Abuse of Monarchical Power: David and Achav/0

Abuse of Monarchical Power: David and Achav

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Introduction

People in positions of power often tend to abuse that power.  Biblical characters are no exception, and the stories of David's sin with Batsheva¹ and Achav's acquisition of Navot's vineyard² are two cases in point.  Despite the vastly contrasting reputations of the kings, they act surprisingly alike, and the two stories follow very similar plot lines. In each, a king, who lacks nothing, nonetheless desires a layperson's beloved property. With the aid of others, a plot is orchestrated to bring about the owner's death, so that the king can take the item for himself. In the end, the king is rebuked by the prophet, but repentance serves to mitigate the punishment.

Content Parallels

The following list reviews the many similarities between the story of David's taking of Batsheva and Achav's taking of Navot's vineyard:

• The kings – Both David and Achav were powerful kings who had more than their share of wealth and property, but nonetheless wanted more.³ 
• The desired "property" –  In each story, the kings desire something which is especially significant to the owner. Natan's parable emphasizes that Batsheva was beloved by Uriah, who (in contrast to David) had but one wife.  Similarly, the vineyard of Navot was a "נחלת אבות," and therefore land from which he was not willing to part.
• King removed from the murder – The deaths of Uriah and Navot are set up in such a manner as to leave the public unaware of the king's role and have them believe him innocent.  Navot is killed via a staged trial in which he is accused of blasphemy and treason, while Uriah is killed in battle. 
• Plots to kill – Both plans involve a"sending of letters" to those meant to execute the plot,⁴ an abuse of power by royal institutions (the army and judicial system), and the cooperation of officials whom the victim had trusted (the townsmen of Navot and Uriah's fellow soldiers and general.  In each case, after the plot succeeds, word is sent back to the king, who then acquires the desired property.
• Partners in crime – In neither story does the king act alone. David involves Yoav, who achieves David's goal, but does so through his own means rather than those suggested by the king.  Navot shares his distress with his wife, Izevel, who takes matters totally into her own hands, independently coming up with the plan to kill Navot.
• The victims – Each of Uriah and Navot take a moral stance when refusing a request of the king.  Uriah questions how he can sleep in his own bed when the nation is camping on the battlefield, while Navot implies that selling his vineyard would be against Hashem's will.
• Fast/ refusal to eat bread –  When David is faced with the imminent death of his son, he fasts and refuses bread as part of his prayers to save him.  Achav similarly refuses to eat, first as a sullen reaction to not getting what he wanted from Navot, and later in the story, as part of his repentance.⁵ 
• Prophetic rebuke – Both kings are essentially told "‎הֲרָצַחְתָּ וְגַם יָרָשְׁתָּ‎"⁶ and punished measure for measure for their sins.⁷ The punishments are aimed not only at them, but their descendants/house as well.
• Repentance and reprieve – David's cry of "חָטָאתִי לַי"י" earns him reprieve from death, while Achav's penitence defers punishment to the next generation.

Literary Allusions

There are no significant literary parallels between the two stories, suggesting that the text did not intend for one chapter to allude to the other.  As such, the similarities stem solely from the similar actions of the two kings who had each taken advantage of their position of power.

Points of Contrast

Alongside the many parallels between the stories, there are also several significant points of contrast, most of which center around the character and actions of the two kings:

• Initial attempts at acquisition – In contrast to David, who used his royal authority to bed Batsheva without seeking consent, Navot initially attempted to acquire the vineyard through legal means and a fair purchase.
• Role in the murder - David initiated the plan for murder on his own, while Achav might have been totally unaware of Izevel's plot.⁸
• Motive for murder – While Izevel framed Navot so that her husband could legally inherit the vineyard, David had Uriah killed so as to cover up a prior sin. 
• Power of the king – Achav emerges from the episode as a king who is totally under the influence of his wife, and almost impotent without her.⁹ Though David, too, seeks assistance from others, his independent authority is not questioned.
• Punishment – As a result of his sin, Achav is promised that his dynasty will end.  Though David's family is plagued by strife and bloodshed, his dynasty remains intact.

Conclusions

¹ See Shemuel II 11 and 12.

² See Melakhim I 21.

³ Hashem tells David, "וָאֶתְּנָה לְךָ אֶת בֵּית אֲדֹנֶיךָ וְאֶת נְשֵׁי אֲדֹנֶיךָ בְּחֵיקֶךָ וָאֶתְּנָה לְךָ אֶת בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וִיהוּדָה" (Shemuel II 12:8), clearly emphasizing that since David had been given so much, it was unjust that he should look to take the wife of another. Likewise, though Achav apparently had a palace not only in Shomron, but also in Yizrael, and despite owning vineyards that were more valuable than Navot's (Melakhim I 21:2), he was still unsatisfied.

⁴ Izevel sends letter to the elders of Yizrael to frame Navot, while David sends a missive to Yoav to isolate Uriah on the battlefield.

⁵ Fasting is also mentioned as part of Izevel's framing of Navot.  She calls on the Yizraelites to fast when accusing Navot of blasphemy.

⁶ These words are only used by Navot, but the same message is relayed by Natan to David.

⁷ David is told that just as he had Uriah killed by sword, "the sword won't veer from your house," and that just as he took Batsheva, his wives will be taken by others.  Achav also receives a tit-for-tat punished, as Hashem says, "בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר לָקְקוּ הַכְּלָבִים אֶת דַּם נָבוֹת יָלֹקּוּ הַכְּלָבִים אֶת דָּמְךָ גַּם אָתָּה."

⁸ Though Achav shared his distress with his wife, and she promised to deliver the vineyard, it seems as if Izevel then acted on her own with no input from her husband.  Though he should have known that something devious was being  planned, it is possible that he was not privy to the specifics and unaware of the staged trial.

⁹ See Izevel's questioning of his abilities: "?!אַתָּה עַתָּה תַּעֲשֶׂה מְלוּכָה עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל"