In the previous essay, we discussed David’s encounter with Nabal. See here
When David’s men returned empty handed, and when they debriefed him, David resolved to right the wrong. Nabal would pay dearly for his foul mouth and tightfistedness. “And David said unto his men: Gird you on every man his sword…” At the eleventh hour, however, Nabal got a reprieve, thanks to Abigail, his attractive and resourceful wife..
Abravanel discusses this prescient meeting between David and Abigail. In effect, she sought to educate David, who felt among other emotions, frustrated for having protected Nabal’s shepherds from sheep rustlers and other bad apples. First, we examine the pertinent verses. “Now David had said: Surely in vain have I kept all that this fellow has in the wilderness, so that nothing was missed of all that pertained unto him; and he has returned me evil for good.” David then vowed to wipe out Nabal: “God do so unto the enemies of David, and more also, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light so much as one male.”
Abigail heard about her husband’s irreverence and tongue lashing given to David and his men. She smelled trouble and came up with a plan to stave off certain disaster for her husband and his farm. “Then Abigail made haste, and took two hundred loaves, and two bottles of wine, and five sheep ready dressed, and five measures of parched corn, and a hundred clusters of raisins, and two hundred cakes of figs, and laid them on asses.” Quickly Abigail set out, accompanied by escorts who bore the gifts. David, at this juncture, didn’t know that Abigail sought to redress her husband’s ill conduct.
Here is our essay’s main point. Abigail understood that revenge is a delicate matter, justifiable if any one of three circumstances present themselves. She apprises David of those three conditions and shows how none apply to David and Nabal’s encounter, as unfortunate as it was.
- Did Nabal cross the line, in terms of a Torah prohibition that called for capital punishment? Had Nabal deliberately disobeyed David’s express will? Had Nabal’s words been seditious to stir David to fulfill God’s command and execute Nabal?
- Revenge may be apt against an enemy if a man’s honor and reputation are at stake. By not taking revenge, moreover, outsiders may think that the aggressor has gained the upper hand and that the victim lacked strength to ward off offenders. Similarly, by the victim not standing his ground, it may goad a perpetrator to attack again. To forestall this, taking the initiative is paramount.
- Let’s suppose that David and his men lacked basic foodstuffs and suffered from malnutrition. As a result, David wanted to storm Nabal’s farm and raid it for victuals. That’s also legitimate.
These are Abigail’s three points. Had any one or more of those circumstances been extant, revenge would be fitting. Abravanel analyzes Abigail’s words to bolster her argument.
Had the Torah been breached? No. “Now therefore, my lord, as the LORD lives, and as your soul lives, seeing the LORD has withholden you from blood guiltiness, and from finding redress for yourself with your own hand…” For Abravanel, Abigail, means that God prevents David from exacting revenge – not she. The Maker stays David hand insofar as the Torah doesn’t demand Nabal’s death.
Next, if David would not have killed Nabal, would anyone draw a conclusion that David lacked the wherewithal to defend himself? Was Nabal even mildly interested in a protracted fight with David, that warranted him to kill Nabal? No again, as Abigail says: “now therefore let your enemies, and them that seek evil to my lord, be as Nabal.” She meant that David and Nabal were a mismatch. Fighting for one’s honor and glory befits a man who battles mighty warriors. However, Nabal was but a squeaky weasel. A mouse more than a man. And there’s no glory in battling a wimp. Still, continued Abigail, if David was itching for an honorable foe, then he should pursue King Saul or Commander Abner. Even Doeg, a chief officer to Saul, is fair game. But Nabal, said Abigail, is a nothing and killing him will prove nothing. The churl is a campesino, a crude one at that. Since Nabal presents no threat to David, disposing of him will not advance David’s name or reputation.
Finally, did David and his men lack for food? Not after Abigail arrived with her care package. “And now this present which your servant has brought unto my lord, let it be given unto the young men that follow my lord.”
In sum, Abravanel conveys Biblical values, per Abigail’s crafted argument before David. Revenge, as stated, has its place, its rules. David accepted Abigail’s compelling reasoning. Nabal would not die at his hands.