# comment

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.</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>


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.</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>


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.</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>


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>


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>


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.</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>


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>


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>


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>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>


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.</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 Absalom 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>


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>


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.</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.</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>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>


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".</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>


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>


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>"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>


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. 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>


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 continual 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>


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>


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>


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>


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". 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>


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.</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>


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>


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>


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.</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>


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>


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>


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>


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>


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.</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.</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>). 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>


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>


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>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::.".</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.</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>).</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>


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.</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.</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>


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>


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.</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>


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>


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>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.</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>).</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>


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>


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>


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.</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>


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>


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>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>


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>


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.</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.</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.</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>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>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.</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>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>


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>


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>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>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.</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.</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 him repentant and playing along with how God too was referring him back to previous points in his life. 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>).</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.</p>


text:
<p>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-</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.</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>


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).</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>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.</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>).</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. "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.</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.</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.</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>


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>


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>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>


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>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.</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>).</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.</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.</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>


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;</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>


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>


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>). 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>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>


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>


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.</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.</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>Joab had murdered 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>).</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".</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.</p>


text:
<p>Then a wise woman cried out of the city- </p><p>LXX "from the wall".</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>


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.</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.</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>


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. 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.</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.</p>


text:
<p>The king called the Gibeonites and said to them (now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn to them: and Saul sought to kill them in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah)- </p><p>Joshua 9 records how the Gibeonites had been promised security by Joshua, although they were Hivites who were to have been destroyed (<a href='B:60 9:7'>Jos 9:7</a>; <a href='B:50 7:2'>Deu 7:2</a>). Saul's apparent zeal to obey part of God's word whilst ignoring the covenant made by Joshua recalls how he murdered or expelled all witches (<a href='B:90 28:9'>1Sa 28:9</a>), in almost fanatic obedience to <a href='B:20 22:18'>Exo 22:18</a>; <a href='B:30 20:6'>Lev 20:6</a>. Saul's zeal to punish the apostate was really a classic case of psychological transference. He knew, subconsciously, that he was a sinner and deserved punishment for his sins. So he transferred those sins on to others, and punished them, revelling in it. But he was picking up verses from the Bible out of context, and with the witches, he himself used one. It was this attitude which was deeply displeasing to God. And the fact all Israel had known of this and done nothing to honour the covenant made in their name with the Gibeonites::. meant that all Israel had to suffer the results of the famine.</p>


text:
<p>and David said to the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? And with what shall I make atonement, that you may bless the inheritance of Yahweh?- </p><p>"Atonement" is not used here in a religious sense but simply meaning a covering, which the Gibeonites understand as hinting at a financial payment (:4). For David personally had not sinned against them, and atonement in the religious sense was only appropriate towards God. But the Gibeonites like to use it in a religious sense, playing God by demanding that without the shedding of blood there could be no reconciliation with them.</p>


text:
<p>The Gibeonites said to him, It is no matter of silver or gold between us and Saul, or his house; neither is it for us to put any man to death in Israel-</p><p>The law of Moses forbad the payment of money as compensation for murder (<a href='B:40 35:31'>Num 35:31</a>). That David had apparently hinted at this possibility in :3 would therefore suggest that he was willing to break the letter of the law of Moses, a feature of David's which was largely an outcome of his understanding so well the spirit of the law. And yet it was to lead him into the sin with Bathsheba and Uriah. And yet it has to be said that this was a difficult legal situation. God had shown that the sin of Saul needed some atonement, but Saul was dead. The Gibeonites were asking for blood as atonement, although they accept it is not within their power to execute this.</p><p>He said, Whatever you say, that will I do for you- </p><p>This was unwise, because David was to be asked to break the law. But he perhaps lacks the humility to pull out of this blanket promise he has now made.</p>


text:
<p>They said to the king, The man who consumed us, and who devised against us, that we should be destroyed from remaining in any of the borders of Israel- </p><p>This implies Saul's campaign against them had been widespread and systematic. See on :2.</p>


text:
<p>let seven men of his sons be delivered to us, and we will hang them up to Yahweh in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of Yahweh. The king said, I will give them- </p><p>Their allusion is to <a href='B:40 25:4'>Num 25:4</a>, where the bodies of the leaders in the worship of Baal were hung up to turn away Yahweh's anger (cp. :1). But the seven sons of Saul were not personally responsible for the sin. And David had solemnly vowed before Yahweh to Saul and Jonathan on at least two occasions that he would not destroy their seed. David's acquiescence therefore was wrong, and like Herod and other kings trapped by their own pride to fulfil their promises, so David agrees to the death of Saul's sons. He ought to have said something like "I have vowed a vow not to do this, I believe in grace, and will not allow this to happen. I will throw myself down before Yahweh and beg for this situation to be resolved another way". But pride stops him. Yet David generally was humble in this kind of thing. So as with the sin with Bathsheba, I take this to be an out of character failing of David.</p>


text:
<p>But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of Yahweh’s oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul-</p><p>As noted on :6, David had made a similar oath before Yahweh to Saul (<a href='B:90 24:21-22'>1Sa 24:21-22</a>). But he seems to justify breaking that by arguing that he was honouring a similar oath he had made to Jonathan. I suggested on :6 what his response ought to have been.</p>


text:
<p>But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bore to Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite- </p><p>David comes over as wrong all around in this matter. Michal was his former wife. He had broken up Michal's marriage with Paltiel even though Paltiel wept over it. And now he slays Michal's five sons. If this is the same Barzillai who was later so kind to David at the time of Absalom's rebellion, then we see that man's grace, forgiving David for slaying his five grandchildren. And it contrasts with David's low estimate of the value of human life which we again see.</p><p>God sees to the end of a man’s history, to the end of human history, He weighs men, and weighs them up in grace. Further, we all likely struggle with the unspirituality of others against us. We ponder how brother X or sister Y can really be a Christian, can have any real relationship with God, because of how we see them act. This struggle over these kinds of issues is, in my experience, the number one reason why people leave Christian communities. The raw anger, hatred and viciousness they see in others disillusions them, and they walk. The pull of materialism, of false doctrine etc:, are actually not significant reasons in the majority of cases I know of where a believer has quit the community of believers. It’s nearly always personal disillusion with the evil side of their brethren. All I can say is, Consider David’s poorer side. Think of men like Adriel and Phaltiel, women like Rizpah, the mothers of Moab and Edom, who all likely considered David a sadistic maniac- given their experience of him. And, of course, Uriah, who surely knew all along what was going on. They saw the weaker side of David. Thanks to the extent of Biblical revelation about David, we see a wider picture. And even if that wider picture remains invisible to us concerning brother A and sister B, try to imagine that they have a prayer life, read Scripture, are loved by God, and probably in some ways and to some extent do respond to that love… and leave the final analysis of human character to the God who judges, weighs and knows far deeper, more graciously, more hopefully, than we ever can in this life.</p><p>David had loved Jonathan's sister Michal, and she loved him; only for her to come to despise David's spirituality, and to be unfaithful to him (<a href='B:100 21:8'>2Sa 21:8</a> implies she had even more relationships than just with Paltiel). But then David killed her five sons. She was part of the ineffable sadness of David's personal life.</p>


text:
<p>He delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the mountain before Yahweh, and all seven of them fell together. They were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, at the beginning of barley harvest-</p><p>That is, at Passover (<a href='B:50 16:9'>Deu 16:9</a>). At the time when David ought to have been celebrating God's deliverance from death by grace, he was putting to death innocent young people, who may have been no more than children.</p>


text:
<p>Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for her on the rock- </p><p>To form a tent for her to live in whilst she protected the bodies day and night from wild animals.</p><p>From the beginning of harvest until water was poured on them from the sky- </p><p>The heavy rains usually came about six months after the beginning of harvest.</p><p>She allowed neither the birds of the sky to rest on them by day, nor the animals of the field by night- </p><p>The idea of blood sacrifice being required to bring rain suggests that the Gibeonites believed in a rain god. Yet when David is asked to give seven men of the family of Saul as a blood sacrifice to appease the rain god who was not sending rain, David agrees. He doesn’t make the Biblical argument that rain being withheld indicates the need for repentance before Yahweh, and that sacrificing humans is wrong and won’t change anything in this context. He gives in to the false understanding of the Gibeonites, breaking his undertakings to Saul and Jonathan by doing so, and selects seven men to be slain and hung up. We read of the mother of two of them, Rizpah, lovingly watching over the bodies of her sons day and night, with all the distraction of true love (<a href='B:100 21:10'>2Sa 21:10</a>). David didn’t have to do this. But he did. 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>). He doesn’t seem to have cared for the mother’s feelings, nor for the lives of her sons. And note that David makes up the total of seven men by having the five foster sons of his own estranged wife Michal slain. Was this not David somehow hitting back at Michal, who had mocked him for his style of worship in 2 Samuel 6? And how did Adriel, the father of those five sons, feel? He wasn’t of the house of Saul, but because of David’s desire to placate someone else, he lost all his sons, just because his wife had died and Saul’s daughter had raised them. And yet this same David is recorded as saying soon afterwards: “I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God. For all his ordinances were before me; And as for his statutes, I did not depart from them. I was also perfect toward him; And I kept myself from mine iniquity. Therefore hath the Lord recompensed me according to my righteousness, According to my cleanness in his eyesight” (<a href='B:100 22:22-25'>2Sa 22:22-25</a>).</p>


text:
<p>It was told David what Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, the concubine of Saul, had done- </p><p>It seems it took David the six months alluded to in :10 to respond. He gathers up the bones of the men or boys, along with those of Saul and Jonathan, and gives them a decent burial.</p>


text:
<p>David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son from the men of Jabesh Gilead, who had stolen them from the public square of Beth Shan, where the Philistines had hanged them, in the day that the Philistines killed Saul in Gilboa- </p><p>The last mention of the David : Jonathan relationship is in <a href='B:100 21:12-14'>2Sa 21:12-14</a>, where we read that David personally ("he" cp. they" ) took and carried the bones of Saul and Jonathan to their final resting place. The love of David for Jonathan is apparent. We are invited to imagine David carrying the bones of his best friend, perhaps just the ashes of them (<a href='B:90 31:12-13'>1Sa 31:12-13</a>), cradling them (or the container) in his arms, weeping as he walked. How about this for pathos. The words of David's lament in 2 Samuel 1 would have surely come to his mind. It is almost certain that David memorized them, seeing it was taught as a song of remembrance (<a href='B:100 1:18'>2Sa 1:18</a>). There would have been the restimulation of so much. So that is how the Spirit concludes the story, David walking off into the sunset with the bones of Jonathan. It should be remembered that this occurred after David's disgrace with Bathsheba. The thought must surely have gone through his mind: It's a good thing dear Jonathan isn't here to see it. The very name of the prophet Nathan, the exposer of David's sin, would have restimulated David. For 'Jonathan' means 'Yahweh-Nathan'. It is quite likely that in practice David would not have pronounced the 'Yah' prefix; he would have called Jonathan 'Nathan' (how many 'Jonathan's do you know whose name isn't abbreviated by their friends?). The reason why there is so much pathos in the story, so powerfully expressed, is to set us a standard of love and feeling towards Christ; for Jonathan represents us, and the love of David for him really is a reflection of the love of Christ for us. Truly do we sing that "Thou art far above / dearest of human love".</p>


text:
<p>and he brought up from there the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son: and they gathered the bones of those who were hanged- </p><p>The extreme grief of Rizpah is intentionally contrasted with this symbolic gesture from David in at least giving the sons an honourable burial, although it took David six months to do so. He is presented as callous in the face of very genuine grief caused by his pride and refusal to honour his covenant before Yahweh that he had made with Saul.</p>


text:
<p>They buried the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son in the country of Benjamin in Zela, in the tomb of Kish his father: and they performed all that the king commanded. After that God responded to the prayer for the land- </p><p>David was wrong in killing those seven men or boys. God is not appeased by blood sacrifice in that sense. After the horror of what he had done was brought to his attention, David buried the bones of Saul as if he felt he should have been more respectful to the house of Saul (<a href='B:100 21:12'>2Sa 21:12</a>) and only then God responded to the prayer for the famine to be lifted (:14)- as if He sought respect for the house of Saul and not the disrespect of killing seven random relatives of Saul's on the say-so of mere men. If indeed God wanted the sacrifice of those men, we would surely read that immediately after their murder He lifted the famine; but He did so only after David had subsequently shown respect to the house of Saul as a token of regret and repentance for what he had authorized.</p>


text:
<p>The Philistines had war again with Israel; and David went down, and his servants with him, and fought against the Philistines. David grew faint-</p><p>The material in 2 Samuel isn't chronological. The material we have now at the end of the book appears to be various cameos of the life of David which are for some reason not incorporated into the book as a whole. Perhaps the common theme in them all is that they mention David's weaknesses in various ways. We now read of how David was "faint", physically weak during a battle. It is one of a number of hints that he did not enjoy good health. We think of him laying sick at Mahanaim during Absalom's rebellion, and the copious evidence in the Psalms that he had a breakdown of his health soon after the sin with Bathsheba. These events are located in&nbsp; <a href='B:130 20:4-8'>1Ch 20:4-8</a> immediately after the capture of Rabbah, which was again not David at his spiritually strongest.</p>


text:
<p>and Ishbibenob, who was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear was three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being armed with a new sword, was about to have slain David</p><p>We wonder therefore whether David's faith failed him at this point, or whether he did not have the level of faith he showed when he triumphed over Goliath. David had mocked armour as a source of strength, and yet this suggests David almost perished because of the weaponry of this Philistine. I suggested on :15 that the cameos from the life of David which conclude 2 Samuel all have the common theme of David's weakness.</p>


text:
<p>But Abishai the son of Zeruiah helped him, and struck the Philistine, and killed him. Then the men of David swore to him saying, You shall go no more out with us to battle, that you don’t quench the lamp of Israel- </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 him repentant and playing along with how God too was referring him back to previous points in his life. 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 18:2'>2Sa 18:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>It came to pass after this, that there was again war with the Philistines at Gob: then Sibbecai the Hushathite killed Saph, who was of the sons of the giant- </p><p>We note that the Rephaim had children like other human beings (<a href='B:100 21:16'>2Sa 21:16</a>; <a href='B:100 21:18'>2Sa 21:18</a>; <a href='B:50 3:11'>Deu 3:11</a>), inhabiting an area known as the valley of Rephaim (<a href='B:60 15:8'>Jos 15:8</a>). The "giants" of <a href='B:10 6:2-4'>Gen 6:2-4</a> were therefore humans and not celestial beings. "Gob" is LXX Gath; see on :20 for the significance.</p>


text:
<p>There was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite’s brother, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam- </p><p>Elhanan was from the small village of Bethlehem, and therefore was likely a childhood friend of David's. He like us with the Lord Jesus was inspired by David's victory over Goliath. He saw what was potentially possible for man in faith, just as we are shown through the Lord's victory on the cross what is possible for men apparently saddled with human nature.</p>


text:
<p>There was again war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, twenty four in number; and he also was born to the giant- </p><p>David fought the Philistines at Gath (see on :18), and yet we note that he lived with Achish at Gath for over a year, and some of his most loyal followers were Philistines from Gath like Ittai. His victories over them therefore elicited humility and faith from some of the Philistines there. They realized that David and his men won their victories not in their own strength, but because of Yahweh. And they humbly came into covenant relationship with the God of their enemies, and fellowship with their one time enemies and murderers of their friends and families. It is humility which is the critical requirement in coming to the true God, and no amount of apparently high powered intellectual argument and slick presentation can replace that.</p>


text:
<p>When he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimei, David’s brother, killed him- </p><p>Goliath's defiance of Israel is a major theme (<a href='B:90 17:10'>1Sa 17:10</a>; <a href='B:90 17:25-26'>1Sa 17:25-26</a>; <a href='B:90 17:36'>1Sa 17:36</a>; <a href='B:90 17:45'>1Sa 17:45</a>). Later Philistine defiance is described with the same word (<a href='B:100 21:21'>2Sa 21:21</a>; <a href='B:100 23:9'>2Sa 23:9</a>). David's victory over Goliath was inspirational to other Israelites, just as the Lord's triumph on the cross should be to us. Jonathan was brother to the crafty Jonadab, who led Absalom into major sin by his subliminal suggestions. We see how faith and unbelief can exist within the same family.</p>


text:
<p>These four were born to the giant in Gath; and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants- </p><p>David took five stones to kill Goliath but used only one. Was he faithless and doubting that the first one would hit home? Or did he aim to use the other four on Goliath's four giant sons (<a href='B:100 21:16-22'>2Sa 21:16-22</a>)?&nbsp; Do those five stones represent the five books of Moses which Psalms 119 tells us was Christ's study all the day, it being through the word that Jesus overcame the mind of sin? If he did aim to use the other four on Goliath's four giant sons, that shows supreme spiritual ambition. In reality those four were killed later by David's closest followers- and they must have their counterparts amongst us.</p>


text:
<p>David spoke to Yahweh the words of this song in the day that Yahweh delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul- </p><p>This is largely the material found in Psalms 18. The Psalm concludes with a reference to David as the anointed, so this could be a Psalm composed when Saul was slain and David was finally declared king, and his anointing came to fulfilment. It is a "song" but it has no strophes (unlike most of the Psalms), perhaps because it was intended for use at a procession.</p><p><a href='B:230 18:1'>Psa 18:1</a> adds "I love You, Yahweh, my strength". This bald statement "I love You" is intentionally startling, and is the only place where we read this; usually we read the word of God's love to man. Here, David simply tells God "I love You"</p>


text:
<p>and he said, Yahweh is my rock, my fortress, and my deliverer, even mine- </p><p>This is the language of rocky terrain, the type where Saul chased David and God saved him multiple times.</p><p>David's description of how the cherubim acted in his life in 2 Samuel 22 is full of Angelic language:</p><p>v. 2 "My rock"- an Angel (<a href='B:10 49:24'>Gen 49:24</a>)</p><p>v. 3 "My shield"- the Angel who made the promises to Abraham (<a href='B:10 15:1'>Gen 15:1</a>)</p><p>v. 3 "My saviour"- as the Holy Spirit Angel was to Israel (<a href='B:290 63:8-10'>Isa 63:8-10</a>)</p><p>v. 7 "He did hear my voice out of His temple, and my cry did enter into His ears"- the language of Angelic limitation regarding the Angel who dwelt in the temple. </p><p>v. 9 "fire"- God makes His Angels a flame of fire (<a href='B:230 104:3-4'>Psa 104:3-4</a>). </p><p>v. 10 "came down " - God manifest in the Angels, as at Sodom and Babel. </p><p>v. 11 "a cherub. . did fly. . wings of wind". Gabriel could "fly swiftly"; the Angels are made "spirits"- winds. </p><p>v. 12 "darkness. . thick clouds"- the Angel dwelt over the darkness of the Most Holy and in the pillar of cloud; cp. the scene during the Angelic manifestation at Sinai. </p><p>v. 15 "arrows. . . lightning"- Angel cherubim language</p><p>v. 16 "the blast of the breath (spirit) of His nostrils":&nbsp; God's spirit is manifested through Angels. </p><p>v. 17 "He sent from above, He took me"- the physical movement of the Angels from Heaven to earth to obey God's word </p><p>v. 25 "Before His eyes"- Angels</p><p>v. 37 "Thou hast enlarged my steps. . so that my feet did not slip"- the Angel keeping David from sinning?</p><p>23:1 "God of Jacob"- an Angel</p><p>23:3 "the rock of Israel" (an Angel) inspired David- which is the work of Angels.</p>


text:
<p>God, my rock, in Him I will take refuge; my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge. My saviour, You save me from violence- </p><p>David sees that Yahweh will be a "high tower" or place of refuge at the day of future judgment (<a href='B:230 9:8-9'>Psa 9:8-9</a>, quoted about this in <a href='B:510 17:31'>Act 17:31</a>). But David feels God has been like this to him in this life (<a href='B:100 22:3'>2Sa 22:3</a>; <a href='B:230 18:2'>Psa 18:2</a>; <a href='B:230 46:7'>Psa 46:7</a>; <a href='B:230 48:3'>Psa 48:3</a>; <a href='B:230 59:9'>Psa 59:9</a>; <a href='B:230 59:16-17'>Psa 59:16-17</a>; <a href='B:230 62:2'>Psa 62:2</a>; <a href='B:230 94:22'>Psa 94:22</a>; <a href='B:230 144:2'>Psa 144:2</a>). He therefore sees a seamless experience in his relationship with God in this life, and at the future day of judgment. God saves us right now and is a refuge for us in countless life situations; and this is the guarantee that He will be likewise at the last day.</p><p>Truly David is our example. David was very much involved in Israel his people. He saw himself as their representative. "The God of my rock is my shield::. he is a shield to all them that trust in him" (<a href='B:100 22:3'>2Sa 22:3</a>; <a href='B:100 22:31'>2Sa 22:31</a>). “I am in a great strait; let us fall now into the hand of the Lord” (<a href='B:100 24:14'>2Sa 24:14</a>) reflects this. When he sung Psalms, he invited them to come and sing along with him (<a href='B:230 105:2'>Psa 105:2</a>; <a href='B:230 107:22'>Psa 107:22</a>; <a href='B:230 111:1'>Psa 111:1</a>). And many of these Psalms of praise seem to have their origin in his experience of forgiveness regarding Bathsheba.</p>


text:
<p>I will call on Yahweh, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from my enemies- </p><p>David's focus of all his praises upon Yahweh was what he wanted his people to follow (<a href='B:230 22:3'>Psa 22:3</a>). The implication of "worthy" could imply a contrast with other gods, as in <a href='B:230 96:4'>Psa 96:4</a> "He is to be feared / praised above all gods". This would confirm the hints we have that Saul was an idolater (see on <a href='B:230 18:31'>Psa 18:31</a>; <a href='B:230 12:8'>Psa 12:8</a>; <a href='B:230 16:4'>Psa 16:4</a>), and that idolatry was prevalent in Israel at the time.</p>


text:
<p>For the waves of death surrounded me. The floods of ungodliness made me afraid- </p><p><a href='B:230 18:4'>Psa 18:4</a> "the cords of death". David felt as if he had been a sacrifice bound to an altar, as man drowning in water, and therefore about to be pulled into the grave (<a href='B:230 18:5'>Psa 18:5</a>). The allusion is to Isaac and his miraculous deliverance from such cords, thanks to the ram in the thicket whom David is later to understand as representative of the future Messianic saviour; for the Lord quotes David's "My God, why have You forsaken me?" (<a href='B:230 22:1'>Psa 22:1</a>) as the Aramaic sabachthani, "entangled", the word used of the ram entangled in the thicket.</p>


text:
<p>The cords of Sheol were around me, the snares of death caught me- </p><p>See on :5. David felt he had come face to face with death, to the point that his salvation was effectively a resurrection. The response to this near death situation is described here, but it is hard to locate such an incident in the historical records. Perhaps there was a particular salvation from death at Saul's hands which isn't recorded, but David alludes to it here.</p><p>"Caught me" is <a href='B:230 18:5'>Psa 18:5</a> "Came on me", or literally 'went before me'. The same word is used in <a href='B:230 59:10'>Psa 59:10</a>: "My God will go before me with His grace". David was inside his house surrounded by his enemies (<a href='B:230 59:1'>Psa 59:1</a>), and escaped through a window. As he planned the escape, he believed that God's grace would go before him. At the end of his life he appears to reflect upon this incident, glorying that although he was "compassed about" with the threat of death, seeing the house was surrounded by Saul's men intending to kill him; yet God's grace had somehow gone before David and prepared a way of escape (<a href='B:230 18:5'>Psa 18:5</a>; <a href='B:230 18:18'>Psa 18:18</a> s:w:).</p>&nbsp;<p>The Ras Shamra texts speak of the insatiable appetite of Mot for dead people- he eats them ceaselessly with both hands. There are frequent parallels drawn between Mot / Mawet, and the grave: <a href='B:100 22:5-6'>2Sa 22:5-6</a>; <a href='B:290 28:18'>Isa 28:18</a>; <a href='B:350 13:14'>Hos 13:14</a>; <a href='B:220 28:22'>Job 28:22</a>; <a href='B:220 30:23'>Job 30:23</a>; <a href='B:230 6:5'>Psa 6:5</a>; <a href='B:230 18:5'>Psa 18:5</a>; <a href='B:230 89:48'>Psa 89:48</a>; <a href='B:230 116:3'>Psa 116:3</a>; <a href='B:240 2:18'>Pro 2:18</a>; <a href='B:240 5:5'>Pro 5:5</a>; <a href='B:240 7:27'>Pro 7:27</a>. The point is that Mot / Mawet doesn't exist, it is simply to be understood as the grave. For very often, language used about Mot in the pagan literature is applied to God in order to show Mot's effective non-existence. The significance of this point is that at times, the Bible refers to pagan ideas about 'Satan' like figures in order to deconstruct them, and show their effective non-existence in the light of the supremacy of the one true God.</p>


text:
<p>In my distress I called on Yahweh. Yes, I called to my God. He heard my voice out of His temple. My cry came into His ears- </p><p>David imagines his prayers as coming into the heavenly throne room, and eliciting a response. His later obsession with building a physical temple for God was a departure from how he had earlier perceived God's temple- as being in Heaven, and accessible by faithful prayer.</p>


text:
<p>Then the earth shook and trembled. The foundations of heaven quaked and were shaken, because He was angry- </p><p>It is hard to locate such an incident in the historical records. Perhaps there was a particular salvation from death at Saul's hands which isn't recorded, but David alludes to it here. Or perhaps the language here is that of theophany and God manifestation; it may not literally describe things which happened, but the hand of God in saving David was no less than as if He had appeared as He did at Sinai. For the language of earth shaking and quaking is that of the Sinai theophany and the deliverance from Egypt.</p><p><a href='B:90 2:8'>1Sa 2:8</a>; <a href='B:100 22:8'>2Sa 22:8</a> speak as if Heaven / the sky rests on the mountains, from where earth seems to touch the heavens (<a href='B:290 13:5'>Isa 13:5</a>), with the stars stretched out in the north (<a href='B:220 26:7'>Job 26:7</a>). This reflected the geo-centric view held by people at the time. The point surely was that however people understood creation to have happened, God had done it, and in wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>Smoke went up out of His nostrils. Fire out of His mouth devoured. Coals were kindled by it- </p><p>This sounds like the symbolic language of theophany and God manifestation, rather than describing actually observed events in literal terms. The allusion is clearly to what happened at the exodus and Sinai, which David felt had been repeated for him in essence; as it is for all in covenant relationship with the God who saves.</p>


text:
<p>He bowed the heavens also- </p><p>The same phrase used of Moses stretching out his hands toward the heavens, and God responding by delivering His people (<a href='B:20 9:22-23'>Exo 9:22-23</a>; <a href='B:20 10:21'>Exo 10:21</a>).</p><p>And came down. Thick darkness was under His feet- </p><p>As Yahweh came down at Sinai (<a href='B:20 19:11'>Exo 19:11</a> s:w:). The idea is that as God had miraculously intervened for the salvation of His people in history, so David felt He had in his life; although there is no historical record of such dramatic scenes as on Sinai and at the Red Sea. We likewise experience His interventions; they aren't as dramatic as in history, but none less dramatic in ultimate reality. This coming down in a saving theophany was what David had in fact prayed for in <a href='B:230 144:5'>Psa 144:5</a>. He asked for a theophany to save him, no less that what happened at Sinai (s:w. <a href='B:20 19:18-20'>Exo 19:18-20</a>), when again God had as it were made the mountains smoke by His touch. We marvel at David's spiritual ambition, unafraid to ask for a similar theophany to save him. And here he reflects at the end of his life that this prayer was in fact answered. The relevance to the exiles is that Yahweh was prepared to "bow" (s:w. "stretch out") the heavens and "come down" to restore the exiles; but they chose not to make use of that huge potential (s:w. <a href='B:290 40:22'>Isa 40:22</a>; <a href='B:290 42:5'>Isa 42:5</a>; <a href='B:290 64:1'>Isa 64:1</a>).</p><p>God Himself is spoken of as coming, descending etc. when He ‘preaches’ to humanity (e:g. <a href='B:10 11:5'>Gen 11:5</a>; <a href='B:20 19:20'>Exo 19:20</a>; <a href='B:40 11:25'>Num 11:25</a>; <a href='B:100 22:10'>2Sa 22:10</a>). In <a href='B:300 39:16'>Jer 39:16</a>, the imprisoned Jeremiah is told to "go, tell Ebed-melech::." a word from the Lord about him. Jeremiah couldn't have literally left prison to do so- but the idea is that a person encountering the Lord's word has as it were experienced the Lord 'going' to him or her. And in this sense the message of the Lord Jesus (in its essence) could 'go' to persons without Him physically going anywhere or even existing consciously at the time (<a href='B:670 3:18-21'>1Pe 3:18-21</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He rode on a cherub, and flew. Yes, He was seen on the wings of the wind- </p><p>"Wind" and "spirit" are the same words in Hebrew. The cherubim chariot are presented as God's vehicle of manifestation, and this was language the exiles would've been familiar with through the visions of Ezekiel. Yet this is not to say that David also had such a vision. Rather did he perceive God's huge cherubic activity through the various experiences of salvation and grace he had in his life. And this is the same for us.</p>


text:
<p>He made darkness pavilions around Himself: gathering of waters, and thick clouds of the skies- </p><p>All the scene at God's manifestation on Sinai. The Old Testament describes Yahweh, the one true God, as riding through the heavens on chariots to the help of His people Israel (<a href='B:50 33:26'>Deu 33:26</a>; <a href='B:100 22:11'>2Sa 22:11</a>; <a href='B:230 18:10'>Psa 18:10</a>; <a href='B:230 104:3'>Psa 104:3</a>; <a href='B:290 19:1'>Isa 19:1</a>; <a href='B:420 3:8'>Hab 3:8</a>). But Baal was known as the rkb 'rpt, the one who rides upon the clouds; and he is here being deconstructed.</p>


text:
<p>At the brightness before Him, coals of fire were kindled- </p><p>The "coals of fire" speak of Divine judgment (<a href='B:230 140:10'>Psa 140:10</a>), and were part of the cherubim vision (<a href='B:330 1:13'>Eze 1:13</a>; <a href='B:330 10:2'>Eze 10:2</a>). Hail and thick clouds were the judgment threatened upon the Assyrians in Hezekiah's time (<a href='B:290 28:2'>Isa 28:2</a>; <a href='B:290 30:30'>Isa 30:30</a>). David's experience becomes developed as relevant to the manifestation of God in salvation in other contexts.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh thundered from heaven, the Most High uttered His voice- </p><p><a href='B:230 18:13'>Psa 18:13</a> adds "hailstones and coals of fire", alluding to the destruction of Sodom. And yet there is no recorded incident of God consuming David's enemies like this. But he felt that God had indeed come through for Him in no less powerful a way. And we can feel and experience the same.</p>


text:
<p>He sent out arrows, and scattered them; lightning, and confused them- </p><p>This continues the thanksgiving that his prayer of <a href='B:230 144:6'>Psa 144:6</a> had been answered. He had asked for a saving theophany of the magnitude of what was seen at Sinai. Now at the end of his life, David was thankful that this prayer had in fact been answered. David rejoices that Divine "arrows" were sent to destroy his enemies (<a href='B:230 7:13'>Psa 7:13</a>; <a href='B:230 18:14'>Psa 18:14</a>; <a href='B:230 45:5'>Psa 45:5</a>; <a href='B:230 64:7'>Psa 64:7</a>; <a href='B:230 144:6'>Psa 144:6</a>), in fulfilment of God's promise to do so to the sinful within Israel (<a href='B:50 32:23'>Deu 32:23</a>; <a href='B:50 32:42'>Deu 32:42</a>). But David had realized that those same arrows had been fired by God into him in judgment for his sin (<a href='B:230 38:2'>Psa 38:2</a>). This realization was perhaps to help David understand that his rejoicing in Divine arrows of judgment being fired at his enemies had not been mature; for he himself had to realize that he was worthy of the same.</p>


text:
<p>Then the channels of the sea were exposed, the foundations of the world were laid bare by the rebuke of Yahweh, by the blast of the breath of His nostrils- </p><p>The opening word "then" is significant. As the channels of water were laid bare at the exodus, so God had acted for David. As discussed above, this section sounds like the symbolic language of theophany and God manifestation, rather than describing actually observed events in literal terms. The allusion is clearly to what happened at the exodus and Sinai; the essence of what God did then was experienced by David, just as it can be by us in our crises.</p>


text:
<p>He sent from on high and He took me, He drew me out of many waters- </p><p>"Waters" are usually symbolic of armies or nations. David felt he had been surrounded and faced with certain death, but had been as it were airlifted to safety by God. The language here says that God has done this, but it is parallel with David's prayer for this to happen in <a href='B:230 144:7'>Psa 144:7</a>. This triumphant song is therefore praise for the prayer of Psalms 144 being answered. We cannot locate any particular historical incident of fulfilment; perhaps it was too personal and wonderful to be recorded. Just as a Christian man or woman might feel it inappropriate to record God's most dramatic salvation of them when they write their autobiography.</p>


text:
<p>He delivered me from my strong enemy, from those who hated me, for they were too mighty for me- </p><p>That thanksgiving was because he had prayed for salvation from "those who hate me" in <a href='B:230 9:13'>Psa 9:13</a> (s:w:). We have here a direct example of gratitude for answered prayer. It seems Saul and his supporters were the initial reference of the "strong enemy" (see on :1). These words are an allusion to his prayer of <a href='B:230 69:14'>Psa 69:14</a>. Now at the end of his life David reflects that he has been delivered from those who hated him (s:w:). At the time, he wept bitterly for Absalom's death; but now in maturity he realized that this was in fact an answer to his prayers.</p>


text:
<p>They came on me in the day of my calamity, but Yahweh was my support- </p><p>The phrase "day of calamity" is consistently used of a day of Divine condemnation, especially of Judah at the hand of the Babylonians (<a href='B:50 32:35'>Deu 32:35</a>; <a href='B:220 21:30'>Job 21:30</a>; <a href='B:300 18:17'>Jer 18:17</a>; <a href='B:300 46:21'>Jer 46:21</a>). Perhaps the Psalm was reworked as comfort for the exiles, that they could be saved even out of the day of their condemnation. And maybe David has the idea that he had been worthy of Divine condemnation, and the judgment was being articulated at the hands of his enemies- but by grace alone, God saved him from it.</p>


text:
<p>He also brought me out into a large place. He delivered me, because He delighted in me- </p><p>"Delighted" is the same word as in <a href='B:230 51:6'>Psa 51:6</a> "Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts":&nbsp; This is the word here used by David at the end of his life of how God desired or delighted in him. Perhaps this desire or delight was because of the "truth" in David's heart in recognizing his sins and accepting God's grace. He had left God to decide whether He delighted in him when he fled Absalom (<a href='B:100 15:26'>2Sa 15:26</a>), and now he triumphs that God had done so, by grace (<a href='B:100 15:25'>2Sa 15:25</a>).</p><p>When the Lord’s mockers jeered "If he desireth him" (RV), they were alluding to the LXX of <a href='B:230 18:19'>Psa 18:19</a>; <a href='B:230 91:11'>Psa 91:11</a>. God cannot be tempted, otherwise He would have responded. 'If God likes Him', is what they were really implying.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh rewarded me according to my righteousness. He rewarded me according to the cleanness of my hands- </p><p>David was yet to learn that he himself was a sinner and no man apart from the Lord has clean hands or total personal righteousness:&nbsp; Yet David twice repeats this self righteousness. If this were written at the end of his life, then he appears to have lost the intensity of contrition for sin he had at the time of his repentance about Bathsheba. We too can allow the passage of time to blunt our sense of wonder at God's grace to us, and even reinterpret our sins as nothing major.</p>


text:
<p>For I have kept the ways of Yahweh, and have not wickedly departed from my God- </p><p>If David at the end of his life could say that he was upright and had kept himself from his iniquity (<a href='B:100 22:21-24'>2Sa 22:21-24</a>). He could only say this by a clear understanding of the concept of imputed righteousness. Paul's claim to have always lived in a pure conscience must be seen in the same way.</p><p>"Wickedly departed" is the word usually translated "condemn" (e:g. <a href='B:230 37:33'>Psa 37:33</a>). Those who depart from God condemn themselves. This is a major Biblical theme; that the condemned are more self-condemned rather than condemned by God. "We make the answer now". But later David was to realize that he too had wickedly departed from God, and confession of that was vital for salvation (s:w. <a href='B:230 106:6'>Psa 106:6</a>).</p><p>David felt preserved by God from Saul and his other enemies (<a href='B:90 30:23'>1Sa 30:23</a>; <a href='B:100 22:44'>2Sa 22:44</a>), because he had preserved or obeyed [s:w:] God's ways (<a href='B:100 22:22'>2Sa 22:22</a>; <a href='B:100 22:24'>2Sa 22:24</a>; <a href='B:230 18:21'>Psa 18:21</a>; <a href='B:230 18:23'>Psa 18:23</a>); whereas Saul didn't obey / preserve them and was destroyed (<a href='B:90 13:13-14'>1Sa 13:13-14</a>; <a href='B:130 10:13'>1Ch 10:13</a>). Hence <a href='B:230 145:20'>Psa 145:20</a>: "Yahweh preserves all those who love Him, but all the wicked He will destroy".</p>


text:
<p>For all His ordinances were before me. As for His statutes, I did not depart from them- </p><p>Depart or "Put away" (<a href='B:230 18:22'>Psa 18:22</a>) is the word used for how God departed from Saul because he didn't keep God's statutes (<a href='B:90 16:14'>1Sa 16:14</a>; <a href='B:90 18:12'>1Sa 18:12</a>; <a href='B:90 28:15'>1Sa 28:15</a>). David is therefore comparing himself favourably with Saul; for this is his triumph song after Saul has been slain (see on :1).</p>


text:
<p>I was also perfect towards Him- </p><p>A true seed of Abraham, who were to walk with or before Yahweh blameless (s:w. <a href='B:10 17:1'>Gen 17:1</a>).</p><p>I kept myself from my iniquity- </p><p>This sounds like a boast in his iron willed self-control. He would never be able to boast like this after the sin with Bathsheba. It is God by His grace who keeps men from sinning (<a href='B:10 20:6'>Gen 20:6</a>), and not the rigid self-discipline of the deeply religious.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore Yahweh has rewarded me according to my righteousness, according to my cleanness in His eyesight-</p><p>David was yet to learn that he himself was a sinner and no man apart from the Lord has clean hands or total personal righteousness:&nbsp; Yet David twice repeats this self righteousness. In describing his feelings after the Bathsheba experience, David comments that he was "as a man that hears not [the taunts of others against him], and in whose mouth are no rebukes" (<a href='B:230 38:14'>Psa 38:14</a>). The pre-Bathsheba Psalms present David as a man who was so easily hurt by the taunts of others, and whose mouth was indeed full of rebuke of others. <a href='B:230 18:23-26'>Psa 18:23-26</a> has David describing his own uprightness before God, and how God only shows His grace to the pure and upright. How little did he understand grace! Worse still, he several times bids God judge men according to their sins (<a href='B:230 5:10'>Psa 5:10</a>). It is against this background that we must understand the significance of David's statements that after Bathsheba, after how God did not deal with him according to his sin, there were no rebukes of others now in his mouth. Realizing the extent of his personal sin and the depth of God's grace led David to not only be less reproachful of others; but also to be less hurt by their unkindness to him. And in these things we surely have a great lesson to ourselves.</p>


text:
<p>With the merciful You will show Yourself to have bowed the neck; with the perfect man You will show Yourself perfect- </p><p>We have here the mixture of spirituality and yet arrogance which we can often detect in ourselves. David recognizes his salvation has been through God's mercy; but he sees himself as having earned this mercy by being "perfect". The same word is used of Job, but he had to be taught that that status was a case of having righteousness imputed to him by grace; and because David was unwilling to really learn this, he had to be taught it through the righteousness imputed to him after his sin with Bathsheba.</p><p>David especially recognized the humility of God. In&nbsp; <a href='B:100 22:26'>2Sa 22:26</a> he uses an unusual word to describe how God is "merciful" to His faithful people. The word only occurs elsewhere in <a href='B:240 25:10'>Pro 25:10</a> concerning 'bowing the neck' in shame or reverence. And this is what the Hebrew means: to bow the neck. This, David recognized in his time of spiritual maturity, was what God does in response to those who shew a truly spiritual attitude to their brethren.</p>


text:
<p>With the purified You will show Yourself pure, with the crooked You will show Yourself tortuous-</p><p>David sees himself as the pure, and Saul as the crooked. Throughout David’s Psalms in Psalms 1-72, he repeatedly asks for torture upon the sinners and blessing upon himself as the righteous. He speaks of how sinners should be “contemned” in the eyes of the righteous (<a href='B:230 15:4'>Psa 15:4</a>), the gatherings of sinners should be “hated” and sinners should not be fellowshipped (<a href='B:230 26:4-6'>Psa 26:4-6</a>; <a href='B:230 31:6'>Psa 31:6</a>) and how God’s uprightness is shown to the upright and His judgment to the judgmental (<a href='B:230 18:25-26'>Psa 18:25-26</a>; <a href='B:230 33:22'>Psa 33:22</a>). He invites God’s judgment upon himself and others according to their and his works (<a href='B:230 28:4'>Psa 28:4</a>):&nbsp; Frequently he alludes to Saul as “the violent man”- even though David committed his share of violence- and asks judgment upon him (<a href='B:230 18:48'>Psa 18:48</a>). Only those with clean hands and pure heart like himself could have fellowship with God (<a href='B:230 24:3-4'>Psa 24:3-4</a>). Psalms 37 doesn’t indicate any desire to convert the sinners but rather an expectation of their judgment and destruction. God and David laugh at the wicked because their day is coming (<a href='B:230 37:13'>Psa 37:13</a>). There’s no spirit of grace here at all- perhaps that’s why <a href='B:450 12:10'>Zec 12:10</a> specifically says that the spirit of grace will have to be poured out upon the house of David in the last days. This attitude changed after the sin with Bathsheba, but still something of the old self righteousness and judgmental attitudes are to be found in David in Psalms written after that.</p>


text:
<p>You will save the afflicted people, but Your eyes are on the proud, that You may bring them down- </p><p>Again David perceives Saul as proud, and Saul's initial apparent humility must therefore be considered in this context. Perhaps he became proud, or maybe he had always been that way, and only appeared humble. But the word "people" may have been added when the Psalm was used by the exiles, for salvation for "the afflicted people" was the prophetic message to them (s:w. <a href='B:290 49:19'>Isa 49:19</a>).</p>


text:
<p>For You are my lamp, Yahweh. Yahweh will light up my darkness- </p><p>The phrase is only used of the lighting of the lamps in the tabernacle (<a href='B:20 25:37'>Exo 25:37</a>; <a href='B:40 8:2'>Num 8:2</a>). I noted on <a href='B:230 17:8'>Psa 17:8</a> that David sees himself as located on the mercy seat, in the Most Holy place.</p>


text:
<p>For by You, I run against a troop. By my God, I leap over a wall- </p><p>Such victories were given to David against the Philistines; the idea is as in GNB "You give me strength to attack my enemies and power to overcome their defenses". "Troop" is the word used of the Amalekites whom David overcame (<a href='B:90 30:8'>1Sa 30:8</a>; <a href='B:90 30:15'>1Sa 30:15</a>). The leaping over a wall may refer to the way that Zion was captured (<a href='B:100 5:6-8'>2Sa 5:6-8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>As for God, His way is perfect. The word of Yahweh is tested. He is a shield to all those who take refuge in Him- </p><p>The word" specifically in view may be the prophetic word that David would be king and thereby overcome all of Saul's machinations (see on <a href='B:230 119:1'>Psa 119:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>For who is God, besides Yahweh? Who is a rock, besides our God?- </p><p>David in his Psalms repeatedly alludes to the song of his ancestor Hannah. He effectively quotes <a href='B:90 2:2'>1Sa 2:2</a> here; although I argue throughout 1 Samuel 2 that Hannah's was apparently lifted up with pride and the vengeance of the underling who has overcome the oppressor. And there is reason to think that David had elements of this weakness too.</p><p>David perceives his victory over Saul as the vindication of Yahweh above other gods. This would confirm the hints we have that Saul was an idolater (see on <a href='B:230 12:8'>Psa 12:8</a>; <a href='B:230 16:4'>Psa 16:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>God is my strong fortress. He makes my way perfect- </p><p>A reference to his victory over Goliath without human armour, trusting completely in God (see on :34,35).</p>


text:
<p>He makes His feet like hinds’ feet, and sets me on my high places- </p><p>As in :35, this may be a reference to his victory over Goliath, which he saw as the epitome of all his victories. For he ran swiftly towards Goliath before releasing the stone which slew him.</p>


text:
<p>He teaches my hands to war, so that my arms bend a bow of brass- </p><p>Perhaps alluding to how it was David's dexterity of hand as a slinger which gave the victory over Goliath. But he recognizes that this was all of God. He is careful not to exalt as if his strength was his own.</p><p>This is another allusion to the song of Hannah (see on :32). Here, it is to "The bows of the mighty men are broken". Seeing children are as arrows (<a href='B:230 127:4-5'>Psa 127:4-5</a>), the bow may refer to the womb, in Hannah's mind. And she is now wishing her barrenness upon her enemies who had once mocked her. This is hardly the right attitude, and yet David applies it to himself. And there is reason to think that David had elements of this weakness too. He thought it was acceptable to be like this because Hannah had been. And that is the problem with setting bad examples.</p>


text:
<p>You have also given me the shield of your salvation. Your gentleness has made me great- </p><p>God’s gentleness, His humility / bowing down (Heb:) has made us great, lifted us up (<a href='B:230 18:35'>Psa 18:35</a>). And we respond to it by humbling ourselves. Paul's take on "the shield of your salvation" is that it means "the shield of faith" (<a href='B:560 6:16'>Eph 6:16</a>). If we enquire 'Faith in exactly what?', the answer is 'faith in salvation at the end of the day, that God will finally save me'.</p>


text:
<p>You have enlarged my steps under me. My feet have not slipped- </p><p>David in his earlier Psalms exalts and boasts to God that his feet have not slipped, indeed he was overly confident that his feet would never slip / "be moved" (<a href='B:230 17:5'>Psa 17:5</a>; <a href='B:230 21:7'>Psa 21:7</a>; <a href='B:230 55:22'>Psa 55:22</a>; <a href='B:230 62:2'>Psa 62:2</a>; <a href='B:230 62:6'>Psa 62:6</a>; <a href='B:230 125:1'>Psa 125:1</a>). His more mature reflection is that he had wrongly said "I shall never slip [AV "be moved"]" (<a href='B:230 30:6'>Psa 30:6</a>), and his feet had indeed slipped, not least over the Bathsheba incident (<a href='B:230 38:16'>Psa 38:16</a>; <a href='B:230 94:18'>Psa 94:18</a>). Solomon didn't learn this lesson, for he likewise assumed that the righteous would never be moved / slip (<a href='B:240 10:30'>Pro 10:30</a>), although he appears to accept that even a righteous man like his father had indeed slipped (<a href='B:240 25:26'>Pro 25:26</a>). And Solomon himself did so, not learning the lesson from his father's mistaken assumption that the righteous can never slip.</p>


text:
<p>I have pursued my enemies and destroyed them. I didn’t turn again until they were consumed- </p><p>This is written after God had subdued Saul and David's other enemies (:1). He is taking this as a portent of future victory against all other enemies. But I will explain on :40-43 that David did not use all the potential authority and power of judgment which he was given.</p>


text:
<p>I have consumed them, and struck them through, so that they can’t arise. Yes, they have fallen under my feet- </p><p><a href='B:230 18:38'>Psa 18:38</a> changes the tenses: "I will strike them through, so that they will not be able to rise. They shall fall under my feet". See on :38. This refers to the potential power of judgment David felt he had been given, but this is not to say he would use it.</p>


text:
<p>For You have armed me with strength for the battle. You have subdued under me those who rose up against me-</p><p>David reflects how his victory in battle by God's strength meant that all was subdued under him (s:w. <a href='B:230 8:6'>Psa 8:6</a>), a Psalm about the victory over Goliath). The victory in battle which he had in view was supremely that over Goliath, his most major and applauded victory. To a far greater extent, the victory of the Lord Jesus meant not simply the subjugation of Israel beneath Him, but of all creation, including the natural creation.</p>


text:
<p>You have also made my enemies turn their backs to me, so that I might cut off those who hate me- </p><p>Those who hated David surely refer to the house of Saul (:1). But David did not cut them off- even though he was given the opportunity of doing so.</p>


text:
<p>They looked, but there was none to save; even to Yahweh, but He didn’t answer them- </p><p>A reference to God refusing to answer Saul just before he died (<a href='B:90 28:6'>1Sa 28:6</a>). The Lord Jesus was well aware of the connection between God's refusal to answer prayer and His recognition of sin in the person praying (<a href='B:100 22:42'>2Sa 22:42</a> = <a href='B:230 2:2-5'>Psa 2:2-5</a>). It is emphasized time and again that God will not forsake those who love Him (e:g. <a href='B:50 4:31'>Deu 4:31</a>; <a href='B:50 31:6'>Deu 31:6</a>; <a href='B:90 12:22'>1Sa 12:22</a>; <a href='B:110 6:13'>1Ki 6:13</a>; <a href='B:230 94:14'>Psa 94:14</a>; <a href='B:290 41:17'>Isa 41:17</a>; <a href='B:290 42:16'>Isa 42:16</a>). Every one of these passages must have been well known to our Lord, the word made flesh. He knew that God forsaking Israel was a punishment for their sin (<a href='B:70 6:13'>Jdg 6:13</a>; <a href='B:120 21:14'>2Ki 21:14</a>; <a href='B:290 2:6'>Isa 2:6</a>; <a href='B:300 23:33'>Jer 23:33</a>). God would forsake Israel only if they forsook Him (<a href='B:50 31:16-17'>Deu 31:16-17</a>; <a href='B:140 15:2'>2Ch 15:2</a>). We can therefore conclude that His desperate “Why have You forsaken me?” was because He was so intensely identified with our sins that in the crisis of the cross, He indeed felt forsaken because of sin. He did not sin, but felt like a sinner; He thereby knows how sinners feel.</p>


text:
<p>Then I beat them as small as the dust of the earth. I crushed them as the mire of the streets, and spread them abroad- </p><p>I noted on :41 that David didn't execute the judgments against the house of Saul which he could have done. The language of being "crushed" or "cast out" and being driven by the wind is that of Divine judgment. It could be that David intends us to understand that although he was given the opportunity of judging them ["that I might cut off::.", :41], he didn't- he left it to God's judgment.</p>


text:
<p>You also have delivered me from the strivings of my people. You have preserved me to be the head of the nations. A people whom I have not known will serve me- David expected in faith that now he was solidly established as Israel's king, the surrounding Gentiles would come to serve him and his God (see on :50).</p><p>"Let people serve you" was the blessing promised to Jacob in his moment of weakness, as he crouched before his father in fawning deception (<a href='B:10 27:29'>Gen 27:29</a>). And yet David applies this promised blessing to himself (<a href='B:100 22:44'>2Sa 22:44</a>).</p><p>David felt preserved by God from Saul and his other enemies (<a href='B:90 30:23'>1Sa 30:23</a>; <a href='B:100 22:44'>2Sa 22:44</a>), because he had preserved or obeyed [s:w:] God's ways (<a href='B:100 22:22'>2Sa 22:22</a>; <a href='B:100 22:24'>2Sa 22:24</a>; <a href='B:230 18:21'>Psa 18:21</a>; <a href='B:230 18:23'>Psa 18:23</a>); whereas Saul didn't obey / preserve them and was destroyed (<a href='B:90 13:13-14'>1Sa 13:13-14</a>; <a href='B:130 10:13'>1Ch 10:13</a>). Hence <a href='B:230 145:20'>Psa 145:20</a>: "Yahweh preserves all those who love Him, but all the wicked He will destroy".</p>


text:
<p>The foreigners will submit themselves to me. As soon as they hear of me, they will obey me- </p><p>David's vision was that his kingdom would take the good news of Israel's God to the surrounding Gentiles (see on :50). Some of them would submit to David and his God, whereas others would not (:46).</p>


text:
<p>The foreigners will fade away, and will come trembling out of their hiding places- </p><p>This may allude to how Saul's persecutors of David included "foreigners" such as Cush (see on <a href='B:230 7:1'>Psa 7:1</a>) and Doeg the Edomite (<a href='B:90 22:22'>1Sa 22:22</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh lives! Blessed be my rock! Exalted be God, the rock of my salvation- </p><p>David had earlier lamented that Saul "My enemy" (= Saul, <a href='B:90 18:29'>1Sa 18:29</a>; <a href='B:90 19:17'>1Sa 19:17</a>) was "exalted over me" (<a href='B:230 13:2'>Psa 13:2</a> s:w:). The David who had once triumphed over his enemy Goliath now felt that Saul was triumphing over him. This, in the bigger Divine picture, may have been to keep David from pride at the amazing victory and triumph. And he learned the lesson. David was indeed to triumph / be exalted over Saul (:49), but he saw it is God triumphing / being exalted. His praise Psalms are full of this word and idea- of the exaltation of God (<a href='B:230 57:5'>Psa 57:5</a>; <a href='B:230 57:11'>Psa 57:11</a>) and not himself.</p>


text:
<p>even the God who executes vengeance for me, who brings down peoples under me- </p><p>An allusion to how David had restrained himself from murdering Saul when he could have done, and instead had trusted in God to execute vengeance. Here David reflects that God had indeed cast down the peoples under him (<a href='B:100 22:48'>2Sa 22:48</a>; <a href='B:230 18:47'>Psa 18:47</a>); by saying this he considers that his prayer of <a href='B:230 56:7'>Psa 56:7</a> has been answered: "In anger cast down the peoples, God". Perhaps when he prayed it, he just wanted God's anger to be poured out immediately, the day of judgment to come there and then, when the scales will be adjusted and men and nations cast down or lifted up. But he reflects that in a sense that had happened in his life, in that the peoples were cast down beneath him.</p>


text:
<p>who delivers from my enemies. Yes, You lift me up above those who rise up against me. You deliver me from the violent man- </p><p>See on :47. The violent man was initially Saul (see on :1). The Hebrew word hamas [basically meaning 'physical violence arising from wicked plans'] is quite common in Scripture, and the usages speak of how God is provoked by hamas to bring judgment upon the enemies of His people (<a href='B:10 6:11-13'>Gen 6:11-13</a>; <a href='B:400 6:12'>Mic 6:12</a>; <a href='B:430 1:9'>Zep 1:9</a>) and also to intervene in order to save His people (<a href='B:230 18:49'>Psa 18:49</a>; <a href='B:230 72:14'>Psa 72:14</a>). How amazingly appropriate that an organization actually called hamas has arisen in these last days to do violence to Israel! If Biblical history means anything to us, clearly enough God's intervention in appropriate judgment and salvation cannot be far off. Note how Hagar's persecution of Sarah- typical of the Arab-Jew conflict- is described as her hamas (<a href='B:10 16:5'>Gen 16:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Therefore I will give thanks to You, Yahweh, among the nations. I will sing praises to your name- </p><p>David was one of the few in the Old Testament who had a sense of taking the good news of Yahweh's covenant to the Gentiles. And he apparently did so through exporting his musical productions to the surrounding peoples, who may well have been able to understand David's Hebrew.</p>


text:
<p>He gives great deliverance to His king, and shows grace to His anointed, to David and to his seed, for evermore-</p><p>The Psalm concludes with a reference to David as the anointed, so this could be a Psalm composed when Saul was slain and David was finally declared king, and his anointing came to fulfilment. But the reference to eternal salvation for "his seed" could suggest it was composed after he had received the promises of 2 Samuel 7.</p>


text:
<p>Now these are the last words of David. David the son of Jesse says, the man who was raised on high says, the anointed of the God of Jacob, the sweet psalmist of Israel- </p><p><a href='B:100 23:1-5'>2Sa 23:1-5</a> gives quite some insight into the nature of David’s spiritual maturity at the end. He comes over as:</p><p>Sure of his salvation</p><p>Aware of his own failures and frailty, acknowledging that his family ‘was not so with God’</p><p>Deeply aware of God’s grace</p><p>Having a clear vision of Jesus the future Messiah, even foreseeing how He would be pierced with a weapon and slain by wicked men- in order to attain our salvation</p><p>Aware that his own rulership was pathetically inferior to that of the Lord Jesus</p><p>Appreciative that all these wonderful things are rooted in the covenant made to himself, which was all his salvation and desire.</p><p>These very same themes we find recurring in the lives of many other servants of God.</p>


text:
<p>The Spirit of Yahweh spoke by me. His word was on my tongue-</p><p>This is a classic statement of Divine inspiration, putting His word upon the tongue of the inspired writers and speakers of His word.</p>


text:
<p>The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me, ‘One who rules over men righteously, who rules in the fear of God- </p><p>This may have been spoken to David by Samuel when he was first anointed; or by special revelation to David when he first became king. <a href='B:240 29:2'>Pro 29:2</a> alludes to this, saying that when the righteous rule, the people rejoice (s:w:). The king of Israel was to ever remember that God was the ultimate king; and was to rule therefore in respect of Him.</p>


text:
<p>shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun rises, a morning without clouds, when the tender grass springs out of the earth, like the clear shining after rain’- </p><p>This suggests that the ruler in view was to be as the sunrise, after the clouds and darkness of the night have dispersed. This was indeed how David's reign appeared after the reign of Saul. But the clouds returned in the course of David's reign, and it looks ahead to the coming of David's greater Son, the Lord Jesus, to arise as the dawn and re-establish David's kingdom as God's eternal Kingdom on earth (s:w. "sun rises" <a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a>). "Clear shining" is the word used for the "brightness" of the cherubim which were to return to Zion along with the exiles to establish eternal brightness there, with a restored Davidic king (<a href='B:330 1:4'>Eze 1:4</a>; <a href='B:330 10:4'>Eze 10:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Most certainly my house is not so with God- </p><p>David is one of the major Old Testament types of the Lord Jesus. The words of David in Psalms 16 are quoted in <a href='B:510 2:25'>Act 2:25</a>; <a href='B:510 2:29'>Act 2:29</a> concerning Jesus: “I have set the Lord always before me::. He is at my right hand::. You will not leave my soul in hell, neither will You suffer Your holy one to see corruption”. These are words describing David’s feelings about his own death and resurrection; and yet so identified was he with the Messiah, that they are quoted as being directly true of Jesus. But <a href='B:510 2:29'>Act 2:29</a> also quotes these words with a slightly different spin- in that David saw the Lord Jesus always before him, and it was this sense that stabilized him. This could only have been true in that David understood all his feelings and present and future experiences [e:g. resurrection, not being suffered to corrupt eternally] as being typical of the Lord Jesus. He so understood himself as a type of the One to come that he saw this person as ever with him. This is the extent of the typology. <a href='B:130 17:17'>1Ch 17:17</a> in Young’s Literal has David saying: “Thou hast seen me as a type of the man on high” [i:e. Messiah]. David describes himself at ease with clearly Messianic titles such as ‘the Christ’, ‘the man raised on high’, and then goes on to speak of the Messiah who is to come on the “morning without clouds”, admitting that “verily my house is not so with God” (<a href='B:100 23:1-5'>2Sa 23:1-5</a>). This is only really understandable if we accept that David consciously saw himself as a type of the future Messiah.</p><p>There is an intended ambiguity in the Hebrew text of <a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a>. The AV has: “Although my house be not so with God…this is all my salvation”; whilst the NIV and other translations suggest the opposite: that because his house was in order, therefore this was all his salvation and desire fulfilled. Solomon and David were sure that the house of David was “with God”, and yet from God’s perspective they weren’t, and the fulfilment of the promises would have to be in the future Messiah.</p><p>Yet He has made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure, for it is all my salvation, and all my desire, although He doesn’t make it grow- </p><p>David's "desire / delight" was in God's law (<a href='B:230 1:2'>Psa 1:2</a> s:w:) and also in the things of the future Kingdom of God (s:w. <a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a>); our "delight" in those things is reflected in our attitudes to God's word. And we shall be finally judged according to our 'delights', our dominant desires (s:w. <a href='B:250 3:17'>Ecc 3:17</a>; <a href='B:250 8:6'>Ecc 8:6</a>). The Lord Jesus was devoted to sharing Yahweh's "delight" (<a href='B:290 53:10'>Isa 53:10</a>). We shall be judged according to what are our dominant desires.</p><p><a href='B:290 26:8-9'>Isa 26:8-9</a> parallels “the desire of my soul” with “my spirit”; it is the dominant desire of a man. For David, the salvation promised to him through Christ was “all my desire” (<a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a>). The direction of his life was towards that end.</p>


text:
<p>But all of the ungodly shall be as thorns to be thrust away, because they can’t be taken with the hand- </p><p>The ungodly, like thorns, cannot be taken away by human hand. The sensitivity of the Lord Jesus constructed the parable of the wheat and weeds with the aim of showing the thoughtful how deeply inappropriate is their desire to root up the tares. He clearly had in mind the prophecy of Himself in <a href='B:100 23:6-7'>2Sa 23:6-7</a>: "The sons of Belial shall be all of them as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be taken by (human) hands: but the man that shall touch them (Christ) must be fenced with iron and the staff of a spear; and they shall be utterly burned with fire in the same place (just outside Jerusalem) "where Christ was "fenced with iron". It isn't possible for us to uproot the tares because this can only possibly be done by the one who totally uprooted&nbsp; sin in Himself, dying to it on the cross. This association between Christ's right to judge and His victorious death is shown by the way the "tares" will be burnt in the same area as He was crucified in. Php_2:9-11 reasons along the same lines; because Christ died for us, He therefore has the right to have every knee bowing to Him at the judgment. On account of being "the Son of man" and yet also being our perfect Messiah, He has the right therefore to be judge (<a href='B:500 5:27'>Joh 5:27</a> cp. <a href='B:340 7:13-14'>Dan 7:13-14</a>). The Lord understood all this; and to the thoughtful, those who would grasp His allusion to 2 Samuel 23, He was saying: 'If you think you can root up the tares, if you think you have that wisdom to identify the tares, you are really insulting the greatness of what I achieved on the cross. It's only on account of that that I have the ability and right to divide wheat from tares, sheep from goats'.</p><p>But Adam Clarke understands this simply as "A metaphor taken from hedging; the workman thrusts the thorns aside either with his bill or hand, protected by his impenetrable mitten or glove, till, getting a fair blow at the roots, he cuts them all down. The man is fenced with iron, and the handle of his bill is like the staff of a spear. This is a good representation of the dubbing-bill, with which they slash the thorn hedge on each side before they level the tops by the pruning-shears. The handle is five or six feet long. This is a perfectly natural and intelligible image".</p>


text:
<p>but the man who touches them must be filled with iron and the staff of a spear- </p><p>See on :6. David recognizes that he had failed, that his house was “not so with God”, and yet through the future Messiah, “the light of the morning”, who would be pierced by a spear, the promises to him regarding his eternal future would indeed be fulfilled (<a href='B:100 23:4-5'>2Sa 23:4-5</a>; <a href='B:100 23:7'>2Sa 23:7</a>).</p><p>They shall be utterly burned with fire in the same place- </p><p>This could mean that in the place where the Messianic seed was to be filled with the iron of a spear, those who did this to Him would be burnt. Perhaps they will be literally resurrected to judgment and burnt in the valley of Hinnom, near the place of the Lord's crucifixion.</p>


text:
<p>These are the names of the mighty men whom David had: Josheb Basshebeth a Tahchemonite, chief of the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite, who slew eight hundred at one time- </p><p>"Captains" is a form of the word translated "thirty" used in :23, and is evidence that the "thirty" are not to be read as a literal number; in any case, 37 names are given for the "mighty men", not 30. And there are more in the parallel record in Chronicles. Likewise "hundred" need not be taken literally as 100, rather like the term "legion", and can refer to a military group.</p>


text:
<p>After him was Eleazar the son of Dodai the son of an Ahohite, one of the three mighty men with David, when they defied the Philistines who were there gathered together to battle, and the men of Israel had fled away- </p><p>"Defied" is the word used of how Goliath had defied Israel (<a href='B:90 17:10'>1Sa 17:10</a>; <a href='B:90 17:25-26'>1Sa 17:25-26</a>; <a href='B:90 17:36'>1Sa 17:36</a>; <a href='B:90 17:45'>1Sa 17:45</a>). Later Philistine defiance is described with the same word (<a href='B:100 21:21'>2Sa 21:21</a>). David's victory over Goliath was inspirational to other Israelites, just as the Lord's triumph on the cross should be to us.</p>


text:
<p>He arose, and struck the Philistines until his hand was weary, and his hand froze to the sword; and Yahweh worked a great victory that day; and the people returned after him only to take spoil-</p><p>We note that Yahweh worked a great victory through David over Goliath (same phrase in <a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a>; see on :12), specifically without a sword. But this man was inspired by David and used in the same way, although his faith was perhaps weaker in that he used a sword, unlike David who turned down the offer of Saul's sword.</p>


text:
<p>After him was Shammah the son of Agee a Hararite. The Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where there was a plot of ground full of lentils; and the people fled from the Philistines- </p><p>The Chronicles record says it was full of barley, so perhaps lentils were grown together with barley. Shammah defended the field of barley because it was valuable to the Israelites. And in this we have a corroboration of the record with how Absalom had burnt Joab's field of barley (<a href='B:100 14:30'>2Sa 14:30</a>). 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>


text:
<p>But he stood in the midst of the plot and defended it, and killed the Philistines- </p><p>"Defended" or "delivered" is the word used for David's victories (<a href='B:90 17:37'>1Sa 17:37</a>; <a href='B:90 30:8'>1Sa 30:8</a>; <a href='B:90 30:18'>1Sa 30:18</a>; <a href='B:90 30:22'>1Sa 30:22</a>) which were clearly so inspirational to his men, as the Lord's victory should be to us.</p><p>And Yahweh worked a great victory- </p><p>The record continually gives the glory to Yahweh for working through His willing workers. They did not achieve these victories in their own strength alone. The very phrase as in :10 of <a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a> describing how Yahweh gave David the great victory over Goliath. This was clearly inspirational to David's men in their own battles, just as the Lord's victory on the cross should not be seen simply as a historical achievement for us, but an abiding inspiration to us to in essence do likewise.</p>


text:
<p>Three of the thirty chief men went down- </p><p>Not literally thirty; see on :23.</p><p>And came to David in the harvest time- </p><p><a href='B:130 11:15'>1Ch 11:15</a> "to the rock"; see on :14.</p><p>To the cave of Adullam; and the troop of the Philistines was encamped in the valley of Rephaim- </p><p>The giants of the Philistines were in the valley of the giants. And they even had a garrison in David's home town (:14). They appeared insuperable. This refers to an incident during the campaign of <a href='B:100 5:17'>2Sa 5:17</a>.</p>


text:
<p>David was then in the stronghold; and the garrison of the Philistines was then in Bethlehem- </p><p>The hideout of <a href='B:100 5:17'>2Sa 5:17</a>. The rock or hill of Adullam was surrounded by valleys fully viewable from the top of the hill, making it a strong position. Yet despite the obvious tactical advantages of the place, David's Psalms repeatedly describe Yahweh as his rock, stronghold and fortress.</p>


text:
<p>David longed and said, Oh that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate!- </p><p>This has absolute psychological credibility. A leader of partisans sitting with his men in a cave, bitterly reflecting that the enemy have placed a garrison in his home village::. would indeed make such a passing, under his breath comment like this.</p>


text:
<p>The three mighty men broke through the army of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: but he would not drink of it, but poured it out to Yahweh- </p><p>We see here the intense personal loyalty to David which is a theme throughout the record. It looks forward to that which there is to be between the Lord Jesus and we who follow Him in these outlaw days of our generation.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Be it far from me, Yahweh, that I should do this! Isn’t it the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives? Therefore he would not drink it. The three mighty men did these things- </p><p>Despite the intense personal loyalty which David inspired, he is to be commended for not allowing this to turn into a mere personality cult. He poured out that water to Yahweh, feeling unworthy to drink it. We note that water represented blood. This is a warning against being too literalistic in requirements concerning the elements of the breaking of bread service. David perceived the spirit of the law about drink offerings, and "poured [water] out to Yahweh" (:16) in a cave, not being a Levitical priest, and far from the sanctuary.</p>


text:
<p>Abishai, the brother of Joab, the son of Zeruiah, was chief of the three. He lifted up his spear against three hundred and killed them, and had a name among the three- </p><p>"Hundred", like "legion", need not be read literally; it could refer to a group or military subdivision. Again the idea of singularly attaining victory against a multitude is a replication in spirit of David's victory over Goliath.</p>


text:
<p>Wasn’t he the most honourable of the three? Therefore he was made their captain: however, he didn’t attain to the three- </p><p>This apparently means that he was demoted. This happened several times, as David considered that military valour was not the prime qualification for the post of army general, but rather perceiving grace and not shedding the blood of war in peace. Because Joab clearly failed to understand grace, David replaced him with Amasa- whom Joab later murdered out of jealousy.</p>


text:
<p>Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man of Kabzeel, who had done mighty deeds- </p><p>Benaiah was one of David's senior military commanders (<a href='B:100 8:18'>2Sa 8:18</a>; <a href='B:130 27:5'>1Ch 27:5</a>), and the Hebrew of <a href='B:100 23:20'>2Sa 23:20</a> can be translated "Benaiah the son of Jehoiada the priest, as head", i:e. of a group of David's mighty men. The Jehoiada in view as his father would therefore be Jehoiada the priest. The idea is that priests were also military leaders within David's army, indeed it seems there were a large group of them as ordinary soldiers in <a href='B:130 12:27'>1Ch 12:27</a>. This shows how priesthood was not understood as abstract spirituality, but that spirituality was articulated in practice. And this, along with the hints in the names of the mighty men that some were Levites, is significant in that the Levites were not numbered as they were exempt from military service (<a href='B:40 1:47'>Num 1:47</a>). But these chose to do it. See on <a href='B:100 24:5'>2Sa 24:5</a>.</p><p>He killed the two sons of Ariel of Moab: he went down also and killed a lion in the midst of a pit in time of snow- </p><p>Perhaps this incident occurred at this time of the campaign in <a href='B:100 8:2'>2Sa 8:2</a>. Although that campaign was not David and his men at their spiritual best; see note there. We see him following the path of David, whose victory over a literal lion gave him courage to fight Goliath. So Benaiah was inspired by David personally to kill a lion, and then kill two lion like men (AV) of Moab. The lion would have been driven by the cold from the forests, and was preyed upon people. Benaiah therefore risked his life for the sake of his people, and slew the lion.</p>


text:
<p>He killed an Egyptian, a goodly man- </p><p>Literally, a man to look at. This was because he was five cubits tall (<a href='B:130 11:23'>1Ch 11:23</a>).</p><p>And the Egyptian had a spear in his hand; but he went down to him with a staff, and plucked the spear out of the Egyptian’s hand, and killed him with his own spear- </p><p>Again this is a repeat of the spirit of David's victory over Goliath, coming to Goliath with a staff and sling, and slaying him with his own weaponry. The point is repeatedly made that like the Lord's victory on the cross, David's over Goliath was programmatic for the inspiration of his followers to be like him.</p>


text:
<p>Benaiah the son of Jehoiada did these things, and had a name among the three mighty men- </p><p>As noted on :19, there seems to be the idea that some of these men were demoted. Thus Benaiah was both amongst the three, but didn't attain / remain amongst them (:23). "The three" is likely not to be read too literally, but may be a technical term for a group office, like "the thirty"; see on :23.</p>


text:
<p>He was more honourable than the thirty, but he didn’t attain to the three- </p><p>The numbers "three" and "thirty" are not necessarily to be taken literally. A form of the word for "thirty" is used of the "captains" in :8, and of Pharaoh's captains (<a href='B:20 14:7'>Exo 14:7</a>; <a href='B:20 15:4'>Exo 15:4</a>); in any case, 37 names are given for the "mighty men", not 30. And there are more in the parallel record in Chronicles.</p><p>David set him over his guard- </p><p>Heb. 'David appointed him to his audience', he was a member of David's inner circle of advisers on the basis of his faith shown in personal life, and not because of any possession of only theoretical wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>Asahel the brother of Joab was one of the thirty; Elhanan the son of Dodo of Bethlehem- </p><p>Elhanan had also replicated David's victory over Goliath; see on <a href='B:100 21:19'>2Sa 21:19</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Shammah the Harodite, Elika the Harodite- </p><p>This Shammah was "Shammuth the Izrahite" of <a href='B:130 27:8'>1Ch 27:8</a>. "Izrahite" there could be "the Zarhite" a man descended from Zerah the son of Judah. But he was from Harod (<a href='B:100 23:25'>2Sa 23:25</a>), near mount Gilboa in the north. Perhaps he was given this name because he had done something valiant for Saul in the last fateful battle he fought in that area against the Philistines.</p>


text:
<p>Helez the Paltite, Ira the son of Ikkesh the Tekoite- </p><p>He is called a man of Ephraim in <a href='B:130 27:10'>1Ch 27:10</a>. But Beth-Palet [he was a "Paltite", <a href='B:100 23:26'>2Sa 23:26</a>] was a town in the tribe of Judah. We get the impression that many of these men were living outside the territory of their native tribes. That could have been for various reasons, but perhaps we are to conclude that the men who supported David were [as with us and our loyalty to Jesus] those who had had non standard personal lives which left them isolated from their home areas.</p>


text:
<p>Abiezer the Anathothite- </p><p>A priestly town in Benjamin. Perhaps he too was a priest; see on <a href='B:100 23:20'>2Sa 23:20</a>.</p><p>Mebunnai the Hushathite- </p><p>Sibbechai of <a href='B:100 21:18'>2Sa 21:18</a>. He was a descendant of Zerah of Judah (see also on :25) (<a href='B:130 4:4'>1Ch 4:4</a>; <a href='B:130 27:11'>1Ch 27:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Zalmon the Ahohite- </p><p>Called Ilai in <a href='B:130 11:29'>1Ch 11:29</a>. There is only one Hebrew letter different. This would be an example of slight errors in copying which are found in the Hebrew text, although overall it is Divinely inspired.</p><p>Maharai the Netophathite- </p><p>This was near Jerusalem and the Levitical singers lived there after the exile (<a href='B:150 2:22'>Ezr 2:22</a>; <a href='B:160 11:28'>Neh 11:28</a>); so he too may have been a Levite living in Judah. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p>Heleb the son of Baanah the Netophathite- </p><p>See on :28.</p><p>Ittai the son of Ribai of Gibeah of the children of Benjamin- </p><p>He was from Saul's birthplace, and so would have rejected Saul for David, although David was not from his tribe. He did what was counter instinctive and countercultural, as all David's followers did. And as do the followers of his greater Son.</p>


text:
<p>Benaiah a Pirathonite, Hiddai of the brooks of Gaash- </p><p>Pirathon was in Ephraim (<a href='B:70 12:15'>Jdg 12:15</a>), and there was always antipathy between Judah and Ephraim. So as noted on :29, here again was a man who stepped out from his surrounding cultural expectations in loyalty to David.</p>


text:
<p>Abialbon the Arbathite- </p><p>Beth Arabah was a small settlement right out in the desert (<a href='B:60 15:61'>Jos 15:61</a>; <a href='B:60 18:22'>Jos 18:22</a>), therefore also called Arabah (<a href='B:60 18:18'>Jos 18:18</a>). From such a poor and obscure place there arose a man who was attracted to David's cause (<a href='B:100 23:31'>2Sa 23:31</a>), just as the Lord calls all manner of unusual people to Himself today.</p><p>Azmaveth the Barhumite- </p><p>Coming from Bahurim, he would have been aware of David's shameful behaviour there (see on <a href='B:100 3:16'>2Sa 3:16</a>) and yet he still followed David. He would have seen David's actions to Michael and Paltiel as out of character with David generally, and didn't allow his loyalty to be fazed by them.</p>


text:
<p>Eliahba the Shaalbonite, the sons of Jashen, Jonathan- </p><p>Eliahba was from Shaalabbin in Dan in the far north, very far from David's origins (<a href='B:100 23:32'>2Sa 23:32</a>; <a href='B:60 19:42'>Jos 19:42</a>). But somehow he encountered David, and loyally followed him. We marvel at the extent of those who followed David; they were from all over Israel. In those days of limited communication, we wonder how he came to know David well enough to give his life to his cause. But it is the same marvel as we reflect how people are called to the Lord Jesus today.</p>


text:
<p>Shammah the Hararite, Ahiam the son of Sharar the Ararite-</p><p>To reconcile this with the record in Chronicles, we may need to read Shammah as one of the sons of Jonathan of the preceding verse. We could then read this verse along with the last part of :32 as "Jonathan the son of Shammah, the son of Agee the Hararite."</p>


text:
<p>Eliphelet the son of Ahasbai, the son of the Maacathite- </p><p>Beth-Maachah was a town in Naphtali (<a href='B:100 20:14'>2Sa 20:14</a>), confirming the impression that David's closest supporters were not just local family friends, but men providentially drawn to him from all over Israel.</p><p>Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite- </p><p>Eliam was the father of Bathsheba, making Ahithophel her grandfather. We can more readily understand why he turned against David after his shameful behaviour with his granddaughter.</p>


text:
<p>Hezro the Carmelite, Paarai the Arbite- </p><p>Arab is in Judah whereas Carmel is in northern Israel. The juxtaposition of the two confirms the impression that David's supporters were from all over Israel. The way they were all united together around this man from Bethlehem is amazing, and points forward to the gathering of the disparate followers of the Lord Jesus around Him today.</p>


text:
<p>Igal the son of Nathan of Zobah, Bani the Gadite- </p><p>Chronicles has "Joel the brother of Nathan" but Igal and Joel in Hebrew are very similar. Igal would have been a Syrian from Zobah, perhaps one of the soldiers who fought against David (<a href='B:100 10:6'>2Sa 10:6</a>) and then converted to him. The Gittites who followed David were likewise Philistines from Gath who were once his enemies but converted to his God, and devoted themselves zealously to Him. This is an incredible witness to the power of Yahweh to convert, because such willing defections of individuals to the people and God of their enemies, and being zealously committed to Him, was unheard of in their society. See on :37.</p>


text:
<p>Zelek the Ammonite, Naharai the Beerothite, armour bearers to Joab the son of Zeruiah- </p><p>As noted on :36, the one time enemies of David such as Zelek the Ammonite became his most committed followers. Or perhaps his conversion was a result of the one time friendship between David and Ammon, and the support for David by Shobi (<a href='B:100 17:27'>2Sa 17:27</a>). Likewise Naharai was from Beeroth, which although counted to Benjamin (<a href='B:100 4:2'>2Sa 4:2</a>) was inhabited by Gentile Gibeonites, whom Saul had persecuted.</p>


text:
<p>Ira the Ithrite, Gareb the Ithrite- </p><p>The faithful Ithrites (<a href='B:100 23:38'>2Sa 23:38</a>) were from Kirjath Jearim (<a href='B:130 2:53'>1Ch 2:53</a>), perhaps converted to a more spiritual outlook by the long presence of the ark amongst them (<a href='B:90 7:2'>1Sa 7:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Uriah the Hittite: thirty-seven in all- </p><p>As noted on :20, the number "thirty" need not be read literally, Uriah is mentioned last to draw attention to him. His father in law was also one of the mighty men (:34), so the shame of what David did was felt very strongly in the ranks of his closest followers.</p>


text:
<p>Again- </p><p>I will suggest on :25 that there are similarities with the cursing of the land at the time of <a href='B:100 21:14'>2Sa 21:14</a>. So "again" may mean that this final cameo of Davidic history is another example as that of 2 Samuel 21, of where Yahweh's anger was against the land of Israel and He was then "intreated for the land" by repentance and sacrifice.</p><p>The anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel- </p><p>This common phrase is typically used of God's anger with Israel for idolatry, which was clearly a problem amongst them even at David's time. He didn't want to punish them. The census gave them the opportunity to pay a half shekel each for "atonement money" (<a href='B:20 30:12-15'>Exo 30:12-15</a>), lest they be struck with plague. It seems God worked through David's fear of an invasion or forthcoming battle with a 'satan'' / adversary, so that he took a census and the people had the chance to pay that atonement money in loyalty to Yahweh. But they didn't- and so they were struck with plague. David's feeling of guilt over the matter is understandable, but I will argue on :10 that it was more a case of false guilt.</p><p>And He moved David against them saying, Go, number Israel and Judah- </p><p>This is an example of God's Spirit moving people to do things, operating on their heart through circumstances- in this case, the 'satan' of some opposition which provoked David to take a census of his fighters.</p><p>The books of Samuel and Chronicles are parallel accounts of the same incidents, as the four gospels are records of the same events but using different language. <a href='B:100 24:1'>2Sa 24:1</a> records: “Yahweh::. moved David against Israel” in order to make him take a census of Israel. The parallel account in <a href='B:130 21:1'>1Ch 21:1</a> says that “Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David” to take the census. In one passage God does the ‘moving’, in the other Satan does it. The only conclusion is that God acted as or through a ‘Satan’ or adversary to David. He did the same to Job by bringing trials into his life, so that Job said about God: “With the strength of Your hand You oppose me” (<a href='B:220 30:21'>Job 30:21</a>); ‘You are acting as a Satan against me’, was what Job was basically saying. Or again, speaking of God: “I must appeal for mercy to my accuser (Satan)” (<a href='B:220 9:15'>Job 9:15</a> NRSV). The idea is sometimes used to describe our greatest adversary, i:e. our own sin, and at times for whole systems or empires which stand opposed to the people of God and personify sinfulness and evil. But it seems obvious that it is a bizarre approach to Bible reading to insist that whenever we meet these words 'Satan' and 'Devil', we are to understand them as references to a personal, supernatural being.</p><p>Perhaps the satan which moved David to number Israel was a Satan-Angel, as in the case of the righteous Angel involved with Balaam, acting as a satan / adversary, and with Job. The parallel with Balaam is that God sent a Satan-Angel against him because His anger was kindled against Balaam (<a href='B:40 22:22'>Num 22:22</a>, the same phrase as in :1). The Angel may have acted directly on David's heart to bring about a trial for both David and Israel. This is one of the many indications that the numbering of the people was not David's sin. See on :10. But the adversaries to David and Israel were at that point the surrounding nations. Even if an Angel was involved, the immediate 'satan' would have been an approaching enemy army; and David wanted to know how many men he had to fight off that invasion. Or it could have been an extension of the gathering of troops made at the time of <a href='B:100 20:4'>2Sa 20:4</a>, when David wanted to know how many soldiers he could really count on after Absalom's rebellion. See on :2.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Joab the captain of the army, who was with him, Now go back and forth through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, and number the people, that I may know the sum of the people- </p><p>The list of David's mighty men just given in 2 Samuel 23 included men literally from Dan to Beersheba. I suggested on :1 that the occasion of this census may have been when David wanted to know how many soldiers he could really count on after Absalom's rebellion. It's possible that although out of chronological sequence, the catalogue of mighty men in 2 Samuel 23 was the result of this census. This would explain Joab's comment in <a href='B:130 21:3'>1Ch 21:3</a> "Are they not all my Lord's servants?", as if to say 'Loyalty to you is not in question, taking a census won't prove loyalty to you'.</p>


text:
<p>Joab said to the king, Now may Yahweh your God add to the people, however many they may be, one hundred times- </p><p>Joab is alluding to <a href='B:50 1:11'>Deu 1:11</a>. For all his unspirituality, he did also have a spiritual side. He was not unaware of the scriptures, and seemed to want to do what was genuinely best for Israel. Men with deeply mixed motives is quite a theme of the Bible's historical records; and that is because they are true to life. For that is how people are.</p><p>And may the eyes of my lord the king see it. But why does my lord the king delight in this thing?- </p><p>The numbering of Israel was another weak moment for David (note <a href='B:100 24:3-4'>2Sa 24:3-4</a>; <a href='B:100 24:10'>2Sa 24:10</a>), leading to suffering for others. Yet this same David had written that “there is no king saved by the multitude of an host” (<a href='B:230 33:16'>Psa 33:16</a>). Perhaps this was an expression of repentance after this incident; or, if written before it, an example of David being over confident of his faith. “Why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?” (<a href='B:130 21:3'>1Ch 21:3</a>) suggests Joab suspected the people would not pay the half shekel required when a census was taken, and so would be led into sin. Although it was their fault, the situation was provoked by God Himself provoking David to take the census, because His anger was kindled against Israel (:1). This would then be an example of God confirming a sinful people in the way they wished to go.</p>


text:
<p>Notwithstanding, the king’s word prevailed against Joab, and against the captains of the army. Joab and the captains of the army went out from the presence of the king, to number the people of Israel- </p><p>The army captains likewise agreed with Joab that the census was not a good idea. This incident is at a time when David's word prevails against Joab and the generals, and we get the impression that this would not have happened after his sin with Bathsheba, after which Joab speaks and acts towards David in a belligerent manner. So the incident may be not in chronological order; indeed none of the cameos of Davidic history at the end of 2 Samuel are in chronological order.</p>


text:
<p>They passed over the Jordan, and encamped in Aroer, on the right side of the city that is in the middle of the valley of Gad, and to Jazer- </p><p>The list of cities given in this section is detailed, and if they just describe the itinerary and maximum extent of the route taken by the generals in making the census, we wonder why such detail is given. I suggest that the areas named were those where they found significant numbers of men loyal to David and willing to fight for him. For that was the purpose of the census. Jazer was a priestly city (<a href='B:60 21:39'>Jos 21:39</a>). Yet it was on the very borders of Hebrew territory, suggesting that Israel gave the Levites the remotest and very poorest of their cities, rather than the best. Yet we also see the theme discussed on <a href='B:100 23:20'>2Sa 23:20</a> continued- that the Levites, although exempted from military service by the Law (<a href='B:40 1:47'>Num 1:47</a>), were often to be found amongst David's most loyal soldiers.</p>


text:
<p>then they came to Gilead, and to the land of Tahtim Hodshi; and they came to Dan Jaan, and around to Sidon- </p><p>"Tahtim Hodshi" is unknown, so we can go with LXX "to the land of the Hittites to Kedesh". Sidon likewise was never really inhabited by the Hebrews (<a href='B:70 1:31'>Jdg 1:31</a>) but rather by the Phoenicians, who are therefore called the Zidonians. But the idea may be that in these Gentile areas, David had soldiers he could count on. Because it is a theme of the list of commanders in 2 Samuel 23 that David's most loyal supporters were often Gentiles or from distant, isolated areas. This is often the case with the Lord's supporters in this life.</p>


text:
<p>and came to the stronghold of Tyre, and to all the cities of the Hivites, and of the Canaanites; and they went out to the south of Judah, at Beersheba- </p><p>This could be simply defining the borders of the areas covered. But there is also the possibility that just as the mighty men of David were from various odd places, there were pockets of loyalty to David in various unusual places such as the city of Tyre- which was never generally inhabited by the Israelites. And likewise, the list of the mighty men in 2 Samuel 23 include Gentiles who had previously been David's enemies. And so it is possible that amongst the Canaanites, there were groups of men loyal to David who could be counted as his loyal soldiers.</p>


text:
<p>So when they had gone back and forth through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days- </p><p>The maximum human gestation period may have been thus understood at the time. We can understand the concern of Joab and the generals; they were going to be scattered throughout Israel and this would leave the nation very weak and open to attack. We see the contradiction, the fear was of some 'Satan', some external group of attackers, and yet by the military leadership scattering amongst Israel to take the census, they were left even weaker before the threat. We wonder at what stage David was ever able to allow his army generals nine months to take a census. We get the impression that he was under constant military threat, especially after the sin with Bathsheba. So this incident may have occurred well before that.</p>


text:
<p>Joab delivered the sum of the numbering of the people to the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men who drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men-</p><p>According to <a href='B:130 21:5'>1Ch 21:5</a>, there were 1,100,000 “men that drew sword” in Israel. According to <a href='B:100 24:9'>2Sa 24:9</a>, there were 800,000 “valiant men” in Israel, according to the same census. One way to reconcile this is to focus on this distinction between "valiant men" and standard soldiers. The Samuel record is perceiving that there was a higher level of commitment amongst some who were numbered. There were the enthusiasts, and those who merely could draw a sword. They were all living on different levels.</p><p>The numbers are also difficult because the Hebrew word for "thousand" need not mean a literal 1,000, but it is at time used to refer to a military subdivision. And it can have different definitions in some areas and at some times and by some writers. That is likely the reason for the difference between the numbers presented in Samuel and Chronicles, rather than textual corruption. If taken literally, the numbers are unrealistic; nearly 2 million soldiers (according to Chronicles) in the combined kingdom would imply a huge total population. Even if there were six million population in the territory they then inhabited (about 11,000 square miles), this would give an average population density of 600 / square mile. It seems really doubtful that the country could have supported this.</p><p>The Levites were not numbered as they were exempt from military service (<a href='B:40 1:47'>Num 1:47</a>), indeed Joab didn't number Benjamin or Levi (<a href='B:130 21:6'>1Ch 21:6</a>) which would further heighten the total population.</p><p>"Drew the sword" is the same phrase used in <a href='B:130 21:16'>1Ch 21:16</a> of how the destroying Angel had a drawn sword in his hand. The idea seems to be that God's Angelic power was more than a match for thousands of Israelites with their drawn swords. This would be an argument in favour of the idea that David did indeed sin at this time by trusting in his own swords, although the greater sin appears to have been with the people; see on :10.</p>


text:
<p>David’s heart struck him after that he had numbered the people- </p><p>This phrase is used three times of David; his heart struck him concerning cutting off Saul's skirt (<a href='B:90 24:5'>1Sa 24:5</a> - false guilt), about Bathsheba (<a href='B:230 102:4'>Psa 102:4</a> - true guilt) and now about numbering the people (<a href='B:100 24:10'>2Sa 24:10</a>), which I suggest was a mixture of true and false guilt.</p><p>David said to Yahweh, I have sinned greatly in that which I have done-</p><p>The response is similar to that to the sin with Bathsheba, again before a prophet. Balaam also said the same words (<a href='B:40 22:34'>Num 22:34</a>), and again we find an Angel 'standing'. Although David did take false guilt, it seems there was some element of real failure.</p><p>But now, Yahweh, put away, I beg you, the iniquity of Your servant; for I have done very foolishly- </p><p>The allusion is to the foolishness of Saul (<a href='B:90 13:13'>1Sa 13:13</a>). He feels he is no better than Saul for his trust in human strength; see on :14. <a href='B:130 21:6-7'>1Ch 21:6-7</a> says that David's "word" of command of the census was "abominable" to Joab, and also God was "displeased" with "this thing", the same Hebrew translated "word". Unless this refers to His displeasure with Joab for despising David's word. Yahweh had likewise been "displeased" with David in the matter of Uriah (<a href='B:100 11:27'>2Sa 11:27</a> s:w:). But although David's lack of faith wasn't good, it seems to me on balance that he was largely taking false guilt. Perhaps we are to read that God was displeased with Israel's lack of response to the word of command about the census, seeing Israel didn't pay the half shekel required at the time. Indeed David's trust in human numbers would not have been pleasing to God, it was a slip backwards. But we wonder whether he took false guilt in this matter. For it was allowable to take a census of Israel, although there was to be a half shekel tax paid at the time, which if not paid would result in plague (<a href='B:20 30:12-15'>Exo 30:12-15</a>). Joab perhaps guessed that those numbered would not pay this and therefore the census would lead Israel into sin. This is why God chose the punishment of plague; not upon David, but upon Israel. Yet David perhaps realized all that, but knew that his lack of faith in wanting a census, his lack of consideration for the weakness of others, would lead them into sin and punishment. And therefore he felt guilty. It could be argued that his sacrifice atoned for himself and for the people, but they still suffered for not having paid the required "atonement money". But then we must balance against this the comment that "David had done that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, and didn’t turn aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite" (<a href='B:110 15:5'>1Ki 15:5</a>). No mention is made of the matter of the census. There is true guilt, the guilt we should take for our actual sins; and false guilt, the guilt put on us by others and the malfunctioning of the human conscience. In this matter of David's guilt about the census, we may have an example of a man taking false guilt. The fact Israel and not David were punished with plague would rather confirm this. It may be impossible for us to sort out within us what is true guilt or false guilt, at least not be any intellectual process. But we can rest assured that all our guilt, of whatever kind, is met in the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus, the ultimate guilt offering.</p>


text:
<p>When David rose up in the morning, the word of Yahweh came to the prophet Gad, David’s seer, saying- </p><p>Gad was to write his record of these things (<a href='B:130 29:29'>1Ch 29:29</a>), so maybe his record has been incorporated here into 2 Samuel.</p>


text:
<p>Go and speak to David, ‘Thus says Yahweh, I offer you three things. Choose one of them, that I may do it to you’- </p><p>When given a choice, Ahaz declined to choose, and was condemned for it (<a href='B:290 7:11'>Isa 7:11</a>). David declines to choose, because he preferred to fall into God's hands of grace than decide himself; and is not condemned. The same actions can be committed with different motives, and therefore only God can judge. But the invitation to "choose one of them" was for David's education, to elicit his reflection as to whether it was appropriate that he were punished, or the people; or he be punished along with the people. God's choice of plague was in accordance with the teaching of <a href='B:20 30:12-15'>Exo 30:12-15</a>, that if Israel didn't pay the atonement money at the time of a census, they would be punished with plague.</p>


text:
<p>So Gad came to David, and told him, and said to him, Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land?- </p><p>LXX "three years", in line with <a href='B:130 21:12'>1Ch 21:12</a>. As king, this would not have hurt David personally. He was asked to consider whether this was appropriate.</p><p>Or will you flee three months before your foes while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days of plague in your land? Now answer, and consider what answer I shall return to Him who sent me-</p><p>Famine, war and plague are the three Divine judgments listed in <a href='B:330 14:21'>Eze 14:21</a> as coming upon Jerusalem at the time of the exile. David had already experienced war and famine (because of the Gibeonites, 2 Samuel 21). Now he was to experience plague. The lesson to the exiles was that these judgments had indeed come because of sin, but the experience of them could be cut short by intense prayer and repentance after the pattern of David. For Yahweh "relented" of the three days plague because of David's prayer and sacrifice. See on :15. We see here the open ended nature of His purpose.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Gad, I am in distress- </p><p>The phrase "sore distressed" in <a href='B:130 21:13'>1Ch 21:13</a> is that used of Saul's great distress on the night of his final condemnation (<a href='B:90 28:15'>1Sa 28:15</a>). David felt he had been foolish as Saul had been (<a href='B:100 24:10'>2Sa 24:10</a> = <a href='B:90 13:13'>1Sa 13:13</a>). David had replaced Saul because of Saul's apostacy, but he was being made to realize through this experience (even if it was all false guilt), that he too was a sinner and saved by his acceptance of grace, and not because he was intrinsically better than Saul.</p><p>Let us fall now into the hand of Yahweh; for His mercies are great. Let me not fall into the hand of man-&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>David appealed to God's mercy in the matter of Bathsheba (<a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a>). Perhaps he learned from that, and chose to throw himself upon that same mercy. But the exact timing of this incident isn't clear. Perhaps it was because of learning about God's grace through this incident that he later learned to throw himself upon God's great mercy when he sinned with Bathsheba and against Uriah. David’s experience of God’s grace stayed with him when he faced up to the results of his errors in the future. From experience, he can ask to fall into the Lord’s hand rather than man’s, because “His mercies are great” (<a href='B:100 24:14'>2Sa 24:14</a>)- using the same two Hebrew words he had used when Nathan came to him in <a href='B:230 51:1'>Psa 51:1</a>: “Have mercy upon me… according unto the multitude [Heb. ‘greatness’] of thy tender mercies”. And so the experience of God’s gracious mercy over one sin fortifies us to believe in His grace when, sadly, we fall again; although, in passing, I think that in 2 Samuel 24, David himself didn’t really do so much wrong. Yet he perceived himself to have sinned, so the point is still established.</p><p>Truly David is our example. David was very much involved in Israel his people. He saw himself as their representative. "The God of my rock is my shield::. he is a shield to all them that trust in him" (<a href='B:100 22:3'>2Sa 22:3</a>; <a href='B:100 22:31'>2Sa 22:31</a>). “I am in a great strait; let us fall now into the hand of the Lord” (<a href='B:100 24:14'>2Sa 24:14</a>) reflects this. When he sung Psalms, he invited them to come and sing along with him (<a href='B:230 105:2'>Psa 105:2</a>; <a href='B:230 107:22'>Psa 107:22</a>; <a href='B:230 111:1'>Psa 111:1</a>). And many of these Psalms of praise seem to have their origin in his experience of forgiveness regarding Bathsheba. The Lord based His parables of the lost sheep and the man finding the treasure of the Gospel in a field on the statements of David (<a href='B:230 119:162'>Psa 119:162</a>; <a href='B:230 119:176'>Psa 119:176</a>), as if He saw David as representative of all those who would truly come to Him. "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven" (<a href='B:230 32:1'>Psa 32:1</a>), David wrote, after experiencing God's mercy in the matter of Bathsheba. But Paul sees this verse as David describing "the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works" (<a href='B:520 4:6'>Rom 4:6</a>). Each of us are in need of a like justification; therefore we find ourselves in David's position.</p><p>God is kinder than men. It's better to be punished by Him than by men. This puts paid to the Catholic conception of God as a merciless torturer of wicked men. Clearly the doctrine of eternal torments was invented by men, not God.</p>


text:
<p>So Yahweh sent a plague on Israel from the morning even to the appointed time; and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men- </p><p>"The appointed time" could refer to the time of the evening sacrifice, which David was to offer on Araunah's property and not at the sanctuary. Or the idea may be that there was an "appointed time" of suffering but it was not defined, because it was open ended- the terminus depended upon the intensity of David's prayers and sacrifice. The three day period of plague (:13) was changed because "Yahweh relented" (:16)- because of David's prayer shortening the stipulated time period. This is why there can be no prescriptive chronology of events in the last days, nor date set for the Lord's return. The appointed time is variable, depending upon factors such as human prayer, repentance and taking the Gospel to all the world.</p><p>LXX "So David chose for himself the mortality: and they were the days of wheat-harvest; and the Lord sent a pestilence upon Israel from morning till noon, and the plague began among the people"</p>


text:
<p>When the angel stretched out his hand towards Jerusalem to destroy it- </p><p><a href='B:130 21:16'>1Ch 21:16</a> says that the Angel had a "drawn sword" in hand, the same words used of the Angel before Balaam (<a href='B:40 22:23'>Num 22:23</a>; <a href='B:40 22:31'>Num 22:31</a>). His donkey "turned aside", using the same word for "stretched out" here. The sin of Balaam was connected with idolatry, and I suggested on :1 that this was the reason for God's anger being kindled against Israel. The sin of Balaam has connections with that of Israel, but not particularly with that of David. Again we get the impression the judgments were for the sake of the sins of the people, the anger of Yahweh was with them, rather than with David for wanting to take a census.</p><p>Yahweh relented of the disaster, and said to the angel who destroyed the people, It is enough. Now stay your hand. The angel of Yahweh was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite- </p><p>This could imply that Araunah's area was about to be destroyed. But it seems we have here an example of the summary being made, and then we read how that came about. Perhaps David was in Jerusalem, maybe praying at the sanctuary, and saw the Angel standing over the nearby hill of Jebus or Moriah. His prayer and obedient, urgent sacrifice then stopped the Angel right there. The Angel "stood" by the threshing floor (<a href='B:130 21:15'>1Ch 21:15</a>), as if the Angel's path of destruction was stopped right there by the sacrifice offered in that place.</p><p>The encouragement for the later generation of Jews was that the evil planned upon Jerusalem could be relented from; if there was genuine repentance. God's hand here was "stayed", but the encouragement was that God would not "stay" His hand in His program of redemption; the same word is often translated "fail" in the assurance that God will not fail His people in ultimately restoring them.</p><p>This “destroying Angel” (<a href='B:130 21:15'>1Ch 21:15</a> RV) is surely “the destroyer” who operated in the wilderness. We see here one Angel having the ability to formulate a purpose and another blindly carrying it out until told not to- a scenario which we&nbsp; see repeated elsewhere (e. g. at the Passover and in Ezekiel 9). It was only David's prayer which lead to “the destroyer” ceasing. Notice how the Angel repented and then encouraged David to offer a sacrifice so the Angel would be "intreated for the land" (:19,25). Similarly, the Angel repented of punishing Israel and wanted to restore them, and to enable this to happen He encouraged the people through Ezra to be spiritual. Thus Angelic repentance has to be confirmed by human action.</p>


text:
<p>David had spoken to Yahweh when he saw the angel who struck the people, and had said- </p><p><a href='B:130 21:17'>1Ch 21:17</a> adds “David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the Lord standing between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. And David and the elders, who were clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces”.</p><p>Behold, I have sinned, and I have done perversely; but these sheep, what have they done? Please let Your hand be against me, and against my father’s house- </p><p>This was effectively asking God to abrogate the promises about his family of 2 Samuel 7.</p><p>Thanks to David building an altar at his own expense and asking God to kill him and his family, God stopped the plague upon Israel (<a href='B:100 24:16-17'>2Sa 24:16-17</a> - the stretched out hand of God in destruction was what David asked to be upon him and his family). Israel were suffering the effect of their own sin, in not paying the temple tax (<a href='B:20 30:11-16'>Exo 30:11-16</a>); but&nbsp; in the spirit of Christ, David was willing to die for them. And his dominant desire was counted as if it had been done, and thanks to his self-sacrificial spirit, the people were saved when they personally were unworthy. The wrath of God can be turned away by the actions of those He is angry with (<a href='B:40 25:4'>Num 25:4</a>; <a href='B:50 13:15-17'>Deu 13:15-17</a>; <a href='B:150 10:14'>Ezr 10:14</a>; <a href='B:390 3:7'>Jon 3:7</a>; <a href='B:390 3:10'>Jon 3:10</a>; <a href='B:140 12:7'>2Ch 12:7</a>; <a href='B:300 4:4'>Jer 4:4</a>; <a href='B:300 21:12'>Jer 21:12</a>). And yet that wrath can also be turned away by the prayers of a third party (<a href='B:230 106:23'>Psa 106:23</a>; <a href='B:300 18:20'>Jer 18:20</a>; <a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>). This means that in some cases, our prayers for others can be counted as if they have repented. We can gain our brother for God’s Kingdom (<a href='B:470 18:15'>Mat 18:15</a>), as Noah saved his own house by his faithful preparation (<a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a>). Through our personal dying to the flesh, the life of Christ is manifest not only in us, but is made available to others: “Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us, but life in you” (<a href='B:540 4:10-12'>2Co 4:10-12</a>). The life that is even now made manifest in us is also made available to work in others because death to the flesh has worked in us personally.</p>


text:
<p>Gad came that day to David- </p><p>At the direction of the Angel (<a href='B:130 21:18'>1Ch 21:18</a>).</p><p>And said to him, Go up, build an altar to Yahweh on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite- </p><p><a href='B:140 3:1'>2Ch 3:1</a> implies David assumed that the spot where the Angel appeared to him in <a href='B:100 24:17-18'>2Sa 24:17-18</a> was where he should build the temple. 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>


text:
<p>David went up according to the saying of Gad, as Yahweh commanded- </p><p><a href='B:130 21:16'>1Ch 21:16</a> says that David went along with the elders of Israel, clothed in sackcloth. David is always presented as totally obedient to the prophets in his life (Samuel, Nathan and Gad), unlike Saul who was consistently disobedient to God's word through Samuel.</p>


text:
<p>Araunah looked out- </p><p>From the place in the threshing area where he was threshing wheat, where he and his four sons had hidden from the presence of the Angel (<a href='B:130 21:20'>1Ch 21:20</a>). The records in Chronicles and Samuel perfectly fit with each other, although clearly focusing upon different elements of the scene; just like the gospel records.</p><p>And saw the king and his servants coming on towards him. Then Araunah went out, and bowed himself before the king with his face to the ground- </p><p>Chronicles has "saw the Angel". <a href='B:100 24:20'>2Sa 24:20</a> "saw the king". This may reflect the confusion between malak ["Angel"] and melek ["king"], especially as ancient Hebrew didn't add the vowel points and the consonants of the two words are the same, m-l-k. Or it could be that Araunah saw David and also at the same time saw the Angel behind him in some form.</p>


text:
<p>Araunah said, Why has my lord the king come to his servant? David said, To buy your threshing floor, to build an altar to Yahweh- </p><p>The urgent thing required was sacrifice to God represented by the Angel hovering over the hill where both men were standing, about to slay the people of Jerusalem. We wonder why David firstly asks to buy the threshing floor, as this was a long process which Araunah may have needed to think carefully about as it was his home. Maybe this is a hint that Araunah was not a worshipper of Yahweh and therefore the land must be bought before an offering to another God could be made upon it. There is more evidence for that on :23. Or it may be that David wanted to offer the most genuine sacrifice, which was thought to be offered upon one's own property. He offered to buy the threshing floor "for the full price" (<a href='B:130 21:22'>1Ch 21:22</a>), the same phrase used of Abraham's purchase of property from the Canaanites in <a href='B:10 23:9'>Gen 23:9</a>. This confirms the impression that Araunah was a Canaanite and not an Israelite.</p><p>That the plague may be stopped from afflicting the people- </p><p>This is the very phrase of <a href='B:40 16:48'>Num 16:48</a>; <a href='B:40 16:50'>Num 16:50</a> and <a href='B:40 25:8'>Num 25:8</a>; <a href='B:230 106:30'>Psa 106:30</a>, where the people of Israel suffered from plague because of their idolatry, and Aaron stopped it, standing between the living and the dead. David was in an identical position to Aaron, again acting as the High Priest. And again we have evidence that the essential sin being punished was not David's taking of a census, but Israel's sin (see on :1).</p>


text:
<p>Araunah said to David, Let my lord the king take and offer up what seems good to him. Behold, the cattle for the burnt offering, and the threshing instruments and the yokes of the oxen for the wood- </p><p>Chronicles adds “and the wheat for the meat offering”. LXX "and the wheels and furniture of the oxen for wood". "The threshing instruments" may have referred to quite a major and expensive piece of equipment. But Araunah totally senses the urgency of the situation and is willing to offer even this as wood.</p>


text:
<p>all this, my king, does Araunah give to the king. Araunah said to the king, May Yahweh your God accept you- </p><p>AV "All these things did Araunah, as a king, give unto the king". This could mean that Araunah ['the scarlet one', maybe hinting at royalty] was king of Jebus at the time; or had once been. The way Araunah speaks of "Yahweh your God", whereas David speaks of "Yahweh my God" (:24) could support the idea that he was a Gentile. But he was genuinely willing to give freely toward the offering of sacrifice to Yahweh. There are three different spellings of Araunah's name in the record, and this might suggest his name was unusual and a Gentile name, which could be legitimately be transcribed in different ways in Hebrew. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Araunah, No; but I will most certainly buy it from you for a price. I will not offer burnt offerings to Yahweh my God which cost me nothing. So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver- </p><p>I have suggested that the historical records were in places edited and made relevant for the exiles; and given their mean attitude to offerings in <a href='B:460 1:10'>Mal 1:10</a>; <a href='B:460 1:13-14'>Mal 1:13-14</a>, David's example and principle would have been pertinent. And this is an abiding principle; sacrifice is to be costly, we are to be left "minus", rather than being without cost to us.</p><p><a href='B:130 21:25'>1Ch 21:25</a> speaks of 600 shekels for "the place", whilst <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a> mentions 50 shekels for the threshing floor and oxen. The entire area was later bought, in order to build the temple on that site (<a href='B:130 22:1'>1Ch 22:1</a>; <a href='B:140 3:1'>2Ch 3:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>David built an altar to Yahweh there, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. So Yahweh heard the prayer for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel- </p><p>LXX "And the Lord hearkened to the land", as if His pity was stirred by the tragedy seen there. The idea is the same as in <a href='B:100 21:14'>2Sa 21:14</a>, that the sin had affected the land, but sacrifice meant that the land's suffering stopped once it had been repented of and atoned for. <a href='B:130 21:26'>1Ch 21:26</a> adds that God "answered him from the sky by fire on the altar of burnt offering". This is just the language of God justifying Himself over Baal at the time of Elijah. I have suggested throughout that the plague was essentially punishment for Israel's idolatry; see on :1. The Angel put the sword back into its sheath (<a href='B:130 21:27'>1Ch 21:27</a>) at Yahweh's command. We have here a visual representation of God's sensitivity to human prayer and repentance. Burnt offerings always precede peace offerings (<a href='B:100 24:25'>2Sa 24:25</a>), because sacrifice is the principle upon which we can have peace with God. But David remained traumatized by the incident, fearing the sword he had seen (<a href='B:130 21:30'>1Ch 21:30</a>). This was a similar reaction by him to how he feared association with the ark for some period after the slaying of Uzzah (<a href='B:130 13:12-13'>1Ch 13:12-13</a>). The similarity in reaction is another indication that the record is true and the character portrayals absolutely consistent, as could only be true of a Divinely inspired record.</p><p>LXX adds "and Solomon made an addition to the altar afterwards, for it was little at first". The site was purchased for this; see on :24.</p>


text:
<e>1 Kings: New European Christadelphian Commentary</e><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Bo 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-72629-4</p><e>PREFACE</e><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>Now king David was old and advanced in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he couldn’t keep warm-</p><p>This is a legitimate translation but "keep warm" is a Hebrew term also used about procreation. There appeared to be some great desire that he should produce yet another child:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Therefore his servants said to him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin. Let her stand before the king, and cherish him; and let her lie on your chest, so that my lord the king may keep warm- </p><p>If indeed there were genuine health reasons for this (although see on :1), it seems morally questionable. Despite David's undoubted faith and spirituality, his life leaves many abiding questions about his basic ethics and those of his immediate circle:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>So they sought for a beautiful young lady throughout all the borders of Israel, and found Abishag the Shunammite, and brought her to the king- </p><p>"Abishag" is literally father / mother of the erring / astray. The language is so similar to <a href='B:190 2:2'>Est 2:2</a> that it indeed seems that a wife, of sorts, was being found for David. Some read "Shulamite", the word of <a href='B:260 6:13'>Son 6:13</a> for Solomon's lover, a female version of the name "Solomon". In this case we can see some kind of manipulation going on to try to ensure that David's final wife and possible child were within Solomon and Bathsheba's camp.</p>


text:
<p>The young lady was very beautiful; and she cherished the king, and ministered to him; but the king didn’t know her intimately-</p><p>This could be read as meaning that she failed to bring him to heat in a sexual sense (see on :1), and so the comment here is to the effect that the plan didn't work. Before David's repentance he appears to have suffered with some kind of serious disease soon after it: "My loins are filled with a loathsome (venereal?) disease: and there is no soundness in my flesh" (<a href='B:230 38:7'>Psa 38:7</a>). It is even possible that David became impotent as a result of this; for we get the impression that from this point onwards he took no other wives, he had no more children, and even the fail safe cure for hypothermia didn't seem to mean much to David (<a href='B:110 1:1-4'>1Ki 1:1-4</a>). Therefore "My lovers and my friends stand aloof from my sore" (<a href='B:230 38:11'>Psa 38:11</a>) must refer to some kind of venereal disease. The Hebrew word translated "lovers" definitely refers to carnal love rather than that of friendship. It may be that an intensive plural is being used here- in which case it means 'my one great lover', i:e. Bathsheba.</p>


text:
<p>Then Adonijah the son of Haggith exalted himself, saying, I will be king- </p><p>He was the oldest surviving son of David and therefore considered in line for the throne.</p><p>Then he prepared him chariots and horsemen, 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 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>&nbsp;<p>Absalom did the same (<a href='B:100 15:1'>2Sa 15:1</a>), and the similarities in the rebellions mean that David was intended to learn from them.</p>


text:
<p>His father had not displeased him at any time in saying, Why have you done so? And he was also a very handsome man; and he was born after Absalom- </p><p>We are immediately given the hint that he was of the same character and appearance of Absalom, and also similar to Saul (<a href='B:90 9:2'>1Sa 9:2</a>). Perhaps we are to understand that David had never disciplined him, unlike Solomon who in his Proverbs reflects upon David's discipline of him. Or maybe the idea is more specifically that David had never forbidden his clear pretensions to the throne, despite his stated desire for Solomon to succeed him.</p>


text:
<p>He conferred with Joab son of Zeruiah and with Abiathar the priest: they followed Adonijah and helped him- </p><p>That Joab David's cousin, should turn away from David after a lifetime of loyalty is hard to understand. But we sense a personality conflict between the two of them, and indeed it seems that originally Joab had supported Absalom's idea of seizing power, but then fell out with him. David held Joab as too hard a man, not understanding grace; whereas Joab held David to be far too soft, and increasingly lacking strong leadership skills in his old age. The support for Adonijah was perhaps more because of disillusion with David than because Adonijah personally had much to offer.</p><p>Abiathar's father and family had all been slain as a result of loyalty to David, and maybe decades later this remained as a source of bitterness to him. Or perhaps he was simply in a jealousy complex against Zadok, as it is unclear which of them was the high priest.</p>


text:
<p>But Zadok the priest, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, Nathan the prophet, Shimei, Rei and the mighty men who belonged to David, were not with Adonijah- </p><p>We see here the division between the two priests, Abiathar and Zadok, who had been so united in helping David survive Absalom's putsch. Perhaps there was jealousy between them because Abiathar was the priest in Jerusalem, whilst Zadok cared for the tabernacle at Gibeon, which was "the great high place" (<a href='B:130 16:39'>1Ch 16:39</a>; <a href='B:110 3:4'>1Ki 3:4</a>). "The mighty men" are those listed in 2 Samuel 23. If "Shimei" is the Shimei who cursed David, then we see his loyalty to David now; and that David should later order his murder is the more reprehensible.</p>


text:
<p>Adonijah killed sheep and cattle and fatlings by the stone of Zoheleth, which is beside En Rogel; and he called all his brothers, the king’s sons, and all the men of Judah, the king’s servants-</p><p>This is another similarity with Absalom's revolt (see on :5), who began his revolt with a religious festival. It 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>


text:
<p>but Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah, and the mighty men, and Solomon his brother, he didn’t call-</p><p>As with Absalom's rebellion, sympathizers were invited to a religious feast, and this was used to declare the new king.</p>


text:
<p>Then Nathan spoke to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon saying, Haven’t you heard that Adonijah the son of Haggith reigns, and David our lord doesn’t know it?- </p><p>"Adonijah" means 'Yah is lord', although clearly he wasn't a spiritual man. Nathan refers to David as their 'Lord'. Perhaps this is intended to be another example of how faithful women like Sarah called their husbands "lord" (<a href='B:670 3:6'>1Pe 3:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore come, please let me give you advice, that you may save your own life, and the life of your son Solomon-</p><p>Nathan is in fact giving Bathsheba his advice, knowing that the usurper would typically slay the family of his rivals. But Nathan frames his approach as asking for her advice. Bathsheba was it seems the favoured queen. We wonder why Abigail had fallen out of favour; although mortality for women being so low in those times, she may well have died by this stage.</p>


text:
<p>Go in to king David and tell him, ‘Didn’t you, my lord, king, swear to your handmaid saying, Assuredly Solomon your son shall reign after me, and he shall sit on my throne? Why then does Adonijah reign?’-</p><p>It was God who had sworn to David that his "son" would reign on his throne, and Nathan was the prophet through whom he had been told this. But David seems to have assumed that he had some choice to make in directing God's purpose, and had in turn sworn that Solomon should reign on his throne. The similarity of the wording suggests that he assumed Solomon was going to be the fulfilment of the promises to him of 2 Samuel 7. But this was in fact setting Solomon up for spiritual failure, as do many such parental assumptions. For those promises were conditional. And just as David refused to take full note of that, therefore neither did Solomon. He assumed he was the Messianic son of David and ignored the conditions, leading to his own spiritual shipwreck.</p>


text:
<p>Whilst you are talking there with the king, I also will come in after you, and confirm your words- </p><p>Literally, 'fulfil the words'. As discussed on :13, we sense that the words in view are those of the promises to David about his seed, which David had too quickly assumed must refer to Solomon. We note that Nathan too had too quickly assumed he knew God's will and word in <a href='B:100 7:3-5'>2Sa 7:3-5</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Bathsheba went in to the king into the room. The king was very old; and Abishag the Shunammite was ministering to the king- </p><p>We are naturally reminded of she had first come in to the king when they committed adultery. And now she enters his bedroom uninvited, and finds a far younger woman trying to sexually arouse him (see on :1). The whole situation is indeed tragic, and the outcome of not going God's way in moral matters.</p>


text:
<p>Bathsheba bowed, and showed respect to the king. The king said, What would you like?- </p><p>The single Hebrew word "what?" could suggest he was indeed so frail he could hardly speak beyond single words.</p>


text:
<p>She said to him, My lord, you swore by Yahweh your God to your handmaid, ‘Assuredly Solomon your son shall reign after me, and he shall sit on my throne’-</p><p>See on :13. She obediently repeats verbatim the words Nathan had put in her mouth. This continues the theme of David being manipulated by people and people being used as puppets by others.</p>


text:
<p>Now, look, Adonijah reigns; and you, my lord the king, don’t know it- </p><p>She calls David "lord" many times. We get the impression of deep and rightful respect for him, despite his failures. Perhaps this is intended to be another example of how faithful women like Sarah called their husbands "lord" (<a href='B:670 3:6'>1Pe 3:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He has killed cattle, fatlings and sheep in abundance, and has called all the sons of the king, and Abiathar the priest, and Joab the captain of the army; but he hasn’t called Solomon your servant- </p><p>David's heart must have slumped as he heard these words. He died with the pain of betrayal by Adonijah, Joab and Abiathar. It would be wrong to imagine him dying a happy man at peace. His life indeed had been full of such traumas ever since his sin of passion with Bathsheba. How bitterly he must have regretted it.</p>


text:
<p>You, my lord the king, the eyes of all Israel are on you, that you should tell them who shall sit on the throne of my lord the king after him- </p><p>David apparently had not made any public pronouncement about his intentions for Solomon, although he had done so privately to Bathsheba and Nathan, the prophet who had first given him the promises about his "son".</p>


text:
<p>Otherwise it will happen, when my lord the king shall sleep with his fathers, that I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders- </p><p>Heb. "sinners". The idea may be that Bathsheba's marriage would be declared void because of David's sin with her, and therefore Solomon pronounced an illegitimate son. David died with this reminder of that sin of passion which would have seemed so long ago, and, to the human mind, dealt with by the passage of time and the grief over Absalom.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, while she still talked with the king, Nathan the prophet came in-</p><p>Again, without invitation; David would have guessed this had all been set up. David makes no recorded response to Bathsheba's words, possibly because he was so frail (see on :16).</p>


text:
<p>They told the king, saying, Here is Nathan the prophet! When he had come in before the king, he bowed down before the king with his face to the ground- </p><p>Whilst this may have been mere formality, we do have the overall impression of deep respect towards David by his inner circle. They were mature enough to realize he had indeed been a man after God's own heart, despite major failings which they accepted as out of character with him; and they did not focus upon those failures, but upon his overall life and character. And therefore respected him still very deeply. This is a good pattern for us in our attitudes to others. See on :26.</p>


text:
<p>Nathan said, My lord, king, have you said, ‘Adonijah shall reign after me, and he shall sit on my throne?’- </p><p>Perhaps Adonijah was falsely claiming this, abusing his father's frail state. Or maybe this was a device by Nathan to get the king to mutter some response, to provoke him to mental awareness in his weak state; see on :16,22.</p>


text:
<p>For he is gone down this day, and has killed cattle and fatlings and sheep in abundance, and has called all the king’s sons, and the captains of the army, and Abiathar the priest. Even now they are eating and drinking before him and saying, ‘Long live king Adonijah!’-</p><p>To eat and drink before a king was a sign of support for him and his acceptance; and there is something of this in the meaning of the breaking of bread service.</p>


text:
<p>But he hasn’t called me, even me your servant, nor Zadok the priest, nor Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, nor your servant Solomon-</p><p>Nathan's respect of David comes out strongly- "me, even me your servant". See on :23.</p>


text:
<p>Is this thing done by my lord the king, and you haven’t shown to your servants who should sit on the throne of my lord the king after him?-</p><p>Again this may be a device by Nathan to provoke the frail minded king to speak forth. Or perhaps indeed he had not openly stated his desire for Solomon to be king. "After him" again alludes to the promises about the "son" which Nathan had given David, and it seems he is again implying that David is to state now who is going to fulfil them. Again, as discussed on :13, their conditional nature is being ignored by everyone. And it led Solomon to do the same.</p>


text:
<p>Then king David answered, Call to me Bathsheba. She came into the king’s presence, and stood before the king- </p><p>Perhaps Nathan left the room at this point (:32). "Call me Bathsheba" would have inevitably recalled to his mind how he had said those fateful words to his servants decades previously, and now he was still suffering the result of that sin.</p>


text:
<p>The king swore and said, As Yahweh lives, who has redeemed my soul out of all adversity-</p><p>Earlier, David in the Psalms had so often asked God to redeem him, e:g. in <a href='B:230 69:18'>Psa 69:18</a>: "Draw near to my soul, and redeem it. Ransom me because of my enemies". God had already forgiven David, ransoming and redeeming him. But he was left to suffer the consequences of those sins, and because of that, in crisis he starts to wonder whether he has indeed been forgiven. And we can do the same so easily. The consequence of sin is death, and we can squirm against this when we or others face it::. forgetting the wonder of the fact that we are indeed redeemed and ransomed from the power of the grave, although we must still take the consequences:&nbsp; At the very end of his life, David realized that he had in fact been redeemed (s:w. <a href='B:110 1:29'>1Ki 1:29</a>). He could give up his spirit to God in death, knowing that He was redeemed from the power of the grave (s:w. <a href='B:230 31:5'>Psa 31:5</a>; <a href='B:230 49:15'>Psa 49:15</a>). His sure hope in the resurrection of the body looked ahead to the attitude with which the Lord Jesus died.</p><p>These are the words of Jacob in <a href='B:10 48:16'>Gen 48:16</a> and also of David earlier, at <a href='B:100 4:9'>2Sa 4:9</a>. What Jacob only learnt at the end of his life, David learnt and applied during his life. And we should likewise not be experiential learners, but learn instead from Jacob:&nbsp;David stresses that Yahweh had redeemed him, and he had not needed to take vengeance himself. He repeats this in now; he was deeply aware of Yahweh's redemption of him by grace right to his last days.</p>


text:
<p>most certainly as I swore to you by Yahweh the God of Israel, saying, ‘Assuredly Solomon your son shall reign after me, and he shall sit on my throne in my place;’ most certainly so will I do this day- </p><p>As discussed on :13, he wrongly assumes that he can pronounce Solomon as the fulfilment of the promises made to him. For he speaks in the language of the promises of 2 Samuel 7; and this refusal to accept their conditionality, and fulfilment by grace rather than his pronouncement, was what led Solomon to spiritual disaster in the longer term.</p>


text:
<p>Then Bathsheba bowed with her face to the earth, and showed respect to the king, and said, Let my lord king David live forever!- </p><p>To say this to a man on his deathbed is perhaps consciously intended to show the meaningless nature of this common phrase.</p>


text:
<p>King David said, Call to me Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada. They came before the king- </p><p>Perhaps Nathan had left the bedroom when Bathsheba was summoned back (:28). Or perhaps this is yet another indication of the very weak mental state of David.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride on my own mule, and bring him down to Gihon-</p><p>The first mention of mules in the Bible is associated with Absalom's murder of Amnon his brother (<a href='B:100 13:29'>2Sa 13:29</a>). 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>Let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel. Blow the trumpet, and say, ‘Long live king Solomon!’-</p><p>This anointing ought to have been done earlier, as it was with David. We wonder whether David had some slight doubts about Solomon's suitability, hence his lack of public pronouncement about Solomon being his chosen successor. Or perhaps David just wanted to hold on to personal power to the bitter end, and hadn't wanted to appoint anyone in his place through a public proclamation. There had not yet been any anointing or trumpet blowing for Adonijah, so this was in order to upstage that happening.</p>


text:
<p>Then you shall come up after him- </p><p>Just as men had followed after Adonijah (:7).</p><p>And he shall come and sit on my throne; for he shall be king in my place. I have appointed him to be prince over Israel and over Judah- </p><p>On one hand we could read the usage of the word "prince" as reflecting how Yahweh was the ultimate king of Israel. Or we could read it as reflecting David's dogged desire, typical of an old man, to hold on to his own kingly power until his last breath. Or we could see it as a Messianic term, as it is in <a href='B:340 9:25'>Dan 9:25</a>, again showing that David thought he could make Solomon the fulfilment of the promises of a Messianic seed just by pronouncing it from his deathbed- ignoring all the conditional clauses which accompanied those promises.</p>


text:
<p>Benaiah the son of Jehoiada answered the king and said, Amen. May Yahweh, the God of my lord the king, say so too-</p><p>This is a clear example of the meaning of the word "Amen". It is a statement that we believe in faith that God also wills to be so what we have said Amen to. His "Amen" is therefore our "Amen". There is a similar example in <a href='B:300 28:6'>Jer 28:6</a>.</p>


text:
<p>As Yahweh has been with my lord the king, even so may He be with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my lord king David-</p><p>Benaiah too is alluding to the promises to David, and stating his belief that they are to be fulfilled through Solomon- again ignoring all the conditional clauses which accompanied those promises. "So may He be" is Heb. "so shall He be".</p>


text:
<p>So Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites and the Pelethites, went down and caused Solomon to ride on king David’s mule, and brought him to Gihon- </p><p>"Pelethite" is arguably a form of the word "Philistine". There is a theme in David's life of his former enemies, even Gentiles against whom he had fought and slain their families, became his most loyal supporters and servants, right to the end of his days. This loyalty is a reflection not only of their respect of his personal integrity, despite some out of character failures; but especially of their conversion to Yahweh, David's God.</p>


text:
<p>Zadok the priest took the horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. They blew the trumpet; and all the people said, Long live king Solomon!- </p><p>The horn of oil refers to the specific horn from which the holy anointing oil was poured upon the priests. Zadok cared for the tabernacle at Gibeon, which was "the great high place" (<a href='B:130 16:39'>1Ch 16:39</a>; <a href='B:110 3:4'>1Ki 3:4</a>), and so it is another example of correlation within the inspired records that he had access to that horn and the oil with which to anoint Solomon (<a href='B:110 1:39'>1Ki 1:39</a>). Using this oil to anoint a king would therefore have presented Solomon as a king-priest.</p>


text:
<p>All the people came up after him, and the people piped with pipes, and rejoiced with great joy, so that the earth shook with their sound- </p><p>We can assume that there was mass popular support for Solomon, far greater than for Adonijah.</p>


text:
<p>Adonijah and all the guests who were with him heard it as they finished eating. When Joab heard the sound of the trumpet he said, Why is this noise of the city being in an uproar?-</p><p>The feast would have taken some days; for the horn of priestly anointing oil had to be fetched from Gibeon (:39).</p>


text:
<p>While he yet spoke, behold, Jonathan the son of Abiathar the priest came: and Adonijah said, Come in; for you are a worthy man, and bring good news-</p><p>The record here repeats the coming in of messengers to David earlier in this chapter. Despite his revolt against his father David, he perhaps unconsciously repeats his father's very words as he awaited news of the battle with Absalom. He could not ultimately throw off the ties that bind. We note that Jonathan had earlier run messages for David in the time of Absalom's revolt (<a href='B:100 17:17'>2Sa 17:17</a>); now he does so for Adonijah, and was perceived as a "worthy man", on Adonijah's side. All these things have the ring of psychological credibility to them. This is how life goes.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan answered Adonijah, Most certainly our lord king David has made Solomon king- </p><p>The hint could be that "most certainly" he did carry good news, that Solomon had been made king. Already even the messenger was seeking to cover himself against the inevitable repercussions of a failed power grab. Hence he calls David "our lord king David".</p>


text:
<p>The king has sent with him Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and they have caused him to ride on the king’s mule- </p><p>Jonathan is careful to report things exactly as they were and as had observed them in Jerusalem. He is bravely giving no intimation of continued loyalty to Adonijah and his own father Abiathar who was his main support.</p>


text:
<p>Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet have anointed him king in Gihon. They have come up from there rejoicing, so that the city rang again. This is the noise that you have heard- </p><p>Again we see that there was mass popular support for David's choice of Solomon, and not so much for Adonijah.</p>


text:
<p>Also, Solomon sits on the throne of the kingdom- </p><p>Solomon had literally been sat upon David's throne, and Jonathan had seen it.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover the king’s servants came to bless our lord king David saying, ‘May your God make the name of Solomon better than your name, and make his throne greater than your throne’; and the king bowed himself on the bed- </p><p>Again "our lord king David" shows that Jonathan's loyalties were now with David and Solomon again. The fickleness of human loyalty is a great theme of the records of David's life.</p>


text:
<p>Also thus said the king, ‘Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Israel, who has given one to sit on my throne this day, my eyes even seeing it’- </p><p>These words of David aren't recorded but there is no reason to doubt Jonathan's account of them. Those words are clearly allusive to the promises in 2 Samuel 7 that David's eyes would see his Messianic son / seed enthroned, implying David's resurrection. LXX adds "one of my seed", confirming this. But David instead assumed that they were true in his lifetime, and that Solomon was indeed the Messianic seed promised. By this wrong assumption, David was ignoring the conditional aspects to the promises- that Solomon had to prove himself obedient to Yahweh. By doing so, David set Solomon up for spiritual failure, through merely assuming his acceptability to God regardless of his lifestyle; see on :13.</p>


text:
<p>All the guests of Adonijah were afraid, and rose up, and each man went his way-</p><p>Again we see the fickleness of human loyalty, which is such a great theme of the records of David's life.</p>


text:
<p>Adonijah feared because of Solomon; and he arose, and went, and caught hold on the horns of the altar-</p><p>He must have somehow smuggled himself into the sanctuary, otherwise he would have been arrested and charged with treason well beforehand. He was treating the altar as a kind of talisman, just as the surrounding religions did. The horns of the altar were smeared with the blood of atonement (<a href='B:20 29:12'>Exo 29:12</a>; <a href='B:20 30:10'>Exo 30:10</a>), so he may have been assuming that he would somehow get forgiveness by doing this.</p>


text:
<p>It was told Solomon saying, Behold, Adonijah fears king Solomon; for, behold, he has laid hold on the horns of the altar, saying, ‘Let king Solomon swear to me first that he will not kill his servant with the sword’- </p><p>The idea was that if God had atoned for his sin of rebellion (see on :50), then Solomon should not carry out the death penalty. The whole process of reasoning was very twisted, and are in fact the words of an equally twisted Jacob to Esau in <a href='B:10 25:31'>Gen 25:31</a>; <a href='B:10 25:33'>Gen 25:33</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon said, If he shows himself a worthy man, not a hair of him shall fall to the earth; but if wickedness be found in him, he shall die- </p><p>Solomon is intentionally vague. Not a hair falling to the earth could be read as meaning that an intended punishment would not be carried out (<a href='B:90 14:45'>1Sa 14:45</a>; <a href='B:100 14:11'>2Sa 14:11</a>). "But if wickedness be found::." could be read as meaning 'If there is any more of this in future', or 'We will investigate the matter by judgment and the just penalty will be given in future'.</p>


text:
<p>So king Solomon sent, and they brought him down from the altar. He came and bowed down to king Solomon; and Solomon said to him, Go to your house-</p><p>This was not real forgiveness, because Solomon evidently considered it not politic to immediately slay Adonijah, but that was his intention. Perhaps he was reasoning that Adonijah's support base would be encouraged to repent if they saw that they were not going to all be slain. And Solomon probably didn't feel he had the political strength at that point to slay men like Joab and Abiathar. And we must examine our own apparent forgiveness of others, to determine whether it is really just a matter of politics and prudence rather than true forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p>Now the days of David drew near that he should die; and he commanded Solomon his son saying- </p><p>According to Josephus (Antiquities 7:14,7) the events of 1 Chronicles 28, 29 happened in the interval between the first anointing of Solomon and the death of David.</p>


text:
<p>I am going the way of all the earth- </p><p>This is quoting the words of Joshua, as do the second part of the verse. David has Joshua in mind because he considers that Solomon is going to now inherit the Kingdom.</p><p>Be strong therefore, and show yourself a man- </p><p>As noted above, this is the language of Joshua (<a href='B:50 31:7'>Deu 31:7</a>; <a href='B:50 31:23'>Deu 31:23</a>; <a href='B:60 1:6-7'>Jos 1:6-7</a>). See on :3. "Show yourself a man" may refer to the fact Solomon was very young (<a href='B:110 3:7'>1Ki 3:7</a>) and needed to quickly act as an adult.</p><p>David seems to have theoretically recognized that the building of the temple was conditional on Solomon's spirituality, but he overlooked this in his enthusiasm for Solomon to be the Messiah, who may be the reference of "a man". He tells Solomon to show himself a man, and goes on in :4 to speak of how “a man” would eternally reign on his Messianic throne. He was encouraging Solomon to be and act like Messiah. Psalms 127 is "For Solomon" (<a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a> "beloved" = Heb. Jedidah), and warns him that his labour for the temple will be in vain unless God&nbsp;builds it. The Psalm basically says that God will build Solomon a house in the sense of a family centred in the beloved seed who would die [“sleep”] to enable it; and therefore Solomon should not be so sweating himself day and night to build God a house / temple. This is the very message which God had given David earlier. David and Solomon evidently shelved their knowledge of the fact that Heaven is God's dwelling place. It would seem that Solomon particularly was guilty of a false humility; there is a gross contradiction within his words of <a href='B:140 6:2'>2Ch 6:2</a>; <a href='B:140 6:18'>2Ch 6:18</a>: "I have built an house of habitation for thee, and a place for thy dwelling for ever::. But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built?". This is one of several hints that Solomon felt that the full fulfilment of the Davidic promises was to be found in him (cp. <a href='B:140 6:10'>2Ch 6:10</a>). He failed to look forward to the spirit of Christ, instead becoming obsessed with the achievement of his own works. He was largely encouraged in this by David, who seems to have felt that Solomon was the Messiah figure the promises spoke about. Thus Psalms 72 is dedicated to Solomon, and yet it speaks clearly of the messianic Kingdom. In the same way as David came to misquote and misapply the promises God made to him, Solomon did likewise. God told David that He did not want a physical house, because He had never commanded this to be done at any time in the past. Solomon misquotes this in <a href='B:140 6:5-6'>2Ch 6:5-6</a> to mean that God had never asked for a physical house in the past, but now he had asked David's son to build such a house in Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>and keep the instruction of Yahweh your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances and His testimonies, according to what is written in the law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do, and wherever you turn yourself- </p><p>In <a href='B:240 29:14'>Pro 29:14</a> “The king that faithfully judges the poor, his throne shall be established for ever”, Solomon is clearly referring to the promises to David, which he assumed were about him. He thought that because he had judged the poor harlots wisely, therefore he would be the promised Messiah. And this was just what David his father had hoped and expected of him. David had even asked Solomon to “do wisely” i:e. to show wisdom, in order that the promises to him about Messiah would be fulfilled (<a href='B:110 2:3'>1Ki 2:3</a> RVmg:). So this was surely one of Solomon’s motives in giving them justice and being ‘wise’; he sought to live out his father’s expectations and to fulfil the requirements of the Messiah figure.</p><p>"That you may prosper" is s:w. "to make one wise" (<a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a>). David's desire was that Solomon would be "wise" just as David had been "wise / prospered" (<a href='B:90 18:5'>1Sa 18:5</a>; <a href='B:90 18:14-15'>1Sa 18:14-15</a>), and so Solomon asked God for wisdom and wanted to be wise. But his subsequent life showed this was because he wanted to live out parental expectation rather than be personally wise. And so he later turned away from that wisdom in his personal life. The language of prospering continues the Joshua allusions (see on :2; <a href='B:60 1:7-8'>Jos 1:7-8</a>).</p>


text:
<p>This is so that Yahweh may establish His word which He spoke concerning me saying, ‘If your children take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail you’, He said, ‘a man on the throne of Israel’- </p><p>David wanted Solomon to be that "man" (:2). Solomon's prophetic sonship of David was conditional upon him preserving or observing Yahweh's ways (<a href='B:110 2:4'>1Ki 2:4</a>; <a href='B:130 22:13'>1Ch 22:13</a>; <a href='B:140 7:17'>2Ch 7:17</a>); but he didn't preserve or observe them (<a href='B:110 11:10-11'>1Ki 11:10-11</a>); despite David praying that Solomon would be given a heart to observe them (<a href='B:130 29:19'>1Ch 29:19</a>). We can pray for God to work upon the hearts of others, but He will not force people against their own deepest will and heart position. Solomon stresses overmuch how God would keep or preserve the righteous (<a href='B:240 2:8'>Pro 2:8</a>; <a href='B:240 3:26'>Pro 3:26</a>), without recognizing the conditional aspect of this. Why did Solomon go wrong? His Proverbs are true enough, but he stresses that obedience to his wisdom and teaching would preserve his hearers (<a href='B:240 4:4'>Pro 4:4</a>; <a href='B:240 6:22'>Pro 6:22</a>; <a href='B:240 7:1'>Pro 7:1</a>; <a href='B:240 8:32'>Pro 8:32</a>; <a href='B:240 15:5'>Pro 15:5</a>), preservation was through following the example of the wise (<a href='B:240 2:20'>Pro 2:20</a>); rather than stressing obedience to God's ways, and replacing David his father's simple love of God with a love of academic wisdom: "Yahweh preserves all those who love Him" (<a href='B:230 145:20'>Psa 145:20</a>).</p><p>Another example of Solomon misquoting God is in <a href='B:140 6:6'>2Ch 6:6</a>. Solomon claims that God said: “I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name might be there”. God had chosen no resting place, although it would have been politically convenient for Solomon if the city of Jerusalem as a city was where God had chosen to dwell. And so he kept thinking that way until he persuaded himself that in fact this was what God had said. David had charged Solomon with the words which God had spoken to him about Solomon: “If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul” (<a href='B:110 2:4'>1Ki 2:4</a>). But Solomon subtly changes this when he reminds God of how He had supposedly told David: “There shall not fail thee a man to sit on the throne of Israel; so that they children take heed to their way, that they walk before me as thou hast walked before me” (<a href='B:110 8:25'>1Ki 8:25</a>). Two things become apparent here:</p><p>-&nbsp;The conditionality of the promise to David about Solomon is totally overlooked:&nbsp; “If thy children…” becomes “so that…”, with the implication that David would always have descendants on the throne who would walk obediently before God. The possibility of personal failure had been removed by Solomon from his own perception of God.</p><p>-&nbsp;God’s desire that Solomon should “walk before me in truth” was changed to “walk before me as thou [David] hast walked before me”. This defined walking before God personally as having the relationship with God which your father had. And so often we have made the same mistake. The call to personally follow the Lord has become displaced by a following Him through others.</p><p>Notice how Solomon says these words to God Himself. Solomon had persuaded himself that this truly was what God had asked of David and himself, and so he comes out with these words to God.</p><p>There was no sense in Solomon that he might have the possibility of failure, of rejection by God. The promises to David were conditional- David pointed this out to Solomon in <a href='B:110 2:4'>1Ki 2:4</a>: "If thy children take heed to their way::.". But Solomon misquotes this in <a href='B:110 8:25'>1Ki 8:25</a>: "Now therefore, O LORD, the God of Israel, keep with thy servant David my father that which thou hast promised him, saying, There shall not fail thee a man in my sight to sit on the throne of Israel; so that thy children take heed to their way to walk before me as thou hast walked before me". Some translations offer paraphrases of the difficult "so that" phrase. But there's no getting around it. Solomon is saying 'Give me what you promised me, without conditions, so that I will fulfil those conditions::. it's not possible for anyone to fulfil those conditions unless you first give them what you conditionally promised'. The logic is all upside down, and is very demanding upon God, implying that any failure to "take heed to the way" would be because God hadn't given what He promised. It's a telling insight into Solomon's mind. It was all about him, rather than all about God and glorifying Him.</p><p>Note that all this happened at the very start of Solomon's reign; it seems to me that he was always on the wrong track, rather than as it were 'going wrong' later on.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover you know also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me and what he did to the two captains of the armies of Israel, to Abner the son of Ner, and to Amasa the son of Jether, whom he killed, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war on his sash that was about his waist, and in his shoes that were on his feet- </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:&nbsp;Solomon's comment that Joab shed the blood of war in peace, perhaps meaning 'in the name of peace', may allude to how Joab killed Amasa whilst asking him whether "Is all well with you?", using the word shalom, "peace".</p>


text:
<p>Do therefore according to your wisdom, and don’t let his gray head go down to Sheol in peace- </p><p>Solomon alludes to this in <a href='B:240 19:5'>Pro 19:5</a>; <a href='B:240 19:9'>Pro 19:9</a>: "A false witness shall not be unpunished; he who utters lies shall perish". See on :5. Solomon is alluding to his father David's parting commandments to him to destroy all the opposition to him (<a href='B:110 2:6'>1Ki 2:6</a>; <a href='B:110 2:9'>1Ki 2:9</a>). So whilst what Solomon writes is true, he is harnessing Divine truth to his own agenda of self justification. And we who claim to hold His truths must take warning.</p><p>Joab was David's cousin, who had shown David a lifetime of loyalty. But we sense a personality conflict between the two of them, and indeed it seems that originally Joab had supported Absalom's idea of seizing power, but then fell out with him; and he supported Adonijah's. David held Joab as too hard a man, not understanding grace; whereas Joab held David to be far too soft, and increasingly lacking strong leadership skills in his old age. The support for Adonijah was perhaps more because of disillusion with David than because Adonijah personally had much to offer. Yet to order his death seems to me absolutely lacking in grace.</p>


text:
<p>But show kindness to the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, and let them be of those who eat at your table; for so they came to me when I fled from Absalom your brother- </p><p>On balance, over a lifetime, Joab had shown David far more kindness than Barzillai. So it is so sad that David, who had experienced so much grace, at the end of his life was so lacking in it and so short termist in his view. After Solomon's ascension, there was judgment and reward; in the form of being able to eat at his table (<a href='B:110 2:7'>1Ki 2:7</a> cp. <a href='B:100 9:7'>2Sa 9:7</a>; <a href='B:100 9:10'>2Sa 9:10</a>; <a href='B:100 19:28'>2Sa 19:28</a>):&nbsp; After Christ's return, the reward is to break bread with Him (<a href='B:490 14:15'>Luk 14:15</a>; <a href='B:490 22:30'>Luk 22:30</a>). Breaking bread with Him now is a sign of joyful fellowship with Him in anticipation of that; it shouldn’t therefore be a scary, worrying experience.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, there is with you Shimei the son of Gera, the Benjamite of Bahurim, who cursed me with a grievous curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim; but he came down to meet me at the Jordan, and I vowed to him by Yahweh saying, ‘I will not put you to death with the sword’- </p><p>David earlier forgave Shimei for cursing him. But he tells Solomon to bring down that old man’s white hairs to the grave with blood on them- a crude image for the murder of an old man (:9). And he uses the same awful turn of phrase to ask Solomon to do this also to his lifelong friend Joab (<a href='B:110 2:6'>1Ki 2:6</a>; <a href='B:110 2:9'>1Ki 2:9</a>). Surely grace would’ve found another way? He was therefore barred from building the temple because of the amount of blood he had shed (<a href='B:130 22:8'>1Ch 22:8</a>).</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>Now therefore don’t hold him guiltless, for you are a wise man- </p><p>It&nbsp;is&nbsp;significant&nbsp;that Solomon's&nbsp; spiritual life&nbsp; has&nbsp; more appearance&nbsp;of&nbsp;spirituality&nbsp;the closer we get back to David's death:&nbsp;David had asked for wisdom (<a href='B:230 119:34'>Psa 119:34</a>), and even Solomon’s request for wisdom can be seen as rooted in a desire to live out parental expectation more than purely from his own volition. For David had told him: “You are a wise man” (<a href='B:110 2:9'>1Ki 2:9</a>), and Solomon wanted to live up to that expectation. In&nbsp; other words, David's influence was extremely strong, but&nbsp; it&nbsp; decreased over the years. Yet even at the end, Solomon’s wisdom stayed with him in that some aspects of his upbringing stayed with him- he could never escape from it. When he says that he has never found a truly wise woman, but he did know one wise man (<a href='B:250 7:28'>Ecc 7:28</a>) he may well have had David in mind.</p><p>And you will know what you ought to do to him, and you shall bring his gray head down to Sheol with blood- </p><p>Solomon alludes to this in <a href='B:240 21:11'>Pro 21:11</a>: "When the mocker is punished, the simple gains wisdom. When the wise is instructed, he receives knowledge". This seems to be justifying David's command for Solomon to punish the mocker Shimei, who had cursed him at the time of Absalom's rebellion. At the time, David had forgiven Shimei and forbidden his men to kill him. But at the end of his life, David didn't maintain that level of grace, and commanded Solomon to ensure that he brought Shimei's grey hairs down to the grave with blood. And Solomon justified this collapse of forgiveness and grace by saying that it would give wisdom to others and instruct the wise.</p><p>Shimei was a wicked man who hated God's servant David. God told him 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><p><a href='B:230 7:16'>Psa 7:16</a> had been David's commentary about Shimei: "The trouble he causes shall return upon his own head, his violence shall come down on the crown of his own head". In the context of Shimei, whose cursing was the initial context of this Psalm (see on <a href='B:230 7:1'>Psa 7:1</a>), David sought himself to bring this about. He told Solomon to ensure that Shimei's head and grey hairs should be brought down with blood to the grave by him (<a href='B:110 2:8-9'>1Ki 2:8-9</a>). This unspiritual attitude of David was rooted in the way that at the earlier point, here in <a href='B:230 7:16'>Psa 7:16</a>, David rejoiced in the thought that Shimei would be condemned by God; and sets about to bring that condemnation about himself. This surely was a case of taking Divine judgment into his own hand in a way he should not have done, and quite overlooking the Divine desire for repentance (<a href='B:330 33:11'>Eze 33:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David- </p><p>This idiom is clear evidence that the distinction in reward between good and evil people is not made at the point of death. Death is unconsciousness, and the eternal outcome of our lives will be at the resurrection and day of judgment.</p>


text:
<p>The days that David reigned over Israel were forty years; he reigned seven years in Hebron, and he reigned thirty-three years in Jerusalem-</p><p>Seven and a half years (<a href='B:100 2:11'>2Sa 2:11</a>) becomes "seven years" (<a href='B:110 2:11'>1Ki 2:11</a>); three months and ten days (<a href='B:140 36:9'>2Ch 36:9</a>) becomes "three months" (<a href='B:120 24:8'>2Ki 24:8</a>). Sometimes the Biblical record is vague, other times exact. This reflects how God is not seeking to cover His back against critics. He is of an altogether higher nature than that. There are times when the Spirit uses very approximate numbers rather than exact ("about the space of four hundred and fifty years", <a href='B:510 13:20'>Act 13:20</a> cp. <a href='B:110 6:1'>1Ki 6:1</a>). The reference to "seventy" in <a href='B:70 9:56'>Jdg 9:56</a> also doesn't seem exact:&nbsp; And <a href='B:110 7:23'>1Ki 7:23</a> gives the circumference of the laver as “thirty cubits”, although it was ten cubits broad. Taking ‘pi’ to be 3:14, it is apparent that the circumference would have been 31:4 cubits; but the Spirit says, summing up, “thirty”.</p>


text:
<p>Solomon sat on the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was firmly established- </p><p>The language continues to allude to that of the promises to David in 2 Samuel 7. But the fulfilment of those promises was conditional; so we are being given here the impression which was externally given, and how Solomon himself perceived things. For Solomon and his kingdom were not the ultimate fulfilment of those promises. But God did establish his kingdom, and potentially enabled him to be that Messiah figure. And so his kingdom appears to be a type of that of the Lord Jesus. But in reality I would rather express it as saying that he was given the potential to have the Messianic kingdom, but only achieved a dim image of it.</p>


text:
<p>Then Adonijah the son of Haggith came to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon. She said, Do you come peaceably? He said, Peaceably- </p><p>She feared for her life, using the same term as in <a href='B:90 16:4'>1Sa 16:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p>He said moreover, I have something to tell you. She said, Say on- </p><p>He had come not only to ask for the hand of Abishag in marriage, but also to tell her something (:15). We can understand that Solomon therefore interpreted Adonijah's actions as a desire to usurp him.</p>


text:
<p>He said, You know that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel set their faces on me, that I should reign. However the kingdom is turned around, and has become my brother’s; for it was his from Yahweh- </p><p>This is a typical mixture of truth and untruth. Indeed the kingdom was Solomon's "from Yahweh" in that David had made that decision and sworn by Yahweh. It is however not so true that "all Israel" wanted him to be king, for when Solomon was pronounced king, there was ecstatic rejoicing amongst the people. And "the kingdom was mine" only in that he was the eldest surviving son of David; but being the eldest son didn't at all mean that the throne was passed on to him, because kings typically chose one of their sons to reign rather than the throne passing automatically to the eldest son. And he quite overlooks the promises to David, which make being the true son of David conditional upon obedience to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Now I ask one petition of you. Don’t deny me. She said to him, Say on- </p><p>This again is manipulative. Perhaps "Say on" was too close to agreeing to grant a petition she had not yet heard; for perhaps from pride she asks Solomon to grant the petition, even though it was highly dubious.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Please speak to Solomon the king (for he will not tell you ‘no’), that he give me Abishag the Shunammite as wife- </p><p>Again Adonijah is playing with words and logic, arguing that Solomon cannot say no to his mother, and she cannot say no to him, Adonijah.</p>


text:
<p>Bathsheba said, Alright. I will speak for you to the king- </p><p>Either she was naive, or she felt bound to ask because of her unwise response to him in :16.</p>


text:
<p>Bathsheba therefore went to king Solomon, to speak to him for Adonijah. The king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself to her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a throne to be set for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right hand- </p><p>We sense here and in 1 Kings 1 the deep sense of respect for David and Bathsheba. Solomon speaks so highly of his mother in Proverbs, apparently modelling the "virtuous woman" of Proverbs 31 upon her. To sit on the right hand means to be second in command of power, so we can assume Bathsheba was a powerful political individual as David's favourite surviving wife and mother of the son he had chosen as king.</p>


text:
<p>Then she said, I ask one small petition of you; don’t deny me. The king said to her, Ask on, my mother; for I will not deny you- </p><p>He repeats the same error she had made in :16, agreeing to a petition before knowing what it was. This seems a theme the Bible likes to raise, for we think of king Darius with Daniel, and Herod and the daughter of Herodias. She considers it a "small petition", but it was a very large petition because of its major political ramifications, which Solomon immediately perceived. We wonder therefore whether she was being simply naive rather than feeling railroaded because of her response in :16. </p>


text:
<p>She said, Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah your brother as wife- </p><p>Perhaps she thought that Adonijah's only motive was his desire to marry a beauty queen. But as suggested on <a href='B:110 1:1'>1Ki 1:1</a>, Abishag was more than a carer for a man in a geriatric ward. She had had intimate sexual contact with David, although he had not succeeded in achieving intercourse with her. He was therefore to be considered as at least one of his concubines, and whoever married her was thereby strengthening their connection with David's throne.</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon answered his mother, Why do you ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him the kingdom also; for he is my elder brother; even for him, and for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah- </p><p>Solomon may well have been correct. But there is also the possibility that he wildly extrapolated from the fact Adonijah wanted to marry thus beautiful woman, and refused to give him credit for accepting that Solomon rather than himself was Yahweh's choice for the throne (:15). And from that, Solomon creates a conspiracy theory about Joab and Abiathar. He had threatened Adonijah that he had as it were a suspended death sentence which would be triggered if he committed any more "wickedness" (<a href='B:110 1:52'>1Ki 1:52</a>). Adonijah's motives are left intentionally unclear in the record, to provoke our reflection. Whatever, it seems to me that Solomon was eager to perceive Adonijah as having broken the conditions of <a href='B:110 1:52'>1Ki 1:52</a> so that he could kill him.</p>


text:
<p>Then king Solomon vowed by Yahweh saying, God do so to me, and more also, if Adonijah has not spoken this word against his own life- </p><p>If Adonijah realized how Solomon would react, he surely wouldn't have gone ahead as he did in trying to marry Abishag. And as noted on :14-17, his reasoning was less than honest and deceitful, but again, we could put this down to his simple desire to marry the beautiful Abishag. It seems a rather strict interpretation of <a href='B:110 1:52'>1Ki 1:52</a> to claim that the request for Abishag was "wickedness".</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore as Yahweh lives, who has established me, and set me on the throne of David my father, and who has made me a house, as He promised, surely Adonijah shall be put to death this day- </p><p>David's belief that Psalms 72 applied totally to Solomon would have encouraged him Solomon to feel that the fact that he was the great Son of David and had had the promises made to him justified all his actions. This is an example. For as discussed on :22,23, his desire to murder Adonijah was not on any very Biblical basis from the law of Moses.</p><p>"Established" is the word used 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 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>He felt that God “has made me an house, as he promised” to David. He felt that he was the fulfillment of the promises, and therefore the Kingdom had come; he failed to be awed by the greatness of the Christ to come, and abstracted and reduced His coming Kingdom into an effective nothingness. By doing so, he totally overlooked the highly conditional nature of the promises, and forgot his own proneness to failure, and the weakness of his nature. He failed to meditate upon the promises beyond what they seemed to offer him in the here and now; and the result was that he felt they were totally fulfilled in him (<a href='B:110 8:20'>1Ki 8:20</a>; <a href='B:110 8:24'>1Ki 8:24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>King Solomon sent by Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he fell on him, so that he died- </p><p>Benaiah must now have been an old man, so perhaps he arranged the murder through a proxy.</p>


text:
<p>To Abiathar the priest the king said, Go to Anathoth, to your own fields; for you are worthy of death. But I will not at this time put you to death, because you carried the ark of the Lord Yahweh before David my father, and because you were afflicted in all in which my father was afflicted- </p><p>As discussed on :22,23, there was no specific evidence that Abiathar had done anything worthy of death, nor that he was actually involved in any plot to establish Adonijah as king again. Perhaps it was as simple as Adonijah being in love with a beautiful woman and wanting to marry her. And Adonijah is being dogmatically condemned on the basis of conspiracy theory alone. We note that Abiathar carried the ark at the time of Absalom's rebellion (<a href='B:100 15:24'>2Sa 15:24</a>); but it is hard to prove that he was from the line of Levites who were allowed to do this. David had been taught through the death of Uzzah that the ark must be carried only according to the specific Mosaic legislation. But he apparently was so close to the spirit of the law that he realized even after that, that the letter of that law could be broken.</p>


text:
<p>So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest to Yahweh, that he might fulfil the word of Yahweh, which He spoke concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh- </p><p>But we get the impression God didn't want that prophecy to have to come true. All Abiathar's family had been slain by Saul and Doeg for their loyalty to David. But Abiathar had been preserved, presumably because God hoped that somehow He would not have to fulfil that prophecy of destruction. For He hopes against hope, in the gap between the statement of condemnation and fulfilling it, for human repentance and persuasion of Him to change His mind. But Solomon knew none of that, and just wanted Abiathar destroyed because he was potentially disloyal to him. We may well enquire what right Solomon had to thrust out Abiathar from the priesthood; surely only God could ultimately do that. Perhaps Solomon quoted God's words about the house of Eli. But his murder of Abiathar was inappropriate; for on that logic, David should have murdered Abiathar long ago just for who he was, a descendant of Eli. Solomon's spirituality was highly flawed and biased towards his own self justification, right from the beginning of his reign.</p>


text:
<p>The news came to Joab; for Joab had turned after Adonijah, though he didn’t turn after Absalom. Joab fled to the tabernacle of Yahweh, and caught hold on the horns of the altar- </p><p>This was a sad end for Joab, who was by now elderly. 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. But it ended up with David's son Solomon ordering Joab to be slain, despite all his loyalty, and I would consider this as the supreme example of intolerance of intolerance, showing a lack of grace to someone because they had not understood grace. David in the later part of his life had always refused to carry out legitimate death sentences, e:g. as demanded by the behaviour of Amnon and Absalom. But Solomon lacked that grace, because he failed to perceive his own sins and need for grace himself.</p>


text:
<p>It was told king Solomon, Joab has fled to the tabernacle of Yahweh, and behold, he is by the altar. Then Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada saying, Go, fall on him- </p><p>It seems that Solomon didn’t really reflect on who his father really was. He had an ideal image of him, choosing to overlook his failures with women. David committed the sin of presumption with Bathsheba, and yet Solomon judges Joab for committing presumptuous sin without mercy (<a href='B:110 2:29'>1Ki 2:29</a> cp. <a href='B:20 21:14'>Exo 21:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Benaiah came to the tabernacle of Yahweh and said to him, Thus says the king, ‘Come forth!’. He said, No; but I will die here. Benaiah brought the king word again saying, Thus said Joab, and thus he answered me- </p><p>Perhaps Joab said this to still try to avoid death, reasoning that surely Solomon would have more respect for the tabernacle than to order him to be slain on the altar. Or perhaps Joab's spiritual side was eager to die as a sacrifice upon God's altar. Or maybe he wanted to make Solomon unpopular with the people by ordering him slain on the altar. The narrative is purposefully open ended to provoke our reflections.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to him, Do as he has said, and fall on him, and bury him; that you may take away the blood which Joab shed without cause, from me and from my father’s house- </p><p>Solomon's reasoning was wrong in so many ways. To murder someone on the horns of the altar showed a lack of respect for Yahweh's holiness. Joab could easily have been removed and executed elsewhere. The blood shed by Joab "without cause" was no reason for his death at this stage; David himself had shed much blood without good cause. And Joab's guilt did not pass to David and Solomon. And murdering Joab did not somehow cleanse Solomon from some imagined guilt by association with Joab. Solomon wanted Joab dead because his father had told him to eliminate him. And so he was using any quasi spiritual reasoning which came into his head to justify it.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh will return his blood on his own head, because he fell on two men more righteous and better than he, and killed them with the sword, and my father David didn’t know it: Abner the son of Ner, captain of the army of Israel, and Amasa the son of Jether, captain of the army of Judah- </p><p>This may have been true on one level. But David had slain men like Uriah who were more righteous and better than himself. And been forgiven by grace. The reasons given by Solomon are in fact a condemnation of his father rather than a justification of him. We note already an effective distinction between Israel and Judah; the division which was to come was only bringing into the open what had historically been developing for generations. God confirms men in the divisions they themselves wish to happen, and binds together those who wish to unify.</p>


text:
<p>So shall their blood return on the head of Joab, and on the head of his seed forever. But to David, and to his seed, and to his house, and to his throne, there shall be peace forever from Yahweh- </p><p>Solomon here states dogmatically that he is the eternally blessed seed of David, and his house and throne are to blessed with eternal peace with God. But those promises were conditional upon his obedience, and he ignored those conditions. He was led into this by the assumptions and parental obsessions of his father, but all the same, it was this which led him to make shipwreck of his faith. This assumption that the Davidic promises were fulfilled in him led him to a lack of self examination and no humility arising from a sense of the eternal future he might miss if he turned away. See on :45.</p><p>Solomon may be alluding to how "it will go well with you" if the shedder of innocent blood is condemned to death (<a href='B:50 19:13'>Deu 19:13</a>). But he fails to realize that David was in exactly that situation, and had been saved by Divine grace alone. And he ought to have reflected that grace, even if David didn't.</p>


text:
<p>Then Benaiah the son of Jehoiada went up and fell on him, and killed him; and he was buried in his own house in the wilderness- </p><p>The 'going up' would have been by the steps which led up to the altar; unless the reference is to 'going up' to the mount Zion where the temple was.</p>


text:
<p>The king put Benaiah the son of Jehoiada in his place over the army; and the king put Zadok the priest in the place of Abiathar- </p><p>Benaiah surely did the wrong thing by slaying Joab, without evidence for his wrongdoing, by the altar. Yet he is rewarded for his conscienceless behaviour by political promotion. All this doesn't sound the stuff of God's Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>The king sent and called for Shimei and said to him, Build yourself a house in Jerusalem, and dwell there, and don’t go out anywhere from there- </p><p>The intention of making him move to Jerusalem from Bahurim (<a href='B:110 2:8'>1Ki 2:8</a>) was surely in order to set him up to be murdered. Solomon reveals a very calculating and callous side, typical of a man who (unlike David) had never been personally spiritually desperate, and had not known grace.</p>


text:
<p>For on the day you go out, and pass over the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall surely die: your blood shall be on your own head- </p><p>Solomon may well have been present that terrible night when David and his family passed over the brook Kidron, and then encountered Shimei's cursing. And he therefore built this memory in to his punishment of Shimei. The Kidron was the river he would have had to cross were he to return to his home town of Bahurim, from whence he had been summoned to live in Jerusalem (<a href='B:110 2:8'>1Ki 2:8</a>). See on :40. We sense Solomon's playing of God by the manner in which he alludes to the curse in Eden, that "in the day" the brook was crossed, "you shall surely die"; see on :44.</p>


text:
<p>Shimei said to the king, The saying is good. As my lord the king has said, so will your servant do. Shimei lived in Jerusalem many days- </p><p>The description of the length of time periods in the Bible is relative; "many days" is three years (:39).</p>


text:
<p>It happened at the end of three years, that two of the servants of Shimei ran away to Achish, son of Maacah, king of Gath. They told Shimei saying, Behold, your servants are in Gath- </p><p>These slaves may have been Philistines who ran back home. David had twice fled to Achish king of Gath (<a href='B:90 21:10'>1Sa 21:10</a>; <a href='B:90 27:2'>1Sa 27:2</a>). But Solomon is unmoved by these associations with his father's days of desperation and a life preserved by Divine grace.</p>


text:
<p>Shimei arose, saddled his donkey, and went to Gath to Achish, to seek his servants; and Shimei went, and brought his servants from Gath- </p><p>The road to Gath would not have involved crossing the Kidron; it was in the opposite direction. For Solomon to insist that Shimei had broken the spirit of his commandment about not crossing the Kidron was therefore very legalistic, and not a very solid basis upon which to murder a man whom David had assured of forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p>It was told Solomon that Shimei had gone from Jerusalem to Gath, and had come again- </p><p>Shimei surely did this assuming that he was not liable for the death penalty because he had not crossed the Kidron (:37), as Gath was in the opposite direction; and he had kept the spirit of the agreement in that he had returned. Solomon comes over as very much lacking in integrity in now killing him.</p>


text:
<p>The king sent and called for Shimei, and said to him, Didn’t I adjure you by Yahweh and warn you, saying, ‘Know for certain, that on the day you go out, and walk abroad any where, you shall surely die?’. You said to me, ‘The saying that I have heard is good’- </p><p>There is no reference in the narrative to any such oath by Yahweh. This is not to say no such reference to Yahweh was made, but it also rather supports the impression we have of Solomon's lack of integrity and willingness to tell untruths; see on :40.</p>


text:
<p>Why then have you not kept the oath of Yahweh, and the commandment that I have instructed you with?- </p><p>Solomon is condemned for not keeping the covenant / oath of Yahweh and His commands (s:w. <a href='B:110 11:10-11'>1Ki 11:10-11</a>, which implies he was guilty of not doing so from his youth). His hypocrisy and lack of grace is so marked.</p>


text:
<p>The king said moreover to Shimei, You know all the wickedness which your heart knows full well, what you did to David my father. Therefore Yahweh shall return your wickedness on your own head- </p><p>Again, Solomon is playing God, as we saw him doing on :37. It was not Yahweh who was returning his wickedness upon him, but Solomon doing so. Shimei had apologized for his words of cursing, and David had forgiven him and given him assurances. Solomon's attitude is very wrong, and there was no Mosaic legal justification for the death penalty for cursing a man. And Shimei's stoning of David and calling him a "man of blood" had been justified, in that indeed David was worthy of death by stoning and was indeed a man of blood. To slate this as "wickedness" worthy of the death penalty is very severe judgment. And Solomon is choosing to respect his father's senile words spoken from his deathbed, rather than his father's earlier gracious forgiveness of Shimei.</p>


text:
<p>But king Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before Yahweh forever- </p><p>Solomon saw himself as the Messianic Son of David, therefore he felt his kingdom was the Messianic Kingdom; and he here states dogmatically that he is the eternally blessed seed of David. But those promises were conditional upon his obedience, and he ignored those conditions. And in all this, of course, we see our warning. This may explain why he built his own house as a replica of God's house - he felt that in fulfillment of the Davidic covenant his house was God's house:&nbsp;Solomon's attitude to the Kingdom was that it was all here and now, and it was not so much the Kingdom of God as the Kingdom of Solomon:&nbsp; In this Solomon may seem far removed from our experience:&nbsp; But with eyes half closed, discerning only the general outline, Solomon is surely in a mind-set analogous to many of us:&nbsp; Solomon was so sure that because of his father’s righteousness, therefore God would establish him. “Mercy and truth preserve the king, and he upholdeth his throne by mercy” (<a href='B:240 20:28'>Pro 20:28</a> RVmg:) says as much- the promises (“mercy and truth” usually refer to God’s promises) had been given to David and just because of that, Solomon was sure that his throne and kingdom would thereby be upheld.</p>


text:
<p>So the king commanded Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he went out, and fell on him, so that he died. The kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon- </p><p>Clearly the kingdom was established in a secular sense, by Solomon's brutal murder of potential contenders for the throne. But this was not the same as the promised eternal establishment of David's kingdom in the hands of his Messianic seed.</p>


