2 Samuel Chapters 13,14,15,16,17,18,19 Commentary

Second Samuel Chapters 13-19 Chapters 13-14 record the murder of Amnon by his brother Absalom.

When Amnon, David’s oldest son (3:2), raped his sister Tamar, Absalom retaliated by murdering Amnon two years later. “It is noteworthy that the whole episode of Absalom’s rebellion (15-18), began with the same sins of which David had been guilty—sexual immorality leading to murder” (Laney p. 110). The prophesied trouble within David’s household was not long in making its appearance. In these chapters we will learn that each sin not only fosters more sin, it also fashions it by providing precedents for others to follow. “Amnon modeled his father’s unbridled passion when he took Bathsheba, and Absalom modeled his father’s deceit and cunning when he arranged the death of Uriah the Hittite” (Chafin p. 312). It was a painful experience for David to have Nathan hold his sins before him, but it was much worse to see them acted out in the lives of his children.

Chapter 13 13:1 According to 2 Samuel 3:3, Absalom and Tamar were the children of Maacah, daughter of Talmi, king of Geshur. Amnon, was the oldest son of David and was the son of Ahinoam, the Jezreelite (3:2). 13:2 Lust can make one sick! “Any person who goes into the average video rental store today will realize from looking at the covers of the offerings that our country already has a lot of Amnons on its hands and is creating more and more each year. I do not believe those who say that the media does not create a moral climate but merely reflects what already exists. Media participates in creating both interest in and approval for a life given totally to the gratifying of every appetite whatever the cost to self or others” (Chafin p. 316). “From a distance he watched in the courtyard where the unmarried women were kept in seclusion. The frustration of not being able to devise a way by which he might be alone with Tamar made Amnon ill” (Smith p. 358). In addition, the upright behavior of Tamar prevented an easy approach. If the virtue or integrity of someone frustrates you---then you are walking in the steps of Amnon.

13:3-5 Unfortunately Amnon had a friend who was also a cousin, named Jonadab. Apparently, Amnon was unable to seduce Tamar, but Jonadab conceived of a plan by which Tamar could be lured into his bedroom. Jonadab is called a “very shrewd man”, yet his “wisdom” was

1

earthly, unspiritual and of the devil (James 3:15). “In all of life there are people like Jonadab, those who ingratiate themselves to powerful people by their practical insights, although they are often without ethical or moral values. They live to serve the interests of their sponsor without respect to right or wrong” (Chafin p. 320). 13:6-7 David suspected nothing concerning Amnon’s request, and David here appears as a concerned father. He heard the report of his son’s illness and postponed administrative matters long enough to visit the heir-apparent in his own residence. 13:8-13 Tamar’s arguments are as follows: 1. This was something not done by God’s people. “Her reasoning is reminiscent of Joseph’s rationale for refusing the advances of Potiphar’s wife” (Chafin p.

316). 2. It would shame her. Tamar compelled Amnon to think about the lasting impact of his actions on both of their lives. Their reputations would be ruined. Amnon would be considered a fool, a godless man, this was the kind of activity engaged in only by wicked fools. She also appeals to the conscience of Amnon to think about her! 3. Finally, Tamar urged Amnon to delay—not permanently forgo—his sexual gratification. If sexual intimacy with Tamar was his objective, she asserted that he might still have it. In fact, it could be his without the taint of disgrace or ruined reputation if he would first speak to the king and obtain permission to marry her” (Bergen p. 381). The Law strictly forbade such marriages (Leviticus 18:11; 20:17; Deut. 27:22). Hence, possibly Tamar made the suggestion in hopes of escaping the immediate situation with no real thoughts or intentions toward marriage.

13:14-15 “The winds of ‘love’ (13:1) which had propelled him so forcefully proved to be nothing more than gusts of lust” (Bergen p. 382). “No explanation is given for his sudden rejection of her. Others suggest that her reasoning might have pricked his conscience. It may have been that he was only drawn to her because she was not available. Now having ‘conquered’ her, he had no more use for her” (Chafin p. 317). Lust is void of true love, and the two have nothing in common. Yet how many people foolishly try to convince themselves that even in “lust” there is some element of love. “Perhaps because Tamar refused to cooperate, the sexual experience was not what Amnon had fantasized” (Smith pp.

358-359). 13:16-19 By throwing her out, Amnon both refused to acknowledge his sin, and was making it look like Tamar had been the aggressor. “It was not the last time that the victim was made to look guilty for the crime that had been committed against her” (Chafin p. 317).

Scarcely has Tamar had a chance to catch her breath after being raped

by Amnon, before he yells, “Get up and get out!”

13:20 Apparently the word “desolate” also infers that Tamar never had any children because she never married. Since she had been raped, 2

apparently she was not disqualified from active consideration for any royal marriage contracts. The Law dictated that a man who had sexual intercourse with a virgin not pledged to be married to another was obligated to marry her and pay a financial penalty (Exodus 22:16-17; Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Being the daughter of the king, Tamar could not marry anyone, in addition, being now no longer a virgin, her chances of being married were zero. This appears to have been the “reproach” that Tamar feared more than anything (13:13).

13:21 David was very angry, but he did not do anything. No mention is given as to why David did not punish Amnon. Some speculate that it is very hard to punish a child for what the child sees the parent do. “There is no way we can know how the history of his relationship with Absalom would have been different had David punished Amnon. There is a timing to life. Once the moment has passed when something could have been done, we do not get it back. What happened to Absalom is a powerful argument for dealing with problems in a family at the time they arise and not letting them slide until it’s too late” (Chafin p. 319). David’s inaction on this matter, is uncomfortably similar to that of Eli, who also had to deal with errant offspring (1 Samuel 2:22-25). In addition, remember, at this time Amnon in the eyes of David is the heir to the throne. According to the Law, it appears that the death penalty would have been an appropriate punishment (Leviticus 20:17).

13:22 In the following verses we see the power of hate. The destructive power of hatred was first seen in the account of Cain and Abel. Jesus warned us that murder begins in the heart (Matthew 5:21-22). In addition, Absalom becomes a very cold blooded man. He will wait two full years for just the right moment. He does not kill Amnon immediately, rather he plans, calculates, and devises an elaborate plan. All of this reveals a definite flaw in his character. Yet David had also plotted Uriah’s death.

“He had taken his father’s faults and refined them” (Chafin p. 320). 13:23 “Baal-hazor” (BAY uhl HAY zor), was located about 12 miles north of Jerusalem. Absalom invited David, but David refused because he did not want to burden Absalom with the expense of providing for the entourage which accompanied the king on all his outings. Absalom then requested that Amnon, the eldest son, be permitted to attend the festivities as a stand-in for the king. 13:24-29 Absalom has his servants kill Amnon.

13:30-36 Jonadab, the evil man with the plan, the one who in effect had started it all, is playing the role of the compassionate friend to David.

Gaebelein makes the following suggestion: “Jonadab’s prior knowledge that ‘only Amnon is dead’ and that his murder has been Absalom’s 3

expressed ‘intention’ for the past two years lends further credence to the theory that Absalom and Jonadab had long ago hatched a plot to do away with Amnon, David’s heir apparent, and thus an obstacle to Absalom’s pretensions” (p. 970). 13:37-39 Absalom fled to the land of Geshur which was NE of the Sea of Galilee where his maternal grandfather was the ruler. Here we see another consequence of marrying outside the faith. Instead of having no where to run, Absalom could always find comfort among pagan grandparents. This region was about 80 miles NE of Jerusalem.

Chapter 14 14:1-23 Joab had a great concern for the disposition of David, yet the motivation for this concern might have been more along the lines of the fact that a despondent David could have a bad effect on the morale of the army, which Joab commanded. Joab basically had a woman tell a story similar to what had happened to Absalom. Apparently, Joab had learned that David could be tricked into condemning his own action by someone who comes to him for judgment on a matter that appears to be unrelated to David’s life. Chafin notes, “Joab probably admired the younger Absalom and saw him, at least at this time, as a logical heir to the throne. Being a power-oriented man, Joab would have been concerned over the potential instability created by an aging king without a clearly designated successor” (p. 323). It is very important to remember that Joab told this woman what to say (14:3). God is not rebuking David through this woman, rather, her reasoning is human wisdom, and, it is wrong. “They felt, as many people probably did, that it was in Israel’s best interest for Absalom to be restored to his place as heir. When we read chapter 15 we will realize that this popular opinion was wrong that that their advice was bad…These chapters about Absalom are probably preserved here as a reminder that God’s great wisdom was shown in choosing Solomon instead of either Amnon or Absalom” (Chafin p. 325).

14:23-33 We are not told why David refused to see Absalom for a period of two years, even after he had arrived in Jerusalem. To could be that this is David’s way of showing his displeasure for what Absalom had done. It might be that David was still thinking about whether or not there should be a punishment. During this time nothing is said about David making an inquiry to God or asking God for wisdom in this matter. Absalom finally forced the issue and demanded either to be executed or acquitted (14:32). Joab comes to David (33), and possibly argued that in allowing Absalom to return he had recognized that the murder of Amnon was justifiable homicide. And as such, there were no legal grounds for denying the prince his rightful place in the royal court. At the end of this 4

chapter some interesting personal details are given about Absalom.

Every year he cut his hair and the weight of the cut hair was about three and ½ to 5 pounds. In addition, he was an attractive individual, the type of person who could easily win the hearts of the people. Absalom also chose the name “Tamar” (lit., “Palm Tree”) for his own beautiful daughter, apparently as a gesture of sympathy for his desolate and humiliated sister.

Chapter 15 15:1-6 Here we are told the methods which Absalom used in his attempt to undermine the people’s loyalty to his father David. First, Absalom created for himself the “image” or “air” of a ruler with chariots, horses, and a group of men who made up the equivalent of a private army. “This was Absalom’s way of indicating how he saw himself—as the heir apparent to the throne” (Chafin p. 329). Secondly, he showed an interest in the people and their problems, in effect Absalom was saying, “I feel your pain”. “If the pattern seems familiar it’s because it is used constantly by politicians who are running for offices that someone else holds. They create a base of support for themselves by making their opponents responsible for all the flaws in society and presenting themselves as the hope of change. A person can accumulate a following in any organization (including the church) by whispering in the ear of the unhappy what he would do if he were in charge” (Chafin pp. 329-330).

In reality, Absalom did not really care about these people or justice. He himself had killed his own brother and had not been punished. “He is a classic example of a person without ideals who uses the talking of lofty ideals as a means of manipulating people and getting power for himself” (Chafin p. 330). Absalom was a shrewd individual. First of all, he expressed interest in the people, “From what city are you?” After listening to their case, he would agree that their claims were valid and proper. But here we see his deception, for at least some of the complaints that came before him must have been without merit! Absalom further his personal ambitions by fostering a sense of alienation between David’s regime and the citizen’s who sought the king’s help. He was trying to create the false impression that David was neglecting them and their needs. Added to this, Absalom refused to accept their homage, and was trying to play the role of an empathetic, humble, and justice-minded monarch.

15:7 After a period of four years, Absalom was ready to seize the throne.

Some will note that their translations here might read 40 years, with a side reference which says that some ancient manuscripts read four years.

Here is one of those places where you can see the honesty in those who translated the Bible. They give you both renderings and allow the reader 5

to decide which makes more sense. 15:8-12 Absalom lies to his David about having to go and fulfill a vow. Rebellion against the throne had been very carefully planned. The right hand man and advisor of Absalom was Ahithophel the Gilonite, who had been one of David’s trusted advisors. When we compare 2 Samuel 11:3 with 23:24-39, we learn that this man was the grandfather of Bathsheba. “It is not impossible that ever since the violent death of Uriah, Ahithophel had been looking for an opportunity for revenge” (Davis p. 155). In addition, at Hebron, Absalom may have found supporters who begrudged David for moving the capital to Jerusalem. The conspiracy of Absalom was in full swing by the time David received word that anything was amiss.

15:13-17 Here David is back to his own form, no hesitation to act this time.

He realizes that Absalom will kill him if Absalom is given the chance. He also shows mercy for the city of Jerusalem, not wanting the city destroyed in a civil war. In addition, by leaving Jerusalem and stepping aside, David was also trying to save the entire nation from civil war. David’s readiness to believe the reports of rebellion, seem to infer that David suspected this all along but simply had refused to listen to what he did not want to hear or believe. David quickly leaves with his friends and faithful bodyguards, the Cherethites and Pelethites. 15:19-22 The loyalty of Ittai (IT uh eye) the Gittite (GIT tight), a former inhabitant of Gath, reminds us of the loyalty of Ruth to Naomi (Ruth 1:15-18). “David’s comment in verse 19 does not imply that he recognized Absalom as king, but he was simply encouraging Ittai to remain in Jerusalem with whomever God should appoint to rule Israel” (Laney p. 114). These will be hard times for David, but as you read this passages, remember that hard times bring out both the best and the worst in people. It will bring out the worst in Absalom, but it will bring out the best in David and his loyal supporters. The cream will rise to the top during this rebellion.

15:23-27 Zadok the priest is ready to follow David with the ark, but David realizes that he doesn’t need the ark as a good luck charm. David will allow God to decide whether or not he is still fit to rule as king. Note the humility of David! He is prepared for whatever God decides is appropriate. Yet humility does not mean inaction, David wants Zadok to remain in Jerusalem and be his eyes and ears (15:28,35). 15:29-37 When David heard that Ahithophel, one of his more capable advisors, had joined the rebellion, he employed Hushai (HOO shigh), an aged advisor and friend, to infiltrate Absalom’s court organization. This was done in order that he might counteract the proposals of Ahithophel” (Davis p.

157). In addition, Hushai was given the decisive role of relaying official classified information to the priests, whose sons would then inform David.

Be impressed with the fact that David is able to remain calm, cool and 6

leveled headed during this time. Since he had already turned everything over to God, he had the ability to make some very wise decisions.

Chapter 16 16:1-4 Passing a short distance beyond the summit of the Mount of Olives David encountered Ziba (ZIE bah), the servant of Jonathan’s crippled son Mephibosheth. Ziba’s accusation here against Mephibosheth is later found to be false (19:24-28). He was evidently trying to commend himself to David, and get back the land which had belonged to Saul. 16:5-13 We need to be amazed at the patience of David. He certainly has come a long way from (1 Samuel 25:2ff), when he was ready to destroy Nabal’s entire household for ingratitude. “Bahurim” (bah HOO rim), is a village near the Mount of Olives, located east of Jerusalem. As David leaves, he is cursed by “Shimei” (SHIM ih uh), a man who was related to Saul. Shimei walked along a ridge above the road David was traveling, he continually cursed David, called him foul names and pelted his entourage with stones. Abishai, the brother of Joab wanted permission from David to chase down this “dead dog” and cut off his head. “The sons of Zeruiah (Joab and Abishai) were addicted to the use of the sword to solve all problems” (Smith p. 369). It is possible that David regarded the charges of Shimei as justified to the extent that he had committed murder with regard to Uriah. David was willing to take a rebuke and learn from it (Proverbs 9:9). In addition, David was willing also to accept the idea that God might be trying to teach him something, even during difficult circumstances. David also remained focused. He realized that the present crisis was caused by Absalom. By comparison, the resentment held against him by some of Saul’s family was inconsequential.

“The willingness to listen to one’s critics and even to one’s enemies may be the only way to discover the truth of God (about ourselves). The natural tendency is to surround ourselves with friends who are often reluctant to tell us the things we need to know. This opens the possibility that we may do well at times to listen to people who wish us harm but tell us the truth. Here again we see David’s willingness to expose himself to God’s word for his life and to God’s judgment upon his life” (Chafin p.

338).

16:14 “Slowly they wound their way down the twenty-mile path that descended some 3,700 feet to the Jordan River and came to their destination near the ford. The entire group was exhausted both physically and emotionally, but at this relatively safe location they refreshed themselves” (Bergen p. 409).

7

16:15-22 Absalom enters Jerusalem. Hushai, David’s advisor and loyal servant, pulls off probably one of the best acting jobs recorded in the Old Testament. Unfazed by Absalom’s probing questions, Hushai continued his masterful expressions of ambiguity. “Though Hushai never mentioned Absalom’s name, in his vanity the upstart king believed these words referred to him….Even Hushai’s declaration that he would serve Absalom ‘just as I served your father’ (19), can be viewed as a silent affirmation of loyalty to David” (Bergen p. 410). Absalom turned to Ahithophel to ask what his next step should be. The advice given was to publicly go into the concubines of his father. Such an act would: 1. To a public claim to the throne. 2. Signal that the rebellion was irreversible. 3. Strengthen the will of all who had committed themselves to his cause. Note, this is exactly what Nathan had predicted would happen as one of the consequences of David’s sin with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:11).

16:23 Absalom followed such advice, because of the tremendous reputation that Ahithophel had gained for giving wise advice. But there is one flaw in Ahithophel’s advice on this occasion. The plan required the performance of a deed which was condemned in the Law (Leviticus 20:11). Absalom might escape David’s hand of judgment, but he could never escape the Lord’s: “Divine justice would ultimately prevail, and the Lord would bring Absalom’s aspirations crashing down to an inglorious end” (Bergen p. 411). “The fact that Ahithophel seriously proposed such a foolhardy plan can be taken as evidence that the Lord had indeed responded to David’s plea to turn Ahithophel’s counsel into foolishness (15:31)” (p. 411).

Chapter 17 17:1-4 Ahithophel next urged Absalom to let him take 12,000 men and immediately pursue David. This man reasoned that David was exhausted and vulnerable and such a swift attack would discourage David’s supporters. This plan would result in peace in the land rather than a protracted conflict. 17:5-14 Masterfully, Hushai completely undermines the counsel of Ahithophel. Hushai cleverly noted that “this time” the counsel of Ahithophel is not good, implying that even the best counselors have a bad day now and then. Next he appeals to fear. He created fear by referring to David and his men not as weary and weak but as being enraged like a bear robbed of her cubs. He reminded Absalom of David’s experience as a soldier and of the caution he was bound to have taken. Next he appealed to Absalom’s desire (and the desire of his soldiers) for military glory. Absalom himself needed to personally lead a massive army against David, an army so big that it could demolish entire

8

cities. Basically, the arguments were: 1. Do not take any chances. 2.

Only you can lead such an army. 3. Bigger is better.

17:15-22 Hushai’s counsel gave David the time he needed to cross the Jordan. “The sons of Zadok, Jonathan and Ahimaaz, were hiding at Enrogel in the Kidron Valley SE of Jerusalem. The plan was for a maidservant to relay information to them. They in turn were to carry the news to David.

This plan was nearly upset when a lad spotted the two loyal supporters of David and reported their whereabouts to Absalom” (Smith p. 371). 17:23 Ahithophel commits suicide. Apparently, he was humiliated by the rejection of his advice and he could probably foresee Absalom’s defeat and knew that he would then be accountable to David for his disloyalty.

He realized that Absalom had lost his opportunity to kill David. From 17:1, it looks to me that Ahithophel wanted to be the real power behind the throne and thought he could manipulate Absalom.

17:24 The city of “Mahanaim” (may huh NAY im) was located east of the Jordan River in Gilead. Ishbosheth had reigned here for two years following the death of his father Saul (2 Samuel 2:8,12,29). 17:25 Absalom appoints “Amasa” (AM ah sah) as the commander of his army. This man was David’s nephew, the son of Jether and Abigail (1 Chron. 2:17).

Amasa was also the cousin of Joab (2 Samuel 17:25).

17:27-29 While in exile, the following friends of David graciously provided for the physical needs of David and his men. Compare with Psalm 23:5.

The man “Machir” (MAY kir) had been a good friend of Mephisbosheth (2 Samuel 9:4). “Barzillai” (bar ZILL ay eye) was a very aged and loyal supporter of David. These verses are a reminder that David has the support of significant people in the area. “The rich men of the region were willing to befriend him and provide provisions for his army. This would indicate both that David had more support than many had thought at the beginning of the revolt…While Absalom had stood in the gate and whispered promises in the ears of the people, David had been building (real and lasting) relationships with people” (Chafin p. 347). Yes, Absalom attracted a following, but it was a following of fair-weather friends.

Sometimes it seems that everyone is following the wrong person, and that the righteous are being forsaken, but faithful Christians need to be reminded that the friends that they have are real and genuine friends.

You won’t always be popular for preaching the truth, but you will have genuine friendships.

9

Chapter 18 18:1-4 David’s strategy for the battle reflects his years of experience.

These were groups of experienced soldiers, and they were being lead by men who had proven themselves on the field of battle, especially when the odds were against them. David knew the advantages inherent in striking first—being able to choose the time and the site of the conflict, and so he acted quickly. It had been David’s intention to lead the army into battle, but the people persuaded him otherwise. “They knew that in spite of all the people involved, the conflict was between two men: Absalom and David. They also knew that if a stray arrow should fell David that the kingdom would be lost” (Chafin p. 350). 18:5 David still loves Absalom, even though Absalom does not love his father. Though David remained in Mahanaim, he exercised his prerogative as supreme commander by ordering his troop commanders to be gentle with the young man Absalom. This order was issued in the hearing of all his troops.

18:6-8 The actual battle took place in the forest of Ephraim, a dense forest north of the Jabbok River in Transjordan. Because of the rugged terrain, the pursuit through the forest resulted in more deaths than did the actual combat. By choosing a forest as the battlefield, David hoped to minimize the value of Absalom’s numerical advantage. 18:9 “As a youth I heard a number of sermons that dealt with this text and every one of them pictured Absalom as having caught the hair he was so proud of in the branches of the tree, but the text says he caught his head and hung there helpless” (Chafin p. 351). “Josephus states that Absalom was caught by his long hair in the branches of the tree. Others think his head would have been covered with a helmet so that his hair could not have gotten caught in the branches” (Smith p. 380).

18:10-13 When Joab learned that his soldiers had seen Absalom in the above predicament, he rebuked them for not killing him. In spite of the reward that Joab was offering for a dead Absalom, this soldier refused to touch Absalom, even if it were multiplied a hundred times, for he had heard David’s order. In addition, “The soldier could not trust Joab to cover for him in the matter; anyone who would betray his king would surely betray a nameless underling” (Bergen p. 422). 18:14-15 Joab, irritated and unfazed by the soldier’s integrity, went and killed Absalom himself. 18:16-17 Now with Absalom dead, the uprising was over. Joab sounded the trumpet (shophar), signifying the end of military activity. The body of Absalom wasn’t even taken back to David, rather it was contemptuously thrown into a big pit and covered with a large heap of stones. It reminds us of the type of burial given to Achan (Joshua 7:26).

10

18:18 What a contrast! When Absalom was alive he had erected a monument to himself in the King’s Valley, that is, located just outside the walls of Jerusalem. Evidently, his three sons had all died in childhood (14:27). “The point of mentioning that monument here is to underscore what a tragic end came to this talented and charismatic young prince” (Smith p. 373). 18:19-33 David receives the news of Absalom’s death.

Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok, wanted to report the victory of the king, but Joab wanted a Cushite slave to deliver the report in case David reacted violently to the news of his son’s death. Evidently, Ahimaaz was ignorant concerning what had happened in the past to messengers who brought messages to David that upset him (2 Samuel 1:15; 4:5). But Ahimaaz persisted and was allowed to bring the message to David. Once on his way, he ran by the plain, that is, by running over the relatively flat terrain paralleling the Jordan River, instead of climbing up and down over the rugged forested hills as the Cushite was doing, he arrived first. “When the king ignored the news of the battle and asked only about the safety of his son, Ahimaaz must have suddenly realized the wisdom of what Joab had said to him so he feigned ignorance of what had happened to Absalom” (Chafin p. 354).

Chapter 19 19:1-4 “As the troops returned from the battle their joyous spirit was quickly turned to gloom by the news that David was grieving over his dead son. His troops sulked back into the city as though they had lost the battle. The king continued to agonize over his son with such a loud voice that the men in the city could hear his wailing” (Smith p. 374). 19:5-8 Joab was outraged by David’s behavior, charged into his private chamber and rebuked him. “Grief has a way of temporarily making us forget the living to whom we are indebted…When we can’t get over some loss it’s usually because there is a larger agenda than grief alone” (Chafin p. 356). David was no stranger to violence and death, even the death of loved ones and children. He had already lost the child born to Bathsheba and his oldest son Amnon. Yet he appears especially grief stricken at the loss of Absalom. Maybe what made his grief all the more pressing, was the fact that in Absalom, David really saw his own failures as a father. Joab reminded David, that David was acting as though his loyal fighters, those who had risked their lives for the deposed king, meant nothing to him. Even though Joab was a cold-hearted man, probably on this occasion, he had a clearer perspective than David. Joab saw Absalom for what he was, an enemy of God and David. He was rebellious son, a murderer and an adulterer, who deserved the death penalty. Joab also probably realized that David couldn’t bring himself to punish Absalom. If David is to continue to rule as king, if Israel is to have 11

any unity, then Absalom must die. Yet, give credit to David, he accepted Joab’s rebuke (Proverbs 9:9), even when such a rebuke came from something not as spiritual as David!

19:9-10 The people in Israel were in a dilemma. The king they had chosen for themselves was now dead. David was in exile, yet in the past David had delivered them from the hands of their enemies. “The implication here is that without a strong king they again would be at the mercy of these enemies. Some action needed to be taken to formally reinstate David on his throne” (Smith p. 375). 19:11-14 Now the rest of Israel had recommitted themselves to David, it was time to bring Judah, which had apparently lent strong support to Absalom, back into David’s camp.

David here offers Amasa the position of commander of his army in the place of Joab. Such a move apparently was designed to build bridges with those who had served under Amasa while fighting against David, and it also was designed to probably punish Joab for his insubordination in the matter of killing Absalom. In addition, this was also David’s way of saying to the tribe of Judah that he wasn’t going to purge from Israel all those who had supported Absalom.

19:15-23 The first person to meet David, even before he crossed the Jordan at Gilgal, was Shimei, the man who had cursed David when David was leaving Jeursalem (16:5-8). David probably spared the life of Shimei for a couple of reasons: 1. He had freely confessed that he had been in the wrong. 2. He had manifested repentance by being the first person from the tribe of Joseph who can come to pledge his allegiance to David. 3. Such a triumphant day would not be marred by an execution.

Yet, David would instruct Solomon to deal with Shimei (1 Kings 2:36-46).

Judgment would be reserved for another day. 19:24-30 Like the others, Mephibosheth had taken the initiative to make the twenty-mile trek from Jerusalem to meet David. The text indicatives that he had been mourning ever since David had left Jerusalem. Such inattention to details of personal hygiene made it clear that he was not a pretender to the throne who had been actively attempting to take back his grandfather’s kingdom (16:3). For the first time David learns that the accusations against Mephibosheth weren’t true (16:26-27). Apparently, David here decrees a compromise that permitted Ziba (the servant who had slandered Mephibosheth), and yet who had rendered service to David by bringing him needed supplies, to have some of Saul’s land and on the other hand, exonerated Mephibosheth, and permitted David to keep faith with commitments made to Jonathan many years before (1 Samuel 18:3; 20:42; 23:18). It appears that David wasn’t sure who he should believe on this occasion. Gaebelein notes, “As David’s son Solomon would later threaten to divide a living baby in order to discern which of two mothers 12

was telling the truth (1 Kings 3:24-25), so David here demands the division of the fields in order to discern whether Mephibosheth or Ziba is a liar…..just as the real mother of the living baby offered the child to the false claimant in order to preserve his life, so also Mephibosheth offers the entire estate to Ziba” (p. 1037).

19:31-40 Barzillai the Gileadite, the wealthy and aged patriarch, the man who had provided David with greatly needed supplies (16:27-29), greets David. In an attempt to repay him, the king invited Barzillai to Jerusalem so that he might care for the old man the rest of his life. While not unappreciative of the offer, Barzillai found it more beneficial to David and to himself, to live the remaining part of his days in his homeland. “Barzillia’s rationale for not accepting David’s offer has wisdom in it for people today. New experiences can be exciting, but as we get older we need to preserve and use the support systems we have built during our lives” (Chafin p. 364).

19:41-43 Unfortunately, David’s return brought up some bad blood that had existed between Judah and the other tribes. Even before David could make his way back to Jerusalem, the men of Israel demanded an explanation of why he had permitted Judah to ‘steal the king away’.

Without waiting for David’s reply, the men of Judah argued that their status as next-of-kin entitled them to a position to privilege to personally escort David. But if Judah claimed kinship, the rest of Israel could claim numbers as their justification for a greater claim on David. After all, the Israelites had ‘ten shares’ in the king. The harsh words that were exchanged between the men of Israel and Judah were an evidence of the discontent that gave rise to Sheba’s rebellion (chapter 20).

13