemer, an expendable token in the power play for the throne”.
That Hill has masterfully managed to measure the manic Machiavellian manipulating by the famous pair, Absalom and Achitophel, may be borne out in the subsequent progress of events:
“Further testimony to the Absalom-Jonadab conspiracy is found in the time-table exposed in the narrative. Absalom coolly bides his time for two years before ostensibly avenging Tamar’s rape (13:23), and only after a three-year self-imposed exile in Geshur (the homeland of his mother Maacah, 3:3) does he return to Jerusalem to make preparations for his own kingship by undermining popular allegiance to David (13:39; 15:1-6). Certainly this belies a carefully constructed strategy for seizing control of the monarchy and bespeaks a man of considerable foresight, determination and ability”.
Hill’s excellent grasp of the situation becomes even more plausible if Jonadab were Achitophel, Absalom’s adviser during the prince’s revolt against King David.
The “two years” and “three-year self-imposed exile”, then “two years” more upon Absalom’s return – during which King David refused to see him – are chronological markers indicating that Abishag (or Tamar) must have come into David’s service closer to his 60th, than 70th, year.
But why this bloody-minded obsession on the part of Jonadab-Achitophel?
From 2 Samuel 13:3, we might estimate that he was not so very old, “Amnon had an adviser named Jonadab son of Shimeah, David’s brother”. That he was at least younger than David. Achitophel, however, would be estimated as having been old and grey – more appropriate to a wise counsellor – he apparently being the grandfather of Bathsheba (cf. 2 Samuel 11:3; 23:34). “Jonadab son of Shimeah, David’s brother” would now, therefore, need to be re-translated as (based on the meanings of Hebrew ben as previously noted), “Jonadab official of Shimeah …”.
Might not the formerly wise counsellor of King David have become embittered over the latter’s deplorable treatment of Bathsheba and her husband, Uriah the Hittite? Adultery, then murder? King David had, at this point – as Pope Francis rightly observes – fallen into corruption. (https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/cotidie/2016/documents/papa-francesco-cotidie_20160129_from-sin-into-corruption.html):
Francis confided: “in reading this passage, I ask myself: where is David, that brave youth who confronted the Philistine with his sling and five stones and told him: ‘The Lord is my strength’?”. This, the Pope remarked, “is another David”. Indeed, “where is that David who, knowing that Saul wanted to kill him and, twice having the opportunity to kill King Saul, said: ‘No, I cannot touch the Lord’s anointed one’?”.
The reality is, Francis explained, that “this man changed, this man softened”. And, he added, “it brings to mind a passage of the prophet Ezekiel (16:15) when God speaks to his people as a groom to his bride, saying: after I gave all of this to you, you besot with your beauty, took advantage with your renown, and played the harlot. You felt secure and you forgot me’”.
This is precisely “what happened with David at that moment”, Francis said. “The great, noble David felt sure of himself, because the kingdom was strong, and thus he sinned: he sinned in lust, he committed adultery, and he also unjustly killed a noble man, in order to cover up his sin”.
“This is a moment in the life of David”, the Pontiff noted, “that we can apply to our own: it is the passing from sin into corruption”.
Here “David begins, he takes the first step toward corruption: he obtains power, strength”. For this reason “corruption is an easier sin for all of us who have certain power, be it ecclesiastical, religious, economic or political power”. And, Pope Francis said, “the devil makes us feel secure: ‘I can do it’”.
But “the Lord really loved David, so much” that the Lord “sent the prophet Nathan to reflect his soul”, and David “repented and cried: ‘I have sinned’”.
“I would like to stress only this”, Francis stated: “there is a moment when the tendency to sin or a moment when our situation is really secure and we seem to be blessed; we have a lot of power, money, I don’t know, a lot of ‘things’”. It can happen even “to us priests: sin stops being sin and becomes corruption. The Lord always forgives. But one of the worst things about corruption is that a corrupt person doesn’t need to ask forgiveness, he doesn’t feel the need”.
The Pope then asked for prayer “for the Church, beginning with us, the Pope, bishops, priests, consecrated people, lay faithful: ‘Lord, save us, save us from corruption. Sinners yes, Lord, we all are, but never corrupt! Let us ask the Lord for this grace’”, Francis concluded.
Jonadab-Achitophel, as the grandfather of Bathsheba – and thus likely having shared a close family bond with her husband, Uriah – might well have become embittered against King David for what the latter had done to his family. The counsellor’s once ‘god-like’ advice would now set the Davidic world spinning out of control – as we read above, “wise man, though in this case his wisdom was put to base uses”. Had not David been fore-warned in a dread prophecy (2 Samuel 12:10): ‘… the sword shall never leave your house’?
To begin with, Absalom – urged on by Jonadab-Achitophel – will slay his brother, Amnon. Andrew E. Hill writes on this:
“One last proof adduced for a Jonadab connection in the Absalom conspiracy is Jonadab’s own response to the rumor supposing the assassination of all the king’s sons (13:30). In countering the false report Jonadab betrayed his complete knowledge of the ambush in Baal Hazor (including the participants in the crime, since he confirmed that “they [the servants of Absalom] killed” only Amnon; cf. 13:29, 30-32) before any official or eyewitness news reached Jerusalem. In addition he informed the royal court that Absalom had been plotting his revenge for two years (13:32-33). The only possible explanation for Jonadab’s detailed foreknowledge of the bloodletting at Baal Hazor is his involvement in the scheme from its inception”.
No doubt the “wise” Jonadab-Achitophel had discerned that Absalom would make a far more willing candidate, than would Amnon (then heir to the throne), for overthrowing King David.
There was apparently no question of Tamar, now a damaged woman, returning to the palace of King David. He would be “furious” when he heard about the incident, but “furious” at whom? Heir Amnon would continue on for another “two years”. And so would his brother, Absalom. Their éminence grise adviser would insinuate himself into being the power behind the throne. Tamar’s only place to go would be back to Shunem, to her adoring mother, but also to Absalom (2 Samuel 13:20): “And Tamar lived in her brother Absalom’s house, a desolate woman”.
Solomon, too, in fact, “lovesick” as Amnon had been, will plead for the Shunammite’s attention (Song of Songs 2:5): ‘Sustain me with raisin cakes, refresh me with apples, because I am lovesick’.
When the Shunammite was at home, a veritable prisoner of Absalom and her other brothers, young Solomon was constrained to creep around the place surreptitiously, “behind the wall”, “gazing”, “peering through the lattice” (Song of Songs 2:8-9):
‘Listen! My beloved!
Look! Here he comes,
leaping across the mountains,
bounding over the hills.
My beloved is like a gazelle or a young stag.
Look! There he stands behind our wall,
gazing through the windows,
peering through the lattice’.
Then everything changes. Amnon is killed, this sending a shudder through the royal palace. David is told (2 Samuel 13:30): ‘Absalom has struck down all the king’s sons; not one of them is left’. But, while David is in the process of doing one of the things that he does best, grieving (v. 31): “The king stood up, tore his clothes and lay down on the ground; and all his attendants … with their clothes torn”, Jonadab-Achitophel will (with his insider’s knowledge) reassure the king (v. 32): ‘My lord should not think that they killed all the princes; only Amnon is dead. This has been Absalom’s express intention ever since the day Amnon raped his sister Tamar’.
“Meanwhile, Absalom had fled” (v. 34).
Now, did Absalom on this occasion take with him his ‘sister’ Tamar, as well as “his men” who had slain the unsuspecting Amnon (vv. 28-29)? “Absalom fled and went to Talmai son of Ammihud, the king of Geshur. But King David mourned many days for his son. After Absalom fled and went to Geshur, he stayed there three years” (vv. 37-38).
All we know for sure is that, more than five years later – after the collapse of Absalom’s revolt – the girl was back in the service of King David. For, during the play for the throne by yet another son of King David’s, Adonijah, we read (I Kings 1:15): “Now the king was very old, and Abishag the Shunammite was serving the king”.
Absalom may, or may not, have ‘dragged’ his ‘sister’ along with him to his place of refuge with King Talmai in Geshur. If he had, then her departure from Israel may have prompted Solomon’s anguished cry: ‘Come back, come back, O Shunammite; come back, come back, that we may gaze on you!’ (Song of Songs 6:13)
We cannot say for sure where the Shunammite was situated during Absalom’s subsequent revolt against his father, King David – though, a few years later, she was back serving David, as previously noted.
Meanwhile, Jonadab-Achitophel was steering Absalom in a similarly lustful direction as he had in the case of Amnon (2 Samuel 16:20-22):
“Absalom said to Achitophel, ‘Give us your advice. What should we do?’ Achitophel answered, ‘Sleep with your father’s concubines whom he left to take care of the palace. Then all Israel will hear that you have made yourself obnoxious to your father, and the hands of everyone with you will be more resolute’. So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and he slept with his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel”.
Was the Shunammite amongst these “concubines … [David] … left to take care of the palace”?
According to 2 Samuel 15:32, there was already a significant place of worship on the Mount of Olives – some thousand years before Jesus was crucified:
“But David continued up the Mount of Olives, weeping as he went; his head was covered and he was barefoot. All the people with him covered their heads too and were weeping as they went up. Now David had been told, “Achitophel is among the conspirators with Absalom.” So David prayed, “O Lord, turn Achitophel’s counsel into foolishness.” When David arrived at the summit [place of the head], where people used to worship God, Hushai the Arkite was there to meet him, his robe torn and dust on his head” (2 Samuel 15:30-32).
Yes, the elevated location was already a place of worship and sacrifice. At any rate, the threshing floor of Araunah (2 Samuel 24, 1 Chronicles 21), located on the other side of the Kidron on what would soon become the site of the First Temple, 7 was not the only place where reconciliation between man and God took place. The place of the Head, on the Mount of Olives, near the road into the city, was also a “holy place”, as 2 Samuel 15 reveals to us. …”.
Like Jesus, later, walking this ‘hard road’, David would be roundly cursed (2 Samuel 16:5-7): “As King David approached Bahurim, a man from the same clan as Saul’s family came out from there. His name was Shimei … and he cursed as he came out. He pelted David and all the king’s officials with stones, though all the troops and the special guard were on David’s right and left. As he cursed, Shimei said, ‘Get out, get out, you murderer, you scoundrel!’”
Before taking this further, though, we need to wrap up the successive revolts of Absalom (advised by Achitophel), and Adonijah, who did not have Jonathan’s (in the case of David) John-the-Baptist-like humility to give way to one Divinely chosen and “anointed” to be king.
The two revolts began in virtually identical fashion:
2 Samuel 15:1: “In the course of time, Absalom provided himself with a chariot and horses and with fifty men to run ahead of him”.
I Kings 1:5: “Now Adonijah … got chariots and horses ready, with fifty men to run ahead of him”.
Moreover: “[Adonijah] was also very handsome and was born next after Absalom” (v. 6).
King David, true to form, “had never rebuked him by asking, ‘Why do you behave as you do?’”
Absalom’s prized hair would bring him undone: “He was riding his mule, and as the mule went under the thick branches of a large oak, Absalom’s hair got caught in the tree. He was left hanging in midair, while the mule he was riding kept on going” (2 Samuel 18:9). This made him easy pickings for David’s “too hard” man, Joab, who “took three javelins in his hand and plunged them into Absalom’s heart while Absalom was still alive in the oak tree” (v. 14) – against the wish of King David: ‘Be gentle with the young man Absalom for my sake’ (v. 5).
Prior to this Absalom had, for once, waived aside the advice of Achitophel in favour of another counsellor, Hushai (17:14). And this snub would lead to Achitophel’s suicide – something of a rarity in the Bible (“… the first deliberate suicide on record”, Cambridge Bible for Schools). Thus (v. 23): “When Achitophel saw that his advice had not been followed, he saddled his donkey and set out for his house in his hometown. He put his house in order and then hanged himself. So he died and was buried in his father’s tomb”.
In this, his final act, suicide, Achitophel sometimes draws comparison with Judas Iscariot – though “Christian interpreters often see Judas Iscariot as an antitype to Ahithophel”.
Whilst, ultimately, we are all responsible for our own actions, it is terrible to think that the tragedy that was Achitophel may have been set in train by King David’s callous murder of Uriah, the husband of Achitophel’s grand-daughter with whom David had committed adultery.
Joshua and Israel's Colourful Judges 