# comment

text:
<p>who struck Abimelech the son of Jerubbesheth? Didn’t a woman cast an upper millstone on him from the wall, so that he died at Thebez? Why did you go so near the wall?’ then you shall say, ‘Your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also’- </p><p>Joab warned the messenger to quickly explain to David why the soldiers approached so near the wall of Rabbah, because he knew that David would immediately quote an example from the history of Israel, to prove that such an approach was unwise. David’s familiarity with the spiritual records of Israel's history was therefore well known, and it presumably did not depart from him during the nine months. Psalms 38 speaks of how the guilt of his sin weighed so heavily upon him (<a href='B:230 38:4'>Psa 38:4</a> NIV), whereas <a href='B:230 32:5'>Psa 32:5</a> describes how the guilt of sin has now been lifted from him- implying that he wrote Psalms 38 some time after the sin, but before repenting properly. The point is, he didn’t crash completely, he didn’t turn away from God in totality- he was still writing Psalms at the time!</p><p>The fact Joab told the servant to say this is proof enough that he too knew what had happened. It is to his shame that he went along with the evil plan. It was almost as if he wanted it to happen, remembering how David had said Joab was "too hard for me", the spiritual man. And Joab almost wants David’s planned sin to happen so he can get equal with David. For in all this David was indeed being "hard" himself, very hard.</p>


text:
<p>So the messenger went, and came and showed David all that Joab had sent him for- </p><p>The obedience of David’s servants is emphasized. His sin was therefore the worse because he abused loyalty. No wonder he lost so much loyalty because of what he did.</p>


text:
<p>The messenger said to David, The men prevailed against us, and came out to us into the field, and we were on them even to the entrance of the gate- </p><p>David uses the same word when he reflects that his sins had "prevailed against me" (<a href='B:230 65:3'>Psa 65:3</a>), showing that finally he did finely appreciate the nature and many dimensions of his sin. For Israel to flee before their enemies who were stronger [s:w. "prevailed"] than them is the language of the curse for breaking the covenant. And this was what David had done and was leading Israel into. His spiritual perception was totally subdued beneath his desire to cover his sins in the eyes of men, although the record continually shows that the more he tried to, the more evident his sins became.</p>


text:
<p>The shooters shot at your servants from off the wall; and some of the king’s servants are dead, and your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also-</p><p>The servant also knew all that was going on. So he doesn't wait (as advised) for David to rant about the loss of men near the city wall, he tells David immediately that Uriah was dead. He knew that was the bottom line David wanted to know. We note that in this evil plan, other men died along with Uriah, perhaps to give the murder some semblance of bad luck.</p><p>The scene in 2 Sam. 18:33 is of David sitting between the gates and going up over the gate to get news of Absalom and weeping there for his death. It was from a wall above a gate that the archers shot from and killed Uriah (2 Sam. 11:23,24). </p><p>
We note that Uriah was killed by archers; David's son Absalom was also killed by three arrows fired into his chest (2 Sam. 18:14). This was to help David see the pain he had caused to Uriah's loved ones. Saul too was hit by archers before he ended his own life. It could be that Joab was resented the murder of his armour bearer Uriah, and so he in turn murdered David's son Absalom with arrows. </p><p> The scene in 2 Sam. 18:33 is of David sitting between the gates and going up over the gate to get news of Absalom and weeping there for his death. It was from a wall above a gate that the archers shot from and killed Uriah (2 Sam. 11:23,24). </p><p> We note that Uriah was killed by archers; David's son Absalom was also killed by three arrows fired into his chest (2 Sam. 18:14). This was to help David see the pain he had caused to Uriah's loved ones. Saul too was hit by archers before he ended his own life. It could be that Joab was resented the murder of his armour bearer Uriah [according to LXX and Josephus], and so he in turn murdered David's son Absalom with arrows. </p>


text:
<p>Then David said to the messenger, Thus you shall tell Joab, ‘Don’t let this thing displease you, for the sword devours one as well as another. Make your battle stronger against the city, and overthrow it’. Encourage him- </p><p>"Let not this thing displease you" were David’s words to Joab. But those very Hebrew words are used again in :27: "But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord". It displeased God spiritually; and it is therefore reasonable to think that David was saying to Joab 'Now don't think that there's anything really spiritually wrong with what I've done'. Doubtless David tried even harder to persuade himself of this than he did Joab.</p>


text:
<p>When the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she made lamentation for her husband- </p><p>The record leaves us invited to imagine how sincere was her lamentation. Was it a mere formality, as :27 suggests, or from the heart? If from the heart, she would likely have been angry with David and hardly the wife he wished for. The record doesn't make any mention of Bathsheba's mourning being anything personal; compare it with Jacob's mourning for Joseph, which mentions how Jacob refused to be comforted by anyone. Or Paltiel's mourning at the loss of Michal.</p>


text:
<p>When the mourning was past, David sent and took her home to his house, and she became his wife, and bore him a son- </p><p>The record is purposefully vague about her feelings. We are left to speculate.</p><p>But the thing that David had done displeased Yahweh- </p><p>God’s apparent silence doesn't mean that judgment won't come. David himself perceives this in <a href='B:230 50:21'>Psa 50:21</a>, either having learned from his experience, or having only taught the theory in that Psalm, which he now was to personalize. The phrase used here is only found in <a href='B:90 8:6'>1Sa 8:6</a> about the displeasure concerning "the thing" of Israel wanting a king. The entire sentence is copied word for word in Hebrew. We are left to wonder what the parallels were between these apparently quite different sins. The point is that although human failure may be markedly different (wanting a human king as opposed to arranging murder and adultery), the essence was the same. There was an assumption by both David and the people that they could act as they wished, despite knowing God’s revealed will. They despised His word and acted according to their immediate desires, justifying themselves. And here we see the worrying similarities with our own sins, in essence. Perhaps the connection with God's displeasure about the "thing" of wanting a human king was because David was effectively rejecting God's kingship. He wanted to be king and have his kingdom in the here and now, rather than believe the promises about his Messianic son having his true and eternal kingdom. </p><p> We note how the word "Yahweh" hasn't occurred in the narrative until now, reflecting how God was far from David's thoughts in all this. What David did was evil [Heb.] in His sight; whereas David had declared to Joab that this "thing" was not to be "evil" in Joab's eyes (:25). The chapter opens with David 'seeing' Bathsheba [:2] and concludes with a comment as to how Yahweh 'saw' things. </p>


text:
<p>Yahweh sent Nathan to David. He came to him, and said to him, There were two men in one city- </p><p>Perhaps the connection with God's displeasure about the "thing" of wanting a human king was because David was effectively rejecting God's kingship. He wanted to be king and have his kingdom in the here and now, rather than believe the promises about his Messianic son having his true and eternal kingdom.
We note how the word "Yahweh" hasn't occurred in the narrative until now, reflecting how God was far from David's thoughts in all this. What David did was evil [Heb.] in His sight; whereas David had declared to Joab that this "thing" was not to be "evil" in Joab's eyes (:25). The chapter opens with David 'seeing' Bathsheba [:2] and concludes with a comment as to how Yahweh 'saw' things. </p><p> That David could see into the back yard of Bathsheba's house shows that they were almost next door neighbours in Jerusalem. Nathan's parable emphasized this: "There were two men (David and Nathan) in one city (Jerusalem)". That Uriah "went not down to his house" after meeting David in Jerusalem could imply that it was just at the end of David’s back garden (<a href='B:100 11:13'>2Sa 11:13</a> etc:).</p><p>The one rich, and the other poor- </p><p>Reflection on the record enables us to enter a little into the nature and tragedy of David’s sorrow; remembering always that David is our example. His love for Abigail, with marriage to her so wondrously arranged, would have been cruelly mocked by his falling for Bathsheba. His abuse of Uriah's loyalty (when almost certainly Uriah knew exactly what David was playing at) would have created a sadness that can only be described as ineffable. David in his early years described himself as a "poor man", indicating his humility; yet the very same word is used by Nathan in the parable about Uriah, as if to bring home to David that he had slain a man who had the humble loyalty which he had had in those early, spiritually formative years (<a href='B:90 18:23'>1Sa 18:23</a> cp. <a href='B:100 12:1'>2Sa 12:1</a>; <a href='B:100 12:3-4'>2Sa 12:3-4</a>).</p><p>Nathan had likened Uriah to a "poor man" abused by David. But David later asks God to eternally condemn those who persecuted the "poor" (see on <a href='B:230 109:9'>Psa 109:9</a>; <a href='B:230 109:16'>Psa 109:16</a>). And it seems Psalms 109 was used by David not only about his persecution at the time of Saul, but also of his sufferings at the time of Absalom's rebellion, after the time of his sin. So it seems David didn’t maintain his sense of humility before Nathan.</p>


text:
<p>The rich man had very many flocks and herds- </p><p>Presumably the idea is that David had many wives and concubines. He had no sexual need for Bathsheba. To take her was selfishness and narcissism in the extreme. And yet he was the man after God's own heart, the only man to be told in mid life that his salvation was assured [2 Sam. 7].</p>


text:
<p>but the poor man had nothing, except one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and raised. It grew up together with him, and with his children. It ate of his own food, drank of his own cup, lay in his bosom, and was to him like a daughter- </p><p>David himself had once been a poor man (<a href='B:90 18:23'>1Sa 18:23</a>), his family only had a "few sheep" (<a href='B:90 17:28'>1Sa 17:28</a>). So his abuse of the poor man with only one sheep now he was rich... was therefore the more culpable.</p><p>David and Uriah knew each other very well; they had spent David’s long wilderness years together. All that time, Bathsheba had been brought up by Uriah (<a href='B:100 12:3'>2Sa 12:3</a>). She was the daughter of Eliam, who had been another of David’s mighty men (<a href='B:100 11:3'>2Sa 11:3</a>; <a href='B:100 23:34'>2Sa 23:34</a>). Presumably he had been killed and Uriah adopted her, bringing her up from babyhood, mothering her by feeding her from his bowl and letting her sleep in his bosom. This may imply that his own wife died early, and that he brought her and his own children up alone, and then married her when she was older. A very special spiritual and emotional bond must have been forged between those who stuck with David as a down and out, and who later on shared in the glory of his kingdom. That Uriah had such easy access to David would have been unthinkable for an ordinary soldier whom David hardly knew. Nathan criticizes David for having " no pity" on Uriah, implying that David well knew&nbsp; the relationship between Uriah and Bathsheba. Moreover, David would have been a larger than life figure for his followers, and Bathsheba would have grown up with this image of David as the saving hero.</p><p><a href='B:130 3:5'>1Ch 3:5</a> could imply that she had no other children before those she had by David. This means that she may have been barren until that point; her conception was certainly brought about by God. Was it that they would both have been aware of the unlikelihood of her bearing children, and therefore perhaps more inclined to take a chance? Or was the problem Uriah's side and David was seeking again [wrongly] to build up his own house through Bathsheba? But the cruelty of David is stressed- Bathsheba "lay in [Uriah's] bosom" as a lamb, but then David "lay with her". To lay in the bosom clearly means intimacy, and God says that David's wives had been given into his bosom. He enjoyed intimacy with them- and so he had no need to take Bathsheba. He was not a man lacking in intimate relationships. David in the parable is wealthy, and Uriah poor. Yet Uriah had a house next to the king and was his close associate, and his wife was the well connected granddaughter of Ahithophel, David's chief advisor and "familiar friend". His poverty, therefore, was in terms of relationships. All he had was Bathsheba. And that was what was so wrong with David's theft of Bathsheba from him. This is the focus of the condemnation- not so much the sin of sensuality and sex outside of marriage, but more the theft from Uriah. We note however that Uriah had the far younger Bathsheba "lay" with him as a cute lamb; whereas David "lay" with her as a woman. There may possibly be a hint here of why she was apparently not resistant to David's advances and may even have encouraged them by bathing in his line of vision. Even if the connection with 'laying with' is deemed over interpretation, it would seem to me that indeed Bathsheba and Uriah likely had this issue in their relationship.</p><p> 2 Sam. 11:13 has used the same three verbs eat, drink and lie with respect to Uriah doing so. </p>


text:
<p>A traveller came to the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man who had come to him, but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man who had come to him- </p><p>The parable described David’s lust as a "traveller" which came to him, implying that this was not his usual frame of mind (and does the 'traveller' needing sustenance of <a href='B:490 11:6'>Luk 11:6</a> also refer to our sinful tendencies?). The rich man is presented as mean. He has only an appearance of hospitality and generosity towards his guest, for he will not give of his own animals, but takes the poor man's lamb. Whilst David was not typically like this, his behaviour in this matter was indeed callous and mean, beneath a veneer of respectability.</p><p> The rich man "spared to take" his own animal from his own flocks; just as Saul spared flocks and herds (1 Sam. 15:9,15 s.w.). Again we see how David and Saul are paralleled in their sins. But David was saved because of his heart attitude. </p><p> The rich man "took" the poor man's lamb because he assumed that there was effectively no chance of a law suit, the law would not be applied to him; and even if it were, he could easily pay the penalty. This reflects David's attitude to God's law, and his failure in respecting God's law earlier when bringing the ark to Zion had led to the death of Uzzah. He was to be brought to understand that God's law cannot just be waived by man, and man cannot pay the penalty. And we all have that same sense at times, that Divine law and principle doesn't apply to me or can be somehow gotten around. The idea that all men, president or peasant, are 'equal before the law' is a relatively new concept for human societies. It has been engrained in human thought for most of human history that leaders are somehow above the law. We note how the parable focuses upon David's callousness and selfishness, his disregard for others, rather than the sin of unbridled lust and sensuality of itself. The focalization is on the lack of pity rather than sensuality, quick sex or whatever else. It was the pain caused to Uriah whilst he was alive, during that journey back to the battle front and in whatever time he spent alive there, which was the focus of the parable. For after his death he had no sense of loss regarding anything. It was in this that David's lack of pity was so wrong; and out of all the aspects of David's failure, it was this lack of pity which God focused on most. And David correctly realized that in his interpretation of the parable. He was intended to come to just that point of identifying 'lack of pity', and the parable worked perfectly. Lack of pity or empathy is therefore of huge moment to God. And He and His Son show it hugely. God has pity on us the work of His hands. And it was the Lord's being moved with compassion / pity that led Him to the cross. Whilst we may not commit murder nor adultery, lack of compassion to the weaker than us... is an everyday struggle. And God sees it so seriously. We have to love the way the Lord loved the rich youth who told Him that He had been obedient to God since his "youth". The contradiction is obvious, but the Lord was moved with pity and love for him. Whereas we are irritated by what we perceive as hypocrisy, unreality, pride and laziness. </p><p> But the lust of David is presented as a traveller visiting- as if this was an unusual occurrence and not David's way of thought and living. We also note the element of unreality in the story. Rich men didn't usually give food to beggars nor did they entertain wayfaring men of the road in their homes, let alone kill a lamb for them. We note the travelling man comes alone, with no entourage, suggesting he is a low class travelling man. “The more prestigious the guest the more precious the animal” slain. Yet here is the unreality in the parable. The rich man slays a lamb for the poor visitor; possibly the hint is that the traveller is a Gentile, suggesting a parallel with Uriah who was a Hittite. He is very generous and kind to him. But not at his own cost. The father only slew an animal when his lost son came home. This rich man was generous to the poor. But he stole the poor man's lamb in order to be generous. Here we see a clever depiction of David's complex and divided character. He was generous, he had a good heart- but also callousness in order to achieve that, or, callousness and narcissism at one and the same time as being large hearted. The traveller enters the rich man's house- and David's house is a big theme here. God had promised to establish David's house but he was trying to establish it himself. And part of his attraction to having a child by Bathsheba was related to that. But he had allowed lust, the traveller, into his house, and so evil arose from within the house. </p><p> There is further grace revealed in the parable- in that adultery and consequent murder are not really in the same league at all as stealing a lamb from a poor man to feed a guest. It's not that God hereby somehow writes down the force of David's sins. Rather we see His gentleness with sinners and desire to always find a way forward in relationship with them. </p><p>
Another line of interpretation is that the traveller who "comes" to David represents Bathsheba with the news she is pregnant. The traveller 'comes' to David, the rich man, just as Bathsheba came to him and slept with him. David responds to this by slaying the lamb, who would then represent Uriah. The lamb ate, drank and lay [in the bosom], and these are the very words used of Uriah in 1 Sam. 11:11 “How can I go home and eat, and drink, and lay with my wife?”. Those three Hebrew words occur together only in these two places. This path of interpretation however has some issues; the poor man is then Bathsheba as Uriah's wife, and the traveller is Bathsheba as David's pregnant lover. </p>


text:
<p>David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to Nathan, As Yahweh lives, the man who has done this is worthy to die!- </p><p>As noted on :6, this demand for the death penalty was far beyond what the law required for the theft of an animal. David’s outrage shows that he was not without moral conscience. But morality can be applied in one part of a man's life but not in others; to one person but not another; to sinners but not to himself. David speaks as God in Eden: "... shall surely die" (AV). This was his problem; he was playing God.</p><p> The law required four fold restitution of stolen sheep (Ex. 22:1) but David demands a harsher punishment, of death. He was guilty of death but was spared by grace. Thus God's grace is powerfully contrasted with David's lack of grace. As seen often in the Psalms, his conscience was keenly aware of others' sins but not of his own. He did pay four fold restoration in that four of his sons died: his first child by Bathsheba, Amnon, Absalom and Adonijah. In the bigger picture, this was to help him see that his focus on building up his own immediate house or family was wrong. Instead he should have just trusted in the promise that his house would be built up through his future Messianic son. This is why the evil of his judgment was to arise from his own house (:11). In 1 Sam. 26:16 David had likewise demanded the death penalty for not keeping Saul, even though a sleep from Yahweh had made it impossible to do so. And the slaughter of more Philistines than necessary to pay his dowry. He who had been so eager to slay men is now saved from his own judicial death by pure grace. Freud demonstrated that exaggerated responses to moral questions concerning others is a reflection of the person defending themselves, against their own self recognition. David's exaggerated response, demanding the death penalty as well as restoration, is therefore psychologically credible for a man refusing to face himself. We see this clearly in many who obsess about some cases of morality and justice... but it is potentially true for us all. </p>


text:
<p>He shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity!- </p><p><a href='B:20 22:1'>Exo 22:1</a> stipulated that stolen lambs should be restored fourfold. The fourfold judgment could be seen as coming upon David in the deaths of Bathsheba’s child, then Amnon, Absalom and Adonijah. But David is so used to living beyond the letter of the law, that he assumes he can get this person also put to death. But that was not stipulated in the law. In many ways David had rightly seen beyond the letter of the law, to the spirit of it. This he could act at times as High Priest. But this led him where it can lead us too- to an attitude that he was personally beyond Divine principles. And this led him to the sins related to Bathsheba.</p><p> LXX has seven fold. This could refer to the two periods of seven years of judgment which the rest of the book give us: 2 Sam 13-14: 2 years (13:23) +3 (13:38) +2 (14:28)l then 2 Sam 15:1 - 21: 14: 4 years (15:7) +3 (21:1). </p><p> 
Another possible interpretation is that David understands it as a parable and not as an actual legal case. But David perhaps considers Joab as the one guilty of Uriah's death, and uses it as an opportunity to get Joab condemned to death.</p>


text:
<p>Nathan said to David, You are the man-</p><p>It is difficult to read <a href='B:520 2:1'>Rom 2:1</a> without seeing an allusion to David’s condemnation of the man who killed his neighbour's only sheep: "Thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art&nbsp; that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself". Surely Paul is saying that David’s massive self-deception and hypocrisy over Bathsheba can all too easily be replicated in our experience.</p><p>This is what Yahweh, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul- </p><p>David ought to have been moved by God’s grace to him historically, to be sexually self controlled. And there we have an abiding principle.</p>


text:
<p>I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom- </p><p>David loved Saul, his daughters and his son Jonathan; and later David was to marry Saul's wives. These wives were given into David’s bosom; in other words, they were really close in their relationship; so close, <a href='B:100 12:8'>2Sa 12:8</a> implies, that David had no real emotional need to take Bathsheba. Even while Saul was alive there was probably some attraction chemistry going on between David and those women. This may well be reflected in Saul's fury with Jonathan: "Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman... thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to... the confusion of thy mother's nakedness" (<a href='B:90 20:30'>1Sa 20:30</a> AV). This hints at least two things: firstly, Saul had a bad relationship with his wife; and secondly, he suspected some kind of unfaithfulness in her, perhaps only on a mental level:&nbsp; David had married Saul's wives (<a href='B:100 12:8'>2Sa 12:8</a>)- including the mother of Jonathan and Michal. So now we can reconstruct the complex spiritual and emotional situation.</p><p> God had given David the harem of Saul, despite the prohibition of polygamy for Israel's king (Dt. 17:17). Kings of the time all had harems and aimed to produce the maximum number of sons to keep their dynasty going. But God's intention was to work through just one later King, His begotten Son. But by allowing and giving David a harem, God had made a concession to David's sexual needs and his desire for a visible large kingly family. But He has given the amazing promise that David's "house" would be eternal through His Messianic seed. But God had also given David a considerable "house" in this life. But He takes away David's harem as punishment through Absalom. This was to make David focus on the promises about his true "house" through his greater Son. </p><p> And gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that would have been too little- </p><p>Such is the wonder of God’s promise to us that we really have no excuse to sin. He knows our levels and knew that David was not as it were forced inevitably to sin with Bathsheba. Every sin is in a sense a denial of His promises. God told David that he had no excuse for what he did with Uriah and Bathsheba, because he had given him so much, “and if that had been too little, I would have added unto you…” (<a href='B:100 12:8'>2Sa 12:8</a>). “Too little” sends the mind back to <a href='B:100 7:19'>2Sa 7:19</a>, where the promises to David are described as a “little thing”; the promises were so wonderful that David should not have allowed himself to fall into such sin. And us likewise. But David was still focused upon building up his "house" in this life rather than trusting and rejoicing that this would be eternally done for him. And so his harem and finally his "house" were taken from him, tacitly recognized by him in his rueful comment that "my house is not so with God"- to focus him on the future and eternal house being built for him. And our own houses, physical and family wise, may not come to much in this life- for exactly the same reason. </p><p>I would have added to you many more such things- </p><p>When David sinned with Bathsheba, God didn’t read him the act about adultery, lust, murder. He reminded David instead how He had delivered David by grace from his enemies, and how He had by grace given him many wives- when this was hardly God’s ideal standard. God made concessions to David’s weakness- and even gave him the wives of Saul. Seeing David was married to Saul's daughter, this was actually contrary to the spirit of God’s own law. But God had showed David great grace in this. And it was exactly this which God reminded David of- it was this amazing grace against which David had sinned (<a href='B:100 12:7-8'>2Sa 12:7-8</a>). And perhaps David appreciated this when he commented: "I have sinned against the Lord", rather than saying 'Yes, I've broken commandments'. This is the awfulness of sin- any sin. That we who have known such grace could so ignore it and act like we never knew.</p><p>We must recognize that there will be anomalies in the lives of our brethren- just as there are in the lives of us all (if only we would examine ourselves ruthlessly enough to see them). And in some ways at some times, God goes along with them. Thus He gave Saul’s wives to David (<a href='B:100 12:8'>2Sa 12:8</a>), which would’ve involved David being married to both a mother and daughter- for he had married Saul’s daughters. And this giving of Saul’s wives to David may not have occurred simply after Saul’s death. For David’s eldest son, Amnon, was borne by Ahinoam (<a href='B:100 3:2'>2Sa 3:2</a>), who was initially Saul’s wife (<a href='B:90 14:50'>1Sa 14:50</a>). Now this is not to justify sin. Adultery, taking another’s wife or husband, is all wrong. Let there be no mistake. But God at times sees the bigger, or longer, perspective, and tolerates things which we may quite rightly find intolerable. And if He loves us despite of our sin and failure- are we surprised that we are invited to show love to others in the face of their sin and failure toward us? A black and white insistence upon God’s standards being upheld in the lives of others, demanding their repentance for having hurt us, is what has caused so much division between believers. Whilst God alone will apportion the guilt for this, in the final, unalterable, ultimately just algorithm of Divine judgment, it’s worth observing that the fault for division isn’t always with the sinners, the wider thinkers, the freewheelers; but with the inflexible intolerance of those in power. See on <a href='B:90 18:20'>1Sa 18:20</a>; <a href='B:90 20:30'>1Sa 20:30</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Why have you despised the word of Yahweh, to do that which is evil in His sight?- </p><p>Saul also rejected God's word (1 Sam. 15:26); we have here another example of how Saul and David committed the same sins but David has a heart for God and was repentant. Both men say they had sinned (:13; 1 Sam. 15:30). But David's heart was in those words whereas Saul's wasn't. </p><p> David "despised the commandment (word) of the Lord... you despised me" (<a href='B:100 12:9-10'>2Sa 12:9-10</a>). David learnt that his attitude to God’s word was his attitude to God- for the word of God, in that sense, was and is God. By our words we personally will be condemned or justified- because we too ‘are’ our words. When Samuel told Eli of the prophetic vision which he had received, Eli commented: “It is the Lord” (<a href='B:90 3:18'>1Sa 3:18</a>). He meant ‘It is the word of the Lord’; but he saw God as effectively His word. “The word”, the “word of the Kingdom”, “the Gospel”, “the word of God” are all parallel expressions throughout the Gospels. Our attitude to God’s word is our attitude to Him.</p><p>The fact that he is condemned for having "despised the commandment of the Lord" in David’s sin with Bathsheba indicates that He knew all along what God’s will really was. The fact that the flesh took over does not in any way mitigate his responsibility in this. This is a direct quote from the Law's definition of the sin of presumption: "The soul that doeth ought presumptuously…because he hath despised the word of the Lord... that soul shall utterly be cut off" (<a href='B:40 15:30-31'>Num 15:30-31</a>). Knowing David’s emotional nature and also the fact that he did not completely turn away from God afterwards, we would have expected a quicker repentance if it had been a passing sin of passion. It would therefore seem reasonable to assume that the sin was of presumption rather than passion. In his prosperity he had said “I shall never be moved” and he was determined that he couldn’t be (<a href='B:230 30:6'>Psa 30:6</a>). Hearing those words from Nathan must have struck real fear into David- he was being incriminated for the supreme sin of presumption, for which there was no provision of sacrifice or repentance. It is a mark of his faith and knowledge of God as the God of love, that He is willing to go on to confess his sin, in the hope of forgiveness. "Thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it" (<a href='B:230 51:16'>Psa 51:16</a>) was spoken by David more concerning this sin of presumption for which there was no sacrifice prescribed, rather than about the actual sin of adultery. However, we must not get the impression that David was a hard, callous man. Everything we know about him points to him be a big hearted, warm softie. David’s sin with Bathsheba was in that sense out of character. Yet such is the stranglehold of sin that even he was forced to act with such uncharacteristic callousness and indifference to both God and man in order to try to cover his sin.</p><p>You have struck Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon- </p><p>God saw David as if he had killed Uriah with his sword; even though David’s command to Joab to retire from Uriah and let the Ammonites kill him was carefully calculated not to break the letter of the law.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore the sword will never depart from your house, because you have despised Me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife’- </p><p>The judgments for David's sin reflect on the nature of his sin in this "matter of Uriah". The dramas that would unfold in his family revolved around callous, conscience less murder, reckless passion and unbridled lust. Despite being a man after God's own heart, David had these elements strongly within him and gave way to them. The judgment was against David's house, the sword would not depart from it (:10). Again the point is being made that he had been wrong to focus upon his own house rather than trusting God's promise to make a great and eternal house from his later Messianic son, after his death and not before it. The promises to David included the prospect of being given rest from his enemies (2 Sam. 7:11). We note however that in 2 Sam. 10-12 we will read of David's war with Ammon. He didn't have rest from his enemies. Possibly David didn't go to the war because he wanted to try to self fulfil the promise about having rest from his enemies. As with the promise that immediately follows, that he would have an eternal house / family, this was to be realized after David's death, in the time of his Messianic Son. The war with Ammon would have been intended by God to nudge David to realize that the promises were not about here and now. But he tries hard to make them about him; and the curse on him for the sin with Bathsheba was that enemies would arise from his own house, and the rest of his life was lived in anything but "rest" from enemies. In the bigger picture, this was to remind him that the promises to him were most definitely not being fulfilled in this life. He was intended to focus instead upon the future rest of God's Kingdom, at a point when his Messianic Son was set up / resurrected along with himself.  </p><p> <a href='B:230 69:33'>Psa 69:33</a> had a historical basis in David appreciating that although he had despised God in his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah (s:w. <a href='B:100 12:10'>2Sa 12:10</a>), God by grace had not despised him: "Yahweh doesn’t despise His people". Just as the actual murder of Uriah involved the death of other soldiers, so the bloodshed within David’s family was going to be his fault.</p><p>It should be noted that the sin of adultery is not highlighted in Nathan's rebuke of David, but rather that David had "killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife". This is twice emphasized in 12:9,10. This is not to say that the sin of weakness, of the moment, was irrelevant in God’s sight. But the emphasis on how he had taken Bathsheba as his wife hints that this had been his long term intention, further suggesting that his sin with her was the end result of much prior meditation. This further illuminates the way in which David speaks of his sin with Bathsheba as if it comprised a whole multitude of other sins: "I acknowledged my sin (singular) unto thee... I said, I will confess my transgressions (plural)" (<a href='B:230 32:5'>Psa 32:5</a> cp. 38:3,4,18). <a href='B:230 25:7'>Psa 25:7</a> also occurs in a&nbsp; Bathsheba context: "Remember not the sins of my youth..."; as if facing up to his sin with Bathsheba made David face up to sins of years ago, possibly also in a sexual context. Indeed, David went so far down this road of self-examination that the sin with Bathsheba made him realize that it was probably associated with many others which he did not even realize: "Who can understand his own errors? cleanse (s:w. <a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a>,2 re. the Bathsheba affair) thou me from secret faults" (<a href='B:230 19:12'>Psa 19:12</a>). If our own self-examination and repentance is after the pattern of David’s, we will appreciate how that each of our sins is associated with so many others. We will be aware how that each spiritual event in our life makes us either weaker or stronger in facing the next one, how that each temptation is intertwined with others, so that in reality we do not commit (say) three or four sins per day. We are constantly failing and winning, and therefore we live in God’s mercy; we do not just experience it for the few seconds in which we pray to Him for forgiveness to be granted. David’s sin with Bathsheba is a process we each go through in one way or another.</p><p>Not believing in God and not believing in His word of the Gospel are paralleled in <a href='B:690 5:10'>1Jn 5:10</a>. God is His word. The word “is” God in that God is so identified with His word. David parallels trusting in God and trusting in His word (<a href='B:230 56:3-4'>Psa 56:3-4</a>). He learnt this, perhaps, through the experience of his sin with Bathsheba. For in that matter, David "despised the commandment (word) of the Lord... you despised me" (<a href='B:100 12:9-10'>2Sa 12:9-10</a>). David learnt that his attitude to God’s word was his attitude to God- for the word of God, in that sense, was and is God. By our words we personally will be condemned or justified- because we too ‘are’ our words.</p>


text:
<p>This is what Yahweh says: ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house- </p><p>David in the Psalms records how he hated those who 'rose up' against him, and that includes Absalom. Saul 'rose up' against David (s:w. <a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a>; <a href='B:90 26:2'>1Sa 26:2</a>), and&nbsp; then evil men 'rose up' against David out of his own family (<a href='B:100 12:11'>2Sa 12:11</a> s:w:), especially Absalom who rose up against his father (<a href='B:100 18:31-32'>2Sa 18:31-32</a> s:w:). But David has a tendency to assume that all who rose up against him were arising against God. It's not always so that our enemy is God’s enemy. Relationships and the hand of God in human affairs and relationships is more complex than that. And David in <a href='B:230 139:21-22'>Psa 139:21-22</a> goes further, to assume that his hatred of people is justified, because they must, he assumes, hate God because they are against him. So we have here yet more evidence that David's repentance and acceptance of his punishment was not of an abiding nature. Yet still God accepted him. Solomon seems to make the same mistake when he alludes to such 'risings up' in <a href='B:240 28:28'>Pro 28:28</a>. We must note that "all in Asia" turned away from Paul personally (<a href='B:620 1:15'>2Ti 1:15</a>), and yet according to the letters to the seven churches of Asia in Revelation 2, 3, there were many faithful individuals amongst them.</p><p>And I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour, and he will lie with your wives in the sight of this sun- </p><p>Uriah had been David’s neighbour. David’s neighbour Absalom was to sleep with his wives; perhaps at this time Absalom also had a house next to David’s. David was described as Saul's "neighbour"; Saul had abused his neighbour David, and now David was acting no better than Saul. He was only treated differently because his repentance was more genuine. "I will take away... and give... to your neighbour" is the language of how God had removed the kingdom from Saul and given it to David. However, it is David's harem which is to be taken from him. Quite possibly David had still not retained enough faith in the promises to him about his Messianic seed. Instead he was seeking to build up a large multitudinous "house" by having many wives; and quite possibly his taking of Bathsheba was partly motivated by that desire. In an attempt to refocus David upon the multitudinous seed being through Messiah, in the future and not now in David's lifetime, David's harem was taken away from him and apart from Solomon, his many children apparently came to nothing and the rest of the family were stained with shame by their actions. </p><p> In wrath, God remembers mercy. And we see that in His judgments upon David. They were mixed with so much grace- forgiving David rather than enforcing the death penalty; accepting David's marriage with Bathsheba, and blessing the marriage with Solomon; straight away giving victory against the Ammonites, when David 'deserved' to lose at that point. Even in the judgments through the rebellions of Absalom, Sheba etc., God remembered mercy- for He saved David out of those judgments. </p>


text:
<p>For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun’-</p><p>"Under the sun" is Solomon's favourite phrase in Ecclesiastes, as he describes what he considers as the fallen position of himself, his kingdom, and humanity generally. The only other Biblical usage of the phrase outside of Ecclesiastes is in <a href='B:100 12:12'>2Sa 12:12</a>, where the consequences of David’s sin with Solomon's mother were to be worked out openly and publically "under the sun". It could be that despite trying to whitewash David and his sin in Proverbs, Solomon at the end of his life feels he is for ever living with the consequence of that sin of his parents; and thus he blames everything he sees as wrong with his life upon that. This would be a typical thing for a man to do, in psychological terms. And I have noted throughout Proverbs how often Solomon is having a dig at Absalom and others who played their part in the outworking of the consequences of the sin:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>David appears desperate and foolish in trying to cover his sin by getting Uriah to sleep with Bathsheba and then getting Uriah killed, even requiring other men to be killed in order to make Uriah's death appear nothing specific. And yet the record stresses how many messengers were involved in the whole "thing". All attempts to cover sin will ultimately come to nothing in that the day of judgment will reveal all "the secrets of men" to all. David clearly has the belief that what he has done is secret when in fact it obviously isn't; and that is the mentality of all sinners. And that is exactly God's point in 2 Sam. 12:12 "For you did it [so David thought] secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel". </p><p> In Ps. 10, David had bitterly criticized the wicked who think they can sin 'secretly' and get away with it; "his eyes are secretly set... he says in his heart, God has forgotten. He hides His face. He will never see it" (Ps. 10:6,11). And yet knowing that theory, he himself acts like that. Rather like Jonah's awareness of Ps. 139, that he can never flee God's presence, even at the bottom of the ocean or at the end of the Gentile world. And yet Jonah tried to. We too, as all men, have this tendency to apprehend on an intellectual level, but divorce this knowledge from our felt reality. </p><p> As noted on 2 Sam. 11:27, what David was displeasing in Yahweh's eyes, and His judgments here make that clear. But He speaks of "My servant David... who followed Me with all his heart, to do only that which was right in My eyes" (1 Kings 14:8). This surely must mean that David lived "to" do what was right in God's eyes, towards that, despite all this massive maze of wrong thinking within him. Yahweh saw the essential direction of his heart, despite David's callous behaviour and sharp oscillations of emotion, angry with his sons and then soppily emotional over them...  </p>


text:
<p>David said to Nathan, I have sinned against Yahweh- </p><p>It is amazing how sudden David’s proper repentance seems to have come. There is no reason to be unduly afraid of a sudden, emotional confession of sin, prompted by a certain circumstance, as David’s was by Nathan's parable. Psalms 51 may well have been prayed but moments after Nathan finished his parable. And Psalms 32, describing the joy of David’s repentance, would have followed soon after. "Purge me... and I shall be clean... create in me a clean heart" (<a href='B:230 51:7'>Psa 51:7</a>; <a href='B:230 51:10'>Psa 51:10</a>) shows that David understood the 'me' which needed cleansing as being his own mind. This was clearly a result of the great level of self-examination which brought forth his real repentance. "Against thee, thee only have I sinned" (<a href='B:230 51:4'>Psa 51:4</a>) was a conclusion wrung out of so much reflection about what he had done; as is his recognition that his "sin" had involved many "transgressions" (<a href='B:230 51:3'>Psa 51:3</a>).</p><p>There are an interesting set of allusions to David’s sin with Bathsheba in Micah 7, almost leading us to wonder whether Micah too had a femme fatale in his life- whom he speaks of in <a href='B:400 7:10'>Mic 7:10</a> as “she that is mine enemy… shame shall cover her”. He says that “I have sinned against the Lord” (<a href='B:400 7:9'>Mic 7:9</a>), using the very same words as David does in <a href='B:100 12:13'>2Sa 12:13</a>; and he marvels how God ‘passes by’ transgression (<a href='B:400 7:18'>Mic 7:18</a>), using the very same Hebrew word as is found in <a href='B:100 12:13'>2Sa 12:13</a> to describe how God “put away” David’s sin. And there are many references throughout Micah 7 to David’s Psalms of penitence. Could it be that David’s sin and repentance served as a personal inspiration to Micah, as well as being held up as the inspiration to all God’s people to repent and experience the sure mercies which David did?</p><p>A New Testament allusion to David’s penitence may be found in <a href='B:540 7:7-11'>2Co 7:7-11</a>: "Ye were made sorry... ye sorrowed to repentance... ye were made sorry after a Godly manner (cp. "every one that is Godly...", <a href='B:230 32:6'>Psa 32:6</a>)... for Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation... ye sorrowed after a Godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation (cp. David’s in <a href='B:100 12:5'>2Sa 12:5</a>)... what zeal... your mourning, your fervent mind" . Allusion after allusion to David is being piled up here. The eight references to their "sorrow" in four verses is surely a signpost back to David’s intense sorrow for his sin with Bathsheba: "My sin is ever before me (<a href='B:230 51:3'>Psa 51:3</a>)…my sorrow is continually before me... I will be sorry for my sin…many sorrows shall be to the wicked" who, unlike David, refused to repent (<a href='B:230 38:17-18'>Psa 38:17-18</a>; <a href='B:230 32:10'>Psa 32:10</a>). This association between sin and sorrow is a common one (<a href='B:220 9:28'>Job 9:28</a>; <a href='B:610 6:10'>1Ti 6:10</a>; <a href='B:20 4:31'>Exo 4:31</a>; <a href='B:290 35:10'>Isa 35:10</a>. The last two references show how Israel's sorrowing in Egypt was on account of their sinfulness). We must pause to ask whether our consciousness of sin leads us to a like sorrowing, whether our repentance features a similar depth of remorse.</p><p>It would appear that Paul is likening Corinth to David. They too were guilty of sexual "uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness" (<a href='B:540 12:21'>2Co 12:21</a>). We have seen that in the same way as David’s repentance was made in a "day of salvation", so in <a href='B:540 6:2'>2Co 6:2</a> Paul told Corinth that they were in a similar position to him; they too had the chance of repentance. Those who had heeded this call earlier had experienced the zeal and clear conscience which David did on his repentance (<a href='B:540 7:9-11'>2Co 7:9-11</a>). In this case, Paul would be likening himself to Nathan the prophet. This zeal which was seen in both David and Corinth is a sure sign of clear conscience and a joyful openness with God. Again, we ask how much of our zeal is motivated by this, or is it just a continuation of a level of service which we set ourselves in more spiritual days, which we now struggle to maintain for appearances sake?</p><p>The account of Joseph's resistance of adultery is consciously reflected in the account of king David's adultery. And we see this in life- for all life is ultimately structured by God. It's not just that one life reflects another, with similarities and so forth. But one life may be an inverse of another's life, a reflection which is inverse. Because the lessons of history were not learnt. Only by fellowship with each other, engaging with each others' paths rather than mere surface level connection, can we come to discern this. So both Joseph and David are presented as young shepherd boys ["shepherding the flock" of their father is a phrase which occurs only in Gen. 37:2 and 1 Sam. 16:11; 17:34]. They were both sent by their father to enquire of the shalom / "peace" of their brothers, and they were both despised by their brothers when they arrived to do so.  In both cases, the brothers / Saul didn't want their hand to be upon Joseph / David but tried to make others destroy their victim (Gen. 37:27; 1 Sam. 18:17). They both are "prudent" and chosen to serve a king because of it (Gen. 41:33,39 s.w. 1 Sam. 16:18). It was noted about both of them that Yahweh was with them (Gen. 39:2,3,21-23 cp. 1 Sam. 16:18; 18:12) and they were "wise and discerning" (Gen. 41:33; 1 Sam. 16:18). Both are described as being young men of "beautiful appearance" (s.w. only Gen. 39:6; 1 Sam. 17:42). Both began their ruling at 30 years of age. Both were victims of others deciding it were better to kill them by others' hands (the Ishmaelites, Gen. 37:27, and the Philistines in David's case, 1 Sam. 18:17).  </p><p> So this sets us up to consider the differences between Joseph and David when it comes to the adultery issue. Just as men may lead parallel lives, so close that clearly the hand of God was in the parallels- but then one fails to decide correctly when faced by temptation, and fails to take the lead from the earlier, or perhaps Biblical, character. But only by getting to know each other, or thinking ourselves into the Biblical characters, can we perceive this. Someone older than you maybe had a very similar life path, but, let's say, at age 40 encountered major temptation- which they overcame. You as the younger person are to learn from that and decide rightly as they did. Or, if they failed at that point, you are to learn that lesson. </p><p> So with David and Bathsheba and Joseph and Potiphar's wife, there was an imbalance of power. She like David could just demand sex. In both cases they were "alone in the house". Bathsheba was very beautiful, just as Joseph is described. Ms. Potiphar asked Joseph to lie with her, just as David asked Bathsheba. Uriah and Joseph are both presented as very faithful to "my lord". Potiphar's wife has Joseph thrown into prison; David has Uriah sent to his death. Likewise Bathsheba's "I am pregnant... by you, David" matches the message of Tamar to Judah- another reflection of a story. Joseph was given his lord's house to rule over, just as David was given his lord Saul's house ("I have given you the house of your lord", 2 Sam. 12:8).  But David saw eventually the similarities with Joseph when he finally admits "I have sinned against the Lord" (2 Sam. 12:13), whereas Joseph refuses to sin against God (Gen. 39:9). And so David is presented as Potiphar's wife. God gave Joseph everything except Potiphar's wife; God gave David everything likewise. The language is so similar. Uriah's "I will not do this thing" (2 Sam. 11:11) is Joseph's "How can I do this thing..." (Gen. 39:9).  </p><p> Nathan said to David, Yahweh also has put away your sin. You will not die- </p><p>The Spirit changes <a href='B:230 32:1'>Psa 32:1</a> ("Blessed is he&nbsp;whose transgression is forgiven") to "Blessed are they" (<a href='B:520 4:7'>Rom 4:7</a>) to make the same point. "Blessed is the man (e.g. David, or any sinner- David is our example) unto whom the Lord imputes not iniquity" (<a href='B:230 32:2'>Psa 32:2</a>) is alluded to in <a href='B:540 5:19'>2Co 5:19</a>: "God was in Christ... not imputing (the world's) trespasses unto them". Through being justified, any repentant sinner will then have the characteristics of Christ, in God’s sight. In Christ there was no guile (<a href='B:670 2:22'>1Pe 2:22</a>), as there was not in David (or any other believer) after the justification of forgiveness (<a href='B:230 32:2'>Psa 32:2</a>). "Blessed is the man... in whose spirit is no guile" (<a href='B:230 32:2'>Psa 32:2</a>) is picked up in <a href='B:730 14:5'>Rev 14:5</a>: "In their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God". The picture of forgiven David in Psalms 32 is what we will each be like after acceptance "before the throne of God". Yet David’s experience can also be ours here and now; in those moments of true contrition, we surely are experiencing salvation in prospect.</p>&nbsp;<p>There is another connection with Romans in <a href='B:230 51:4'>Psa 51:4</a>, where David recognizes "Against thee…have I sinned…that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest". He recognized that God works through our sinfulness- he is effectively saying 'I sinned so that You might be justified…'. These words are quoted in <a href='B:520 3:4-5'>Rom 3:4-5</a> in the context of Paul's exultation that "our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God" - in just the same way as David’s did! Because God displays His righteousness every time He justifies a repentant sinner, He is in a sense making Himself yet more righteous. We must see things from God’s perspective, from the standpoint of giving glory to God’s righteous attributes. If we do this, then we can see through the ugliness of sin, and come to terms with our transgressions the more effectively. And Paul quotes David’s sin with Bathsheba as our supreme example in this. We along with all the righteous ought to “shout for joy” that David really was forgiven (<a href='B:230 32:11'>Psa 32:11</a>)- for there is such hope for us now. David is our example. And yet the intensity of David’s repentance must be ours. He hung his head as one in whose mouth there were no more arguments, hoping only in the Lord’s grace (<a href='B:230 38:14'>Psa 38:14</a> RVmg:). Notice too how <a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a> “Have mercy on me, O God…” is quoted by the publican in <a href='B:490 18:13'>Luk 18:13</a>. He felt that David’s prayer and situation was to be his. And he is held up as the example for each of us.</p><p> The account of Joseph's resistance of adultery is consciously reflected in the account of king David's adultery. And we see this in life- for all life is ultimately structured by God. It's not just that one life reflects another, with similarities and so forth. But one life may be an inverse of another's life, a reflection which is inverse. Because the lessons of history were not learnt. Only by fellowship with each other, engaging with each others' paths rather than mere surface level connection, can we come to discern this. So both Joseph and David are presented as young shepherd boys ["shepherding the flock" of their father is a phrase which occurs only in Gen. 37:2 and 1 Sam. 16:11; 17:34]. They were both sent by their father to enquire of the shalom / "peace" of their brothers, and they were both despised by their brothers when they arrived to do so.  They both are "prudent" and chosen to serve a king because of it (Gen. 41:33,39 s.w. 1 Sam. 16:18). It was noted about both of them that Yahweh was with them (Gen. 39:2,3,21-23 cp. 1 Sam. 16:18; 18:12). Both are described as being young men of "beautiful appearance" (s.w. only Gen. 39:6; 1 Sam. 17:42). Both began their ruling at 30 years of age. Both were victims of others deciding it were better to kill them by others' hands (the Ishmaelites, Gen. 37:27, and the Philistines in David's case, 1 Sam. 18:17).</p> <p> So this sets us up to consider the differences between Joseph and David when it comes to the adultery issue. Just as men may lead parallel lives, so close that clearly the hand of God was in the parallels- but then one fails to decide correctly when faced by temptation, and fails to take the lead from the earlier, or perhaps Biblical, character. But only by getting to know each other, or thinking ourselves into the Biblical characters, can we perceive this. Someone older than you maybe had a very similar life path, but, let's say, at age 40 encountered major temptation- which they overcame. You as the younger person are to learn from that and decide rightly as they did. Or, if they failed at that point, you are to learn that lesson.</p> <p> So with David and Bathsheba and Joseph and Potiphar's wife, there was an imbalance of power. She like David could just demand sex. In both cases they were "alone in the house". Bathsheba was very beautiful, just as Joseph is described. Ms. Potiphar asked Joseph to lie with her, just as David asked Bathsheba. Uriah and Joseph are both presented as very faithful to "my lord". Potiphar's wife has Joseph thrown into prison; David has Uriah sent to his death. Likewise Bathsheba's "I am pregnant... by you, David" matches the message of Tamar to Judah- another reflection of a story. Joseph was given his lord's house to rule over, just as David was given his lord Saul's house ("I have given you the house of your lord", 2 Sam. 12:8).  But David saw eventually the similarities with Joseph when he finally admits "I have sinned against the Lord" (2 Sam. 12:13), whereas Joseph refuses to sin against God (Gen. 39:9). And so David is presented as Potiphar's wife. God gave Joseph everything except Potiphar's wife; God gave David everything likewise. The language is so similar. Uriah's "I will not do this thing" (2 Sam. 11:11) is Joseph's "How can I do this thing..." (Gen. 39:9).</p> 


text:
<p>However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to Yahweh’s enemies to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die-</p><p>We may enquire how the death of a newborn baby would stop people blaspheming. Perhaps the idea is that somehow David was punished with the death penalty, through his representative son dying. There should therefore be no complaint about God’s justice. But this seems to me to raise a host of other ethical issues. The child did indeed die because of David’s sin; one dimension of sin is the effect it has upon others. It could be argued that this extra punishment was because David’s sin had caused others to blaspheme. Yahweh's "enemies" were the Gentiles within the land (s:w. <a href='B:40 14:42'>Num 14:42</a>; <a href='B:40 32:21'>Num 32:21</a>; <a href='B:50 1:42'>Deu 1:42</a>; <a href='B:50 12:10'>Deu 12:10</a> and often). They would learn what had happened and mock Yahweh for having such a king over His people. But David’s wife Abigail had referred to Saul and his supporters as Yahweh's enemies (<a href='B:90 25:26'>1Sa 25:26</a>; <a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a>). Perhaps the idea is that the remnants of the house of Saul, who were still against David, would blaspheme Yahweh's choice of David over Saul now that Saul had behaved in the same way as Saul in abusing his "neighbour". We learn from this that whatever causes others to stumble from Yahweh is particularly abhorrent to Him.</p><p> The moral question naturally occurs: Why should a child die because of a man's sin? Shouldn't the sinner be the one who dies? And so we start to wonder whether in some way David's death penalty was commuted to his son. In this case, the child dies as some kind of sacrificial atonement for David's sin. This is perhaps hinted at in the Hebrew of :13 "Yahweh also has put away your sin". The Hebrew for "put away" can mean to transfer, to commute. Onto the child, as the guilt offering after the pattern of the Lord, also an innocent child. Perhaps this is why David doesn't mourn the death of the child at all, and he is noted for this. His lack of mourning may suggest he is selfishly relieved that the child has died in his place and therefore he will not have to die as judgment for his sin. David eats right after the child dies, whereas mourning involved specifically not eating [we think of the record of Jacob's mourning for Joseph]. This lack of mourning is in sharp contrast to how David strongly mourns for Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17-27), Abner (3:31-39), Amnon (13:31-36), and Absalom (19:1-5). Instead he appears at peace and all back to normal and has sex with Bathsheba again. Verse 20 states he went to his house, ate and drank and lay with his wife Bathsheba. This is an exact echo of what Uriah had said to David- "shall I then come to my house, to eat and to drink and to lie with my wife?" (1 Sam. 11:11). It's as if the moment the child dies, David feels somehow that Bathsheba is now totally and freely his wife. That behaviour may reflect his belief that the child's death had somehow dealt with his sin. And in this we are led to the cross; for God's totally innocent son died for our sins. And according to Paul's connections in Romans, we have all in essence done what David did. </p>


text:
<p>Nathan departed to his house. Yahweh struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it was very sick- </p><p>We notice the contrast with :15 “the Lord smote the child which Uriah’s wife bore to David”. Now Bathsheba is called David's wife and instead of smiting their child which she "bore", God has a special love for him. Again David lays with Bathsheba as he did the fateful evening on the roof. We see here God's acceptance of second marriage, even if that position was arrived at by very wrong behaviours in the past. And how the story now progresses, expressed in these terms here in :24, rather sinks the idea that this had just been a passing 'power rape' of Bathsheba by David. The victims of rape usually disappear from the rapist's life afterwards, but Bathsheba becomes his favourite wife and her son is David's favourite and chosen to continue the kingly line. Indeed both the Lord's genealogies trace Him back through sons of Bathsheba, Solomon and Nathan. We would probably have traced the Lord's line through a son of David and Abigail, whom he married after rightly waiting for her husband's death. But God goes out of His way to bless David and Bathsheba's marriage; to demonstrate that His forgiveness really does put sin behind us, and His 'play on' really does mean that. </p><p> We wonder why there was a period of sickness before the child died. It was perhaps for David’s benefit, to elicit his repentance, to help him see the extent of the damage he had caused. Or perhaps as noted on :16, this was the gap in which David could pray for a change of the judgment pronounced. But in this case, we have to assume that David’s fasting and prayer was not intense enough.</p>


text:
<p>David therefore begged God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night on the earth- </p><p>God had clearly stated that the child would die (:15). But David understood that there is a gap between God’s statements of judgment, and His fulfilment of them. And in that gap, in which we also stand, there is a window of opportunity for repentance and changing God’s intended judgment. Nineveh's judgment was changed because of this as Moses had changed God’s judgments pronounced upon Israel. David knew God well enough to believe that such a change was possible. The fact it wasn't could perhaps be because his prayer and repentance wasn't to the extent God required for this abrogation of judgment to happen.</p><p>We can note that David's many prayers were all answered, both in the Psalms and in the historical record. We think of his prayers about Saul and his enemies, for mercy on the people during the plague, his prayers about Ahithophel (2 Sam. 15:31; 17:7-14) etc. This is the only one of his many prayers that wasn't answered. This was perhaps as a foil against any impression he may have thereby gotten that God would answer literally any of his prayers. God is not about 'name it and claim it', on a kind of automatic level. For prayer is not some magical incantation, it is about relationship, and every answer from God to man is a statement of His grace. And so even within David's highly positive experience of answered prayer, there had to be this unanswered one.  </p><p> David had been told the child must die as a result of his sin. But he had repented and he believed God's forgiveness- and that trust in this amazing Divine pardon led him to think that possibly even the consequence of his sin could be removed. So we can understand David's prayer as reflective of the depth of his repentance and belief in his forgiveness. However it could also reflect a refusal to accept the consequence for his sins because in fact his repentance wasn't that deep- and his later words [not least his later Psalms protesting his innocence] and actions do at times suggest that at best, the intensity of his repentance didn't last long. The death of the child, and David's desperate desire it not die and his seven days of intercession, were a corrective to his attitude towards Uriah and the men of Israel whom he had caused to die: "the sword devours one just like another" (1 Sam. 11:25). That may be one explanation as to why the child was sick for seven days and didn't die immediately. He didn't want that one human life to just be taken... and it would have made him reflect upon his attitude to the death of Uriah.</p>


text:
<p>The elders of his house arose beside him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them- </p><p>The scene recalls that of Saul, likewise laying prostrate upon the earth the fateful night before his Divine judgment, refusing to eat when encouraged to do so by his servants. David in essence was no better than Saul. But fortunately he had shown Saul the utmost grace, and God showed the same now to David.</p>


text:
<p>It happened on the seventh day, that the child died. The servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead; for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spoke to him, and he didn’t listen to our voice. How will he then harm himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?- </p><p> The servants fear that David will as it were shoot the messenger if they tell him bad news. Joab and the messenger who reported Uriah's death were likewise aware that David tended to do this. So the presentation of David's character is consistent. David was characterized by fits of anger and knee jerk reactions of anger, as we see again in his outburst at the story David told him. And yet despite this, he was the man after God's own heart who alone was given the assurance of future salvation whilst still in mid life [2 Sam. 7]. </p><p> David’s depression may even have extended to suicidal tendencies. His servants, who knew him well, feared he would take his own life if Bathsheba's baby died: "How will he then do hurt to himself…?" (<a href='B:100 12:18'>2Sa 12:18</a>; the same word is used in <a href='B:40 20:15'>Num 20:15</a> concerning Egypt's 'hurting' of Israel). One gets a sense that David had another such fit of self-hate in his reaction to the news that many in Israel would have to die because of his numbering of the people (even though their punishment was just, seeing they had refused to pay the census money required by the Law). It is quite possible that the Lord knew these tendencies well; was He not tempted to throw himself off the pinnacle of the temple, to take the Kingdom immediately, in other words to short cut through this life? Indeed, any man driven to the mental lengths of David and Jesus has known these feelings.</p>


text:
<p>But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David perceived that the child was dead; and David said to his servants, Is the child dead? They said, He is dead- </p><p>These were perhaps the same servants with whom Uriah would have slept and hung out, and perhaps had carried the many messengers associated with the sin. They would have indeed realized that the wages of sin is death, and David’s awful sin now led to another death.</p>


text:
<p>Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his clothing; and he came into the house of Yahweh, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he ate- </p><p>See on :13. This may be the reference of <a href='B:230 30:11'>Psa 30:11</a>, a Psalm with clear reference to the Bathsheba incident: "You have turned my mourning into dancing for me. You have removed my sackcloth, and clothed me with gladness". David removed his sackcloth when his child died (<a href='B:100 12:20-22'>2Sa 12:20-22</a>). It was perhaps at this point that he realized that he had been truly forgiven; hence the strange and much observed paradox of David’s relative rejoicing at a time when he was supposed to be mourning for his child's death.</p>


text:
<p>Then his servants said to him, What is this that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while he was alive; but when the child was dead, you rose up and ate bread-</p><p>David intentionally doesn't go through the traditional customs associated with mourning for the dead. The traditional mourning period for the dead was seven days; but the child had been sick for seven days before dying. It's as if the striking of the child was now seen by David as the death of the child. This strange change could be attributable simply to David’s mood swings. But I suggested on :20 another reason.</p>


text:
<p>He said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows whether Yahweh will not be gracious to me, that the child may live?’-</p><p>David is explaining that his fasting and weeping during the sickness of the child was for God to change His judgments decreed. It was not the weeping of sorrow.</p><p> David entertains the possibility that Yahweh will be gracious or pitiful to him. He has just accepted that he is the man who showed no grace / pity (:6). But he asks God to show grace to him the ungracious. On one hand he thereby showed his grasp of God's grace and his ambition to trust in it. On the other, this could reflect his assumption that God's words of judgment could relatively easily be negated; the word of the Lord could again be despised.  </p>


text:
<p>But now he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me-</p><p>David would go to the child in that he too would die. But he had no hope for the child's resurrection. There may even be a hint of anger with God here. David had not succeeded in changing God’s stated purpose. He knew that God could bring to the grave and bring up again, as Hannah's song had said. But God had not and apparently would not do this; and "I", David, could not save a child from death nor resurrect it. Only God could, and He chose not to. We note the contrast between David's serenity over the loss of his son here, and his uncontrollable emotion later when Absalom dies. We could well conclude that this reflects a downward movement for David spiritually.</p>


text:
<p>David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in to her, and lay with her. She bore a son, and he called his name Solomon. Yahweh loved him- </p><p>Solomon being the one Yahweh loved led him to abuse that love, because he alludes to this in <a href='B:240 3:12'>Pro 3:12</a>; <a href='B:240 15:9'>Pro 15:9</a>. As noted there, he assumes that he is therefore righteous and God’s supreme delight, because Yahweh loved him. But he failed to perceive that God’s love is by grace, and not a reward for our righteousness.</p><p>That David’s sin is indeed an epitome of all our sins is proved by the way in which the record of it is framed in the language of the fall. Adam is presented as David. <a href='B:10 2:8'>Gen 2:8</a>; <a href='B:10 2:17'>Gen 2:17</a> = <a href='B:100 12:5'>2Sa 12:5</a>; <a href='B:10 2:17'>Gen 2:17</a> = <a href='B:100 12:9'>2Sa 12:9</a>; <a href='B:10 6:2'>Gen 6:2</a> = <a href='B:100 12:9'>2Sa 12:9</a>; <a href='B:10 3:17'>Gen 3:17</a> = <a href='B:100 12:10'>2Sa 12:10</a>; <a href='B:10 3:7'>Gen 3:7</a> = <a href='B:100 12:11'>2Sa 12:11</a>; <a href='B:10 3:8'>Gen 3:8</a> = <a href='B:100 11:24'>2Sa 11:24</a>; <a href='B:100 12:12'>2Sa 12:12</a>; <a href='B:10 3:21'>Gen 3:21</a> = <a href='B:100 12:13'>2Sa 12:13</a>; <a href='B:10 3:17'>Gen 3:17</a> = <a href='B:100 16:11'>2Sa 16:11</a>; <a href='B:10 3:19'>Gen 3:19</a> = <a href='B:100 16:13'>2Sa 16:13</a>. It should also be noted that David/Bathsheba language is used to describe Israel's spiritually fallen state (e.g. <a href='B:230 38:7'>Psa 38:7</a>=<a href='B:290 1:6'>Isa 1:6</a>; <a href='B:230 51:7'>Psa 51:7</a>=<a href='B:290 1:18'>Isa 1:18</a>; <a href='B:230 65:2'>Psa 65:2</a>=<a href='B:290 40:15'>Isa 40:15</a>). David recognized this in <a href='B:230 51:17'>Psa 51:17</a>, where he likens his own state to that of Zion, which also needed to be revived by God’s mercy. As David’s sin is likened to the killing of a lamb (<a href='B:100 12:4'>2Sa 12:4</a>), so the Jews killed Jesus. The troubles which therefore came upon his kingdom have certain similarities with the events of AD67-70:&nbsp;They were also repeated in the Nazi Holocaust, and will yet be. Israel are yet to fully repent after the pattern of David.</p>


text:
<p>and He sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet; and he named him Jedidiah, for Yahweh’s sake-</p><p>The words of <a href='B:230 110:1'>Psa 110:1</a> are applied by the NT to Jesus, but there is no reason to think that they were not primarily spoke by David with his eye on Solomon, whom he addresses as his Lord, such was his obsession: “The Lord saith unto my Lord…” (RV), and the rest of the Psalm goes on in the language of Psalms 72 to describe David’s hopes for Solomon’s Kingdom. ‘Solomon’ was actually called ‘Jedidiah’ by God through Nathan (<a href='B:100 12:25'>2Sa 12:25</a>). The ‘beloved of God’ was surely prophetic of God’s beloved Son. When God said “This is my beloved Son”, He was surely saying ‘Now THIS is the Jedidiah, whom I wanted Solomon to typify’. But David calls him Solomon, the man who would bring peace. I suggest that David was so eager to see in Solomon the actual Messiah, that he chose not to use the name which God wanted- which made Solomon a type of a future Son of God / Messiah. And this led to Solomon himself being obsessed with being a Messiah figure and losing sight of the future Messiah.</p><p><p>Jedidiah is a form of the word David, the David or beloved of Yah. We wonder why David gave Solomon another name. Perhaps he was shy of this amazing grace to him, letting him play on, and then this statement that his son would be named 'Yah loves David'. It was an amazing reassurance of Divine love.</p>


text:
<p>Now Joab fought against Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city- </p><p>How the citadel fell is explained in :27. I suggest that 2 Samuel is thematic rather than chronological. This really picks up from 2 Samuel 10, where Syrian support for Rabbah had been cut off, and Rabbah was besieged by Joab. It is unlikely that the siege could have been maintained for a year or so. I suggest therefore that what we read of here happened some time after the sin with Bathsheba, and before David’s repentance. The harsh treatment of the captives and proud taking of the crown David hadn't fought for... is all the kind of behaviour to be associated with a man in bad conscience before God.</p><p>This may be alluded to in <a href='B:240 16:32'>Pro 16:32</a>: "One who is slow to anger is better than the mighty; one who rules his spirit, than he who takes a city". This may refer to the hot headed anger of Joab and the "sons of Zeruiah", who had opposed Solomon and sought the throne for themselves towards the end of David’s life. It was Joab who had taken the citadel of Zion and also the city of Rabbah, but this is dismissed by Solomon as cancelled out, as it were, by his hot headed lack of mental self control.</p>


text:
<p>Joab sent messengers to David and said, I have fought against Rabbah. Yes, I have taken the city of waters- </p><p>We see here Joab's strong loyalty to David. "The city of waters" was the settlement on the Jabbok which provided water for the citadel of Rabbah. Once that was taken, it was only a matter of time before Rabbah had to fall, without water. And Joab wanted David to be there to have the glory of entering Rabbah.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore gather the rest of the people together, and encamp against the city and take it; lest I take the city, and it be called after my name- </p><p>Whatever carried the name of a person was seen as his property. If a city was conquered, it bore the name of the conqueror (<a href='B:100 12:28'>2Sa 12:28</a>)  and this is common today, we think of Constantinople, Pavlograd, Petrograd, Peterburg. The names of owners were on their property (<a href='B:230 49:12'>Psa 49:12</a>); and in this context, God’s Name is over His people (<a href='B:50 28:10'>Deu 28:10</a>). So to bear God’s Name is to recognize His complete ownership and even conquest of us. And yet there's a significant twist to all this in <a href='B:290 43:1'>Isa 43:1</a>: "I have called you by your name, because you are mine". It seems like a slip- we expect God to say that He has called us by His Name, because we are His. But no- He wishes us to bear both His Name and our own name, He doesn't wish to subsume us beneath His ownership and manifestation to the point that we are not significant as persons.</p>


text:
<p>David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it and took it- </p><p>Soon after the sin with Bathsheba, but before&nbsp; David’s repentance (see on :26), David went to join Joab in the battle for Rabbah- perhaps to give an impression of zeal to Bathsheba and the rest of his people. 'If brave Uriah died there, why, I'm not afraid to be with the boys on the front line either'. After the victory, David proudly placed the crown of Rabbah's king on his own head, pillaging the spoil of the city rather than burning it, and then&nbsp; cruelly tortured the Ammonites; "he (David personally) brought out the people... and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes" (<a href='B:140 20:2-3'>2Ch 20:2-3</a>). How true it is that one sin leads to another. David’s own bad conscience with God led him into this fit of bitterness, in which he so needlessly tortured people who at the most only warranted a quick death. One is left to imagine him making a great deal of how he was doing this in vengeance for the death of Uriah. Whenever we detect unreasonable behaviour, pride, materialism or bitterness within our own lives, we need to ask to what degree this is related to our own lack of good conscience with God.</p>


text:
<p>He took the crown of their king from off his head; and its weight was a talent of gold, and in it were precious stones; and it was set on David’s head. He brought out the spoil of the city, exceeding much- </p><p>"Their king" is literally "Milcom", the name of their god. Later God's people worshipped this god (Zeph. 1:5; Jer. 49:1); again we see that David set up subsequent generations for failure by doing this. The extent of David’s fall at this time may be indicated by the way he crowns himself in <a href='B:100 12:30'>2Sa 12:30</a> with the 70 pound gold crown of the Ammonite state god Milcom. Whilst retaining his allegiance to Yahweh, this personal association with a pagan god seems inappropriate. See on :26.</p><p>As explained on <a href='B:230 20:1'>Psa 20:1</a>; <a href='B:230 21:1'>Psa 21:1</a>, Psalms 20, 21 appear to be David’s prayers before going into battle against Ammon, and Psalms 21 is his thanksgiving for the victory. The setting of the gold crown upon his head is specifically referenced in <a href='B:230 21:3'>Psa 21:3</a>. This however was straight after his sin with Bathsheba. So David’s joy in God’s salvation expressed in those Psalms was due to his sense that God had given him this victory by grace when he himself was a sinner. His thanks for giving him eternal life when he put the crown upon him (<a href='B:230 21:4'>Psa 21:4</a>) was therefore in the sense that he believed that despite his sin, he would be eternally saved, and he saw the victory against Ammon as a foretaste of that.</p>


text:
<p>He brought out the people who were therein, and put them under saws, and under iron picks, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick kiln: and he did so to all the cities of the children of Ammon. David and all the people returned to Jerusalem- </p><p>See on :26. This harsh torture and judgment of others is of the same nature as his harsh judgment of the person in Nabal's parable, demanding the death sentence for a man whom the law of Moses didn’t punish with death for what he did. This is a classic case of transference. David is subconsciously transferring his sin and guilt onto others, and then punishing them heavily. This kind of psychological credibility of the narrative encourages us in our faith that it is indeed the inspired word of God. His behaviour to the Ammonites suggests to me that his much praised repentance was either not very deep, or if it was, it didn't last long.</p>&nbsp;<p>It’s one thing to obey Divine commands about slaying enemies; it’s another to willfully torture them, Auschwitz-style. It was the same cruelty he showed in <a href='B:100 8:2'>2Sa 8:2</a>. These incidents reveal David at his worst. And again- did he really have to ensure that every male in Edom was murdered (<a href='B:110 11:15-16'>1Ki 11:15-16</a>)- was that really necessary? What about the mums, wives, sisters left weeping, and the fatherless daughters, left to grow up in the dysfunction of a leaderless Middle Eastern home? Those men were all somebody’s sons, brothers, fathers, grandfathers. Was David really obeying some Divine command here, or was this the dictate of his own anger and dysfunctional bloodlust? We get the impression this was another example of his wrong attitude to the shedding of blood (<a href='B:130 22:8'>1Ch 22:8</a>).</p><p>Making them pass through fire in a brick kiln was alluding to how the Ammonites made their children do this to their god Milcom or Moloch; “making their children pass through the fire” in honour of Moloch (2 Kings 23:10). And yet David has just crowned himself with the crown of Milcom. The Ammonites were known for their cruelty (1 Sam. 11:2; Am. 1:13). David was paying them back, like for like.  There is no grace here at all. Again we sense he was not very deeply repentant, or if he was, not for very long. And yet God accepted his repentant heart and appears to contrast it with Saul's impenitent heart when he committed in essence the same sins as David, despising God's word etc. </p><p>
The record concludes with David returning victorious to Jerusalem. The war with Ammon forms an inclusio around the story of his sin with Bathsheba. We would fully expect that the war ends in defeat and humiliation for David. But it ends in victory and glory. Military victory was a sign of covenant relationship with God; and rest from enemies was one of the promises to David in 2 Sam. 7:11. So this victory, totally undeserved as it was, made the point that David remained in covenant relationship with God. He had been restored. </p>


text:
<p>It happened after this, that Absalom the son of David had a beautiful sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her-</p><p>"After this..." opens the tragic story of the consequences for David's sins. Had he resigned as king and just focused upon his family, living in awe of the promises made in 2 Sam. 7, much of the tragic suffering in his family would likely not have happened. All the scenes of failure that we will now read have various connections back to the "this" referenced here- the sins of David. Tamar was about fifteen, Amnon twenty-two , David about fifty three and Absalom was twenty.</p><p> The romantic love between the two would not have happened if David had had one wife. There would have been no half sister to fall in love with.</p>


text:
<p>Amnon was so troubled that he fell sick because of his sister Tamar; for she was a virgin; and it seemed hard to Amnon to do anything to her- </p><p>The obsessive love of Amnon for Tamar may have similarities with David’s for Bathsheba.</p>


text:
<p>But Amnon had a friend, whose name was Jonadab, the son of Shimeah, David’s brother; and Jonadab was a very subtle man-</p><p>Truly evil arose for David from his own house, for Jonadab was his nephew. "Subtle" suggests he was going to act like the serpent in Eden, suggesting temptation on the basis of appealing to the human sense of entitlement, regardless of what moral boundaries were crossed.</p>


text:
<p>He said to him, Why, son of the king, are you so sad from day to day? Won’t you tell me? Amnon said to him, I love Tamar, my brother Absalom’s sister- </p><p>David’s brothers had originally not been that supportive of him, as we recall from their attitude when David arrived to fight Goliath. They would never have quite gotten over Samuel's visit to the family when one by one, they were all rejected and David was chosen as the man after God’s own heart, which they were not. And now David had morally disgraced himself. Shimeah had likely passed on his feelings about David to his son Jonadab. This is how jealousy complexes pass on through the generations, with an associated desire to bring down a man to ones' own level. Jonadab likely at this stage realized the reason for Amnon's depression. Amnon was the firstborn and the logical successor to the throne; as firstborn son of the king, he ought to be able to have anything he wanted, according to Jonadab. And that included crossing any moral boundaries. We see Amnon's sin as a result of a chronic sense of entitlement to anything, whatever moral boundaries that might involve crossing. And this problem of sense of entitlement because of position... remains a problem for many.</p><p>"Son of the king" not only suggests that a king and his family are entitled to anything [the parallel is clear with Naboth's vineyard being taken by Ahab at Jezebel's encouragement, again featuring a sulking royal getting up from his bed of depression and taking what was forbidden]. Jonadab surely guessed or knew Amnon's desire. His idea was that seeing the king had expressed unbridled sexual desire and gotten away with it, why shouldn't his son? We know David's brothers were estranged from him, so Jonadab as a son of David's brother was perhaps doing this to get at David and depose him from being king. Had David resigned from being king, the Jonadab factor may never have been. He could have focused upon his music ministry, upon teaching Israel not to sin as he did, and focused his 'kingship' hopes on his future Messianic son, rather than focusing upon himself and his immediate descendants as king.</p>


text:
<p>Jonadab said to him, Lie down on your bed, and pretend to be sick. When your father comes to see you, tell him, ‘Please let my sister Tamar come and give me bread to eat, and dress the food in my sight, that I may see it, and eat it from her hand’- </p><p>Jonadab really was the "subtle" (:3) serpent, suggesting the sin in an indirect way without stating it, and operating on the subliminal level. And this is the essence of all our temptations. What goes on in our heart is played before us in external terms in this story. As with the serpent, the temptation and sin functions through eating. The many temptations and falls into sin which the Bible records are really the essential pattern of every man's sin. It all begins with the subliminal images and unarticulated suggestions. See on :20. This theme of subliminal suggestion is continued in <a href='B:100 14:1'>2Sa 14:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>So Amnon lay down and faked being sick. When the king came to see him- </p><p>This corroborates with how David visited and prayed for Saul and his family when they were sick (s:w. <a href='B:230 35:13'>Psa 35:13</a>). The Biblical records pain absolutely imaginable and credible character portraits. The uninspired writings are typically unrealistic and inconsistent in their presentations of characters.</p><p>Amnon said to the king, Please let my sister Tamar come, and make me a couple of cakes in my sight, that I may eat from her hand- </p><p>Tamara was under the immediate control of her elder brother Absalom. But David as the father and king overrode that. The language of baking cakes and eating from her hand repeats in :5,6,10 to create the impression that Amnon did exactly according to Jonadab's suggestion.</p><p>"The cakes" are so stressed in the narrative. The same word translated 'make cakes' is rendered 'to ravish the heart', also in the context of a sister: "You have ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse" (Song 4:9). The "cakes" may have been understood as a kind of aphrodisiac, or at least, sexually suggestive. Literally, "heart cakes". The 'love heart' was not then in vogue, but a woman's breasts are above her heart and so there is an erotic undertone here. The connection is not explicit, but probably the implicit nature of the connection would not have been lost upon Tamar. David likewise surely wondered at these "heart cakes" and yet as with letting Amnon go to Absalom's feast despite misgivings, he allows Amnon to ask Tamar to bring these 'heart cakes' to him in bed. </p><p> Amnon uses food in order to rape Tamar (2 Sam. 13:6); Absalom uses food at a feast in order to kill Amnon (2 Sam. 13:28). This was all a reflection of how David gave Uriah food and wine in his deception of Uriah.</p>


text:
<p>Then David sent home to Tamar saying, Go now to your brother Amnon’s house, and prepare food for him-</p><p>David comes over as involved in the tragedy and would have later felt guilty for letting the plan go ahead; it was all as judgment for his sin of obsessive "love" for Bathsheba. David ought to have perceived that Amnon was wrongly attracted to Tamar. But he gives Amnon the permission to go to her house; even though the 'making of cakes' had hints at eroticism (see on :6). He fails to pick up the hints, and if he does, he just gives in to the request. We will see just the same when he is asked by Absalom to let Amnon attend his feast; clearly David suspected there would be some revenge planned against Amnon by Absalom, but he still lets it go ahead. His behaviour is similar both times. His lack of discipline towards his sons is the theme both times. David so wanted to see his own 'house' established rather than focus upon the future house to be made by his Messianic future descendant. But he apparently made no effort to raise nor lead them in a spiritual way. </p>


text:
<p>So Tamar went to her brother Amnon’s house; and he was laid down. She took dough, kneaded it, made cakes in his sight, and baked the cakes- </p><p>The cameraman is zoomed in close on her taking the dough, kneading it, pouring it out (:9) etc. We are invited to play Bible television with the whole scene.</p>


text:
<p>She took the pan, and poured them out before him; but he refused to eat. Amnon said, Have all men leave me. Every man went out from him- </p><p>He is quoting the words of Joseph in <a href='B:10 45:1'>Gen 45:1</a>, also in the context of food, and the comment "Every man went out from him" confirms this connection. But his spirituality is all out of context, doing as many do today- quoting bits of the Bible way out of context, to justify their own wrong actions and beliefs. See on :14.</p>


text:
<p>Amnon said to Tamar, Bring the food into the inner room, that I may eat from your hand. Tamar took the cakes which she had made, and brought them into the inner room to Amnon her brother- </p><p>The narrative is well written. The details enable us to imagine the scene, and we are prepared for the calamity which is now about to happen.  Tamar surely suspected what Amnon was planning. But she is obedient to him despite guessing what would follow, and that obedience is emphasized- the pan, the cakes etc. are all noted in detail. This was exactly in the spirit of Uriah's loyalty to commands, knowing surely what was going to happen. Again and again we see elements of David's failure now repeated. The sinful, bad actors in the stories all did so from their own volition. But we sense that God worked through it all, confirming them in sin, in order to bring David to see his actions from outside himself. His being made to view his actions being performed by others was likely because he had not repented in a very adequate sense. Yet still he was forgiven. All spirituality, be it repentance, faith, love, joy, forgiveness, is not just black and white. We believe but ask our unbelief to be dealt with. There is a degree and quality to these things, reflected in the degrees of reward in God's Kingdom.  We trust in God's acceptance of our low level of repentance, or failure to retain an intensity of repentance. And we are likewise to forgive others, even when the quality of their repentance is very poor. The Lord taught this when teaching that if a person asks us to forgive them for the same sin which they commit 70 x 7 / day, we are to do so- not predicating forgiveness upon perceived quality of repentance.</p>


text:
<p>When she had brought them near to him to eat, he took hold of her, and said to her, Come, lie with me, my sister!- </p><p>These are the words of Potiphar's wife to Joseph. See on :9,14 for how the Joseph story is alluded to and used wrongly, way out of context, by Amnon. It was a desperate attempt to justify the unjustifiable. It was the reflection of how David lay with Bathsheba "because she was cleansed from her impurity". That was an irrelevant, out of context spiritual precondition he laid down. And it was reflected in how Anon was to reason in raping Tamar.</p>


text:
<p>She answered him, No, my brother, do not force me! For no such thing ought to be done in Israel. Don’t you do this folly-</p><p>Sexual sin is likewise termed "folly" (<a href='B:10 34:7'>Gen 34:7</a>). Amnon would be known by all as a "fool" (:13), an empty vain person (<a href='B:70 9:4'>Jdg 9:4</a>). Sin is therefore associated with being empty and vain; and our world and its "entertainment" is so full of emptiness, vanity and folly. This is the quintessence of sin.</p>


text:
<p>I, to where would I carry my shame? And as for you, you will be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king; for he will not withhold me from you-</p><p>Such marriages were forbidden (<a href='B:30 18:9'>Lev 18:9</a>; <a href='B:50 27:22'>Deu 27:22</a>), although Abraham had done so. We get the impression that David would have yet again considered himself above the law, and allowed this marriage. He had apparently not learned from his sin with Bathsheba; which I suggested arose from his impression that following the spirit rather than the letter of the law allowed him to actually break basic moral principles. The way Tamar reasons, we might conclude that she was not against marrying Amnon. Perhaps she even liked or loved him; and thus again we see the utter folly of his actions, destroying what could have been a positive marriage just because he wanted immediate gratification of lust. And that of course is a folly played out so often in human life.</p><p>Lev. 20:17 is clear that sex with even a half sibling was punishable by death. Yet David apparently was willing to waive this and allow them to marry. Again we see David playing above the law of God. He failed to see that even though this had been the case with Abraham and Sarah, it was not for him to presume upon God's grace. David too had been spared the Mosaic death penalty, but convicted of his sin and his repentance was elicited and required. But he makes no such effort with Amnon. He doesn't apply the death penalty of Lev. 20:17. Nor does he apply the Mosaic laws applicable in a case of rape. The rapist was to marry the victim for life (Dt. 22:28–30), or if the father of the victim disallowed the marriage, he had to pay the bride price anyway (Ex. 22:16,17). But David doesn't apply any of this; he just gets angry, probably from shame and disappointment, but doesn't dispense justice.</p>


text:
<p>However he would not listen to her voice; but being stronger than she, he forced her, and lay with her- </p><p>There are various out of context connections with the Joseph story. Amnon has used the words of Joseph (out of context) in :9. He forces her and lays with her, and then her distinctive garment of many colours (cp. Joseph's) is torn. It is all jumbled, because Amnon was jumbling up the references to the Joseph story to wrongly justify himself. He wishes to give the impression that she had acted as Potiphar's wife, hence he throws her out of the house and has the door bolted behind her, as if she is a crazy, sexually obsessed woman who has tried to lay with him. False justification of fleshly actions with quasi Biblical reasoning is a major failure of so many.</p>


text:
<p>Then Amnon hated her with exceeding great hatred; for the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her- </p><p>We are clearly intended to understand that "the love with which he loved her" was not love but lust. And when gratified, it turned to hatred. Amnon's obsessive love for Tamar was an echo of David’s relationship with Bathsheba. All this would have been yet another aspect of the emotional trauma which David went through at this time; to fall out of love with the woman for which he had almost thrown away his eternal salvation. And in addition to this, all Israel would have got to know about what had happened- with a fair degree of exaggeration thrown in, we can be sure. Amnon surely hated himself for what he had done once he realized he had done it; but he transferred that anger onto Tamara. It's a classic case of transference of anger with self onto another person. Again, the Biblical record is show to be absolutely psychologically credible.  </p><p>Amnon said to her, Arise, be gone!- </p><p>This, and bolting the door after her, could be read as him implying that she had sexually assaulted him and not the other way around.</p><p> A raped woman would not generally be able to marry nor have children, but just live in a relative's house for the rest of her life. For a 15 year old like Tamar, this was equivalent to social death. The way she rips her virginal garment and puts ashes on her head is a way of mourning her own death. This 'death' is understood by God when Dt. 22:26 compares rape to murder: "As when a man rises up against his neighbour and kills him, even so is this matter". Nathan's parable compares David's sleeping with Bathsheba with killing another man's lamb. Again, David is brought to see that what he had done with Bathsheba was effectively murder- even though in her case he married her afterwards. </p>


text:
<p>She said to him, Not so, because this great wrong in sending me away is worse than the other that you did to me! But he would not listen to her-</p><p>Her high morals are reflected by her deep sense of hurt at being sent away falsely accused. A woman of lower morals would have been more hurt by the rape, and then shrugged and moved on. Amnon did "wrong" to Tamar David's daughter (2 Sam. 13:16). "Wrong" here is the same word translated "evil" in the punishment upon David in 2 Sam. 12:10 "I will raise up evil against you from within your own house / family". The "evil" of Amnon was therefore indeed his own error and sin, but it was used by God and 'raised up' in that God confirmed Amnon in his evil in order to punish David. At the time of Absalom's rebellion, Shimei comments that "Evil [s.w.] has overtaken you [David] because you are a man of blood" (2 Sam. 16:8). But David proactively sought to avoid that "evil": "Get up! Let us flee [from Absalom]... or he will soon... bring evil [s.w.] upon us" (2 Sam. 15:14). We see here the complexities of God's workings. The "evil" was indeed to come upon David, yet he took steps to avoid some of it and God confirmed him in that and delivered him from Absalom. And so 2 Sam. 17.14 "For the LORD had ordained to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, so that the LORD might bring ruin [evil] on Absalom" (NRSV). The complexities and ebb and flow of all this working are beyond any final human analysis; and this explains why there appear various things in our lives which clearly feel to be of Divine intervention, but whose meaning is beyond our analysis. </p><p>
Amnon's sin had two aspects to it. There was the sin of sexual lust, but this was compounded by what he did with the results of the sin. This matches David's sin of lust with Bathsheba being then compounded by his shameful behaviour in murdering Uriah.  </p>


text:
<p>Then he called his servant who ministered to him and said, Put now this woman out from me, and bolt the door after her- </p><p>As suggested on :15, the bolting of the door suggested she was a crazy woman filled with sexual lust who had to be excluded forcibly from a man's bedroom, and this she found more hurtful than the rape itself (:16).</p>


text:
<p>She had a garment of various colours on her; for with such robes were the king’s daughters who were virgins dressed. Then his servant brought her out, and bolted the door after her- </p><p>Again we note the stress upon the door being bolted, which was done because she presumably wanted to return to talk with Amnon. And he wished to give the impression she had sexually thrown herself at him and was crazy.</p>


text:
<p>Tamar put ashes on her head, and tore her garment of various colours that was on her; and she laid her hand on her head, and went her way, crying aloud as she went-</p><p>A woman of lesser morality would perhaps have kept wearing the symbol of her virginity. But she tore it to show she had lost her virginity, indeed it had been torn from her, and she was in mourning for herself seeing nobody else was. We note the internal credibility of the account in that she had just been cooking, and so there were "ashes" readily available to her, which she threw onto her head.</p>


text:
<p>Absalom her brother said to her, Has Amnon your brother been with you?- </p><p>This continues the theme noted on :5, of specifics not being stated but implied. "Been with you" meant 'raped you', and Absalom's comment that she need not worry too much about it is tantamount to saying 'I will restore your honour by killing him'. We are left to reflect how it is that which is left unspoken, not specifically articulated, which is so often the sin.</p><p>But now hold your peace, my sister. He is your brother. Don’t take this thing to heart. So Tamar remained desolate in her brother Absalom’s house- </p><p>See on :33. These words too were apparently suggested to him by Jonadab. He maybe advised Absalom "Tell her not to worry about it, because...". The subliminal suggestion was "Because you are going to regain her honour by killing Amnon". There are Biblical examples of refusing to take guilt when others feel that it should be taken. Recall how the Lord’s own parents blamed Him for ‘making them anxious’ by ‘irresponsibly’ remaining behind in the temple. The Lord refused to take any guilt, didn’t apologize, and even gently rebuked them (<a href='B:490 2:42-51'>Luk 2:42-51</a>). In similar vein, Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “Even if I made you sorry with a letter, I do not regret it” (<a href='B:540 7:8'>2Co 7:8</a>). He would not take guilt for their being upset with him. Likewise Absalom comforted his raped sister not to ‘take it to heart’, not to feel guilty about it, as it seems she was feeling that way, taking false guilt upon her.</p>


text:
<p>But when king David heard of all these things, he was very angry- </p><p>The internal credibility of the character portrayal in the record is shown again. For this is just how he reacted to Nathan's parable about the man who had taken a poor man's lamb.</p><p>As we go through the life of David, it is evident he went along roads few others have travelled. For example, who else would offer his sacrifice upon the altar and then start strumming his harp in praise as he watched the animal burn (<a href='B:230 43:4'>Psa 43:4</a> Heb:)? This was a new paradigm in Israelite worship. Like Job, David had no precedents in past spiritual history from which he could take comfort (<a href='B:220 5:1'>Job 5:1</a>). David knew God well enough to act like the High Priest even when he was not a Levite (<a href='B:100 6:13-20'>2Sa 6:13-20</a>; and <a href='B:100 19:21'>2Sa 19:21</a> = <a href='B:20 22:28'>Exo 22:28</a>), he came to understand that God did not require sacrifices, he came to see that the Law was only a means to an end. David’s sons, although not Levites, were “priests” (<a href='B:100 8:18'>2Sa 8:18</a> RV). He could say that the Lord was his inheritance [a reference to how he as the youngest son had lost his?], and how he refuses to offer the sacrifices of wicked men for them (<a href='B:230 16:4-5'>Psa 16:4-5</a>; <a href='B:230 119:57'>Psa 119:57</a>)- speaking as if he was a Levite, a priest, when he was not. He knew that the ideal standard for married life was one man: one woman, and yet he was somehow able to flout this and still be a man after God’s own heart. He broke explicit Mosaic commandment by marrying Saul's wives and also his daughter, he airily waived the Mosaic law concerning bloodguiltiness (consider the implications of <a href='B:100 14:4-11'>2Sa 14:4-11</a>), and the need to stone rapists (<a href='B:100 13:21'>2Sa 13:21</a>). When others tried to do these kind of things, they were severely punished by a God who insisted upon serious obedience to His Law. Consider how Saul was condemned for offering sacrifice instead of a priest (<a href='B:90 13:10-13'>1Sa 13:10-13</a>); and Uzziah likewise (<a href='B:140 26:16-19'>2Ch 26:16-19</a>). When the woman of Tekoah basically suggested that the Mosaic laws about the rights of the revenger of blood be repealed, David seems to have agreed. When Amnon seeks to rape his sister Tamar, she suggests that he ask David to allow them to marry- and surely, she says, he will agree. Yet this too would have been counter to the spirit of the Law about marriages to close relatives. Yet David went beyond the Law so often; and it is this which perhaps led him to commit the sin of presumption in his behaviour with Bathsheba. Right afterwards he comments about the man who stole his neighbour’s sheep, that it must be restored fourfold; whereas the Law only stipulated double, David felt he so knew the spirit of the Law that he could break the letter of it- in any context. And this was his [temporary] downfall.</p><p>In the case of Amnon, the law of Moses offered two possible outcomes: death (Lev. 18:11; 20:17), or, to marry Tamar (Dr. 22:28,29). We see from this how God's law often gave different options for the result of sin- the options after adultery being a parade example. This was to teach engagement with the sinner and choosing the most loving outcome for that sin. But David choses neither of those options, despite claiming to love God's law. He simply gets angry. We note how David is "angry" with Absalom too and he has to flee David's wrath (:37), and David refuses to see him for two years (2 Sam. 14:24). And yet he clearly loved his children despite that anger with them. </p><p> We note that David is "angry" with Amnon but doesn't discipline him. The contrast is clear with how he pronounced the death penalty upon the rich man who had selfishly stolen the poor man's only lamb. And in the Psalms he is quick enough to call for Divine death blows upon his enemies. But he says nothing at all about Amnon. We could argue on one hand that he had been humbled by his own salvation by grace, and therefore would not condemn others. And yet it could also be posited that he simply continued to not apply Divine law to his own life nor that of his family. If he was the king of Israel, he was to rule justly and govern. But his lack of disciplinary action or public condemnation shows a lack of both justice and government. This is in sharp contrast to how he earlier condemned the murder of Abner and would later condemn the murder of Amasa (2 Sam. 20). But he makes no public statement about Amnon's behaviour. And the same goes for his lack of public statement or outrage against Absalom's murder of Amnon (:36). </p><p> The NEB, LXX and the Qumran texts add: "And king David heard of all these things, and was very angry; but he did not grieve the spirit of his son Amnon, because be loved him, for he was his first-born". This sounds like his refusal to ever discipline Adonijah in 1 Kings 1:6; as he says in Ps. 38, he was left as a man in his mouth are no rebukes. Absalom later tells the men of Israel that David is incapable of giving them justice- as if this inability of David, his lack of attention to justice, was well known. This must be compared with how David in the Psalms so often condemns his enemies for their lack of justice, presenting himself as the just man of integrity. If he had really experienced total repentance, he would have appealed to others to live a Godly life, not lost his moral compass and continued to dispense justice; he promises he will do this in Psalms 32 and 51. A true sense of justice comes from passing through the process of sin, true repentance, being awed by the grace of forgiveness. But David doesn't pass through this process for very long, or at least, not very intensely. And so he loses justice and moral compass. For he distinctly failed to do justice and discipline with his own sons. </p><p> Amnon was David's firstborn, and the heir to the throne. David's hope was that his kingly line would continue through Amnon. If he had been more awed by the promises to him in 2 Sam. 7, he would have accepted that the line from him would not always be on the throne. But at some future point, the Messianic Son of God, son of David, would reign eternally and build up an eternal 'house' of God glorifying people. But David's focus was upon building up his own family, and that is perhaps a factor in why he didn't discipline Amnon and was so furious when Absalom killed him. David's hope would not have been for Absalom, because he was the son of a Gentile woman. </p>


text:
<p>Absalom spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad; for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had forced his sister Tamar-</p><p>David’s anger with Amnon (:21) is contrasted with Absalom's silence about the matter, whilst nursing hatred in his heart which was to come to fruition in the murder of his brother. David’s passion, as discussed on :21, is therefore presented as more acceptable than Absalom's secret hatred which came to full term in murder.</p><p>Not good nor bad / evil means nothing at all. Adam's choice in Eden was that of everyman in every sin; it was a choice between a total "yes" or a total "no" to God. The desire was to know "good and evil"; and this term is used as an idiom for "everything" (<a href='B:10 24:50'>Gen 24:50</a>; <a href='B:100 14:17'>2Sa 14:17</a>; <a href='B:100 14:20'>2Sa 14:20</a>), the whole area in between good and evil is in this sense "everything" (cp. <a href='B:10 31:24'>Gen 31:24</a>; <a href='B:100 13:22'>2Sa 13:22</a>). Adam and Eve were attracted by the possibility of experiencing everything, of having the total knowledge, the omniscience, which is with God alone. Their failure was more than simply eating a fruit; it involved rebellion and pride, a desire to be equal with God-</p>


text:
<p>It happened after two full years, that Absalom had sheep shearers in Baal Hazor, which is beside Ephraim: and Absalom invited all the king’s sons- </p><p>We note that David did not enforce the death penalty for Amnon, even though the law of Moses required this (<a href='B:30 20:17'>Lev 20:17</a>). We compare this with how he ordered the death penalty for the man in the parable who had stolen the poor man's lamb, even though this was beyond the law's requirements. David had been spared the death penalty and so he reflected that grace to his son; and yet we sense there was also parental bias in the case. By not punishing Amnon with death, nor later Absalom, he allowed a situation to develop which would cause yet more bloodshed.</p><p>Absalom's hospitality was fake- he had an agenda. Just as David's was to Uriah when he gave him food and wine. We recall Nathan's parable to David- David had as it were provided a feast for another, but stole the lamb of Bathsheba as the meat. Again and again, there are echoes of David's behaviour in the disastrous actions of his sons- some strong echoes, some weaker. Some comparisons are direct [like Amnon's sexual lust reflecting David's], others like this one are more indirect.</p>


text:
<p>Absalom came to the king and said, See now, your servant has sheep shearers. Please let the king and his servants go with your servant- </p><p>Absalom comes over as hypocritical as describing himself as his father’s servant, when he was planning to murder his father’s son.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Absalom, No, my son, let us not all go, lest we be burdensome to you. He pressed him; however he would not go, but blessed him- </p><p>The blessing probably involved a gift (<a href='B:90 25:27'>1Sa 25:27</a>). David surely guessed that there would be some plan by Absalom to slay Amnon, hence his weak argument that they all didn’t need to go as it would be expensive for Absalom to entertain them all.</p>


text:
<p>Then Absalom said, If not, please let my brother Amnon go with us. The king said to him, Why should he go with you?-</p><p>Clearly David guessed what was going to happen, and in that lies the pain for David.</p>


text:
<p>But Absalom pressed him, and he let Amnon and all the king’s sons go with him-</p><p>We sense David’s weakness, giving in to pressure, quite unlike in his days before his sin with Bathsheba. And of courses he had no specific reason to deny Amnon's presence, apart from his premonition that Absalom was planning to kill Amnon.</p><p>LXX adds that Absalom: "made a banquet like the banquet of the king". Clearly Absalom had his mind on becoming king and deposing his father. But David is duped by Absalom, even although he has premonitions about what is happening. Exactly the same is done to David by Amnon asking for permission to have Tamar visit him; and likewise Joab tricks David in 2 Sam. 14, even though David suspects what is going on ("Is not the hand of Joab with you in all this?"). In these, and other, incidents, we see David being treated as he had treated Uriah- he was deceived by David, although he surely had a strong premonition about what was really going on.</p>


text:
<p>Absalom commanded his servants saying, Mark now, when Amnon’s heart is merry with wine; and when I tell you, ‘Strike Amnon’, then kill him. Don’t be afraid. Haven’t I commanded you? Be courageous, and be valiant!- </p><p>That Amnon was made drunk by Absalom recalls how David had made Uriah drunk. Every aspect of David’s sins was now being repeated in the behaviour of his sons. Absalom's minimizing of the sin and urging the men to be valiant sounds like David's words to Joab after the murder of Uriah. David's usage of his servants is reflected in how Absalom uses servants to do his dirty work of murder. We note that Joab also used a servant to murder Absalom later. "Haven't I commanded you?" is a way of assuring the servants that he takes complete moral responsibility for the murder he is asking them to commit. Absalom's motives may not have simply been a desire for revenge against Amnon for raping his sister. It wasn't a case of blood revenge, avenging the blood of a slain relative. At best it was revenge for hurt pride. But more like it was using the rape as an excuse to eliminate Amnon as he was the firstborn and thereby heir to the throne. Had David resigned the kingship and taught his sons the wonder of the promises of 2 Sam. 7 about the future Lord Jesus, then this obsession with being king may not have been so strong in the sons.</p>


text:
<p>The servants of Absalom did to Amnon as Absalom had commanded. Then all the king’s sons arose, and every man got up on his mule, and fled- </p><p>This is the first mention of mules in the Bible. They were cross bred in disobedience to <a href='B:30 19:19'>Lev 19:19</a>. We get the impression that a generally slack attitude to what might have been considered minor matters of the law was associated with the major sin of murder. This is the problem when we start to think that some parts of God’s laws can just be ignored. David was fond of them, having his own mule (<a href='B:110 1:33'>1Ki 1:33</a>), and Solomon was willing to receive them as tribute (<a href='B:110 10:25'>1Ki 10:25</a>).</p>


text:
<p>It happened, while they were in the way, that the news came to David, saying, Absalom has slain all the king’s sons, and there is not one of them left!-</p><p>As to why this happened, see on :31. That such a gossip should arise is not surprising, once we realize that Absalom coveted the throne. He would not be against slaying all possible competitors for it, not least the firstborn son Amnon. This was clearly part of his motivation for the murder, and not simply vengeance for Tamar's rape.</p><p> Why did David initially believe that all his sons had died? I suggest it was to make him reflect on the promise of 2 Sam. 7, that from one of his descendants would come the Messianic seed who would build his true house. For Solomon was alive at this point so the promises could have come true through him. So David was being nudged towards concluding that a descendant of Solomon would eventually, after he "slept with his fathers", be the Messianic seed. David however had been so focused on his natural and immediate house as the fulfilment of the promises. And so he was given to understand that they had all perished, to attempt to refocus him upon the promises of a Messianic seed and house through Solomon [from where the Lord Jesus did indeed come]. But it is doubtful that this refocus in David's thinking was achieved, at least at this time. And so it is that through failure of our earthly family dreams that we too are intended to refocus upon the Lord Jesus and our ultimate sense of fulfilment solely through Him and the things of His house and Kingdom. </p>


text:
<p>Then the king arose, and tore his garments, and lay on the earth; and all his servants stood by with their clothes torn- </p><p>We wonder why David was given this false news to start with. It was perhaps to make him consider the possibility that all the promises about his "seed" had now been abrogated, seeing all his seed had been cut off. Those promises would have been in his mind as he lay on the earth. That posture however is associated with prayer. Perhaps he was praying that through his disgraced daughter Tamar, there would somehow come the promised Messianic seed. Through this trauma he was therefore driven closer to his longing for the Christ, just as we may be, e.g., through a false alarm due to a cancer scare.</p>


text:
<p>Jonadab the son of Shimeah, David’s brother, answered, Don’t let my lord suppose that they have killed all the young men the king’s sons; for Amnon only is dead; for by the appointment of Absalom this has been determined from the day that he forced his sister Tamar- </p><p>Jonadab is not specifically stated as having given the idea of this murder to Absalom, but given his behaviour from :5, suggesting sin in a subliminal way, we can assume that he had done the same. "Why not invite Amnon to a feast on your property, you can all get drunk together..." was the subliminal way of suggesting "And you can get him murdered there, away from the court scene in Jerusalem".</p> Jonadab tells David not to be too upset because only one of his sons is dead. Absalom likewise heartlessly tells Tamar not to be too upset about her rape. This all reflects David telling Joab not to be too upset about the death of Uriah and the other soldiers. This surely is the lesson we are to take, for otherwise the record of Jonadab's words here appears to be without function in the narrative. Jonadab's 'rubbing it in' was surely part of his support of his family in a possible plan to depose David from being king. Had David just humbly resigned, Jonadab would have had no role. </p>


text:
<p>Now therefore don’t let my lord the king take the thing to his heart, to think that all the king’s sons are dead; for Amnon only is dead-</p><p>This idea of 'don't take it to heart' is exactly what Absalom said to Tamar ( see on :20), and we are therefore led to believe that Absalom's words to Tamar were also put in his mind by Jonadab's suggestion. Jonadab knew exactly what was going to happen, even though he was not present; because it was all of his subliminal suggestion to Absalom. He was really a very evil man, but the world around us bombards us with such subliminal suggestion.</p>


text:
<p>But Absalom fled. The young man who kept the watch lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, many people were coming by the way of the hillside behind him- </p><p>This situation is going to be repeated when David later anxiously waits for news of the battle between his supporters and Absalom. He is going to again be waiting anxiously for the news from a messenger and weeping bitterly at the news of Absalom's death (<a href='B:100 18:33'>2Sa 18:33</a>). Situations repeat in our lives, and even if we cannot attach meaning to event at the time, we at&nbsp; least have the comfort that they bear the same hallmark of Divine involvement in our lives, according to some plan- even if we may not discern it.</p>


text:
<p>Jonadab said to the king, Behold, the king’s sons are coming! It is as your servant said- </p><p>We sense his smugness. All this was of Jonadab's suggestion, living out the jealousy complex of his father against his brother David. As Jonadab's father had been jealous of his brother David, so now it was all repeating. For Absalom's desire to remove Amnon was not simply in order to avenge his sister, but because Amnon was in line for the throne which he coveted.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, as soon as he had finished speaking, that behold, the king’s sons came, and lifted up their voice, and wept. The king also and all his servants wept bitterly- </p><p>Perhaps the bitterness of David’s grief was because "Amnon" is a form of the word used in the promises to David in <a href='B:100 7:16'>2Sa 7:16</a>, that his seed would be "established". He likely imagined that his firstborn son would perhaps be that promised seed. But now Amnon lay dead in shame, slain by his own brother, for having raped his own half sister. David’s disappointment in his own family life ["my house is not so with God"] was intended to drive him more strongly towards faith in his future "son", the Messianic seed, the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>But Absalom fled, and went to Talmai the son of Ammihur, king of Geshur. David mourned for his son every day-</p><p>Talmai was Absalom's grandfather (<a href='B:100 3:3'>2Sa 3:3</a>). Had the Israelites driven out Geshur as they should have done (<a href='B:60 13:13'>Jos 13:13</a>) and David not married a Gentile, then this situation might not have arisen. Absalom would have been left with no supportive place to run. "Geshur" means "joining" and such a joining in marriage to these people is another example of David’s unwisdom with women.</p><p>David mourns now for Amnon but he had not mourned for the death of his son by Bathsheba, and his omission to do so had been noticed. Under God's guiding hand, all these sins and results of sin were used to educate David.</p>


text:
<p>So Absalom fled, and went to Geshur, and was there three years- </p><p>"Absalom fled" is stressed three times. Or this may also be because a longer account has been abridged, under inspiration. This would also account for the fragmentary style of the narrative at this point. "Three years" may be a summary period and not necessarily to be taken literally.</p>


text:
<p>King David longed to go forth to Absalom: for he was comforted concerning Amnon, since he was dead- </p><p>The sense of the Hebrew is that the king’s wrath ceased to go forth against Absalom, he stopped persecuting him. For David could have recalled Absalom at any time, and even when he did, he refused to meet him for some time. The sense may be that he ceased trying to kill Absalom. But again there was no discipline. David had been saved from death by God's grace, but that grace didn't remove consequences, and God sought to educate David. David ought to have treated Absalom and Amnon likewise. But he doesn't reprove them nor seek to educate them, and in Absalom's case David just sought to murder him because he was so angry with him. And then got over it. There is no reflection here of the grace shown to him by God. Absalom later tried to kill David ("my own son seeks my life", 2 Sam. 16:11, "You seek the life of only one man... The advice pleased Absalom", 2 Sam. 17:4). Father and son both trying to murder each other shows how far David had fallen from his dream of having an immediate 'house' which would last eternally. His failure, and the failure of his 'house', was to try to focus him upon the promises of an eternal house through his great descendant, the Lord Jesus.   </p><p> It's possible that David didn’t remain feeling like this for Absalom; see on <a href='B:100 14:1'>2Sa 14:1</a>; <a href='B:100 14:24'>2Sa 14:24</a>. David had ineffable sadness in his personal life. He so loved his son Absalom, his very soul&nbsp;was consumed&nbsp; for that strapping young man (<a href='B:100 13:39'>2Sa 13:39</a> AVmg:); but that son bitterly hated David, and coolly plotted to destroy him and his reputation. David loved Abigail and Ahinoam, but those fairy tale romances took a bitter blow when David fell for Bathsheba. David loved his parents, especially caring for their safe keeping in his wilderness years; only to be forsaken by them (the Hebrew means just that), and to be rejected by his brothers and sisters (<a href='B:230 27:10'>Psa 27:10</a>; <a href='B:230 38:11'>Psa 38:11</a>; <a href='B:230 69:8'>Psa 69:8</a>; <a href='B:230 88:18'>Psa 88:18</a>). David loved Solomon and gave very special attention to teach him the real spirit of the Truth, taking time out from a hectic public life to do so; only for that beloved son to turn away in later life, to fast women, alcohol, materialism, and the perversions of idolatry:&nbsp;David’s disappointment in his own family life ["my house is not so with God"] was intended to drive him more strongly towards faith in his future "son", the Messianic seed, the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Now Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived that the king’s heart was towards Absalom- </p><p>We wonder at Joab's motives. Did he do this because he wanted David to get what he wanted, which was Absalom's return? Or because he wanted Absalom to be king? Men seek for power. Some want to be the king who is crowned (Absalom would be a parade example). Others like Joab want to be the kingmaker, rejoicing that their power gave power to others. Biblical history is designed to help us realize that all the types of characters we meet have been around before, and we are to learn from how the Bible records their behaviour. But the Biblical record is often purposefully open, inviting us to imagine the possible situations and motivations. Hence the word translated "towards" is intentionally ambiguous. It can also mean "against", as in <a href='B:100 14:13'>2Sa 14:13</a>; <a href='B:340 11:28'>Dan 11:28</a>. In which case, Joab is seeking to bring Absalom back to Jerusalem and to manipulate David concerning Absalom. Such are the games people play, to this day; see on :24:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p> If indeed David's heart was yearning for Absalom, we have to ask why Joab needed to persuade David to recall Absalom to Jerusalem. And why, after Absalom returned, did David refuse to meet him for some time? On :7 and :24 I suggest some reasons for this, if we retain the translation that David's heart was "toward" Absalom. However, it is clear that there is now tension between David and Joab. This again is understandable in view of the Uriah debacle, whereby David had used Joab to arrange the murder of Uriah with the deaths of other soldiers to cover it. All because David had stayed behind the battle front and slept with Uriah's wife. In the military fraternity, such behaviour is despicable, and surely Joab despised David from that day forward. David's behaviour left him bereft of his former supporters and condemned to a lonely life- although that too was intended to bring him closer to God and to the hope of his future Messianic Son.    </p>


text:
<p>Joab sent to Tekoa and fetched there a wise woman and said to her, Please act like a mourner, and please put on mourning clothing and don’t anoint yourself with oil, but be as a woman who has mourned a long time for the dead- </p><p>This continues the theme of subliminal suggestion in the previous chapter; see on <a href='B:100 13:6'>2Sa 13:6</a>. This chapter is all about that. We get the impression that after the sin with Bathsheba, the once strong man David became the subject of all manner of manipulation. I have suggested before that if he had adequately repented and stayed like that, he would not have lost his moral compass and would not have been reduced to the weak figure he was. David walks right into the woman's deceptive story just as he does into Nathan's parable. The woman was "wise" or crafty, the same word used of Jonadab who likewise manipulated David (2 Sam. 13:3). The record is developing how David is repeatedly deceived and manipulated, as he had done with Uriah.   </p>


text:
<p>Go in to the king, and speak like this to him. So Joab put the words in her mouth- </p><p>As noted on :2, the situation here recalls how Jonadab manipulated Amnon and put words and ideas in his head. Here Joab manipulates a woman in order to pursue his own agenda regarding Absalom.</p>


text:
<p>When the woman of Tekoa spoke to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, showed respect and said, Help, O king!- </p><p>This recalls how David had fallen with his face to the ground begging God somehow for a way forward after he had heard that all his sons had died (<a href='B:100 13:31'>2Sa 13:31</a>). This is another connection with the events of 2 Samuel 13.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to her, What ails you? She answered, Truly I am a widow, and my husband is dead- </p><p>Immediately David would have thought of how he had made Bathsheba a widow by murdering her husband.</p>


text:
<p>Your handmaid had two sons, and they both fought together in the field, and there was no one to part them, but the one struck the other and murdered him- </p><p>"Strove / fought" is the word used by Solomon in <a href='B:240 13:10'>Pro 13:10</a>: "Pride only breeds quarrels, but with ones who take advice is wisdom". This is true, but so many of Solomon's Proverbs&nbsp;&nbsp; include some self justification. "Quarrels" is the word used here in the parable about the strivings between David’s sons. He is implying that all the quarrels about his being the one to have the throne merely came from pride, and the wise will accept Solomon's kingship. He harnesses Divine truths in order to justify himself, and this is a warning for all who claim to hold Divine truth.</p><p>Two brothers fatally fighting in a field recalls Cain and Abel. The similarity is so clear that it must have been purposeful. Joab knows that Cain was not slain for his fratricide. However, Cain was exiled- and David could surely have played on this similarity to keep  Absalom exiled. But instead he ends up swearing that nobody will harm the murderer. His spiritual sensitivity is not, it seems, at its best. </p>


text:
<p>Behold, the whole family has risen against your handmaid and they say, ‘Deliver him who struck his brother, that we may kill him for the life of his brother whom he murdered, and so destroy the heir also’. Thus they would quench my coal which is left, and would leave to my husband neither name nor remainder on the surface of the earth- </p><p>It would appear that the legislation about the cities of refuge wasn't being practiced at this time. The parallel in David’s family would suggest that "the whole family" wanted to kill Absalom, although it could be that they felt likewise about Amnon. The woman is arguing that the Mosaic laws about the avenging of blood didn’t take into account her feelings as the mother of the brother who had to be slain. And further, the principle of keeping the name of the dead alive would be broken. She correctly argues that principles are in conflict in this case; and this is often the situation when any legal code, including the Mosaic, is applied. Thus the Lord brings out the point that priests "worked on the Sabbath" to circumcise a child. The reason for these clashes of principle within Divine law was in order to force people to perceive the spirit of the law, and follow that and not the letter. The very structure of the Mosaic law was therefore actually designed to guard against legalistic approaches to it.</p><p>"The whole family" suggests all David's family were against Absalom. The emphasis on "the whole family" reflects the situation in David's family, and that includes Bathsheba. David alone was sympathetic to Absalom, just as the woman alone in her family was sympathetic to her son. Perhaps this is one reason for the apparent contradiction [depending upon the translation we choose] between David's heart being with Absalom, and yet keeping him in exile and refusing to meet him when he did return. Likewise we wonder whether Bathsheba was now manipulating David so that her son Solomon would be in line for the throne rather than Absalom. Repeatedly now, David presents as under the influence of others and having very little personal power of decision as king. He would've been far better to resign as king and focus upon the wonderful promise of his future Messianic Son and his own assurance of salvation. We also note that the hearts of Israel were with Absalom. So we see yet a further fracture within Israel, between the people generally and the royal family. </p><p> "My coal which is left" is the image of a fire going out apart from one live coal. A man and his descendants are called a light. It is used of David in 2 Sam. 21:17, and specifically of David's descendant in Ps. 132:17. The story is hitting at David's weakest and most essential point, i.e. that he was desperate for a physical descendant to continue his throne. But he ought not to have been so sensitive to this if he trusted in the promise of 2 Sam. 7 that his future descendant, after his death, would be God's Son who would build a house / family for both God and David. </p><p> Joab knew that David considered Absalom his only coal on the hearth. His hopes were set on him alone as the heir to his throne. David has other sons including Solomon, but Joab perceived that David considered Absalom his one and only. And so he puts this position in the mouth of the woman. Had David had more faith and focus on the promises of 2 Sam. 7 about his seed, he would not have had these obsessions. This explains his extreme grief when Absalom dies. </p><p> "Rose up against" is the same phrase used in 2 Sam. 12:11 of how evil who rise up against David from his own house. He is being set up to see the woman as himself, and he naturally wants to show mercy to her as he wanted it for himself. He wanted the consequence of sin, evil rising up against him from his own house, to be abrogated; and so he is eager to do this for the woman. In Ps. 3:1 David uses the same phrase to complain that many have risen up against him, lamenting the consequences of his sins. The context there is Absalom's rebellion. He uses the phrase about the wicked rising against him, wishing their judgment, in Ps. 54:3; 86:14; 92:11. </p><p> The argument that her husband would be left with no name in the earth, meaning he would lose his inheritance, is tantamount to saying that the woman would be left in the same position as Naomi. David, as a descendant of Ruth and also Naomi, would immediately have sensed the difficulty for the woman and been inclined, given his ancestry, to decide for her. It was indeed a cunningly devised scenario that manipulated him into saying "yes". Just as he had used all his cunning against Bathsheba and Uriah.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to the woman, Go to your house, and I will give a command concerning you- </p><p>The slayer of innocent blood was to be slain without pity: "you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with you" (<a href='B:50 19:13'>Deu 19:13</a>). But David seems to have stepped up to a higher level when he told the woman of Tekoah that he would protect her son from revenge murder, after he had slain another man. The woman pointed out that if her son was slain, the inheritance would be lost in her husband's name. Here was a case where two principles seemed to be at variance: the need to slay the guilty, and the need to preserve the inheritance. The higher level was to forgive the slayer of innocent blood, even though the Law categorically stated that he should be slain. The Law of Moses is full of such examples of where different levels of response are offered. Thus in the case of adultery, a man could apply the trial of jealousy (Numbers 5), kill his wife, divorce her- or, forgive her, as Hosea did. The very existence of these different levels of response is designed, as they are today, to elicit our maximum level of response. For it surely is always a case of "my utmost for His highest", and a minimalist response to His grace is self evidently inappropriate. And yet again we wonder whether as with bringing the ark to Zion and not disciplining Amnon, David was acting above the law in an inappropriate way. </p><p> What should David have done? There was Mosaic legislation protecting those being hunted by revengers of blood. Their cases were to be fairly judged, and refuge given in a city of refuge. This woman implies that the family want to kill her son in order to take the and inheritance for themselves; and there was Mosaic legislation to ameliorate that. But David ignores all this, as he does when it comes to responding to Amnon's rape of Tamar. He instead himself gives a 'commandment', again showing himself to be above the law and playing God. </p>


text:
<p>The woman of Tekoa said to the king, My lord O king, the iniquity be on me, and on my father’s house; and the king and his throne be guiltless- </p><p>"The iniquity" in view would perhaps refer to the disobedience which she was suggesting to the laws about the avenging of blood. She wanted more than what David had said, she wanted a concrete pronouncement from him as it were abrogating obedience to that law. And she said she would bear the iniquity of doing so. But this is not how guilt for sin or abrogating God’s law is to be dealt with. David was being provoked to consider taking upon himself the "sin" of not demanding Absalom's blood be shed, and indeed restoring him.</p>


text:
<p>The king said, Whoever says anything to you, bring him to me, and he shall not touch you any more- </p><p>So David is waiving the Mosaic law concerning bloodguiltiness, as he did the need to stone rapists (<a href='B:100 13:21'>2Sa 13:21</a>). When others tried to do these kind of things, they were severely punished by a God who insisted upon serious obedience to His Law. Consider how Saul was condemned for offering sacrifice instead of a priest (<a href='B:90 13:10-13'>1Sa 13:10-13</a>); and Uzziah likewise (<a href='B:140 26:16-19'>2Ch 26:16-19</a>). When the woman of Tekoah basically suggested that the Mosaic laws about the rights of the revenger of blood be repealed, David seems to agree. When Amnon seeks to rape his sister Tamar, she suggests that he ask David to allow them to marry- and surely, she says, he will agree. Yet this too would have been counter to the spirit of the Law about marriages to close relatives. Yet David went beyond the Law so often; and it is this which perhaps led him to commit the sin of presumption in his behaviour with Bathsheba. Right afterwards he comments about the man who stole his neighbour’s sheep, that it must be restored fourfold; whereas the Law only stipulated double, David felt he so knew the spirit of the Law that he could break the letter of it- in any context. And this was his [temporary] downfall.</p><p>As we go through the life of David, it is evident he went along roads few others have travelled. For example, who else would offer his sacrifice upon the altar and then start strumming his harp in praise as he watched the animal burn (<a href='B:230 43:4'>Psa 43:4</a> Heb:)? This was a new paradigm in Israelite worship. Like Job, David had no precedents in past spiritual history from which he could take comfort (<a href='B:220 5:1'>Job 5:1</a>). David knew God well enough to act like the High Priest even when he was not a Levite (<a href='B:100 6:13-20'>2Sa 6:13-20</a>; and <a href='B:100 19:21'>2Sa 19:21</a> = <a href='B:20 22:28'>Exo 22:28</a>), he came to understand that God did not require sacrifices, he came to see that the Law was only a means to an end. David’s sons, although not Levites, were “priests” (<a href='B:100 8:18'>2Sa 8:18</a> RV). He could say that the Lord was his inheritance [a reference to how he as the youngest son had lost his?], and how he refuses to offer the sacrifices of wicked men for them (<a href='B:230 16:4-5'>Psa 16:4-5</a>; <a href='B:230 119:57'>Psa 119:57</a>)- speaking as if he was a Levite, a priest, when he was not. He knew that the ideal standard for married life was one man: one woman, and yet he was somehow able to flout this and still be a man after God’s own heart. He broke explicit Mosaic commandment by marrying Saul's wives and also his daughter.</p>


text:
<p>Then she said, Please let the king remember Yahweh your God so that the avenger of blood destroy not any more, lest they destroy my son. He said, As Yahweh lives, not one hair of your son shall fall to the earth- </p><p>As explained on :10, this is David waiving parts of God’s law, and yet doing so from an understanding of grace and pity. And of course the whole situation was designed to lead him to agree to apply these principles to Absalom.  But the parody is that Absalom's famous hairs did fall to the ground and were the cause of his death. David's oath that the murderer's hairs would not fall to the earth was in fact not for him to make; for God ensured this did in fact happen to Absalom. Again David is presented as duped and powerless, just as Uriah and Bathsheba were whom he in turn had abused whilst he had power.</p>


text:
<p>Then the woman said, Please let your handmaid speak a word to my lord the king. He said, Say on-</p><p>The woman isn't prepared to leave things at the level of subliminal appeal. Perhaps now she speaks on her own behalf, and no longer following the script Joab had given her. The next verses appear to be her own more spiritual argument, at the end of which she basically admits she has been set up to say the script she just has; but despite that, in spiritual terms, she can see a good case for having Absalom back.</p>


text:
<p>The woman said, Why then have you devised such a thing against the people of God? For in speaking this word the king is as one who is guilty, in that the king does not bring home again his banished one- </p><p>The woman understood the implications of the promise in Eden when she tells David that “neither doth God respect any person: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him” (<a href='B:100 14:14'>2Sa 14:14</a> AV). Whom did God banish? Adam, and all his children. But God ‘devised means’ through the promises of <a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a> so that this banishment was not permanent expulsion. The means devised was the death and resurrection of His Son, the seed of the woman. But the woman’s point was that therefore, David ought to restore his sinful son, whom he had banished- for “the king does not fetch home again his banished” (<a href='B:100 14:13'>2Sa 14:13</a>). Her point was that as God sought to restore His banished sons, through the pain and cost to Him of the blood of His Son, so we ought to likewise be inspired to win back the banished. And so we look to those banished from ecclesial life by disfellowship, church politics, personal animosities of past decades, or simply their own outright sins; or those marginalized by poverty, education, disability, health, geography… these are the banished whom we ought to be winning back. And the power in all this arises from the implications of those promises in Eden. Truly the woman of Tekoah was, as she is described, a “wise woman”.</p>


text:
<p>For we must die, and are as water split on the ground, which can’t be gathered up again; neither does God take away life, but devises means that he who is banished not be an outcast from him- </p><p>Literally, dying we shall die. But that was indeed the wages of sin defined in Eden. Like David, she struggled with accepting the consequences for sin. But she correctly reasons that despite that curse, God devises means to save us out of that just judgment. And again she is correct that we should reflect that in our judgments and efforts for others' salvation. </p><p> Her point was that as God in some sense breaks His own laws, e.g. that sin leads to permanent death, so surely David likewise could have the same spirit of grace and bring about the salvation of someone rightly appointed to death. See on :13. It could be argued that her logic is wrong, for the wages of sin is indeed death and God in that sense does take away life. But perhaps her point is that God indeed told Adam that in the day he sinned he would die; but in His grace, He didn’t carry out that sentence immediately. Just as Nineveh wasn't destroyed in 40 days as God had stated. Instead, God gave more time- in the hope that Adam would not have to be outcast, and His purpose was to bring Adam back into Eden. That was why God didn’t make Adam die "in the day" that he ate of the fruit. And so, the woman reasons, if God’s attitude to death and punishment shows such grace, we surely ought to not insist upon His law of death for sinners being immediately obeyed. We should follow His example of letting His grace and hope for our restoration be stronger than the need to punish sin with death.</p><p>"God doth not take away life, but devises devices (lit. thinks thoughts, cp. :13 and Dan. 6:14 "the king [Darius]... set his heart on Daniel to save him; and he struggled until the going down of the sun to save him") to the end that he may not [utterly] banish a banished one". This is an allusion to God’s grace in sparing David’s life when he had deserved death for despising Yahweh's word, adultery and murder. Despite the law stating that, God 'thought thoughts' to get David out it. We think of the king thinking thoughts all night to try to get Daniel out of the prescribed death sentence. All God's work with man through His Son is in effect the same, a thinking of thoughts to save us from our rightful desert, which is death. And Joab knew this would appeal to David's spiritual mind, and he asks David [through the woman] to do the same for Absalom. We likewise are to reflect God's plan for us in likewise seeking to restore the banished and devising devices to save people from what they deserve. Legalistic judgmental Christianity and church politics is the exact opposite of this.  </p><p> The argument was that death is final, and so we may as well try to reconcile with each other in this life. David had made it clear that he held out no hope to ever again see his first child by Bathsheba. And now he is taken in by similar reasoning- that he ought to reconcile with Absalom because this life is all we have for relationships. This could tacitly reflect a lack of faith in resurrection and future judgment; again, a lack of faith in the promises of 2 Sam. 7.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore seeing that I have come to speak this word to my lord the king, it is because the people have made me afraid: and your handmaid said, ‘I will now speak to the king; it may be that the king will perform the request of his servant’-</p><p>The woman has now totally departed from the script Joab had given her, contrasting positively with how in the previous chapter, Absalom followed Jonadab's script exactly. She admits she has been put up to what she has done. And she seems to be saying that despite this, she does indeed see the logic in the request. See on :12.</p>


text:
<p>For the king will hear, to deliver his servant out of the hand of the man who would destroy me and my son together out of the inheritance of God- </p><p>I&nbsp; suggested on :12,15 that she admits she has been set up with her story. So I think here she means "the king would have heard me, had I really been in such a case as I presented to him".  The woman claims the avengers would destroy both her son and herself. To slay her was definitely outside of the scope of blood revenge. But David doesn't seek to apply God's commandments, he just gives his own commandment above Divine law. In the parallel being created between the woman and David, he likewise feared death at the hands of his own family. Absalom is recorded as seeking his death, but quite possibly other sons wanted it as well, as they all madly scrabbled for the throne. Truly David had enemies from within his own house, from the house of Saul, from about every opportunist. </p>


text:
<p>Then your handmaid said, ‘Please let the word of my lord the king bring rest; for as an angel of God, so is my lord the king to discern good and bad. May Yahweh your God be with you’- </p><p>See on :20. Adam's choice in Eden was that of everyman in every sin; it was a choice between a total "yes" or a total "no" to God. The desire was to know "good and evil"; and this term is used as an idiom for "everything" (<a href='B:10 24:50'>Gen 24:50</a>; <a href='B:100 14:17'>2Sa 14:17</a>; <a href='B:100 14:20'>2Sa 14:20</a>), the whole area in between good and bad / evil is in this sense "everything" (cp. <a href='B:10 31:24'>Gen 31:24</a>; <a href='B:100 13:22'>2Sa 13:22</a>). Adam and Eve were attracted by the possibility of experiencing everything, of having the total knowledge, the omniscience, which is with God alone. Their failure was more than simply eating a fruit; it involved rebellion and pride, a desire to be equal with God.</p><p>In this context, the woman means that she recognizes David’s great sensitivity and wisdom, and knows that he would see through her story as a put up situation. But she truly respects him and wishes Yahweh to be with the king. Indeed it seems David was well known for his sensitivity and the ability to hide things from him (see on <a href='B:100 18:13'>2Sa 18:13</a>). His wide life experience mixed with his spirituality led to this sensitivity.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king answered the woman, Please don’t hide anything from me that I ask you. The woman said, Let my lord the king now speak- </p><p>David uses the words of Joshua to Achan (<a href='B:60 7:19'>Jos 7:19</a>), possibly implying he thinks she has sinned and needs to repent for her part in this ruse to manipulate him.</p>


text:
<p>The king said, Is the hand of Joab with you in all this? The woman answered, As your soul lives, my lord the king, no one can turn to the right hand or to the left from anything that my lord the king has spoken; for your servant Joab, he urged me, and he put all these words in the mouth of your handmaid- </p><p>The woman's honesty is commendable, and she contrasts well with Absalom in the parallel situation of the previous chapter, who was manipulated by Jonadab. "Urged" is the usual word "commanded", as if Joab had in some way ordered or even manipulated this women to in turn try to manipulate David.</p><p>David is duped by Absalom, even although he has premonitions about what is happening. Exactly the same is done to David by Amnon asking for permission to have Tamar visit him; and likewise Joab tricks David in 2 Sam. 14, even though David suspects what is going on ("Is not the hand of Joab with you in all this?"). In these, and other, incidents, we see David being treated as he had treated Uriah- he was deceived by David, although he surely had a strong premonition about what was really going on.</p>


text:
<p>to change the face of the matter has your servant Joab done this thing- </p><p>AV "to bring about this form of speech", in other words, the entire performance from her had been designed to David pronounce that the law about the avenging of blood could be suspended in her case; and thereby set a legal precedent for the return of Absalom.</p><p>My lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are on the earth- </p><p>David’s soul was broken as a result of his own mistakes and his general experience of life. David’s depression resulted in him manifesting all the classic characteristics of the highly strung person. But it led him to his great sensitivity and almost telepathic ability to enter into other's problems was legendary throughout Israel, and this was one of the things which endeared him to his people (<a href='B:90 22:22'>1Sa 22:22</a>; <a href='B:100 14:17'>2Sa 14:17</a>; <a href='B:100 14:20'>2Sa 14:20</a>; <a href='B:100 18:13'>2Sa 18:13</a>)- and there is a powerful similarity here with our relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.</p><p>The woman thought that Angels know everything and therefore David was like an Angel. Angels don’t know everything. Yet the woman’s immature concept isn’t corrected. This is not the style of God’s engagement with us through the Bible, and it explains why the wrong ideas about demons aren't corrected specifically in the New Testament.</p><p>Yet David has been duped by the woman into swearing to her about her son, and thereby opening himself up to having to let his son Absalom return from exile. He doesn't know everything, yet the woman says he is as an / the Angel who knows all (:17,20). We wonder if she was being ironic. But David had earlier deceived Achish into thinking that he was as an Angel of Yahweh and therefore was telling the truth when he falsely claimed he was fighting and killing his fellow Israelites (1 Sam.  29:9). That was another low point in David's life, for which he apparently had taken no judgment. But now he is again paraded as an Angel of Yahweh- but clearly in an ironic sense, for he has been shown to not be like an Angel of Yahweh in that he has been deceived. Again, these things are not mere karma, but God's judgments seeking to educate and humble David towards final salvation.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Joab, Behold now, I have done this thing. Go therefore, bring the young man Absalom back- </p><p>"Bring... back" is the word also used for the return of the exiles. I have suggested that all the historical records were rewritten with the exiles in view. This theme of those who deserved to stay in exile being restored by grace was appropriate to them; although most refused to accept they had done anything wrong, and preferred the life in exile.</p>


text:
<p>Joab fell to the ground on his face, showed respect, and blessed the king. Joab said, Today your servant knows that I have found grace in your sight, my lord O king, in that the king has performed the request of his servant- </p><p>Clearly Joab had previously asked David to restore Absalom, so it was obvious the woman had been set up by Joab. "Performed the request of his servant" uses the very words of :20 "Your servant Joab has done [s:w. "performed"] this thing [s:w. "request"]". Joab absolutely accepts he had manipulated the woman, and we sense he is ecstatic that he has got his way. There is no record of any contact between him and Absalom at this stage. As discussed on :1, we are still left wondering whether Joab wants this because he wants David to get what he wants; or whether he wants to play the kingmaker in making Absalom king, although he later falls out with Absalom and turns against him.</p>


text:
<p>So Joab arose and went to Geshur, and brought Absalom to Jerusalem- </p><p>Joab was certainly enthusiastic for Absalom's return, personally going to Geshur to escort him. It was a round trip of 500 km:, a major journey. See on :1 and :22 as to his motives.</p>


text:
<p>The king said, Let him return to his own house, but let him not see my face. So Absalom returned to his own house, and didn’t see the king’s face- </p><p>If David was indeed still longing to see Absalom as he was in <a href='B:100 13:39'>2Sa 13:39</a>, we wonder why he would say this. I discussed on :1 how the word translated "towards" is intentionally ambiguous. It can also mean "against", and we are left guessing whether David’s heart is towards or against Absalom; and that affects how we understand Joab's game plan. The narrative creates suspense and has all the elements of a good story, as the readership is left wondering about these things. This was a paradigm in literature far ahead of its time in contemporary writings. David may have changed his feelings about Absalom when he perceived that in fact Absalom wanted the throne from David. Or perhaps the ambiguity in the narrative reflects David’s own mixed feelings. Part of him indeed wanted to see Absalom (<a href='B:100 13:39'>2Sa 13:39</a>), and he shared the argument of the woman of Tekoah about showing him grace. But another part of him recognized that Absalom wanted to kill him as he had Amnon, in order to take the throne for himself.</p><p>Allowing Absalom to come to live in Jerusalem but keeping him a captive of the court, unable to meet David, suggests David only half forgave him, because to 'see the face' meant to have all sin or offence forgiven. David thus failed to reflect the total forgiveness he had received, despite his repentance not being very long lasting nor deep. Instead he made an issue with the quality of Absalom's repentance. Had he disciplined and forgiven Absalom, as God had done to him, the rebellion may well not have happened. And he ought to have focused his sons upon the great promises of 2 Sam. 7 concerning the future king, thereby making present kingship meaningless.  </p><p> According to how we translate, David's heart was for Absalom but he refused to speak with him nor see his face. As discussed on :7, one explanation of that apparent contradiction is that Bathsheba's influence may have been exerted to keep Absalom in disgrace for the sake of Solomon. In this case, the David who once controlled and used Bathsheba is now having the same done to him by Bathsheba. We recall how later, Bathsheba reminds David that he has promised her that her son Solomon will be his heir to the throne. Clearly she had manipulated him to get this out of him.</p>


text:
<p>Now in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty: from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him-</p><p>Absalom is presented as similar to Saul- externally attractive to Israel, and apparently the man born to be king according to his appearance. "No blemish" is the language of how the High Priest and sacrifices were to be. His "crown" of hair would then be associated with the High Priest's mitre, imitated by the uncut hair of the Nazirite. All this suggests that potentially he could indeed have been a priest-king. There were many potential ways forward for the promises to David to be fulfilled, and perhaps he was one of them. And yet they all came to nothing, Solomon especially, until they came to full term in the work and person of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>When he cut the hair of his head (now it was at every year’s end that he cut it; because it was heavy on him, therefore he cut it); he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels, after the king’s weight- </p><p>Immediately we sense his vanity, cutting his own hair and weighing it. Possibly he was a Nazirite and was making a big show of renewing the vow every year, thus hiding his vanity behind a front of religious piety. LXX "two hundred shekels according to the royal shekel", GNB "about five pounds according to the royal standard of weights" David had apparently standardized the weight of a shekel. This would have been the equivalent to the "shekel of the sanctuary" often mentioned in the law of Moses. The priests were intended to have a standard shekel which was kept in the sanctuary; but it seems David did this priestly work by creating such a shekel. This is yet another example of David acting as priest and spiritual leader of Israel, effectively as High Priest.</p>


text:
<p>To Absalom there were born three sons and one daughter, whose name was Tamar: she was a woman of a beautiful appearance- </p><p>This woman was named after Absalom's sister whom Amnon had raped. LXX adds “and she became the wife of Roboam the son of Solomon, and bare him Abia" although that contradicts <a href='B:110 15:2'>1Ki 15:2</a>; <a href='B:140 11:20-22'>2Ch 11:20-22</a>. According to <a href='B:100 18:18'>2Sa 18:18</a>, Absalom had no sons. Perhaps his three sons of <a href='B:100 14:27'>2Sa 14:27</a> had died in their youth or childhood. for infant mortality was high in those times. Or maybe he had fallen out with them, and they had disowned each other.</p><p>LXX adds: "And there were born to Absalom three sons and one daughter, and her name was Tamar: she was a very beautiful woman, and she becomes the wife of Rehoboam son of Solomon, and she bears to him Abijah". If LXX is correct then this incestuous marriage was used by God in the line of His Son: "Solomon begot Rehoboam, Rehoboam begot Abijah, Abijah begot Asa" (Mt. 1:7).</p>


text:
<p>Absalom lived two full years in Jerusalem; and he didn’t see the king’s face- </p><p>To see a king's face implies acceptance by him. So as discussed above, David’s longing to see Absalom in <a href='B:100 13:39'>2Sa 13:39</a> had changed. Something had changed, and I suggest that may have been because he perceived that Absalom wanted him dead because he wanted the throne.</p>


text:
<p>Then Absalom sent for Joab, to send him to the king; but he would not come to him: and he sent again a second time, but he would not come- </p><p>Joab had clearly promised Absalom that he could get him an audience with the king. But something had changed; perhaps Absalom had made clear his plans to kill his father and become king. Or there had been some personal fallout between Absalom and Job. Or maybe Joab decided that his own pride and power could not or would not be best served by being a kingmaker to Absalom, but would be better served by continued loyalty to David.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore he said to his servants, Behold, Joab’s field is near mine, and he has barley there. Go and set it on fire. Absalom’s servants set the field on fire- </p><p>We note how the ruling classes of Israel had their own forms of livelihood. Saul still retained his farm, Absalom had sheep, Joab grew barley. There was no very developed system of taxation for the ruling classes to live off. Again, the record has absolute internal consistency. Likewise in <a href='B:100 23:11'>2Sa 23:11</a>,&nbsp; Shammah defended a field of barley because it was valuable to the Israelites. And in this we have a corroboration of this record with how Absalom had burnt Joab's field of barley. We may wonder why Joab slew Absalom. It could have been that to lose a field of barley was to lose food for many months or even a year. It was therefore a major loss to Joab. As Shammah defended a field of barley with his life, so Joab was so vengeful at the loss of his field of barley that he later slew Absalom.</p><p>All these dramas were related to David's sin with Bathsheba. He had a neighbour, Uriah, to whom he did great wrong because of the fire of his own lust. And so here too we see neighbours in similar conflict and David's son Absalom behaving nastily against his own neighbour. We note too how Absalom makes two attempts to get his way and then in frustration, acts foolishly and violently. Likewise David tried twice to manipulate Uriah (2 Sam. 11:8,13) and in frustration plots violence against him after those two frustrations.</p>


text:
<p>Then Joab arose and came to Absalom to his house and said to him, Why have your servants set my field on fire?- </p><p>The plan of getting Joab to come to him certainly worked, although it was a desperate one.</p>


text:
<p>Absalom answered Joab, Behold, I sent to you saying, ‘Come here, that I may send you to the king to say, Why have I come from Geshur? It would be better for me to be there still. Now therefore let me see the king’s face; and if there is iniquity in me, let him kill me’- </p><p>Job had had a change of mind as to how Absalom could best serve his own interests of pride and power, and the result of that was that Absalom was left in limbo. There certainly was iniquity in Absalom because he had slain his brother Amnon. We see here how conscience for sin so easily declines over time, and the passage of the years works a kind of pseudo atonement. But God’s dealing with sin is not like this. We may forget about past sins or the wonder of having been forgiven them, but God doesn't (<a href='B:680 1:9'>2Pe 1:9</a>).</p><p>Absalom is asking for David to regard him as either guilty or innocent; to slay him for his sin of murdering Amnon, or forgive him and allow him to live a normal life. Absalom complains that living in this half-forgiveness is an unbearable position. David saw Absalom play out before his eyes the case of a person who was only half forgiven, or who felt that way whilst the one they had offended awaited their fuller penitence. This was exactly how David was. God was waiting for fuller penitence and David like Absalom was miserable until he would reach that point. David was waiting fuller penitence from Absalom, but it seems to me that this was just what God was waiting for from David. Absalom should either be kept in exile, slain- or totally forgiven. But David was operating a policy in between those Biblical options, just as many churches and individuals do today in struggling to accept others. And so providence made such a case play out before David's eyes to bring him to understand that semi penitence is an unbearable position both for the sinner and for God the forgiver.</p>


text:
<p>So Joab came to the king and told him; and when he had called for Absalom, he came to the king, and bowed himself on his face to the ground before the king: and the king kissed Absalom- </p><p>We are not told the content of their discussion or whether David formally extended forgiveness to Absalom. The next we read in 2 Samuel 15 is that Absalom is moving freely in Jerusalem and garnering support for his putsch. The depth of coverage of the record varies; we are given detailed descriptions of Tamar kneading the dough for the cakes she made Amnon, whereas here, when we would love to know what David and Absalom said to each other- there is nothing. Did Absalom repent? Did David forgive? What was the role of Joab? I suggest that this is intentional, because these records are designed to promote our reflection and imagination, so that we might enter deeper into the characters portrayed.</p><p>Under the law, Absalom should have died. But David thinks that he can just lift the entire consequence for Absalom's sin; just as he expects God to remove all the consequences of his sin, and chafes at any suffering because of his sins. We recall how he begged God not to slay his first son by Bathsheba, but that request wasn't heard. The hollowness of David's life is shown by how he kisses Absalom yet clearly with misgivings, and then Absalom goes on to use kisses to usurp David (2 Sam. 15:5).</p>


text:
<p>It happened after this, that Absalom prepared him a chariot and horses, and fifty men to run before him- </p><p>"Prepared" or "established" is a major theme in the promises of the eternal establishment of David’s throne (<a href='B:100 7:12-13'>2Sa 7:12-13</a>; <a href='B:100 7:16'>2Sa 7:16</a> etc:), and Absalom thought he could prepare / establish his own kingdom, himself. Solomon wrongly assumed that the conditional nature of the promises concerning the seed were just irrelevant to him as he had wisdom. Therefore he uses the word of how his kingdom has been "established" (<a href='B:110 2:24'>1Ki 2:24</a> s:w:). Solomon's contenders for the throne were all stopped by God, they tried to prepare or establish themselves but it never worked out (<a href='B:100 15:1'>2Sa 15:1</a>; <a href='B:110 1:5'>1Ki 1:5</a>); and so surely Solomon has the idea in mind that he has been established as the promised Messianic seed of David with an eternally "established" throne and kingdom. This leads him to the conclusion that the outcome of wisdom and folly is in this life, and he has no perspective of a final day of judgment and eternal establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth. This is why the simplistic dichotomies he presents in Proverbs between the blessed and wise, and the cursed and foolish, are not always true to observed experiences in this life. For it is the future Kingdom which puts them in ultimate perspective.</p><p>But "prepared" is also the word for 'to get / obtain' and thus connects to the prohibition upon the king of Israel to get chariots and horses (Dt. 17:16). Absalom is therefore presented as the king Israel doesn't need. And yet David had horses and chariots and is positively accepted in the narrative... because his heart condition was acceptable to God. </p><p> Having men run before his chariot meant Absalom was having himself proclaimed as king. 1 Sam. 8:11 had warned that the king they desired would be so vain as to have men so this. And yet both Absalom and Adonijah (1 Kings 1:5) did so, reflecting their ignorance of God's word. </p>


text:
<p>Absalom rose up early, and stood beside the way of the gate. It was so, that whenever any man had a suit which should come to the king for judgement, then Absalom called to him and said, What city are you from? He said, Your servant is of one of the tribes of Israel- </p><p>This is the situation which David complains of in <a href='B:230 69:12'>Psa 69:12</a>: "Those who sit in the gate talk against me". This Psalm contains words which are later applied to the Lord's death; and we will see later that David's sufferings for sin during Absalom's rebellion exactly match the Lord's sufferings when He carried the judgment for sin.  It was David’s own son who stood in the gate talking against his own father (<a href='B:100 15:2-6'>2Sa 15:2-6</a>). This was the typical consequence of David’s sin with Bathsheba which Nathan had predicted; and yet when it happened, David complains about it, as if still struggling to accept Nathan's words, and not focused enough upon the simple wonder of the fact he had been forgiven and his life preserved by God’s amazing grace.</p>


text:
<p>Absalom said to him, Behold, your matters are good and right; but there is no man deputised by the king to hear you- </p><p>We note his hypocrisy. He criticizes David for not delegating power because David wants it all for himself; as an excuse for Absalom wanting power. Absalom has no interest in justice, only in his own power. For he tells everyone that their case is good and just- and he will give them what they want if he is the judge. We note that David had centralized judicial power in himself; and yet he was hopelessly compromised as a judge by what he had done with Uriah and Bathsheba.</p><p>Heb. 'There is no king to hear you'. David was effectively not functioning as king and not dispensing justice. He should therefore have resigned from the job. David is presented as desperately clinging on to power and being king in name only and not function. He should have focused his life on the promises of his Messianic Son eternally being king instead of him. All clinging on to power likewise reflects a lack of full focus on the Lord and His Kingdom. We can cling on to power in relationships, in business, in church life... No matter how small our power is. </p>


text:
<p>Absalom said moreover, Oh that I were made judge in the land, that each man who has any suit or cause might come to me, and I would do him justice!- </p><p>Absalom told everyone that he would give them justice, even though the people who came to him were probably against each other. He promised whatever people wanted, in return for them giving him power. This is the spirit of politics to this day. David's inability to dispense justice is seen in his lack of discipline of Amnon, Absalom and Adonijah his sons. As discussed before, his lack of moral compass and judgment after the Bathsheba affair cannot be simply ascribed to his feeling that he had not been condemned and so he was not going to condemn others. Rather I suggest does it reflect a lack of abiding penitence and awe at God's personal grace to him. Those who have truly experienced the repentance-forgiveness-peace with God process in a matter are always very clear that what they did was wrong, and are the first to urge similar sinners towards repentance. But despite David's promise to do this in Ps. 32 and elsewhere, there's no evidence he does so in an ongoing sense. There is e.g. no special campaign by David to educate Israel as to the folly of adultery, deception and murder.  </p><p> "Do justice" is better translated 'to justify'. Absalom was promising every man that he would justify them, count them as right even if they weren't. This is what God had done to David by forgiving his sins regarding Uriah. But David doesn't do it for others, he didn't reflect the grace shown to him. Simply because he didn't proactively get involved with people. Perhaps after being tricked by the woman from Tekoah, he pulled back from involvement in judging cases.</p>


text:
<p>It was so, that when any man came near to do him obeisance, he put forth his hand and took hold of him and kissed him- </p><p>This could imply that he didn’t let people prostrate themselves before him, but lifted them up and hugged them. This was the style of greeting used by Joab in <a href='B:100 20:9'>2Sa 20:9</a>, and we wonder if this continues the theme of the last two chapters- a man influencing another. Maybe we are to get the hint that Joab was influencing Absalom still, although when Absalom finally grabs power, Joab decides to still support David.</p><p> Perhaps the focus is on "any man", "all Israel" (:6). He gave every man the impression he thought they were right simply because they came to him. We thereby see the paradox: he offered justice, but actually he was simply pronouncing every man to be in the right. That is not justice. And we see the same today. Solomon alludes to his brother when in Proverbs he condemns the unjust judge who justifies the wicked.</p>


text:
<p>Absalom did this sort of thing to all Israel who came to the king for judgement. So Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel- </p><p>LXX "made his own"; the hearts of Israel were stolen from David to Absalom. Perhaps this was to make David reflect upon how he had stolen the lamb of Uriah, according to Nathan's parable. Solomon's later condemnations of those who steal were true enough (<a href='B:240 6:30'>Pro 6:30</a>; <a href='B:240 9:17'>Pro 9:17</a>), but as ever with the Proverbs, Solomon harnesses God’s truth to his own justification and the criticism of those whose supporters he deemed were still a threat to his throne.</p>


text:
<p>It happened at the end of forty years that Absalom said to the king, Please let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to Yahweh, in Hebron- </p><p>"Forty years" creates chronological problems. Some texts read "four years". I have elsewhere commented that this is a symbolic period and not to be always read literally; for if the forty year reigns of Saul, David and Solomon are read literally, we again have chronological problems. Absalom's claim to have vowed to Yahweh was again hypocritical. There is no historical record of him having made such a vow, nor of his presence in Hebron, the previous capital of Judah before Jerusalem was taken from the Jebusites. Hebron would have been the second city in Judah after Jerusalem. It was his birthplace, so perhaps that fact was being twisted by him.</p><p> Absalom was lying, and not lying very well. Because if the vow related to his return to Jerusalem, why did he ask permission from David to go offer his sacrifice in Hebron? Absalom had been back from exile for some time, so why now at this point announce he had to pay a vow for returning from exile? David surely picked up on this, as the lie is obvious. Absalom had lied to him previously about the reason for taking Amnon to another town- where he murdered him. So David agreed but with a premonition about what was to happen. Just as he had sent Uriah to his death with Uriah having a strong premonition about the deception. </p>


text:
<p>For your servant vowed a vow while I stayed at Geshur in Syria saying, ‘If Yahweh shall indeed bring me again to Jerusalem, then I will serve Yahweh’- </p><p>Jacob had vowed: "If God will be with me... then shall Yahweh be my God: and this stone... shall be God’s house" (<a href='B:10 28:20-22'>Gen 28:20-22</a> - words quoted by faithless Absalom in <a href='B:100 15:8'>2Sa 15:8</a>). The implication was that Jacob didn’t consider Yahweh to be his God at that time. And yet God had promised Abraham that he would be the God of his seed (<a href='B:10 17:7-8'>Gen 17:7-8</a>); Jacob was aware of these promises, and yet he is showing that he did not accept their personal relevance to him at this time. And Absalom quoted them about himself. This accords with how Amnon likewise quoted words of Joseph out of context to justify his sin against Tamar. Likewise Bible phrases and precedents can be quote right out of context in order t justify what is clearly wrong. Absalom was kidding himself that murdering or deposing his father was going to be 'serving Yahweh', just as all manner of evil is done in the name of doing God service. Perhaps the Lord alludes to this in <a href='B:500 16:2'>Joh 16:2</a>. See on <a href='B:100 17:13'>2Sa 17:13</a>.</p><p> Absalom alludes to Jacob's vow at Bethel. Which in fact Jacob never kept. So Absalom's allusion to Jacob's vow reflects his surface level spirituality, making vague Biblical allusion to justify his own fleshly agenda. Which we can all be guilty of. </p>


text:
<p>The king said to him, Go in peace. So he arose, and went to Hebron-</p><p>David had enough power to still need to give Absalom his blessing to travel. And he must have guessed what would happen. But he was hopelessly compromised. It had been the same when Absalom had begged the king to allow Amnon to come to his shearing festivity, when David again had surely guessed what would happen. As with allowing Amnon to have Tamar take love cakes to him in his bedroom alone, and allowing Amnon to go to Absalom's party, David surely had a premonition about what was going to happen. Just as Uriah did in David's deception of him. David the deceiver was deceived- but in order to teach and educate him as to the dimensions of his sins, and not as some simplistic experience of karma.  </p>


text:
<p>But Absalom sent spies throughout all the tribes of Israel saying, As soon as you hear the sound of the trumpet, then you shall say, ‘Absalom is king in Hebron!’- </p><p>Hebrew tenses are not exact, so we are to read that Absalom "had sent spies". See on :36. Hebron was the old capital of Judah. We discern from <a href='B:100 19:11'>2Sa 19:11</a> that Judah was now the least supportive of David.</p>


text:
<p>Two hundred men went with Absalom out of Jerusalem, who were invited and went in their innocence; and they didn’t know anything- </p><p>These men were presumably leaders of Judah, and were invited to Hebron to celebrate Absalom's devotion to Yahweh's service at the feast he had proclaimed there (:7). They were unaware of his plans. But his idea was that they would fall in behind him, and David would be left in Jerusalem without most of his government. To use a feast of dedication to Yahweh in this way is as bad in our days as manipulating the breaking of bread feast to our own ends.</p><p> The role of these men is difficult to understand in that we wonder how they could be totally innocent, knowing nothing of Absalom's plans- when he had prepared a chariot and horses and men to run before him [the proclamation of a king], and had clearly been working towards this usurping of David. Did they really go on this military journey not knowing what was going on? Perhaps we are invited to deduce that on one level they knew nothing, and the Biblical record sometimes records things as they appear rather than as they actually are- but, we are also to conclude that they went surely suspecting what they were being used for. And that is the exact picture of Uriah going back to the battle front under David's manipulation. Again and again, aspects of David's sin are played out before his eyes- so that he would understand the dimensions of his sin and repent. </p>


text:
<p>Absalom sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David’s counsellor, from his city, even from Giloh, while he was offering the sacrifices. The conspiracy was strong; for the people increased continually with Absalom-</p><p>Those sacrifices were supposed to represent Absalom's dedication to Yahweh's service (see on :7,11). It was cruel abuse of the things of God.</p><p><a href='B:230 3:1-2'>Psa 3:1-2</a> refers to this time. The people considered that God wouldn't now help David (<a href='B:230 3:2'>Psa 3:2</a>); there was a spiritual argument used against David, no matter how wrong it was. We have here a classic example of a collapse mentality, whereby a feeding frenzy begins against an innocent man, and quasi spiritual arguments are brought in to support it. "Many" in <a href='B:230 3:1-2'>Psa 3:1-2</a> is the same word used for how the people "increased" with Absalom. "Rise up" in <a href='B:230 3:1'>Psa 3:1</a> is the word used of Ahithophel wishing to 'rise up" and pursue David (<a href='B:100 17:1'>2Sa 17:1</a>; <a href='B:100 18:31'>2Sa 18:31</a>). In response to the rising up of others against him, David asks God to 'rise up' (<a href='B:230 3:7'>Psa 3:7</a> s:w:). David’s prayer in Psalms 3 was answered, and Ahithophel 'rose up' and committed suicide (<a href='B:100 17:23'>2Sa 17:23</a>).</p><p>The person in view in <a href='B:230 41:9'>Psa 41:9</a>; <a href='B:230 55:13-14'>Psa 55:13-14</a> is clearly Ahithophel, David’s counsellor, the "man of my peace" (<a href='B:100 15:12'>2Sa 15:12</a>). He was Bathsheba's grandfather, so we can imagine how his bitterness with David developed.</p><p>This is alluded to by Solomon in <a href='B:240 21:27'>Pro 21:27</a>: "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination: how much more, when he brings it with a wicked mind!". Solomon may have in view Saul's rejection from the kingship for his wrong attitude to sacrifice (<a href='B:90 15:21-22'>1Sa 15:21-22</a>). Likewise the attempts of Absalom and Adonijah to take the throne from David and Solomon involved the offering of sacrifices (<a href='B:100 15:12'>2Sa 15:12</a>; <a href='B:110 1:9'>1Ki 1:9</a>). What Solomon says in the Proverbs is true on one level, but he harnesses Divine truth to justify himself and his own agendas; just as we can.</p><p> Saul felt that David had conspired against him (1 Sam. 22:8,13), and now the same word is used of Absalom's conspiracy against David. Perhaps David was being taught how Saul felt, he was learning the implications of his past actions and how others felt because of them. And that is one window upon the meaning of our experiences. </p>


text:
<p>A messenger came to David saying, The hearts of the men of Israel are after Absalom- </p><p>David surely already perceived that over the years, Absalom had already stolen the hearts of Israel. The repeated stress upon the "men" of Israel may suggest Absalom was particularly attractive as a leader to the men; whereas David had been attractive to the women of Israel.</p><p> We wonder why we have this detail that a messenger told David of the general state of the hearts of the Israelites. Surely it was to recall the huge role played by messengers in the Uriah and Bathsheba drama. Constantly David is being reminded of why things were as they were. It was his fault. And yet he seeks to always blame it upon others.</p>


text:
<p>David said to all his servants who were with him at Jerusalem, Arise, and let us flee; for else none of us shall escape from Absalom. Make speed to depart, lest he overtake us quickly and bring evil down upon us and strike the city with the edge of the sword- </p><p>David knew that Absalom intended to murder him and his supporters. It was David’s servants who had perished along with Uriah (<a href='B:100 11:17'>2Sa 11:17</a>), and David desperately wanted to learn from this and not again bring death to his servants as a result of his folly. "Overtaken" is the word used of how David was overtaken by his sin with Bathsheba (<a href='B:230 40:12'>Psa 40:12</a>). The way he was saved from being overtaken by Absalom in judgment for this was perhaps an answer to his prayer of <a href='B:230 40:12'>Psa 40:12</a>.</p><p>And yet we notice that although David knew his sins had overtaken him, he didn't want judgment for the sins to overtake him. On one hand that is natural, but on another hand, we see again his struggle in accepting consequences for his sin with Bathsheba. </p><p> Amnon did "wrong" to Tamar David's daughter (2 Sam. 13:16). "Wrong" here is the same word translated "evil" in the punishment upon David in 2 Sam. 12:10 "I will raise up evil against you from within your own house / family". The "evil" of Amnon was therefore indeed his own error and sin, but it was used by God and 'raised up' in that God confirmed Amnon in his evil in order to punish David. At the time of Absalom's rebellion, Shimei comments that "Evil [s.w.] has overtaken you [David] because you are a man of blood" (2 Sam. 16:8). But David proactively sought to avoid that "evil": "Get up! Let us flee [from Absalom]... or he will soon... bring evil [s.w.] upon us" (2 Sam. 15:14). We see here the complexities of God's workings. The "evil" was indeed to come upon David, yet he took steps to avoid some of it and God confirmed him in that and delivered him from Absalom. And so 2 Sam. 17.14 "For the LORD had ordained to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, so that the LORD might bring ruin [evil] on Absalom" (NRSV). The complexities and ebb and flow of all this working are beyond any final human analysis; and this explains why there appear various things in our lives which clearly feel to be of Divine intervention, but whose meaning is beyond our analysis. </p><p> "The edge of the sword" is literally 'with the mouth of the sword'. The sword is spoken of as a mouth that devours. Yet this was just the image used by David when he excuses the murder of Uriah and the other soldiers: "the sword devours one as well as another" (2 Sam. 11:25).  David had airily spoken of the sword devouring, and that was just one of those things. But now he is brought face to face with the sword devouring him and his loved ones- and he is frightened and flees. Again, nothing in this experience was wasted. It was all in order to persuade David of the dimensions of his earlier sin which he had so airily dismissed at the time. We note that God felt it necessary to keep explaining these things to David. God does not willingly afflict repentant sinners. So this all suggests David was not very deeply or permanently repentant. He still failed to realize the depth of what he had done, and as discussed on 1 Kings 1, it seems in the final bedroom scene as he dies God was still trying to teach him the real nature of what he had done in his bedroom.</p>


text:
<p>The king’s servants said to the king, Behold, your servants are ready to do whatever my lord the king chooses-</p><p>We are intended to sense their extreme loyalty to David. They had of course realized his failures, but on balance believed that he was the anointed king of Israel and was overall a man of God worthy to be followed. We too at times need to stop ourselves judging a brother or sister in Christ for their out of character failures.</p>


text:
<p>The king went forth, and all his household after him. The king left ten women, who were concubines, to keep the house- </p><p>He would have recalled Nathan's prediction that his wives would be slept with by his usurper. He took his wives with him but left the concubines, surely knowing their fate. He did not seek to stop that prophecy coming true; he humbled himself to accept his sin and the judgment pronounced for it. See on <a href='B:100 16:21'>2Sa 16:21</a>.</p> <p> These concubines were "left behind" when David fled and were slept with by Absalom; just as Bathsheba was left in Jerusalem when Uriah went to Rabbah to fight, in broadly the same direction David had gone at this point. </p>


text:
<p>The king went forth, and all the people after him; and they stayed in Beth Merhak- </p><p>The day David fled Jerusalem is recorded in more detail than any day in Biblical history. The tragedy of a good man having to suffer for his sins is thereby underlined to us. "Beth Merhak" is literally 'the last / far house', the last house on the edge of Jerusalem, on the banks of the Kidron. This detail declares David to be an exile; he has left the last house in Israel and will cross the Jordan out of Israel. The lessons learnt in his exile from Saul, when he fled Israel, were now to be drawn on and reinforced, and David's learning of those lessons is going to be tested. The way he decides he doesn't need the ark with him would indicate that spiritually, in his heart, he comes through well. The record of course is designed as encouragement for the later exiles of Judah that they too could return to Zion, even when all seemed impossibly stacked against them ever doing so.</p>


text:
<p>All his servants passed on beside him; and all the Cherethites, the Pelethites and all the Gittites, six hundred men who came after him from Gath, passed on before the king- </p><p>The figure of 600 may not be literal, and alludes to the 600 men whom David commanded whilst fleeing from Saul in earlier years. They were maybe called "the men of Gath" not because they were Philistines from Gath, but because they had been with David in Gath when he lived there for over a year when fleeing from Saul. Their loyalty had not been ultimately swayed by David’s failure with Bathsheba. They recalled David’s undoubted faith, spirituality and bravery as a soldier of Yahweh, and didn’t allow themselves to be fazed by his temporary failure over Uriah. LXX adds "and halted at the olive tree in the wilderness". The idea may be that the mount of Olives was still as it were with David in the desert, just as God’s presence was just as much with him there as in the tabernacle and before the ark in Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king said to Ittai the Gittite, Why do you also go with us? Return, and stay with the king; for you are a foreigner, and also an exile. Return to your own place- </p><p>Naturally David feared that his ranks would be infiltrated by Absalom's agents. Ittai was a Philistine who had only recently joined David’s ranks (:20); all the indications were that he was an agent for Absalom. David refers to Absalom as "the king", accepting that he was no longer king. But David's scepticism of Ittai was proven wrong. He turned out a loyal follower of David and just a few days later, was in command of a third of David's men (2 Sam. 18:2). Again David presents as a man who gets it wrong in his judgments. The Tekoite woman's comment that he is wise as an Angel and knows everything... is again shown to be nonsense and mere ingratiation.  </p>


text:
<p>Whereas you came but yesterday, should I this day make you go up and down with us, since I go where I may? Return, and take back your brothers. Mercy and truth be with you- </p><p>Although David was sceptical of Ittai, he speaks to him in spiritual terms, wishing this Gentile the "mercy and truth" of covenant relationship with Yahweh. LXX "and the Lord shew thee mercy and truth". This is just how David had spoken to the men of Jabesh (<a href='B:100 2:5-6'>2Sa 2:5-6</a>). We are shown how David’s past experiences were now repeating in this crisis, and he was demonstrating that he had learned the lessons. Our crises are likewise designed to evoke memories of past experiences, and we are to demonstrate that we have learned the lessons. Likewise "I go where I may" is just how he had felt at the time of Saul's persecution (<a href='B:90 23:13'>1Sa 23:13</a> "David and his men, who were about six hundred, arose- again the 600 men are mentioned). He felt circumstances repeating, and perhaps hoped that Yahweh would likewise miraculously preserve him against seemingly overwhelming odds.</p>


text:
<p>Ittai answered the king and said, As Yahweh lives, and as my lord the king lives, surely in what place my lord the king shall be, whether for death or for life, even there also will your servant be- </p><p>By using the term "Yahweh" and swearing by Him, Ittai shows that he has accepted covenant relationship with Yahweh. And his promise of loyalty to David is expressed in terms of the Gentile Ruth's words to Naomi, when also in exile (<a href='B:80 1:16-17'>Rth 1:16-17</a>).</p>


text:
<p>David said to Ittai, Go and pass over. Ittai the Gittite passed over, and all his men, and all the little ones who were with him- </p><p>David accepted Ittai as sincere. And we marvel at the power of God’s truth. A Philistine, from Goliath's home town, had accepted covenant relationship with Yahweh and therefore accepts His anointed king, David. Even though David had lied to the men of Gath and later slain them, and had recently disgraced himself again over Bathsheba. The power of God’s truth was greater than all the disadvertisments for that truth in Yahweh's chosen representative. And this is a powerful challenge to those who turn away from God because of the bad examples of His representatives.</p>


text:
<p>All the country wept with a loud voice, and all the people passed over: the king also himself passed over the brook Kidron, and all the people passed over towards the way of the wilderness- </p><p>Although Absalom is presented as having much support, "the country" is presented as sharing in the tragic grief of this sad procession of David going into exile. The triple emphasis upon "passed over" shows David’s unity with his people and theirs with him. The exiles reading this would have seen the similarities with their own exile from Zion. It was also due to the effect of their sins; but they too had hope of restoration, despite much opposition. The crossing over Kidron was to be repeated by the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:500 18:1'>Joh 18:1</a>), suffering as if He were a sinner although He was personally innocent. "The way of the wilderness" was the road to Jericho, used by the Lord Jesus in His parable of the man going down from Jerusalem to Jericho being beaten [= suffering for his sins, in the parable], and being saved by grace and now law. Surely the Lord had David in mind, and is presenting the long day of his tragic exile as being the experience of everyman.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, Zadok also came, and all the Levites with him, bearing the ark of the covenant of God; and they set down the ark of God; and Abiathar went up, until all the people finished passing out of the city- </p><p>David had learned from previous history and experience that the ark should not be used as a talisman. He had learned in his wilderness years that God’s presence was just as close in a man's heart as if that man were in His presence before the ark. We note too that they "set down" the ark having learned the lesson from David’s inappropriate transportation of the ark on a wagon previously. Passing out of the city is parallel with passing over Kidron (:23), because that was the border of the city (see on :17). Again we see internal corroboration and consistency within the records.</p><p>The record of crossing a river with the priests and the ark standing by recalls the miraculous crossing of Jordan [the other way] by Joshua. "Until all the people finished passing out / over" is taken from Josh. 4:11. David's exit from God's land is presented in terms of Israel's entry into it. The idea may be that back is in fact forward, in God's bigger purpose.  </p>


text:
<p>The king said to Zadok, Carry back the ark of God into the city. If I find grace in the eyes of Yahweh, He will bring me again, and show me both it, and His dwelling place- </p><p>The lesson for the exiles was that restoration from exile was to be by grace and not at all because they deserved it or had&nbsp; been unjustly treated. David has in view Jacob as he fled into exile, also a sinner justly on the run; but he too was eventually to be restored. David prayed for restoration to the place of the ark (<a href='B:230 43:3'>Psa 43:3</a>), so his words should not be read as mere fatalism.</p><p>The temple and ark are sometimes referred to as the heavens (<a href='B:100 15:25'>2Sa 15:25</a> cp. <a href='B:110 8:30'>1Ki 8:30</a>; <a href='B:140 30:27'>2Ch 30:27</a>; <a href='B:230 20:2'>Psa 20:2</a>; <a href='B:230 20:6'>Psa 20:6</a>; <a href='B:230 11:4'>Psa 11:4</a>; <a href='B:650 7:26'>Heb 7:26</a>). The church is the new temple, and is therefore at times referred to as the heavenlies in the New Testament.</p><p>I have discussed on 1 Sam. 4:3 how the ark was often seen by Israel as a talisman. David had brought the ark to Zion in 2 Sam. 6, but this was without any Divine command to do so and without consultation with Him;  and there was the disaster with Uzzah the first time he attempted it. He clearly also veered towards seeing the ark as a talisman. It was almost as if he wanted to underwrite his own enthronement in Jerusalem by having Yahweh enthroned there also over the ark. Likewise David's desire to permanently locate the ark in a physical temple in Jerusalem can be seen as a desire to legitimate the enthronement of his dynasty in that city. But on the other hand, David often 'gets it' about the lack of need for the ark's physical presence. His psalms speak of how he lived permanently beneath the shadow of the cherubic wings, as if he lived on the mercy seat, on the sprinkled blood. In 2 Sam. 15:24-29 he flees from Absalom, and refuses the suggestion he take the ark with him. But, so true to real spiritual life, he also had tendencies towards needing the physical and religious when it came to the ark.  </p><p>I have discussed on 1 Sam. 4:3 how the ark was often seen by Israel as a talisman. David had brought the ark to Zion in 2 Sam. 6, but this was without any Divine command to do so and without consultation with Him;  and there was the disaster with Uzzah the first time he attempted it. He clearly also veered towards seeing the ark as a talisman. It was almost as if he wanted to underwrite his own enthronement in Jerusalem by having Yahweh enthroned there also over the ark. Likewise David's desire to permanently locate the ark in a physical temple in Jerusalem can be seen as a desire to legitimate the enthronement of his dynasty in that city. But on the other hand, David often 'gets it' about the lack of need for the ark's physical presence. His psalms speak of how he lived permanently beneath the shadow of the cherubic wings, as if he lived on the mercy seat, on the sprinkled blood. In 2 Sam. 15:24-29 he flees from Absalom, and refuses the suggestion he take the ark with him. But, so true to real spiritual life, he also had tendencies towards needing the physical and religious when it came to the ark.   </p><p>  David sending the ark back to Zion appears to be his statement that he recognizes God as king in Zion- but whether or not God wants him as His human agent for kingship, God must decide. Here David gets closest to accepting he may have to give up the kingship. I have often suggested that he ought to have resigned from being king and thus save so much of the suffering that was designed for his learning this fact. The real kingship was to be that of the Lord Jesus, and at some far future point, after David was sleeping with his fathers. </p><p> 
David's sending Zadok, Abiathar and the ark back to Zion can be read as a positive statement that he was content with the presence of God with him and didn't need the physical presence of the ark. He was rejecting the myth that the ark was needed in order to win a military conflict. However as always with David, his motives are mixed- because he wants Zadok and Abiathar back in Jerusalem to act as his spies there.</p>


text:
<p>but if He say thus, ‘I have no delight in you;’ behold, here am I. Let Him do to me as seems good to Him-</p><p>This resignation to God's will matches the Lord's attitude. These words are applied directly to the exiles, when they are assured that at their restoration, Yahweh would delight in them (<a href='B:290 62:4'>Isa 62:4</a>), just as finally He did in David (<a href='B:100 22:20'>2Sa 22:20</a>). David also has in view how the land of the Kingdom was to be given by grace if Yahweh delighted in His people, even though the obstacles to possessing it appeared huge (<a href='B:40 14:8'>Num 14:8</a>). And he too stood near the Jordan river as they had done. He reasoned from Biblical precedent. David on this long day of exile (see on :17) is David at perhaps his best in spiritual terms.</p>


text:
<p>The king said also to Zadok the priest, Aren’t you a seer? Return into the city in peace, and your two sons with you, Ahimaaz your son, and Jonathan the son of Abiathar- </p><p>The connection between being a seer and needing to therefore return to Jerusalem is unclear. Hence LXX "See! thou shalt return...". But perhaps David is simply making a word play- Zadok was a seer, one who saw and relayed what he had seen. And so he was to do the same in relaying to David what he saw going on in Jerusalem under Absalom.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, I will stay at the fords of the wilderness until word comes from you to inform me- </p><p>"The plain of the wilderness" (AV) is the plain of Jericho (<a href='B:60 5:10'>Jos 5:10</a>; <a href='B:120 25:5'>2Ki 25:5</a>; <a href='B:100 2:29'>2Sa 2:29</a>; <a href='B:100 17:16'>2Sa 17:16</a>). "The way of the wilderness" in <a href='B:100 15:23'>2Sa 15:23</a> was therefore the road to Jericho, used by the Lord Jesus in His parable of the man going down from Jerusalem to Jericho being beaten [= suffering for his sins, in the parable], and being saved by grace and now law. Surely the Lord had David in mind, and is presenting the long day of his tragic exile as being the experience of everyman.</p>


text:
<p>Zadok therefore and Abiathar carried the ark of God again to Jerusalem; and they stayed there- </p><p>David was concerned for the ark. His desire it not accompany him reflected that, and also his willingness to accept that he may be killed by Absalom and the ark destroyed in the fighting. He knew his son had no real respect for Yahweh. And he knew from his earlier experiences that God’s presence would be with him whether or not the ark was with him.</p>


text:
<p>David went up by the ascent of the Mount of Olives, and wept as he went up; and he had his head covered, and went barefoot: and all the people who were with him covered each man his head; so they went up, weeping as they went up- </p><p>This may be slightly out of chronological sequence. But it is noted that David went there to worship (:32). We note how the Lord Jesus was likewise around the mount of Olives before He crossed the Kidron in <a href='B:500 18:1'>Joh 18:1</a>. His covered head and going barefoot would suggest he recognized it was holy ground, and that he was there as a sinner. He was to likewise cover his head in mourning when Absalom was dead and the rebellion was over (<a href='B:100 19:4'>2Sa 19:4</a>), just as he did when Absalom came to power (<a href='B:100 15:30'>2Sa 15:30</a>). We get the impression that it was grief every way for David, whether Absalom lived or died. And this is indeed the take away lesson for us- that the outcome of sin is a lose lose situation. The point made to David by his covering his head before and after Absalom's death is that despite his best efforts, there was no way for him to avoid the grief caused by his actions with Bathsheba.</p>


text:
<p>Someone told David saying, Ahithophel is among the conspirators with Absalom. David said, Yahweh, please turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness- </p><p>Ahithophel was Bathsheba's grandfather, and his defection was surely not unexpected to David. But we can imagine the bolt of pain which he experienced as he received the news. This turning of wisdom into foolishness is alluded to be in <a href='B:290 44:25'>Isa 44:25</a>. The exiles were being comforted that all the wisdom of Babylon would likewise be turned into foolishness, and they would likewise be restored. David’s prayer was considered and answered by a decree passed in the court of Heaven; see on <a href='B:100 17:14'>2Sa 17:14</a>). "Yahweh had ordained to defeat [s.w. 'turn to foolishness'] the good counsel of Ahithophel". The answer to David's prayer began immediately- :32 says that having prayed this and worshipped God, despite not having any answers, Hushai appears. The decree to answer David's prayer took immediate effect, although it took time to work out as with Daniel's prayer of Dan. 10.  Hushai is going to be the answer and the means of subverting Ahithophel's counsel. The same path is seen in answers to our own prayers. It is surely to this that Ps. 3:4 alludes: "I cry to Yahweh with my voice, and He answers me out of His holy hill". This Psalm is titled "A Psalm by David, when he fled from Absalom his son". The "holy hill" is surely the mount of Olives where David was when he prayed (:30). Psalm 3 appears to be a flow of consciousness psalm, recording David's thoughts at that moment. In this case, he believed his prayer was answered. He believed the decree had gone forth- and that faith was rewarded. Hushai appeared... and a process was set in motion that would save David from Ahithophel's counsel. David seems to have perceived this at the time, even though the outworking of the answer to his prayer wasn't visible. For David fled from Absalom with his head covered (2 Sam. 15:30) but in the Psalm he tells himself that Yahweh will lift up his head (Ps. 3:3). </p><p> Surely all this encouraged the Lord, whose final hours were so full of connection with David at this time. He too prayed on the mount of Olives before His arrest (Mt. 26:30). There are many connections between the Lord's death and David's flight from Absalom. He "arises" and leaves Jerusalem as David arose and fled, goes to the mount of Olives, crosses the Kedron with weary followers, is betrayed by his familiar friend [Ahithophel = Judas, "friend why have you come?" cp. Ps. 41:9; 55:13, who did what Ahithophel planned to do, taking a group of men to come upon Jesus by night, focusing solely on taking Jesus], the betrayer then hangs himself, receives assurances of loyalty "even if I must die with you", restrains his followers from smiting with the sword [Peter=Abishai], resigns himself to God's will as David in :26- and dies. David is saved. David's experiences were a judgment for his sins; and so the Lord, who never sinned, experienced what it feels like to be judged for sin. Thus He identified with us, to the point that He is able to feel how we feel in condemnation for sin; He experienced it, although personally innocent. Thus many of the Psalms predicting the Lord's death are actually initially about David's sufferings at the hands of others [like Absalom] because of his sins. </p>


text:
<p>It happened that when David had come to the top, where God was worshipped, behold, Hushai the Archite came to meet him with his coat torn, and earth on his head- </p><p>The mount of Olives was clearly one of the "high places" where Yahweh was legitimately worshipped (<a href='B:90 7:17'>1Sa 7:17</a>; <a href='B:90 9:13'>1Sa 9:13</a>); hence David ascends it barefoot as if on holy ground. Such high places were not God’s ideal intention, especially as this mount was so near to the sanctuary. But He still accepted worship there, such is His desire by all means to meet with man even on less than ideal terms.</p>


text:
<p>David said to him, If you pass on with me, then you will be a burden to me- </p><p>This may have been because of his age. As in <a href='B:100 19:35'>2Sa 19:35</a>, it was older men who had known David in earlier years who were faithful to him at this time.</p>


text:
<p>but if you return to the city and tell Absalom, ‘I will be your servant, O king. As I have been your father’s servant in time past, so will I now be your servant; then you will defeat for me the counsel of Ahithophel’- </p><p>This raises the question as to whether lying is always wrong, necessarily. Rahab's lies and those of the Hebrew midwives at the exodus are rewarded as acts of faith. But this is of course a slippery slope. But such open questions are left for our reflection, underlining that spiritual life cannot be run by laws but by principles.</p>


text:
<p>Don’t you have Zadok and Abiathar the priests there with you? Therefore it shall be, that whatever thing you shall hear out of the king’s house, you shall tell it to Zadok and Abiathar the priests- </p><p>David’s experience of having friends within the court of Saul prepared him for having friends within the court of Absalom, when both those men were hunting him. One experience prepares us for another, years later.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, they have there with them their two sons, Ahimaaz, Zadok’s son, and Jonathan, Abiathar’s son; and by them you shall send to me everything that you shall hear- </p><p>We get the impression David is being presented as matching Absalom's "spies throughout all Israel" (:10) with his own smaller scale espionage system. And his worked, whereas Absalom's much larger system failed. It was David against Goliath all over again.</p>


text:
<p>So Hushai, David’s friend, came into the city; and Absalom came into Jerusalem- </p><p>Absalom entered Jerusalem the day David fled (<a href='B:100 17:1'>2Sa 17:1</a>). The day David fled Jerusalem is recorded in more detail than any day in Biblical history. The tragedy of a good man having to suffer for his sins is thereby underlined to us. Ahithophel's advice to attack David immediately was undoubtedly the best advice.</p>


text:
<p>When David was a little past the top, behold, Ziba the servant of Mephibosheth met him, with a couple of donkeys saddled, and on them two hundred loaves of bread, one hundred clusters of raisins, one hundred summer fruits and a skin of wine- </p><p>As noted on 2 Samuel 15, the circumstances David faced repeated incidents throughout his earlier life, or the essence of them. He had earlier unexpectedly encountered a gift of 200 loves of bread coming towards him in the wilderness, from Abigail (<a href='B:90 25:18'>1Sa 25:18</a>). She may well have been with him at this time too. Raisins and wine were also part of the present Abigail had sent him. The situations were clearly controlled by God. David was being comforted, as we are by perceiving these things, that situations never spin totally out of Divine control. Even in our lowest moments there are evidences that somehow God is involved, even if we cannot attach meaning to event.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Ziba, What do you mean by these? Ziba said, The donkeys are for the king’s household to ride on; and the bread and summer fruit for the young men to eat; and the wine, that such as are faint in the wilderness may drink- </p><p>We will learn from <a href='B:100 19:26-27'>2Sa 19:26-27</a>&nbsp; that Ziba had deceived Mephibosheth, who had desperately wanted to come to support David. It could be that Ziba was going over to Absalom's side, and the present was intended for him; whilst he abandonned his master Mephibosheth, who wanted to support David. But encountering David and his sizeable party on the road, Ziba changed his position and claimed the gift was for David, and Mephibosheth was aiming to become king.</p><p><a href='B:230 23:5'>Psa 23:5</a> "You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies" refers to this time. Shimei and other "enemies" were aware of his path. The reference is to the feasts prepared for him in the desert by Ziba (<a href='B:100 16:2'>2Sa 16:2</a>) and Barzillai (<a href='B:100 17:27-29'>2Sa 17:27-29</a>). But the phrase "prepare a table" is that used of the preparation of the table of shewbread (<a href='B:20 40:4'>Exo 40:4</a>), and it is used in a religious sense in <a href='B:290 65:11'>Isa 65:11</a>; <a href='B:330 23:41'>Eze 23:41</a>. Perhaps David held some kind of religious ceremony whilst on the run, the equivalent to our breaking of bread meeting. And his experience of the Lord's table strengthened him with great encouragement, as we also can experience.</p><p>"What do you mean by these?" and David's reference to Saul as Ziba's master (:3) suggest he was cynical of Ziba's gift. But he is persuaded by it and accepts what Ziba says, that Ziba is faithful to David and Mephibosheth was trying to become king in the line of Saul. And so he gives Ziba what he tacitly wants- the estate of Saul handed over to him from Mephibosheth. But later David will find that Ziba was lying (2 Sam. 19:26). Again we see the deceiver deceived; and he was deceived whilst on one level suspecting what was going on, just as happened to him with Amnon and twice with Absalom; just as happened with Uriah.</p>


text:
<p>The king said, Where is your master’s son? Ziba said to the king, Behold, he is staying in Jerusalem; for he said, ‘Today the house of Israel will restore me the kingdom of my father’- </p><p>A bit of reflection would have indicated the untruth of this; because clearly Absalom was obsessed with becoming king, and would not want to restore the house of Saul after all they had done to the house of David. Further, Mephibosheth was from Benjamin, and it was the people of Judah, especially those in Hebron, who wanted Absalom to rule over them. It was he and not the reclusive cripple Mephibosheth who had stolen the hearts of Israel. David is told the truth of the matter in 2 Sam. 19:25-30. But the point is that David is again portrayed as being deceived, and an inept judge of where truth lies. His deceit of Uriah yet again is played out before his eyes. In 2 Sam. 14 he likewise failed to discern the true intention of the woman from Tekoah, and was again duped. Absalom's complaint that David was not a fit judge was not therefore untrue. And it was part of being the king of Israel that he should judge, and judge justly. David desperately hung on to being king when he should have realized his own failure as king, resigned, and focused on the wonderful promise of the future eternal king in his line- the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king said to Ziba, Behold, all that pertains to Mephibosheth is yours. Ziba said, I do obeisance. Let me find grace in your sight, my lord, O king-</p><p>Although the news was fake, David didn’t know that at the time. It would have seemed that all the grace he had shown to the house of Saul was in vain, and had not resulted in any loyalty but rather in an ill fated, opportunistic attempt to grab power for himself. This fake news was surely used by God to provoke in David a collapse mentality, which was intended to make him cast himself further upon God’s grace alone. But we have here another example of David acting too hastily, as he did to the woman from Tekoa. </p>


text:
<p>When king David came to Bahurim, behold, a man of the family of the house of Saul came out, whose name was Shimei the son of Gera. He came out and cursed continually as he came- </p><p>Psalms 7 is relevant to this cursing. <a href='B:230 7:1'>Psa 7:1</a> describes it as "A meditation by David, which he sang to Yahweh, concerning the words of Cush the Benjamite". But Cush may be another name for Shimei; or perhaps "the black one of Benjamin" may be another term for Saul. But much in the Psalm is so appropriate to Shimei's cursing of David as he fled from Absalom. But it could equally refer to some supporter of Saul the Benjamite during David’s wilderness years. Most likely it could be that a Psalm composed in the wilderness years was later rewritten by David with reference to Shimei's abuse of him.</p><p><a href='B:230 109:17'>Psa 109:17</a> also seems to reference Shimei: "Yes, he loved cursing, and it came to him. He didn’t delight in blessing, and so it was far from him". This points towards Shimei, whose cursing of David at the time of Absalom's rebellion clearly hurt David very deeply. At the time, David forgave him. But he didn’t maintain that intensity of forgiveness, because on his deathbed he asks Solomon to ensure Shimei even as an old man is slain because of it. His statement here that the cursing "came to him" may be a 'future perfect', stating the future as if it has already happened, as a way of stating intention. And David expressed this intention to Solomon to ensure Shimei was cursed with death for his cursing. We too struggle to maintain levels of forgiveness we grant to people, and we perceive how God’s "frank" and permanent forgiveness (<a href='B:490 7:42'>Luk 7:42</a>) is of an altogether higher quality and nature than our forgiveness.</p><p>Why did the cursing of Shimei happen at Bahurim? It was to here that the weeping husband of David's ex-wife Michal had followed her (2 Sam. 3:16), after David had cruelly commanded that she should be taken from him [despite having had children by him] and live in disgrace at Jerusalem. He never slept with her and she was effectively a prisoner of court. This was a cruel thing to have done, a way of getting back at his ex and establishing his own power. Paltiel her husband followed her until Bahurim, where he was forced to go back. Now David is weeping at Bahurim, having lost all he once held dear. He is being made to understand how Paltiel felt, and the Father was thereby seeking to elicit David's repentance. There is no evidence that David responded to the Divine nudge in this case. We would love to read that he sent word to release Michal and let her return to Paltiel, but there is nothing at all to suggest this. Rather we are told that she remained desolate in David's house until the day of her death. </p><p>David's route out of Jerusalem towards Mahanaim was the very route Uriah would have taken to Rabbah. Every step of his miserable path he would have been reminded of the fatal journey he had sent Uriah on. But still he was met by grace on that path, with feasts prepared for him.</p>


text:
<p>He cast stones at David, and at all the servants of king David; and all the people and all the mighty men were on his right hand and on his left- </p><p>Death by stoning was the punishment for adultery, and it was hard for David to argue that this was inappropriate. He had been saved from that by grace, but now it seemed that God was demanding that the death penalty be carried out. David would have been beating himself up that he had not responded to the grace shown him as he ought to have done.</p><p>David was marching through a valley with steep sides, from the top of which Shimei could cast stones. Psalms 23 refers to this march, especially <a href='B:230 23:4'>Psa 23:4</a> "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death":&nbsp; There was naturally the fear of an ambush, for David’s location was thereby clearly known to his enemies. Yet "I will fear no evil, for You are with me". David’s sense that 'God is with me' is that of 'Emmanuel', God with us, the great comfort to the exiles in Isaiah's restoration prophecies. He felt the essence of the result of the yet future work of the Lord Jesus.</p><p>We have to notice the reversal of David's stoning of Goliath. Now it is he who is surrounded by Philistine soldiers, his only loyal men- and he is being stoned by an Israelite who is not only stoning him but also cursing him by Israel's God. Perhaps this was to correct any possible subsequent pride he had had because of his victory. He was being made to feel how Goliath felt. Possibly that is why he declines Abishai's offer to cut Shimei's head off, which is what David had done to Goliath.</p>


text:
<p>Shimei said when he cursed, Be gone, be gone, you man of blood, and base fellow!- </p><p>Shimei called David a "bloodthirsty man" (:7,8 s:w:). And the same words are used by God about David (<a href='B:130 28:3'>1Ch 28:3</a>). So we can wonder whether David was too quick in <a href='B:230 5:6'>Psa 5:6</a> to assume that the 'man of blood' who was hated by God and was of course not him. "Base fellow" is "man of Belial" and that is just what Abigail had called Nabal (1 Sam. 25:25). Doubtless David had prided himself on doing the right thing in waiting that Nabal the "man of Belial" to die of natural causes before taking Abigail as wife. But he is being shown that he is no better than Nabal. Indeed later David is to admit that he has "done foolishly" (2 Sam. 24:10), no better than Nabal the fool. So possibly he did learn from this. Again we see that all his sufferings were not mere karma, not Divine anger for the sake of it; but judgments designed to elicit his repentance and appreciation of the dimensions of his actions and their effect upon others. That this continued so long and so repeatedly in his life suggests he overall failed to get most of the lessons most of the time. Likewise with all our experiences.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh has returned on you all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose place you have reigned! Yahweh has delivered the kingdom into the hand of Absalom your son! Behold, you are caught by your own sinfulness, because you are a man of blood!- </p><p>It was the blood of Uriah and the soldiers killed alongside him which was being punished. But Shimei says that David had shed the blood of the house of Saul. This was all a cruel mixture of truth and error. David would likely have noted the reference to the house of Saul, and wrongly corroborated it with Ziba's claim that in fact Absalom was planning to be co-regent along with Mephibosheth.</p><p>Shimei's accusation was false- David was not fleeing from Absalom because of anything he had done to Saul. Indeed he had consistently acted honourably towards Saul and his family, the very opposite of Shimei's false accusation. But the purpose of the obviously false accusation was to elicit humility in David and recognition of his sin with Uriah and Bathsheba; for that was the real reason why he was fleeing from Absalom. And indeed David had been a "bloodthirsty man". David did have blood on his hands, and the experience of false accusation was intended to elicit his recognition of that. The blood he had on his hands was of Uriah and the soldiers of Israel; not the blood of Saul and his family who were slain by God. And that is often the purpose behind our experience of false accusation- to elicit in us an awareness of our actual sins. And it possibly worked, because David accepts that this cursing is from Yahweh. We too need to spiritually respond to false accusation as we are intended to and not get hung up in bitterness upon the injustice of it. And yet despite Shimei's curses being not wrong in essence, David was still so hurt by them that he asked Solomon to slay Shimei. This was surely a case of hurt pride. </p><p> Amnon did "wrong" to Tamar David's daughter (2 Sam. 13:16). "Wrong" here is the same word translated "evil" in the punishment upon David in 2 Sam. 12:10 "I will raise up evil against you from within your own house / family". The "evil" of Amnon was therefore indeed his own error and sin, but it was used by God and 'raised up' in that God confirmed Amnon in his evil in order to punish David. At the time of Absalom's rebellion, Shimei comments that "Evil [s.w.] has overtaken you [David] because you are a man of blood" (2 Sam. 16:8). But David proactively sought to avoid that "evil": "Get up! Let us flee [from Absalom]... or he will soon... bring evil [s.w.] upon us" (2 Sam. 15:14). We see here the complexities of God's workings. The "evil" was indeed to come upon David, yet he took steps to avoid some of it and God confirmed him in that and delivered him from Absalom. And so 2 Sam. 17.14 "For the LORD had ordained to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, so that the LORD might bring ruin [evil] on Absalom" (NRSV). The complexities and ebb and flow of all this working are beyond any final human analysis; and this explains why there appear various things in our lives which clearly feel to be of Divine intervention, but whose meaning is beyond our analysis. </p><p>  We could render "You are in your own evil". This evil was the evil God had said would arise from David's own house, and Shimei is consciously alluding to this- hence David's comment that Yahweh has bidden Shimei curse in this way. But still David seeks to wriggle out of it, hoping that because of this manifestation of the evil, God would bless him with good (:12). Although he perceives God has raised up Shimei to curse him, he is far from penitent and bitterly resents this consequence- later commanding Solomon to murder him. Again he shoots the messenger, just as he did with the man who told him of Saul's death, as his servants feared he would do to them if they told him his child by Bathsheba had died, and as I suggest Ahimaaz did when he couldn't bring himself to tell David that his son Absalom was dead. </p><p> 
We ponder the truth of "Yahweh has delivered the kingdom into the hand of Absalom". So far in the Hebrew Bible, nobody has ever claimed that they are speaking for Yahweh when in fact they weren't. David understands Shimei as acting on Yahweh's behalf (:10). The language is so similar to Yahweh's judgment of 1 Sam. 15:28 “The Lord has this day torn the kingship over Israel away from you [Saul] and has given it to another [David]". For David, this should have made no difference, and it should have honed his focus upon the promise of 2 Sam. 7- that after his death, he would be resurrected to see his Divine seed reigning on his throne eternally. So quite possibly God did take the kingdom away from David and give it to Absalom; but he was vain and therefore slain, and so the kingdom returned to David. </p>


text:
<p>Then Abishai the son of Zeruiah said to the king, Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king?- </p><p>This was how David had felt about himself (<a href='B:90 24:14'>1Sa 24:14</a> cp. <a href='B:100 9:8'>2Sa 9:8</a>; <a href='B:100 16:9'>2Sa 16:9</a>). So his humility precluded him from having Abishai's attitude.</p><p>Please let me go over and take off his head- </p><p>The Philistines in <a href='B:90 29:4'>1Sa 29:4</a> recalled how David had carried the head of Goliath to Saul (<a href='B:90 17:57'>1Sa 17:57</a>). To carry the heads of a king's enemies was a way to get the king's favour, as in <a href='B:70 7:25'>Jdg 7:25</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>; <a href='B:100 16:9'>2Sa 16:9</a>; <a href='B:100 20:21'>2Sa 20:21</a>; <a href='B:120 10:6-8'>2Ki 10:6-8</a>. Again we see the inspired, historical record has consistency. It would have required a clever editor to insert this theme of beheading to curry a leader's favour throughout the entire Biblical record. But the histories were clearly written at different times; a later hand would not have thought of all these realistic touches to sprinkle so consistently throughout it. The internal harmony of the Bible is to me the greatest indication that it is what it claims to be, the Divinely inspired word of God, evidencing His editing throughout.</p><p>It was Abishai who had wanted to kill Saul in 1 Sam. 26:8,9 but was then restrained by David; and David now twice restrains him from killing Shimei, Saul's relative (2 Sam. 16:9; 19:22,23). </p>


text:
<p>The king said, What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah? Because he curses, and because Yahweh has said to him, ‘Curse David’, who then shall say, ‘Why have you done so?’- </p><p>To curse the king was a capital offence under the law (Ex. 22:28). Abishai was acting according to the law- if indeed David was still king. The fact David restrains him could be read as his recognition that he was not in fact the king of Israel at this point. He is at least willing to accept that he may have lost the throne; and this temporary loss of the throne was surely to make him focus more on the promised seed of 2 Sam. 7, who after David's death would reign eternally upon David's throne, in David's resurrected presence. </p><p> David assumes that “the Lord hath said unto [Shimei], Curse David”; but later he orders Solomon to punish Shimei for doing this. So it seems that David had a way of assuming God had spoken when it was more his own assumption. It is another example of David’s tendency to wildly over interpret, which led him to a mistaken obsession about building the temple and assuming Solomon to be his Messianic seed.</p><p>Or we could read this as an example of where Yahweh confirms an evil man in his evil way, telling him to do what he wants to do; just as the evil spirit from Yahweh confirmed Saul in his downwards path. And indeed there was some truth in Shimei's cursing of David; for he was guilty of blood and should have been stoned to death. We note with possible interest that another "son of Gera", Ehud, also spoke a word of Yahweh as judgment to a wicked king (Jud. 3:15).</p>


text:
<p>David said to Abishai, and to all his servants, Behold, my son, who came forth from my bowels, seeks my life. How much more this Benjamite, now? Leave him alone, and let him curse; for Yahweh has invited him- </p><p>David graciously overlooked Shimei's cursing, promising him that he would not die because of it (<a href='B:100 16:10-11'>2Sa 16:10-11</a>; <a href='B:100 19:23'>2Sa 19:23</a>). But he didn’t keep up that level of grace to the end: he later asked Solomon to ensure that Shimei&nbsp; was killed for that incident (<a href='B:110 2:8-9'>1Ki 2:8-9</a>). And one wonders whether it was Shimei’s words which so broke David’s heart that he later wrote: “Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man…as he loved cursing, so let it come unto him; as he delighted not in blessing, so may it be far from him. He clothed himself also with cursing as with a garment…” (<a href='B:230 109:16-18'>Psa 109:16-18</a>). Again we see in David both grace and less noble feelings at the same time- pride, vindictiveness, unforgiveness... </p>


text:
<p>It may be that Yahweh will look on the wrong done to me, and that Yahweh will repay me good for the cursing of me today- </p><p>Hannah's request in <a href='B:90 1:11'>1Sa 1:11</a> that God look upon her affliction and answer it was heard, and she became an inspiration to her descendant David; who often makes the same request, unashamed to be inspired by the example of a woman (s:w. <a href='B:100 16:12'>2Sa 16:12</a>; <a href='B:230 9:13'>Psa 9:13</a>; <a href='B:230 25:18'>Psa 25:18</a> and so often in the Psalms).</p><p> David still considers that he is unfairly suffering "wrong" ['evil']. Although this was the specific punishment for his great sins in the Bathsheba affair. And yet he has just accepted that Shimei's stoning of him was just and from God, in that he deserved it. We see here what we surely have all experienced- lip service to the idea that we are sinners and justly condemned to suffering and death, and yet chafing at these things being unfair in our personal case. All at the very same time. </p><p> I suggest that it is at this exact moment, reflecting upon Shimei's words, that Psalm 3 was composed in David's mind. And without doubt Ps. 109:28 fits in here: "They may curse, but You bless. When they arise, they will be shamed, but Your servant shall rejoice. Let my adversaries be clothed with dishonour, may they cover themselves with their own shame as with a robe". The rest of the Psalm is David's ranting against Shimei and Ahithophel, with some words of it being quoted in the New Testament about Judas. But the logic is concerning. David doesn't accept that the cursing of Shimei is just, even though he admits God has bidden Shimei curse. Even at this time, he begs for judgment upon Shimei. And he likes to imagine that because he was being cursed, therefore God would have pity upon him and bless him. David thereby refuses any idea that there is a connection between his sins and his experience of being cursed. The essential accusations of Shimei were true, even if the details weren't. David's reaction here seems typical- thinking he can as it were bend some good from God out of his sufferings for his sins.</p>


text:
<p>So David and his men went by the way; and Shimei went along on the hillside opposite him, and cursed as he went, threw stones at him, and threw dust- </p><p>The language of cursing and dust recalls <a href='B:10 3:19'>Gen 3:19</a>. That David’s sin is indeed an epitome of all our sins is proved by the way in which the record of it is framed in the language of the fall. Adam is presented as David. <a href='B:10 2:8'>Gen 2:8</a>; <a href='B:10 2:17'>Gen 2:17</a> = <a href='B:100 12:5'>2Sa 12:5</a>; <a href='B:10 2:17'>Gen 2:17</a> = <a href='B:100 12:9'>2Sa 12:9</a>; <a href='B:10 6:2'>Gen 6:2</a> = <a href='B:100 12:9'>2Sa 12:9</a>; <a href='B:10 3:17'>Gen 3:17</a> = <a href='B:100 12:10'>2Sa 12:10</a>; <a href='B:10 3:7'>Gen 3:7</a> = <a href='B:100 12:11'>2Sa 12:11</a>; <a href='B:10 3:8'>Gen 3:8</a> = <a href='B:100 11:24'>2Sa 11:24</a>; <a href='B:100 12:12'>2Sa 12:12</a>; <a href='B:10 3:21'>Gen 3:21</a> = <a href='B:100 12:13'>2Sa 12:13</a>; <a href='B:10 3:17'>Gen 3:17</a> = <a href='B:100 16:11'>2Sa 16:11</a>; <a href='B:10 3:19'>Gen 3:19</a> = <a href='B:100 16:13'>2Sa 16:13</a>. It should also be noted that David/Bathsheba language is used to describe Israel's spiritually fallen state (e.g. <a href='B:230 38:7'>Psa 38:7</a>=<a href='B:290 1:6'>Isa 1:6</a>; <a href='B:230 51:7'>Psa 51:7</a>=<a href='B:290 1:18'>Isa 1:18</a>; <a href='B:230 65:2'>Psa 65:2</a>=<a href='B:290 40:15'>Isa 40:15</a>). David recognized this in <a href='B:230 51:17'>Psa 51:17</a>, where he likens his own state to that of Zion, which also needed to be revived by God’s mercy. As David’s sin is likened to the killing of a lamb (<a href='B:100 12:4'>2Sa 12:4</a>), so the Jews killed Jesus. The troubles which therefore came upon his kingdom have certain similarities with the events of AD67-70:&nbsp;&nbsp; They were also repeated in the Nazi Holocaust, and will yet be. Israel are yet to fully repent after the pattern of David.</p><p>Throughout all these experiences, David was composing Psalms. Ps 7:4,5 records David's objections to having his glory rolled in the dust by Shimei, an allusion to Shimei throwing dust at him. He denies that he has done evil to people as accused, and insists he has done only good. This was true of the house of Saul, but he fails to see that he had been a man of blood to Uriah.  </p>


text:
<p>The king, and all the people who were with him, became weary; and he refreshed himself there-</p><p>The day David fled Jerusalem is recorded in more detail than any day in Biblical history. The tragedy of a good man having to suffer for his sins is thereby underlined to us.</p>


text:
<p>Absalom, and all the people, the men of Israel, came to Jerusalem, and Ahithophel with him-</p><p>Absalom entered Jerusalem the day David fled (<a href='B:100 15:37'>2Sa 15:37</a>; <a href='B:100 17:1'>2Sa 17:1</a>). Ahithophel's advice to attack David immediately was undoubtedly the best advice.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when Hushai the Archite, David’s friend, had come to Absalom, that Hushai said to Absalom, Long live the king! Long live the king!- </p><p>Hushai doesn't define which king he has in mind. This raises the question as to whether lying is always wrong, necessarily. Rahab's lies and those of the Hebrew midwives at the exodus are rewarded as acts of faith. But this is of course a slippery slope. But such open questions are left for our reflection, underlining that spiritual life cannot be run by laws but by principles. See on <a href='B:100 17:20'>2Sa 17:20</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Absalom said to Hushai, Is this your kindness to your friend? Why didn’t you go with your friend?- </p><p>There is a kind of parallel here with David probing Ittai as to whether he wasn't in fact an agent of Absalom (<a href='B:100 15:19'>2Sa 15:19</a>).</p><p>Here we have another example of a man knowing or suspecting that he is being lied to or likely to be deceived, and falling headlong for the deception anyway. This happens several times to David, and I have noted that this was precisely the case with Uriah as he returned to the battlefront with a letter from David, and as he marched to an engagement where he was sure he would be killed. What David did is being played out before his eyes yet again.  </p>


text:
<p>Hushai said to Absalom, No; but whoever Yahweh and this people, and all the men of Israel have chosen, his will I be, and with him I will stay- </p><p>This again (as noted on :16) is phrased ambiguously; for Hushai believed that Yahweh and the true Israel of God had chosen David and not Absalom. Hushai's double speak is so obvious! We enquire why Absalom didn't see through it. We can only conclude that God's Spirit can work directly on human minds to blind and also reveal. </p>


text:
<p>Again, whom should I serve? Shouldn’t I serve in the presence of his son? As I have served in your father’s presence, so will I be in your presence- </p><p>Hushai accepts that David has indeed lost the throne, for the time being.</p>


text:
<p>Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, Give your counsel what we shall do-</p><p>Ahithophel's counsel directly leads to the fulfilment of Nathan's prophecy that a usurper would sleep with David’s wives. Perhaps he based his counsel about this upon Nathan's words. But probably those words of Nathan had been privately stated to David and not generally known. So we reflect how Ahithophel's advice and Absalom's acceptance of it was all of their own genuine freewill. And yet it was to fulfil God’s word of punishment.</p>


text:
<p>Ahithophel said to Absalom, Go in to your father’s concubines, that he has left to keep the house. Then all Israel will hear that you are abhorred by your father. Then the hands of all who are with you will be strong- </p><p>Ahithophel assumed that such behaviour would make David hate Absalom. But he had not factored in David’s deep spirituality and humility. For this did not make David hate Absalom, and at his death, David was heartbroken, despite having been reestablished as king. Further, I suggested on <a href='B:100 15:16'>2Sa 15:16</a> that David left his concubines in Jerusalem fully aware of what would happen according to Nathan's prophecy. But he did not seek to stop that prophecy coming true; he humbled himself to accept his sin and the judgment pronounced for it.</p><p>The record in  2 Sam. 15:16; 16:21 uses a slightly strange word as to how David "left ten women, who were concubines, to keep [specifically, to guard] the house". We of course wonder how the ten women were supposed to guard David's house against Absalom's army. If we stick with just the idea of 'keeping the house', why would David so wish there to be no break in the housekeeping in his absence? I suggest the better translation is that he left the ten women 'in the guard house'. And so again we have the scenes with Uriah played out again before David's eyes. He slept with Uriah's wife, called Uriah back from the front, got him drunk and urged him to go home and sleep with his wife. But Uzziah instead lay down to sleep with David's servants at the gate of David's house- clearly, the guard house: "Uriah slept at the door of the king’s house with all the servants of his lord" (2 Sam. 11:9). Now David used that same guard house to try to hide ten of his women. We may note that the guarded house they were finally kept in (2 Sam. 20:3), the house of guarding / keeping, is described with a related word to that used for 'keeping / guarding' in 2 Sam. 15:16; 16:21.  </p><p> The reasoning was that some Israelites guessed that David and Absalom might reconcile; and then David would seek revenge upon those who had backed Absalom. So the idea was to make David so hate Absalom that it was clear to everyone that there would never be any reconciliation between them. To publically lay with David's wives was the ultimate humiliation for David. His lack of response to it shows him to have been truly weak and humiliated.</p>


text:
<p>So they spread Absalom a tent on the top of the house; and Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel- </p><p>Walking upon the roof of his house connects with several passages which associate the roof top with a place of idolatry: <a href='B:120 23:12'>2Ki 23:12</a>; <a href='B:300 19:13'>Jer 19:13</a>; <a href='B:300 32:29'>Jer 32:29</a>; <a href='B:430 1:5'>Zep 1:5</a>. It may be that David regularly worshipped the idol of Bathsheba in his mind, upon the bed which he had on the house top. David’s sin with Bathsheba is therefore not such a momentary slip. Significantly, it was in that very place where Absalom later lay with his wives in retribution for what he had done (<a href='B:100 16:22'>2Sa 16:22</a>). From this we could infer that David lay with Bathsheba in that same place on the roof top. This is significant insofar as it shows how exactly the thought leads to the action. David’s thoughts in that spot were translated into that very action, in precisely the same physical location.</p><p>We recall that David had intentionally left those women behind. Had he really loved them, he would by all means have taken them with him- and so the threatened judgment of 2 Sam. 12:11,12 would not have come true: "I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun". God of course foresaw David's lack of love for those women. Again we note that although people are said to love David, David is never recorded as loving anyone. </p><p>These women were likely the concubines / harem of Saul, which had been given to David by Yahweh [Nathan rebuked David about taking Bathsheba because "I gave your master's wives into your bosom"]. Now they were used and claimed by Absalom. Again the incident was designed to recall Nathan's words to David's memory. </p>


text:
<p>The counsel of Ahithophel, which he gave in those days, was as if a man inquired at the oracle of God: so was all the counsel of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom- </p><p>As noted above, Ahithophel's words about sleeping with the concubines were in fact a repetition of Nathan's inspired, prophetic words to David. Ahithophel was perhaps indeed inspired at times to speak God’s words as a prophet. But this didn’t mean therefore that all he said was true. The fact Absalom will now prefer Hushai's advice over Ahithophel's shows how Absalom didn’t respect God’s word. He ignored the words of the man accepted as an inspired prophet, and instead followed advice which was designed to appeal to his pride.</p>And yet Absalom's failure was all in God's purpose. Again we marvel at the intricacy of how God works with men.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover Ahithophel said to Absalom, Let me now choose twelve thousand men, and I will arise and pursue after David tonight-</p><p>Absalom entered Jerusalem the day David fled (<a href='B:100 15:37'>2Sa 15:37</a>). The day David fled Jerusalem is recorded in more detail than any day in Biblical history. The tragedy of a good man having to suffer for his sins is thereby underlined to us. Ahithophel's advice to attack David immediately was undoubtedly the best advice. Even if we understand a "thousand" as a military grouping rather than a literal figure, this was a considerable number of men to have available. Truly the support for Absalom was not inconsiderable.</p><p>Psalms 3 refers to this time. "Many" in <a href='B:230 3:1-2'>Psa 3:1-2</a> is the same word used for how the people "increased" with Absalom (<a href='B:100 15:12'>2Sa 15:12</a>). "Rise up" in <a href='B:230 3:1'>Psa 3:1</a> is the word used of Ahithophel wishing to 'rise up" and pursue David (<a href='B:100 17:1'>2Sa 17:1</a>; <a href='B:100 18:31'>2Sa 18:31</a>). In response to the rising up of others against him, David asks God to 'rise up' (<a href='B:230 3:7'>Psa 3:7</a> s:w:). David’s prayer in Psalms 3 was answered, and Ahithophel 'rose up' and committed suicide (<a href='B:100 17:23'>2Sa 17:23</a>).</p><p>Ahithophel's speech is all about him- "I will... let me". Clearly he is motivated by personal revenge upon David because Bathsheba was his granddaughter. In fact, Ahithophel was so obsessed with this personal revenge that when his plan was rejected by Absalom in favour of Hushai's, he kills himself. Hushai's speech instead focuses upon Absalom and what Absalom could do and what glory he could achieve for himself. This appeal to Absalom's pride was what won Absalom over, although it was all of God's hand in the minds of the men with Absalom. For they all originally thought that Ahithophel's advice was good. But then suddenly changed.</p><p>Yet we note that the Psalms relevant to this time have David cursing Ahithophel, bemoaning his lot that his former trusted friend has turned against him. Consider Psalm 41: "My own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, who ate bread with me, has lifted up his heel against me [quoted about Judas but initially about Ahithophel]. But You, Yahweh... raise me up, that I may repay them... uphold me in my integrity" (Ps. 41:9-12). Or Psalm 55: "It was not an enemy who insulted me, then I could have endured it... But it was you, a man like me, my companion, and my familiar friend. We took sweet fellowship together... Let death come suddenly on them, let them go down alive into Sheol. For wickedness is in their dwelling, in their midst. As for me, I will call on God. Yahweh will save me... He will never allow the righteous to be moved. But You, God, will bring them down into the pit of destruction" (Ps. 55:12-23). But Ahithophel was Bathsheba's grandfather. David's lamenting of the situation and cursing of Ahithophel reflects a total lack of remorse over his sins, and a refusal to accept consequence. And a total disregard of the huge grace God showed him by not demanding the death penalty. The fact we are all still alive, despite being worthy of death, must be appreciated by us. And it will help us cope with disappointment and injustice at the hands of others, and lower our expectations of what we consider is our "right" in this life.</p>


text:
<p>I will come on him while he is weary and exhausted, and will make him afraid. All the people who are with him shall flee. I will strike the king only- </p><p>This was clearly designed to appeal to what Absalom wanted to hear and to happen. He wanted power over the people; he therefore wanted his father dead, believing that this would mean that his father’s supporters would give up and come under his power. Ahithophel's advice was to kill one man [David] and let the rest of the men around him flee. This was exactly David's plan for the murder of Uriah- although it happened that Joab allowed other men were killed to make the plan look less obvious. Time and again we see David's past behaviour played out before his eyes.</p>


text:
<p>and I will bring back all the people to you. The man whom you seek is as if all returned; and so all the people shall be in peace- </p><p>The LXX reveals deeper the flattery used here. The idea was that the people with David of course really loved Absalom and had been with him in their hearts, but had just temporarily left him to go with David; and they would very easily return to Absalom without the need for bloodshed, if David alone were to be slain: “And I will cause all the people to return unto thee, as the bride returneth to her husband. Only one man’s life dost thou seek, and unto all the people there shall be peace".</p>


text:
<p>The saying pleased Absalom well, and all the elders of Israel- </p><p>As noted on :3, it was indeed excellently expressed advice. It appealed to Absalom's pride, and the elders would commend it as designed to avoid mass bloodshed. The same mentality is employed as in the argument to kill the Lord Jesus- it were better one man died at the hands of Rome than many, so went the argument.</p>


text:
<p>Then Absalom said, Now call Hushai the Archite also, and let us hear likewise what he says-</p><p>"Hear likewise" could suggest that Absalom assumed that such excellent advice would surely likewise be agreed by Hushai also. Seeing they all liked Ahithophel's plan, this request for a second opinion is unusual and clearly God made Absalom do this. He does work directly on human minds, sowing seeds and making men make choices and decisions they may not otherwise have made. The Holy Spirit works in this way in human hearts to this day.</p>


text:
<p>When Hushai had come to Absalom, Absalom spoke to him saying, Ahithophel has spoken like this. Shall we do what he says? If not, speak up- </p><p>The Divine author is as a cameraman zoomed in upon the scene. What might otherwise seem superfluous recording of words is done so that we can enter more fully into the scene, waiting with baited breath, as it were, to see if Ahithophel's smart advice is going to be followed. It was such good advice in the context that it would seem impossible to overturn it. Indeed 2 Sam. 16:23 says that it was from God; so we have an example of where God speaks a word but it is over to man to fulfil it or not.</p>


text:
<p>Hushai said to Absalom, The counsel that Ahithophel has given is not good at this time- </p><p>"At this time" could imply that the previous counsel, to sleep with David’s concubines, was "good" (<a href='B:100 16:21'>2Sa 16:21</a>). Hushai was willing to go along with that because he knew that this is what Nathan's prophecy had stated would happen. But there had been no Divine word about David being slain by Absalom.</p>


text:
<p>Hushai said moreover, You know your father and his men, that they are mighty men, and they are bitter in their minds, like a bear robbed of her cubs in the field- </p><p>Hushai was the last person to have seen David. His description of David as bitter and aggressive as a bear robbed of her cubs was so untrue. David was depressed and weak. There are lies and twists of truth throughout this tragic narrative. Ziba lies, Shimei lies, David lies to Shimei, Absalom has lied, and David's deliverance is worked out through Hushai's deceit.</p><p>How to love the unlovely, to live without bitterness, to not be a psychological victim of our past experiences, is absolutely vital for the true child of God. In David and above all the Lord Jesus we see this achieved so supremely. He was at times bitter, as the imprecatory Psalms reveal, and as Hushai commented, David was a man “bitter of soul” (<a href='B:100 17:8'>2Sa 17:8</a> RVmg:). But there is also every reason to think that David at this point was not in fact bitter over what he had lost. He accepts he has sinned and is being judged, and throws himself upon God’s grace to restore him. But his tendencies to bitterness were well known, and so Hushai's claims about David were absolutely credible to his audience. And he advises therefore not to assume too easily that such a bitter man would give up without there being bloodshed. And avoiding bloodshed was important in order to keep Absalom's demand for loyalty credible.</p><p>Your father is a man of war, and will not lodge with the people-</p><p>The idea of attacking the entire group and hoping to thereby get David... was unrealistic, Hushai argues. He likely would not lodge with the people. He would be like Jacob in his night of crisis, fleeing from Laban and meeting Esau.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, he is now hidden in some pit, or in some other place. It will happen, when some of them have fallen at the first, that whoever hears it will say, ‘There is a slaughter among the people who follow Absalom!’- </p><p>Hushai imagines that Ahithophel leading a band of men to take David will not be a good idea. For Ahithophel was seen as a prophet, a spiritual man, an advisor- and not a military man. By contrast, David and his men were military men; and had a long track record of winning battles against superior forces. Hushai plays on the deep concerns about not causing bloodshed. The image of David hiding in a "cave" (Heb:) naturally recalls his hiding in a cave and nearly having the mastery over Saul. Hushai wishes to recall these classic images of David and warn against thinking that a quick victory over him was possible.</p>


text:
<p>Even he who is valiant, whose heart is as the heart of a lion, will utterly melt; for all Israel knows that your father is a mighty man, and those who are with him are valiant men-</p><p>The military prowess of David and his close circle was legendary. And everyone wanted to avoid bloodshed and find a way of destroying David alone. Playing on that concern, Hushai started to make huge sense to all present.</p>


text:
<p>But I advise that all Israel be gathered together to you, from Dan even to Beersheba, as the sand that is by the sea for multitude- </p><p>Hushai's doublespeak continues, at least in the Hebrew. For "Gathered together to you" can also mean "against you" (as in Gen. 34:30; Mic. 4:11; Zech. 12:3). And yet his doublespeak isn't perceived by Absalom.</p><p>We must remember that baptism means that we are now the seed of Abraham, and the blessings of forgiveness, of all spiritual blessings in heavenly places, and God’s turning us away from our sins are right now being fulfilled in us (<a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a>). Israel were multiplied as the sand on the sea shore (<a href='B:100 17:11'>2Sa 17:11</a>; <a href='B:110 4:20'>1Ki 4:20</a>), they possessed the gates of their enemies (<a href='B:50 17:2'>Deu 17:2</a>; <a href='B:50 18:6'>Deu 18:6</a>)- all in antitype of how Abraham's future seed would also receive the promised blessings in their mortal experience, as well as in the eternal blessedness of the future Kingdom.</p><p>And that you go to battle in your own person- </p><p>This was an appeal to Absalom's pride. he was not a military man, but being the figurehead of an inevitable victory by sheer force of numbers was going to appeal to him. And the idea was that the force of numbers would mean that only David and his immediate hard core followers would put up a fight; and it was they who needed to be eliminated and not anyone else. This was also an appeal to the concept of kingship in Israel (1 Sam. 8:20; 18:16)- a king was supposed to lead Israel to victory in battle rather than stay at home and leave it to others, which is what Ahithophel's advice amounted to. And David was in shame exactly because he had not led his men in the Rabbah campaign and had instead remained in Jerusalem and committed adultery (2 Sam. 11:1). Again and again, there are echoes of David's sin with Bathsheba throughout the record. Joab advises David to at least symbolically lead the Israelite army into Rabbah once it falls (2 Sam. 11:27,28) and that's the very advice Hushai is giving to Absalom. Quite possibly at the time Ahithophel had advised David to take Joab's advice.</p>


text:
<p>So shall we come on him in some place where he shall be found, and we will light on him as the dew falls on the ground; and of him and of all the men who are with him we will not leave so much as one- </p><p>"As the dew falls on the ground" suggests this would be an easy and effortless victory. This is inviting Absalom to act as Saul, using spies and intelligence to track down David to some hiding place and then suddenly come upon him. The idea was to kill not only David but his immediate band of warriors. These were the very men to whom the kingdom of Israel owed its existence. To agree to slay them all was really treason of the worst sort. But jealousy means that all true qualifications and history of the other people are ignored, in the mad obsession with their destruction. The same thing goes on in church infighting today.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover, if he be gone into a city, then shall all Israel bring ropes to that city, and we will draw it into the river, until there isn’t one small stone found there-</p><p>This alludes to the tearing down of a leprous house. There was the quasi religious claim that Absalom's putsch was in fact his devoted service of Yahweh (<a href='B:100 15:8'>2Sa 15:8</a>); and this is now accompanied by the suggestion that any supporting David were an unclean, leprous city which must be pulled down stone by stone.</p>


text:
<p>Absalom and all the men of Israel said, The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel. For Yahweh had ordained to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that Yahweh might bring evil on Absalom- </p><p>When David had prayed for Ahithophel's wisdom to be turned to foolishness (<a href='B:100 15:31'>2Sa 15:31</a>). In response to this, Yahweh had 'ordained' in the court of Heaven that this was to happen. And He worked upon the psychology of those men and their perceptions, so that Ahithophel's advice was defeated.</p><p>Was it really good counsel? Not in God’s eyes. It was only ‘good’ for Absalom from a fleshly viewpoint. And yet the record speaks from Absalom’s perspective; it speaks of something definitely evil as being “good” within the context in which it was given. Thus the record here refers to men’s bad thinking as if it is correct. This explains why there are no footnotes throughout the Bible, pointing this kind of thing out; and why the wrong understandings of demons aren't specifically corrected in the New Testament.</p><p>Amnon did "wrong" to Tamar David's daughter (2 Sam. 13:16). "Wrong" here is the same word translated "evil" in the punishment upon David in 2 Sam. 12:10 "I will raise up evil against you from within your own house / family". The "evil" of Amnon was therefore indeed his own error and sin, but it was used by God and 'raised up' in that God confirmed Amnon in his evil in order to punish David. At the time of Absalom's rebellion, Shimei comments that "Evil [s.w.] has overtaken you [David] because you are a man of blood" (2 Sam. 16:8). But David proactively sought to avoid that "evil": "Get up! Let us flee [from Absalom]... or he will soon... bring evil [s.w.] upon us" (2 Sam. 15:14). We see here the complexities of God's workings. The "evil" was indeed to come upon David, yet he took steps to avoid some of it and God confirmed him in that and delivered him from Absalom. And so 2 Sam. 17.14 "For the LORD had ordained to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, so that the LORD might bring ruin [evil] on Absalom" (NRSV). The complexities and ebb and flow of all this working are beyond any final human analysis; and this explains why there appear various things in our lives which clearly feel to be of Divine intervention, but whose meaning is beyond our analysis.</p>


text:
<p>Then Hushai said to Zadok and to Abiathar the priests, Ahithophel counselled Absalom and the elders of Israel that way; and I have counselled this way- </p><p>Hushai of course was desperately playing for time. He knew that David and his group were not far away, having only left Jerusalem the same day Absalom arrived there. The small group who were loyal to David within the court of Absalom correspond with those within the court of Saul (see on :17). Like all our crises, this one was really intended to allow David to apply all he had learned over the years.</p><p> Hushai's messaging David in this way suggests he actually didn't think his suggestion would be accepted by Absalom. The fact it was accepted, when it was not the best advice and the record itself calls Ahithophel's advice "good / better", is all a sign of God's grace and His ability to work on human hearts to accept wrong advice or teaching. Even bad advice is used by Him in His wider purpose. To save His beloved, those with a heart like David.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore send quickly and tell David saying, ‘Don’t lodge this night at the fords of the wilderness, but by all means pass over; lest the king be swallowed up, and all the people who are with him’-</p><p>"The plain of the wilderness" (AV) is the plain of Jericho (<a href='B:60 5:10'>Jos 5:10</a>; <a href='B:120 25:5'>2Ki 25:5</a>; <a href='B:100 2:29'>2Sa 2:29</a>; <a href='B:100 17:16'>2Sa 17:16</a>). "The way of the wilderness" in <a href='B:100 15:23'>2Sa 15:23</a> was therefore the road to Jericho, used by the Lord Jesus in His parable of the man going down from Jerusalem to Jericho being beaten [= suffering for his sins, in the parable], and being saved by grace and now law. Surely the Lord had David in mind, and is presenting the long day of his tragic exile as being the experience of everyman.</p>


text:
<p>Now Jonathan and Ahimaaz were staying by En Rogel; and a female servant used to go and tell them; and they went and told king David. For they didn’t want to be seen to come into the city- </p><p>The coming into the city recalls Jonathan being "in the city" whilst David was in exile outside it. We noted on :15 the similarities with the time when a minority in the court of Saul were loyal to David. Jonathan and David could not be seen together and had to communicate very carefully; and so it was here. The female servant, the lowest of the low in society, as both a woman and a slave, was the vital and crucial link between the two young men and the faithful priests in the city. This is typical of how God works.</p>


text:
<p>But a boy saw them, and told Absalom. Then they both went away quickly, and came to the house of a man in Bahurim, who had a well in his court; and they went down there-</p><p>There were clearly a number of faithful supporters. The poor servant woman, the wealthy home owner in Bahurim... and yet they are presented as struggling against the "boy" who noticed and reported things, and Absalom's servants (:20). It was really a repeat of the situation with Saul and David.</p>


text:
<p>The woman took and spread the covering over the well’s mouth, and spread out bruised grain on it; and nothing was known- </p><p>"The woman" could refer to the servant girl of :17, or it could be as GNB "The man's wife".</p>


text:
<p>Absalom’s servants came to the woman to the house; and they said, Where are Ahimaaz and Jonathan? The woman said to them, They have gone over the brook of water. When they had sought and could not find them, they returned to Jerusalem- </p><p>Literally, 'they are over the water'. And they were over water, because they were hiding in a well just above the water at the bottom of it (:18). Again, as discussed on <a href='B:100 16:16'>2Sa 16:16</a>, this raises the question as to whether lying is always wrong, necessarily. Rahab's lies and those of the Hebrew midwives at the exodus are rewarded as acts of faith. But this is of course a slippery slope. But such open questions are left for our reflection, underlining that spiritual life cannot be run by laws but by principles. Indeed the way the woman lies about two men of God by saying they had&nbsp; gone away over a river is so similar to Rahab's situation. It could be that the woman was inspired by Rahab.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, after they had departed, that they came up out of the well, and went and told king David; and they said to David, Arise and pass quickly over the water; for thus has Ahithophel counselled against you- </p><p>The implication was&nbsp; that Absalom was so vain and unstable that he might still change his mind and follow Ahithophel's advice.</p>


text:
<p>Then David arose, and all the people who were with him, and they passed over the Jordan. By the morning light there lacked not one of them who had not gone over the Jordan-</p><p>The crossing of Jordan after the lie of a woman definitely recalls the faithfulness of Rahab in lying about another two men of God; see on :20. All the people passing over Jordan uses the very words of <a href='B:60 3:17'>Jos 3:17</a>, as if this retreat was going to turn into a magnificent defeat through their restoration. It also recalls Jacob passing over Jordan, in the direction David was going, and then finally returning in restoration by God’s grace (<a href='B:10 32:10'>Gen 32:10</a>). All this was intended as encouragement to the exiles in Babylon as they read these records.</p>


text:
<p>When Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his donkey, and arose, and went home, to his city, and set his house in order, and hanged himself; and he died, and was buried in the tomb of his father- </p><p>Whatever other reasons there were for Ahithophel's suicide, one was simply his difficulty to live with the fact that the truth he knew was not accepted by others. He spoke as the oracle of God (2 Sam. 16:23) and so he felt sure he had God on his side in giving the advice he did. His advice about Absalom sleeping with David's wife on his roof was a repeat of what Nathan the prophet had said from God. In essence, this is a common problem. We feel we know some truth, we may be sure it is in fact Divine truth; but if it is refused by others, we find it hard to live with. We are not secure in our own personal relationship with God. This misery at not having one's truth accepted by others is commonplace; and explains the miserable lives of so many conspiracy theorists.</p><p>"Set his house in order" is literally he ordained / commanded concerning his house. The same word as in :14- Yahweh had ordained / commanded to destroy his counsel. God's anger is clearly against this angry man, and He is 'with' David. But this man's anger was in a way justifiable because of what David had done to his granddaughter Bathsheba. Good people can become so bitter and enraged at others' sin and injustice that they themselves fall into sin and self destruction. Church life is full of this. </p><p> His suicide may have been because he knew that if Hushai's counsel was followed, David would defeat Absalom- and surely kill Ahithophel in vengeance. Indeed it is unclear when his suicide happened. It may well have taken him some days to return to his home, and then on news of Absalom's death he committed suicide. It wasn't simply because of loss of face. The fact he feared David would do this, indeed he was totally certain David would, gives a tacit insight into David's character. He had murdered his wife Bathsheba's husband, and would clearly murder her grandfather. There is again no hint that despite the vast forgiveness and grace shown David, he has any noticeable grace himself. His character has not been apparently transformed. He had murdered Uriah and been forgiven, but would murder Ahithophel for advising to murder him. Shimei merely threw dust at David during Absalom's rebellion- and David on his deathbed commands Solomon to murder Shimei for it. For sure, Ahithophel's fear of David's revenge was not unfounded. Psalm 3, subtitled as referring to the time David fled from Absalom, has David asking God to smash the teeth and destroy the lives of "the wicked", any who were his "enemies". He clearly had a death wish for them all. </p><p> Ahithophel's suicide was a kind of answer to David’s prayer at this time in <a href='B:230 5:10'>Psa 5:10</a>: "Hold them guilty, God. Let them fall by their own advice; thrust them out in the multitude of their transgressions, for they have rebelled against You". Whilst his suicide was completely his decision, it was also an answer to David’s prayer at this point.</p><p>As believers in the representative nature of the Lord’s sacrifice, we are thereby empowered to break out of the routine of our lives. Life becomes valuable; we number our days with wisdom (<a href='B:230 90:12'>Psa 90:12</a>). We no longer fear failure, for firstly we know there is forgiveness in Christ, and secondly, our focus is upon living the real life of ultimate discovery and adventure, able to live with the fears which this presents to us. Failure is no longer a problem to us; for the aim is ever before us. We will not be like Ahithophel, committing suicide because he ran out of political highway and lost his power to others. Our failures are nothing more than temporary setbacks, as the baby who stretches out her hands to the lamp on the ceiling and cries because she can’t reach it. We take them all, even our sins, in the spirit of the cross- the supreme failure which became the supreme triumph of God and the true person.</p>


text:
<p>Then David came to Mahanaim. Absalom passed over the Jordan, he and all the men of Israel with him- </p><p>Mahanaim had at one time been the capital of the Israelite kingdom under Abner and Ishbosheth, during the seven years when Abner had led the opposition to David’s kingdom in Judah. And now David found refuge there. He had shown much grace to the house of Saul at that time, and now, many years later, he was finding grace in the one time capital of his opposition.</p>


text:
<p>Absalom set Amasa over the army instead of Joab. Now Amasa was the son of a man, whose name was Ithra the Israelite, who went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah, Joab’s mother- </p><p>There is much unclarity over "the Israelite", because that seems obvious, unless the point is that he was not of Judah. The texts read "Jezreelite", and <a href='B:130 2:17'>1Ch 2:17</a> has "Jether the Ishmeelite". In this case the idea is that this man was not an Israelite, and had slept with the daughter of the serpent, Nahash. The patriotic, brave and loyal Joab was followed by someone of poorer qualification, even though his relative had slept with this man.</p>


text:
<p>Israel and Absalom encamped in the land of Gilead- </p><p>The description of Barzillai as a Gileadite (:27) shows that Absalom did not enjoy universal support from the rest of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when David had come to Mahanaim, that Shobi the son of Nahash of Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and Machir the son of Ammiel of Lodebar, and Barzillai the Gileadite of Rogelim-</p><p>As happens in a crisis, all manner of people came out of the woodwork and showed their respects. David had been friends with Nahash but had fought against his son Hanun, Shobi's brother (<a href='B:100 10:2'>2Sa 10:2</a>). But a theme of this time of crisis is that Gentiles who had once been David’s enemies, and whose families and relatives David had slain in war such as Ittai (see on <a href='B:100 15:19-21'>2Sa 15:19-21</a>), now come out on David’s side. They could only have done so because they had been converted to the God of Israel by David, their one time national enemy. Rogelim in Gilead likewise may well have been Gentile territory, and his descendants were unable to prove their genealogies (<a href='B:150 2:61-63'>Ezr 2:61-63</a>), although they wished to serve as priests and support the restored Kingdom, just as their ancestor supported David’s restoration. Machir was the man who had allowed Mephibosheth to stay with him (<a href='B:100 9:4-5'>2Sa 9:4-5</a>), and would have been deeply impressed by David’s huge grace to Mephibosheth and the house of Saul. He thereby realized that David was a man of God despite out of character failings.</p>


text:
<p>brought beds, basins, earthen vessels, wheat, barley, meal, parched grain, beans, lentils, roasted grain- </p><p>"Beds" suggests that they stayed there for some time and were fed by their hosts. This would have been a considerable commitment. David "lay" at Mahanaim (<a href='B:100 19:32'>2Sa 19:32</a>), suggesting he was sick.</p>


text:
<p>honey, butter, sheep, and cheese of the herd, for David, and for the people who were with him, to eat: for they said, The people are hungry, and weary, and thirsty, in the wilderness- </p><p><a href='B:230 23:5'>Psa 23:5</a> "You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies" refers to this time. Shimei and other "enemies" were aware of his path. The reference is to the feasts prepared for him in the desert by Ziba (<a href='B:100 16:2'>2Sa 16:2</a>) and Barzillai (<a href='B:100 17:27-29'>2Sa 17:27-29</a>). But the phrase "prepare a table" is that used of the preparation of the table of shewbread (<a href='B:20 40:4'>Exo 40:4</a>), and it is used in a religious sense in <a href='B:290 65:11'>Isa 65:11</a>; <a href='B:330 23:41'>Eze 23:41</a>. Perhaps David held some kind of religious ceremony whilst on the run, the equivalent to our breaking of bread meeting; perhaps Barzillai's feast was turned into a religious experience. And his experience of the Lord's table strengthened him with great encouragement, as we also can experience.</p><p>Psalms 42 clearly has reference to David’s time at Mahanaim, which could have been months (<a href='B:100 17:24'>2Sa 17:24</a>; <a href='B:100 19:32'>2Sa 19:32</a>), whilst fleeing Absalom. David "lay" there for some time (<a href='B:100 19:32'>2Sa 19:32</a>), as if he was ill at this time. This was the original context of the Psalm, but David sitting by the waters in exile was obviously relevant to the captives sitting by the rivers of Babylon. Hence the title in the Syriac: "A Psalm which David sung when he was an exile and desired to return to Jerusalem"; the Arabic "A Psalm for the backsliding Jews". Psalms 42 is all relevant to this time in David’s life:</p><p>As the deer pants for the water brooks, so my soul pants after You, God- The theme of water in this Psalm (:7 too) is appropriate to David being by the waters of the Kidron and then the Jordan as he fled from Absalom. David sitting by the waters in exile was obviously relevant to the captives sitting by the rivers of Babylon.</p><p><a href='B:230 42:2'>Psa 42:2</a> My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and appear before God?- This reveals David’s special longing for the sanctuary in Zion, where he 'appeared before God' to keep the Mosaic feasts (<a href='B:20 23:17'>Exo 23:17</a>). But the application to the Lord Jesus is very clear- His was the ultimate, actual appearance before God in Heaven.</p><p><a href='B:230 42:3'>Psa 42:3</a> My tears have been my food day and night, while they continually ask me, Where is your God?- This would imply that David’s enemies had access to him whilst he lay at Mahanaim in exile from Absalom; we recall how Shimei followed David on the route, cursing him as he went. Or perhaps his own supporters were saying this. The exiles were likewise mocked in Babylon; and the Lord Jesus likewise on the cross.</p><p><a href='B:230 42:4'>Psa 42:4</a> These things I remember and pour out my soul within me, how I used to go with the crowd, and led them to God’s house, with the voice of joy and praise, a multitude keeping a holy day- This is David recalling how he used to lead the people towards the sanctuary on Zion on feast days. "God’s house" however suggests the temple, and this was not built in David’s time. So this may well have been added under inspiration when the Psalm was used by the sons of Korah in the Babylonian exile; see on :1.</p><p><a href='B:230 42:5'>Psa 42:5</a> Why are you in despair, my soul? Why are you disturbed within me? Hope in God!- This kind of self-talk should characterize all of God’s true people. For this is the very essence of spiritual mindedness. Psalms 42 has many echoes of the cross, although primarily it refers to David’s longing for the tabernacle whilst exiled by Absalom:&nbsp; "Why art thou cast down, O my soul?" (:5 AV) is the same in the Septuagint as <a href='B:470 26:38'>Mat 26:38</a> "Now is my soul troubled".</p><p>For I shall still praise Him for the saving help of His presence- Perhaps applicable to a vision of glory appearing to the Lord Jesus in Gethsemane, transferring some of the glory of His countenance to Jesus as He did to Moses, so that the Lord's arresters initially fell down when they saw Him. David spoke of praising God for the health of His face; and then talks of how God is the source of the health of his face (<a href='B:230 42:5'>Psa 42:5</a>; <a href='B:230 42:11'>Psa 42:11</a> RV). It’s as if the glory of the invisible God rubbed off upon David, as it did literally for Moses, whose faced became radiant with the glory of the Angel who spoke to him.</p><p><a href='B:230 42:6'>Psa 42:6</a> Therefore I remember You from the land of the Jordan, the heights of Hermon, from the hill Mizar- This may have been the area of Mahanaim, where it seems David remained whilst in exile from Absalom (<a href='B:100 17:24'>2Sa 17:24</a>). "The heights of Hermon" is literally 'the Hermons', LXX "the Hermonites", perhaps referring to the mountain range which began at Mount Hermon and continued to the Mahanaim area. "Mizar" is unknown, but could be read as "the little hill" (LXX). However, this interpretation of the geography could appear forced, especially with the reference to "cataracts" in :7. Hence Ray Stedman suggested that David was recalling "an experience that he had when he was in the northern part of Israel near Mount Hermon, at the head of the Jordan River, on a little peak of the range where Mount Hermon is located, called Mount Mizar (which, incidentally, means "little mountain"). On that occasion he could hear the waterfalls of that mountainous region, the thundering cataracts. He became aware of how they seemed to be calling to one another, "deep calling unto deep," and it reminded him that the deeps in God call out to the deeps in man".</p><p><a href='B:230 42:7'>Psa 42:7</a> Deep calls to deep at the noise of Your waterfalls. All Your waves and Your billows have swept over me- Waterfalls" is better "cataracts", perhaps referring to the spot on the Jordan River where he was sitting as he composed this Psalm. See on :6. David like Jonah feels he has drowned and is in a living death.</p><p><a href='B:230 42:8'>Psa 42:8</a> Yahweh will command His grace in the daytime. In the night His song shall be with me: a prayer to the God of my life- Yahweh's song connects with how the exiles also by the waters (of Babylon) were asked to sing Yahweh's song, the Psalms used in temple worship. David says that he will sing Yahweh's song, the temple liturgy, even though in exile from the temple. For he realizes that God’s presence is not limited to the sanctuary. GNB may be correct in suggesting: "May the LORD show his constant love during the day, so that I may have a song at night". "The God of my life" could mean the God who alone could preserve David’s life; or the God who was the focus of David’s life.</p><p><a href='B:230 42:9'>Psa 42:9</a> I will ask God, my rock, Why have You forgotten me? Why do I go mourning because of the oppression of the enemy?- The prototype of Christ feeling forsaken was in David feeling forsaken by God when he fled from Absalom (<a href='B:230 42:9'>Psa 42:9</a>; <a href='B:230 43:2'>Psa 43:2</a>; <a href='B:230 88:14'>Psa 88:14</a>); but clearly he was not actually forsaken. Despite these feelings, David was spiritually mature enough to still consider God as his "rock", even though he felt God wasn't coming through for him as he expected. He expresses the same in <a href='B:230 43:2'>Psa 43:2</a>. "Oppression" was what God’s later people were to suffer at the hands of their enemies (s:w. <a href='B:290 30:20'>Isa 30:20</a>; <a href='B:50 26:7'>Deu 26:7</a>); David’s suffering was seen as that of God’s later people, and so his Psalms were reused in this context.</p><p><a href='B:230 42:10'>Psa 42:10</a> As with a sword in my bones, my adversaries reproach me, while they continually ask me, Where is your God?- David was sensitive to words; whilst in exile from Absalom, his enemies clearly had access to him and were communicating with him "continually". And he felt those words as swords. The sword that pierced Christ's soul on the cross was the sword of the abuse which was shouted at Him then (<a href='B:230 42:10'>Psa 42:10</a>); and the piercing of Christ's soul, Simeon had said, was the piercing of Mary's soul too. In other words, they were both really cut, pierced, by this mocking of the virgin birth. Neither of them were hard and indifferent to it. And the fact they both stood together at the cross and faced it together must have drawn them closer, and made their parting all the harder. She alone knew beyond doubt that God was Christ's father, even though the Lord had needed to rebuke her for being so carried away with the humdrum of life that she once referred to Joseph as His father (<a href='B:490 2:33'>Luk 2:33</a>). For everyone else, there must always have been that tendency to doubt.</p><p><a href='B:230 42:11'>Psa 42:11</a> Why are you in despair, my soul? Why are you disturbed within me? Hope in God! For I shall still praise Him, the saving help of my countenance, and my God- "Despair" is the word used of David’s feelings after the sin with Bathsheba (s:w. <a href='B:230 38:6'>Psa 38:6</a>). It is the word for bowing down, for humility. But nobody likes being bowed down in humility, and David likewise wriggles against it. But we see here the kind of self-talk which is characteristic of all those who are truly spiritually minded. This 'bowing down' was to characterize the sufferings of Judah for their sins (s:w. <a href='B:290 2:11'>Isa 2:11</a>; <a href='B:290 5:15'>Isa 5:15</a>; <a href='B:290 26:5'>Isa 26:5</a>). David was possibly asking himself a rhetorical question- Why was he bowed down? Because God wanted to humble him so that He might restore him. But "help" is the usual word for 'salvation', and "countenance" is the usual word for 'face'. 'Save my face' would be a fair translation. And here again we encounter our concerns as to whether David’s repentance was as thorough as it might have been. He did indeed confess his sin and seek forgiveness. But so much of his praying at this time is for God to save him from shame, and to judge and destroy and eternally condemn those at whose hands he was receiving judgment for his sins. And this was the problem with the exiles whom he later came to represent.</p>


text:
<p>David numbered the people who were with him, and set over them captains over thousands and captains over hundreds-</p><p>This would imply David had major support. However, "thousands" and "hundreds" are often not to be read literally, but refer rather to regiments or military divisions.  The captains of these thousands and hundreds were Joab and Abishai (:2), men of proven low moral character. And yet the reference to captains over thousands and hundreds clearly alludes to the Mosaic commands to set wise, upright men over hundreds and thousands: "You shall provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God: men of truth, hating unjust gain; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds"; "wise men and known... made... heads over you, captains of thousands, captains of hundreds" (Ex. 18:21; Dt. 1:15). Joab was the man who had actually executed David's command to murder Uriah, getting other soldiers to die to cover it; he was hardly a "man of truth". David's conscience was surely touched by appointing Joab to be a "captain" at this time. Time and again we see David's behaviour to be far from obedient to God's law, which he said he loved and studied all the time. Likewise we will note the use of a mule by him, for Solomon to sit on as a sign he was king, and the possibility that Absalom was riding David's mule. But mules as cross breeds were forbidden under the Mosaic law.</p>


text:
<p>David sent forth the people, a third part under the hand of Joab, a third part under the hand of Abishai the son of Zeruiah, Joab’s brother, and a third part under the hand of Ittai the Gittite- </p><p>We note how David had come to trust Ittai to lead his troops, having only recently doubted his loyalty (<a href='B:100 15:21-22'>2Sa 15:21-22</a>). He was persuaded of his sincerity and not disappointed. We marvel at the power of God’s truth. A Philistine, from Goliath's home town, had accepted covenant relationship with Yahweh and therefore accepts His anointed king, David. Even though David had lied to the men of Gath and later slain them, and had recently disgraced himself again over Bathsheba. The power of God’s truth was greater than all the disadvertisments for that truth in Yahweh's chosen representative. And this is a powerful challenge to those who turn away from God because of the bad examples of His representatives. And yet again we note how David has so few solid friends. His own tribe of Judah and people of Israel have gone off after Absalom; so that he has to appoint a Philistine man whose loyalty he doubts as his army commander. Likewise after Absalom's death he appoints Amasa, Absalom's general, as his general. David is thus portrayed as a lonely man whom others only want to use, and his final deathbed scene shows his family treating him likewise. An appropriate end for a man with no love and only narcissism.  </p><p>The king said to the people, I will surely go forth with you myself also- </p><p>The significance of this is that David is harking back to how he had not gone out to war with his armies at the time of <a href='B:100 11:1'>2Sa 11:1</a>, and it had led him into the sin with Bathsheba. At every point we find God referring him back to that sin. It seems that after the sin, David insisted on going out with his troops to battle even when he was too old to effectively do so (<a href='B:100 21:17'>2Sa 21:17</a>).  It was the duty of Israel's king to lead Israel in battle; but David had failed to do so at the time of his sin with Bathsheba. And now he is being forcibly reminded that he is in fact incapable of leading Israel in battle, and the same point will be made in 2 Sam. 21:17. It's not that God wanted to keep haunting David with his sin; rather was He earnestly trying to get David to re-live the sin and repent more fully, appreciating more what he had done to others.</p>


text:
<p>But the people said, You shall not go forth; for if we flee away, they will not care for us; neither if half of us die, will they care for us- </p><p>They had been informed of the reasoning of Ahithophel and Hushai. They realized that Absalom wanted David personally dead, and they reflect their loyalty to David by reasoning as they do. Hence his forces at this time are called "the servants of David".</p><p>But you are worth ten thousand of us. Therefore now it’s better that you are ready to help us from out of the city- </p><p>It had became a kind of proverb in Israel that David was worth ten thousand, after the words of the women at the time of David’s victory over Goliath in his youth (<a href='B:90 18:7'>1Sa 18:7</a>); it was said right towards the end of his life, and contributed towards the jealousy felt toward him. People failed to perceive that the whole conflict was about the glory of God and not the human channel through which that was achieved. And yet one theme of the David story is of mixed motives. We wonder whether his soldiers realized that the civil war would end as soon as Absalom was dead, and so they were out to find and kill Absalom as soon as possible- and they knew that if David were present with them in the battle, this would be impossible. Again, David is deceived by those ostensibly on his side. His deceit towards Uriah keeps being played back to him before his eyes.</p>


text:
<p style='margin-left:1em'><a href='B:100 18:4'>18:4</a> The king said to them, I will do what seems best to you. The king stood beside the gate, and all the people went out by hundreds and by thousands- <br />
This seems to reflect David’s weakness of resolve and personality at this time, and perhaps he was like this for the rest of his life. He was focused only upon Absalom at this point, and agrees to &quot;do what seems best to you&quot;. Hundreds and thousands refer to military units rather than literal numbers.</p>


text:
<p>The king commanded Joab, Abishai and Ittai, saying, Deal gently for my sake with the young man, even with Absalom. All the people heard when the king commanded all the captains concerning Absalom- </p><p>These are terms of endearment. "Young man" is literally 'boy' or 'child', and "deal gently" means to be 'soft', as one would deal with a baby. David comes over as besotted and out of touch with reality to ask that this murderer be treated delicately like a baby. Had David lived in the real world he would have faced his sins and repented of them, but it seems his denial of his sins led him to enter a make believe, Alice in wonderland world of his own making. Or at best, a very distorted version of reality generally.</p>


text:
<p>So the people went out into the field against Israel: and the battle was in the forest of Ephraim-</p><p>Although Absalom was of Judah, his army is described as "Israel", as if David’s men were the true Judah. By making this assault it would see that Absalom had not taken Hushai's advice, and had rushed ahead to try and remove David as soon as possible, so as to cement his power. The tragedy for Ahithophel was that his advice was more or less followed; his suicide in protest at Hushai's being thought better was therefore premature and rooted in hurt pride.</p>


text:
<p>The people of Israel were struck there before the servants of David, and there was a great slaughter there that day of twenty thousand men- </p><p>"Were struck" could imply there was some Divine involvement and striking down of Absalom's forces, which David’s servants followed up on. This could explain the rather strange statement that the forest ate up more of Absalom's men than David’s men killed with the sword (:8).</p>


text:
<p>For the battle was there spread over the surface of all the country; and the forest devoured more people that day than the sword devoured- </p><p>This is what David had prayed for in the Psalms; that his enemies at the time of Absalom's rebellion would be "consumed" (e.g. <a href='B:230 71:13'>Psa 71:13</a>). David’s desire was heard in that the sword and the forest devoured or consumed Absalom and his forces (<a href='B:100 18:8'>2Sa 18:8</a>). But when the prayer was answered, David wept bitterly for the loss of Absalom. We are thereby warned to be careful what we pray for, lest we receive it- which in some form we will. The forest would have been full of steep gorges leading down to the Jordan. But as suggested on :7, there may be reference here to some supernatural destruction of men. Or the idea may be that more perished whilst being chased in the forest, than in the actual battle.</p>


text:
<p>Absalom happened to meet the servants of David. Absalom was riding on his mule, and the mule went under the thick boughs of a great oak, and his head caught hold of the oak, so that he was taken up between the sky and earth; and the mule that was under him went on- </p><p>It is stressed that Absalom had a mule, which was also the animal used by him to escape at the time he slew Abner. It was appropriate that at his death, he was also on a mule. And even more so, because the mule was a crossbred animal, which was against the Mosaic law. All through, Absalom comes over as a man who paid no respect to God’s law in matters great or apparently small.</p><p>It's unclear whether "Absalom was riding on his mule" refers to his own mule or that of David. Quite possibly he was riding David's mule because this was a sign of being king- Solomon rode on David's mule as a sign that he was the chosen king (1 Kings 1:33,38). The clear picture is of his desire to be king leading him to his death, under God's providence. Absalom was left hanging on a tree- the punishment for treasonous kings in Josh.  8:29; 10:26.</p>


text:
<p>A certain man saw it and informed Joab and said, Behold, I saw Absalom hanging in an oak- </p><p>Contrary to pictures in children's Bibles, the idea is not that Absalom was suspended by his long hair. It seems rather that his head hit the forked boughs of the oak tree, and he was stunned and left hanging. His head and not his hair "caught hold of the oak" (:9). That said, it is inevitable that his head catching in the oak involved his hair, because the word "catching" (:9) is more appropriate to hair being entangled than a head being stunned. The woman of Tekoah had misled David into promising that not a hair of the head of her son would be damaged / "fall to the earth" (2 Sam. 14:11), and her son represented Absalom. On the basis of this judgment, David had to allow Absalom to return to Jerusalem with David guaranteeing that not a hair of his head would fall to the earth. But Absalom's famous hair did fall to the earth. David is thereby presented as powerless and unwise in his judgment of his people. He was unfit to be king. He was intended to get the point, to take the nudge, and resign from being king and just focus on his music ministry and rejoice in the amazing assurance of personal salvation he had in 2 Sam. 7. But like so many men, those wonderful things weren't enough for him. He wanted it all visibly now in this life.</p>


text:
<p>Joab said to the man who told him, Behold, you saw it, and why didn’t you strike him there to the ground? I would have given you ten pieces of silver, and a belt- </p><p>The belt may refer to a military rank; Joab says he would have promoted the man and given him money, unless the "ten pieces of silver" also refers to some kind of badge of office.</p>


text:
<p>The man said to Joab, Though I should receive a thousand pieces of silver in my hand, I still wouldn’t put forth my hand against the king’s son; for in our hearing the king commanded you and Abishai and Ittai saying, ‘Beware that none touch the young man Absalom’- </p><p>The incident shows the intense loyalty of this anonymous man. David had a way of inspiring such deep loyalty; and this looks ahead to how we should be inspired by the Lord Jesus, refusing all material advantage for the sake of obedience to His word and wish, even if those wishes appear nonsensical to us.</p>


text:
<p>Otherwise if I had dealt falsely against his life (and there is no matter hidden from the king), then you yourself would have set yourself against me-</p><p>The soldier is saying that for sure David would have killed him had he killed Absalom. And Joab wouldn't have protected him, Joab wouldn't have stood up to David. We again have an insight into David's vengefulness and lack of hesitation to shed blood, even that of his own soldiers [cp. his murder of Uriah]- justaposed against his obsessive love for his wayward sons. We will later see that this explains the nervousness of Ahimaaz to even tell David that his son was dead, just as the courtiers had feared to tell David his child by Bathsheba was dead. It seems David's character was unchanged by the Bathsheba incident and his experience of amazing grace; and we are to learn from that. </p><p>David’s soul was broken as a result of his own mistakes and his general experience of life. David’s depression resulted in him manifesting all the classic characteristics of the highly strung person. But it led him to his great sensitivity and almost telepathic ability to enter into other's problems was legendary throughout Israel, and this was one of the things which endeared him to his people (<a href='B:90 22:22'>1Sa 22:22</a>; <a href='B:100 14:17'>2Sa 14:17</a>; <a href='B:100 14:20'>2Sa 14:20</a>; <a href='B:100 18:13'>2Sa 18:13</a>)- and there is a powerful similarity here with our relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.</p><p>The Hebrew seems to mean that the man knew that had he killed Absalom, then Joab would have been the first in saying that he must be killed for having slain the king's son. Perhaps David had implied there would be the death penalty for doing this. And yet as with Amnon and Absalom, he refuses to carry out the death penalty against Joab for slaying Absalom. And again, this lead to further problems for him in that finally Joab too would revolt against him. David didn’t carry out these death penalties because he realized he must reflect the grace shown to him in not having to die for what he had done to Uriah. And yet reflecting grace is not cheap; for David, in each of these cases, it meant long term suffering. Yet we marvel at God’s way; for the promise that David not die but instead would suffer huge grief in his family life was a result of his subsequently responding to the grace shown him. We see here how God’s word comes true through the faithful response of His people to His grace.</p>


text:
<p>Then Joab said, I’m not going to wait like this with you. He took three darts in his hand, and thrust them through the heart of Absalom, while he was yet alive in the midst of the oak- </p><p>Heb. 'in the heart of the terebinth', possibly implying that this oak was associated with idolatry, and Absalom died caught up in his own idolatry, both literally and in terms of worshipping his own ego and obsession with the throne. The "darts" were likely sharpened sticks, for he grabbed whatever was at hand. "The heart" would refer to the trunk of his body, seeing Joab didn’t actually succeed in killing Absalom with them (:15).</p>


text:
<p>Ten young men who bore Joab’s armour surrounded and struck Absalom, and killed him- </p><p>The only other reference to "ten young men" is to the ten young men of David in <a href='B:90 25:5'>1Sa 25:5</a>. We wonder if David had used this group of ten young men in murdering others, and now a similar group were used to slay his beloved son. We noted on 2 Sam. 11:2 that some texts [notably the Qumran Samuel Scroll] add the comment that Uriah had been Joab's armourbearer. Joab clearly despised what David made him do to Uriah, and now uses his replacement armourbearers to slay David's son.</p>


text:
<p>Joab blew the trumpet, and the people returned from pursuing after Israel; for Joab held back the people- </p><p>"The people" could possibly refer to the followers of Absalom. I say this because the Proverbs are full of allusion to David’s history, as David sought to ever glorify his father David and set him up as the parade example of wisdom. And <a href='B:240 24:16'>Pro 24:16</a> uses the same word for 'holding back' people from destruction. We get the impression that the possible translation "Joab wished to spare the people" may be valid, according to the context. Joab didn’t want there to be bloodshed. It recalls the situation in <a href='B:100 2:28'>2Sa 2:28</a> where again Joab had blown a trumpet to restrain civil war. We see the mixture of spirituality and unspirituality in Joab. He genuinely wished to stop the bloodshed, and yet he slew Absalom. Again the record leaves us wondering as to his motives. He had apparently initially supported Absalom's bid for the throne; was he trying to show for all time that he didn’t support Absalom? Was he so loyal to David that he realized Absalom had to be slain, and anyway, Absalom was worthy of death for having slain Amnon? Or was he simply wanting revenge for Absalom burning down his barley field? Surely all these elements featured in his thinking. Human motivation is so complex, and therefore God alone can judge it.</p>


text:
<p>They took Absalom, and cast him into the great pit in the forest, and raised over him a very great heap of stones. Then all Israel fled everyone to his tent- </p><p><a href='B:60 7:26'>Jos 7:26</a> describes the covering of Achan with a cairn likewise; for he too was the troubler of Israel. Again we see the mixture of thinking in the characters before us; Biblical allusion mixed with disobedience to David. Raising a heap of stones was another way of saying that the people were stoning the dead person; and stoning was the punishment for the disobedient son (<a href='B:50 21:20-21'>Deu 21:20-21</a>). At the time of Absalom's rebellion, David had prayed that his enemies be cast into a pit and die before their time: "But you, O God, will cast them down into the lowest pit; the bloodthirsty and treacherous shall not live out half their days. But I will trust in you" (Ps. 55:23). But when this happens to Absalom (2 Sam. 18:17), David is heartbroken. Clearly his prayers were uttered in a flush of hot blood, and remain a powerful reminder to think about what we are asking for, and be properly motivated in our requests. For in essence, we receive what we ask for. In one sense, God hears all prayers (Ps. 139:4, 1 Jn. 5:14,15; 1 Pet. 3:12) although He doesn't always give the answers desired ("You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions” (James 4:3)). But the answers are not as we expect and some answers may only come in the Kingdom age; and it is the essence of the prayer that will be heard, not necessarily the specific request. A request not to die of a particular disease may be technically unanswered; but the essence of the prayer is that we are asking not to die. And we will not, when we are immortalized.</p>


text:
<p>Now Absalom in his lifetime had taken and reared up for himself the pillar, which is in the king’s vale; for he said, I have no son to keep my name in memory. He called the pillar after his own name; and it is called Absalom’s monument, to this day-</p><p>Perhaps his three sons of <a href='B:100 14:27'>2Sa 14:27</a> had died in their youth or childhood. for infant mortality was high in those times. Or maybe he had fallen out with them, and they had disowned each other. His aggressive attitude to his own father may have been triggered by his own experience of this at the hands of his sons. Despite having just slept with his father's wives, who were presumably still fertile (2 Sam. 16:22), Absalom had no hope or patience to hope that he would have sons by them. "The king's vale" is that of <a href='B:10 14:17'>Gen 14:17</a>. Having built the memorial there, Absalom had thereby again hinted at how he considered himself fit to be a king. His vanity was clearly expressed. The pillar to his own glory is contrasted with the heap of stones of :17, which was his true memorial- casting him in the inglorious role of Achan the troubler of Israel. It was not uncommon for men who had no descendants or whose sons had disowned them [or vice versa] to make a pillar to keep their name in memory. There are examples of this in the surrounding nations. This practice is specifically referred to when Is. 56:5 offers the eunuch  “a monument and name that is better than sons and daughters”. Had Absalom believed the promises of 2 Sam. 7, he would have rejoiced that Messiah would come in his father's line and have an eternal family. But like David, he wanted it here and now. </p>


text:
<p>Then Ahimaaz the son of Zadok said, Let me now run and bear the king news, how that Yahweh has avenged him of his enemies- </p><p>David had prayed that God would judge and avenge him of his enemies (<a href='B:230 43:1'>Psa 43:1</a> and often). But we must be careful what we pray for; because we do receive the answers. Those angry prayers of David were not mixed with grace, and so he now received their answer- when it was not what he wanted.</p>


text:
<p>Joab said to him, You shall not be the bearer of news this day, but you shall bear news another day. But today you shall bear no news, because the king’s son is dead- </p><p>See on :21,22. There was in Hebrew an association between carrying tidings, and good news. You didn’t carry tidings if there was no good news. This is the background for the Greek word evangelion&nbsp; translated 'Gospel' which means, strictly, 'good news that is being passed on'; for example, the good news of a victory was passed on by runners to the capital city. Once it had been spread around and everyone knew it, it ceased to be evangelion; it was no longer news that needed to be passed on. But in that time when there was a joyful urgency to pass it on, it was evangelion. Notice, heralding is not the same as lecturing. Our community for far too long equated preaching , good newsing, with lecturing. Lecturing seeks no result; whereas the herald of God has an urgency and breathlessness about his message. There must be a passion and enthusiasm in us for the message of Christ and His Kingdom. More to be feared than over emotionalism is the dry, detached utterance of facts as a droning lecture, which has neither heart nor soul in it. Man’s peril, Christ’s salvation…these things cannot mean so little to us that we feel no warmth or passion rise within us as we speak about them.</p>


text:
<p>Then Joab said to the Cushite, Go, tell the king what you have seen! The Cushite bowed himself to Joab, and ran- </p><p>Bearers of good news were often given presents (:22), and bearers of bad news could be punished. Joab wanted to save Ahimaaz from this, so again we see a level of decency in the mixed character of Joab. Messengers of low rank were often sent with bad news (:27), and so Joab sends a Cushite, an Ethiopian servant, to carry the news.</p>


text:
<p>Then Ahimaaz the son of Zadok said yet again to Joab, But come what may, please let me also run after the Cushite. Joab said, Why do you want to run, my son, since that you will have no reward for the news?- </p><p>As discussed on :21, good news was rewarded with a gift. Joab appears to want to save Ahimaaz from the shame of bringing bad news. He already realizes that the victory is going to be bad news for David. Hence LXX “thou hast no good tidings for profit if thou goest” and the Vulgate “thou wilt not be a bearer of good tidings".</p>


text:
<p>But come what may, he said, I will run. He said to him, Run! Then Ahimaaz ran by the way of the Plain, and outran the Cushite-</p><p>The kikkar, or Jordan valley. The battle had been fought on the east of Jordan. Ahimaaz ran up the valley and then turned inland, whereas the Cushite took the more direct route through the forests, which ended up being slower.</p>


text:
<p>Now David was sitting between the two gates- </p><p>David was sitting in the space between the inner and outer gates. Over this was a room (:33), and the watchman was over the outer gate. It was in this kind of space that Joab had murdered Abner, and David may have been thereby prepared for news that Joab had committed yet another murder he disapproved of. We marvel at the sensitivity of the record, which can only be Divine, and is quite different to contemporary historical writings which are always grossly exaggerated and pay no attention to such details.</p><p>And the watchman went up to the roof of the gate to the wall, and lifted up his eyes, and looked, and, behold, a man running alone- </p><p>The word for "watchman" here is that used in <a href='B:230 5:3'>Psa 5:3</a>, where David says he "will watch expectantly" for the answer to his prayer. We must be careful what we pray for. Because we will likely receive it in some form. If indeed the context of Psalms 5&nbsp; is that of Absalom's rebellion, then we have to note that this same word for 'watching expectantly' is used repeatedly of the expectant watching for news of the battle with Absalom (<a href='B:100 18:24-27'>2Sa 18:24-27</a>); and the news was not what David wanted to hear. Absalom had been slain. But he had asked God to save him from Absalom's rebellion, and promised to "watch expectantly" for the answer. He had been told that evil would arise from within his own house, and by this point he surely should have perceived what that meant. But he is praying desperately that Absalom's life will be saved, instead of accepting God's will and the result of his own actions. We note the reference to the wall, and possibly the connection is with how Uriah was slain by men on a wall, at David's command. Now David's eyes, his watchman, are effectively high on a wall, seeing the death of his son.</p>


text:
<p>The watchman cried, and told the king. The king said, If he is alone, there is news in his mouth. He came closer and closer- </p><p>David’s under his breath comments of millennia ago are recorded here, so that we might enter into the stress of the situation. Those comments are absolutely credible as what he would have muttered as the news is about to break for him. The messenger was alone, not accompanied by a host of fleeing people. Being alone might be read as good news. And David was clutching at any straw which might mean good news for him.</p>


text:
<p>The watchman saw another man running; and the watchman called to the porter, and said, Behold, a man running alone! The king said, He also brings news- </p><p>"To the porter" is LXX "into the gate"; he was calling to David who was sitting in between the gates. It is obvious that a messenger running was bringing news. But David’s muttered comment is noted because of the scale of detail this scene is being recorded at. And such comments are absolutely typical of someone nervously awaiting highly significant news.</p>


text:
<p>The watchman said, I think the running of the first one is like the running of Ahimaaz the son of Zadok. The king said, He is a good man, and comes with good news- </p><p>This kind of throw away comment is typical of people in great anxiety. The record has every reason to be believed. These words were really said, these things truly happened. As noted on :21,22, good news was carried by men of higher standing than those who carried bad news. Therefore David’s hopes were raised, thinking that this must mean there was "good news". Although he realized that "good news" to those around him might be bad news for him, i:e. the death of his son.</p>


text:
<p>Ahimaaz called and said to the king, All is well. He bowed himself before the king with his face to the earth and said, Blessed is Yahweh your God, who has delivered up the men who lifted up their hand against my lord the king!- </p><p>Ahimaaz could not bring himself to tell David the bad news about Absalom. Surely he knew that he was dead. Like Joab, he knew David would be saddened by this, but focused upon the bigger picture- David’s side had won, thanks to Yahweh's help. "Delivered up" is literally 'shut up' (s:w. <a href='B:230 31:8'>Psa 31:8</a>), which could mean they had been conquered and taken captive. The intensity builds, as David clings to the hope that Absalom has been captured and not killed.</p>


text:
<p>The king said, Is it well with the young man Absalom? Ahimaaz answered, When Joab sent the king’s servant, even me your servant, I saw a great tumult, but I don’t know what it was- </p><p>David knew from <a href='B:100 12:10'>2Sa 12:10</a> that the sword would not depart from his house. He had seen Amnon slain, and he obviously sensed Absalom must also die. But he was quite naturally praying and hoping against hope that somehow the predicted consequences of his sin with Bathsheba might be limited. Surely he must have asked himself multiple times "Why, why ever did I do that?". The huge consequences of that brief period of sin remain as a warning to us all.</p><p>These messenger scenes after Absalom's death are similar to the messenger scenes after Uriah's death. Both times Joab gives the instructions to the messenger, there is the theme of Joab being unhappy with David's actions although only here does he rebuke David; and Joab is aware of the fact the message will not be what David wants to hear. David's servants likewise didn't want to inform him of the death of his child from Bathsheba "lest he will do harm" to the messenger carrying the bad news (2 Sam. 12:18). Why didn't Ahimaaz tell David the news about Absalom? He had run so hard with the news and now he fails to tell David what David wants to know. Everyone knew Absalom was dead. But he loses his nerve and lies to David. And why did the other messenger state it so obliquely? Surely because David hadn't changed from the wrathful man he was at the time of the Bathsheba matter. The pouring out of grace and forgiveness upon him hadn't changed him much. David had arbitaraily slain the man who told him of Saul's death. Even if the man was exaggerating in the hope of getting some reward from David, this was extreme reaction from David. I discussed on 2 Sam. 16:8 that David's later command to slay Shimei was also a shooting of a messenger, because Shimei's cursing of David was consciously repeating the words of Yahweh to David about his sin. And his courtiers clearly knew he was capable of killing the messenger of news about his son's death. We see how David didn't really grow spiritually at all in this area, and many others- despite God's great efforts. And yet he will be saved, by grace. There was no 'expiation by suffering', no learning from suffering even, no being made perfect by suffering. Rather is this an example of failure to respond, pigheadedly holding on to our narratives about ourselves and our own innocence to the very end, going to our graveplanks refusing to get it- and still being saved by grace. And that is the point of all this history of David... It's comforting to ourselves personally, and helps us think better of believers who come to the end of their days still wrong and bitter about various issues.</p>


text:
<p>The king said, Turn aside, and stand here. He turned aside, and stood still-</p><p>After such a long run, it would have been hard to stand, let alone to stand still. He did so in reflection of his deep respect for David.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, the Cushite came. The Cushite said, News for my lord the king; for Yahweh has avenged you this day of all those who rose up against you- </p><p>David in the Psalms records how he hated those who 'rose up' against him, and that includes Absalom. Saul 'rose up' against David (s:w. <a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a>; <a href='B:90 26:2'>1Sa 26:2</a>), and&nbsp; then evil men 'rose up' against David out of his own family (<a href='B:100 12:11'>2Sa 12:11</a> s:w:), especially Absalom who rose up against his father (<a href='B:100 18:31-32'>2Sa 18:31-32</a> s:w:). But David had prayed too quickly in his Psalms against those who rose up against him; and now he will have his answer. We must be careful what we pray for, for in a sense we will receive it.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to the Cushite, Is it well with the young man Absalom? The Cushite answered, May the enemies of my lord the king, and all who rise up against you to do you harm, be as that young man is- </p><p>See on :31. "Enemies... who rise up against you" is a quotation from <a href='B:50 28:7'>Deu 28:7</a>. This was to be the blessing for obedience to the covenant, and the curse upon those outside of the covenant. The Cushite had likely thought hard about how he was going to express the news, and he chose a Biblical quotation through which to do so- perhaps a good pattern for us in such difficult situations. And indeed he was correct; Absalom had indeed despised the covenant, and David [for all his sins] had been faithful to it. And the Cushite servant perceived that; David’s out of character failures didn’t mean he had been unfaithful to the covenant. And that is how we too must consider those who fail in out of character ways.</p>


text:
<p>The king was much moved, and went up to the room over the gate, and wept. As he went, he said, My son Absalom! My son, my son Absalom! I wish I had died for you, Absalom, my son, my son!- </p><p>This situation is a repeat of when David had anxiously waited for news of the commotion caused at Absalom's party when he slew Amnon (<a href='B:100 13:34'>2Sa 13:34</a>). Now again he will weep bitterly for the death of a son. Situations repeat in our lives, and even if we cannot attach meaning to event at the time, we at&nbsp; least have the comfort that they bear the same hallmark of Divine involvement in our lives, according to some plan- even if we may not discern it.</p><p>The scene is of David sitting between the gates and going up over the gate to get news of Absalom and weeping there for his death. It was from a wall above a gate that the archers shot from and killed Uriah (2 Sam. 11:23,24). David viewed Bathsehba from the roof (2 Sam. 11:2), and this was matched by the roof on which Absalom slept with David's wife, and the way the watchman sees the two messengers running with news of Absalom's death (2 Sam. 18:24), and it was on a roof that David lamented his son.</p><p>The scene is of David sitting between the gates and going up over the gate to get news of Absalom and weeping there for his death. It was from a wall above a gate that the archers shot from and killed Uriah (2 Sam. 11:23,24). David viewed Bathsehba from the roof (2 Sam. 11:2), and this was matched by the roof on which Absalom slept with David's wife, and the way the watchman sees the two messengers running with news of Absalom's death (2 Sam. 18:24), and it was on a roof that David lamented his son. </p><p> I discussed on 2 Sam. 12 that the death of David's son by Bathsheba was in a sense the son taking the death penalty for the father. And David seems to have understood it that way, as he strangely acts with joy and a sense of freedom once the child is dead, rather than mourning. But now he wishes he had died instead of his son Absalom. Yet again we see how the dimensions of what David did are acted out as it were in front of his eyes. He is brought by these circumstances towards self understanding, and comprehension of the dimensions of what he did in the Bathsheba-Uriah sin. And he is specifically being convicted of his lack of remorse over the death of Bathsheba's child, which was directly his fault. We might also note that David doesn't mourn the death of Uriah and his soldier comrades. He is now being nudged as to his previous lack of remorse and devaluing of human life.</p><p>
There is possibly here the idea that David felt that he himself deserved the punishment of death. Or we could read this as being said in the spirit of Moses (Ex. 32:32) and Paul (Rom. 9:3), who were willing to have given their lives, had it been possible, to save others. And yet despite that element to David at this point, there is clearly a marked inconsistency in him; for he is very severe in his judgments at times (2 Sam. 12:5,6), slaying the messenger who said he'd slain Saul; and yet huge grace to his sons [Amnon allowed to have Tamar visit him alone and not executing him, not executing Absalom and allowing him back, and now to Absalom]. I suggest David's obsession with his sons was rooted in his refusal to accept the meaning of the promises to him about his future Son, and his effort to make those promises fulful in one of his own sons. This is how he set Solomon up for final failure. And so at this point he has conviction for sin, a selfless desire to die for his son; and yet this wasn't very deep nor did it abide long. Just as happened after his conviction of sin by Nathan. </p><p>
There is however another possible take on David's extreme mourning for Absalom. Extreme mourning has featured in his life before- after the deaths of Saul, Abner [Saul's general], Ishbosheth [Saul's son] and Amnon [David's firstborn]. In each of those cases, the mourning and extremely public nature of his grief was without doubt politically motivated, seeking to demonstrate his innocence from having slain a rival for power [Amnon as his firstborn could also be seen as a rival]. It would be hard to argue that David simply had a soft streak for his fallen enemies, because his Psalms have hatred for enemies as such a major theme. So whilst it is hard not to discern some element of genuine grief in David as regards Absalom, as ever with him, it seems likely that he had other motives as well.  After all, David was seeking to reconcile with the men of Judah, who had generally backed Absalom. His promotion of Amasa their army commander to be the commander of his army is proof enough of his political consciousness and concern about his image with the men of Judah. 
</p>


text:
<p>It was told Joab, Behold, the king weeps and mourns for Absalom- </p><p>Why is this added? Joab was fully aware the king would be upset for the loss of Absalom. Perhaps it is noted here to provoke us to imagine the kinds of feelings and self talk Joab had when he was told this.</p>


text:
<p>The victory that day was turned into mourning to all the people; for the people heard it said that day, The king grieves for his son- </p><p>The king's grief became that of the people. They are presented as at one with him. His spirit was theirs. And this looks ahead to the relationship between the Lord Jesus and His people.</p>


text:
<p>The people sneaked into the city that day, as people who are ashamed steal away when they flee in battle-</p><p>Truly the victory was turned into a defeat. "The city" is Mahanaim, not Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>The king covered his face, and the king cried with a loud voice, My son Absalom, Absalom, my son, my son!- </p><p>David covered his head in mourning when Absalom was dead and the rebellion was over, just as he did when Absalom came to power (<a href='B:100 15:30'>2Sa 15:30</a>). We get the impression that it was grief every way for David, whether Absalom lived or died. And this is indeed the take away lesson for us- that the outcome of sin is a lose lose situation.</p>


text:
<p>Joab came into the house to the king and said, You have shamed this day the faces of all your servants, who this day have saved your life, and the lives of your sons and of your daughters, and the lives of your wives, and the lives of your concubines-</p><p>This implies that David’s wives and little ones all went with him in the tragic departure from Jerusalem. David’s "servants" were specifically his soldiers, who are repeatedly called "David’s servants".</p>


text:
<p>in that you love those who hate you, and hate those who love you. For you have declared this day, that princes and servants are nothing to you. For today I perceive that if Absalom had lived, and all we had died this day, then it would have pleased you well- </p><p>The accusation is fair enough- that David had no regard for the lives of his men, because of his unreasonable love obsession, in this case for Absalom. This is a repeat of the situation with Bathsheba, where his obsession with her led him to disregard the lives of his men, both Uriah and the other men of Israel who died to cover his murder. Again and again, what David did is replayed before his eyes; not to haunt him just for the sake of it, but to lead him to deeper understanding of the dimensions of his actions previously. Had Absalom won, he would have killed both David and all his inner circle. And that, Joab concludes, would have been pleasing to David.</p><p>We see the internal harmony of the record in that Joab's reaction to Abner's being sent away in peace (<a href='B:100 3:24'>2Sa 3:24</a>) is in spirit so similar to his frustration here with David over the death of Absalom. We note the internal consistency in the record of Joab's character; another reason to believe these records are absolutely credible and inspired by God.</p><p>The more we look for it, the more we see other examples of where material relevant to David is applied directly to all believers in the New Testament, thus setting him up as our example and realistic pattern. Joab's comment about the way David loved his enemies (<a href='B:100 19:6'>2Sa 19:6</a>) was thus verbatim picked up by the Lord and set up as the example for each of us. And yet David only came to be so kind and forgiving because of his experience of God’s forgiveness to him over the Bathsheba incident.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore arise, go out, and speak to the heart of your servants; for I swear by Yahweh, if you don’t go out, not a man will stay with you this night. That would be worse for you than all the evil that has happened to you from your youth until now-</p><p>Joab speaks to David roughly, and not at all as a man should speak to his king. This was partly his style, but it also is a tacit reflection upon David’s loss of power. Joab speaks the truth when he implies that David was about to lose all power because of his attitude to Absalom's death; he no longer had a strong power base. We can better understand why Solomon in his Proverbs is always making sideways swipes at his potential competitors for the throne. He did not inherit a strong position and had to establish his hold on power.</p><p>At the time of David's sin against Uriah, Joab had told David to come to the battle front and 'take' Rabbah lest someone else take the glory and name it after themselves. His behaviour here is similar, as is David's acquiescence. Again David is being reminded of what happened at Rabbah, to help his re-live the results of his sin and repent.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king arose, and sat in the gate. They told all the people saying, Behold, the king is sitting in the gate. All the people came before the king. Now Israel had fled every man to his tent- </p><p>Now "the people" of David are contrasted to "Israel", implying David’s supporters are the true people of God. They passed before David in some formal procession in order to receive his thanks.</p>


text:
<p>All the people were at strife throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, The king delivered us out of the hand of our enemies, and he saved us out of the hand of the Philistines; and now he has fled out of the land from Absalom- </p><p>The strife, or conflicting opinions / judgments (Heb:), regarded who the should respect as their king. Sadly there was no expressed opinion that they should again accept God as their king. There were clearly no other credible options as king apart from David, and the people always remembered that David had fulfilled the Divine potential for the king of Israel- that he would save them from their enemies. Absalom and nobody else had done this.</p>


text:
<p>Absalom, whom we anointed over us, is dead in battle. Now therefore why don’t you speak a word of bringing the king back?-</p><p>Their anointing of Absalom was effectively a disannulling of David’s Divine anointing as their king. They therefore felt leaderless unless there was some formal ceremony whereby David was restored as king. LXX adds “And the word of all Israel came to the king”. Typically the word of the ruler went out to all Israel, but this is stated the other way around, hinting at David’s weakness. The initiative for David’s restoration came from the ten tribes, and was only later accepted by Judah (:11). All Israel were to be united by their common acceptance of having betrayed their intended king, and by the experience of his grace. See on :16.</p>


text:
<p>King David sent to Zadok and to Abiathar the priests saying, Speak to the elders of Judah saying, ‘Why are you the last to bring the king back to his house? Since the speech of all Israel has come to the king, to return him to his house- </p><p>David again seems to misjudge things and act unwisely. He is set to return over the Jordan and thence to Jerusalem and become king again. But there's nobody to meet him and symbolically convey him over Jordan. So he sends Zadok and Abiathar to get his tribe, Judah, to bring him over Jordan. It was this perceived nepotism towards Judah that led to the next rebellion, by Sheba from Benjamin (2 Sam. 20:1). Again we see some point to Absalom's complaint that he couldn't judge-and thereby again, David is shown unfit for kingship. And it was part of being the king of Israel that he should judge, and judge justly. David desperately hung on to being king when he should have realized his own failure as king, resigned, and focused on the wonderful promise of the future eternal king in his line- the Lord Jesus. </p><p> See on :10. Judah had been the strongest supporters of Absalom, for he had been declared king in Hebron, the historical capital of Judah (<a href='B:100 15:10'>2Sa 15:10</a>). Yet it was the ten tribes who proposed the restoration of David as king. Clearly those closest to David [the tribe of Judah and the people of Jerusalem] were the most disgusted and disillusioned by his behaviour with Bathsheba and Uriah.</p>


text:
<p>You are my brothers, you are my bone and my flesh. Why then are you the last to bring back the king?’- </p><p>This could be read more as an assurance of forgiveness than a rebuke. The suggestion was that they did want the restoration of David as king, but they should be more vocal about it; and the message thereby assured them that David was not looking to take any vengeance for their betrayal. See on :13.</p>


text:
<p>Say to Amasa, ‘Aren’t you my bone and my flesh? God do so to me, and more also, if you aren’t captain of the army before me continually in place of Joab’- </p><p><a href='B:560 5:30'>Eph 5:30</a> makes the amazing statement that even now, "We are of members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones". In a very detailed study of this language, Henricus Renckens concluded: "In Israel, in order to say that someone was a blood relation, one said: "He is my flesh and my bones" (<a href='B:10 29:14'>Gen 29:14</a>; <a href='B:70 9:2'>Jdg 9:2</a>; cp. <a href='B:10 37:27'>Gen 37:27</a>; <a href='B:100 5:1'>2Sa 5:1</a>; <a href='B:100 19:13'>2Sa 19:13</a> ff:; <a href='B:290 58:7'>Isa 58:7</a>)". This is how close we are to the Lord Jesus- blood relatives. This language could in no way be justified if Jesus were God Himself in person.</p><p>David is repeating the lessons he learned after the death of Saul, where he showed huge grace to his enemies- and it worked. Even though it ran against the grain of all secular sense and wisdom:&nbsp; And so now he does the same, in offering the post of commander-in chief to the general of the rebel army.  But it was a huge risk, and the fact Amasa accepted it shows the fickleness of men within the arena of human politics. And this could reflect David's mad descent into unwisdom and inability to control his hatred of Joab for rightly killing Absalom. All this could show that David has little moral compass left. So again we are left to ponder whether this was grace, or desperate politics to get the men of Judah back with him. And quite likely, knowing David, it was a mixture of both. His appeal to Amasa that they were blood relatives is somewhat suspect because the same was true of Joab whom he was replacing. More likely David alludes to the covenant of 2 Sam. 5:1, whereby David was accepted as king because he was of the same "bone and flesh" of his people. But David made and then broke his covenant with Shimei and was overall of low integrity...  </p>


text:
<p>He bowed the heart of all the men of Judah, even as one man; so that they sent to the king, saying, Return, you and all your servants-</p><p>We see the fickle nature of human hearts. They had been won by David from Saul, then Absalom had stolen the hearts of the men of Judah, and now David bows those hearts back to him, in a very short space of time; and then those hearts are won by Sheba in <a href='B:100 20:2'>2Sa 20:2</a>. We think of how the people who once cried "Hosanna" were soon shouting "crucify Him!", and soon after that were so supportive of the apostles preaching Jesus as Christ that the authorities were scared to touch them.</p>


text:
<p>So the king returned, and came to the Jordan. Judah came to Gilgal, to go to meet the king, to bring the king over the Jordan-</p><p>Judah accepted the implicit assurance of :11 that David was not going to be seeking vengeance for their betrayal of him.</p>


text:
<p>Shimei the son of Gera, the Benjamite, who was of Bahurim, hurried and came down with the men of Judah to meet king David-</p><p>The common experience of David’s grace bound together the house of Saul the Benjamite who had persecuted him, along with those of David’s betrayers within Judah. Grace is the basis for true unity amongst God’s people, rather than any set of agreed theologies. The message for the exiles was that the restoration of the Davidic king was to unite them, along with the ten tribes, as explained on :10.</p>


text:
<p>There were a thousand men of Benjamin with him, and Ziba the servant of the house of Saul, and his fifteen sons and his twenty servants with him; and they went through the Jordan in the presence of the king-</p><p>"Went through" implies they charged into the river, to demonstrate their zeal to bring the king back- when in fact both Shimei and Ziba had been really on Absalom's side, and had entertained the hope of using the situation to forge a coalition between Absalom and the remnants of the pro-Saul party of Benjamin. "A thousand" may not be a literal number, but can refer to a family or regiment.</p>


text:
<p>A ferry boat went to bring over the king’s household, and to do what he thought good. Shimei the son of Gera fell down before the king, when he had come over the Jordan-</p><p>Grammatically, the "he" seems to refer to Shimei. He went over the Jordan and met David on the eastern bank, before David himself had passed over as recorded in :39.</p>


text:
<p>He said to the king, Don’t let my lord impute iniquity to me, nor remember that which your servant did perversely the day that my lord the king went out of Jerusalem, that the king should take it to his heart- </p><p>In the same way as God did not impute iniquity to David (<a href='B:230 32:2'>Psa 32:2</a>), so David did not 'impute iniquity' to Shimei for cursing him, and did not carry out a rightful death sentence against that man (<a href='B:100 19:19'>2Sa 19:19</a>; <a href='B:100 19:21'>2Sa 19:21</a>). Note how Shimei uses the very same wording which David used in his repentance: "I have sinned" (<a href='B:100 19:20'>2Sa 19:20</a>).The similarity of language leaves us expecting David to forgive Shimei permanently, and not impute iniquity to him. David does this for a passing moment, but then commands Solomon to ensure Shimei is slain for what he had done. David presents as totally unappreciative of the grace shown him, and totally unreflective of it in his later personal relationships. The David who wrote Psalm 32 about his experience of imputed righteousness by grace... is now asked to impute righteousness and to forgive. But he only does so for a moment, his experience of grace didn't have any permanent effect upon him. For he will tell Solomon to "not hold him [Shimei] guiltless", i.e. not to impute righteousness to him but to let his guilt stand, even though David accepted that Shimei's cursing of David was from God, in that David deserved death by stoning and had indeed slain innocent blood. And God's grace likewise can trigger no more than a mere moment of deep feeling and reflection as we sit in a church service, after which we revert to the graceless way of the flesh, endlessly recalling others' past failures and wanting to punish them for them. And yet we can read David's grace to Shimei at this point as only apparent grace; it could well have been politically motivated. For David was concerned about the rumours from Ziba that the house of Saul had wanted to take power at the time of Absalom's putsch, and indeed there was always a Saulide element wanting to get power. The fact a Benjamite, Sheba, rebels against David soon afterwards (2 Sam. 20:1) could suggest that David was not wrong to fear the Benjamites and want to placate them.  So grace to Shimei rather than killing him immediately was also a way to keep the house of Saul [of whom was Shimei] without any excuse to rebel. As ever with David, even his better sides and actions have political overtones.</p><p>
David swore to Shimei that "you will not die" (:23), accepting Shimei's grovelling: " “[I am] guilty... did wrong... I have sinned”... do not hold [me accountable]... do not remember... may the king not bear it in mind”. But David did bear it in mind, he did remember, and he did hold Shimei accountable unto death". David's request that Solomon bring Shimei's white hair to the grave with blood on it suggests a deep hatred of Shimei, and a desire to see his skull cracked open so that blood flowed over his white hair. And they were David's final words. And yet he will be saved... he is in the list of saved faithful ones in Hebrews 11, and the promises of 2 Sam. 7 implied his unconditional salvation.
</p><p> Shimei's request for David not to "take it to his heart" was just the words of David to Joab regarding the death of Uriah and the other soldiers. Jonadab used it to David about the death of Amnon, and Absalom uses it to Tamar about her rape. Again we see David seeing the dimensions of his own words and sins being played out in front of his eyes. Seeing the results of our words and actions on the screen of others' lives is often more powerful than any personal introspection. And this is why we have meetings with the people we do in life.</p>


text:
<p>For your servant knows that I have sinned. Therefore behold, I have come this day the first of all the house of Joseph to go down to meet my lord the king- </p><p>See on :19. Shimei's claim to sincere repentance is rather mitigated by this exaggerated claim, that he was the "first" representative of Ephraim, an idea which covered all of the ten tribes, to welcome the restored David. But David is full of grace at this time and forgives him, without pointing out the fact he was still telling untruths.</p><p></p><p>God told Shimei to curse David (<a href='B:100 16:10'>2Sa 16:10</a>). Afterwards, Shimei repents and acknowledges that by doing so he sinned (<a href='B:100 19:20'>2Sa 19:20</a>). And although David recognized that God had told Shimei to curse him (<a href='B:100 16:10'>2Sa 16:10</a>), David tells Solomon not to hold Shimei "guiltless" for how he had cursed him (<a href='B:110 2:9'>1Ki 2:9</a>). As with the evil spirit from Yahweh working upon Saul, a man is encouraged by God to do the sinful act in which he has set his heart.</p>


text:
<p>But Abishai the son of Zeruiah answered, Shall Shimei not be put to death for this, because he cursed Yahweh’s anointed?- </p><p>To curse God’s representative was seen as cursing God (<a href='B:110 21:10'>1Ki 21:10</a>; <a href='B:20 22:28'>Exo 22:28</a>). And so to curse "Yahweh's anointed" was seen as cursing Yahweh (<a href='B:100 19:21'>2Sa 19:21</a>) and worthy of death. "Yahweh's anointed" was a title for the High Priest (<a href='B:20 22:28'>Exo 22:28</a>), and confirms that David was seen as both King and High Priest. David knew God well enough to act like the High Priest even when he was not a Levite (<a href='B:100 6:13-20'>2Sa 6:13-20</a>), he came to understand that God did not require sacrifices, he came to see that the Law was only a means to an end. David’s sons, although not Levites, were “priests” (<a href='B:100 8:18'>2Sa 8:18</a> RV). He could say that the Lord was his inheritance [a reference to how he as the youngest son had lost his?], and how he refuses to offer the sacrifices of wicked men for them (<a href='B:230 16:4-5'>Psa 16:4-5</a>; <a href='B:230 119:57'>Psa 119:57</a>)- speaking as if he was a Levite, a priest, when he was not.</p>


text:
<p>David said, What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah, that you should this day be adversaries to me?- The Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament uses the Greek word diabolos to translate the Hebrew 'Satan'. Hence Devil and Satan are effectively parallel in meaning. Thus we read in the Septuagint of David being an adversary [Heb. Satan, Gk. diabolos] in <a href='B:90 29:4'>1Sa 29:4</a> ["turns against us"]; the sons of Zeruiah (<a href='B:100 19:22'>2Sa 19:22</a>), Hadad, Rezon and other opponents to Solomon (<a href='B:110 5:4'>1Ki 5:4</a>; <a href='B:110 11:14'>1Ki 11:14</a>; <a href='B:110 11:23'>1Ki 11:23</a>; <a href='B:110 11:25'>1Ki 11:25</a>). We face a simple choice- if we believe that every reference to 'Satan' or 'Devil' refers to an evil cosmic being, then we have to assume that these people weren't people at all, and that even good men like David were evil. The far more natural reading of these passages is surely that 'Satan' is simply a word meaning 'adversary', and can be applied to people [good and bad], and even God Himself- it carries no pejorative, sinister meaning as a word.</p><p>When reviewing the references to ha-Satan ("the adversary") in the Old Testament, it's significant that a number of them occur in the context of the life of David. There was an incident where David behaved deceitfully with the Philistines with whom he once lived, and he is described as being "a Satan" to them (<a href='B:90 29:4'>1Sa 29:4</a>). That's another example of where the word 'Satan' doesn't necessarily have an evil connotation- a good man can be an adversary, just as Peter was (<a href='B:470 16:21-23'>Mat 16:21-23</a>) and God Himself can be (<a href='B:100 22:4'>2Sa 22:4</a>). But we find that David and his dynasty were afflicted with Satans, adversaries, from then on. The word is used about human beings who were adversarial to them in <a href='B:100 19:22'>2Sa 19:22</a>; <a href='B:110 5:4'>1Ki 5:4</a>; <a href='B:110 5:18'>1Ki 5:18</a>; <a href='B:110 11:14-22'>1Ki 11:14-22</a>; <a href='B:110 11:25'>1Ki 11:25</a>; <a href='B:230 109:6'>Psa 109:6</a>; <a href='B:230 109:20'>Psa 109:20</a> (Heb. "They say, "Appoint a wicked man against him, let an accuser [Satan] stand on his right hand"". David’s enemies are described by a word related to ‘satan’ in <a href='B:230 38:20'>Psa 38:20</a>; <a href='B:230 71:13'>Psa 71:13</a>; <a href='B:230 109:4'>Psa 109:4</a>. Note that it is stated that God stirred up men to be 'Satans' to David and Solomon- whatever view we take of 'Satan', clearly it or he is under the direct control of God and not in free opposition to Him.</p><p>Shall there any man be put to death this day in Israel? For don’t I know that I am this day king over Israel?- </p><p>David is here learning from the spirit of his enemy Saul (<a href='B:90 11:13'>1Sa 11:13</a>). This shows David’s generous sprit, in learning from the good attitudes of a man who in other parts of his life was wrong and abusive to him, and rejected by God. And yet it would seem that David was playing with words when he says that nobody will be put to death "this day". Because later, on a later day, he commands Solomon to slay Shimei. Again we see David apparently showing grace whilst being politically motivated [to give the Benjamites no cause for a rebellion] and deceitful. The fact a Benjamite, Sheba, rebels against David soon afterwards (2 Sam. 20:1) could suggest that David was not wrong to fear the Benjamites and want to placate them.  </p>


text:
<p>The king said to Shimei, You shall not die. The king swore to him-</p><p>David graciously overlooked Shimei's cursing, promising him that he would not die because of it (<a href='B:100 16:10-11'>2Sa 16:10-11</a>; <a href='B:100 19:23'>2Sa 19:23</a>). But he didn’t keep up that level of grace to the end: he later asked Solomon to ensure that Shimei&nbsp; was killed for that incident (<a href='B:110 2:8-9'>1Ki 2:8-9</a>). And one wonders whether it was Shimei’s words which so broke David’s heart that he later wrote: “Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man…as he loved cursing, so let it come unto him; as he delighted not in blessing, so may it be far from him. He clothed himself also with cursing as with a garment…” (<a href='B:230 109:16-18'>Psa 109:16-18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king; and he had neither groomed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes, from the day the king departed until the day he came home in peace- </p><p>See on <a href='B:100 1:23'>2Sa 1:23</a>. Mephibosheth is called Saul's son (<a href='B:100 9:7'>2Sa 9:7</a>; <a href='B:100 9:10'>2Sa 9:10</a>; <a href='B:100 19:24'>2Sa 19:24</a>), although he was actually Jonathan's son. This suggests that the son was brought up in Saul's house. This certainly does not give the impression that Jonathan separated himself from his father’s house, even though he strongly disagreed with Saul. There was no fear of guilt by association with Bible characters, but rather a standing up for Godly principle in whatever situation they were in.</p><p>Mephibosheth's lack of care for himself was part of his sorrow at what had befallen David, and it was proof enough that Ziba had misrepresented him to David as planning to become king. For in that case he would have shaved and made himself as attractive a candidate as possible. Having not pared his nails or beard was evident proof that he had been in mourning for some time, since David had fled Jerusalem. See on :25.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when he had come to Jerusalem to meet the king, that the king said to him, Why didn’t you go with me, Mephibosheth?- </p><p>But David has still not even crossed the Jordan (:39). This is out of chronological sequence, and refers to a future meeting between the two in Jerusalem (:30, in David’s own house). It continues the theme of Ziba in :17. Mephibosheth's "coming down" in :24 would therefore mean ‘came down from his house in the highlands of Benjamin near Gibeah to Jerusalem,’ not ‘came down from Jerusalem to the Jordan’.</p>


text:
<p>He answered, My lord, O king, my servant deceived me. For your servant said, I will saddle me a donkey that I may ride thereon, and go with the king; because your servant is lame- </p><p>Mephibosheth lived in Jerusalem near David’s palace, for he ate at his table every day with him. He had wished to leave Jerusalem along with David’s sad group who fled from Absalom, but perhaps he only heard of the crisis too late and anyway Ziba had deceived him so that it was too late to leave. Clearly Ziba intended to manipulate things so that he would forge a coalition between the Saul supporters and Absalom, using Mephibosheth as a pawn in his game. He as the kingmaker would have had the real power in the coalition. This manipulation of others and revelling in being the kingmaker was exactly Joab's weakness, and we see how Abner had failed in this way with Ishbosheth. The repetition of the themes shows how human nature articulates itself in the same way despite the differing situations. And this is the whole purpose of these narratives.</p>


text:
<p>He has slandered your servant to my lord the king; but my lord the king is as an angel of God. Do therefore what is good in your eyes- </p><p>Mephibosheth's absolute joy at David’s restoration means that he is happy to be slandered, misunderstood by David and even lose all his property (:30)- for joy at the restoration. This was a powerful challenge to the exiles in Babylon, many of whom weighed up what the restoration might cost them, and sided with remaining in exile rather than entering into the abandon and joy of the restoration. And the message of the Gospel is for us too a message of the Davidic kingdom being restored. Whether we are slandered or misunderstood should be made irrelevant by the wonder of that reality. The fact David cannot decide who is telling the truth, therefore telling Ziba and Mephbosheth to divide Saul's land between them, shows that in fact David is not like an angel who knows all things. We saw the same irony with the woman of Tekoah, who makes the same statement to David at the same time as she deceives and manipulates him. David is thereby presented as a man with a former reputation for wisdom and perception, but who now has no wisdom nor prescience. There are plenty of hints that it is Ziba who is guilty but David shows scant interest in justice. He just wants to get on with the job of being king again, in the same spirit in which he didn't waste time mourning the death of his first child by Bathsheba, but got on with capitalizing on God's grace in not slaying him and getting Bathsheba to push out another baby for him. Dt. 25:1,2 states that if there is a dispute between two men, the innocent man must be acquitted, but the guilty man punished. But David doesn't bother doing this; and again he proves Absalom's point, that he is not giving judgment to Israel as the King of Israel was intended to.</p>


text:
<p>For all my father’s house were but dead men before my lord the king- </p><p>This could refer to how David had not slain the house of Saul, and also possibly to the events of <a href='B:100 21:6-9'>2Sa 21:6-9</a>, which may not be placed in chronological sequence and may have already happened at this time.</p><p>Yet you set your servant among those who ate at your own table. What right therefore have I yet that I should cry any more to the king?- </p><p>The wonderful honour of sitting at the Lord's table should likewise mean for us that all anger at slander or being disbelieved (:27), or loss of personal wealth (:30), is thereby eclipsed.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to him, Why do you speak any more of your matters? I say, you and Ziba divide the land- </p><p>As discussed on :27,28, all argument between brethren and all concern about material things should be made irrelevant by the wonder of the restored Kingdom and our experience of the grace which allows us to be there. David had earlier responded to Ziba's slander that Mephibosheth had betrayed David by giving Ziba all Mephibosheth's land, in faith that he would one day be restored as king. But now he appears to tell the two men to just divide the land. Or he could be saying that they should return to the original 'division' of the land, whereby the land was Mephibosheth's but Ziba farmed it.</p>


text:
<p>Mephibosheth said to the king, Yes, let him take all, because my lord the king has come in peace to his own house- </p><p>As discussed above, Mephibosheth was so thrilled with the restoration of the Kingdom that all issues of material things were now seen as irrelevant by him. If he was to continue to sit at David’s table (cp. our participation at the memorial feast), then such matters were irrelevant. This is a powerful challenge to us, the weak and lame who sit by grace at the table of the Son of David.</p>


text:
<p>Barzillai the Gileadite came down from Rogelim; and he went over the Jordan with the king, to conduct him over the Jordan- </p><p>Rogelim in Gilead may well have been Gentile territory, and his descendants were unable to prove their genealogies (<a href='B:150 2:61-63'>Ezr 2:61-63</a>), although they wished to serve as priests and support the restored Kingdom, just as their ancestor supported David’s restoration. As noted on <a href='B:100 17:27'>2Sa 17:27</a>, some of David’s most loyal friends at this time of crisis were Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p>Now Barzillai was a very aged man, even eighty years old: and he had provided the king with sustenance while he lay at Mahanaim; for he was a very great man- </p><p>This would imply that David was there for some while at the time of <a href='B:100 17:29'>2Sa 17:29</a> (see note there), and "while he lay..." sounds as if he was ill at that time.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Barzillai, Come over with me, and I will sustain you with me in Jerusalem- </p><p>As Barzillai had sustained David with a feast in the wilderness, David wanted to have Barzillai at his table in Jerusalem, and to be "sustain" him for the rest of his life. As with Mephibosheth, to eat at David’s table was the sign of ultimate acceptance. And this is the wonderful significance of our sitting at His table at His invitation today. We are never to deny others a place at that table.</p>


text:
<p>Barzillai said to the king, How many are the days of the years of my life, that I should go up with the king to Jerusalem?-</p><p>In essence he has the same attitude as Mephibosheth. He is so thrilled at the good news of the restored kingdom of David that he despises all material advantage to himself. And this is our pattern, if we really grasp the good news of the restored Kingdom (<a href='B:510 1:6'>Act 1:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>I am this day eighty years old. Can I discern between good and bad? Can your servant taste what I eat or what I drink? Can I hear any more the voice of singing men and singing women? Why then should your servant be yet a burden to my lord the king?- </p><p>Solomon's whole description of old age in Ecclesiastes 12 is based on his father’s experience with Barzillai here. Even in the cynicism of Ecclesiastes, written in Solomon’s later life, he still uses words and phrases which have their root in his father David- e.g. his description of women as snares in <a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a> goes back to how his father dealt with women who were a snare (<a href='B:90 18:21'>1Sa 18:21</a>). Solomon was living out his father, using the same phrases his father had used, and yet he clearly had no real personal commitment to Yahweh as he turned away to idols in his old age. The&nbsp;lack&nbsp;of true&nbsp;zeal within our community,&nbsp;after&nbsp;several&nbsp;generations 'in the Truth', may be related to all this too. We each need to seriously examine ourselves in this connection, and know the meaning of personal conversion.</p>


text:
<p>Your servant would but just go over the Jordan with the king. Why should the king repay me with such a reward?- </p><p>Again we are awed by this man's selfless response to the restoration of the Davidic kingdom, which good news we receive in the good news of the Kingdom of God. He wasn't interested in personal reward, his focus was upon the glory of God and His appointed "son" David. And we too will not see things so much in terms of our personal "reward" in God’s Kingdom when it is finally restored, but will instead be consumed with the joy of the fact that God’s Kingdom has been restored.</p>


text:
<p>Please let your servant turn back again, that I may die in my own city, by the grave of my father and my mother. But behold, your servant Chimham; let him go over with my lord the king; and do to him what shall seem good to you-</p><p>We could infer from the reference to “the habitation of Chimham which is by Bethlehem” (<a href='B:300 41:17'>Jer 41:17</a>) that Chimham was given a piece of land from David’s personal inheritance at Bethlehem. This was the depth to which David appreciated loyalty to him at a time when he seemed a hopeless cause. And the same will be seen true in the rewards given by the Lord Jesus to those who have followed Him now, when true Christianity seems a hopeless cause.</p>


text:
<p>The king answered, Chimham shall go over with me, and I will do to him that which shall seem good to you. Whatever you require of me, that I will do for you-</p><p>Perhaps the grant of land in David’s patrimony in Bethlehem (see on :37) was what Barzillai asked for Chimham. He was happy himself to be buried in the inheritance of his parents, but wished something more for Chimham.</p>


text:
<p>All the people went over the Jordan, and the king went over. Then the king kissed Barzillai, and blessed him; and he returned to his own place- </p><p>We note the order. The people went over first, followed by the king. He was no longer their charismatic leader, but they were his advance guard. We are left with a lovely impression of Barzillai, but his name means 'hard / iron hearted', and we marvel at how the hard hearted were so transformed by David’s grace and the joy of the prospect of the restored Davidic kingdom- a pattern for us all.</p>


text:
<p>So the king went over to Gilgal, and Chimham went over with him. All the people of Judah brought the king over, and also half the people of Israel- </p><p>It was the ten tribes who had first proposed the restoration (:9,10). But it seems due to wanting to steal the show for themselves and other tribal jealousy issues, the elders of Judah hadn't invited them to the celebration at Gilgal. Therefore only some of them were present. But during the celebration at Gilgal, which would have lasted some days, the rest of the ten tribes representatives arrived; "all the men of Israel" (:41).</p>


text:
<p>Behold, all the men of Israel came to the king, and said to the king, Why have our brothers the men of Judah stolen you away, and brought the king and his household, over the Jordan, and all David’s men with him?- </p><p>See on :40. They were seeking for David to rebuke Judah, especially as it appears that David’s men were apparently open to this special treatment by the men of Judah. There is no recorded response of David; for the men of Judah butted in with their response first, and this is adequately answered by the men of Israel in :43. Perhaps this reflects David’s passivity at the time. Or maybe it is one of those open ended points in the narrative, intentionally left hanging so that we imagine what his gracious response would have been. For at this time he was the master of all grace and unity to all.</p>


text:
<p>All the men of Judah answered the men of Israel, Because the king is a close relative to us. Why then are you angry about this matter? Have we eaten at all at the king’s cost? Or has he given us any gift?- </p><p>Their idea was that they were totally genuine in their desire to see David restored, and it was not because they hoped for any personal benefit from him. Saul had practiced nepotism, aiming to enrich his own tribe of Benjamin (<a href='B:90 22:7'>1Sa 22:7</a>), but&nbsp; David had not done so to Judah. Again the theme taught by the reactions of Mephibosheth and Barzillai is continued- we should rejoice in the prospect of the restored kingdom of David not because we look for any personal benefit, but because of the wider glory of God.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Israel answered the men of Judah and said, We have ten parts in the king, and we have also more claim to David than you. Why then did you despise us, that our advice should not be first had in bringing back our king? The words of the men of Judah were fiercer than the words of the men of Israel- </p><p>See on :40. Their argument reflects how David had always actively stood for the unity of all Israel, and the ten tribes could therefore argue that he was as it were ten parts theirs. LXX adds: "And I am the firstborn rather than thou". The right of firstborn had been removed from Reuben and transferred to Joseph, who had a double portion (<a href='B:50 21:17'>Deu 21:17</a>) and his sons Ephraim and Manasseh, “the house of Joseph” (<a href='B:100 19:20'>2Sa 19:20</a>), therefore could rightly claim to be the most significant part of all Israel. Their logic was indeed stronger, but the matter was allowed to pass. The joy of the prospect of the Kingdom should lead us also to pass over all these kinds of slights and weaknesses of our brethren.</p><p>"We have ten parts in the king" wasn't said sincerely, because soon afterwards "all the men of Israel" would be saying that they had no part in David (2 Sam. 20:1,2).</p>


text:
<p>There happened to be there- </p><p>That wonderful scene of grace and unity at David’s restoration in 2 Samuel 19 was attended by some who were unmoved by it; and sought for their own faction to have power.</p><p>A base fellow, whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite: and he blew the trumpet and said, We have no portion in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse. Every man to his tents, Israel!- </p><p>True as the Proverbs are which condemn "a worthless / wicked person" (<a href='B:240 6:12'>Pro 6:12</a>; <a href='B:240 16:27'>Pro 16:27</a>; <a href='B:240 19:28'>Pro 19:28</a>), again we have a subtext of Solomon seeking to justify himself and his father David, and to criticize the various competitors to Solomon's throne. "A worthless person" is the term used for Nabal (<a href='B:90 25:17'>1Sa 25:17</a>), those in David’s camp who were not fully supportive of David (<a href='B:90 30:22'>1Sa 30:22</a>), Sheba who plotted to overthrow the Davidic line as king (<a href='B:100 20:1'>2Sa 20:1</a>), and particularly of those who wanted to overthrow Solomon as king (<a href='B:140 13:7'>2Ch 13:7</a>):&nbsp;  We note the speculation that Sheba was the father of Bath-Sheba. In this case we see the same scenario as with Ahithophel- Bathsheba's family were bitter with David because of what he did, and the consequences kept returning upon David. From the Divine viewpoint, this was in hope that he would repent. </p><p>
"We have no portion in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse. Every man to his tents, Israel!" was to be repeated by those who didn't want David's line reigning over them (1 Kings 12:16). The sentiment of Sheba didn't go away, and it was likely because of the repugnance of David's character and behaviour in so many ways. And yet he was God's man, and the huge amount of Biblical information about him is there to present us with the challenge of an unpleasant man, with so many character and behavioural weaknesses, who had a heart for God and will be saved by grace. He is without doubt the major human figure of the Old Testament; and his ultimate salvation is there to encourage so many of God's children who are so similar to him. </p><p>
"We have no portion in David" seems to directly, intentionally contradict the statement by the men of Israel that they had ten parts in David (2 Sam. 19:43). We could take this as a call to establish a separate Benjamite-led state independent of the others. The seeds of division were clearly there within Israel well before the division into Israel and Judah at Rehoboam's time. Despite just having stated that they had ten parts in David, "all the men of Israel changed from following David, and followed Sheba" (:2). Their desire for this was strong, as David himself recognized in :6 “Sheba son of Bichri will do us more harm than Absalom”. They strongly hankered to return to how things were under Saul, when Benjamin rather than Judah dominated- despite the fact Saul practiced nepotism. This was about as bizarre as the Israelites wanting to return to Egypt. But we have here yet another example of how man thinks that "the former days were better". This is a strong part of our native wiring. </p><p>
We note that Sheba's catch cry was that Israel had no part in David, and :2 states that the men of Israel followed Sheba rather than David. Clearly there was disillusion with David personally- unsurprisingly. The same words are used when the kingdom divides; the majority of Israel wanted no part in "David" (1 Kings 12:16). This is all tacit reflection of how disillusioned the populace was with "David" personally. David's own tribe of Judah rebelled against him in supporting Absalom, and now the other tribes showed their feelings by supporting Sheba under the credo of "we have no part in David". David clearly lacked popular support after the Bathsheba incident and only remained in power because there remained no credible alternative to him.
</p>


text:
<p>So all the men of Israel changed from following David, and followed Sheba the son of Bichri; but the men of Judah joined with their king, from the Jordan even to Jerusalem- </p><p>We see the fickle nature of human hearts. They had been won by David from Saul, then Absalom had stolen the hearts of the men of Judah, and in <a href='B:100 19:14'>2Sa 19:14</a> David bows those hearts back to him, in a very short space of time; and then those hearts are won by Sheba in <a href='B:100 20:2'>2Sa 20:2</a>. We think of how the people who once cried "Hosanna" were soon shouting "crucify Him!", and soon after that were so supportive of the apostles preaching Jesus as Christ that the authorities were scared to touch them.</p><p>But "from Jordan even to Jerusalem" reflects how the argument between Judah and the other tribes began due to the quarrel  about bringing David back as king by crossing the Jordan. Basically the other tribes withdrew and Judah alone conducted David from Jordan to Jerusalem and this led to the discontent of the others.</p>


text:
<p>David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in custody, and provided them with sustenance, but didn’t go in to them. So they were shut up to the day of their death, living in widowhood- </p><p>These were presumably the concubines with whom Absalom had slept. The implication could be that this was when he first returned from exile in Mahanaim. Which would mean that the revolt of Sheba was almost immediately after he had crossed the Jordan, making a mockery of the 'unity meeting' held at Gilgal in 2 Samuel 19 to officially restore David as king.</p><p>Why did David do this when Sheba began his rebellion? Possibly because he feared Sheba may lay with them as Absalom had done. Whatever the reason, David shows no care for the women as persons, for his actions precluded them from personal relationships and left them as prisoners of the court. He had treated others like this not least Michal. </p><p>The women were placed in custody, prisoners of the court, until they died. Nor did David sleep with them. This all seems like punishment- for sleeping with Absalom? But this seems a harsh punishment, seeing they had little choice. And this likely was Saul's harem which David had taken over, as Nathan reminded him in 2 Sam. 12. Had David taken these women with him to safety, then the incident need never have occurred. We wonder at how David could be so harsh in judgment given his own sexual and related sins. It was the same punishment he gave to Michal his ex-wife. He appears to still not 'get it' regarding the seriousness of his sin and the greatness of God's grace to him. Another reading is that he made them live in "widowhood" as a kind of permanent mourning for Absalom who David sees as having married them by sleeping with them. But by refusing them sex and children, enforcing this by imprisoning them, we see David having no care about those women as persons. It was all for the symbolism of 'grief for Absalom'.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king said to Amasa, Call me the men of Judah together within three days, and be here present- </p><p>David had replaced Joab as head of the army with Amasa (<a href='B:100 19:13'>2Sa 19:13</a>). who had been the general leading Absalom's soldiers against him. We could read this as a politically inept move by David; or we could see it as an example of being gracious, which is being humanly unwise- and paying the price for being gracious. David was repeating the lessons he learned after the death of Saul, where he showed huge grace to his enemies- and it worked. Even though it ran against the grain of all secular sense and wisdom:&nbsp; And so now he does the same, in offering the post of commander-in chief to the general of the rebel army. Joab was obviously deeply resentful of this and totally didn’t understand grace.</p>


text:
<p>So Amasa went to call the men of Judah together; but he stayed longer than the set time which he had appointed him- </p><p>The delay in raising an army may have been because many were unwilling to come out and support David. As Samuel tarried longer than the set time Saul expected (<a href='B:90 13:8'>1Sa 13:8</a>), so Amasa "tarried longer than the set time which [David] had appointed him" (<a href='B:100 20:5'>2Sa 20:5</a>). Circumstances repeat within our lives and between our lives and those of others in Biblical history; that we might learn the lessons and take comfort from the scriptures, that man is not alone. Amasa's delay and failure to immediately chase after Sheba was interpreted as meaning that he was again being disloyal to David as he had been during Absalom's rebellion. But we do not know why he delayed, although the note on :13 suggests there were genuine reasons and Amasa was loyal to David still. What we do know is that Joab will now deceive him and kill him, clearly motivated by jealousy over the fact he had been replaced by Amasa as the leader of the army. Although he would have justified it by claiming as he did when he murdered Abner, that Amasa was a threat to David. Again we see how Joab's self interest and pride precluded him from understanding grace.</p><p>Although we could see the appointment of Amasa as an act of grace, we could also see it again reflecting David's unwisdom as a leader, his lack of good judgment, and thereby his disqualification from being king of Israel. He should have resigned after the Bathsheba affair. The people would naturally have expected that Amasa would he punished. Instead of this, he is asked to raise an army in David’s name. And men would hesitate about joining such a leader. Was he really loyal? Would he use them in a new rebellion? And what would Joab do? He would not respond well to the former enemy general taking his place. David ought to have foreseen that appointing Amasa was going to create a whole raft of problems. But he didn't. His unwisdom is so clear. </p>


text:
<p>David said to Abishai- </p><p>Amasa had been appointed general, but he was absent. Instead of treating Joab as the second in command, David addressed Joab's brother Abishai as the de facto army general. All this provoked huge resentment in Joab. It seems David had a personality clash with Joab, frustrated at his refusal to understand grace and complaining that Joab was "too hard" for him.</p><p>Now Sheba the son of Bichri will do us more harm than Absalom did. Take your lord’s servants, and pursue after him, otherwise he will get himself fortified cities, and escape out of our sight-</p><p>David is far more proactive and not as mournfully passive as he was during Absalom's rebellion. This reflects how he realized that Absalom's putsch was the fulfilment of Nathan's words to him about the consequences of his sin with Bathsheba. But he clearly didn’t see Sheba's power grab in the same light.</p><p>David's plan to immediately hunt Sheba without delay and besiege him in a walled city was exactly the advice of Ahithophel to Absalom against David. It could be argued that David is just doing to others as was done to him, and in this he showed no grace. Or he was again experiencing history being played out before his present experience. He was now feeling like his son Absalom had felt and reasoning like Absalom, the son he both loved and hated [according to the Psalms]. Like Absalom, David wastes time by trying to raise a large army- but then he cuts that short and Joab goes after Sheba personally. Just as Absalom had done. </p>


text:
<p>There went out after him Joab’s men, and the Cherethites, the Pelethites and all the mighty men; and they went out of Jerusalem, to pursue after Sheba the son of Bichri- </p><p>The abiding loyalty of these men to David (<a href='B:100 8:18'>2Sa 8:18</a>; <a href='B:100 15:18'>2Sa 15:18</a>) is incredible. Joab's sad end at Solomon's hands in <a href='B:110 2:28'>1Ki 2:28</a> is the more tragic. The idea could be that the "him" is Amasa rather than Abishai. Joab's troops were loyal to their new general and went "after" Amasa. Joab calmly murders Amasa and then leads the troops to victory over Sheba, rallying them after him- thus declaring himself the de facto general again. His victory against Sheba and retention of power for David meant it was impossible for David to really sanction Joab for the murder of Amasa.</p>


text:
<p>When they were at the great stone which is in Gibeon, Amasa came to meet them- </p><p>Amasa had presumably been raising an army in Benjamin. Literally, "Amasa went before them". Having raised some forces, by a rapid march he overtook the soldiers of Joab and Abishai at Gibeon, and there assumed the place of commander over them too. And thus demoted Joab and Abishai, whose soldiers were loyal to them and not Amasa whom they had just been fighting. It was a recipe for disaster, reflecting David's unwisdom.</p><p>Joab was clothed in his battledress that he had put on, and on it was a sash with a sword fastened on his waist in its sheath- </p><p>The only person in David’s life whose belt is noted is Joab (<a href='B:100 20:8'>2Sa 20:8</a>; <a href='B:110 2:5'>1Ki 2:5</a>). But <a href='B:230 109:8'>Psa 109:8</a>; <a href='B:230 109:19'>Psa 109:19</a> wish curses upon the man who was well known for his belt. See notes there for the extent of David’s anger with Joab and his desire for the man's condemnation because of it- even though David was not himself perfect.</p><p>And as he went forth it fell out- </p><p>It seemed that the sword at Joab’s side accidentally fell out of its scabbard as he went toward Amasa to greet him (<a href='B:100 20:8'>2Sa 20:8</a>) – but it was on purpose, of course. The Bible sometimes describes things as they appear, even if that appearance is incorrect. This explains why the wrong understandings of demons aren't specifically corrected in the New Testament.</p>


text:
<p>Joab said to Amasa, Is it well with you, my brother? Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him- </p><p>Amasa was surely aware of how Joab had slain Abner, but as will be discussed on :10, on another level, he took no cognizance of this. "Well with you" is the word shalom, and is referred to in Solomon's comment that Joab shed the blood of war in peace, perhaps meaning 'in the name of peace' (<a href='B:110 2:5'>1Ki 2:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But Amasa took no heed to the sword that was in Joab’s hand. So he struck him with it in the body, and shed out his bowels to the ground, and didn’t strike him again; and he died. Joab and Abishai his brother pursued after Sheba the son of Bichri- </p><p>There are many similarities between Joab's murder of Asahel and how Abner, Saul's general, had murdered Joab's brother Asahel (2 Sam. 2:18-23). Both incidents occurred near Gibeon. There was dialogue between the killer and the slain before the killing, which was through piercing the enemy's belly. Both times the soldiers paused because of the killing, but in both cases Joab did not stop but went on pursuing the fleeing enemy, unto victory. I suggest the similarities are to suggest to us that Joab all these years later was still motivated by blood lust. He wanted to do to another as had been done to his brother. And this kind of thing plays out continually in the minds and deeds of men, unless the influence of the Spirit breaks the cycle of psychological inevitability.
</p><p>Joab had murdered Abner in the same way in <a href='B:100 3:27'>2Sa 3:27</a>. We note the internal consistency in the record of Joab's character; another reason to believe these records are absolutely credible and inspired by God:&nbsp; See on <a href='B:100 19:6'>2Sa 19:6</a>. The blood of Amasa went all over Joab, even into his sandals (<a href='B:110 2:5'>1Ki 2:5</a>).  Joab is being painted as a man who was a man of blood, for whom human life meant little and he slew too quickly. And David protests that Joab and his brothers are too "hard" for him, implying that he is a softy unlike them. But that is not the case. David is also a man of blood, killing easily, by deception and without reason; and Joab is his alter ego rather than his opposite. And David fails to perceive that. We too have alter egos, people who behave similarly to us in other contexts. They are placed in our lives to provoke our introspection, and yet too easily like David we end up condemning them. We think of David's eager condemnation of the man in the parable who had stolen his neighbour's beloved lamb.</p><p>We wonder why Amasa "took no heed to the sword...". Drivers can see an accident coming, but not swerve; there is a lack of cognition somewhere in the human psyche. Pilots take off at times knowing that their wings are frozen, and crash. Amasa saw the sword and must have seen the possibility of death, but didn’t take cognizance of it. Samson must have known, on one level, what Delilah would do. The human Lord Jesus knew Judas would betray Him, and yet acted on another level as if He didn’t. It should have been obvious to the British and French that Germany would start a war in 1938. But mankind is in amnesia, somewhere, somehow, we fail to recognize the obvious. Likewise with the nearness of the Lord’s return, with the urgency of our task in witness, with the evident need to follow God’s word- this lack of cognizance so often comes into play. We really ought to pray, earnestly, for open hearts and eyes and obedient lives before our daily reading.</p><p>It is part of human nature not to perceive the obvious when we have a subconscious reason not to, or a distraction. Maybe Amasa was more concerned about fighting Sheba, and considered that Joab would of course not touch him because they were soldiers fighting on the same side. Or we can know something on one level, but not on another. It helps explain why the Lord Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas would betray him (<a href='B:500 6:64'>Joh 6:64</a>), and yet how He could really trust in Judas as his own familiar friend, confide in him (<a href='B:230 41:9'>Psa 41:9</a>), tell him that he would sit with the other eleven on thrones in the Kingdom (<a href='B:470 19:28'>Mat 19:28</a>). This was ever a serious contradiction for me, until considering the Samson : Delilah relationship in depth. A man can know something about someone on one level, but act and feel towards them in a quite different way than this knowledge requires. In the same way, it was in one sense true that the Jews “knew not whence I come” (<a href='B:500 8:24'>Joh 8:24</a>; <a href='B:500 8:14'>Joh 8:14</a> RV) and yet in another sense they knew perfectly well the Divine origin of Jesus (<a href='B:500 7:28'>Joh 7:28</a>). David likewise must have known Absalom’s deceit; but he chose not to see it, for love’s sake. “They also that seek after my life lay snares for me: and they that seek my hurt speak mischievous things [just as Absalom did in the gate]... but I, as a deaf man, heard not” (<a href='B:230 38:12-13'>Psa 38:12-13</a>). One also gets the sense that the Gibeonites’ deception was somehow guessed by the elders of Israel, but against their better judgment they disregarded the telltale signs (<a href='B:60 9:7'>Jos 9:7</a>). Amasa, taking no heed to the sword in Joab’s hand... against his better judgment, surely, is another example.</p>


text:
<p>There stood by him one of Joab’s young men and said, He who favours Joab, and he who is for David, let him follow Joab!- </p><p>We see here the beginnings of Joab's move towards trying to himself seize power at the time of Adonijah's rebellion. He places his name before David’s, and asks men to follow him rather than David. We learn how evil actions begin with baby steps towards them.</p>


text:
<p>Amasa lay wallowing in his blood in the midst of the highway. When the man saw that all the people stood still, he carried Amasa out of the highway into the field, and cast a garment over him, when he saw that everybody who came by him stood still- </p><p>It was a particularly bloody murder (<a href='B:110 2:5'>1Ki 2:5</a>). "The men" were the troops Amasa had raised to be loyal to David; see on :13.</p>


text:
<p>When he was removed out of the highway, all the people went on after Joab, to pursue after Sheba the son of Bichri- </p><p>"All the people" refers to the troops Amasa had raised to fight on David’s side against Sheba; they followed Joab, which would indicate that Amasa's delay in coming was not due to any disloyalty to David; see on :5. So this delay was used as an excuse by Joab to doubt Amasa's loyalty, and use that as a cover for slaying him- when his motive was really personal jealousy. This covering of the motive of personal jealousy goes on all the time in life.</p>


text:
<p>He went through all the tribes of Israel to Abel, and to Beth Maacah, and all the Berites: and they were gathered together, and went also after him- </p><p>The location of any place called Berim is unknown, so we may go with LXX "and all the chosen men were gathered together". Abel Beth Maacah (:15) may well have connections with Maacah, mother of Absalom. Quite possibly he went there because there was much discontent with David there. </p>


text:
<p>They came and besieged him in Abel of Beth Maacah, and they cast up a mound against the city, and it stood against the rampart; and all the people who were with Joab battered at the wall, in order to throw it down- </p><p>"Battered" translates a word meaning 'to undermine' or to dig pits. By all means they were seeking to tear down the wall, yet we will see on :18 that Joab had disobeyed the command of <a href='B:50 20:10'>Deu 20:10</a> to firstly dialogue before besieging a city.  LXX "all the people with Joab proposed to throw down the wall". This was the advice of Hushai, to drag the wall of any city where David was into a river. Again and again, David is being reminded of his previous salvations by grace.</p>


text:
<p>Then a wise woman cried out of the city- </p><p>LXX "from the wall". Again we have the murder of a man by a wall, due to betrayal by his own side, recalling that of Uriah. Both Uriah and Sheba perished because of a woman. The Hebrew in :21 is literally "through the wall" s.w. "at" a window in Gen 26:8. The reference is to one of the apertures made for the archers. This was how Uriah was slain, by an archer shooting through such a window on the wall. And it was through such an opening that the woman spoke to Joab and possibly passed Sheba's head to him. Constantly the scenes associated with the Bathsheba and Uriah debacle are replayed to David, with God thereby ever seeking to nudge him towards greater realization and repentance. His confession was that "Against You, You only have I sinned", in contrast with Joseph's appreciation that adultery is a sin against both God and man. David never seems to have grasped this. Despite all the constant oblique reminders.</p><p>Hear, hear! Please say to Joab, ‘Come near here, that I may speak with you’-</p><p>This coming near to a city wall recalls the murder of Uriah, again under Joab's command and with Joab's full complicity. Joab would immediately have thought 'I must be careful not to be killed as Uriah was'. All these rebellions were related to David’s sin against Bathsheba and Uriah, and there are many conscious and unconscious allusions back to it.</p>


text:
<p>He came near to her; and the woman said, Are you Joab? He answered, I am. Then she said to him, Hear the words of your handmaid. He answered, I do hear- </p><p>Abigail's plea "Hear the words of your handmaid" (<a href='B:90 15:24'>1Sa 15:24</a>) was repeated by the woman of <a href='B:100 20:17'>2Sa 20:17</a>. But Abigail herself had modelled her behaviour on women like Rebekah (<a href='B:90 25:23'>1Sa 25:23</a> = <a href='B:10 24:18'>Gen 24:18</a>; <a href='B:10 24:46'>Gen 24:46</a>). This is how functional fellowship occurs between God’s people, both over time and in contemporary relationships. We copy that which is Godly and good which we observe in other believers, both those we know and those we meet in the Bible.</p>


text:
<p>Then she spoke saying, They used to say in old times, ‘They shall surely ask counsel at Abel’; and so they resolved things- </p><p>The text is difficult. The idea may be that as in AVmg. "They plainly spake in the beginning, saying, Surely they will ask of Abel, and so make an end", meaning that Joab ought to have done as in <a href='B:50 20:10'>Deu 20:10</a> and summoned the city to surrender before besieging it. Joab comes over as over hasty and with no interest in following the Biblical rules of engagement. Hence LXX also hints at this: "It was asked in Abel and in Dan whether the customs have failed which the faithful of Israel ordained".</p><p>LXX "Of old time they said thus, Surely one was asked in Abel, and Dan, whether the faithful in Israel failed in what they purposed; they will surely ask in Abel, even in like manner, whether they have failed. I am a peaceable one of the strong ones in Israel; but thou seekest to destroy a city and a mother city in Israel: why dost thou seek to ruin the inheritance of the Lord?".</p>


text:
<p>I am among those who are peaceable and faithful in Israel. You seek to destroy a city and a mother in Israel. Why will you swallow up the inheritance of Yahweh?- </p><p>Joab was looking to destroy the city for the sake of his mission against Sheba. The woman's argument is that which should be used against all such campaigns which are based around guilt by association. The grammar suggests she speaks of herself as a personification of the city: "I am peaceable faithful ones of Israel". Cities are often called mothers (as <a href='B:100 8:1'>2Sa 8:1</a>), and their surrounding villages are called their daughters. And she may be saying that the whole city was faithful to Israel, which calls forth Joab's response that if this were so, why then were they harbouring Sheba. The woman's claim to be faithful in Israel may mean that she was faithful to David as king of Israel. She seems to be saying that Joab ought to have begun with dialogue rather than besieging the city and thus assuming their disloyalty. This would've been in accordance with the law which prescribed that a city should be summoned to surrender before it was besieged (Dt. 20:10). </p>


text:
<p>Joab answered, Far be it, far be it from me, that I should swallow up or destroy- </p><p>Joab may mean 'I am personally not doing this to you, I have a Divine mandate to destroy a false leader called Sheba'. But that doesn't actually answer the woman's wisdom of :19. Joab ought to have asked for the head of Sheba at the start, but he doesn't apologize for his actions and his refusal to seek dialogue first; see on :18.</p>


text:
<p>The matter is not so. But a man of the hill country of Ephraim, Sheba the son of Bichri by name, has lifted up his hand against the king, even against David. Deliver him only, and I will depart from the city. The woman said to Joab, Behold, his head shall be thrown to you over the wall- </p><p>The Philistines in <a href='B:90 29:4'>1Sa 29:4</a> recalled how David had carried the head of Goliath to Saul (<a href='B:90 17:57'>1Sa 17:57</a>). To carry the heads of a king's enemies was a way to get the king's favour, as in <a href='B:70 7:25'>Jdg 7:25</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>; <a href='B:100 16:9'>2Sa 16:9</a>; <a href='B:100 20:21'>2Sa 20:21</a>; <a href='B:120 10:6-8'>2Ki 10:6-8</a>. Again we see the inspired, historical record has consistency. It would have required a clever editor to insert this theme of beheading to curry a leader's favour throughout the entire Biblical record. But the histories were clearly written at different times; a later hand would not have thought of all these realistic touches to sprinkle so consistently throughout it. The internal harmony of the Bible is to me the greatest indication that it is what it claims to be, the Divinely inspired word of God, evidencing His editing throughout.</p>


text:
<p>Then the woman went to all the people in her wisdom. They cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri, and threw it out to Joab. He blew the trumpet, and they were dispersed from the city, each man to his tent. Joab returned to Jerusalem to the king- </p><p>Joab has before blown a trumpet to end a civil war and further bloodshed. Although he was a renowned and unjustified murderer, he seems also to have had a genuine concern to limit bloodshed within Israel. This is the kind of contradiction within human characters which is brought out continually in the record; we see it especially in David’s character. We reflect upon it, and realize these were not just isolated individuals, but are typical of us all. Solomon later alludes to the wisdom of this woman in this situation (<a href='B:250 9:13-16'>Ecc 9:13-16</a>), again with the unspoken implication that Joab was a fool. Solomon's writings are true enough but constantly contain attacks upon those with whom he or his father had had conflicts; and Solomon slew Joab as a contender against his power base.</p>


text:
<p>Now Joab was over all the army of Israel; and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and over the Pelethites- </p><p>That is, Joab was restored to be over the army, as David had given that job to Amasa as a sign of grace to his betrayers. Again David is shown to be powerless and manipulated. Joab asked Amasa's men and also Abishai's men to follow him if they followed David, and they did. Joab therefore effectively declared himself commander of all the army- against David's wishes, but with David unable to stop him because of how the soldiers were loyal to Joab and had all agreed to his leadership in the campaign against Sheba. The powerlessness of David comes to a crescendo on his deathbed, where he is impotent, even with the gorgeous Abishag ministering to him; with Bathsheba on the scene as well. Perhaps this gradual and consistent taking of power away from this once strong and powerful warrior was to humble him, so that he might be saved.</p>


text:
<p>and Adoram was over the men subject to forced labour; and Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was the recorder- </p><p>This is a similar list to that in <a href='B:100 8:6-8'>2Sa 8:6-8</a>, but with the addition of the office of Adoram "over the men subject to forced labour". This was exactly what Samuel had predicted Israel's king would do. And it seems David fell into this too, and Solomon took that unwisdom far further, to the point that people complained he was beating and whipping them with his demands.</p><p>The list of officers now given is similar to that when David first became king. But there is one difference. Adoram was over the forced labour, and he remained throughout Solomon's reign until he was killed when Rehoboam became king. David began to use forced labour, a kind of equivalent to demanding taxation, paid by labour rather than in cash. This was just what Samuel had warned Israel of regarding a king. Solomon extrapolated from his father's weakness in this, as he did regarding women and horses. </p>


text:
<p>and Sheva was scribe; and Zadok and Abiathar were priests- </p><p>We note how those faithful to David in his wilderness years were in office for 40 years (<a href='B:100 8:6-8'>2Sa 8:6-8</a>). This is highly unusual in political circles. The impressive long term continuity in David’s inner circle reflects a unity which was achieved by genuine respect and loyalty towards David and his specific Divine anointing as king- despite his evident weaknesses and failures. We too are to be loyal to our weaker brethren for the sake of who they are in Christ. Likewise only a truly Christ-centered approach brings true unity amongst God’s people and servants.</p>


text:
<p>and also Ira the Jairite was chief minister to David-</p><p>The similarity with the list of <a href='B:100 8:6-8'>2Sa 8:6-8</a> but this office replaces the comment that "David’s sons were chief rulers". They had either been killed or were deemed by David unsuitable. We notice that Solomon, the son with whom David came to be besotted after the loss of Absalom, doesn't figure in any of this, perhaps because of his youth. The absence of reference to David's sons is tacit reflection of how David's dreams for his "house" to fulfil the promises of 2 Samuel 7 hadn't worked out. Does this suggest David had lost relationship with his sons who previously held this office? That would be a hint that he had failed in his efforts to fulfil the promise of 2 Sam. 7 through his immediate family. Everything was nudging him to accept the only fulfilment of his family hopes would be through his future seed, the Lord Jesus. LXX has "priest" for "chief minister". </p>


text:
<p>There was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David sought the face of Yahweh. Yahweh said, There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house, because he put to death the Gibeonites-</p><p>The record in 2 Samuel is not necessarily chronological but follows themes. This material may be inserted here to follow on from the mention of Gibeon in <a href='B:100 20:8'>2Sa 20:8</a>, where Joab had killed Amasa. The seven victims were all young and unmarried, which would suggest a date earlier in the reign of David. And it would be more appropriate that judgment for Saul's misbehaviour came early on in David’s reign, rather than as it were being remembered much later. "Three years, year after year", could refer to the three years after Saul's death. </p><p>Saul tried to kill all the witches (1 Sam. 28:2) and quite possibly he justified killing Gibeonites on the basis of cleansing the land from the original inhabitants (Ex. 34:11-16; Dt. 7:2); Gibeon was within the tribal area of Saul's tribe Benjamin but they weren't Benjamites. He likely wanted to destroy them and then give their land and city to his own tribe, fulfilling his promise to the Benjamites to give them property of their own. Seizing Gibeon would've been the ideal way to do this without seizing anything from other tribes. And surely he was mindful of how his failure to kill the Amalekites had cost him the kingdom, and so he perhaps thought he could make up for that by killing the Gibeonites. But he overlooked the covenant Joshua had made with the Gibeonites not to destroy them. This is so psychologically credible- that a man in bad conscience with God would transfer his guilt onto others, and punish them for it.  </p><p>
But it could be that this incident is chronological, and follows on from the theme of the previous chapter- that there was a revival of interest in re-enstating a Saulide king from Benjamin, given growing disillusion with David personally. God raises the judgment for what Saul did possibly 22 years after he had done it. A reminder that because judgment isn't executed at the time, it doesn't mean God has somehow abrogated it. We also note the slowness of David to perceive that atonement was needed- the famine went on for three years, despite the promise of the covenant that there would not be famine if Israel were obedient.</p><p>
The incident of Saul killing or trying to kill the Gibeonites isn't recorded. We would rather have expected there to be some punishment for his slaying of the priests at Nob. Possibly this slaying of the Gibeonites was related to that. But it isn't recorded. The idea may be that God still recalls sin, even some obscure sin, either actually slaying them or seeking to slay them, perhaps "only" killing seven of them as that's how many victims were required in compensation, done decades ago. God said there was blood guilt on Saul's family for what Saul had done. Atonement had not been made at the time and there is such a thing as delayed judgment and community guilt. One dimension of sin is that it affects others.</p><p> 
The word translated "bloodguilt" clearly refers to culpability for committing murder (Ex. 22:2; Num. 35:27; 2 Sam. 16:7; Is. 33:15; Ez. 9:9). It is legitimate for God to bring judgment for a sin upon a later generation, indeed His Son taught that the blood of previous murders would be "required of this generation". In the last day, "The earth will reveal her bloodshed and no longer cover her slain" (Is. 26:21). Likewise the blood guilt of previous generations was required of the generation that experienced the Babylonian invasion (Ez. 9:6-10). Ahab and Hezekiah had judgment brought upon their descendants because of their sins, but not in their days (1 Kings 20:29; 2 Kings 20:6-19). This was “visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me” (Ex. 20:5; 34:7); "In the lands of your enemies... because of the iniquities of their forefathers they will rot away" (Lev. 26:40). But all this was negotiable, and David had himself negotiated his own blood guilt by appealing to God's grace.</p><p>
David in Ps. 51:14,16 had specifically asked God to remove his bloodguilt involving Uriah (and the other soldiers of Israel slain at the time), without sacrificial expiation of the kind the Gibeonites were demanding: "Deliver me from blood guiltiness, O God, the God of my salvation... For You don’t delight in sacrifice, or else I would give it". Despite being a man of blood guilt (Ps. 51:14), as Shimei rightly said in cursing him on behalf of Yahweh, David asks God to remove all blood guilty people from his presence as he doesn't want their company (Ps. 59:2; 139:19). Indeed David sees such people as the epitome of wickedness- when he himself had blood guilt and had only been saved from it by grace. He simply refuses to accept his blood guilt in any lasting sense. The same Hebrew term for blood guilt is used in 1 Sam. 25:26, where Yahweh through Abigail "Withheld you [David] from blood guilt"- by the grace of sending Abigail to David in His wisdom and grace. And David recognized at the time that indeed he had been saved from bloodguilt by being stopped from killing Nabal (1 Sam. 25:33 s.w.). David likewise had assured the woman of Tekoah that blood guilt would not be required from her son, and he would by Kingly decree ensure that those who sought to expiate the son's blood guilt by his murder wouldn't be allowed to do so (2 Sam. 14:11). And thus by extension he gave the same guarantee of safety from blood guilt revenge to his son Absalom who had murdered Amnon. But now, despite all this experience with bloodguilt being removed by grace, David allows bloodguilt to be demanded, without a thought for seeking the Divine grace and wisdom that had saved him from bloodguilt. Why? Perhaps he just couldn't be bothered. Perhaps he knew that the death of the house of Saul, who had only recently risen against him under Sheba, was no bad thing for him politically. Or perhaps he just made a too hasty judgment without having thought through the implications- because he was not as conscious as he should have been of God's great grace to him over bloodguilt. </p><p>
This graceless attitude to bloodguilt was continued by Solomon, who uses the argument to justify slaying Joab in order to cleanse David's descendants from blood guilt for the murders Joab had committed (1 Kings 2:31-33). Solomon's argument here is weak; because as noted on 2 Sam. 21:1, David had been saved from his own blood guilt by grace, and he ought to have reflected that in turning down the request of the Gibeonites. But Solomon just repeats his father's political usage of blood guilt expiation, and wrongly reasons that he has to slay Joab lest David's family be charged with blood guilt seeing that Joab was David's cousin, of the same blood family. It could be argued that Joab had killed Abner as revenge or expiation for Abner's blood guilt in killing his brother Asahel. But David and Solomon then make Joab have blood guilt for the murder. Clearly David and Solomon were seeking to impute the guilt of blood upon people and use it as an excuse to murder them. Whereas David definitely had blood guilt for Uriah, the soldiers who died with him and likely many other cases. Yet David was saved from it by the grace of imputed rightness. And yet, so ungratefully, he seeks to impute guilt to others and punish them for it. </p><p>
All this fits the theme of David continuing to suffer so hugely for his sins with Bathsheba and Uriah, likewise committed many years ago, but still noted by God and requiring atonement or at least, repentance. No matter how long ago the sin was committed, or how obscurely, the consequences remain. We at this point in the story are wondering why God doesn't just give David a break, and let the consequences stop. But we are being shown the seriousness of sin and its Divine judgment; and how actual repentance and change are sought from us by God. So perhaps this is why the incident occurred at this time, to nudge David to likewise consider his sins and their ongoing judgment and the need to make amends. The abiding judgment for Sail's sins was to remind him that he was in the same situation. David's statement at the time was that "Against You only have I sinned", as if he discounted any sin against Bathsheba, Uriah and their families. This helps us understand why this matters occurs at this time. I am not saying that textual dislocation and out of chronology events do occur in the Biblical text. But I always seek to more carefully consider the context before coming to that conclusion, and here we have a classic example.</p><p>
We likewise wonder why this judgment affected all Israel if it were just Saul's sin, and why didn't it come upon Saul in his lifetime. Again the answers were to teach David that his sin would affect his nation and house after him, and many others suffered because of his sin. And out of Saul's many sins, why pick this one with the Gibeonites? Surely because it involved a willful breaking of covenant with them [the one Joshua had made]- just as David's adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband. Likewise we ponder why an unrecorded sin of Saul is made so significant in its consequence- and again we see the answer through the material being placed at this point in the narrative. David's sin with Bathsheba and Uriah had been done secretly, just as Saul's sin against the Gibeonites had been unrecorded.
</p><p> We ponder how there was bloodguilt on Saul's descendants. Saul's sins were not to be visited upon his descendants (Ex. 18:2; Dt. 24:16; Jer. 31:29) and Num. 35:33 is clear that Saul personally was responsible: “Blood pollutes the land and the land can have no expiation for blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it". When asked what can make ammends, the Gibeonites naturally ask for the blood of Saul's family. But this is apparently in line with what Yahweh Himself had told David here. It seems rather politically convenient for David that here we have the destruction of the potential claimants to his throne. That is what David humanly would have wanted, but grace and his honouring of his promise to Saul stopped him from killing the descendants of his enemy, the previous king. Usually a new king destroyed the family of the previous dynasty. But God through the incident of the Gibeonites works to ensure that this happens anyway, as some kind of reward for David's attempt to live by grace and integrity in the matter. This is a possible take. But elsewhere in this commentary I have explained that on the other hand, David was wrong not to have appealed for grace and Divine intervention and answered the Gibeonites wrongly by letting them have their demands.</p>


