Absalom Arrives In Jerusalem And Indicates To Israel His Complete Break From David By Making Love To His Concubines In The Eyes Of All Israel (On The Advice Of Ahithophel) ( 2Sa 16:15-23 ).

Meanwhile Absalom and his revolutionary forces, together with Ahithophel, arrived in Jerusalem, where they were immediately met by Hushai the Archite, advancing towards Absalom crying, ‘Long live the king. Long live the king’ (he just forgot to mention which king). The emphasis throughout the passage on the presence and advice of Ahithophel (verses 15, 20, 21, 23) demonstrates what a great danger he was seen to be, but the reader and listener know that that is precisely the reason that Hushai was there, to combat the wisdom of Ahithophel. YHWH was thus already seen to be at work on upsetting Absalom’s plans on behalf of His servant David. It was further proof that YHWH was with him.

Analysis.

a And Absalom, and all the people, the men of Israel, came to Jerusalem, and Ahithophel with him (2Sa 16:15).

b And it came about that, when Hushai the Archite, David’s friend, was come to Absalom, Hushai said to Absalom, “Long live the king, Long live the king” (2Sa 16:16).

c And Absalom said to Hushai, “Is this your kindness to your friend? Why did you not go out with your friend?” (2Sa 16:16-17).

d And Hushai said to Absalom, “No, but whom YHWH, and this people, and all the men of Israel have chosen, his will I be, and with him will I abide.” And again, “Whom should I serve? Should I not serve in the presence of his son? As I have served in your father’s presence, so will I be in your presence” (2Sa 16:18-19).

c Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give your counsel as to what we shall do.” And Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Go in to your father’s concubines, whom he has left to keep the house, and all Israel will hear that you art abhorred of your father. Then will the hands of all who are with you be strong” (2Sa 16:20-21).

b 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 (2Sa 16:22).

a And the counsel of Ahithophel, which he gave in those days, was as if a man enquired at the oracle of God, so was all the counsel of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom (2Sa 16:23).

Note that in ‘a’ Absalom arrives with all his forces, ‘and Ahithophel with him’, and in the parallel it is Ahithophel who is seen to be the wisdom behind the throne. In ‘b’ Hushai meets Absalom and hails him with the coronation cry, ‘long live the king’, and in the parallel Absalom asserts his intention to live long as king by going in to his father’s concubines, an act proclaiming his own kingship. In ‘c’ Absalom asks Hushai, the Friend of David, concerning his position, and in the parallel he asks Ahithophel what he should do about his present situation. The two ‘wise men’ are thus seen to be in juxtaposition with each other. Central in ‘d’ is Hushai’s ambiguous assertion that he will continue to serve whoever is the true king chosen by YHWH and all the people of Israel.

2Sa 16:15

‘ And Absalom, and all the people, the men of Israel, came to Jerusalem, and Ahithophel with him.’

The arrival in Jerusalem of Absalom, along with all the people, and with Ahithophel is now described. Absalom and Ahithophel together intend to see off David, Absalom because of what had happened to his sister at the hands of David’s firstborn, which David had done nothing about, and which had been an insult to his royal grandfather, the king of Geshur, and Ahithophel because of the distress that David had brought on his family by his behaviour with Bathsheba his granddaughter. It was a powerful combination, and both arose from David’s original sin with Bathsheba.

2Sa 16:16

‘ And it came about that, when Hushai the Archite, David’s friend, was come to Absalom, Hushai said to Absalom, “Long live the king, Long live the king.”

For a moment, as we see them together, our hearts are filled with dread for the Anointed of YHWH, but then suddenly we observe advancing to meet Absalom YHWH’s answer to Ahithophel. For onto the scene comes ‘David’s Friend’ (his official title) crying out ‘Long live the king, long live the king’. This cry was a regular cry recognised as offering official recognition of the king spoken of, but Hushai failed to declare precisely which king he meant.

2Sa 16:17

‘ And Absalom said to Hushai, “Is this your kindness to your friend? Why did you not go out with your friend?” ’

Absalom, the traitor, (and thus readily able to appreciate traitors), then made a joke at Hushai’s expense, for Hushai bore the official title of ‘the King’s Friend’, and he jocularly asked, ‘Is this how you behave towards your ‘friend’? Why did you not go off with your ‘friend’ into the wilderness?’ But it was clearly not a pressing question as is indicated by the ease with which he will accept Hushai as an adviser. He would not have done that if he had thought that there was a possibility that his heart was otherwise disposed. He rather saw him as ‘a chancer’ like himself. We must remember that this was in a day when king’s were often deposed by rivals, with retainers then on the whole generally changing sides to acknowledge the rival. They often had little option if they did not want to die, or lose all their possessions.

2Sa 16:18

‘ And Hushai said to Absalom, “No, but whom YHWH, and this people, and all the men of Israel have chosen, his will I be, and with him will I abide.” ’

As befitted a wise man Hushai turned the conversation in a serious direction, by pointing out that his responsibility was to serve whoever YHWH, and the people who are standing around, and all Israel, have chosen. It was to him that he would be loyal, and it was with him that he would reside. Absalom, buoyant as a result of his success, naturally saw himself as intended by the description. Was it not proved by his presence unhindered in Jerusalem? But had he been more discerning he might have stopped and considered the fact that David was the chosen of YHWH. For David was YHWH’s Anointed, and had been chosen by all Israel, and he was still alive.

2Sa 16:19

‘ And again, “Whom should I serve? Should I not serve in the presence of his son? As I have served in your father’s presence, so will I be in your presence.”

Hushai then pledged his loyalty to the reigning representative of the house of David in the terms that David had suggested. As he had served the in the presence of the father so would he serve in the presence of the son. He would serve whoever was regnant in Jerusalem. It will be noted that he had not refuted his loyalty to David. He had rather carefully aligned himself with the practical situation. But it was apparently sufficient to satisfy Absalom. Ahithophel apparently kept his own counsel (or it may be that he was not even present).

2Sa 16:20

‘ Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give your counsel as to what we shall do.” ’

Having settled in Jerusalem Absalom then called on Ahithophel as leader of his advisers (the verb, and therefore the ‘your’, is plural) to advise him as to his next step. What should he do now?

2Sa 16:21

‘ And Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Go in to your father’s concubines, whom he has left to keep the house, and all Israel will hear that you art abhorred of your father. Then will the hands of all who are with you be strong.” ’

Ahithophel, who was aware that all Israel would be watching, unsure as to which side they should support, then informed Absalom that he must make it apparent to all Israel that there could be no reconciliation between him and his father. It had to be made clear to them immediately that Absalom was totally committed in his determination to oust David. And he knew that the one way in which this could be done would be by Absalom appropriating for himself the royal harem and making love to David’s concubine wives. That would be an indication that he had taken over all that pertained to David, and would be an insult that David would be unable to forgive. It was the final statement as to who was now the permanent king.

We can compare with this how in a similar, but more minor, situation Abner had taken one of the dead Saul’s concubines, something which had resulted in Abner splitting up with Ishbosheth, because Ishbosheth recognised in Abner’s action a studied insult, and probably the commencement of a claim to the throne (2Sa 3:6-9), and with how Adonijah will later be executed for attempting something similar, precisely because (whatever Adonijah’s intention) Solomon recognised in it an act intended to secure the kingship (1Ki 2:13-25). Like Ahithophel, Solomon knew how the people would see it.

However, we must also recognise in this the fulfilment of the words of YHWH through Nathan the prophet, when he had declared to David after his sin with Bathsheba and the subsequent murder of Uriah, that ‘I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour, and he will lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun’ (2Sa 12:11-12). David was thus to be seen as reaping the consequences of his grave sins. We should observe how YHWH’s severe chastening is going hand in hand with the revelations of His mercy. He will not spare David his chastening, but He will see him safely through it.

2Sa 16:22

‘ 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.’

So in response to the advice of Ahithophel a tent was spread on the roof of the palace, and there ‘Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.’ Now there could be no doubt in the eyes of any that the breach between Absalom and David was permanent. The shame that he had brought on David could only be expunged by Absalom’s death.

Thus the man who had instigated rebellion as a result of Amnon’s breaking of the Law of YHWH by revealing the nakedness of his sister (Lev 20:17), now himself broke the Law of YHWH with a number of woman by revealing the nakedness of his father’s wives (Lev 20:11). It made apparent the fact that his concern had never been with the breach of the Law of YHWH, but had rather been with the dishonour brought to the house of Geshur, and with the fact that Tamar was his beloved sister. He was thus no better than his brother in the eyes of YHWH.

2Sa 16:23

‘ And the counsel of Ahithophel, which he gave in those days, was as if a man enquired at the oracle of God, so was all the counsel of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom.’

A sarcastic comment is then added to the effect that Ahithophel’s counsel was seen as being the equivalent of enquiring at the oracle of God to both David and Absalom. This was, of course, a gross exaggeration. It was simply expressing how greatly revered his wisdom was by men, if not by God. The truth is, however, that no one, and certainly not David, would actually have really considered his counsel to be the equivalent of God’s direct counsel, while Absalom will certainly immediately demonstrate that he did not see it in that way by later following the contrary advice of Hushai (which is why some sarcasm must be detected).

That in fact underlines the point. Ahithophel’s counsel was only treated like this by those who forbore seeking YHWH’s direct counsel, something in which David himself had been decidedly lacking in recent days, and something in which Absalom was continually lacking, otherwise he would not have sought to kill YHWH’s anointed. Ahithophel was thus their unsatisfactory substitute for YHWH, a substitute who even counselled direct disobedience of the Law of YHWH, and yet in the end was but a tool of YHWH. If anything could bring home that Absalom was not the chosen of YHWH (2Sa 16:18), it was this willingness to rely totally, but imperfectly, on Ahithophel.

We should also note the irony of these verses. All men saw Ahithophel as being ‘almost as wise as God’. But in fact the discerning reader or hearer sees Ahithophel as having just counselled the breaking of the Law of God (2Sa 16:21), and as having unwittingly ensured the fulfilment of the dictate of God about David’s punishment (2Sa 12:11). Ahithophel is thus seen to be both disobedient to the covenant, and at the same time as the unwitting tool of YHWH. He was only a man after all (compare 2Sa 17:14 b).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Counsel of Ahithophel

v. 15. And Absalom and all the people, the men of Israel, came to Jerusalem, the men who had cast their lot with the rebellious son of David, and Ahithophel with him, the counselor who had turned traitor to David.

v. 16. And it came to pass, when Hushai the Archite, David’s friend, whom the king had persuaded to return to Jerusalem the better to serve his interests, was come unto Absalom, that Hushai said unto Absalom, God save the king, God save the king, the double “May the king live” being intended to express his best wishes, since he does not state the name of the king to whom he refers.

v. 17. And Absalom, who was astonished and even suspicious at this greeting, said to Hushai, Is this thy kindness to thy friend? Why wentest thou not with thy friend? Hushai’s relation to David had been a matter of common knowledge.

v. 18. And Hushai said unto Absalom, deliberately casting dust into his eyes, Nay; but whom the Lord and this people, those who had joined the cause of Absalom, and all the men of Israel, the entire nation, choose, his will I be, and with him will I abide. He infers that the choice of the nation in this case is the choice of Jehovah.

v. 19. And again, his second reason, whom should I serve? Should I not serve in the presence of his son? This idea he presented to Absalom as self-evident. As I have served in thy father’s presence, before the face of thy father, so will I be in thy presence. This flattered and satisfied Absalom, vain as he was, immensely, for he felt that the best minds of the nation were now on his side.

v. 20. Then said Absalom to Ahithophel, Give counsel among you what we shall do. He was anxious to take some steps by which his authority would definitely be announced and secured.

v. 21. And Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father’s concubines, in public carnal intercourse, which he hath left to keep the house; and all Israel shall hear that thou art abhorred of thy father, since the insult would be practically unforgivable and since the act, according to Oriental usage, would indicate actual dethronement of his father, since he would thereby take over his harem; then shall the hands of all that are with thee be strong, they mould be greatly encouraged to decide in his favor.

v. 22. So they spread Absalom a tent, the tent commonly used as a protection against sun, wind, and rain, upon the top of the house, on the same roof where David’s look at Bathsheba led him into the path of sin; and Absalom went in unto his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel, in an unspeakably filthy act, but one which fulfilled the words of Nathan against David, 2Sa 12:8.

v. 23. And the counsel of Ahithophel which he counseled in those days was as if a man had enquired at the oracle of God, it was regarded and followed as if inspired by God Himself, a far too high estimate of any man’s ability; so was all the counsel of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom. Rebels who overthrow the order of God in rising against the government instituted by Him are very often the slaves of the most loathsome sins and vices, their hearts hardened against every influence for good.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

2Sa 16:15. The men of Israel The Syriac version omits these words; and Dr. Kennicott informs us, that they are not found in any of the manuscripts at Cambridge. See his State of the printed Hebrew Text, p. 464.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

2. Absalom in Jerusalem. His Evil Deed through Ahithophels Evil Counsel. The Designs of the Latter against David thwarted by Hushais Counsel

2Sa 16:15 to 2Sa 17:23

15And Absalom and all the people the men of Israel4 came to Jerusalem, and Ahithophel with him. 16And it came to pass, when Hushai the Archite [Arkite] Davids friend5 was come unto Absalom, that Hushai said unto Absalom, God save [Long live] the king, God save [Long live] the king. 17And Absalom said to Hushai, Is this thy kindness to thy friend? why wentest thou not with thy friend? 18And Hushai said unto Absalom, Nay;6 but whom the Lord [Jehovah] and this people and all the men of Israel choose, his will I be, and with him will I abide. 19And again [in the second place], whom should I serve? should I not serve in the presence of his ?Song of Solomon 7 as I have served in thy fathers presence, so will I be in thy presence.

20Then said Absalom [And Absalom said] to Ahithophel, Give [ins. ye] counsel among you [om. among you8] what we shall do. 21And Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy fathers concubines, which [whom] he hath left to keep the house; and all Israel shall hear that thou art abhorred of [art become loathsome to9] thy father, then [and] shall [om. shall] the hands of all that are with thee 22[ins. shall] be strong. So [And] they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house [on the roof], and Absalom went in unto his fathers concubines in the sight of all Israel. 23And the counsel of Ahithophel, which he counselled in those days, was as if a man had inquired at the oracle [of the word] of God; so was all the counsel of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom.

2Sa 17:1 Moreover [And] Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Let10 me now choose out twelve thousand men, and I will arise and pursue after David this night; 2And I will come upon him while he is weary and weak-handed, and will make him afraid, and all the people that are with him shall flee, and I will smite the king only; 3And I will bring back all the people unto thee; the man whom thou 4seekest is as if all returned;11 so [om. so] all the people shall be in peace. And the saying pleased Absalom well [om. well], and all the elders of Israel. 5Then said Absalom [And Absalom said], Call now Hushai the Archite [Arkite] also, and let us hear likewise [om. likewise] what he [ins. too] saith. 6And when Hushai was come [And Hushai came] to Absalom, [ins. and] Absalom spake [said] unto him, saying, Ahithophel hath spoken after this manner; shall we do after his saying? if not, [after his saying, or not?]12 speak thou.

7And Hushai said unto Absalom, The counsel that Ahithophel hath given is not good at this time [hath given this time13 is not good]. 8For, said Hushai [and Hushai said], Thou knowest thy father and his men, that they be [are] mighty men, and [ins. that] they be [are] chafed in their minds, as a bear robbed of her whelps in the field;14 and thy father is a man of war, and will not lodge With the people. 9Behold, he is hid now in some pit [in one of the ravines] or in some other place [in one of the places15]; and it will come to pass, when some of them be overthrown [fall16] at the first, that whosoever heareth it will say There is a slaughter among the people that follow Absalom. 10And he also that is valiant, whose heart is as the heart of a lion, shall utterly melt; for all Israel knoweth that thy father is a mighty man, and they which be [that are] with him are valiant 11men. Therefore [But] I counsel17 that all Israel be generally gathered unto thee from Dan even [om. even] to Beersheba, as the sand that is by the sea for multitude, and that thou go to battle in thine own person. 12So shall we [And we shall] come upon him in some place [in one of the places] where he shall be found, and we will light upon him as the dew falleth on the ground,18 and of him and of all 13the men that are with him there shall not be left so much as one. Moreover [And] if he be gotten into a city, then shall all Israel bring19 ropes to that city, and we will draw it into the river [brook], until there be not one small stone found there. 14And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, The counsel of Hushai the Archite [Arkite] is better than the counsel of Ahithophel. For the Lord had appointed [And Jehovah appointed] to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the Lord [Jehovah] might bring evil upon20 Absalom.

15Then said Hushai [And Hushai said] unto Zadok and to Abiathar the priests, Thus and thus did Ahithophel counsel Absalom and the elders of Israel, and thus 16and thus have I counselled. Now, therefore [And now], send quickly and tell David, saying, Lodge not this night in the plains [at the fords21] of the wilderness, but speedily [om. speedily] pass over, lest the king be swallowed up and all the 17people that are with him. Now [And] Jonathan and Ahimaaz stayed by [were stationed at] En-rogel, for they might not be seen to come into the city; and a wench [the maid-servant] went and told them, and they went and told king David [And Jonathan and Ahimaaz were stationed at En-rogel, and the maid-servant came and told them, and they were to go and tell king David; for they might not 18be seen, etc.22]. Nevertheless [And] a lad saw them and told Absalom; but [and] they went both of them away [om. away] quickly, and came to a mans house in Bahurim, which [and he] had a well in his court, whither [and thither] they went down. 19And the woman took and spread a [the] covering over the wells mouth, and spread ground corn thereon; and the thing was not known [nothing 20was perceived]. And when [om. when] Absaloms servants came to the woman to the house, they [and] said, Where is Ahimaaz and Jonathan? And the woman said unto them, They be [are] gone over the brook23 of water. And when they had [And they] sought and could [did] not find them, they [and] returned to Jerusalem.

21And it came to pass, after they were departed, that they came up out of the well, and went and told king David, and said unto David, Arise and pass quickly over 22the water, for thus hath Ahithophel counselled against you. Then [And] David arose, and all the people that were with him, and they passed over Jordan; by the morning-light there lacked not one of them that was not gone over Jordan.

23And when [om. when] Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed [ins. and] he saddled his ass, and arose and gat him home [and went] to his house, to his city, and put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died, and was buried in the sepulchre of his father.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

2Sa 16:15-23. Absalom in Jerusalem. He is greeted by Hushai. Ahithophel counsels an evil deed.

2Sa 16:15. And Absalom, comp. 2Sa 15:12, to which this narration attaches itself, the account of Davids flight (2Sa 15:13 to 2Sa 16:14) being interposed.And all the people of the men of Israel [literally: all the people, the men of Israel.Tr.]. Thenius: Very significant: The old malcontents (2Sa 2:8-9).

2Sa 16:16. Hushai, comp. 2Sa 15:32. He was to be the instrument for bringing to naught the designs of Ahithophel (2Sa 15:31).

2Sa 16:17. That Davids trusted friend and counsellor should come to him with the greeting: may the king live, must have astonished Absalom. But instead of expressing this feeling, he answers (in his double question) with a scornful fling (as his nature was) at Hushais friendly relation to David. [Patrick: Absalom did not reflect that one might have said to him: Is this thy duty to thy father?Tr.].

2Sa 16:18 sqq. Hushai in his answer assumes the role of crafty dissimulation, suggested by David (2Sa 15:34). His first word is the answer to Absaloms question: why wentest thou not with thy friend? It is therefore not to be rendered: Nay, but (De Wette, [Eng. A. V.]), but: Not (i.e., I went not with David), because, etc. Vulg.: nequaquam quia. [The rendering of Eng. A. V. here seems more natural and appropriate. See Text, and Gram.Tr.]. Whom the Lord has chosen, that is, as the event has shown: I follow him who is king by Gods choice. As I served before thy father [so will I be before thee, 2Sa 16:19], i. e., it is self-evident that, my service with the father having ceased by Gods will, I must attach myself to the son. By the clever use of this double argument, the divine and the human, he easily imposes on the inconsiderate Absalom the delusion that he means honestly. [Hushais two reasons: 1) the voice of the people is the voice of God (Patrick); 2) former fidelity to the father is ground and pledge of present fidelity to the son.Tr.].

2Sa 16:20. Brief statement of a council held by Absalom with Ahithophel and other counsellors (so the plural: Give ye) on the means of announcing and securing his usurpation. The Dativus commodi () gives the sense: it is your affair to counsel me [literally: give ye you counsel, Eng. A. V. wrongly: among you.Tr.].

2Sa 16:21. Ahithophels counsel was that he should publicly take to himself his fathers concubines (2Sa 15:16); this would indicate definite dethronement of the father, and complete assumption of royal authority. Comp. 2Sa 3:7; 2Sa 12:8. All Israel will hear, etc.Ahithophels purpose Isaiah , 1) to make the breach between Absalom and his father irreparable, and 2) to infuse energy into Absaloms followers, and confirm their defection from David.Cornelius a Lapide: That they may know that thy hatred against thy father is implacable, and so all hope and fear of reconciliation may be cut off, and they strengthened in thy conspiracy. So also Ahithophel hoped to secure his own position [i. e., he feared that, if a reconciliation were effected, he would be sacrificed.Tr.]. Absaloms deed was the grossest insult to his father (comp. Gen 49:4), and made reconciliation impossible. [Here again Ahithophel was perhaps avenging the wrong done to Bathsheba. So Blunt.Tr.].

2Sa 16:22. They spread the tent; the Article [so the original, but it may properly be omitted in an English translation, because the definiteness is not obviousTr.] indicates that it was the tent designed for the roof, used by the king and his family for protection against sun, wind and rain. Thenius: the expression: the tent is an evidence that the author is relating events of his time. On the roof, the same where Davids look at Bathsheba led him into the path of sin, whose evil results for him are completed in this deed of Absalom. Thus is Nathans threat (2Sa 12:11) fulfilled; as he sinned against Uriahs house, so is he punished in his own house.

2Sa 16:23. Explanatory remark attached to 2Sa 16:22. The immediate execution of Ahithophels counsel is explained by the fact that it had almost the weight of a divine oracle with both David and Absalom. It is thus intimated that they both put too much confidence in this bad man, the bitter fruit whereof David is now reaping. In 1Ch 27:33 he is expressly called the kings counsellor.24 To inquire of Gods word = to inquire of God. Comp. Jdg 1:1; Jdg 18:5; Jdg 20:18; Jdg 20:23; Jdg 20:27; 1Sa 10:22; 1Sa 14:37; 1Sa 22:10; 1Sa 22:13; 1Sa 23:2 [comp. Gen 25:22, where, however, the verb is different.Tr.]

2Sa 17:1-23. Defeat of Ahithophels counsel through Hushais, and suicide of Ahithophel.

2Sa 17:1-4. Ahithophels counsel against David: To surprise him by night and kill him. Against the opinion of the older expositors that Ahithophel wished to avenge the wrongs of his granddaughter Bathsheba, Isaiah 1) that this relationship is not proved, for, though Ahithophel had a son named Eliam (2Sa 23:34), it is not shown that this man is the same with Eliam, the father of Bathsheba (2Sa 11:3); 2) granting, however, that Ahithophel was Bathshebas grandfather, it is hard to see how an ambitious man, like him, should have sought revenge, when he saw his granddaughter raised to the highest honors of the realm.His advice is to fall on David quickly, that same night, with a chosen body of 12,000 men, and get possession of his person. Absalom having publicly and solemnly mounted the throne, there was needed a securing of his usurped power against David and his followers. This night is the night that followed Davids flight and Absaloms entrance into Jerusalem. In favor of this is 2Sa 17:16, and also 2Sa 17:2 compared with 2Sa 16:14; for Davids exhaustion, on which Ahithophel counted, could only come from the haste and exertion of the days flight. The sudden night-attack with superior force (the march required was only about four geographical miles) was to throw Davids followers into panic and flight, and, while they were thus scattered, Ahithophel was to kill the king alone, that is, while he was alone () He reckons on the kings weariness; in the phrase weakhanded the hand is the symbol of strength, comp. Isa 8:11.

2Sa 17:3. And I will bring back all the people to thee, that is, all the people now gathered around David. Ahithophel regards Absaloms government as the only lawful one, to which those fugitives must submit; their flight is in his eyes an act of insubordination, from which they are to be brought back.In the following difficult phrase [Eng. A. V. and Erdmann: the man thou seekest is as if all returned] the first question is whether we shall (with Thenius) adopt the reading of the Septuagint: as the bride returns to her husband; only the life of one man thou seekest, (and all the people will be uninjured). But, apart from the fact that no other ancient version has a trace of such a text, why may not the translation of the Sept. come (as Keil supposes) from a wrong reading of our Hebrew?41 For the rest, Bttcher (against Thenius) rightly objects that we cannot speak of the husband of a bride; where and when, he asks, further, was the bride brought back to her husband? Bttcher himself renders: as her wooer leads back the bride, etc. [where wooer is the person sent to propose for the bride, as Eliezer for Rebecca, Genesis 24.Tr.]; against which is the fact that the word he proposes () is never found in this sense of wooer, and also the unsuitableness of the adverb back. The rendering: if all return, [only] the man that thou seekest [will be killed] (Mich., Schultz) is to be rejected on account of the aposiopesis and consequent supplements. S. Schmid and Clericus translate: when all the men that thou seekest return, all the people will be at peace [so Philippson and Luther]; but this contradicts the connection, according to which the word seekest can only refer to David, and the word man () must be in the Singular referring to him. Maurer proposes two renderings, one: then I will bring back to thee all the people, as if the man that thou seekest brought back all, where the understanding of the Qal () as causative, though possible (Num 10:36; Psa 85:5 [4]; Mic 2:13), is here improbable, as he says, since two forms [Qal and Hiphil] having the same meaning would not stand so near together; the other: then I will bring back to thee all the people, as if all returned, would the man return () whom thou seekest (i. e., as if David, the man that thou seekest should be brought back with all his men) is to be rejected, (with Thenius) as unintelligible. The translation of the Vulgate: and I will bring back all the people, as one man is accustomed to return (for one man thou seekest) gives no clear sense. Ahithophels words are to be taken strictly according to their connection with the preceding 2Sa 17:2, where he sets the one man, David over against all the people with him, and announces it as his plan to kill him alone, so as then to bring back all the people (2Sa 17:3) that had gone out with him. That is, the one man that thou seekest is equivalent to the return of the whole people. Peter Martyr (Vermigli): one, says he, will perish, the multitude will be spared. Dathe: it is the same as if all returned, when he that thou seekest is killed [so nearly Chald.]. De Wette: the man that thou seekest is equivalent to the return of all. Bunsen: the return of all that have not yet joined thee, depends on the removal of David; his fall brings peace to the whole nation.Literally: the whole people will be peace, = in peace, adverbial use, as in 2Sa 20:9; 1Sa 25:6.

2Sa 17:1-4. The saying was right in the eyes of Absalom, etc., pleased him (2Sa 19:6; 2Sa 18:20; 2Sa 18:26; 1Ki 9:12; Jer 18:4, etc.).

2Sa 17:5-14. Hushais counsel against Ahithophel.

2Sa 17:5. Though Ahithophels counsel had been generally approved, Absalom sends for Hushai in order to hear his opinion. There is no need to read the Plural call ye (Sept., Vulg., Syr., Then.) instead of the Sing, call thou (of the Heb.), since Absalom, as king, might give such a command even to Ahithophel, instead of to the servants. As he had accorded full confidence to Hushai (2Sa 16:18-19), he wished at this decisive moment to hear his advice also.42

2Sa 17:6-7. Hushai, being asked, pronounces Ahithophels counsel not good [Not good is the counsel that Ahithophel counsels this time, that is, his former advice was good (2Sa 16:21), but not this.Tr.].

2Sa 17:8 sq. Hushai gives his advice in elaborate and skilful style. Against Ahithophels opinion that David was exhausted (2Sa 17:2), he first affirms the contrary, observing that Absalom knew his father and his men to be valiant heroes, and that they were embittered in spirit, as a bear robbed of her whelps (comp. Jdg 18:25; Pro 17:12; Hos 13:8). So he would not stay at night with the people, where he might be surprised. Bttcher and Thenius render: and lets not the people lodge for the night ( as unusual Hiphil); but there is no ground for this, [it does not agree with 2Sa 17:9 (Keil)].

2Sa 17:9 sqq. Description of how David, as a genuine military man, would be on his guard during the night, and, at the approach of Absaloms troops, would rush forth from his caverns43 and strong positions, fall on the enemys advanced guard and defeat the whole body. In the falling on them, where from the connection David is the subject,=when he falls on them. [Eng. A. V.: in the falling among them, = when some of them fall. See Text. and Gramm.Tr.]. The them refers from the context to Absaloms men, and it is unnecessary to read the people ( Dathe). In the beginning, since David would begin the fight by falling on the approaching enemy. [Or, according to Eng. A. V., the fall of some of Absaloms soldiers at the beginning of the battle would create a panic and flight, there being general fear of the military skill and prowess of David and his generals. Bib.-Com.: It is likely that Absalom was not a man of courage, and Hushai, knowing this, adroitly magnified the terror of the prowess of David and his men.Tr.].And the hearer hears and says, etc.picture of the spread of a report of defeat by those that are first attacked.

2Sa 17:10. Though the hearer be lion-hearted, he will melt in fear, because it is known in all Israel what heroes David and his men are. This explains how the report of an attack by David would lead to a general everthrow. To Ahithophels proposal to surprise David Hushai replies that on the contrary David would surprise them.

2Sa 17:11. Therefore his counsel is that Absalom should summon a great force from all Israel, and lead it against David in person. Properly: but44 (or, rather) I counsel. It is unnecessary to read in their midst (Sept., Vulgate, Arab., Thenius) instead of into battle, since a change in the Hebrew from the latter to the former would be easy.

2Sa 17:12 sq. Hushai explains to Absalom how he could with so great an army easily annihilate Davids band. We shall come unto him in one45 of the places. The next sentence is rendered in two ways: either: so we on him, that is, so we fall on him (Vulg.: irruemus super eum), spread over him, as the dew falls on the earth;46 or, we light47 on him [so Eng. A. V.], as the phrase is used of an encamping army (Isa 7:2; Isa 7:19), and of a lighting swarm of flies or locusts (Isa 7:19; Exo 10:14), and elsewhere (with on) in the sense of lighting (2Sa 21:10; Gen 8:4; Exo 10:14; Num 11:25-26); not: we encamp against him (De Wette). The second translation [we light on him] answers better to the figure of the dew, which falls quietly and unperceived on the earth at night, with which (as before with the sand on the sea) Hushai compares Absaloms army, settling quietly in its overwhelming power on David. On the other hand the emphatic we at the beginning of the sentence [as in the first translation] is without ground, and does not correspond to the verb we come in the preceding clause; while to this latter properly corresponds the verb we light (as indeed all the ancient versions have a verb in this place). Bttcher further remarks that this form of the Heb. Pers. Pron. is everywhere else used in a depreciatory sense: we insignificant, very poor persons, which would here be against the connection. Bttcher, however, would read locust48 instead of dew, and render: and sink (rush) on him, as a swarm of locusts falls on the earth; but this is too remote a conjecture (having no support in any ancient version or in any rendering), and unnecessary besides, since the figure of the dew, together with that of the sand, fitly sets forth the swift and quiet settling of the huge host on the enemy. And with this accords perfectly the statement of the success of the attack: not even one will be left.

2Sa 17:13. Hushai, assuming that the imagination of his hearers would be carried from one conception to the other, here passes in a wordy discourse, skilfully adapted to gain his end, to the supposition (which would appear natural to a military man) that David, defeated as above described, should concentrate to the rear, and throw himself into a strong city. Then all Israel set ropes to this city. Vulgate: all Israel put ropes around that city. Hushai is not speaking of ropes thrown over the walls by which the latter are thrown into the ditch (Michaelis, Dathe, Niemeyer), for nothing is said of a ditch and walls; but in his exaggerated mode of expression, which he forces to a hyperbolical climax (all intended for momentary effect), he shows how easily even then David could be captured, all Israel laying ropes about the city and dragging it into the neighboring brook or river. We are not here with Ewald to understand a city-fosse (), for the fosse was close by the city (Then.), but the brook or river on which the city is built, because fortified cities are almost always on the declivities of brooks or rivers (Then.). Till not even a small stone be found, so the ancient versions;49 comp. Amo 9:9 : a little grain.The meaning is: Your powerful army will easily destroy the fortified place, where David may seek refuge, and leave not one stone on another. Cornelius a Lapide: we will collect so great a force that we shall be able to put ropes around the city (so to speak), and drag it down to ruin.

2Sa 17:14. To this advice of Hushai Absalom gives the preference over Ahithophels. The boldness and highflown extravagance of Hushais words accorded with Absaloms character and with his wish to secure his throne in brilliant fashion by overpowering the force opposed to him. Clericus: The counsel seemed good, and at the same time was full of a certain boastfulness, that pleased the young man. The statement about the bravery of David and his men was true; the deceit in Hushais counsel was only the advice to make a levy of all Israel. Absalom deluded himself with the belief that this could be easily raised, not considering that only the discontented part of the people formed the kernel of the insurrection, that no small portion still remained true to David, and that another part, now for the moment fallen away, would return after the first fit of revolution had passed. For this reason it was an important consideration (to which Hushai slyly had regard) that David gained time while Absalom was preparing to summon all Israel. P. Martyr: to what does Hushai look in this counsel? to delay; delay, he knows, makes for Davids cause.And the Lord had appointed. In all this the narrator sees a divine appointment or ordination, the aim of which was thus to bring on Absalom the evil (that was determined on). The verb () is used in the signification appoint, ordain, also in Ps. 48:29 [psa 48:28]; Psa 111:9; Lam 1:17; Isa 45:12; the object of the verb is apparent from the connection. Ahithophels counsel is called good, because it was to Absaloms interest to attack David immediately.

2Sa 17:15-22. Hushai promptly sends word to David.

2Sa 17:15. He first informs the two high-priests, Zadok and Abiathar, of the council that was held. Comp. 2Sa 15:27-28. [Bib. Com.: It is remarkable how persistently Zadok is named first.Patrick: Herein Hushai betrayed Absaloms counsels.Tr.]

2Sa 17:16. He directs them to send information to David as speedily as possible by their sons, and to convey his advice concerning his next movement. Grotius: Davids plan, above mentioned (2Sa 15:35-36), succeeded well. Lodge not to-night at the fords of the wilderness (2Sa 15:28), that is, stay not this side the Jordan, but cross over. The necessity of the passage of the Jordan for Davids safety is shown by the following (variously understood) words: That it (namely, the transit) be not swallowed up (defeated, rendered impossible) to the king and to all the people that are with him. So (with Bttcher) the sentence is best understood from the connection and from Davids dangerous situation, the noun crossing over [transit] being taken as the subject of the verb ( immediately preceding). It was important that David should get away from this side the Jordan, where the masses were to be called out against him, and meantime, since a hasty expedition might be sent against him, when it was found that he was on the west side (especially if Absalom should change his mind and adopt Ahithophels counsel), he must pass immediately to the east side, where he might hope to find many followers, as actually happened. To the phrase that it be not swallowed up other interpretations are given: that of Maurer and De Wette: lest destruction be prepared for the king is untenable because the meaning of the verb (swallowed up) makes the introduction of such a verbal subject [destruction] impossible; that of Gesenius: that the king be not swallowed up [so Eng. A. V.] is equally untenable, because then the text should have the king as Nominative [in the Heb. it is preceded by the Prep, toTr.]. Of Ewalds rendering (Gram. 295 c): that it (misfortune) be not swallowed by the king, that is, that the king may not have to suffer it, Bttcher rightly says: a very unnatural rendering, with a very remote verbal subject, for which the verb would at least better be Feminine. [It seems allowable here to take the verb as impersonal, and render (with Eng. A. V., Ges., Philippson, Cahen): lest it be swallowed (destroyed) to the king, i. e., lest the king be destroyed. So all the ancient versions50 understood it. The construction adopted by Erdmann requires a somewhat difficult supply of a subject to the verb.Tr.]

2Sa 17:17. And Jonathan and Ahimaaz were standing [= were stationed], where the Participle were standing expresses their readiness to go as messengers to David at any moment, according to the arrangement in 2Sa 15:28; 2Sa 15:36. To this end they were stationed outside the city at the Fullers Fountain [En-rogel] for the purpose of receiving information. En-rogel (comp. Jos 15:7; 1Ki 1:9) is the present very deep and abundant Fountain of Job, Bir Eyub (Von Raumer, p. 307), or of Nehemiah, south of Jerusalem where the vallies of Kidron and Hinnom meet, Rob. II. 138 sqq. [Am. ed. I. 331333]; Tobler, Top. II. 50 sqq. (Knobel). [See in Smiths Bible-Dictionary, Art. En-rogel, Bonars argument for identifying En-rogel with the Fountain of the Virgin, and Dr. Wolcotts reply (Am. ed.) in favor of Bir Eyub.Tr.]The maid, not a maid, since the Article [of the Heb.] denotes the particular maid-servant belonging to the high-priests house. And they went, an anticipatory remark, the narrator desiring to mention immediately the chief fact, namely, that they carried the information to David. [See Text and Gram., where the inversion of Eng. A. V. is pointed out, and a slightly different translation proposed.Tr.] For they could not let themselves be seen to come into the cityappended explanation of the fact that they were outside the city, and the maid-servant had to go to them. Her going out to the spring would not seem strange, while their entrance and return would have excited suspicion, since it was known (2Sa 15:25 sqq.) that they were on Davids side.From 2Sa 17:18 it seems that Absalom closely watched them: A lad saw them and told Absalom. Seeing that they were observed, and expecting to be followed, they hastened off in order to get the start of their pursuers, and then to hide somewhere. They went to Bahurim, where Shimei met David (2Sa 16:5), whose counterpart is the man in whose house the two young men found refuge. It is again a woman (the mans wife) whose presence of mind and cunning did Davids cause a great service. The messengers descended into the empty well in the court.

2Sa 17:19. And she spread the covering, which (as the Art. shows) was at hand, or was designed for the well (Thenius), over the well, and spread thereon the grain-corns (Pro 27:22) with which (so the Art. indicates) she was occupied. Vulg. (explanatory rendering): as if she were drying barley-groats.

2Sa 17:20. Absaloms servants come in pursuit, are misdirected by the woman, find nothing and return to Jerusalem.51 [Patrick: It seems to have been a common opinion in those days that these officious lies for the safety of innocent persons had no hurt in them.Tr.]

2Sa 17:21 sq. The messengers hastened to David, who, in consequence of the information they brought, crossed the river immediately, so that by the morning light not even a man more was on the west side. The situation of affairs was now favorable to Davids cause.

2Sa 17:23. Ahithophel betakes himself to his city, leaves Absaloms court, that is, out of chagrin at the rejection of his counsel, anger at the frustration of his ambitious plans, and also from fear of the fatal results that Davids victory would have for him, the contriver and furtherer of the insurrection. A self-murder52 from baffled ambition and despair. Not only is Davids prayer (2Sa 15:31) answered, but Ahithophel falls under Gods judgment for his unfaithfulness and treachery.

HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL

1. Absaloms insurrection and the establishment of a new kingdom with public dishonoring of the royal house, is the completion of the judgment on Davids deep fall and weakness towards his sons crimes, the purpose of which was to purify him (after penitential self-humiliation on his part), and to subject him to the test of faith, without which he could not rise by Gods hand from this deep abasement. On the other hand, the success of the godless rebel shows a lack of a true theocratic feeling in the mass of the people, who, in abandoning Gods government, were guilty of opposition to the government of God. At the same time in Absaloms conduct (adopted through Ahithophels evil counsel) is exhibited the general truth that God permits evil to work out its own consequences, and the wicked to entangle themselves in their own snares, that He may reveal His justice and holiness in the self-condemnation and self-destruction of the power of evil, and thus lead the wandering and apostate, when they will hear His voice, to reflection and conversion, as happened here to the people, after the wickedness of Absalom and Ahithophel had completely worked itself out.

2. The divine justice is anew revealed in and on the house of David through Absaloms publicly committed crime. The answer to the question why God brought on Davids house this deed of shame of His own son, is given in the Lords word through Nathan (2Sa 12:11-12). The sins of the fathers are visited not only on the children, but through them. Absaloms deed was another chastisement for David from the Lord, not, indeed, a sign of the divine anger, but a wholesome paternal discipline, that was meant for his good. In such earnest does God deal with His children, even after He has taken them into favor (Schlier).

3. Absaloms rejection of Ahithophels good counsel for Hushais destructive counsel sets forth the truth that evil punishes itself by itself, and especially pride and vanity blind man, so that he errs in the choice of means for his sinful ends, and secures not only their frustration, but also his own destruction. But this occurs in the course of the moral government of the world, under the guidance of the divine justice and wisdom, which takes human sin, blindness and foolishness into its plans as a factor, in order to frustrate its wicked aims and to effect its own holy aims.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

2Sa 16:15. Schlier: Poor, deluded fool, that strives after popular favor, and when he has found it, consoles himself therewith. There is nothing more changeable than popular favornothing more transitory than what is called public opinion.

2Sa 16:16-19. Cramer: Remain faithful to thy friend in his poverty, that thou mayest again enjoy thyself with him when it goes well with him (Ecclus. 22:28, 29).The saints of God do many a thing with good intentions, and yet we are not on that account to take part in it all. Meantime God lets it happen, and knows how thereby to carry out His work (Isa 28:21; Isa 28:29).Schlier: What we say should be true, not merely that it shall contain no lie, but also that it be free from all double-meaning. In the times of the Old Testament, God the Lord could overlook such double-meaning; with us, in the times of the New Testament, that is no longer the case, but it holds always and every where that the Lord will make the upright prosper.

2Sa 16:20 sq. Hedinger: Worldly wisdom and spiritual gifts do not always dwell under one roof.S. Schmid: He must be extremely ungodly who can openly do that of which nature has a horror even in private.Schlier: David certainly thought anew upon his old sins, was ashamed and humbled himself, and in his sons sin again recognized his own sin, and anew repented before the Lord.

2Sa 17:1-4. Cramer: God blinds the ungodly, and confounds them through giddiness, so that they can neither see nor know what in human wise is wholesome and good for them; for He puts to shame the wisdom of the wise (Isa 29:14; Job 12:17).[Taylor: This plan was worthy of Ahithophels reputation. If it had been energetically followed, it would have been completely successful, and would have changed the entire color and complexion of Jewish history.Tr.]

2Sa 17:5-14. Large talking and grand schemes are a means whereby young and inexperienced persons are often deceived (1Ki 12:10).The Lord ensnares the ungodly in their cunning, so that they are deceived by that very thing on which they most relied.S. Schmid: If God does not open and rule the eyes of the mind, even the most sensible men are blind (Psa 119:18).Starke: God does not leave His enemies to manage as they will, but appoints them a limit, how far they shall go. When they take hold most shrewdly, yet God goes another road (Psa 33:10; Isa 8:10; Job 5:12).[Hall: First, to sweeten his opposition, Hushai yields the praise of wisdom to his adversary in all other counsels, that he may have leave to deny it in this; his very contradiction in the present insinuates a general allowance. Then he suggests certain apparent truths concerning Davids valor and skill to give countenance to the inferences of his improbabilities. Lastly, he cunningly feeds the proud humor of Absalom, in magnifying the power and extent of his commands, and ends in the glorious boasts of his fore-promised victory. As it is with faces, so with counsel; that is fair that pleaseth.Tr.]Schlier: A good cause always goes the way of truth, and does not need scoffing and self-important words, but goes on soberly and simply. Absalom gave heed to Hushais bad counsel, because Hushai knew how by means of his vanity to bring him to a fall.The Lord is with us and lets nothing happen to us; He also knows how to turn the wickedness of our enemies into a blessing to us. And if all the world is hostile and persecutes us, the Lord takes in hand even our persecutors, and does with them as He pleases.

2Sa 17:15-22. Schlier: Let us recognize the Lords hand in the things of common life also, but let us always honor His hand and thankfully accept what it gives. Circumstances are Gods messengers, and well for him who in these circumstances recognizes and honors the hand of his Lord. It was Gods hand that through all these littlenesses and casualties caused the news of Ahithophels counsel to come safe to David.

2Sa 17:23. Cramer: Ungodly men fall into the pit which they make for others (Psa 7:16 [Psa 7:15]; 1Sa 9:16 [1Sa 9:15]; Pro 26:27). [Hall: What a mixture do we find here of wisdom and madness! Ahithophel will needs hang himself; there is madness: he will yet set his house in order; there is an act of wisdom. How preposterous are the cares of idle worldlings, that prefer all other things to themselves, and while they look at what they have in their coffers, forget what they have in their breasts.Taylor: This is the first recorded case of deliberate suicide. And the feelings which led to it and which we can easily analyze, were very similar to those which have impelled many in our own times to commit the same awful iniquity. Chief among them was wounded pride. Then, besides this, there was the conviction that Absaloms cause was now hopelessly ruined Perhaps also there was a mingling of remorse with those other emotions of pride. He had left a master who loved and valued him, and had transferred his services to one who, as he now discovered, had not the wisdom to appreciate his worth, but preferred the gaudy glitter of empty rhetoric to the substantial wisdom of unadorned speech. This contrast, thus forced upon him, might awaken his conscience to the value of the friendship which he had forfeited when he turned against David, until remorse and shame overwhelmed him.Tr.]

[2Sa 17:5. It was not unwise in Absalom to seek the advice of another experienced counsellor also (Pro 24:6); his fault was that he did not know which advice to follow, and was misled by high-sounding and flattering words. In choosing counsellors, and in judging of their counsel, lies great part of the wisdom of life.Boldness is often true prudence; and delays are dangerous.

2Sa 17:14. Hushais treacherous craft and Absaloms silly vanity are overruled to the accomplishment of the Lords purpose. Few things are so consoling as the frequency with which we perceive how God brings good out of evil; and doubtless this is often true where we do not yet perceive it (Psa 76:10; Isa 13:7).

2Sa 17:23. Ahithophel 1) A model of worldly wisdom (2Sa 16:23). Excellence of his advice to Absalom (2Sa 16:21; 2Sa 17:1-3). 2) An example of worldly wisdom failing because it ignores God (2Sa 17:14; Psa 14:1). 3) A suicide; a) probable causes; b) folly and guilt.Tr.]

Footnotes:

[4][2Sa 16:15. This phrase, in which the all the people is put in apposition with men of Israel (not: all the people of the men of Israel. as Erdmann renders), is peculiar, and is variously changed by the versions: Sept.: all the men of Israel; Syr., Arab.: all the people that were with him, and all Israel; Vulg.: all his people. Sept. and Vulg. may have omitted half the expression for simplicity (and they retain different halves), and the Heb. text itself may be a duplet, arisen from a marginal explanation. Thenius: Instead of these words ( ) MS. Cantab. 1 has (added by Syr. and Arab.), which came from the fact that in some MS. that was copied, the words (men of Israel) stood under the (that were with him) of the preceding verse (Kennicott, sup. rat. text. Heb., 449).Tr.]

[5][2Sa 16:16. Sept.: (as above 2Sa 15:32) = .Hushais address to Absalom is literally: live the king! live the king! given once only in Sept. and Arabic.Tr.]

[6][2Sa 16:18. Thenius and Erdmann render: Not (i. e. I go not with David), because, etc. But it is not likely that Hushai would make his negation with one word, and usage establishes the sense of the phrase given in Eng. A. V.: nay, but, or, nay, for, see Ges. Lex. s. v. 2.The Kethib in this verse is approved by De Rossi against the Qeri , which seems to be adopted by all the versions, even by Syriac and Arab., which make the sentence interrogative. The Kethib () would be interrogative, and would require a preposition before .Tr.]

[7][2Sa 16:19. Arab.: And tis not my business to be forever the servant of one man; Syr.: whose servant I shall be is not in my power. Instead of Syr. had (), which Arab. read as .Tr.]

[8][2Sa 16:20. This Dativus commodi () cannot be here given well in English. The phrase: give ye you counsel, is awkward, and in give you counsel the pronoun would be understood as Nominative.Tr.]

[9][2Sa 16:21. The verb means: to be in bad odor. The is the Prep. with, not the sign of the Accus., as Sept. and Vulg. take it. Chald paraphrases: that thou art stirred up against thy father. Syr. and Arab. explain: that thou hast gone in to the concubines of thy father. Josephus interprets: the people will believe that a reconciliation with thy father is impossible.Tr.]

[10][2Sa 17:1. Or: I will now choose and will arise. Sept. and Vulg.: I will now choose me. Arab.: choose thou and let them go forth to seek David.Tr.]

[11][2Sa 17:3. So Erdmann, Cahen, Wordsworth, Bib.-Com. Various other renderings are discussed by Erdmann in the Exposition. In addition to what he says it may be mentioned that Chald. renders nearly (as to the sense) as Eng. A. V.: they will all return when the man that thou seekest is killed, = as the return of all is [the killing of] the man, etc. (so Cahen). Syr.: as if all the men that thou seekest returned, as if reading ; so Philippson: at the return of all the men thou seekest. The translations proposed all either do violence to the text, or fail to suit the connection and give a good sense, or require a bold insertion (as of the phrase: the killing of in Chald. and Eng. A. V.).Tr.]

[12][2Sa 17:6. Eng. A. V. renders according to the accents, and so Erdmann; but it is better (with Vulg., Cahen, Wellhausen) to take the sentence as a double question. Sept. inserts ( ), which may easily have fallen out (from the preceding ), and is almost necessary for the rendering of Eng. A. V. It is found in some MSS. and EDD.Instead of the more usual , we here have , literally: is there not = is our doing (according to Ahithophels counsel) not?Tr.]

[13][2Sa 17:7. , the numeral, not the simple substantive time (). Sept.: ; Vulg.: hac vice; Cahen: cette fois; Erdmann: dieses Mal.Tr.]

[14][2Sa 17:8. Sept. here inserts: , and as a fierce sow in the plain, which addition is adopted by Ewald, Thenius and Bttcher on the ground of its appropriate poetic character, and as not likely to have been inserted by the Greek translator. To this Wellhausen replies that the two words and of the Greek point to the same Heb. word (), making the double figure improbable, and further that an Israelite would naturally think of the hog only as an unclean animal, and would not put it alongside of the bear.Tr.]

[15][2Sa 17:9. The word place is here used in the sense of locality (Bib.-Com.) or camping-place in distinction from the ravine or cleft, not as a mere adverb, see 2Sa 17:12.Instead of some MSS. and EDD. have , and Wellhausen remarks that the two numerals here seem to have changed places.Tr.]

[16][2Sa 17:9. Or: when he falls on them at the first (so Erdmann and Sept.], and some would therefore supply the personal suffix to the Infinitive: but the present text permits either rendering, and that of Eng. A. V. seems to agree better with the context.Tr.]

[17][2Sa 17:11. Sept.: Thus I counsel, = , preferred by Wellhausen, on the ground that the similar words might easily have fallen out. The fullness of the expression would also be in Hushais manner.Some MSS. read: as the sand on the shore () of the sea, an expansion of the original.Bttchers objection to the last word in this verse, , battle, is that it elsewhere occurs only in poetry (Ps., Job, Eccles., Zech.), and he proposes , in their midst. This reading is strongly supported by the fact that all the versions have it (Chald.: at the head of them all), and is in itself more congruous with the general context; against it is Hushais inclination to use pompous and unusual words.Tr.]

[18][2Sa 17:12. On the face of the ground in some MSS. and EDD., a scribal expansion, as in the preceding verse.Tr.]

[19][2Sa 17:13. Vulg., Thenius, Philippson, Erdmann render: all Israel shall lay ropes at (= about) that city, on the ground that pulling a city stone by stone into the brook by ropes was an unheard of and impossible thing (Bp. Patrick also suggests the same difficulty). But Hushai seems purposely to put his proposal in the most recklessly exaggerated form, as an appeal to Absaloms vanity, and says expressly that the city will be drawn into the brook. This meaning will be gotten if we render the Hiphil (): lay to, apply to, and the text shows a double Accusative. The Hiphil may also mean: cause to bring. Wellhausen remarks that we should here expect , which is, however, according to the above view, not necessary.Tr.]

[20][2Sa 17:14. Literally: to, . All the versions and some MSS. and Edd. have , upon.The Pisqa in this verse is wanting in some MSS.; its effect is merely partially to isolate and bring out in relief the succeeding solemn statement.Tr.]

[21][2Sa 17:16. Eng. A. V. again adopts the Qeri, which is found in many MSS. and EDD. (De Rossi) and in all the versions. Kethib is here preferred as in 2Sa 15:28, which see.The speedily of Eng. A. V. is meant as translation of the Infinitive Absolute, but introduces too different a substantive idea from that of the verb (); the sense is rather: actually pass over. The rendering: lest the king be swallowed up (so Philippson, Wellhausen) seems to be the best; the phrase is discussed by Erdmann, who adopts the translation: lest it (transit over the river) be swallowed up (= snatched away).Tr.]

[22][2Sa 17:17. Eng. A V. here inverts the order of the Heb, in order to avoid the contradiction of making the statement: they might not be seen to enter the city, follow the statement that they had gone to tell the king (rendering the verb as Aorist). Erdmann says that this last statement is anticipatory. But the Imperfect is here better taken in the future sense: and they were to go and tell, which avoids the somewhat hard anticipation. Philippson renders not substantially differently: the maid told them that they were to go, etc.Tr.]

[23][2Sa 17:20. The word is as yet unexplained. Rashi says that its meaning can only be inferred from the context. Sept.: , little (perhaps from similarity of sound); Chald. takes the phrase as meaning the Jordan. Syriac renders: hence, as if it were or ; Arab. omits it; Vulg.: having tasted a little water, after the Sept. J. D. Michaelis and Gesenius compare Arab. makil, a dry pit, mimkal, a pit containing water, but this does not agree with the form of the Heb. word. Others assume a root (Frst takes this stem to mean contain, whence our word = water-ditch). Wellhausen would drop from the text, or supply some such word as : the way of the water.Tr.]

[24]And the counsel of Ahithophel daysthe construction is interrupted, and completes itself in the … . Qeri and all versions supply after ; but, if one is not disposed to accept this as necessary (Keil), the verb may be taken impersonally.

[41] for [with interpolation of only the life of one man (Keil). The Sept. text was . It is suggested that the three words following may have fallen out, because the eye of the scribe passed to the following , to which the in was then prefixed, and the made into . This is possible, but the sense of the Sept. rendering is doubtful.Tr.]

[42]The strengthens the suffix in . Ewald, 311 a.

[43] , natural hiding-places, , artificially strong positions; in these David would pass the night.

[44]So after a negation, expressed or understood, Ges. 155, 1, e = thy person, thyself, the Plu. noun here accompanied by a Plu. Particip,Instead of Thenius would read .

[45]The fem. numeral (though the subst. is found as fem. in Gen 18:24; Job 20:9) is probably (since the masc. is used in 2Sa 17:9) to be regarded as scribal error for masc. (Maurer).

[46]Taking = we, as in Gen 42:11; Exo 16:7-8; Num 32:32; Lam 3:42.

[47] as 1 plu. Perf. Qal of , Sept. (), Syr., Arab.

[48] or for .

[49] = .On the masc. referring to the fem. see Ew. 174, 6 a.

[50][Sept. (Alex.): lest one swallow up the king; Vulg.: lest the king be swallowed up; Syr.: lest thou perish; Chald.: lest profit be gotten front the king, i. e., lest he be betrayed (Waltons Polyg. incorrectly: lest the king perish).Tr.]

[51] a . . = a small brook in the vicinity. [See Text. and Gram.Tr.]

[52][There is an old opinion (see Patrick in loco) that Ahithophel died of quinsy brought on by violent passions, grief, chagrin, hatred, and Then. (Comm. in loco) mentions that the same view (as to the disease) is maintained by Steuber (1741). In Drydens Absalom and Ahithophel the latter personage represents the Earl of Shaftesbury.Tr.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

(15) And Absalom, and all the people the men of Israel, came to Jerusalem, and Ahithophel with him.

The rebellion was become very formidable by this time, when Absalom had taken the capital. No doubt, David’s hopes began to give way, and fear took possession of his heart. Reader! it is profitable, very profitable in spiritual things, to be brought down to the lowest state, that the recovery may carry with it the clearer evidence, that the delivery is wholly of the LORD. We have the sentence of death in ourselves, that our eyes may be altogether to JESUS. 2Co 1:9-10 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

2Sa 16:15 And Absalom, and all the people the men of Israel, came to Jerusalem, and Ahithophel with him.

Ver. 15. The men of Israel. ] Perhaps the deputies of the commonality for the choosing of a new king.

And Ahithophel with him. ] That archartist in hellish policy: as ill a counsellor to Absalom, as Jonadab had been to Amnon. In all the shop of hell there is no anvil so well set whereon to forge, no engine so apt whereby to execute any choice piece of mischief, as your Machiavellian. And although that Florentine Secretary was not born for many ages after Ahithophel, yet the devil no doubt was as great a master then, as afterwards.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Absalom: 2Sa 15:37

Reciprocal: Psa 3:1 – how

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

2Sa 16:15. Absalom and all the people came to Jerusalem Probably a considerable time before David reached the banks of Jordan, to which he was marching. When David quitted Jerusalem, it was upon a persuasion that Absalom would make all the haste he could to possess himself of the capital, and, if possible, to surprise his father in it. And as he judged, so, it appears, it came to pass.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

The counsel of Ahithophel and Hushai 16:15-17:29

This is the central unit of chapters 5-20, and its central focus is the judgment that Hushai’s advice was better than Ahithophel’s (2Sa 17:14). This advice is the pivot on which the fortunes of David turned in his dealings with Absalom.

Hushai was loyal to David primarily because David was the Lord’s anointed (2Sa 16:18). His words to Absalom implied that he was supporting the revolution, but everything that Hushai said could have been taken as supporting David, which he did. They are masterful double entendre. He was really serving David in the presence of his son Absalom (2Sa 16:19).

"Hushai has kept his integrity, Absalom has been blinded by his own egoism, and the reader is permitted to see one example of the outworking of God’s providence." [Note: Baldwin, p. 264.]

In the ancient East people regarded the public appropriation of a king’s concubines as an act that signaled the transfer of power to his successor. [Note: de Vaux, 1:116.] Here Absalom broke the Mosaic Law (Lev 18:7-8) to gain power. By following Ahithophel’s advice Absalom brought about one of the judgments God had predicted would come on David for his sin (2Sa 12:11-12). This act was also a great insult to David, and it jeopardized Absalom’s inheritance rights (cf. Reuben’s similar sin, Gen 35:22; Gen 49:3-4). The king was reaping what he had sown (Gal 6:7). Absalom’s immorality may have taken place on the very roof where David had committed adultery (cf. 2Sa 11:2), though that is not certain.

"David had illicitly slept with a woman who was not his wife (cf. 2Sa 11:4), and now his son is counseled to follow in his father’s footsteps." [Note: Youngblood, p. 1007.]

In 2Sa 17:9 Hushai warned that if only a small group of Absalom’s men pursued David and David defeated them, the news would spread that Absalom had lost the battle. The people would then side with David. He proposed the ultimate flattery, namely, that Absalom himself should lead his troops into battle, which is what kings usually did (2Sa 16:11). Yahweh sought to bring calamity on Absalom (2Sa 16:14) because Absalom sought to overthrow the Lord’s anointed.

Enrogel (2Sa 16:17) lay just south of Zion near where the Hinnom and Kidron Valleys join. There are parallels between 2Sa 16:17-22 and the story of the spies at Jericho (Joshua 2). [Note: See Gunn, "Traditional Composition . . .," p. 224.] Ahithophel may have believed that Hushai’s advice would result in Absalom’s defeat and David’s ultimate return to Jerusalem, [Note: Gordon, p. 282.] or he may have committed suicide out of humiliation (2Sa 16:23).

"It seems more plausible to assume that he took his life at some later stage, perhaps after the battle in the Forest of Ephraim." [Note: Anderson, p. 216.]

"All the utterly real issues between people and people and between God and people that swirl throughout 2 Samuel 9-20, 1 Kings 1-2 also swirl about Jesus as he moves toward the cross. One must think that the Gospel writers were acutely aware of this when they depicted Jesus’ Maundy Thursday walk to the Mount of Olives in ways so graphically reminiscent of the ’passion’ of the first Meshiach in 2Sa 15:13-37. Even the detail of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus, and his subsequent suicide, have no remote parallel anywhere in Scripture, with the remarkable exception of Ahithophel, who betrayed the Lord’s anointed and thus opened the door to suicidal despair (2Sa 17:23)." [Note: James A. Wharton, "A Plausible Tale: Story and Theology in 2 Samuel 9-20, 1 Kings 1-2," Interpretation 35:4 (October 1981):353.]

Mahanaim on the Jabbok River in Transjordan had been Ish-bosheth’s capital (2Sa 2:8). Probably David went there because the inhabitants favored him for his goodness to Mephibosheth, Saul’s grandson. Amasa was the son of Jithra (or Jether), an Ishmaelite (not Israelite; cf. 1Ch 2:17), and the son of Joab’s cousin Abigail. Absalom’s army also camped in Transjordan in the Gilead hills, probably south of Mahanaim.

Those who helped David included Shobi (2sa16:27), the son of Nahash, who had been king of Ammon, and who was probably the brother of Hanun, the present Ammonite king who had humiliated David’s well-wishers (ch. 10). Ammon was presently subservient to Israel. David and Joab had subdued Ammon about 14 years earlier (2Sa 12:26-31). Machir had been the host of Mephibosheth before David assumed his support and moved him to Jerusalem from Lo-debar (2Sa 9:1-5). Barzillai was a wealthy supporter of David from Rogelim, a town farther to the north in Gilead. Shobi, Machir, and Barzillai demonstrate other characteristics of true friends: they initiated help for David and supplied him abundantly with his needs and wants.

If all Christians are God’s anointed (and we are, 1Jn 2:27), even though former friends disappoint, forsake, and betray us, the Lord will preserve and protect us (cf. Heb 13:5-6). He will even raise us from the dead to keep His promises to us (cf. Heb 11:19). Our responsibility is simply to follow the Lord faithfully in spite of opposition, as we see David doing in this story.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

CHAPTER XXII.

ABSALOM IN COUNCIL.

2Sa 16:15-23; 2Sa 17:1-14; 2Sa 17:23.

WE must now return to Jerusalem, and trace the course of events there on that memorable day when David left it, to flee toward the wilderness, just a few hours before Absalom entered it from Hebron.

When Absalom came to the city, there was no trace of an enemy to oppose him. His supporters in Jerusalem would no doubt go out to meet him, and conduct him to the palace with great demonstrations of delight. Eastern nations are so easily roused to enthusiasm that we can easily believe that, even for Absalom, there would be an overpowering demonstration of loyalty. Once within the palace, he would receive the adherence and congratulations of his friends.

Among these, Hushai the Archite presents himself, having returned to Jerusalem at David’s request, and it is to Hushai’s honour that Absalom was surprised to see him. He knew him to be too good a man, too congenial with David “his friend,” to be likely to follow such a standard as his. There is much to be read between the lines here. Hushai was not only a counselor, but a friend, of David’s. They were probably of kindred feeling in religious matters, earnest in serving God. A man of this sort did not seem to be in his own place among the supporters of Absalom. It was a silent confession by Absalom that his supporters were a godless crew, among whom a man of godliness must be out of his element. The sight of Hushai impressed Absalom as the sight of an earnest Christian in a gambling saloon or on a racecourse would impress the greater part of worldly men. For even the world has a certain faith in godliness, – to this extent, at least, that it ought to be consistent. You may stretch a point here and there in order to gain favour with worldly men; you may accommodate yourselves to their ways, go to this and to that place of amusement, adopt their tone of conversation, join with them in ridiculing the excesses of this or that godly man or woman; but you are not to expect that by such approaches you will rise in their esteem. On the contrary, you may expect that in their secret hearts they will despise you. A man that acts according to his convictions and in the spirit of what he professes they may very cordially hate, but they are constrained to respect. A man that does violence to the spirit of his religion, in his desire to be on friendly terms with the world and further his interests, and that does many things to please them, they may not hate so strongly, but they will not respect. There is a fitness of things to which the world is sometimes more alive than Christians themselves. Jehoshaphat is not in his own place making a league with Ahab, and going up with him against Ramoth-gilead; he lays himself open to the rebuke of the seer – “Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord.” There is no New Testament precept needing to be more pondered than this – “Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers; for what communion hath light with darkness? or what fellowship hath Christ with Belial? or what communion hath he that believeth with an infidel?”

But Hushai was not content with putting in a silent appearance for Absalom. When his consistency is challenged, he must repudiate the idea that he has any preference for David; he is a loyal man in this sense, that he attaches himself to the reigning monarch, and as Absalom has received overwhelming tokens in his favour from every quarter, Hushai is resolved to stand by him. But can we justify these professions of Hushai? It is plain enough he went on the principle of fighting Absalom with his own weapons, of paying him with his own coin; Absalom had dissembled so profoundly, he had made treachery, so to speak, so much the current coin of the kingdom, that Hushai determined to use it for his own purposes. Yet, even in these circumstances, the deliberate dissembling of Hushai grates against every tender conscience, and more especially his introduction of the name of Jehovah – “Nay, but whom the Lord, and this people, and all the men of Israel choose, his will I be, and with him will I abide.” Was not this taking the name of the Lord his God in vain? The stratagem had been suggested by David; it was not condemned by the voice of the age; and we are not prepared to say that stratagem is always to be condemned; but surely, in our time, the claims of truth and fair dealing would stamp it as a disreputable device, not sanctified by the end for which it was resorted to, and not worthy the followers of Him “who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth.”

Having established himself in the confidence of Absalom, Hushai gained a right to be consulted in the deliberations of the day. He enters the room where the new king’s counselors are met, but he finds it a godless assemblage. In planning the most awful wickedness, a cool deliberation prevails that shows how familiar the counselors are with the ways of sin. “Give counsel among you,” says the royal president, “what we shall do.” How different from David’s way of opening the business – “Bring hither the ephod, and enquire of the Lord.” In Absalom’s council help of that kind is neither asked nor desired.

The first to propose a course is Ahithophel, and there is something so revolting in the first scheme which he proposed that we wonder much that such a man should ever have been a counselor of David. His first piece of advice, that Absalom should publicly take possession of his father’s concubines, was designed to put an end to any wavering among the people; it was, according to Eastern ideas, the grossest insult that could be offered to a king, and that king a father, and it would prove that the breach between David and Absalom was irreparable, that it was vain to hope for any reconciliation. They must all make up their minds to take a side, and as Absalom’s cause was so popular, it was far the most likely they would side with him. Without hesitation Absalom complied with the advice. It is a proof how hard his heart had become, that he did not hesitate to mock his father by an act which was as disgusting as it was insulting. And what a picture we get of the position of women even in the court of King David! They were slaves in the worst sense of the term, with no right even to guard their virtue, or to protect their persons from the very worst of men; for the custom of the country, when it gave him the throne, gave him likewise the bodies and souls of the women of the harem to do with as he pleased!

The next piece of Ahithophel’s counsel was a masterpiece alike of sagacity and of wickedness. He proposed to take a select body of twelve thousand out of the troops that had already flocked to Absalom’s standard, and follow the fugitive king. That very night he would set out; and in a few hours they would overtake the king and his handful of defenders; they would destroy no life but the king’s only; and thus, by an almost bloodless revolution, they would place Absalom peacefully on the throne. The advantages of the plan were obvious. It was prompt, it seemed certain of success, and it would avoid an unpopular slaughter. So strongly was Ahithophel impressed with the advantages that it seemed impossible that it could be opposed, far less rejected. One element only he left out of his reckoning – that “as the mountains are round about Jerusalem, so the Lord God is round about His people from henceforth even forever.” He forgot how many methods of protecting David God had already employed From the lion and the bear He had delivered him in his youth, by giving strength to his arm and courage to his heart; from the uncircumcised Philistine He had delivered him by guiding the stone projected from his sling to the forehead of the giant; from Saul, at one time through Michal letting him down from a window; at another, through Jonathan taking his side, at a third, by an invasion of the Philistines calling Saul away; and now He was preparing to deliver him from Absalom by a still different method: by causing the shallow proposal of Hushai to find more favour than the sagacious counsel of Ahithophel.

It must have been a moment of great anxiety to Hushai when the man whose counsel was as the oracle of God sat down amid universal approval, after having propounded the very advice of which he was most afraid. But he shows great coolness and skill in recommending his own course, and in trying to make the worse appear the better reason. He opens with an implied compliment to Ahithophel – his counsel is not good at this time. It may have been excellent on all other occasions, but the present is an exception. Then he dwells on the warlike character of David and his men, and on the exasperated state of mind in which they might be supposed to be; probably they were at that moment in some cave, where no idea of their numbers could be got, and from which they might make a sudden sally on Absalom’s troops; and if, on occasion of an encounter between the two armies, some of Absalom’s were to fall, people would take it as a defeat; a panic might seize the army, and his followers might disperse as quickly as they had assembled.

But the concluding stroke was the masterpiece. He knew that vanity was Absalom’s besetting sin. The young man that had prepared chariots and horses, and fifty men to run before him, that had been accustomed to poll his head from year to year and weigh it with so much care, and whose praise was throughout all Israel for beauty, must be flattered by a picture of the whole host of Israel marshaled around him, and going forth in proud array, with him at its head. “Therefore I counsel that all Israel be generally gathered unto thee, from Dan even to Beersheba, as the sand that is by the sea for multitude, and that thou go to battle in thine own person. So shall we come upon him in some place where he may be found, and we will light upon him as the dew falleth on the ground; and of him and of all the men that are with him there shall not be left so much as one. Moreover, if he be gotten into a city, then shall all Israel bring ropes to that city, and we will draw it into the river until there shall not be one small stone left there.”

It is with counsel as with many other things: what pleases best is thought best; solid merit gives way to superficial plausibility. The counsel of Hushai pleased better than that of Ahithophel, and so it was preferred. Satan had outwitted himself. He had nursed in Absalom an overweening vanity, intending by its means to overturn the throne of David; and now that very vanity becomes the means of defeating the scheme, and laying the foundation of Absalom’s ruin. The turning-point in Absalom’s mind seems to have been the magnificent spectacle of the whole of Israel mustered for battle, and Absalom at their head. He was fascinated by the brilliant imagination. How easily may God, when He pleases, defeat the most able schemes of His enemies! He does not need to create weapons to oppose them; He has only to turn their own weapons against themselves. What an encouragement to faith even when the fortunes of the Church are at their lowest ebb! “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord, and against His anointed, saying, Let us break their bonds asunder, and cast away their cords from us. lie that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall He speak to them in wrath, and vex them in His sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.”

The council is over; Hushai, unspeakably relieved, hastens to communicate with the priests, and through them send messengers to David; Absalom withdraws to delight himself with the thought of the great military muster that is to flock to his standard; while Ahithophel, in high dudgeon, retires to his house. The character of Ahithophel was a singular combination. To deep natural sagacity he united great spiritual blindness and lack of true manliness. He saw at once the danger to the cause of Absalom in the plan that had been preferred to his own; but it was not that consideration, it was the gross affront to himself that preyed on him, and drove him to commit suicide. “When Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass and arose and gat him home to his house, to his city, and put his household in order, and hanged himself and died, and was buried in the sepulcher of his father.” In his own way he was as much the victim of vanity as Absalom. The one was vain of his person, the other of his wisdom. In each case it was the man’s vanity that was the cause of his death. What a contrast Ahithophel was to David in his power of bearing disgrace! – David, though with bowed head, bearing up so bravely, and even restraining his followers from chastising some of those who were so vehemently affronting him; Ahithophel unable to endure life because for once another man’s counsel had been preferred to his. Men of the richest gifts have often shown themselves babes in self-control. Ahithophel is the Judas of the New Testament, lays plans for the destruction of his master, and, like Judas, falls almost immediately, by his own hand. “What a mixture,” says Bishop Hall, “do we find here of wisdom and madness! Ahithophel will needs hang himself, there is madness; he will yet set his house in order, there is wisdom. And could it be possible that he that was so wise as to set his house in order was so mad as to hang himself? that he should be so careful to order his house who had no care to order his unruly passions? that he should care for his house who cared not for his body or his soul? How vain is it for man to be wise if he is not wise in God. How preposterous are the cares of idle worldlings, that prefer all other things to themselves, and while they look at what they have in their coffers forget what they have in their breasts.”

This council-chamber of Absalom is full of material for profitable reflection. The manner in which he was turned aside from the way of wisdom and safety is a remarkable illustration of our Lord’s principle- “If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.” We are accustomed to view this principle chiefly in its relation to moral and spiritual life; but it is applicable likewise even to worldly affairs. Absalom’s eye was not single. Success, no doubt, was the chief object at which he aimed, but another object was the gratification of his vanity. This inferior object was allowed to come in and disturb his judgment. If Absalom had had a single eye, even in a worldly sense, he would have felt profoundly that the one thing to be considered was, how to get rid of David and establish himself firmly on the throne. But instead of studying this one thing with firm and immovable purpose, he allowed the vision of a great muster of troops commanded by himself to come in, and so to distract his judgment that he gave his decision for the latter course. No doubt he thought that his position was so secure that he could afford the few days’ delay which this scheme involved. All the same, it was this disturbing element of personal vanity that gave a twist to his vision, and led him to the conclusion which lost him everything.

For even in worldly things, singleness of eye is a great help towards a sound conclusion. “To the upright there ariseth light in the darkness.” And if this rule hold true in the worldly sphere, much more in the moral and spiritual. It is when you have the profoundest desire to do what is right that you are in the best way to know what is wise. In the service of God you are grievously liable to be distracted by private feelings and interests of your own. It is when these private interests assert themselves that you are most liable to lose the clear line of duty and of wisdom. You wish to do God’s will, but at the same time you are very unwilling to sacrifice this interest, or expose yourself to that trouble. Thus your own feeling becomes a screen that dims your vision, and prevents you from seeing the path of duty and wisdom alike. You have not a clear sight of the right path. You live in an atmosphere of perplexity; whereas men of more single purpose, and more regardless of their own interests, see clearly and act wisely. Was there anything more remarkable in the Apostle Paul than the clearness of his vision, the decisive yet admirable way in which he solved perplexing questions, and the high practical wisdom that guided him throughout? And is not this to be connected with his singleness of eye, his utter disregard of personal interests in his public life – his entire devotion to the will and to the service of his Master? From that memorable hour on the way to Damascus, when he put the question, “Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?” onward to the day when he laid his head on the block in imperial Rome, the one interest of his heart, the one thought of his mind, was to do the will of Christ. Never was an eye more single, and never was a body more full of light.

But again, from that council-chamber of Absalom and its results we learn how all projects founded on godlessness and selfishness carry in their bosom the elements of dissolution. They have no true principle of coherence, no firm, binding element, to secure them against disturbing influences arising from further manifestations of selfishness on the part of those engaged in them. Men may be united by selfish interest in some undertaking up to a certain point, but, like a rocket in the air, selfishness is liable to burst up in a thousand different directions, and then the bond of union is destroyed. The only bond of union that can resist distracting tendencies is an immovable regard to the will of God, and, in subordination thereto, to the welfare of men. In our fallen world it is seldom – rather, it is never – that any great enterprise is undertaken and carried forward on grounds where selfishness has no place whatever. But we may say this very confidently, that the more an undertaking is based on regard to God’s will and the good of men, the more stability and true prosperity will it enjoy; whereas every element of selfishness or self-seeking that may be introduced into it is an element of weakness, and tends to its dissolution. The remark is true of Churches and religious societies, of religious movements and political movements too.

Men that are not overawed, as it were, by a supreme regard to the will of God; men to whom the consideration of that will is not strong enough at once to smite down every selfish feeling that may arise in their minds, will always be liable to desire some object of their own rather than the good of the whole. They will begin to complain if they are not sufficiently considered and honoured. They will allow jealousies and suspicions towards those who have most influence to arise in their hearts. They will get into caves to air their discontent with those like-minded. All this tends to weakness and dissolution. Selfishness is the serpent that comes crawling into many a hopeful garden, and brings with it division and desolation. In private life, it should be watched and thwarted as the grievous foe of all that is good and right. The same course should be taken with regard to it in all the associations of Christians. And it is Christian men only that are capable of uniting on grounds so high and pure as to give some hope that this evil spirit will not succeed in disuniting them – that is to say, men who feel and act on the obligations under which the Lord Jesus Christ has placed them; men that feel that their own redemption, and every blessing they have or hope to have, come through the wonderful self-denial of the Son of God, and that if they have the faintest right to His holy name they must not shrink from the like self- denial. It is a happy thing to be able to adopt as our rule – “None of us liveth to himself; for whether we live, we live unto the Lord, or whether we die, we die unto the Lord; whether we live therefore or die, we are the Lord’s.” The more this rule prevails in Churches and Christian societies, the more will there be of union and stability too; but with its neglect, all kinds of evil and trouble will come in, and very probably, disruption and dissolution in the end.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary