Wisdom Actors, part 1
Ahithophel, King’s Councilor
Whereas Ezra exemplifies faithful foreign service as a shuttle diplomat, King David’s renowned councilor Ahithophel is a study in political treachery and loss of reputation. The intrigue surrounding the coup d’état he executes with his influential group of conspirators would play in film today like a dramatic political thriller. (It is difficult for people who have never lived through a coup d’état to imagine how life-changing it can be.)
The tragic story of Ahithophel (2 Samuel 15-18) takes place hundreds of years before Ezra’s time and is set against the backdrop of political upheaval in Israel probably toward the end of David’s forty-year rule. The lead protagonist in the plot against David’s government is, Absalom, David’s third son, who was born to a foreign wife and is described as being very handsome and a skilled manipulator. Having gotten his bearings back in Jerusalem after his return from exile, Absalom has become a powerful political figure with many friends in high places, and so begins a clever piece of political maneuvering – a long process of shameless self-promotion, truth be told – through which he skillfully undermines the king’s (his father’s) political reputation.King David’s renowned councilor Ahithophel is a study in political treachery and loss of reputation.
Enter the renowned yoes, Ahithophel, who in matters of state was the preeminent political councilor among all of David’s sarim (elite officials in the cabinet that included hakamim and soperim). He was the most trusted by David and his inner circle of advisors. But Ahithophel has now joined Absalom’s conspiracy, and the betrayal has unnerved David and the remaining members of his cabinet. It is important to understand why. Just as in our day, when a politician may cross the aisle to join the other side, so too in the world-world Middle East. If Ahithophel’s defection meant only that sort of move, even in this situation, David and his remaining loyalists probably would not have been too rattled. What pushed them over the edge was the fact that Ahithophel’s political counsel (esa) carried the remarkable distinction of being “as if … one should ask concerning the word (dabar) of God” (McKane’s translation of 2 Samuel 16:23; Prophets and Wise Men, p. 55).
The word esa (advice, counsel) is among the words derived from the Hebrew root ys (see above) and literally means “a plan of action, both as it is conceived in the mind and communicated to others” (NID, vol 2, p. 490). We see this usage in direct connection with political planning and policy making, as in “Nebuchadnezzar … has plotted (esa) against you” (Jeremiah 49:30), and in the taunt of Sennacherib’s field commander: “You say you have strategy (esa) and military strength – but you speak on empty words” (2 Kings 18:20, Isaiah 36:5).
What McKane indicates, however, is that, evidently, Ahithophel’s esa was of a caliber beyond even the council of the wisest and best-informed of David’s advisors, including those in his cabinet. That is, Ahithophel’s counsels among the wise were “almost but not quite the status of the dabar {word} of God” (Prophets and Wise Men, p. 13, where McKane is citing a conclusion of OT scholar R. B. Y. Scott). Summing up the conclusion of another Old Testament scholar, Gerhard von Rad, McKane writes: “the esa of Ahithophel was so compelling that it was more mandatory than advice; it demanded acceptance and, in assuming the authoritative character, it approximated the binding word of God” (Prophets and Wise Men, p. 13). This is the person – his wisdom is almost on a par with a revealed word from God that a ruler would get from a prophet – it is not prophetic guidance but nearly as reliable, and can be trusted as such – who has crossed the aisle. With this caliber of advice now available to Absalom, David and his remaining sarim have every reason to be rattled.
Ahithophel’s story now merges with Absalom’s. Both will end on the same tragic note. Across the nation, Absalom has raised political dissatisfactions against David to a furious pitch, and now the final machinations are now in play as rumors of a coup are spread throughout the countryside. But these are more than rumors. Forces have now been arrayed and released that make the coup unstoppable. Absalom green-lights three previously arranged, almost simultaneous, events to now take place: he decamps from Jerusalem to Hebron with his conspirators, a cunning political move because this was the city where his father had been made king; he sends spies to key outposts throughout the nation to collect intelligence and announce his enthronement at Hebron; and he sends for Ahithophel, who appears to have been awaiting the call from his hometown.
Why Ahithophel joined the conspirators, and when, is not indicated. As King’s Councilor, however, Ahithophel should have been with David and his cabinet in Jerusalem during this crisis. That he was not, and that he appears to have been waiting hear from Absalom, seems to indicate that he had become part of the conspiracy early on. If we were to speculate about this, even if Ahithophel joined Absalom very early on, it’s imaginable that Ahithophel would in all likelihood have tried to remain in Jerusalem and in the cabinet for as long as he dared, perhaps as an inside informant to Absalom. If so, it would also seem pretty reasonable that Ahithophel at some point had gotten himself excused, for whatever reason, from sitting with the cabinet before the actual coup took place, in order to await Absalom’s final instructions.
Being excused from the cabinet sessions would have been an artful move, for it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for one of Absalom’s operatives to get a message past David’s security arrangements to reach Ahithophel with the final instructions if Ahithophel were still sitting with the cabinet. (An alternative scenario is that David discovered Ahithophel’s defection and booted out of the cabinet. But that seems implausible to me. Surely David would have had Ahithophel, now a known conspirator, conspirator under guard, or executed.)
Ahithophel’s seat as chief councilor to Absalom in the illegitimate government greatly strengthened Absalom’s position and further emboldened the conspirators. In Hebron, Absalom is proclaimed king of Israel and begins marching on Jerusalem. David, his cabinet, and other loyalists and their families abandon the capital when news reaches them that Ahithophel is part of the coup. The pain of the betrayal struck David deeply and powerfully. The implications of this particular act of treason were so disturbing that David turns to pray: may Ahithophel’s counsel to be turned into foolishness.
After Absalom and his followers take control of Jerusalem, Ahithophel proposes what seems to us today as very degraded and irrational act: Absalom should sleep with his father’s concubines, to boldly let “all Israel” know what’s taken place (2 Samuel 16:20-22). In those days and in that culture, however, this was political pragmatism as its most symbolic. By publicly appropriating the king’s royal harem and consummating the act (in a tent pitched on the palace roof, no less), Absalom signals to “all Israel” that his usurpation of the throne is complete. And the act has the secondary effect of strengthening his position in the capital among any remaining doubters.
Further, this very conscious public act symbolically ends, both in Absalom’s mind and in everyone else’s, Absalom’s filial relationship with his father. This would have been especially important for the conspirators, who would not have been able to breathe a final sigh of relief if there had been any possibility of reconciliation between Absalom and his father. Any future amity between father and son would have spelled death for the conspirators, but that door is now closed and sealed. Absalom’s relationship to his father is permanently altered. Symbolically, Absalom is now no longer son but king.A small but effective intelligence network had been hastily set up by David and was being run by trusted ecclesiastical figures
The policy suggested by Ahithophel thus involved sophisticated levels of meaning understood at all levels of society. It moved Absalom beyond being just a political rival to solidify his kingly authority in the eyes of “all Israel,” who understood the symbolism. Of course, Ahithophel also had his own survival in mind. For if the kingdom is not completely Absalom’s, and if Ahithophel is not solidly in, Ahithophel is dead. With his policy enacted, Ahithophel wins, barring some sort of unpredictable intervention. Which is about to occur. For, unbeknownst to Absalom and Ahithophel, David and Hushai have been talking.
With David and his followers hiding exhausted in the countryside, the influential Ahithophel proposes another policy. The symbolic public act with the harem is not enough for Ahithophel. Absalom must now find and kill David immediately, to ensure Absalom’s rule. Do a surgical strike, Ahithophel advises. Choose twelve thousand men, set out now, tonight, and strike David and his men with terror while they are weak, tired, and in hiding. But when you find them, kill only the king, for “the death of the man you seek will mean the return of all; all the people will be unharmed.” The policy, agreed to in what would turn out to be the final cabinet meeting of Absalom’s short reign, “seemed good to Absalom and to all the elders of Israel” (2 Samuel 17:1-4).
But there is a rival councilor in the room. Hushai thinks Ahithophel is on to something, but he immediately suggests a different policy, which he puts forward so convincingly that Absalom and his cabinet, sans Ahithophel, see it as esa (2 Samuel 17:14) and decide to act on it. Hushai, however, is a loyalist from David’s inner circle of counselors, planted by David in Absalom’s cabinet late in the game in hopes of foiling Ahithophel’s counsel.
Days earlier in the countryside beyond Jerusalem, David and his friend Hushai had been planning their own stunning piece of intrigue and deception. Hushai should return to Jerusalem and try to frustrate Ahithophel’s advice. Hushai agrees and, as it happens, returns to Jerusalem just as Absalom is entering the city (2 Samuel 15:32-37). The two officials, remember, had been close colleagues, but Absalom now puts Hushai through an intense interrogation. He not only survives it but secures a seat in the illegitimate cabinet (2 Samuel 16:16-19).
To return to the final cabinet meeting, Hushai explains to Absalom that “The advice Ahithophel has given is not good this time,” stunning everyone. And now that Hushai has their undivided attention, he continues. Forget a surgical strike, he says. It’s shock and awe time. He then builds a case for what sounds like the Powell Doctrine: when going to war always employ overwhelming military force. “Let all Israel, from Dan to Beersheba – as numerous as the sands on the seashore – be gathered to you, with yourself leading them into battle. Then we will attack him [David] wherever he may be found, and we will fall on him as dew settles on the ground. Neither he nor any of his men will be left alive.” The advice of Hushai, the cabinet concludes, “is better than that of Ahithophel” (2 Samuel 17:7-14). The Powell Doctrine prevails.
The biblical text, as we expect, provides a religious answer for the rejection of Ahithophel’s counsel: “the Lord had determined to frustrate Ahithophel’s good advice in order to bring disaster on Absalom” (2 Samuel 17:14; perhaps this was God answering David’s prayer?). Nevertheless, there are always multiple reasons and causes for events (see Peck and Strohmer, Uncommon Sense, cpt. 11). A political answer certainly would need to include the fact that Hushai’s policy must have seemed the safer of the two to Absalom, for it included killing David’s cabinet ministers, who would most likely remain formidable political enemies, not to be trusted, had they followed Ahithophel’s policy and killed only the king. And perhaps we could ponder, say, a psychological reason for Hushai’s counsel – a well-reasoned and argued policy that cleverly yet subtly appealed to Absalom’s vanity and that of his young advisors.
We would also want to add “intelligence gathering” to our reasons. A small but effective intelligence network had been hastily set up by David and was being run by trusted ecclesiastical figures, who in their new role as spies figure prominently in the drama and in David’s eventual return to Jerusalem as restored king (2 Samuel 15:34-36). The narrative explains that Hushai would be working with this network (2 Samuel 15:35-36), and we have this specific incident recorded. Hushai rendevous with David’s spies at the spring En Rogel, near Jerusalem, where they had been holed up because they could chance being caught in the city. Hushai explains Absalom’s rejection of Ahithophel’s policy and his acceptance of Hushai’s. He then gives them a specific message for David in the wilderness. After a harrowing escape from En Rogel, reach David with Hushai’s news and message (2 Samuel 17:15-22).
David has just enough time to assemble a large army, commanded by Joab and two other generals, to fight Absalom’s army, led by Amasa. The civil war is short but bloody. Fought within the forest of Ephraim, it costs twenty-thousand men their lives. The turning point is Absalom’s death, which scatters his army, confuses the population, and consequently leaves little for David’s army to do except return David to Jerusalem and reinstate him as king. Hushai returns to a seat of prominence among the king’s inner circle and Ahithophel, disgraced because his counsel had been soundly rejected (perhaps for the first time) puts his house in order and commits suicide.
Concluding remarks
Even a long introductory article on a “new” reading of the biblical literature, as this article is, cannot escape having its downsides. For instance, people may confuse its length and detail as a comprehensive word or as the only possible approach. That would be mistaken enough, but if these same people then unwisely developed their conclusion into a formal teaching of some sort, that would be foolish indeed. The ultimate danger would be to take it and run off into a extreme view, proclaiming that one now has “the answer.”one thing that that I find fascinatingly instructive about the historic wisdom tradition for today’s situation between the United States and the Middle East is that Ezra, a practicing Jew, could serve as a high-level official in the Persian government
New discoveries can be thrilling, as this one is to me, but a central feature of the wisdom tradition is prudence, a word we don’t hear much today, let alone a virtue much practiced. So in closing this long but introductory article, I just want to remind us that it only begins to explore what I call a “lost” aspect of the wisdom tradition of the old-world Middle East and its literature, which is it relation to the international relations of royal courts. I used broad brush strokes only, and I make no claim to providing original historical research, but to try to fairly summarize only a part, albeit a significant part, of the small amount of some of the leading scholarship currently available specifically about the political actors of the Ancient Near East. May hope has been to inspire much more of it.
Further, this article’s broad brush strokes outline only some of the many and diverse political actors in the wisdom tradition and reveal only so much about them. The Bible alone indicates much else even just about these particular actors, never mind all the others and the various other approaches that may be taken to them. The typical way Christians study them is using a religious approach, which I hinted at above with brief illustrations from the prophetic tradition. But we must always remember the fuller meaning, extent, and purposes of the wisdom tradition, which adds to whatever readings of the literature one wishes to pursue. (For some of that fuller meaning, extent, and purpose, see the two part summary review of the tradition).
Finally, and to speak quite generally, one thing that that I find fascinatingly instructive about the historic wisdom tradition for today’s situation between the United States and the Middle East is that Ezra, a practicing Jew, could serve as a high-level official in the Persian government. This is in great contrast to what is permitted by the Iranian regime of today, which is often quick to note that its Persian identity should not be confused with the Arab identity of neighborhood states. Since the Iranian revolution of 1979, when Iran became constitutionally an Islamic Republic, only a Muslim male may hold a position of political power. If an equivalent religious determinacy had existed in the government of ancient Persia, Ezra would not have found a career in that government. There’s a strange political irony, here, in that a citizen’s opportunity to hold elected political office in America, with its pluralist Western democratic structure, corresponds to the setup in ancient Persia in a way that the Islamic Republic of Iran does not. (For a look at a tentative attempt to apply some of the wisdom ideas and norms introduced in the two part summary review of the tradition to the international scene today, see Five Norms of Wisdom for Thinking about More Cooperative Relations between the United States and the Muslim Middle East.)
Finally, a similar political pluralism to Persia’s existed in Babylon, where Daniel rose to unprecedented positions of political authority in that government even though he was a devout Jew. I believe his career is hugely instructive, both for understanding the wisdom tradition in the old-world Middle East and for unpacking more of its lost potential for pursuing alternative wisdom-based ways of approaching today’s pluralist international relations. And for that, interested readers may see the major article on Daniel.
Copyright. Permission to reprint required.
Comment on the topic here
