Second Samuel – Chapter 14

The Woman of Tekoa, vs. 1-10

Joab, the captain of the host, soon noticed the deep grief and concern of David for his son. It is implied that his anxiety interfered with his governmental functions. For this reason Joab concluded that David must be persuaded to recall Absalom from his exile. The problem for David was that Absalom was guilty of murder, and under Israel’s law he should have been executed. Only God could set aside the penalty and that only in respect of His mercy when the guilty confessed as in the case of David himself. There may have been those in the kingdom clamoring for Absalom’s execution.

In order to persuade David to grant pardon to his son and permit his return to Israel Joab devised a scheme, using an actress called a wise woman, from Tekoah. This town was near Jerusalem, about twenty straight-line miles to the south. She dressed to play the part of a widow in mourning, leaving off anointing oil so as to present the careless aspect of one in deep grief. Joab told her what to say when she gained an audience with David. Thus she came before him and fell on her face to the ground, asking for help.

Permitted to speak the woman told a story of how her husband had died leaving her with two sons. But the sons had quarreled, and one had slain the other in an unpremeditated moment of passion. Other family members demanded the full penalty of the law for murder, but she would not give him up. If they should execute her surviving son it would leave her husband without heir, and she herself without material sustenance. It was a very distressing dilemma she presented.

The king tried to dismiss her while he pondered her case, but she pleaded for prompt judgment. Let not the burden of the judgment be on him, but let it be she who would be guilty of an aberration of the law, if such there should be. So the king agreed that any who questioned her protection of her son would have to answer to him.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES.

2Sa. 14:1. Now Joab, etc. Most commentators attribute Joabs action in this matter to motives of self-interest. It appears highly probably that Absalom was now the heir to the throne (see on 2Sa. 13:29), and Joab was therefore anxious to secure his goodwill by being of service to him. Toward Absalom. Most scholars, in accordance with the Syriac, the Septuagent, and the Vulgate versions, sustain the English reading here, but Erdmann and Keil contend that the preposition here used has the sense of against in this place. The latter says , written with and without any verb, only occurs again in Dan. 11:28, where it means against. He further remarks that, if Joab had noticed the re-awakening of Davids good feeling towards Absalom, there would have been no necessity for him to bring the cunning woman from Tekoah to induce him to consent to Absaloms return. Moreover, David would not in that case have refused to allow Absalom to see his face for two whole years after his return.

2Sa. 14:2. Tekoah. Now Tekue, about five miles south of Bethlehem and the home of the prophet Amos. According to the Talmud, there were important oil plantations in the neighbourhood, and the women there were noted for their shrewdness. (Philippson.)

2Sa. 14:7. The heir also. These words are added to the preceding (we will kill him) by reason of the second thought that characterises the blood-revenge, namely, that while they kill him for blood-vengeance, they wish at the same time to destroy the surviving heir. The womans purpose is not only to bring out the design of the kinsman in their blood-avenging as harshly as possible, but also, with reference to Davids hostile feeling to Absalom, to emphasize the point that the latter is the heir to Davids throne, and to save him as such from his fathers anger. (Erdmann.) Quench my coal. The burning coal with which one kindles a fresh fire to denote the last remnant. (Keil).

2Sa. 14:8. Go to thine house, etc. This declaration on the part of the king was perfectly just. If the brothers had quarrelled and one had killed the other in the heat of the quarrel, it was right that he should be defended from the avenger of blood, because it could not be assumed that there was any previous intention to murder. This declaration, therefore, could not be applied as yet to Davids conduct towards Absalom. (Keil.)

2Sa. 14:9. The Iniquity be on me, i.e., If it be wrong not to carry out the blood-shedding. (Erdmann.)

2Sa. 14:11. Let the king remember the Lord, etc. Either she desires David to confirm his promise by an oath or she reminds him of the great mercy which God had extended to Himself in pardoning the murder of Uriah.

2Sa. 14:13. Against the people of God. The ambiguity of this phrase has led some to render it, Why dost thou propose suck things towards the people of God, i.e. such protection towards me and my son. But most critics reject this rendering. Erdmann understands by the people of God, the nation who would suffer by the rejection of one who would one day be their King.

2Sa. 14:14. We must needs die, etc. Thenius refers these words to Amnons death with the meaning, he had to die sometime, and all you can now do against the murderer will not restore him to life. But most writers understand the woman to mean Absalom may die in banishment and then your pardon may come too late, or As life is so short and uncertain do not embitter it by enmity. Neither doth God respect, etc. Rather. God doth not take away any soul, but thinks thoughts, not to banish a banished one. An argument from Gods procedure with the sinner. He does not take away the soul (life) of one that is banished, condemned for sin, so as thus to banish him for ever. These words must have brought to Davids recollection Gods mercy towards himself. (Erdmann.) This is one of the noblest and profoundest declarations of the Scripture. God, who has determined us to death, nevertheless does not deprive us of life, of personality, but has the holy purpose to receive against the banished, the sinful. (Philippson.) This (last) explanation makes the first half of the verse merely introductory to the thought in the second, merely a relative sentence containing an affirmation about God; this is not so probable as the view which makes the first half a separate argument. The argument, though powerful, is false; the human Judge cannot set aside the demands of justice, though God may pardon the sinner. (Translator of Langs Commentary.)

2Sa. 14:15. The people have made me afraid, i.e. Her kinsfolk who demanded her son. The woman returns again to her own affairs, to make the King believe that nothing but her destress led her to speak thus. (Keil.)

2Sa. 14:17. Comfortable, literally, for rest, i.e., shall give me rest. Angel of God. The angel of the covenant, the mediator of divine grace to the covenant nation. (Ked.) To discern good and bad. This affirms two things.

1. In every case brought before him, the king, he will impartially hear both sides.
2. He helps the oppressed. (Erdmann.) There is a great deal of artifice in all this. For to presume upon the kindness of another and expect gracious answers from their noble qualities is very moving. (Patrick).

2Sa. 14:19. None can turn to the right, etc., i.e. The king always hits the right point. She compliments the king on the sagacity which enabled him to penetrate the secret.

2Sa. 14:20. To fetch about this form, etc. Erdmann translates this, To turn the face of the thing, i.e., to change the relation of Absalom to his father. Keil renders, To turn the appearance of the king, understanding thereby, to disguise the affair in the finest way.

2Sa. 14:23. Hath fulfilled the request. These words are generally understood to indicate that Joab had repeatedly pleaded for Absaloms return.

2Sa. 14:24. Let him not see my face. This was no real pardon. Davids anger still continued. It is a natural surmise that this was because Absalom showed no repentance and did not ask for forgiveness. (Erdmann.) His own house. His being obliged to send for Joab suggests that Absalom was confined to his house.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.2Sa. 14:1-24

THE RETURN OF ABSALOM

I. The most mischievous reasoning is that which is a compound of truth and falsehood. When an argument is wholly founded on an untruth, the conscience not entirely blinded can pass sentence upon it without hesitation, and if a man yield to such an argument, he does so with his eyes wide open. But where, as in the case before us, many undeniable facts are pleaded in favour of acts which at best are of doubtful character, only the most honest and unprejudiced can see through the delusion. The assertions of this wise woman were perfectly true. Those who grant mercy abroad should begin at home, and enmity ought to die before those who are at enmity die. The long forbearance and abounding mercy of God are also blessed and undeniable facts, and all these considerations might have been lawfully urged upon David in relation to any private act in which Absalom had sinned only against his father. But he had transgressed that Divine law which it was Davids special duty to uphold, and against which the king sinned when he permitted it to be violated with impunity. No human executor of law is actuated by a feeling of personal enmity, but is simply a representative of laws, which, if they are just, are necessary safeguards of society, and as such, are approved and even commanded by God. Such a man fails in his duty both to God and man if he allow personal feelings to influence his conduct either for or against the offender. We cannot gather from the history (see Critical Notes) what Davids real feelings were in relation to his son, and therefore cannot tell what effect the argument of this parable had upon him; but it is an excellent sample of many of the sophistries by which people in all ages and under all circumstances seek to justify what is contrary to justice when it is agreeable to their inclinations and likely to promote their interests.

II. Those who are conscious of having committed great sins are not fit to deal with other offenders. The immediate result of this parable was a half-measure which made matters worse than they were before, and leave us in as much doubt as ever as to Davids real motives and feelings. It was more trying and irritating to Absalom to be banished from his fathers presence in Jerusalem than in Geshur, and if his message to him was defiant there was reason in it, for it seemed mockery to recall him merely to make him a prisoner or keep him in disgrace at home. But all Davids weakness and unsteadiness of purpose in dealing with his sons arose from the consciousness that when one became an adulterer and the other a murderer, they were only following his example. Such a man is as unfit to deal rightly with a transgressor as he who is smitten with paralysis is unable to administer corporal chastisement.

OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS

2Sa. 14:14. It is by right of this apt beautiful saying that the wise woman of of Tekoah holds an earthly immortality. Ah, how God must have bound us each to each; what subtle far-reaching links must bind all the children of Adam into one; how solemn and mysterious an influence the humblest of us may exert on all, when the obscure prophetess of that dark age and distant land can still touch our hearts and shape our thoughts The larger and more general application, the principle of the words I take to be, Dont fret over the inevitable, the irreparable. The past is past and cannot be recalled; therefore be more intent on a wise use of the present. Instead of crying over spilt water or trying in vain to gather it up from the dust, betake you to the fountain of living water, drink of the untainted perennial spring. Let your feet wear a track that shall guide other feet to its pure waters. Let your example be a standing invitation to your neighbours, that they also may repair to the fountain which no dust can defile, and drink of the clear life-giving waters which flow on for ever.

1. Apply this principle to the limited facts of death and bereavement Fretting will not alter the inevitable. We must accept it whether with our will or against it. Let us then accept it with a patient cheerfulness which will take the sting out of it. Tis weak, tis useless, to sit down and weep over spilt water, when we have yet a long steep path to climb, and many around us who look to us for guidance and refreshment. But it is not difficult to understand how many might say, Why remind me that it is of no use to cry over spilt water? I know it, and hence my tears. I weep the more because I weep in vain. But we may find in the wise womans words a larger and more consolatory meaning than any of which she was conscious. For, observe; this spilt water of herswhat after all becomes of it? Though we cannot raise it up again, it nevertheless does rise again; no particle of it is lost. For a little while it lies in the dust and helps to make that fruitful. But it will be gathered up again; it must be. It will be drawn up into the skies to form a gracious cloud, which by and bye will fall in enriching showers and will be again lifted to the skies, again to fall, again to riseso passing into a life of perpetual service. And God, our sun, will shine upon our departed ones and will raise, purify, and ennoble them, consecrating them to an eternal service. II. If we bring the more general application of this principle home to our experience, we shall find it has instruction for all, and not only for the bereaved. As we recall the past, and as the years pass, and the inevitable changes ensue, we are too apt to spend time in crying over spilt water and in trying to gather it up again, and when we are haunted with the ghosts of lost opportunities and past sins, we are filled with a regret singularly like the sorrow of bereavement, and like that it is very apt to weaken us still more, and to interpose between us and the duties we have still to discharge. It is vain to mourn that we are what we are. The weaker we are the more need to husband our strength; the more frequent and ample the opportunities we have missed, the more we should strive to improve those which are still open to us. We are assuredly to repent of our sins and mistakes, but the true cleansing virtue of repentance does not lie in the tears we shed but in the amendment which, trusting to a higher strength than our own, we hopefully attempt. And in nothing perhaps is the healthy bracing spirit of the gospel more conspicuous than in this, that when we are truly sorry for our sins, we find that it is a sorrow that worketh life; that while we are still mourning over our manifold offences it virtually says, Leave all those with Him who has made an atonement for the sin of the world.. Nay, more, though we cannot gather up the spilt water, God can and does. The sun of His love shines down on the earth on which it has fallen, and lo, it rises from the earth in new and purer forms! All the useful and helpful elements of our past experience are gathered up by Him, and detached from the polluting dust with which they were blent, and the very tears we have shed are drawn up into the spiritual heaven, to fall in fertilising showers on ground barren but for them; and as they fall the Sun of Righteousness shines full upon them, and lo, a new bow of hope stretches across our brightening heaven, giving us the welcome assurance that, unfruitful as we have been in the past, henceforth seed-time and harvest shall never fail us.(Samuel Cox, abridged).

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

5. Absaloms Exile Ended, 2Sa. 14:1-33.

Joab and the Woman of Tekoah. 2Sa. 14:1-20

Now Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived that the kings heart was toward Absalom.

2 And Joab sent to Tekoah, and fetched thence a wise woman, and said unto her, I pray thee, feign thyself to be a mourner, and put on now mourning apparel, and anoint not thyself with oil, but be as a woman that had a long time mourned for the dead:
3 And come to the king, and speak on this manner unto him. So Joab put the words in her mouth.
4 And when the woman of Tekoah spake to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, and did obeisance, and said, Help, O king.
5 And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, I am indeed a widow woman, and mine husband is dead.

6 And thy handmaid had two sons, and they two strove together in the field, and there was none to part them, but the one smote the other, and slew him.

7 And, behold, the whole family is risen against thine handmaid, and they said, Deliver him that smote his brother, that we may kill him, for the life of his brother whom he slew; and we will destroy the heir also: and so they shall quench my coal which is left, and shall not leave to my husband neither name or remainder upon the earth.

8 And the king said unto the woman, Go to thine house and I will give charge concerning thee.
9 And the woman of Tekoah said unto the king, My lord, O king, the iniquity be on me, and on my fathers house: and the king and his throne be guiltless.

10 And the king said, Whosoever said ought unto thee, bring him to me, and he shall not touch thee any more.

11 Then said she, I pray thee, let the king remember the Lord thy God, that thou wouldest not suffer the revengers of blood to destroy any more, lest they destroy my son. And he said, As the Lord liveth, there shall not one hair of thy son fall to the earth.

12 Then the woman said, Let thine handmaid, I pray thee, speak one word unto my lord the king. And he said, Say on.

13 And the woman said, Wherefore then hast thou thought such a thing against the people of God? for the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished.
14 For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect any person: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him.

15 Now therefore that I am come to speak of this thing unto my lord the king, it is because the people have made me afraid: and thy handmaid said, I will now speak unto the king; it may be that the king will perform the request of his handmaid.

16 For the king will hear, to deliver his handmaid out of the hand of the man that would destroy me and my son together out of the inheritance of God.

17 Then thine handmaid said, The word of my lord the king shall now be comfortable: for as an angel of God, so is my lord the king to discern good and bad: therefore the Lord thy God will be with thee.

18 Then the king answered and said unto the woman, Hide not from me, I pray thee, the thing that I shall ask thee, And the woman said, Let my lord the king now speak.
19 And the king said, Is not the hand of Joab with thee in all this? And the woman answered and said, As thy soul liveth, my lord the king, none can turn to the right hand or to the left from ought that my lord the king hath spoken: for thy servant Joab, he bade me, and he put all these words in the mouth of thine handmaid:

20 To fetch about this form of speech hath thy servant Joab done this thing: and my lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are in the earth,

1.

What was Davids attitude towards Absalom? 2Sa. 14:1

The first verse of this chapter is understood by the majority of commentators as signifying that David was favorably disposed towards Absalom. The Syriac translation as well as the Vulgate translated the passage to show that David was inclined towards Absalom. Keil and Delitzsch take the position that David was against Absalom and therefore Joab took action to bring him back where his case could be presented to the king. Joabs part in this is hard to understand.

2.

What was Joabs motive in bringing Absalom back? 2Sa. 14:2

Joab could see that David was mourning for his son. This fact alone might have prompted Joab to effect Absaloms return. More than likely there was some hidden personal interest on Joabs part. David was able to see through the womans story, for the whole thing sounded like something that Joab would plan. He did not believe the woman, and he asked whether or not Joab plotted it. Even though David did accede, a complete reconciliation was not effected at once. Absalom was not permitted to see the king.

3.

Where was Tekoah? 2Sa. 14:4

Tekoah was a town in Judah some eight miles south of Bethlehem. This was the home of the prophet Amos (Amo. 1:1), and has been identified as the modern Tekua. No significance was attached to the fact that the woman was a wise woman, so far as making her a prophetess, wizard, or necromancer is concerned. She was to pretend to be in mourning, wearing the proper clothing and giving every appearance of having been in grief for a long period of time.

4.

How could the woman have access to the king? 2Sa. 14:5

Although a number of officers were appointed by David to take care of the affairs of state, many seemingly incidental matters were brought to his attention. His trying to care for all these judgments was a source of aggravation to some of the people, and Absalom capitalized on the kings inability to take care of some of their appeals (2Ki. 15:2-6). Moses had tried to sit in judgment on all the affairs of the Israelites in his day, but the staggering load of responsibility was too much for him. He appointed rulers of tens, fifties, hundreds, and thousands, to hear the minor cases; only the most important cases were brought to him (Exo. 18:26). Joab may have been able to bypass all these subordinate officers and bring the womans case directly to the king.

5.

Why would the family want to kill her son? 2Sa. 14:7

The woman pretended to have two sons, one of whom had killed the other. There was nobody to part them, since the father was said to have been dead. The rest of the family were asking that Gods immutable law be followed. God had said that He would require the life of man at the hand of every mans brother (Gen. 9:5). Manslaughter was recognized as the unpremeditated killing of a man, and provision was made for the manslayer to flee to the cities of refuge (Num. 35:1-34). The relatives had judged the surviving son to be worthy of death, and they were crying out for his execution, In the primitive society, the nearest relative of the slain man had the solemn responsibility of avenging the murder, Had the family carried out the law in this, they would have left this woman without any heirs. This is what she meant when she said that they would quench my coal, The candle of life would flicker and go out as far as she and her husband were concerned. They would have neither name nor remainder on the earth.

6.

What was Davids decision? 2Sa. 14:8

The woman was sent away with Davids promise that he would pass judgment in the matter. She understood that to mean that he would prevent the family from avenging her sons death. Although this was an unusual sentence, the woman was grateful for it; and she assumed full responsibility for it, leaving the king and his throne guiltless for suspending the normal processes of law in this case. David indicated to her that those who objected to his decision should be brought to him. Should the woman suffer any persecution on account of the decision, the culprit was to answer to David. The matter was fully discussed and brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

7.

What was the womans final request? 2Sa. 14:13

Having received her initial request from David the woman went on to show the inconsistency of Davids conduct. David also had a son who was being sought by those who were the avengers of blood. Some of his subjects must have been calling for him to execute Absalom; and although he had not done this as yet, he had rendered no judgment in the case. The woman showed David that he was sparing her fictitious son; she could not see any reason why he should not spare Absalom.

8.

What was the womans view of life? 2Sa. 14:14

The woman was very philosophical about life and death. She knew that death was inevitable. She regarded mans life as being very fragile, describing man as being as water spilt on the ground. Once it has been spilled, of course, it cannot be gathered up again. She also believed that God was not any respecter of persons, and she did not understand why it would be legitimate for David to spare her son and not spare his son.

9.

Why did the woman call David an angel of God? 2Sa. 14:17

The Israelites had a very deep respect for their kings and all their national leaders. The fact that this woman and Mephibosheth (2Sa. 19:27) gave this title to David was not an indication of their having an unholy respect for David. Neither was it an indication of their considering him as being the angel of the covenant, the mediator of the blessings of Divine grace to the people of Israel. God had said that He would send His angel before Moses, and His angel did lead them through the wilderness (Exo. 14:19). This woman was not identifying David with that angel but looking to him as Gods messenger and servant. She thought that he did have unnatural and unusual grace and ability.

10.

Why did David suspect Joab? 2Sa. 14:19

In some way Joab had learned the kings mind in the matter of Absaloms exile. From day to day, he had the opportunity for conversations with him; and in some of these exchanges he could have expressed his view which would have been similar to that which he prompted the woman to express. The woman was honest and affirmed that Joab had instigated the entire affair. Once again, she was impressed with Davids wisdom and said that it was as the wisdom of the angel of God (2Sa. 14:20).

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

XIV.

(1) Was toward Absalom.This, like the last verse of the previous chapter, may be understood in either of two opposite senses: either Davids heart yearned for Absalom (as the Authorised Version, Vulg., LXX., Syr.), or it was hostile to him. The Hebrew preposition is used in both senses, though more frequently in the latter, and unquestionably expresses hostility in the only other place (Dan. 11:28) in which this form of the phrase occurs. The verse would then be translated, And Joab the son of Zeruiah knew that the kings heart was against Absalom. Hence his stratagem to obtain his recall, which would otherwise have been quite unnecessary.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

ABSALOM’S RETURN AND RESTORATION TO FAVOUR, 2Sa 14:1-33.

1. Joab perceived He was always artful, shrewd, foreseeing, and laying plans for the future. From what he knew of the king’s heart he had reason to think that Absalom might be the next king of Israel, and then how important to himself that Absalom feel indebted to him for his restoration from exile.

Toward Absalom Not against him, as several interpreters explain the sense, for that would contradict 2Sa 13:39, and render inexplicable the later conduct of the king towards Absalom. 2Sa 18:5; 2Sa 18:12 ; 2Sa 18:33. Besides, if Joab had known that the king was bitterly hostile to Absalom, we cannot see his object in interceding for him. When Absalom was engaged in the war of rebellion against David it was by Joab’s hand that he was slain. 2Sa 18:14.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

In Accordance With What He Sees To Be The King’s Desire, Joab Successfully (But Unwisely) Works To Bring About The Return Of Absalom Through a Wise Woman ( 2Sa 14:1-21 ).

As so often throughout David’s reign Joab, who otherwise was totally loyal, felt that he had in this instance a right to interfere in the affairs of David when he considered that it might be to his own benefit. He had done it in the case of Abner, when it had seemed that Abner might usurp his position as commander-in-chief, even though he had some justification in that case, in that he was exacting blood vengeance on behalf of his family (2Sa 3:27). He will later do it in the case of Amasa, another commander chosen by David, ostensibly because of his failure to carry out military orders, but no doubt also because he too had usurped his position as commander-in-chief (2Sa 19:13; 2Sa 20:10). He will later even do it by seeking to promote Adonijah’s claims to the throne as the eldest surviving son, over against Solomon, possibly because he knew that he was not popular with Solomon (see 1Ki 2:5-6). Yet he was certainly steadfastly loyal to David in every other way, at least while David was still active, and he had shared with him his wilderness years. What he probably did have in mind was that as Absalom was the eldest son, and therefore heir presumptive, if he could put Absalom in his debt, then once Absalom succeeded to the throne after David’s death he would remember what he owed to Joab.

But his interference here, while possibly with the best of intentions because as David’s cousin he knew David’s thoughts better than most, would undoubtedly bring catastrophe on Israel. We should remember that by his actions Absalom had already rebelled against the throne once. It should therefore have been clear to all that he was not to be trusted. Yet Joab, by the use of deceit, persuaded David to let him return to Jerusalem against David’s own better judgment, thus eventually doing David great harm. The truth was that if Absalom was to return he should really have returned to enter a City of Refuge, where his case could be decided. Alternatively he should not have been allowed to return at all. What was not right on any account was to gloss over his sin in accordance with Joab’s suggestion through the wise woman. (It is ironic that the one whose only defence in the case of his killing of Abner was that he was obtaining blood vengeance, should in the case of Absalom take up a different position). So as a result of Joab’s interference David allowed himself to be jockeyed into the unacceptable position of allowing Absalom to return under safe conduct, while being unwilling to have dealings with him because of his sin, both factors which undoubtedly led to Absalom’s rebellion.

We must recognise that the only reason why Absalom should want to return from his honoured position in the court of the king of Geshur would be in order to establish his right to succeed to the throne of Israel, so that once he became aware of how David felt about him he would have recognised that his succession was unlikely to be approved by David. We can see why, in his view, this would leave him with only one alternative, an attempted coup. There was no way that Absalom would have been willing to live peacefully under Solomon’s rule, or even Adonijah’s. He would therefore have been best left in Geshur, which he would have been had it not been for Joab’s intrigues.

One important lesson, therefore, that comes out of this narrative is that we should be wary as to whose advice we listen to, especially if it conflicts with our own conscience, and even though it tends to be in line with our inclinations. In this case we have YHWH on the one hand secretly acting on David’s behalf and protecting him against the full consequences of his own sin, and on the other we have Joab secretly acting against David’s best interests, although not fully aware of it, because he primarily had in mind his own best interests.

Analysis.

a Now Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived that the king’s heart was against/toward Absalom (2Sa 14:1).

b And Joab sent to Tekoa, and fetched from there a wise woman, and said to her, “I pray you, feign yourself to be a mourner, and put on mourning apparel, I pray you, and do not anoint yourself with oil, but be as a woman who has for a long time mourned for the dead, and go in to the king, and speak on this manner to him.” So Joab put the words in her mouth (2Sa 14:2-3).

c And when the woman of Tekoa spoke to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, and did obeisance, and said, “Help, O king” (2Sa 14:4).

d And the king said to her, “What ails you?” And she answered, “Of a truth I am a widow, and my husband is dead. And your handmaid had two sons, and they two strove together in the field, and there was none to part them, but the one smote the other, and killed him. And, behold, the whole family is risen against your handmaid, and they say, ‘Deliver him who smote his brother, that we may kill him for the life of his brother whom he slew, and so destroy the heir also.’ Thus will they quench my coal which is left, and will leave to my husband neither name nor remainder upon the face of the earth” (2Sa 14:5-7).

e And the king said to the woman, “Go to your house, and I will give charge concerning you.” And the woman of Tekoa said to the king, “My lord, O king, the iniquity be on me, and on my father’s house, and the king and his throne be guiltless.” And the king said, “Whoever says anything to you, bring him to me, and he shall not touch you any more” (2Sa 14:8-11).

f Then she said, “I pray you, let the king remember YHWH your God, that the avenger of blood destroy not any more, lest they destroy my son.” And he said, “As YHWH lives, there shall not one hair of your son fall to the earth” (2Sa 14:11).

e Then the woman said, “Let your handmaid, I pray you, speak a word to my lord the king.” And he said, “Say on.” And the woman said, “Why then have you devised such a thing against the people of God? For in speaking this word the king is as one who is guilty, in that the king does not fetch home again his banished one. For we must necessarily die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again, neither does God take away life, but devises means, so that he that is banished continue not as an outcast from him” (2Sa 14:12-14).

d “Now, therefore, seeing that I am come to speak this word to my lord the king, it is because the people have made me afraid, and your handmaid said, ‘I will now speak to the king, it may be that the king will perform the request of his servant. For the king will hear, to deliver his servant out of the hand of the man that would destroy me and my son together out of the inheritance of God” (2Sa 14:15-16).

c “Then your handmaid said, ‘Let, I pray you, the word of my lord the king be comfortable, for as an angel of God, so is my lord the king to discern good and bad, and YHWH your God be with you” (2Sa 14:17).

b Then the king answered and said to the woman, “Do not hide from me, I pray you, anything that I shall ask you.” And the woman said, “Let my lord the king now speak.” And the king said, “Is the hand of Joab with you in all this?” And the woman answered and said, “As your soul lives, my lord the king, none can turn to the right hand or to the left from anything that my lord the king has spoken, for your servant Joab, he bade me, and he put all these words in the mouth of your handmaid. To change the face of the matter has your servant Joab done this thing, and my lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are in the earth” (2Sa 14:18-20).

a And the king said to Joab, “Behold now, I have done this thing. Go therefore, bring the young man Absalom back” (2Sa 14:21).

Note that in ‘a’ Joab perceives David’s attitude towards Absalom, and in the parallel David gives Joab permission to bring Absalom back. In ‘b’ Joab calls on the wise woman of Tekoa to go to David and puts words into her mouth, and in the parallel she admits that Joab sent her and that what she has spoken have been words put into her mouth by Joab. In ‘c’ she pleads to David for help, and in the parallel she is grateful for his ‘helpfulness’. In ‘d’ she tells the story of her son who has slain his brother and is in danger of blood vengeance, pleading his cause, and in the parallel she speaks of David as having given his assurance that he will deliver her son out of the hands of the avenger of blood. In ‘e’ she prays that the king might be guiltless in respect of his concession, and in the parallel she draws out that he is guilty because in giving the concession he has demonstrated his inconsistency. Centrally in ‘f’ the woman deals with the main issue, the setting aside of the right of blood vengeance.

2Sa 14:1

‘ Now Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived that the king’s heart was against (or ’toward’) Absalom.’

How we translate and interpret this verse will depend on our view of 2Sa 13:39. The ancient Aramaic translation preserved in the Targum, which probably dates back to before the time of Christ, translates as ‘and Joab the son of Zeruiah knew that the heart of the king was to go out against Absalom’ (the verb being read in from 2Sa 13:39. Apart from ‘perceived’ there is no verb in the Hebrew text). It will be observed that the Targum agrees with the way that we have translated 2Sa 13:39 (and incidentally disagrees with the Rabbinic ideas). Thus we have the alternatives of either seeing this as referring to David’s antagonism towards Absalom in view of what he had done, possibly including attempts to have him extradited, or as seeing it as referring to his yearning love for Absalom, a love which is certainly revealed later. But the latter does not sit well with David’s being unwilling to allow Absalom into his presence even when he had been allowed to return to Jerusalem. Indeed had he yearned for him so affectionately he could undoubtedly have arranged a reconciliation a good time before, instead of waiting for a few years.

So our view is that what the text means is that Joab perceived the anger and antagonism that was still in David’s heart towards Absalom because he had slain Amnon, with the result that Absalom was still under the threat of blood vengeance from David and his family, while aware that in his heart David still had genuine affection for Absalom. And that he acted on that basis for his own interests, seeing Absalom as a possible heir to the throne, but never dreaming that Absalom would openly rebel.

2Sa 14:2-3

‘ And Joab sent to Tekoa, and fetched from there a wise woman, and said to her, “I pray you, feign yourself to be a mourner, and put on mourning apparel, I pray you, and do not anoint yourself with oil, but be as a woman who has for a long time mourned for the dead, and go in to the king, and speak on this manner to him.” So Joab put the words in her mouth.’

In the course of carrying out his plan Joab sent for a wise woman from Tekoa. It is noteworthy that while David would have sent for a prophet, Joab sent for a secular wise woman. He was not concerned for YHWH’s will but for his own. Such women were seen as wise women because they were old and experienced and had gained a reputation for behaving and speaking wisely (compare 2Sa 20:16). The fact that Solomon was noted for ‘wisdom’ might point to the fact that David encouraged such people, something of which Joab would be well aware. Her being seen as a ‘wise woman’ was probably by popular opinion rather than there being at this time a class of ‘wise men and women’. They would follow later.

He called on the woman to pretend to be a mourner, one who was in long term mourning for the death of a long dead husband. Thus she was to wear recognised mourning clothes, and was not to anoint herself with oil, as most Israelite women would do on approaching the king. The aim was in order to move David’s tender heart in her favour (Joab knew his man).

Then he gave her the gist of what he wanted her to say. The fact that Joab ‘put words into her mouth’ is stressed twice (see also 2Sa 14:19). The woman was not necessarily therefore coming forward with the truth. She was putting forward Joab’s case.

2Sa 14:4

‘ And when the woman of Tekoa spoke to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, and did obeisance, and said, “Help, O king.” ’

We should note here that the wise woman appears to have had no difficulty in approaching the king with her request, which gives the lie to Absalom’s claim later on that David was not open to being approached by his people (2Sa 15:3-4). Such a right of approach to Israel’s leading figure had long been a principle of Yahwism (and in fact was practised by many other kings who, even when very cruel, paradoxically liked to be seen as the ‘father’ or ‘shepherd’ of their people). Consider for example Exo 18:15-16; Jdg 4:4-5; 1Sa 7:15-16.

When she approached she made the usual obeisance to the king, falling on her face before him. This was a requirement for all who approached the king. Joab had to act similarly (2Sa 14:22). (It would be the same for all who approached David when he was sitting in state, even though it is often not mentioned. The exception may have been the royal family, although even they would have had to make some act of deference). Then she made to the king a plea for his assistance, crying, ‘Give me your help, O king’.

2Sa 14:5-7

‘ And the king said to her, “What ails you?” And she answered, “Of a truth I am a widow, and my husband is dead. And your handmaid had two sons, and they two strove together in the field, and there was none to part them, but the one smote the other, and killed him. And, behold, the whole family is risen against your handmaid, and they say, ‘Deliver him who smote his brother, that we may kill him for the life of his brother whom he slew, and so destroy the heir also.’ Thus will they quench my coal which is left, and will leave to my husband neither name nor remainder upon the face of the earth.”

When the king asked her what her problem was she claimed that she was a widow with two sons, one of whom had accidentally killed the other in a fight. The result was that the whole family were demanding blood vengeance against the surviving son, reminding themselves at the same time that he was the heir to his father’s property. In other words their thoughts were more of taking over the dead man’s inheritance, than of really wanting justice. Justice and blood vengeance were simply the excuse. We can see how cleverly Joab’s words, put into the woman’s mouth, were designed to move the king’s sense of justice and fairplay.

And then the wise woman pointed out what this would mean for her. She would lose her one hope in life, the one thing that she lived for, the one desirable ‘burning coal’ that was left to her. His life would be snuffed out and quenched. And the further result would be that her husband’s name would not be preserved in Israel. Note that every new element that she introduced was describing what was seen in Israel as the most important things in life, indeed as every Israelite’s right; land inheritance, a son to support and care for his widowed mother, and the maintenance of a man’s name through his descendants. And they were all being threatened by greedy men who were making justice their excuse.

2Sa 14:8

‘ And the king said to the woman, “Go to your house, and I will give charge concerning you.”

The wise woman’s words had won David over to her side (as Joab had known they would) and so he informed her to be afraid no longer. He assured her that he himself would issue a royal decree that the son should not be harmed. The son would then be under royal protection and to harm him would then be a direct affront to the king. (It would be the equivalent of being in a City of Refuge). This decision was, in fact, to go against established precedent and the laws of the land, but possibly David had Cain in mind in making his decision, which was a case where YHWH Himself had set aside the recognised principle of blood vengeance (the setting aside of which was of course the point to be made later).

2Sa 14:9

‘ And the woman of Tekoa said to the king, “My lord, O king, the iniquity be on me, and on my father’s house, and the king and his throne be guiltless.” ’

The woman then nobly took on herself and her son all the guilt that might accrue from the decision, thereby acknowledging that she recognised that an ancient and sacred right was being set aside for her sake. This would impress the king with her clear intention of goodwill towards him, even if it was beyond her power to grant it. It would also remind the listener how serious the request was that she was making.

It is indicative of the authority that David felt that he now had, and even to some extent of his new royal arrogance, that he felt able to so override a longstanding principle of justice in such a case. It is apparent from this that he was becoming more and more despotic.

2Sa 14:10

‘ And the king said, “Whoever says anything to you, bring him to me, and he shall not touch you any more.” ’

The king then assured the woman that all that she had to do if her relatives caused trouble, was refer her adversaries to the king. If they had anything further to say she was to bring them to him. Then she could be sure that they would not touch her any more, (if they wanted to live).

2Sa 14:11

‘ Then she said, “I pray you, let the king remember YHWH your God, that the avenger of blood destroy not any more, lest they destroy my son.” And he said, “As YHWH lives, there shall not one hair of your son fall to the earth.” ’

Following up on this the woman now drew attention to and emphasised the main point, and that was that David was setting aside the right of blood vengeance. And apparently wanting him to realise what a serious thing that was to her, she called on David to recognise that he had made his promise in the presence of YHWH his God. Let him remember this in any action he took in the future.

Aware that the woman still appeared to be in need of assurance, David gave her what she sought, his solemn oath before YHWH that not one hair of her son’s head would fall to the earth (there is no doubt a poignancy in this phrase in the writer’s mind in that Absalom’s death would later be caused by his hair, which was one of his main features).

2Sa 14:12

‘ Then the woman said, “Let your handmaid, I pray you, speak a word to my lord the king.” And he said, “Say on.” ’

Acknowledging the king’s goodness the woman then asked if she could put a further request to the king for a boon. And David replied, ‘Say on.’

2Sa 14:13

‘ And the woman said, “Why then have you devised such a thing against the people of God? For in speaking this word the king is as one who is guilty, in that the king does not fetch home again his banished one.” ’

The woman then carefully put her new point as though it was a kind of aside, brought to her mind by what David has done for her ‘son’ (it was in order to make this new point appear as secondary that she shortly returned to speaking again about her own supposed case. She wanted to keep up the deception). She asked why, if he could make such a decision about setting aside blood vengeance in the case of a son of hers, he did not do the same in the case of his own banished son Absalom? Did he not realise that by being so obstinate he was actually harming the people of God who longed for Absalom’s presence once again among them? So while the king was not to be held guilty for what he has done for her ‘son’, he was definitely to be seen as ‘like one who is guilty’ for not fetching home his ‘banished one’. (Note how she carefully avoided actually describing him as guilty. He was merely ‘like one who is guilty’. He was after all the king).

2Sa 14:14

“ For we must necessarily die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again, nor does God take away life, but devises means, so that he that is banished continue not as an outcast from him.”

She then pointed out that while we must all necessarily die, becoming like water spilled on the ground which is gone for ever, nevertheless God holds life as precious, and thus, rather than taking away people’s lives, devises means by which they may come once more into His presence, and no longer be banished outcasts (i.e. through offerings and sacrifices). The implication was that David should be God-like and devise means for bringing back his own banished outcast, Absalom, without seeking his life, because life is precious.

2Sa 14:15-16

“ Now, therefore, seeing that I am come to speak this word to my lord the king, it is because the people have made me afraid, and your handmaid said, ‘I will now speak to the king, it may be that the king will perform the request of his servant. For the king will hear, to deliver his servant out of the hand of the man that would destroy me and my son together out of the inheritance of God.’ ”

Recognising that her request might appear somewhat forward she then hastily pointed out that the reason that she had made the request was because when people had heard that she was approaching the king they had put pressure on her to bring up Absalom’s case, so much so that they had ‘made her afraid’. And that was why, confident that the king would hear her concerning her son, as he now graciously had, she had assured the people that perhaps he might also be willing to hear their request on Absalom’s behalf. The impression that she intended give was that she was very grateful indeed for what David had done for her, but that Absalom had won the hearts of the people as the king’s handsome son, and that it was due to their longing for his return that she had added this further request, a request which she hoped he would also hear.

2Sa 14:17

“ Then your handmaid said, ‘Let, I pray you, the word of my lord the king be comfortable, for as an angel of God, so is my lord the king to discern good and bad, and YHWH your God be with you.”

She then expressed her hope that David’s response would be ‘comfortable’, that is, comforting to his people, having in mind that they all saw him as like a messenger (angel) of God (compare 1Sa 29:9), one who discerned what was really good and really bad (or ‘discerning everything’, that is, everything that lay between two extremes). And she closed off with the prayer that YHWH his God would be with him, especially in his making the right decision.

2Sa 14:18

‘ Then the king answered and said to the woman, “Do not hide from me, I pray you, anything that I shall ask you.” And the woman said, “Let my lord the king now speak.” ’

The cleverness of the woman’s approach is evident. By her story she had persuaded the king to abrogate the principle of blood vengeance in the case of her dead husband’s son and heir, and she wanted him to think that her approaching the king had meanwhile been taken advantage of by his concerned people in order to persuade him to abrogate the principle of blood vengeance in the case of Absalom. That, of course, being only a secondary reason for her visit. But she was thereby ‘pulling his strings’ and making him feel guilty for behaving unjustly towards Absalom, in that he could show mercy towards the son and heir of another, but not to his own son and heir

David, however, was a very shrewd man, and he was beginning to recognise behind her approach the hand of another who had also seemingly been trying to persuade him to bring Absalom back. So he challenged her not to hide from him anything that he should ask of her, to which she basically agreed.

2Sa 14:19-20

‘ And the king said, “Is the hand of Joab with you in all this?” And the woman answered and said, “As your soul lives, my lord the king, none can turn to the right hand or to the left from anything that my lord the king has spoken, for your servant Joab, he bade me, and he put all these words in the mouth of your handmaid. To change the face of the matter has your servant Joab done this thing, and my lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are in the earth.”

He then challenged her as to whether it was Joab who was behind her words. The woman was taken totally by surprise, for she had thought that she had duped David into accepting her account as true, and that all was going well. We may see it as very probable, therefore, that she suffered some trepidation, for to lie to the king was a serious offence. Thus she recognised that her best plan was to confess all, pinning the blame squarely on Joab. Perhaps by that means, she hoped, he would spare her life.

So she expressed her deep admiration at the way that the king knew everything that was going on, discerning even which way people turned, whether to left or right, and admitted that it was indeed ‘his servant Joab’ who had ordered her to approach the king and what was more had ‘put the very words into her mouth’ (it was thus his fault not hers). Then she went on to point out that Joab’s aim had been to ‘change the face of the matter’ (in other words alter the king’s mind), but that the king was ‘wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God’, and clearly knew everything that was on earth. Even David was not immune to this kind of excessive flattery, the kind of flattery so often offered to kings in those days.

2Sa 14:21

‘ And the king said to Joab, “Behold now, I have done this thing. Go therefore, bring the young man Absalom back.” ’

The writer then loses interest in the woman and proceeds to what resulted from her intervention. It appears from what follows that David felt bound by the decision that he had made on oath, even though it had been obtained by false pretences, and therefore felt that he must act on it, for he now recognised that what he had promised the woman applied to Absalom, and him alone. The result was that ‘the king’ called Joab into his presence and informed him somewhat abruptly that he could go and bring Absalom back. He was clearly acknowledging by this that he felt that he had committed himself by his promise and oath to the woman and must therefore honour what he had promised, even though it was against his inclination. This is brought out by the fact that later he would not acknowledge Absalom or allow him into his presence. It indicated that he was not at all pleased about having been manipulated in this way.

It is this fact that he felt reluctantly bound by the decision that he had reached, even though he had been duped into it, that explains why he acted so against his inclinations in allowing Absalom back, and then would not acknowledge him when he did arrive. Joab had, in fact, served him a very bad turn, something which would rebound on him in the future. Note that he described his decision so obtained as ‘this thing’. So his instruction to Joab that because he (David) had ‘done this thing’ he (Joab) could go and bring Absalom back, must be seen as very reluctantly given. He was learning that kings should be very careful before they made oaths about something which set aside the Law, even when it appeared relatively unimportant. For a king was bound by his sworn word.

(We today would not feel bound by a promise obtained under false pretences, but things were seen differently in those days (compare Jos 9:3-27). Once a promise was made by a king on oath it was seen as totally binding, and it would appear that David recognised that his oath related to what the woman had really wanted, which was to bring back Absalom and not execute on him blood vengeance, and that in fact that was the only thing that she had wanted This interpretation is the only real explanation of his behaviour in calling Absalom back but not acknowledging him. While it is true that Absalom had not slain his brother by accident, nevertheless he had seen himself as carrying out the just sentence of the Law on someone who had committed incest. Thus it was open to him to argue that as the king’s son with responsibilities for ensuring the carrying out the Law (2Sa 8:18), and as the grandson of the king of Geshur whose granddaughter had been humiliated, he was only doing his duty. Of course, what David mainly had against him was that he had slain his own firstborn in this way. Had it been anyone else he would have approved of Absalom’s action).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

2Sa 14:25  But in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty: from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him.

2Sa 14:25 “no blemish in him” Comments – Absalom was still bitter in his heart. So, there in the heart dwelt his blemish, a root of bitterness (Mat 15:18-20, Joh 7:24).

Mat 15:18-20, “But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man:”

Joh 7:24, “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”

2Sa 14:26  And when he polled his head, (for it was at every year’s end that he polled it: because the hair was heavy on him, therefore he polled it:) he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels after the king’s weight.

2Sa 14:26 “And when he polled his head” Comments – The ASV reads, “And when he cut the hair of his head.”

2Sa 14:26 “he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels after the king’s weight ” Comments – Anderson says two hundred shekels equals about four pounds. [62]

[62] A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 11, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), comments on 2 Samuel 14:26.

2Sa 14:26 Comments – The author uses these comments of Absalom’s beautiful hair in 2Sa 14:26 as a way to foreshadow the irony of his hair bringing him to his death (2Sa 18:9-18).

2Sa 14:27  And unto Absalom there were born three sons, and one daughter, whose name was Tamar: she was a woman of a fair countenance.

2Sa 14:27 “and one daughter, whose name was Tamar: she was a woman of a fair countenance” Comments – Absalom named his daughter after his sister. We see this as evidence that Absalom had not forgotten nor forgiven Ammon. We can learn from this story that although we thing vengeance will satisfy us, it only allows us continue in bitterness. So vengeance is not the cure for being wronged. Jesus spoke of the cure in Mat 5:43-44 we are not to render good to those who do evil towards us. In doing this we overcome any root of bitterness. This is how David reacted to Saul’s evil treatment of him. At Saul’s death, David only spoke well of Saul (See 2Sa 1:17-27).

Mat 5:43-44, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

David’s Sin and Judgment – Beginning in 2 Samuel 13, we see the curse of Nathan, the prophet, taking effect in David’s family (2Sa 12:7-12). David’s children had seen their father commit adultery, lie and murder. Now, some of his own children will follow in their father’s actions.

2Sa 12:10-12, “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Wise Woman of Tekoah

v. 1. Now, Joab, the son of Zeruiah, perceived that the king’s heart was toward Absalom, or, more exactly, against Absalom; David continued in his aversion to the slayer of the crown prince.

v. 2. And Joab, either from genuine goodness of heart or with the shrewdness which sought to get into the good graces of Absalom and the people, sent to Tekoah, some fire or six miles south of Bethlehem, and fetched thence a wise woman, one known for the readiness of her speech, for her boldness and shrewdness, and said unto her, I pray thee, feign thyself to be a mourner, and put on now mourning apparel, and anoint not thyself with oil, but be as a woman that had a long time mourned for the dead, one whose greatness of sorrow caused her to continue her mourning for a very long time;

v. 3. and come to the king and speak on this manner unto him. So Joab put the words in her mouth, giving her exact and detailed instructions concerning her behavior and speech.

v. 4. And when the woman of Tekoah, in accordance with the instructions received, spake to the king, she fell on her face to the ground and did obeisance, her great humility serving to draw the king’s attention to her, and said, Help, O king!

v. 5. And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? Her feigned distress caused him deep concern. And she answered, I am indeed a widow woman, and mine husband is dead, the double statement being intended to arouse sympathy.

v. 6. And thy handmaid had two sons, and they two strove together in the field, and there was none to part them, to act as arbitrator and deliverer between them, but the one smote the other and slew him.

v. 7. And, behold, the whole family, the entire relationship, is risen against thine handmaid, and they said, Deliver him that smote his brother that we may kill him for the life of his brother whom he slew, according to the law of blood-vengeance; and we will destroy the heir also, namely, the remaining son, whose death would make the other relatives the heirs; and so they shall quench my coal which is left, a figurative expression for the one son through whom her house could be built up, and shall not leave to my husband neither name nor remainder upon the earth. “The woman’s purpose was not only to bring out the design of the kinsmen in their blood-avenging as harshly as possible, but also, with reference to David’s hostile feeling to Absalom, to emphasize the point that the latter was the heir to David’s throne, and to save him as such from his father’s anger. ”

v. 8. And the king said unto the woman, in granting her request, Go to thine house, and I will give charge concerning thee, to protect her son from the pursuing relatives.

v. 9. And the woman of Tekoah said unto the king, My lord, O king, the iniquity be on me and on my father’s house, namely, in case some wrong should be connected with the fact that the unintentional murder was not avenged, and the king and his throne be guiltless, no blame should be attached to David’s government.

v. 10. And the king said, Whosoever saith aught unto thee, bring him to me, and he shall not touch thee any more. The matter was to be adjusted so that no one would dare to annoy the woman any more.

v. 11. Then said she, pursuing the advantage she had gained till now, I pray thee, let the king remember the Lord, thy God, she pleaded with the king for his interference to the point of assuring her son’s safety by an oath, that thou wouldest not suffer the revengers of blood to destroy any more, lest they destroy my son. The destruction already wrought should not be increased. And he, David, said. As the Lord liveth, there shall not one hair of thy son fall to the earth. As her appeals grew in fervor, so his assurances in emphasis.

v. 12. Then the woman said, Let thine handmaid, I pray thee, speak one word unto my lord the king. She acted as if she had another matter to present. And he said, Say on.

v. 13. And the woman said, Wherefore, then, after voicing such sentiments as she had just obtained from him, hast thou thought such a thing against the people of God? She has some difficulty in making the application to the king’s own case, because she cannot speak openly, but may only, in passing, allude to Absalom. Her implication was that on account of the attitude of David toward Absalom at least some of the people were suffering. For the king doth speak this thing, in announcing the decision in her own case, as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished. To be just, he must apply the same mildness in the case of Absalom which he decided for in her case.

v. 14. For we, men in general, and Absalom in particular, must needs die and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again, which fate may come upon Absalom before David is aware of the fact; neither doth God respect any person, in calling him away by death at the time appointed by Him; yet doth he devise means that His banished be not expelled from Him, literally, “And not takes away God a soul but He thinks out plans not to banish a banished one”; He does not cut off the life of the sinner outright, but is merciful and changes His sentence of rejection in the case of a repentant sinner.

v. 15. Now, therefore, that I am come to speak of this thing unto my lord the king, it is because the people have made me afraid, namely, by their demand to deliver her son to the avenger of blood; and thy handmaid said, I will now speak unto the king; it may be that the king will perform the request of his handmaid. Thus she skillfully returned to her own case.

v. 16. For the king will hear to deliver his handmaid out of the hand of the man that would destroy me and my son together out of the inheritance of God. This was the point which was so awful in her sight, that of being cut off from the people of the Lord.

v. 17. Then thine handmaid said, The word of my lord the king shall now be comfortable, serve for her reassurance; for as an angel of God, the great Angel of the Covenant, so is my lord the king to discern good and bad, to hear the crying of his oppressed subjects and to come to the assistance of those who were in trouble; therefore the Lord, thy God, will be with thee.

v. 18. Then the king answered and said unto the woman, since he had drawn his own conclusions from the skill with which she presented her matter, Hide not from me, I pray thee, the thing that I shall ask thee. And the woman said, Let my lord the king now speak.

v. 19. And the king said, Is not the hand of Joab with thee in all this? The entire manner in which the case had been presented and handled reminded him of his general. And the woman answered and said, with a sincere acknowledgment of the king’s sagacity, As thy soul liveth, my lord the king, none can turn to the right hand or to the left from aught that my lord the king hath spoken, David, according to her praise, always hit the nail on the head; for thy servant Joab, he bade me, and he put all these words in the mouth of thine handmaid.

v. 20. To fetch about this form of speech, literally, “to turn about entirely the face of this matter,” to change the relation then obtaining between David and Absalom, to bring about a reconciliation, hath thy servant Joab done this thing; and my lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are in the earth. The woman certainly made use of fine tact and wisdom. It is a noble thing to act as advocate for another and to intercede where this will bring about better relations. Where such sagacity succeeds in convincing others, it is well-pleasing to God.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

2Sa 14:1

The king’s heart was toward Absalom. Again there is a diversity of view as to the right rendering. The preposition does not usually mean “toward,” but “against,” and is so rendered in 2Sa 14:13. The whole phrase occurs again only in Dan 11:28, and certainly there implies enmity. The whole attitude of David towards Absalom is one of persistent hostility, and, even when Joab had obtained his recall, for two full years he would not admit him into his presence. What has led most commentators to force the meaning here and in 2Sa 13:39 is the passionate burst of grief when news was brought of Absalom’s death following upon the anxious orders given to the generals to be careful of the young man’s life. But David was a man of very warm affections, and while this would make him feel intense sorrow for the death of a son by his brother’s hand, and stern indignation towards the murderer, there would still lie deep in the father’s heart true love towards his sinning child, and Absalom’s fall was sad enough to cause a strong revulsion of feeling. David’s grief would be not merely for the death of his son, but that he should have died so miserably, and in an attempt so shameful. Was not, too, the natural grief of a father made the more deep by the feeling that this was the third stage of the penalty denounced on his own sin, and that the son’s death was the result of the father’s crime?

2Sa 14:2

Tekoah. This town, famous as the birthplace of the Prophet Amos, lay upon the borders of the great wilderness southeast of Jerusalem. As it was only five miles to the south of Bethlehem, Joab’s birthplace, he had probably often heard tales of this woman’s intelligence; and, though he contrived the parable himself, yet it would need tact and adroitness on the woman’s part to give the tale with tragic effect, and answer the king’s questions with all the signs of genuine emotion. If her acting was bad, the king would see through the plot, and only by great skill would his heart be so moved as to three him to some such expression of feeling as would serve Joab’s purpose.

2Sa 14:4

When the woman of Tekoah spake. All the versions and several manuscripts read, as the sense requires, “when the woman of Tekoah came.” There is an interesting article in De Rossi, fixing with much probability the twelfth century as the date of this error. Though Absalom subsequently (2Sa 15:4) complained of the lax administration of justice in the realm, yet evidently this woman had the right of bringing her suit before the king; and we may be sure that Joab would take care that nothing unusual was done, lest it should awaken the king’s suspicions. But possibly there was a want of method in judicial matters, and very much was left in the hands of the tribal officers, such as we find mentioned in Jos 24:1.

2Sa 14:7

The whole family. This does not mean the kinsfolk, in whom such a disregard of the mother’s feelings would have been cruel, but one of the great divisions of the tribe. In 2Sa 14:15 she rightly calls them “the people.” We have thus a glimpse of the ordinary method of administering the criminal law, and find that each portion of a tribe exercised justice within its own district, being summoned to a general convention by its hereditary chief; and in this case the widow represents it as determined to punish the crime of fratricide with inflexible severity, and we may assume that such was the usual practice. The mother sets before David the other side of the matterher own loneliness, the wiping out of the father’s house, the utter ruin of her home if the last live coal on her hearth be extinguished. And in this way she moves his generous sympathies even to the point of overriding the legal rights of the mishpachah. In modern communities there is always some formal power of softening or entirely remitting penalties required by the letter of the law, and of taking into consideration matters of equity and even of feeling, Which the judge must put aside; and in monarchies this is always the high prerogative of the crown. And we will destroy the heir also. The Syriac has the third person, “And they will destroy even the heir, and quench my coal that is left.” This is more natural, but there is greater pungency in the widow putting into the mouth of the heads of the clan, not words which they had actually spoken, but words which showed what would be the real effect of their determination. There is great force and beauty also in the description of her son as the last live coal left to keep the family hearth burning. In another but allied sense David is called “the lamp of Israel”.

2Sa 14:9

The iniquity be on me. The king had given a general promise to help the widow, but she wants to lead him on to a definite assurance that her son shall be pardoned. Less than this would not help Absalom’s case. Instead, therefore, of withdrawing, she represents herself as dissatisfied, and pleads for full forgiveness; and as this would be a violation of the letter of the Levitical Law, in order to remove David’s supposed scruples, she takes upon herself the penalty.

2Sa 14:11

I pray thee, let the king remember, etc. Thenius says that the woman plays well the part of a talkative gossip, but really she was using the skill for which Joab employed her in bringing the king to give her son a free pardon. Nothing short of this would serve Absalom, who already was so far forgiven as to be in no fear of actual punishment. It is remarkable that David does not hesitate finally to grant this without making further inquiry, though he must have known that a mother’s pleas were not likely to be very impartial. Moreover, while in 2Sa 14:9 she had acknowledged that there might be a breach of the law in pardoning a murderer, she now appeals to the mercy of Jehovah, who had himself provided limits to the anger of the avenger of blood (see Num 35:1-34.). He had thus shown himself to be a God of equity, in whom mercy triumphed over the rigid enactments of law. The words which follow more exactly mean, “That the avenger of blood do not multiply destruction, and that they destroy not my son.” Moved by this entreaty, the king grants her son full pardon, under the solemn guaranty of an oath.

2Sa 14:13

Against the people of God. Very skilfully, and so as for the meaning only gradually to unfold itself to the king, she represents the people of Israel as the widowed mother, who has lost one son; and David as the stern clan folk who will deprive her of a second though guilty child. But now he is bound by the solemn oath he has taken to her to remit the penalty; for literally the words are, and by the king’s speaking this word he is as one guilty, unless he fetch home again his banished one. She claims to have spoken in the name of all Israel, and very probably she really did express their feelings, as Absalom was very popular, and the people saw in Tamar’s wrong a sufficient reason for, and vindication of, his crime.

2Sa 14:14

Neither doth God, etc. This translation is altogether wrong. What the woman says is, “God taketh not life [Hebrew, ‘a soul’] away, but thinketh thoughts not to banish from him his banished one.” Her argument is that death is the common lot, and that there is no way of bringing back the dead to life. But though death is thus a universal law, yet God does not kill. Death is not a penalty exacted as a punishment, but, on the contrary, he is merciful, and when a man has sinned, instead of putting him to death, he is ready to forgive and welcome back one rejected because of his wickedness. The application is plain. The king cannot restore Amnon to life, and neither must he kill the guilty Absalom, but must recall his banished son. The argument is full of poetry, and touching to the feelings, but is not very sound. For God requires repentance and change of heart; and there was no sign of contrition on Absalom’s part. The power of the woman’s appeal lay in what she says of God’s nature. He is not intent on punishing, nor bent on carrying out the sentences of the Law in their stern literalness; but he is ready to forgive, and “deviseth devices” to bring home those now separate from him. There is also much that is worth pondering over in the distinction between death as a law of nature, and death as a penalty. The one is necessary, and often gentle and beneficial; but death as a penalty is stern and terrible.

2Sa 14:15-17

Now therefore that I am come, etc. The woman now professes to return to her old story as the reason for her importunity, but she repeats it in so eager and indirect a manner as to indicate that it had another meaning. Instead, too, of thanking the king for fully granting her petition, she still flatters and coaxes as one whose purpose was as yet ungained. The king’s word is, for rest: it puts an end to vexation, and, by deciding matters, sets the disputants at peace. He is as an angel of God, as God’s messenger, whose words have Divine authority; and his office is, not to discern, but “to hear the good and the evil,” unmoved, as the Vulgate renders it, by blessing and cursing. His mission is too high for him to be influenced either by good words or by evil, but having patiently heard both sides, and calmly thought over the reasons for and against, he will decide righteously. Finally, she ends with the prayer, And may Jehovah thy God be with thee! By such words she hoped to propitiate the king, who now could not fail to see that the errand of the woman was personal to himself.

2Sa 14:19

Is the hand of Joab with thee in all this? The “not,” inserted by the Authorized Version, must be omitted, as it alters the meaning. The king really was uncertain, and asked dubiously, whereas the Authorized Version admits only of an. affirmative answer. David had seen the general drift of the woman’s meaning, but she had involved it in too much obscurity for him to do more than suspect that she was the mouthpiece of Joab, who was standing by, and whose face may have given signs of a more than ordinary interest in the woman’s narrative. She now frankly acknowledges the truth, but skilfully interweaves much flattery in her answer. And her words are far more expressive than what is given in our versions. Literally they are, By thy life, O my lord the king, there is nothing on the right or on the left of all that my lord the king has spoken. His words had gone straight to the mark, without the slightest deviation on either side.

2Sa 14:20

To fetch about this form of speech; correctly, as in the Revised Version, to change the face of the matter hath thy servant Joab, etc. The matter was that referred to in 2Sa 14:15, which the king now understands to refer to Absalom. For in the earth, translate in the land. The Hebrew has no means of distinguishing the wider and narrower significations of the word; but while the king would be flattered by the supposition that he knew all that happened in his dominions, the assertion that he knew all that was done in all the world was too broad and general to be agreeable. The Authorized Version has been misled by the thought of what an angel might know; but while it was a compliment to ascribe to the king an angel’s intelligence in his own sphere, it would have been bad taste and unmeaning to ascribe to him omniscience. Nay, it is an assumption without proof that even an angel knows “all things that are in the earth.”

2Sa 14:21

I have done this thing. This is an Oriental form of assent, just as we say in English, “It is done,” that is, as good as done, now that the order is given. A few manuscripts, nevertheless, support a Massoretic emendation (K’ri), namely, “Thou hast done this: go therefore,” etc. But both the Septuagint and Vulgate agree with the written text (K’tib), and it is less flat and commonplace than the supposed emendation.

2Sa 14:22

In that the king hath fulfilled the request of his servant. Keil concludes from this that Joab had often interceded for Absalom’s pardon, and that this had made the king suspect him of being the prime mover in the affair. But this is to force the meaning, Joab now stood confessed as the person who had brought the woman before the king, and had employed her to gain a hearing. Had he been allowed to plead freely, her intervention would not have been necessary. We have seen, too, that the king’s suspicions have been made in the Authorized Version much stronger than they really were. Many commentators also assume that Joab had a friendship for Absalom, but there are few traces of it in his conduct, and more probably Joab was chiefly influenced by politic motives. It was injurious to the well being of the nation that there should be discord and enmity between the king and his eldest son, and that the latter should be living in exile. The K’ri, thy servant, placed in the margin, is to be decidedly rejected, with all other attempts of the Massorites to remove little roughnesses of grammar.

2Sa 14:24

Let him turn to his own house, etc. This half forgiveness was unwise, and led to unhappy results. It seems even as if Absalom was a prisoner in his house, as he could not leave it to visit Joab. Still, we must not assume that even kind treatment would have made Absalom a dutiful son, or weaned him from his ambitions purposes. The long plotted revenge, carried out so determinately, gives us a low idea of his character, and probably during these two years of waiting, he had brooded over David’s criminal leniency, and regarded it as a justification for his own foul deed. And now, when allowed to come home, but still treated unkindly, thoughts condemnatory of his father’s conduct were cherished by him. It seems, too, as if a protracted punishment is always dangerous to the moral character of the criminal. And must we not add another reason? Absalom, we may feel sure, saw with indignation the growing influence of Bathsheba over the king. A granddaughter of Ahithophel, she was sure to be an adept in those intrigues in which the women of a harem pass their time; and even if, upon the whole, we form a favourable judgment upon her character, yet undoubtedly she was a very able woman, and could have no affection for Absalom.

2Sa 14:26

Two hundred shekels after the king’s weight. Unless the royal shekel was smaller than the shekel of the sanctuary, the weight of Absalom’s hair would be six pounds. But we cannot believe that the king’s shekel was not full weight; for to imagine this is to suppose that the king had tampered with the coinage; for the shekel was a coin as well as a weight, being originally a fixed quantity of silver. As a matter of fact, David had amassed too much silver to have need of resorting to what is the expedient of feeble and impoverished princes. Nor can we grant an error in the number; for the versions all agree with the Hebrew, so that any mistake must, at all events, be of great antiquity. Josephus says that Solomon’s body guard wore long hair powdered with gold dust, and undoubtedly Absalom’s hair was something extraordinary (2Sa 18:9). But six pounds is so enormous a weight that it is just possible that some ancient copyist has enlarged the number, to make it accord with a legend current among the people, in which this feature of Absalom’s beauty had been exaggerated.

2Sa 14:27

Three sons. Their names are not given, because they died early (see 2Sa 18:18). Of his daughter Tamar, named after her aunt, and, like her, possessed of great beauty, the Septuagint adds that she became the wife of Rehoboam, and mother of Abijah. In 1Ki 15:2 we are told that Abijah’s mother was “Maachah the daughter of Abishalom;” and in 2Ch 13:2 that her name was “Michaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah.” We thus gather that Tamar married Uriel, and that it was the granddaughter of Absalom who became Rehoboam’s queen. It is strictly in accordance with Hebrew custom to call Absalom’s granddaughter his daughter, and, as Uriel was a man of no political importance, he is passed over, as the narrator’s object was to show that Abijah’s mother was sprung from the handsome and notorious son of David (see also 2Ch 11:20, 2Ch 11:21).

2Sa 14:29

Absalom sent for Joab. As Joab had been the means of bringing him back, Absalom naturally regarded him as a friend. But Joab had performed the former service for other reasons, and it does not seem as if he really had any affection for Absalom.

2Sa 14:30

Go, and set it on fire. The Hebrew has, Go, and I will set it on fire. Absalom represents himself as doing in his own person what his servants were to be his instruments in accomplishing. The versions, however, agree with the Massorites in substituting the easy phrase in the text. But few languages are so indifferent to persons and numbers as the Hebrew.

2Sa 14:31

Then Joab arose. This high-handed proceeding forced Joab to pay the wished for visit. But, while we cannot acquit Absalom of petulance, we must not regard his act as one of angry revenge; had it been so, Joab would have openly resented it, and he was quite capable of making even the heir apparent feel his anger. It was probably intended as a rough practical joke, which taught Joab better manners, and which he must laugh at, though with inward displeasure.

2Sa 14:32

If there be (any) iniquity in me, let him kill me. The word “any,” wrongly inserted in the Authorized Version, as omitted in the Revised Version. It would have been monstrous for Absalom to profess innocence, with the murder of Amnon fresh in his memory; but the phrase, “if there be iniquity in me,” means, “if my offence is still unpardoned.” If year after year he was to be treated as a criminal, then he would rather be put to death at once. And Absalom’s plea succeeds. Joab, who had been unwilling to visit the prisoner, now consents to act as mediator, reports to David his son’s vexation at such long continued coldness, and obtains full pardon.

2Sa 14:33

The king kissed Absalom. The father’s kiss was, as in the case of the prodigal son (Luk 15:20), the sign of perfect reconciliation, and of the restoration of Absalom to his place as a son, with all its privileges. But God’s pardon was immediate (2Sa 12:13), while David’s was unwilling, and wrung from him. The kiss, we may feel quite sure, was preceded by a conversation between David and his son, the record of which is omitted simply for the sake of brevity. Evidently it satisfied the king, and ended in the kiss which gave the son all he desired. But whatever may have been his professions, Absalom’s subsequent conduct is proof that he still regarded Amnon’s death as a just retribution for his conduct to Tamar, and secretly cherished a sullen anger against his father for not having punished the wrong doer himself. It was the contrast between his own five years of punishment and the mere verbal reproof which was all that Amnon had to suffer for his shameless conduct, which rankled in Absalom’s mind, and gave him an excuse for finally plotting his father’s ruin.

HOMILETICS

2Sa 14:1-20

The facts are:

1. Joab, observing that the king’s heart was still adverse to Absalom, devised, in order to bring him round to a different feeling, that a wise woman from Tekoah should appear before him and plead a cause.

2. The woman appears before the king, and narrates as facts certain circumstances, namely,

(1) that she was a widow, and that on two of her sons falling into strife, one slew the other;

(2) that all the rest of the family connections were urging that the survivor should be put to death, much to her grief.

3. David, touched with her story, undertakes to grant her request, whereupon the woman, recognizing the usage in such cases, desires to exonerate the king from blame in this exercise of his clemency.

4. The king giving her a renewed assurance of safety, should any reproach her for thus trading on his clemency, she again, by a reference to God’s presence and knowledge, dwells on the royal promise; whereupon he swears most solemnly that the son shall be spared.

5. The woman then ventures to bring the royal concession to her to bear on the case of Absalom, by suggesting that, in granting her request as a just one, he virtually brings blame on himself for cherishing revengeful feeling against a banished one, and he one of the people of God.

6. She fortifies her argument by alluding to man’s inevitable mortality and to God’s way of dealing with wrong doers, namely, that he devises means of restoring the exile.

7. Reverting to her own suit, she next pretends that the people’s desire for vengeance has caused the fear which prompts this her request, believing, as she does, in the king’s magnanimity and superior discrimination.

8. David, perceiving that she is presenting a parabolic case, now asks whether Joab is not at the origin of it, which, with an Oriental compliment to his discernment, she candidly admits.

Astuteness in human affairs.

There are a few facts which, put together, seem to warrant the conclusion that David was hostile in mind to Absalom, and that therefore the expression in 2Sa 14:1, rendered “toward,” should be “adverse to,” . These facts are, his evident sorrow for Amnon; the related flight of Absalom and absence for three years, but no mention of any messenger of peace being sent to him; the necessity of the device of the wise woman to awaken kindly interest in the king; and his unwillingness to see Absalom lot two years after having yielded to the force of the argument for his restoration (2Sa 14:28). It was in the endeavour to overcome the king’s hostility that Joab manifested the remarkable astuteness of his nature. Taking Joab’s conduct in this instance as our exemplar, we may get an insight as to what constitutes the astuteness in human affairs which then gave and always has given some men an advantage over others.

I. THERE IS A SHREWD OBSERVATION OF EVENTS. Joab was not a mere military man, whose range of observation was limited by his profession. He had his eyes wide open to notice, in their bearing one on the other, the various incidents in the history of Israel, embracing both the private and public life, king and people. The remark that he perceived that the king’s heart was adverse to Absalom is but an index of the man’s character. Some generals would simply have confined their attention to military duties, paying little or no heed to what passed in the mind of the king, and what was the effect of his attitude on the nation. The widely and minutely observant eye is a great blessing, and, when under the government of a holy purpose, is a means of personal and relative enrichment. All men astute in affairs have cultivated it with zeal, and its activity and range account in part for the superiority they have acquired over their fellow creatures. Human life is a voluminous book, ever being laid, page by page, before us; and he who can with simple and steady glance note what is there written, and treasure up the record for future use, has procured an advantage, which, in days to come, will be converted into power. “The wise man’s eyes are in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness” (Ecc 2:14).

II. THERE IS A CONSTANT LOOKING AHEAD. This characteristic of Joab is seen in many instances (e.g. 2Sa 11:16, 2Sa 11:18-20; 2Sa 12:28; 2Sa 13:19). He was a man who sought to forecast the issue of events at present transpiring, or conditions that might arise to modify his plans. He seemed to see the complications that might arise should Absalom be kept in perpetual exile, both on account of his fine manly bearing being popular with the people, and of the possible strife should the king die, and the exile then return to contend with a nominee of David’s. The prophetic forecast is a vision of coming reality; the forecast of astuteness is the clever calculation of the bearings of passing events on what may be, the tracking out by anticipation the working on men and things of the various forces now in operation. In so far as a man possesses this quality, he certainly is a power in society, and his opinions with reference to contingencies, and the provision wherewith to meet them, should have weight. The degree to which some men injure themselves and others because they have no prevision, no power of anticipating events, is often very painful. In so far as this kind of prevision can be cultivated in early years, apart from the cunning with which it is sometimes allied, so will be the gain for the entire life.

III. THERE IS A SEEKING OF PERSONAL ENDS COMBINED WITH PUBLIC GOOD. Selfish cunning looks on, but looks only for self, and cares not for general interests. Astuteness looks on, but seeks deliberately to combine the personal and the general good. The former may be a prominent consideration, but the latter has a real place sincerely given. In Joab we have a striking example of this. Even in the killing of Abner Joab probably felt that the presence of such a rival might bring on troubles in Israel. When, by complicity with David’s sin (2Sa 11:17), he advanced his own ambition by gaining power over David, he had an idea that the country would be the stronger for king and general to be of one mind. His sending for David to conquer Rabbah (2Sa 12:26-30) promoted his own influence over the king, and at the same time gave the nation the advantage of a regal triumph. No doubt he foresaw that, as Absalom was now the eldest son, he might possibly come to the throne, and hence it was important to secure his favour by being the instrument of procuring his recall; at the same time, he saw it would be better for king and people that this family quarrel should be adjusted. There is no astuteness in pure benevolence, and there is no pure benevolence in astuteness. Its characteristic is that it uses a knowledge of men and things, and an anticipation of coming and possible events, in such a way as to secure personal interests in promoting public good. There is too much conscience for pure selfishness, and too little for pure benevolence. These children of the world are certainly wise in their generation (Luk 16:8).

IV. THERE IS A SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OF HUMAN NATURE, AND OF THE MEANS OF ACTING ON IT. Joab knew mentheir foibles and their strength. He had acquired that kind of penetration which comes of having much to do with men of divers temperaments and preferences. He knew how to touch David’s natural ambition at Rabbah (2Sa 12:28-30). He understood how he would feign displeasure and sorrow at the assault which brought about the death of Uriah, and how the courtiers could be put off suspicion (2Sa 12:20, 2Sa 12:21). He knew that a story appealing to generous, magnanimous feelings would be sure to touch the king’s heart (2Sa 14:2). This knowledge of men is an inestimable treasure for practical purposes. Some persons never acquire it, and consequently are at a great disadvantage in the struggle for life. Others avail themselves of it for low, cunning purposes, which are more becoming fiends than men. The astute man, whose character is toned by a moral aim, uses his knowledge to avoid some and secure the favour of others, and also to bring men round to the furtherance of the objects he has in hand. There is not in such a quality the simplicity which sometimes passes for Christian guilelessness; it may even seem, in some cases, to savour of cunning; but there are instances in which it combines the wisdom of the serpent and the harmlessness of the dove. The Apostle Paul was certainly an astute Christian. He knew men, and how to deal with them on Christian principles. His addresses before his judges and his Epistles bear witness.

GENERAL LESSONS.

1. All who wish to be effective in Christian service should endeavour to extend their knowledge of human nature; for it is said of Christ that he knew what was in man (Joh 2:25).

2. In seeking a more thorough knowledge of human nature, we should avoid the risking the habitual feeling of distrust and suspicion which many of the sad facts of life may well suggest; for our Saviour, who knew all that is in man, the worst and the best, acted in his relations to them on the principle of generous consideration.

3. We should see to it that the intellectual qualities of astuteness are allied in us with Christian qualities that will save us from low cunning and mere utilitarian motive, and make duty the guide of action.

4. It behoves us to make use of all innocent means”wise women,” if need beparables, or direct argument, to bring others to act in accordance with the will of God.

5. In dealing with men we should endeavour to touch the better springs of action in their nature, and assume that they are prepared to do justly and generously.

Means to bring back the banished.

The woman of Tekoah showed her wisdom in very deftly blending the argument suggested by Joab with thoughts and pleadings designed to meet the successive replies of the king. To gain her point, she proceeded from the assumption of his natural sympathy with a distressed widow up to the overwhelming argument derived from a consideration of God’s method in dealing with his children when they are, by reason of their sins, banished from his presence, There may seem to be a weakness in the parallel she implies between the case of her sons and the case of Absalom and Amnon, inasmuch as the death of Amnon was brought about by a deliberate design, while the death of the other was a consequence of a sudden strife; but in reality she was right. The strife of her sons was “in the field,” but there may have been antecedents which led to that mortal conflict; and, so far as concerned the sons of David, it was to all intents and purposes a family quarrel, brought on by the wrong done to Absalom in the ruin of his sister, and the wise woman evidently regarded the whole affair as a “strife in the field.” Provocation had been given by Amnon, and the anger of Absalom, thus aroused, occasioned his death. Amnon would not have died, but for his attack on the honour of Absalom. Two things in the final argument come home to David.

(1) The reference to the ways of God. David, as a pious man and as a righteous ruler, rejoiced in the ways of the Lord; to him they were just and true and wise; they were the professed model of his own conduct. This moral argument to a good man is perfectly irresistible.

(2) The reference to God’s banished ones. David had of late been a banished one. He had known the anguish of being far from his heavenly Father, a spiritual exile, no longer permitted or inclined to the close and blessed fellowship of former times. The widow’s word “banished” brought back the sad remembrance, followed in a moment by the remembrance of the mercy that had blotted out all his sins and restored him to the joys of salvation. Wise woman, thus to touch the deepest and tenderest springs of the heart! Consider what is implied in the blessed words, “He doth devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him.”

I. MAN‘S CONDITION BY REASON OF SIN IS ONE OF BANISHMENT. As truly as Absalom was now banished from David as a consequence of his transgressions, so man is separated from God. The information given us of the fallen angels is slight, but it amounts to thisthat they are banished because of sin (2Pe 2:4; Jud 2Pe 1:6). Our first parents were banished from Paradise because of sin. Those who are not welcomed at last to heaven will have to refer the banishment to sin (Mat 7:23; Mat 25:45, Mat 25:46; Rev 21:27). The state of mankind, while sin is loved and followed, is one of alienation. The carnal mind is not subject to the Law of God. We are as sheep going astray. Apart from any positive decree, the fact of sin constitutes moral severance from God. The child wanders, heedless of the Father’s love, and all the moral laws of the universe combine with psychological laws to keep him, while in that state, outside the blessed sphere of fellowship and rest. It was instinctive for Absalom to flee from the face of the king. He banished himself by his deed, and the king could not render it otherwise. It is instinctive for one in sin to rice from the face of the holy God, and the Eternal, though omnipotent, cannot render it otherwise. The constitution of nature renders it inevitable. To suppose that it is an arbitrary arrangement is to imagine an impossibility. No power can make sin equivalent to holiness, and consequently no power can confer on sin the blessedness of the Divine favour.

II. GOD NEVERTHELESS REGARDS THE BANISHED AS HIS. Absalom was the son of David, though an exiled wanderer. David felt for him the mingled sorrow and displeasure of a just and good parent. The change of character and position does not destroy natural relationship. Adam was God’s wandering child when, with sad heart, he turned his back on Paradise. The prodigal son is represented as being a son, though wasting his substance with riotous living. Our Saviour, in teaching us how to pray, would have us think of God as our Father. The whole tenor of his life on earth was to cause sinful men to feel that God the Father locks on them as his, even while in rebellion against his will. Had he disowned us in this respect, there would indeed have been no hope. It is much to know, in our sins and errors and dreadful guilt, that we are God’s offspring, that he has a proprietary right in us, and thinks of us as only a father can think of his children (Eze 33:11).

III. GOD MAKES PROVISION FOR BRINGING THE BANISHED BACK TO HIMSELF. “He doth devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him.” Wonderful words for that age, and from a widow! The great and precious truth is the comfort of myriads all over the world, and the occasion of wonder and joy in heaven. Such an incidental statement reveals to us that the pious of Israel in those times possessed much fuller and clearer knowledge concerning God and his salvation than they sometimes get credit for, or would be inferred from the outlines of national history contained in the Bible. The history is designed to trace the great historic line along which Christ came, and the fact that God was, through the Jewish people, working out a great purpose to be gradually revealed in Christ. We are not told of all the detailed teaching of holy priests and prophets. We may fairly regard this wonderful statement of the widow as an index of truth widely possessed, distinct from the provision of such means of blessing as the brazen serpent and the cities of refuge. There is a twofold sense in which the expression may be understood.

1. God provides means for the redemption of the world. The Mosaic economy was, in some of its institutions, a shadow of the provision that centres in the cross of Christ. Our salvation is of God. If he does not find means to cover sin and influence our evil hearts, there is no hope. We cannot, and are unwilling. He deviseth means (Joh 3:16). There is an intimation of the wisdom requisite. Sin produces such confusion in the moral sphere, and runs so against the order of government, and lays so strong a hold on the human heart, that only infinite wisdom could find out the way by which we might come back to God. Hence the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the appointment of faith as the condition and of preaching as the instrumentality, are all ascribed to the wisdom and goodness of God. It is by the Church thus saved that the wisdom of God is revealed to all ages (Rom 3:23-26; Rom 4:16; Rom 8:14; 1Co 1:21-30; Eph 3:10).

2. God provides means for the restoration of those who backslide from him. By chastisements, by the voice of prophets and conscience, by the pleading of the Spirit, by the varied events of providence causing the erring child to feel how evil and bitter a thing it is to depart from God, he opens a way by which they are brought back again. David knew this. “He restoreth my soul” (Psa 23:3). How wonderfully wise and gentle these means often are is well known to many who once were as sheep going astray, and had lost the blessedness of fellowship formerly known.

“Return! O chosen of my love!
Fear not to meet thy beckoning Saviour’s view
Long ere I called thee by thy name, I knew
That very treacherously thou wouldst deal;
Now I have seen thy ways, yet I will heal.
Return! Wilt thou yet linger far from me?
My wrath is turned away, I have redeemed thee.”

IV. GOD‘S WAYS IN DEALING WITH HIS BANISHED ONES ARE A MODEL FOR US. The wise woman had spoken of the ways of God with his banished ones in order to induce David to follow in the same course with respect to Absalomthe implication being that, when once a good man is reminded of the ways of God, he will without further urging act in the same manner. The parallel between the relation of Absalom to David and the relation of a sinner to God may not in every detail be perfect; but there being a resemblance in the substantial factsbanishment of a son because of high-handed deeds of wrongit follows that there should be a resemblance, in the bearing of the earthly father king to his son, to that of God to his sinful child. The two features of God’s bearing toward his own are:

(1) He does not take away life; but

(2) devises means by which those who deserve to die are brought back to him (2Sa 14:14).

The reference evidently is not to the legal code, which in several cases recognizes capital punishment for certain offences, for ends civil and social, but to the general principle and method of God’s dealing with sinful man in his highest relations to himself. He desireth not the death of the sinner, and therefore he, speaking after the manner of men, finds out some way of bringing about a restoration to favour consistent with his own honour and the claims of righteousness. In the New Testament this example is set forth in strong and varied terms (Mat 5:43-48; Mat 6:14, Mat 6:15; Eph 4:31, Eph 4:32). The fact that there is a model in God’s bearing toward us is only half the truth. It is our duty and privilege to act according to it. It is not enough to be kindly disposed. We are to “devise devices”take the initiativein seeking to restore those who may have done wrong and merited our displeasure. This is the hard lesson taught by Christ, which even his own people are so slow to learn. When will Christians be as Christ was and act as Christ did? It is often easier to sing hymns, hear sermons, and bow the knee in prayer.

GENERAL LESSONS.

1. The proper course for the poor and sorrowful and oppressed is, after the example of this widow, to have recourse to him who sitteth as King in Zion; for his ear is ever open to their cry, and there is an open way of access to his throne.

2. In all our approaches to the supreme throne we may, with more confidence than was displayed by this widow in David, act on the assumption of a mercy and wisdom that never fail.

3. It is not only a solace to the weary heart, but a sure means of help in our domestic cares, if we bring them before the notice of our God.

4. We see how often the best and most exalted of men, in their conduct and feelings, come far short of the character they should manifest, and how they may require even the teaching which comes from the spirit and deeds of the poor and troubled to raise them to a higher level of life.

5. It is possible for good men to be kind and generous towards others, and at the same time be unaware, till forced to see it, that there are features in their personal conduct day by day not in accord with the general generosity which they recognize and display.

6. We need to be reminded that the death of those we have cared for, should it come about while we are not acting kindly toward them (2Sa 14:14), is an unalterable event, a change which renders acts of kindness impossibleas water spilt on the ground cannot be gathered up again; and consequently we should seize passing opportunities of blessing them.

7. The sinful state of man is as unnatural as is exile to a king’s son, and should ever be so represented (Isa 1:2, Isa 1:3).

8. All thanks and praise are due to God, in that he needed not any one to procure our restoration; all is of his own eternal love and free grace.

9. We should distinguish between the human setting of a truth and the truth itself. To “devise a means” is a human way of expressing the truth that God, from the beginning, before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4; Rev 13:8), ordained and arranged for our salvation, but that we see the prearrangement coming into form subsequent to the advent of sin, and think of it as being devised to meet that event after its occurrence. We say, “the sun rises,” but it does not. Our forms of expression consequent on the appearance of things to us is not the exact utterance of absolute truth.

10. The force of a Divine example, when brought to bear on men who recognize the government of God, will often compel conviction when other means fail.

2Sa 14:21-33

Imperfect reconciliation.

The facts are:

1. David, referring to the promise he had made, sends Joab to bring Absalom from Geshur, Joab expressing in lowly form his thanks for the king’s gracious attention to his request.

2. On Absalom’s return he is ordered to abide in his own house, and not to see the king’s face.

3. The personal beauty of Absalom is famous throughout Israel, and of his four children the only daughter is also reputed to be fair.

4. For two years Absalom remains in Jerusalem without seeing the king, whereupon he becomes dissatisfied, and sends to Joab, hoping, to send him to the king.

5. Joab, for some unexpressed reason, declines to give heed to the message, and, as a consequence, Absalom orders his field of barley to be burnt.

6. This event bringing Joab to him, Absalom remonstrates with the king through him against this semi-imprisonment, and demands to see the king.

7. The king yielding to the request, Absalom presents himself, and receives his father’s kiss. Whatever may have been the secret causes operating on both sides, the course of the narrative clearly shows us that, although Joab seemed to have gained his point through the wise woman of Tekoah, yet the restoration of Absalom to his father’s love and confidence was not perfect. There are, in the account here given of the relation of David to his son, illustrations of several important truths or recurring incidents of human life.

I. CONCESSIONS WITH RESERVATIONS. In the interview with Joab (2Sa 14:21, 2Sa 14:22) David distinctly intimated to him that he had “done this thing”consented to Absalom’s return in consequence of having been caught within the coils of the parabolic pleadings of the wise woman whom he had employed for that purpose. Apart from the force of the argument, the king was no doubt willing in some degree to comply with the request of so influential a man, especially as he knew more of his own life than was comfortable to reflect upon. Joab regarded it as a work of special grace that his wishes were thus considered; and most probably he went to Geshur to fetch Absalom, with cheerful expectations of a speedy removal of family difficulties. But although the king kept the letter of his concession in Absalom’s permitted return, it is evident that he either repented of his original decision or had made, when giving it, a private reservation that, though returned, he should not give him a hearty welcome. Both Joab and Absalom (2Sa 14:24) appear to have reported themselves at the king’s house, in expectation of full restoration, for he “returned to his own house.” Such concessions as this are valuable in so far as they confer privileges otherwise not attainable, but they lose much value in being extracted by pressure and especially by the reservation which becomes subsequently known. It had been well, perhaps, had conditions been stated from the first. If possible, our agreements and promises should be expressed in terms that cover all we think and intend. The mutual confidence of society depends on the cultivation of frankness and candour. The first inconvenience is the least. The promises of God are “yea and Amen.” There is no disappointing reservation for us when we arrive at the palace of the great King.

II. EMBARRASSMENTS OF PATERNAL CONDUCT. Great consideration is due to David when we endeavour to form an estimate of his conduct. His position, brought on, it is true, by his own sad sin, was most perplexing. On the one side there was

(1) the very natural and great displeasure against a son who could cherish revenge for two whole years, and then presume to take upon himself the vindication of justice, thus reflecting on royal authority;

(2) the absolute need of chastisement for a young man of violent spirit and haughty temper;

(3) the importance of maintaining influence over the people by not seeming to palliate the violence of his own family;

(4) the temptation to which so handsome and attractive a young man would be exposed were he to be prematurely welcomed into society again;

(5) the secret influence of his favourite wife, Bathsheba, who could not but remind him of the claims on the succession of the son specially named by the prophet as “beloved of the Lord” (2Sa 12:24, 2Sa 12:25).

Then on the other side there was

(1) his natural yearning over a hitherto favourite son, the more so as he feared lest he should fall a victim to evil ways;

(2) Joab’s evident interest in Absalom, and the expediency of conciliating so powerful a man;

(3) the near connection of Absalom with the tribe of Judah, and the danger of raising up a party should there be an appearance of harshness;

(4) the remembrance of the unqualified promise virtually given to the wise woman of Tekoah, that he would regard God’s mercy to his banished ones as his model;

(5) the reflection that, after his own dreadful sin in the case of Uriah, God had restored him to personal favour. Under some such conflicting influence David could not grant all that was desired. Happily modern parents have not to decide on the doom of fratricides; but troubles do arise which place them in most embarrassing circumstances. Much charity is needed in our judgments on the action taken in cases of difficulty. There is much unknown to the outward observer. It is important, in all these times of perplexity, to cast our care on the Lord, and seek the special guidance which he has promised. Divine influence alone can keep us from being unduly biassed in either direction. Our decisions may mean perpetual weal or woe to children.

III. THE DISCIPLINE OF PARTIAL PRIVILEGE. It is a severe but wholesome discipline for Absalom to be kept two years without full restoration. Possibly David may have ascertained from others that his temper was not much improved, and that he did not show the signs of penitence or regret becoming one who looked for full restoration to paternal favour. Then, also, David could not but remember that, with his own restoration to God, there was attached a temporal chastisement, which, while it did not touch the reality of the Divine forgiveness, was designed for public good; and possibly he may have thought that the privilege of returning to Jerusalem only might be accepted as a sign of actual personal forgiveness, and at the same time put Absalom under wholesome restraints. This kind of discipline does exist in human affairs and in Church life. Children and men are caused to feel that some inconvenience has resulted from their conduct, even though they are no longer punished. In so far as we fall in with the natural or designed tendency of this discipline, we may turn its annoyances into a means of recovery from the moral failings which have been our bane.

IV. THE PERILS OF PERSONAL ATTRACTIONS. The beauty of Absalom is referred to in such a way as to suggest that he was not only aware of it, but that it exercised a fascinating influence over others, and tended to gather around him persons likely to be influenced by personal appearances, and therefore not the most helpful to one who needs the stimulus and support of high moral principles. Personal beauty is a gift of God, and, were not sin in the world as a disturbing element in the physical and moral development of the human race, the probability is that the average beauty of form and expression would equal or surpass what is now regarded as exceptional. Unfortunately, it is sometimes allied to a vain and frivolous spirit, and in that case it becomes a snare. There are instances in which beauty has been associated with the devout earnest spirit of religion, and has been made tributary to obtaining a hallowed influence over others. Special prayer and strong safeguards are required for our sons and daughters whoso personal attractions may lay them open to the flatteries and friendships of the unwise and unholy.

V. THE INTIMATIONS OF DANGEROUS TENDENCIES. It was natural for Absalom to be restless under the restraint of two years, though, had his spirit been very lowly and penitent, he would have kept it within due limits. The treatment of Joab was an intimation that the daring temper which slew Amnon was still there. He who could set a field of barley on fire in order to get his messages attended to was capable, unless the tendencies were checked, of producing a more serious conflagration. The presence within a young man of strong passions, a violent temper, a hatred of restraint or love of pleasure, is a sign of danger. It is in the nature of forces to work their way outward. If we say, “the child is father to the man,” we may also say that the moral forces within are the creators of the life without. Unless strong counter-influences are brought to bear to neutralize their action or to extirpate them, they will gain power by being daily cherished, and a free, jovial, handsome Absalom may become the notorious rebel, whose hand turns against his own father. Human life exhibits such developments still. Young men should interrogate their own nature, and fairly face the moral dangers that may lie there, before their power renders introspection and suppression difficult if not impossible. Those who have charge of the young should note signs of struggling forces, and adapt the moral education according to the individual requirement.

HOMILIES BY B. DALE

2Sa 14:1-20

(JERUSALEM.)

The woman of Tekoah.

1. In David “the king” we hero see that fatherly affection may come into conflict with regal justice. He must have perceived the ill effects of sparing Amnon, and felt constrained to punish Absalom. But his grief and resentment were mitigated by the lapse of time (2Sa 13:39). Nevertheless, though prompted by natural affection to recall his son, he was deterred from doing so by political and judicial considerations. And to overcome his reluctance a stratagem was devised, which, as the sequel shows, was only too successful. For by his weakness towards Absalom “he became guilty of the further dissolution of the theocratic rule in his house and in his kingdom” (Erdmann).

2. In Joab “the son of Zerniah” (2Sa 3:39) we see that a man may promote another’s interest out of regard for his own (2Sa 3:22-30; 2Sa 11:16-21). “He may have been induced to take these steps by his personal attachment to Absalom, but the principal reason no doubt was that Absalom had the best prospect of succeeding to the throne, and Joab thought this the best way to secure himself from punishment for the murder which he had committed. But the issue of events frustrated all such hopes. Absalom did not succeed to the throne, Joab did not escape punishment, and David was severely chastised for his weakness and injustice” (Keil). “Joab formed a project by which the king, in his very capacity of chief judge, should find the glimmering fire of parental love suddenly fanned into a burning flame” (Ewald).

3. In the “wise woman” of Tekoah we see that skilful persuasion may so work upon natural feeling as to induce a course which is neither expedient nor just. The cleverness, insight, readiness of speech, tact, boldness mingled with caution, and perseverance, which she displayed (under the direction of Joab, who perhaps “stood by at some distance whilst she addressed herself to the king,” 2Sa 14:21) are remarkable. Such qualities may be employed for a good or an evil purpose. In contrast with the reproof of Nathan, her persuasion

(1) was inspired, not by God, but by man;

(2) was addressed, not to conscience, but to pity and affection;

(3) aimed, not to manifest the truth, but to obscure it;

(4) and “to give effect, not to the convictions of duty, but to the promptings of inclination” (Blaikie);

(5) sought to do this, not sincerely and openly, but insincerely and insidiously;

(6) and not by proper motives alone, and honest, though unpleasant speech, but by improper motives and “with flattering lips;” and

(7) produced, not a beneficial, but an injurious effect. In her persuasive address we notice, more particularly

I. AN AFFECTING BUT FICTITIOUS APPEAL. (2Sa 14:4-11.) “And the woman of Tekoah came to the king,” etc; making her appeal for help in an acted parable, like that of Nathan (2Sa 12:1-4). “Parables sped well with David; one drew him to repent of his own sin, another to remit Absalom’s punishment” (Hall). This parable of the hapless son, or the avengers of blood, was intended, adapted, and employed:

1. To excite compassion toward the unfortunate: a son who had slain his brother “unawares” Num 35:11) in the field, and whose life was imperilled by the avengers, “the old family” (Num 35:7); and his widowed mother, whose only stay and comfort he was, whose “live coal which is left” would be quenched, and whose husband’s “name and posterity” would be destroyed. “The power of the discourse lies in the fact that they are represented as already doing what their words show to be their purpose.”

2. To procure protection against the avengers; who, according to ancient custom, sought to take his life (2Sa 3:22-30); their conduct being portrayed as persistently pitiless (Num 35:11), “and actuated, not so much by a wish to observe the Law, as by covetousness and a desire to share the inheritance among themselves” (Kirkpatrick); obscurely suggestive of the hostility exhibited toward Absalom. “Her circumstances (as a widow and living at some distance from Jerusalem, which rendered the case difficult to be readily inquired into), her mournful tale, her widow’s weeds, her aged person, and her impressive manner, all combined to make one united impression on the king’s heart” (A. Clarke). “In all this she intended to frame a case as like to David’s as she could do; by determining which in her favour, he might judge how much more reasonable it was to preserve Absalom. But there was a wide difference between her case and his, however plausible soever their likeness might appear” (Patrick).

3. To obtain assurance of preservation from the king; which was given at first as an indefinite promise (Num 35:8), afterwards (through her importunity) in a more definite engagement (Num 35:10), and finally confirmed by an oath (Num 35:11). “Had David first proved and inquired into the matter which with cunning and deceit was brought before him, he would not have given assurance with an oath” (Schlier). “We should learn from David’s example to be more guarded over all our feelings and affections, even such as are in their proper degree essential to a religious character” (Lindsay). “Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause” (Exo 23:3).

II. AN EFFECTIVE BUT FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT (Num 35:13, Num 35:14); based upon the assumed resemblance between the case of the hapless son, of whom she had spoken, and that of Absalom, to whom she alluded as fully as she might venture. For her appeal had “a double sense,” or twofold purposeone clear, immediate, feigned, subordinate; the other dark, ultimate, real, supreme; and to the latter she now comes. “And why dost thou think [devise] such a thing as that of which I am now permitted to speak] against people of God? And by the king’s speaking this word [‘As Jehovah liveth,’ etc; Num 35:11] he is as one that is guilty [or, ‘self-condemned’], in that the king does not bring back his banished one.” “My banished one!” he must have thought, as the main object of the woman’s appeal flashed upon him. But she went on: “For we must die [‘shall surely die,’ Gen 2:17], and are as water poured out on the ground that is not gathered up. And God takes not away a soul [nephesh, equivalent to ‘individual life’], but thinks thoughts [devises devices] to the end that he may not banish from him [utterly] a banished one.” She thus sought to persuade the king to recall his son by:

1. The obligation of his oath, in which “he had acknowledged the possibility of an exception to the general rule of punishment for murder;” sworn to save her son, who had killed his brother under severe provocation; and was consistently bound to spare and restore his own son in similar circumstances. But the difference between them, here kept out of view, was fatal to the argument. Absalom’s crime was deliberately planned, executed by his servants under his order, and seen by many witnesses.

2. The welfare of the people of God, involved in the preservation and return of the heir to the throne. Although the king’s sons and the whole court were against Absalom (Gen 2:7), a large party of the people was in his favour. But the general welfare would have been more promoted by his just punishment, or continuance in exile, than by his restoration, as the subsequent history shows.

3. The mortality of menthe inevitable and irreparable decease of Amnon, Absalom, the king himself; the consideration of which should induce compassion and speedy help, lest it should be too late. But “even compassion, amiable as it is, will not justify our violation of the Divine Law, or neglecting the important duties of our station” (Scott).

4. The clemency of God; in forbearance and long suffering toward sinful men, and devising means for their restoration to his presence; such as David himself had experienced (2Sa 12:13; Psa 51:11). His example should be imitated. But his forbearance is limitedhe pardons only those who repent, and punishes the guilty; and for the king to spare the guilty on insufficient grounds, or pardon the impenitent, would be to harden the wicked in their wickedness, and to act contrary to the purpose, for which he is made “an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil.” The reasons assigned, though excellent in themselves, were inapplicable and fallacious. The noblest truths may be perverted to a bad purpose. A weak argument appears strong to one who is already disposed to accept its conclusion; and is a sufficient excuse for a course which he is inclined to pursue. By the manner in which her words were received by the king, the “wise woman” perceived that her point was practically gained; enough had been said, and leaving it to work its effect on his mind, she returned to the ostensible occasion of her petition for help; and “now she would go home happy (she said), as if this reference to the king’s behaviour had been only the casual chatter of a talkative woman” (P. Thomson).

III. AN APPROPRIATE BUT FLATTERING APOLOGY for intrusion on the king (Gen 2:15-20); expressive of:

1. The anxious fear and hope with which she had been impelled to make her request (Gen 2:15).

2. The joyful anticipation and grateful assurance of rest which she now felt (Gen 2:16, Gen 2:17).

3. Devout admiration and praise of the king, on account of his wisdom in judgment; with a prayer for his prosperity: “May Jehovah thy God be with thee!” Fully acknowledging that, as the king surmised, she had acted under the direction of Joab,” in order to bring round the face [aspect] of the matter” (to alter Absalom’s relation to his father), she again commends the discernment of the king: “My lord is wise,” etc. (Gen 2:18-20). “When we are most commended for our discernment we generally act most foolishly; for those very praises cloud and pervert the judgment'” (Scott). “And the king said unto Joab, Behold now, I have done this thing: go and bring the young man Absalom back” (Gen 2:21). “The feelings of the father triumphed over the duty of the king, who, as supreme magistrate, was bound to execute impartial justice on every murderer, by the express Law of God (Gen 9:9; Num 35:30, 81), which he had no power to dispense with (Deu 18:18; Jos 1:8; 1Sa 10:25)” (Jamieson). Although neither the end of the woman’s address nor some of the means are employed can be approved, yet much may be learnt from it concerning the art of persuasion; e.g. the importance of

(1) knowing the character and sentiments of those who are addressed;

(2) having a definite aim in view;

(3) arresting attention and awakening interest and sympathy;

(4) earnestness and fervency of manner;

(5) using argument and illustration adapted to present the matter in the most attractive light;

(6) saying enough and no more, especially on a difficult and delicate subject;

(7) advancing step by step with a]persistent determination to succeed.D.

2Sa 14:14

As water spilt upon the ground.

Water is a gift of God, very precious, especially in lands where it is scarce, and often longed for as a means of quenching thirst, renewing strength, and preserving life (2Sa 23:15; Psa 63:1). But it may be thrown away, poured out and lost, by design or accident, through the overturning or fracture of the vessel in which it is contained. Human life, also, is a Divine gift, precious beyond all earthly possessions. But it is contained in “a body of fragile clay” 2Co 4:7), which is sooner or later destroyed like “the pitcher shattered at the well” Ecc 12:6); and thus “we are as water,” etc. We have here

I. AS IMPRESSIVE ASPECT OF DEATH.

1. It must take place in all, without exception. “It is appointed,” etc. (Gen 3:19; Rom 5:12; Heb 9:27).

2. It may occur to each of us at any moment (1Sa 10:3).

3. It puts an end to the useful service which might have been rendered. Only while the water remains in the vessel can it be of immediate use.

4. It cannot by any possibility be repaired, or “gathered up again.” “As the waters fail from the sea,” etc. (Job 14:11; Job 7:10); “as waters melt away,” etc. (Psa 58:7; Psa 39:13; Psa 49:7-10; Psa 103:16). “Death is of all things the most terrible, for it is the end” (Aristotle).

“What is your life? ‘Tis a delicate shell,

Cast up by Eternity’s flow;

On Time’s bank of quicksand to dwell,

A moment its loveliness show.

Returned to its element grand

Is the billow that brought it on shore;

See, another is washing the strand,

And the beautiful shell is no more.”

II. AN INSTRUCTIVE ADMONITION FOR LIFE. Is it so? Then:

1. Restrain immoderate indulgence in sorrow, “the grief that saps the mind, for those on earth we see no more.” No weeping, anger, nor endeavour can bring back Amnon (2Sa 12:23). Accept calmly what cannot be altered.

2. Repress improper feelings of resentment toward others. Even though it he just, it should not be perpetual (Eph 4:26). They and you alike must die and pass away. “Be reconciled.”

3. Regard all around you with sympathy and kindly affection. Before tomorrow they may be gone.

4. Redeem the rest of your time “in the flesh,” by prompt, diligent, zealous use of every opportunity of serving God and doing good, according to the pattern of long suffering and benevolence which he has set before you, in “not taking away a soul,” etc. (latter part of the verse).

Consider:

1. The death of the body is not the end of the man. He disappears here only to appear elsewhere as water in the cloud; gathered “with sinners” (Psa 26:9; Mat 13:30) or with saints (Gen 25:8; 2Ki 22:20; 2Th 2:1).

2. The life which a man leads “in the body” determines his condition in the unseen and eternal world.

3. The conviction of these things makes the view of death more impressive, and should make the course of life more just, merciful, and devout.D.

2Sa 14:14

God’s restoration of his banished.

It is hardly possible for a father to be so completely estranged from his child as to lose all affection for him. He may have just cause to feel angry with him; but, with absence and the lapse of time, his anger dies away, and his natural affection springs up afresh. It was thus with David in relation to his son Absalom. Yet he hesitated to give way to his parental feelings, to set aside the claims of public justice, and exercise his royal prerogative of showing mercy toward the guilty. And to induce him to do this it was urged (among the means devised for the purpose) that God, who has ordained that men should die, permits them to live, and even devises means for their restoration. Was not this an indication that Absalom should be spared? Was not this an example which the king should imitate? It bus been supposed that there is allusion to the cities of refuge (Num 35:9-34; Deu 19:6; Jos 20:1-9.), where the manslayer, “though banished from his habitation for a time, was not quite expelled, but might return again after the death of the high priest” (Patrick). The argument used was not properly applicable to the particular instance, but the truth expressed is profound and striking. Notice

I. THE ALIENATED CONDITION OF MAN. “Banished;” estranged, separated, “cast out of God’s presence,” away from his sanctuary, fellowship, and inheritance (2Sa 14:16), in “a far country” (Luk 15:13). That this is the moral and spiritual state of man (naturally and generally) is not only testified by the Scriptures, but also by his own heart and conscience; his aversion and dread with respect to God. It is:

1. Voluntary. By his own free act Absalom broke the Law, incurred the displeasure, fled from the face of his father, and continued in exile. So has it been with man from the first.

“The nature with its Maker thus conjoin’d,
Created first was blameless, pure, and good;
But, through itself alone, was driven forth
From Paradise, because it had eschew’d
The way of truth and life, to evil turn’d?

(Dante, ‘Paradise,’ 7.)

Of his own accord he departs from God and seeks to hide himself from him.

2. Unhappy. Absalom found friendly associates and material comforts in Geshur, but he could not have been at home there, and must have carried in his breast a restless and troubled heart. And it is impossible for him who departs from God, and tries to live without him, to possess inward rest and peace. The soul is made for God: how can it be satisfied with anything short of him? Oh the misery that multitudes at this moment endure because they have forsaken the “Fountain of living waters,” and seek their happiness where it can never be found!

3. Perilous. The sinner is under condemnation. The “avengers of blood” are on his track. Life is precarious and must soon terminate, with all its alleviations, privileges, and possibilities; “and after that the judgment,” when voluntary exile becomes involuntary, partial unhappiness complete wretchedness, temporary estrangement “everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord” (2Th 1:9).

4. Not hopeless. Absalom was still a son, though a disobedient one; still “in the land of the living;” and might entertain the hope that, through his father’s affection, his banishment would not be perpetual. However far man may have wandered from the Father’s house, he is still an object of the Father’s love. “Behold, all souls are mine,” etc.; “I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth” etc. (Eze 18:4, Eze 18:32; Eze 23:11); “Turn you to the stronghold, ye prisoners of hope” (Zec 9:12).

II. THE MERCIFUL MEANS DEVISED FOR HIS RESTORATION. Man’s misery is from himself, but “salvation is of the Lord” (Psa 3:8; Jon 2:9). It is effected by and through:

1. The long patience and forbearance which he shows toward the transgressor; restraining the outgoings of wrath (Luk 13:7), sparing forfeited life, affording space for repentance, “making his sun to rise,” etc. (Mat 5:45). “The long suffering of our Lord is salvation” (2Pe 3:15; Rom 2:4).

2. An extraordinary provision, whereby the way of his return is opened, consistently with the requirements of eternal righteousness, and his fatherly love is revealed in the highest degree. By restoring Absalom without due regard to the demands of justice, and even without repentance, David weakened his own authority as king, contributed to a popular rebellion, and well nigh lost his throne and life. But in the method which God in infinite wisdom has “devised” for the restoration of man, justice and mercy are alike manifested, an adequate ground or reason for forgiveness is furnished, sinners are “put in the capacity of salvation” (Butler), and the Law is magnified and “established” (Rom 3:19-31). “God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8); “redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us” (Gal 3:13); “suffered for sins once, the Just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God” (1Pe 3:18).

Man in himself had ever lacked the means
Of satisfaction . Then behoved
That God should by his own ways lead him back
Unto the life from whence he fell, restored;
By both his ways, I mean, or one alone.

But since the deed is ever prized the more,

The more the doer’s good intent appears;
Goodness celestial, whose broad signature
Is on the universe, of all its ways
To raise ye up, was fain to leave out none.

Nor aught so vast or so magnificent,

Either for him who gave or who received,
Between the last night and the primal day,
Was or can be. For God more bounty show’d,
Giving himself to make man capable
Of his return to life, then had the terms
Been mere and unconditional release.

And for his justice, every method else

Were all too scant, had not the Son of God
Humbled himself to put on mortal flesh.”

(Dante, ‘Paradise,’ 7.)

3. Numerous messages, efficient motives, and gracious influences, in connection with that provision, to dispose him to avail himself thereof: the Word, with its invitations, warnings, appeals to reason, affection, conscience, hope and fear; messengers (2Sa 14:31)ministers and teachers of the Word; above all, the Holy Spirit, striving with sinners, convicting of sin, etc. (Joh 16:8), and renewing the heart in righteousness.

4. The end of all is reconciliation (2Sa 14:33), filial fellowship, perfect,, holiness, and endless blessedness in God. “Return;” “Be ye reconciled to God.”

CONCLUSION.

1. How wonderful is “the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man” (Tit 3:4)]

2. How entirely is man his own destroyer (Hos 13:9)!

3. “Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another;” and to devise means in order that no “banished one” may be utterly banished from him.

“Oh let the dead now hear thy voice;
Now let thy banished ones rejoice.”

D.

2Sa 14:20

Flattery.

“My lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God,” etc. Commendation is often proper and beneficial (2Sa 2:5-7). But flattery (false, partial, or extravagant praise) is always improper and pernicious. This language was not mere Oriental compliment, but a flattering speech, intended to make the king pleased with himself in doing what he was urged to do.

1. It is agreeable to most persons when skilfully administered. “Flattery and the flatterer are pleasant; since the flatterer is a seeming admirer and a seeming friend” (Aristotle, ‘Rhetoric’).

“When I tell him he hates flatterers,
He says he does; being then most flattered.”

(Shakespeare.)

“We believe that we hate flattery, when all which we hate is the awkwardness of the flatterer” (La Rochefoucault).

2. It assumes various forms, and is usually obsequious and disingenuous; is direct or indirect; is shown in praising personal qualities, advantages, achievements, etc; giving “flattering titles” (Job 32:1-22 :31-32), “good Master”, “my Lord,” etc. Making or suggesting favourable comparisons, it may be, by detracting from the good name of others (2Sa 4:8). It is sometimes sincere; but “people generally despise where they flatter and cringe to those they would gladly surpass.”

3. It is commonly designed by those who employ it to serve some interest of their own (2Sa 14:22). Hence it is so frequently used to gain the favour of kings, and such as possess authority, influence, or wealth (Jud 2Sa 1:16). When Alexander the Great was hit with an arrow in the siege of an Indian city, and the wound would not heal, he said to his flatterers, “You say that I am Jupiter’s ‘son, but this wound cries that I am but man.”

4. It blinds those who listen to it to their defects, ministers to their vanity, and fills them with perilous self-complacency, “It’s the death of virtue.”

5. It also induces them to pursue erroneous and sinful courses, which they might otherwise have avoided. “A man that flattereth his neighbour spreadeth a net for his feet” (Pro 29:5; Pro 26:28). “Ah! how good might many men have been who are now exceedingly bad had they not sold their ears to flatterers! Flatterers are soul murderers. Flattery is the very spring and mother of all impiety. It put our first parent on tasting the forbidden fruit. It put Absalom upon dethroning his father. It blows the trumpet and draws poor souls into rebellion against God, as Sheba drew Israel to rebel against David. It makes men call evil good and good evil, darkness light and light darkness” (T. Brooks).

6. It is only less culpable in those who listen to it than in those who employ it. They are willing captives. “As a wolf resembles a dog, so doth a flatterer a friend. Take heed, therefore, that, instead of guardian dogs, you do not incautiously admit ravening wolves” (Epictetus).

7. Its folly and guilt are sometimes discovered too late; when its ruinous consequences cannot be repaired (2Sa 15:13; Psa 12:3; Act 12:23).D.

2Sa 14:25

Physical beauty. “And in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty,” etc. (see 1Sa 16:7, 1Sa 16:12; 2Sa 11:2; 2Sa 13:1; 2Sa 13:27).

“Of all God’s works, which do this world adorn,

There is no one more fair and excellent

Than is man’s body, both for power and form,

Whilst it is kept in sober government;
But none than it more foul and indecent,

Distempered through misrule anti passions base;

It grows a monster, and incontinent

Doth lose its dignity and native grace:
Behold, who list, both one and other in this place”

(Spenser, ‘The Faerie Queens,’ canto IX.)

It is

I. AN ADMIRED ENDOWMENT; involuntarily conferred, without personal effort and beyond human control (Mat 5:36; Mat 6:27); yet one of the most personal and enviable of human possessions. “Beauty is a thing of great recommendation in the correspondence amongst men; it is the principal means of acquiring the favour and good liking of one another, and no man is so barbarous and morose that does not perceive himself in some sort struck with its attraction” (Montaigne). “Beauty is, indeed, a good gift of God; but that the good may not think it a great good, God dispenses it even to the wicked”.

“A beautiful and fair young man is he;
In all his body is no blemish seen;
His hair is like the wire of David’s harp,
That twines about his bright and ivory neck;
In Israel is not such a goodly man.”

II. A SUPERFICIAL DISTINCTION; shadowing forth, indeed, beauty of mind and character; and heightened by the latter, when present; but often, in fact, disassociated from it; and covering, “skin deep,” dreadful moral deformity (Pro 11:22). Absalom was beautiful externally, but not “beautiful within,” Wisdom, truth, humility, modesty, purity, patience, meekness, piety, mercy; charity,these constitute inward, substantial, spiritual beauty, “the beauty of holiness,” the product of the grace and the reflection of the beauty and glory of the Lord (Psa 90:17; Psa 149:4); in which he delights, and which all persons may acquire (Eph 4:24; Gal 5:22; Php 2:5). “Whatsoever things are lovely, etc. (Php 4:8). “The graces of the Spirit are the richest ornaments of the reasonable creature.”

III. A DANGEROUS INFLUENCE; on its possessors, making them vain and presumptuous, and exposing them to many temptations; on its beholders, directing undue attention to “the outward appearance,” disposing to excuses for mental and moral defects, alluring to evil (2Sa 15:1-6). The beauty of Absalom was a snare to the people. “His hair was his halter” (2Sa 18:9).

“Where is the virtue of thy beauty, Absolon?
Will any of us here now fear thy locks,
Or be in love with that thy golden hair,
Wherein was wrapt rebellion ‘gainst thy sire,
And words prepared to stop thy father’s breath?”

(Geo. Peele.)

IV. A TRANSIENT POSSESSION. Precarious, short lived, inevitably turning to dust (2Sa 14:14); “a fading flower” (Isa 28:4; Isa 40:8; Psa 39:11), whose “root is ever in its grave.”

“A doubtful good, a gloss, a glass, a flower,
Lost, faded, broken, dead, within an hour.”

“So have I seen a rose newly springing from the clefts of its hood, and at first it was fair as the morning, and full with the dew of heaven as a lamb’s fleece; but when a ruder breath had forced open its virgin modesty, and dismantled its too youthful and unripe retirements, it began to put on darkness, and to decline to softness and the symptoms of a sickly age; it bowed the head, and broke its stalk, and at night, having lost some of its leaves and all its beauty, it fell into the portion of weeds and outworn faces. The same is the portion of every man and every woman” (Jeremy Taylor, ‘Holy Dying’). But goodness is immortal; it “fadeth not away” (1Pe 1:4). “Beauty belongs to youth and dies with it, but the odours of piety survive death and perfume the tomb.”

“Only the actions of the just
Smell sweet and blossom in the dust.”

D.

2Sa 14:28-33

Restored, but act reformed.

“Wherefore am I come from Geshur? it were better for me that I were there still; and now I will see the king’s face; and if there be any iniquity in me, let him put me to death” (2Sa 14:31). While in Geshur Absalom showed no repentance for his crime; sought no forgiveness of it; rather justified himself in its commission. On this account, perhaps, David would not permit him, when recalled, to see his face, but ordered him to remain at his own house (2Sa 14:24); testifying his abhorrence of the crime, and desiring “to carry further the discipline of approval, to wait till his son was more manifestly penitent.” If Absalom had been in a proper frame of mind, it might have been beneficial; as it was, “this half forgiveness was an imprudent measure, really worse than no forgiveness at all, and bore very bitter fruit” (Keil). “The end showed how fatal the policy of expectation was, how terribly it added bitterness to the sense of alienation that had already been growing only too strong within him” (Plumptre).”A flash of his old kingliness blazes out for a moment in his refusal to see his son. But even that slight satisfaction to justice vanishes as soon as Joab chooses to insist that Absalom shall return to court. He seems to have no will of his own. He has become a mere tool in the hands of his fierce general; and Joab’s hold upon him was his complicity in Uriah’s murder. Thus at every step he was dogged by the consequences of his crime, even though it was pardoned sin” (Maclaren). Yet immediate and full forgiveness might have failed to subdue the heart of Absalom, and win filial confidence and affection. “Let favour be showed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness,” etc. (Isa 26:10). In his spirit and conduct we observe:

1. Ingratitude for the favour shown toward him. He estimated it lightly (knowing little of the fatherly love from which it proceeded), save as a means to his own honour and advancement. Than ingratitude nothing is more odious.

2. Impatience, fretfulness, discontent under restraint and chastisement; which a true penitent would have endured humbly and cheerfully; increased as time passed away (two years) and no further sign of royal favour appeared.

3. Presumption on account of the privilege already granted to him, but which be repudiated as worthless, unless followed by other privileges, such as became his royal birth and involved his reinstatement in his former dignity. He looked upon himself as rightful heir to the throne. He may, however, have suspected a rival in the youthful Solomon (now six or eight years old), and feared the influence of Bathsheba on behalf of her son.

4. Resentment and revenge for the neglect, contempt, and wrong which (as he conceived) he suffered (2Sa 14:29). “See, Joab’s field is beside mine, and he has barley there; go and set it on fire” (2Sa 14:30). This appears to have been an act of passion rather than of policy. Joab’s slackness, in contrast with his former zeal (2Sa 14:23), was doubtless due to his desire to make the most of his influence with the king, to constrain Absalom humbly to entreat his intercession, and so to increase his feeling of dependence and obligation; it was only when he perceived that he had to deal with “a character wild, impulsive, and passionate,” that he deemed it necessary again to alter his tactics.

5. Wilfulness in seeking the attainment of his ambitious aims. “I will see the king’s face.” His presence at court was essential to the accomplishment of the daring design upon the crown, which he may have already formed; and he would brook no denial. Possibly his bereavement (2Sa 14:27; 2Sa 18:18) intensified his determination. “The strongest yearning of an Israelite’s heart was thrown back upon itself, after a short-lived joy, and his feelings towards his own father were turned to bitterness and hate.”

6. Defiance of conviction of guilt. “If there be any iniquity in me,” etc. “The manner in which he sought to obtain forgiveness by force manifested an evident spirit of defiance, by which, with the well known mildness of David’s temper, he hoped to attain his object, and in fact did attain it” (Keil). He also doubtless relied on the support of a party of the people, dissatisfied with the king’s severity toward him, and favourable to his complete restoration. Even Joab yielded for the present to his imperious and resolute demand.

7. Heartless formality. “He bowed himself on his face to the ground before the king: and the king kissed Absalom” (2Sa 14:33). His heart was not humbled, but lifted up in pride; yet he openly received the pledge of reconciliation; and herein David’s blindness and weakness reached their culmination. “He did not kiss the ill will out of the heart of his son” (Krummacher). “When parents and rulers countenance such imperious characters, they will soon experience the most fatal effects.” (Here is another “meeting of three remarkable men,” 1Sa 19:22-24, Joab, Absalom, David.) Remarks.

1. No hard and impenitent heart is prepared to receive and profit by forgiveness.

2. Such a heart is capable of turning the greatest benefits into means of further and more daring rebellion; and “treasures up for itself wrath against the day of wrath.”

3. Whilst “God is good and ready to forgive,” he grants forgiveness only to those “who call upon him” in humility and sincerity, confessing and forsaking their sins (Psa 86:5; Psa 138:6; Psa 32:5; Psa 51:17).D.

HOMILIES BY G. WOOD

2Sa 14:11

Remembrance of God.

“Let the king remember the Lord thy God.” This passage occurs in a singular bit of history, which illustrates, inter alia, the carefulness which even the most favoured and powerful of the subjects of an Eastern monarch must at times exercise in seeking to influence him; and, on the other hand, the accessibility of such a monarch to the meanest subject desirous of his interposition. Perhaps, however, this “wise woman” may have belonged to a class which, like prophets, could (or would) take special liberties with royal and other great persons. This woman showed herself “wise” in her management of the case which Joab had entrusted to her. It was after she had succeeded in making a favourable impression upon David, that, desirous of a more solemn and specific assurance, she addressed him in the words of the text. This appeal had the desired effect: the king declared with an oath that no harm should be done to her son, whom she had represented as in danger of death from having killed his brother. The exhortation is over suitable and seasonable.

I. THE REMEMBRANCE OF GOD WHICH SHOULD BE PRACTISED. It includes mindfulness of:

1. His existence and perfections.

2. His relation to the universe and to ourselvesCreator, Sustainer, Ruler, Redeemer, Father of spirits, etc.

3. His revelations and commands.

4. His goodness to us. What he has done, is doing, and has promised to do.

II. WHEN WE SHOULD REMEMBER HIM. When should we not? The remembrance should be:

1. Habitual. “I have set the Lord always before me” (Psa 16:8); “Be ye mindful always of his covenant” (1Ch 16:15).

2. At stated times. Without special remembrances the habitual will not be maintained. Hence the value of the hours of devotion, private and public.

3. At times of special need. When duty is hard, temptation urgent, trouble pressing.

III. WHO ARE REQUIRED TO REMEMBER HIM. Allkings as well as subjects. The higher men are raised above their fellow men, the more they need to keep in mind him who is higher than they, and who will call them to account. The greater the trust God has committed to any, and the more they are independent of others in discharging it, the more they need to look to God for help in discerning and practising what is right. In an unlimited, or only. partially limited, monarchy, the king has peculiar reason to keep the King of kings in mind, that he may be preserved from injustice, partiality, and oppression. But people of all classes are bound to remember God, and live as in his sight.

IV. WHY WE SHOULD CHERISH SUCH REMEMBRANCES.

1. It is our duty. From our relation to God, and from his commandments. And it is no less absurd than impious to forget him “with whom we have to do” (Heb 4:13) more than with any and all others.

2. It is greatly for our profit. It will be productive of:

(1) Piety and holiness. These spring from the knowledge of God, but only as it is kept in mind. To have God in our creed, but not in our memory, is much the same as to have no God at all. It is thought which stirs emotion and nourishes moral principle.

(2) Strength and safety under temptation.

(3) Happiness. In ordinary life, and in times of trial and suffering. Remembrance of God will sanctify all things, heighten all innocent pleasures, turn duties into delights, afford consolation and support when all else fails.

3. It will save from the pangs of too late remembrances on earth or in hell. (See Pro 5:11-14; Luk 16:25, “Son, remember.”) Mindfulness of God is universal in the eternal world, for joy or sorrow.

V. THE NEED THERE IS TO REMIND MEN OF THIS DUTY. “Let the king remember,” etc. Men are apt to forget God, even when the memory of him is most desirable and incumbent. Such forgetfulness may spring from:

1. Negligence.

2. The pressure of other thoughts. The worldly. The anxious and troubled. It is often a great kindness to remind troubled Christians of their God.

3. Dislike of God. Unwillingness that he should interfere with life and action.

4. Love of sin. The pleasure of sin, if not sin itself, would be impossible if God were thought of.

5. Pride and self satisfaction (Deu 8:10-19).

Finally:

1. Remembrance of God, spontaneously and lovingly cherished, is a good evidence of sincere piety.

2. The compatibility or incompatibility of it with any act or habit furnishes a safe guide when distinct precepts are wanting.G.W.

2Sa 14:14

God fetching home his banished.

The “wise woman,” having succeeded in that which she pretended to be her object in coming to David, skilfully approached the real purpose of her visit. She insinuates, in general and guarded language, that he was cherishing thoughts which were “against the people of God,” and that the decision he had given in favour of her son was inconsistent with his not fetching home again his own banished one. Then, in our text, she presents, still in a general and indefinite way, reasons why the king should restore his banished one.

1. The universal mortality of mankind. “We must needs die,” etc. This may contain a hint that it was useless longer to be grieved or angry about Amnon’s deathnothing could restore him to life. Or, just as likely, it may be mentioned as a reason for doing rightly (in this case, exercising mercy) while we may, since we and those we can benefit will soon be alike in the grave; and for doing nothing to embitter this brief life to any while it lasts, or to shorten it needlessly by our conduct. Or it may be intended to soften the king’s heart and prepare him to exercise compassion, as God is said to pity us because “he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust” (Psa 103:13, Psa 103:14).

2. The long suffering of God. “Neither doth God take away life” (Revised Version); i.e. He does not usually strike down the sinner at once in his sins, but bears long with him, and gives him space for repentance. This may be a skilful allusion to the mercy shown to David himself (2Sa 12:13, “Thou shalt not die”).

3. The provision which God makes for the return of sinners to himself. “He deviseth means, that he that is banished be not an outcast from him” (Revised Version). In this also there may be an allusion to God’s treatment of David, in sending to him Nathan to rouse his conscience, bring him to repentance, and then assure him of pardon. Or the woman may have in her mind the provisions of the Mosaic Law for restoring to the congregation and the temple services those who had been separated from them through contracting some uncleanness or committing some sin (see Lev 4:1-35; Lev 5:1-19; Lev 6:1-7). Or she may, by a flash of inspiration, have had a glimpse of the great principles underlying these legal and ceremonial appointments, and which are more fully made manifest in Christ. We, at least, can hardly err in interpreting her words in the light of the gospel. Thus regarded, they suggest to us

I. THE CONDITION OF SINNERS. That is, of mankind apart from Christ. They are “banished,” and in danger of being “expelled,” from God, and becoming utterly outcast.

1. “Banished;” self banished, like Absalom.

(1) Sin separates between man and God; severs from the Divine friendship and favour; from the Father’s home, society, and blessing; from the family of God, its occupations, privileges, and joys. Men may be externally associated with the godly in worship and service, yet banished spiritually, cut off from real communion. Two persons may sit side by side in the same church, one holding converse with God and having fellowship with his people in their worship, the other having no real participation in these exercises, far from God even in his house. Of the banished there are two classesthose who have never known God, and those who, having known him, have turned away from him. The case of the latter is the saddest (2Pe 2:20, 2Pe 2:21).

(2) Sin ever tends to produce increased separation from God. In heart, and also outwardly. When the heart is alienated from God, distaste for the forms of worship, and all that reminds of him, increases; and often ends in the entire abandonment of them. As the prodigal son went “into a far country” (Luk 15:13). “Banished.” It is a wretched condition. To depart from God is to commit great sin; to be destitute of the highest blessings and exposed to the worst miseries. To be without him is to be without true life, solid happiness, and well grounded hope.

2. “Banished,” but not yet utterly outcast.

(1) Although they have forsaken God, he has not quite forsaken them. He does the good continually in his providence; and, by the blessings he bestows upon them, protests against their unnatural conduct, and urges them to return to him.

(2) They are in constant peril of becoming entirely cud hopelessly outcast; for the practice of sin hardens the heart increasingly, and threatens to obliterate in the sinner’s nature whatever might leave a hope of repentance and reconciliation. And “the wrath of God” ever “abideth on him” (Joh 3:36), and may at any moment banish him “into the outer darkness” (Mat 8:12, Revised Version).

II. THE PURPOSE OF GOD. To secure “that his banished be not expelled from him;” but be brought back, reconciled, restored to himself, his family, and service. To “fetch home again his banished.” Whence this purpose?

1. The Divine knowledge of the nature and consequent worth of man. That he is not as the brutes, but was “made after the similitude of God” (Jas 3:9). That, though he “must needs die” and become as spilt water, he must needs also live after death. Hence he is worthy of much Divine expenditure in order to his salvation. The spiritual nature and the immortality of man render him an object of intense interest to his Maker, and to all who recognize them.

2. The desire of God that his purpose in the creation of mankind should not be frustrated.

3. The abounding love of God. Though the sinner is banished from his favour, he is not from his heart. He yearns over him while he expresses his displeasure with his conduct. He expresses his displeasure as one step towards his restoration. He desires the happiness of the sinner, but knows he cannot be happy apart from himself. He is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2Pe 3:9).

III. THE MEANS HE DEVISED FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF HIS PURPOSE.

1. The incarnation and work of his Son Jesus Christ. He came “to seek and save the lost” (Luk 19:10). By his personal manifestation of God, his teaching, example, and especially his death, he became the Way to the Father (Joh 14:6). He “suffered for sins, the Just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God” (1Pe 3:18).

2. The gospel. Which is God’s message to his banished ones, calling them back to him, and showing the way of return.

3. The Church, its ordinances anal ministries. One main business of the Church, its ministers, yea, of all its members, is to labour to “fetch home again” God’s banished ones.

4. The events of life. The providence of God is subservient to his grace. The Lord Jesus is “Head over all things,” that all may further the accomplishment of the purposes for which he lived and died on earth, and lives and reigns in heaven. Hence providential events, on the wide scale and in individual life, are often rendered effectual unto salvation.

5. The gift of the Holy Spirit. To render all other means effectual in the hearts and lives of men. To convince, incline, persuade, convert, sanctify, save.

IV. THE IMITATION OF GOD IN THIS RESPECT TO WHICH WE ARE CALLED. The woman thus spoke that she might induce David to recall his banished son, Absalom. So we are called to imitate God:

1. By a readiness to forgive and restore our own banished ones; those who have forfeited our favour by misconduct. Some are implacable even toward their own children, however penitent they may be; but this is contrary to Christ, and quite unbecoming those who owe their own place in God’s family to his forgiving mercy.

2. By hearty cooperation with God in the work of restoring those who have departed from him. This is the most glorious purpose for which we can live, the Divinest work in which we can engage. In this work we must bear in mind that to be successful we must conform to the methods which God has devised and furnished; as, in fact, in all departments of life, success springs from learning the Divine laws, and acting in harmony with them. There is no room for our own inventions, no possibility of independent action. In such imitation and cooperation we should be impelled to faithfulness and diligence by the consideration that both ourselves and those we are to benefit “must needs die” (see Joh 9:4). And let the same consideration lead those who have departed from God to return with all speed (see Joh 12:35; 2Co 6:1, 2Co 6:2). Let not all the Divine thoughts and methods of mercy be, in your case, in vain. For all had respect to you individually. This we may be aided to realize by the singular number used here, “his banished one.” “It was for me that all this movement of Divine love took place, add all these wonderful means have been employed. For me the Saviour died; to me the Divine message is sent,” etc. Let not your return, however, be like Absalom’s, in outward act only, but in heart. “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon” (Isa 55:7).G.W.

2Sa 14:17

An all-comprehensive blessing.

“The Lord thy God be with thee” (Revised Version). The “wise woman,” in closing her address to David and taking leave, as she thought, of him, pronounces this blessing upon him. It was a usual form of salutation amongst the Israelites; and, like our similar forms (“Adieu,” equivalent to “to God [I commend thee];” “Good-bye,” equivalent, perhaps, to “God be with thee”), was doubtless often employed without thought or feeling as to its significance. But in its full meaning it is the best blessing we can pronounce on our friends, the most comprehensive prayer we can offer for them. “The Lord Jesus be with thy spirit” (2Ti 4:22) is a similar benediction.

I. IT IS A PRAYER OF TRUE FRIENDSHIP. We can desire nothing more or better for our friends than what these words express. For consider:

1. What is included in God being “with” men. Not simply his nearness, but:

(1) His favour. His presence as a Friend with friends. Not merely as he is near to all men, the Upholder of their being and the Source of whatever they enjoy; but as he is near to those who are reconciled to him, whom he has forgiven and received into his spiritual family, who love him and delight in his love.

(2) His constant help. To defend, uphold, guide, supply with all needed and real good, temporal and spiritual; to impart to them wisdom, holiness, strength, and happiness.

(3) His converse with them. The manifestation of his presence and loving kindness; so that they discern his nearness, are conscious of his love and care and cooperation.

2. Whose friendship is thus invoked. That of “Jehovah thy God.” The living God, the Eternal, the Almighty, the All-wise, the All-good, etc. Better to have him with us than all the world, all the universe. In fact, if God is with us, all things are really with us (see Rom 8:28, Rom 8:31-39; 1Pe 3:13).

II. IT IS A PRAYER NATURAL TO A PIOUS MAN. Springing from his personal experience of the blessedness of those who have God with them, and his desire that all, and especially those in whom he feels the deepest interest, should be partakers of the same blessedness.

III. IT IS A PRAYER ESPECIALLY SUITABLE TO BE OFFERED ON CERTAIN OCCASIONS. To express feelings of friendship, gratitude, benevolence, affection:

(1) To benefactors, whose kindness we feel we cannot requite. “I cannot repay you, but God can. May he be with you!”

(2) To needy persons, whose necessities we feel we cannot meet. Whether the need be temporal or spiritual. The poor, the sick, the perplexed; friends engaged in difficult enterprises or going into perilous circumstances; such as are leaving home or country; friends from whom we are parting, not knowing what may befall them or us.

(3) To dying friends, or those near us when we die.” I die, but God shall be with you” (Gen 48:21). It is a prayer that gives comfort and peace to him who presents it, quieting the tumult excited by the combination of strong desire with conscious helplessness.

IV. IT IS A PRAYER WHICH WILL BE FULFILLED TO THE RIGHTEOUS. The unrighteous can only secure the blessing for themselves by becoming righteous (see 2Ch 15:2), through repentance and faith in Immanuel (equivalent to “God with us”).G.W.

2Sa 14:25

Absalom’s beauty.

This remark, thrown in by the way, has more to do with the main course of the narrative than at first appears. The personal beauty of Absalom accounts in part for the excessive fondness of David for him, for his vanity and ambition, and for his powerful influence over others; and, so far as it consisted in abundance of fine hair, appears to have been the immediate occasion of his miserable end. It may serve us as the starting point of some remarks on beauty of person.

I. ITS WORTH.

1. It is in itself good as a fair work and gift off God. A sober divine (Manton) calls it “a beam of the majesty of God.”

2. It is pleasant to look upon.. Beautiful people are so many pictures moving about in society for the innocent gratification of beholders, with this superiority to other pictures, that they are alive and present continual variety.

3. It may be off great advantage to its possessor. It attracts others; makes it easier to secure friends. A comely face and form are an introduction to notice and favour.

4. It may be a power for good to others. In a ruler, a preacher, any leader in society, it is an element of influence. Is not, therefore, to be despised either by its possessor or by others;

II. ITS PERILS.

1. It is apt to excite vanity and pridethemselves the parapets of many sins.

2. When overvalued, it leads to the neglect of higher thingsthe culture of mind, heart, and character.

3. In children it may awaken in their parents a foolish fondness which hinders parental discipline.

4. It attracts flatterers and seducers, and thus often occasions moral ruin. It was Tamar’s beauty that kindled Amnon’s lust (2Sa 13:1). It is a very perilous endowment to young women, especially among the poor.

5. It may lead its possessor to become a tempter of others; and renders his (or her) temptations all the more seductive. Lord Bacon (in his essay ‘On Beauty’) says, “For the most part it makes a dissolute youth, and an age a little out of countenance; but yet certainly again, if it light well, it maketh virtues shine and vices blush.”

III. ITS INFERIORITY. In comparison with mental, moral, and spiritual beauty.

1. In essential nature. The latter belong to a far higher region, are a far more valuable product of the Divine hand. The beauties of holiness are the features of the Divine Father appearing in his children, and manifesting their parentage.

2. In appearance. Moral loveliness is far more beautiful than physical in the sight of God and the good, and it has the power of rendering very plain faces interesting and attractive, if not beautiful.

3. In value to its possessor and to others. Beauty of character is a priceless treasure (1Pe 3:4), indicating one still more preciousthe character itself; it excites the deepest and best kind of admiration and commendation (Pro 31:30); and it gives those in whom it appears a power over others for their good which incalculably surpasses the influence of mere beauty of person; and which “adorning the doctrine of God our Saviour” (Tit 2:10)the chief instrument of good to menwins for it a readier acceptance.

4. In facility of attainment. Beauty of person, if not a gift of nature, cannot be acquired; but that of the soul can. The Lord Jesus came to earth to make it possible for the ugly and deformed to become lovely; he lives to effect this great transformation. Those who are in him become the subjects of a new creation: “Old things are passed away; all things are become new” (2Co 5:17). The Holy Ghost adorns the soul with heavenly grace and attractiveness (Gal 5:22, Gal 5:23). And when the process is complete on the whole Church of Christ, he will “present it to himself” as his beauteous bride, “a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but holy and without blemish” (Eph 5:27). Faith in, and habitual converse with, him who is “altogether lovely,” is the way to experience for ourselves this wondrous change. “Beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, we are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord” (2Co 3:18). Even the body will at length be beautified (Php 3:21).

5. In duration. The beauty which is of earth fades and passes away, but that which is of heaven abides evermore. The former may vanish even in youth through the ravages of disease; will almost certainly in afterlife, unless heightened and ripened by sense and goodness; and certainly will turn to corruption after death. But the latter will survive the decay and destruction of all things, and adorn the “Father’s house” forever.

In conclusion, this subject appeals especially to the young. Let them seek with all their heart the beauty which is spiritual and everlasting; and regard as of small account that which is in itself of little value, and at best of short duration; and which, if separate from moral excellence, is like the beauty of a sepulchre, covering death and corruption.G.W.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

4. DAVIDS WEAKNESS TOWARDS JOAB AND ABSALOM. ABSALOMS RETURN AND RECONCILIATION WITH DAVID THROUGH JOABS INTERCESSION

2Sa 14:1-33

1Now [And] Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived that the kings heart was toward1 Absalom. 2And Joab sent to Tekoah and fetched thence a wise woman, and said unto her, I pray thee feign thyself to be a mourner,2 and put on now [om. now3] mourning-apparel, and anoint not thyself with oil, but [and] be as a woman that had [has] a long time mourned for the dead; 3And come to the king, and speak on this manner unto him. So [And] Joab put the words in her mouth.

4And when [om. when] the woman of Tekoah spake [came4] to the king, she [and] fell on her face to the ground and did obeisance, and said, Help O King. 5And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered [said], I am indeed [In truth, I am] a widow woman. And mine husband is dead [died]5; 6And thy handmaid had two sons, and they two strove together in the field, and there was none to part them, but [and] the one smote6 the other and slew him. 7And behold, the whole family is risen [rose] against thine handmaid, and they [om. they] said, Deliver him that smote his brother, that we may [and we will] kill him for the life of his brother whom he slew; and we [they7] will destroy the heir also, and so they shall quench [and quench] my coal which is left, and shall [will] not [or in order not to] leave to my husband neither [om. neither] name nor remainder upon the earth. 8And the king said unto the woman, Go to thy house, and I will give charge concerning thee. 9And the woman of Tekoah said unto the king, My lord, O king, the iniquity be on me and on my fathers house, and the king and his throne be guiltless. 10And the king said, Whosoever saith aught unto thee, bring him to me, and he shall not touch thee any more. 11Then said she [And she said], I pray thee, let the king remember the Lord [Jehovah] thy God, that thou wouldest not suffer the revengers of blood to destroy any more, lest they destroy my son [that the avenger of blood multiply not destruction, and that they destroy not my Song of Solomon 8]. And he said, As the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, there shall not 12one hair of thy son fall to the earth. Then [And] the woman said, Let thine handmaid, I pray thee, speak one [a] word unto my lord the king. And he said, Say on. 13And the woman said, Wherefore, then, [And why] hast thou thought such a thing against9 the people of God? for the king doth speak10 this thing as one which [that] is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again [bring back] 14his banished. For11 we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect any person [and God takes not away the life], yet doth he devise means [and thinketh thoughts] that his 15banished be not expelled [banished] from him. Now therefore [And now] that12 I am come to speak of this thing unto my lord the king, it is because the people have made me afraid; and thy handmaid said, I will now speak unto the king; it may be that the king will perform the request of his handmaid. 16For the king will hear, to deliver his handmaid out of the hand of the man that would13 destroy 17me and my son together out of the inheritance of God. Then [And] thine handmaid said, The word of my lord the king shall now be comfortable [May the word, etc., be for rest14]; for as an angel of God, so is my lord the king to discern [hear] good and bad; therefore the Lord thy God will be [and may Jehovah thy God be] with thee.

18Then [And] the king answered and said unto the woman, Hide not from me, I pray thee, the thing that I shall ask thee. And the woman said, Let my lord the king now [om. now] speak. 19And the king said, Is not [om. not] the hand of Joab with thee in all this? And the woman answered and said, As thy soul liveth, my lord the king, none can turn to the right hand or to the left from aught that my lord the king hath spoken; for thy servant Joab, he bade me, and he put all these words in the mouth of thine handmaid; 20To fetch about this form of speech [To change the face of the thing] hath thy servant Joab done this thing; and my lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are in the earth.

21And the king said unto Joab, Behold, now, I15 have done this thing; go, therefore 22[and go], bring the young man Absalom again [back]. And Joab fell to the ground on his face, and bowed himself, and thanked [blessed] the king; and Joab said, To-day thy servant knoweth that I have found grace in thy sight, my lord 23O [the] king, in that the king hath fulfilled the request of his16 servant. So [And] Joab arose and went to Geshur, and brought Absalom to Jerusalem. 24And the king said, Let him turn to his own house, and let him not see my face. So [And] Absalom returned [turned] to his own house, and saw not the kings face.

25But [And] in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty; from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him. 26And when he polled his head (for [and] it was at every years end [from time to time] that he polled it, because [for] the hair was heavy on him, therefore [and] he polled it), he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels after the kings weight. 27And unto Absalom there were born three sons, and one daughter, whose name was Tamar; she was a woman of a fair countenance.

28So [And] Absalom dwelt two full [om. full] years in Jerusalem, and saw not the 29kings face. Therefore [And] Absalom sent for Joab, to have sent [to send] him to the king; but [and] he would not come to him; and when [om. when] he sent 30again the second time, [ins. and] he would not come. Therefore [And] he said unto his servants, See, Joabs field is near [beside] mine, and he hath barley there; 31go and set it on fire. And Absaloms servants set the field on fire. Then [And] Joab arose and came to Absalom unto his house, and said unto him, Wherefore have thy servants set my field on fire? 32And Absalom answered [said to] Joab, Behold, I sent unto thee, saying, Come hither, that I may send thee to the king, to say, Wherefore am I come from Geshur? it had been good for me to have been there still [better for me that I were still there]. Now therefore [And now] let me see [I will see] the kings face, and if there be any iniquity in me, let him kill 33me. So [And] Joab came to the king, and told him. And when he had called for [And he called] Absalom, [ins. and] he came to the king, and bowed himself on his face to the ground before the king; and the king kissed Absalom.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

2Sa 14:1-24. Joab by a stratagem procures Absaloms return to Jerusalem without punishment.

2Sa 14:1. Though Davids soul was comforted for Amnons death, and he had consequently desisted from the pursuit of Absalom, his anger at the latters fratricide had nevertheless not disappeared. This supposition is psychologically necessary, since otherwise David would appear as an extremely weak man; and it is supported by the fact that he would not see Absalom for two years after his return [2Sa 14:28]. For this reason the latter clause of this verse is to be explained as indicating not Davids returning inclination to Absalom (as Vulg., Sept., Syr., Arab. [Eng. A. V.], Joseph., Cleric., and most modern expositors), but his enduring disinclination towards him. [Erdmann renders: Joab perceived that the kings heart was against Absalom.Tr.] It might have been supposed from the discontinuance of the pursuit that Davids heart had turned to him; but Joab, who had exact knowledge of court-affairs, observed that the kings heart was against him. How the word perceived is contrary to this view (Maur., Then.) does not appear, since it contains the simple statement that David was still hostilely disposed towards Absalom. And in the only other place where this construction (without substantive verb) occurs, Dan 11:28, the Prep. means against (Keil). [The Prep. () is often used, however, in the general sense of towards, sometimes with favorable meaning, and the absence of the subst. verb is not important. The whole connection (somewhat disguised by the division of chapters) seems to favor the rendering of Eng. A. V. In the last verse of the preceding chapter Davids heart goes forth towards Absalom (see annotations on that verse), and here Joab is said to perceive it, so that he devises a scheme to remove the kings judicial objections to recalling Absalom. The understanding of the narrative, however, is not affected by the rendering of the Prep. In either case Joab appears as a shrewd man. Possibly he was influenced by a genuine feeling of kindness towards David and Absalom; it is more likely perhaps that he wished to ingratiate himself with them and the people (Patrick). A. P. Stanley (in Smiths Bib. Dict.): Joab combines with the ruder qualities of the soldier something of a more statesmanlike character, which brings him more nearly to a level with his youthful uncle, and unquestionably gives him the second place in the whole history of Davids reign. Wordsworth: Joab is the impersonation of worldly policy, and temporal ambition practising on the weakness of princes for its self-interests. Bib. Comm.: He ever appears wily and politic and unscrupulous.Tr.]

2Sa 14:2. Tekoah, now Tekua, about five [Eng.] miles south of Bethlehem, the native place of the prophet Amos. See Robins. II. 406 [Am. ed. I. 486 sq.; and see Dr. Hacketts Art. in Am. ed. of Smiths Bib. Dict.Tr.]. As Bethlehem was Joabs native place, it is not strange that he was acquainted with Tekoah. He knew this wise woman as one fitted by her readiness of speech, boldness, shrewdness, and adroitness, to act the part he wanted.17 That it cost Joab so great pains to gain his end is evidence moreover against the supposition that Davids heart was already turned to Absalom.

2Sa 14:4. And the woman came,18 etc.; for so we must read instead of the first said [Eng. A. V.: spake] of the Hebrew text. Bttcher supposes that here by similar ending (homoteleuton) two lines have fallen out, in which is given the answer of the woman before she goes to the king; but there is no sign in any ancient version of such an omission.

2Sa 14:5. Here begins the lively, flowing narration of the feigned misfortune. Though Joab had put the words into the womans mouth, yet considerable readiness was required in order to bring them out so skilfully in her assumed character, and to make such an impression on the king as to lead him to the desired definite resolution. [Read: I am a widow. And my husband died, and I had two sons, etc.Tr.]

2Sa 14:6. The fratricide. And he smote him, the one the other, a pleonasm arising from the circumstantialness and liveliness of the narration.19 [A slight change in the text will give the reading: one smote the other, as in Eng. A. V.Tr.]

2Sa 14:7. The demand for the survivor. And we will destroy the heir also. Instead of this, Michaelis, Dathe and Thenius propose to read (after Syr. and Arab.): and they will destroy, etc.20 But these authorities [the versions] are not sufficient to warrant this emendation. Thenius urges that if the woman had put these words also into the mouth of the kinsmen, she would have represented them as diabolically wicked; but it does not follow that it is really so bad, simply because she expresses her opinion of what they wish to do. These words [we will destroy the heir] are added to the preceding we will kill him (to indicate the purpose of the kinsmen) by reason of the second thought that characterizes the blood-revengenamely, that, while they kill him for blood-vengeance, they wish at the same time to destroy the surviving heir. The womans purpose is not only to bring out the design of the kinsmen in their blood-avenging as harshly as possible, but also, with reference to Davids hostile feeling to Absalom, to emphasize the point that the latter is the heir to Davids throne, and to save him as such from his fathers anger. [Wellhausen: The woman does not really intend to represent the unavoidable result [killing the heir] as the purpose [of the kinsmen], but is carried on by the connection of the discourse; not till she has uttered the word does she correct herself. Yet the third person seems more natural here, especially as the whole thing is feigned, and the woman had carefully prepared her words beforehand.Tr.] So that they quench.The power of the discourse lies in the fact that they are represented as already doing what their words show to be their purpose. My coal, the burning coal () with which fire is kindled. In order not to set (permit, grant) to my husband name and remainder (posterity).21 [The law in the case is given in Num 35:18-19. Blood-revenge was no doubt an ancient pre-Mosaic custom. The whole family was against the fratricide. This indicates that all the kings sons and the whole court were against Absalom, and that the knowledge of this was what hindered David from yielding to his affection and recalling him (Bib. Comm.).Tr.]

2Sa 14:8. I will give charge concerning thee in thy behalf. David grants her request and protects her son because, as the homicide was committed in the heat of conflict, a purposed murder was out of the question.

2Sa 14:9. On me be the iniquity.That is, if it be wrong not to carry out the blood-avenging. The woman is not yet satisfied with the somewhat indefinite statement of the king that he would fulfil her request. She proceeds to work on him still further.

2Sa 14:10. She gains the end that she had in her remark in 2Sa 14:9, namely, to bring the king to say definitely that no one should further molest her or demand her son for blood-vengeance.

2Sa 14:11. Third stage of the womans address. She wishes to bring the king to swear before God, and that not in the character of a talkative woman (Thenius), but rather to gain her end as surely as possible, and to bind the king by his own words to reconciliation with Absalom. That the avenger of blood (cause) no more destruction (De Wette); literally: let the king remember the Lord thy God from the avengers increasing22 to destroy; that is, so that the avenger shall not more destroythe phrase let him interpose being understood (Thenius). The woman brings the king to the point of assuring her sons safety by an oath. [Patrick: Others think she only prays him to remember how merciful and gracious God is, and had been to himself, even in pardoning the murder of Uriahnot so well.Tr.]

2Sa 14:12. Transition in the womans discourse to a reference to Davids relation to Absalom by the request to be permitted to say something farther. [The woman proceeds cautiously and hence obscurely (Bib. Comm.).Tr.]

2Sa 14:13. Why dost thou contrive (think, proceed) thus against the people of God? The thus refers to the following words: that the king does not bring back his banished. She goes on as if she now advanced to a second object of her coming; in reality, however, she now comes to the principal matter, though sure of success from what the king (led on by her skilful talk) had granted her. Now she is to make the application to the kings own case, and this is hard, because she cannot speak openly and boldly like a prophet, but only slightly, and, as it were, in passing, yet must make the allusion to Absalom intelligible (Ewald). The woman intimates that Davids hostility towards Absalom is directed against the people of God, since the people would suffer in the suffering of the heir, who would some time become their king. Having thus softly represented his conduct as blameworthy from the point of view of the people (among whom there was certainly a party for Absalom, as appears from the following history), she proceeds to entrap him in his own words (spoken in reference, to her feigned case) for Absaloms advantage. And by the kings speaking23 this word (that is, 2Sa 14:11, the oath that her sons blood-guilt should not be avenged) he is as one in fault (against Gods people as against Absalom), in that the king brings not back his banished.He must show his son the mildness he has shown hers. And, as for Absalom there was only the question of punishment for a homicide, not of release from the demand of the avenger, the woman, having gained grace for her son, might the more surely expect it for Absalom. She calls Absalom his banished because the latter, though he had banished himself by flight, had not since received permission to return. Dathe [why resolvest thou thus in a cause pertaining to Gods people?] and Thenius [why thinkest thou thus in relation to Gods people? (thy subjects)] refer the question to Davids protection of the woman and her son, while, according to his own words, he appears as blame-worthy towards Absalom; but the meaning of the Heb. ( = against) and the connection do not permit this. [Bishop Patrick remarks that the womans reasoning here was weak, her sons case being very different from Absaloms, but the king, inferring that the people were well disposed towards Absalom, concluded to overlook the differences, without saying any thing to her of the defects of her argument. Probably the king was glad of an excuse to recall Absalom. Though an absolute monarch, he had to attend to the wishes of the people, who liked the young prince, and would be offended if he were kept in banishment. It seems less likely that there is a reference in the words people of God to Absaloms deprivation of religious privileges (Bib. Comm.), though the phrase is intended to include Absalom.Tr.]

2Sa 14:14. The reasons that should determine David to forgiveness: 1) for we must die, and are like water poured out on the ground that is not gathered again.Thenius refers these words to Amnons death, with the meaning: he had to die some time, and all you can do against the murderer will not bring him to life; but the connection shows that the woman is referring not to Amnon, but to Absalom, as the banished one, her meaning being: Absalom (like all men) may die in banishment, and, as the dead (like poured out water) do not return, it would then repent thee not to have recalled him; take him back before it is too late. Possibly, however, the reference is to David himself, a warning that he may soon die, and must, therefore, not delay to be reconciled to Absalom. [The sense seems to be: As life is fleeting and perishable, let not these enmities engage your mind, but put away unkindness and forgive your son. According to any of these explanations, the womans argument is false, since it leaves the justice of the case out of view; but see the quotation from Philippson below at the end of this verse.Tr.] 2) And God takes not away a soul, but thinks thoughts not to banish a banished one.An argument from Gods procedure towards the sinner. He does not take away the soul [life] of one that is banished, condemned for sin, so as thus to banish him forever, but thinks thoughts not to banish him; such mercy show to thy banished son. These words must have brought to Davids recollection Gods mercy towards him banished from Gods presence as adulterer and murderer. [Philippson: This is one of the noblest and profoundest declarations of the Scripture: God, who has determined us to death, nevertheless does not deprive us of life, of personality (), but has the holy purpose to receive again the banished, the sinful. This explanation makes the first half of the verse merely introductory to the thought in the second, merely a relative sentence containing an affirmation about God; this is not so probable as the view that makes the first half a separate argument. Patrick sees here a reference to the cities of refuge, for which, however, the language is too general. The argument (appeal to the divine mercy) is powerful, though false; the human judge cannot set aside the demands of justice, though God may pardon the sinner. The womans view of death is a general one, neither denying nor affirming a future state: her statement is simply that the dead do not return to earthly life. It is therefore inadmissible to press her simile, and represent it as meaning that, as the spilt water passes in vapor to the clouds and returns as rain to the earth, so human life is to return in the raised body. This may be an allowable simile now, but it is not the teaching of this passage.Tr.]

2Sa 14:15. The wise woman skilfully turns Davids thoughts again to her own affair, in order to remove the suspicion that she came merely to plead for Absalom; she is content to have lodged a sharp thorn in Davids heart. And now that I am come.A natural mode of return to her first subject. Her design is to append a further explanation of her boldness in troubling the king with such a personal affair. The occasion of her coming is, she says, that the people [her kinsfolk] frightened her by demanding her son, so that she had to appeal to the king. This, therefore, is not a mere repetition of what she has already said (Thenius).

2Sa 14:16 expresses 1) joyful assurance that her request will be heard, and 2) the evil from which the king will save her and her son, destruction from the inheritance of God; the cutting off24 of posterity by slaying the heir is so dreadful in her eyes, because it is excision from the people belonging to the Lord. Comp. 1Sa 26:19; Deu 32:9.

2Sa 14:17. Further, she says, the kings word was to be to her for restthat is, for herself. The king hears (judges) as the angel of Godthe angel that God sends to impart His manifestations of grace to His people, the covenant-angel, the mediator of grace for the peculiar people [the people that is Gods private property]. [Rather the woman here praises the kings wisdom as being like that of one of the higher intelligences (so Achish speaks of David in 1Sa 29:9), a proof that the Israelites were then familiar with the idea of angels. Her praise is here skilfully introduced to mollify him; she does not mention Absaloms name, but leaves the king to reflect on what such a high character requires of him.Tr.] To hear the good and the evil.This affirms two things: 1) in every case brought before him the king will impartially and justly hear both sides, the good and the bad, Vulg.: unmoved by benediction or malediction 2) He helps the oppressed. And the Lord thy God be with thee! (not therefore be (De Wette)); with this blessing she concludes, touching the kings heart in its innermost relation to his God and Lord. [Patrick: There is a great deal of artifice in all this. For to presume upon the kindness of another, and to expect gracious answers from their noble qualities, is very moving; men being very loath to defeat those who think so highly of them, according to that saying of Aristotle (Rhet. 2, 4, 19): We love those that admire us.Tr.]

2Sa 14:18 sq. From the cleverly put discourse of the woman the king perceives that there is something else in hand than her private affair; and surmising at the same time that she is only the instrument of another, he thinks of Joab from the confidential relation in which the latter stood to Absalom. Is the hand of Joab with thee in all this? The woman frankly answers in the affirmative [in the form of a compliment to the kings sagacity]: There is nothing on the right or the left of25 what the king says, he always says the right; you always hit the nail on the head (Thenius). Joab, she says, arranged this to turn the face (form) of the thing [not fetch about this form of speech, as in Eng. A. V.Tr.] These words do not refer to the clothing of the request for Absalom in this story about her sons, as if she meant: that I should turn the thing so (Luther), or to disguise the thing in a skilful way (Keil), or to set before thee a figurative discourse (Vatablus), or that I should transfer to myself and my sons what pertains to the king and his sons (Clericus), but the thing is Absaloms relation to his father. In order to change this relation in its present unhappy form, that is, to bring about a reconciliation, has Joab done this, sent me to thee with the words I have spoken. The woman concludes (looking back to her comparison of David to the angel of God in 2Sa 14:17) with the words: My lord (the king) is wise according to the wisdom of the angel of Godanxious by this appeal to the kings wisdom to secure a favorable decision for Absalom. [Here again render: an angel of God, as in 2Sa 14:17. To know all things that are in the earth, better, perhaps: in the land, all the affairs of the land of Israel. The mingling of flattery and boldness in the womans discourse is skilful and striking.Tr.]

2Sa 14:21-23. Joabs request fulfilled by permitting Absalom to return to Jerusalem. Behold, I have done this thing (according to thy word).The margin has (through misapprehension): thou hast done; but the text is to be retained. The Perfect is used because the thing is an accomplished fact = I have fulfilled thy request. Go and bring Absalom back.These words refer merely to the execution of what had been already determined and accomplished.

2Sa 14:22. Joab thanks and blesses David for granting his request. To judge from his words here, he had often before made this request, but hitherto in vain. Read: his servant, as in the text, against the marginal reading: thy servant. Joab himself brings Absalom back to Jerusalem.

2Sa 14:24. Absaloms pardon, however, was not a full one; it consisted only in the permission to return to Jerusalem. He remained banished from the royal court. My face shall he not see, says David. This was no real pardon. Davids anger still continued. It is a natural surmise that this was because Absalom showed no repentance and did not ask for forgiveness; there is not the slightest hint of his doing so. Let him turn to his own house.These words suggest that Absalom was not merely banished from court, but also confined to his own house. Otherwise (as Thenius points out) he would not have been obliged to send for Joab (2Sa 14:28 comp. with 2Sa 14:31.) [Davids banishing Absalom from court was just and wise, since his crime deserved punishment, and it was right that the people should know the kings abhorrence of the crime (Patrick). Perhaps this half-forgiveness was an impolitic measure (Keil), since it may have merely vexed and embittered Absalom. It is not necessary to suppose that the king was angry with him; his conduct may have been determined by his regard for law and justice while his heart desired complete reconciliation. Bib. Comm. suggests that Bathshebas influence may have been exerted to keep Absalom in disgrace for the sake of Solomon.Tr.]

2Sa 14:25-33. Absaloms person and family.By defiant obstinacy he secures his recall to court through Joabs mediation.

2Sa 14:25 sqq. Absaloms beauty.He was the handsomest man in Israel. Literally: and as Absalom there was not a handsome man in all Israel to praise much. There was no spot, no bodily blemish in him. From year to year26 he polled or cut his hair. The weight of the polled hair here given, 200 shekels, is certainly too great, being about six pounds, if the royal shekel = the sacred shekel; and if it be taken as = one half the sacred shekel, the weight is still too great. There is no doubt an error of text here. Perhaps we should read 20 instead of 200 ( may have passed into ); for 20 shekels (= 9 or 10 ounces) would suppose a very heavy, but not incredibly heavy, head of hair (Thenius). [Others read four shekels( instead of ). But as all the ancient versions (except the anonymous vers. quoted in Montfaucons Hex. as giving one hundred) agree with the Hebrew, any such change of letters must have been made early, when probably not the present square characters, but the old Phenician were in use; so that we must go to them to discover possible changes of this sort.There is doubt as to what particular weight is meant by the kings shekel. It cannot be the Babylonian shekel, says Thenius, for this would point to a postexilian origin for this passage, which is impossible. The king, says Wellhausen, is the Persian Great King, and this verse betrays a postexilian origin. Nothing more definite can be said than that the kings shekel is probably a different weight from the sacred shekel, and probably less than that. Kitto mentions reading of a ladys hair that weighed more than four pounds, and, if the two hundred shekels is not more than this, it is a possible weight. It is evidently intended to represent the hair as extraordinarily heavy and strong, in order to explain 2Sa 18:9. The ancients were accustomed to bestow much care on the hair, see Jos. Ant. 8, 7, 3, and Bp. Patrick in loco.Tr.].

2Sa 14:27. Absaloms children. Only one is mentioned by name, a daughter Tamar, probably called after Absaloms unfortunate sister. The sons (contrary to custom) are not named, probably because they died young. This would explain Absaloms erecting a monument (2Sa 18:18) to perpetuate his name. Concerning Tamar the Sept. adds: and she becomes the wife of Roboam the son of Solomon and bears him Abia. Now 1Ki 15:2 certainly describes the wife of Rehoboam and mother of Abijah as a daughter of Absalom, but calls her Maacah. The Sept. has here (as elsewhere) evidently introduced an explanation from that passage, confounding, however, Tamar with another later-born daughter of Absalom, who was Rehoboams wife. Thenius remarks: Rehoboams wife is certainly a granddaughter of Absalom (daughter of his daughter Tamar) named after her great-grandmother Maacah (iii. 3); where perhaps ought to stand instead of certainly.

2Sa 14:28 sqq. As Absalom was not permitted for two years to enter the kings presence, and Joab declined to visit him though twice sent for (evidently because he did not wish to have any thing more to do with the matter since the kings displeasure continued), it is clear that 2Sa 14:1 cannot be rendered: the kings heart was toward him. [Davids conduct may be explained by supposing that, while his heart was with Absalom, his regard for justice led him to punish his crime by keeping him at a distance.Tr.].

2Sa 14:30. Joabs piece, parcel, that is, field (as we also use the word). Sept. has: the portion in the field of Joab, but there is no reason to change the Heb. text accordingly.The Heb. text reads: I will set it on fire; but all the versions adopt the marginal reading: set it on fire.27 The phrase at my hand = alongside of my ground, beside me. This confirms the view that Absalom occupied himself with tilling the soil even in Jerusalem. That Absalom fired Joabs barley because he knew it would bring Joab to him (Keil) is not probable. It was rather an act of angry revenge in keeping with Absaloms haughty and passionate nature. In 2Sa 14:30 Sept. and Vulg. add: and the servants of Joab came to him with garments rent, and said: Absaloms servants have set the field on fire. It is possible that these words belonged to the original text, and fell away by similar ending, two consecutive sentences ending with the word fire (Then.). But the narrative is perfectly clear without this addition.

2Sa 14:31. Joab came to Absaloms house, because the latter was shut up, a prisoner, as it were, in his own house.

2Sa 14:32. The message sent by Absalom through Joab to his father contains 1) a reproach: why am I come from Geshur? (= why didst thou send for me) if I am not permitted to appear before thee? 2) A repudiation of the indulgence shown him in the permission granted him to return home: it were better for me that I were still there; 3) a self-willed demand: and now I will see the kings face, and 4) a defiant challenge: if there be iniquity in me, let him kill me.These words mean neither: if the king can and may not forgive me, (Thenius), nor: if he remember my iniquity (Vulg.). Absalom rather defiantly challenges his father to proceed with strict justice, if he has done wrong; this, however, (from the tone of his speech) he does not allow, but relies on the rights he thinks he has against his father, who had been too indulgent to Amnon, having also the support of a considerable party, who would the more approve his act of bloody vengeance, because David had let Amnon go unpunished. Absalom gives no sign of repentance; there is rather a savage defiance in his words, and, instead of confessing his guilt, he challenges his father to kill him, if he is guilty, that is, he denies his guilt. David has already shown weakness in permitting Absalom to return without penitent confession; and by this halfway-procedure (letting him return, yet banishing him from his presence two years) had given occasion to the defiance and bitterness that appears in these words. He is now guilty of a still greater weakness in receiving Absalom into favor when he shows the very opposite of penitence.

2Sa 14:33. The words: he bowed himself on his face to the ground by no means show penitence with humble request for forgiveness, but merely exhibit the usual homage paid to the king. David was soon to taste the bitter fruits of all this faulty weakness towards Absalom.

HISTORICAL AND ETHICAL

1. David, weakly yielding to ungodly influence on his mind (the woman of Tekoa), on his will (Joab) and on his feeling (Absalom), sinned against the Lord in failing to punish Absalom (as he had failed to punish Amnon) for his crime, and in receiving him into favor, on his return, without penitence. As God does not forgive sin, without confession and prayer for pardon, so men must observe this law in their relations to one another. This is demanded both by truth and by justice, neither of which may be set aside by expiating and pardoning love.
2. He who in unholy, weak love confounds the disposition to forgive ones neighbor with the act of forgiveness itself, and pardons when the condition is not complied with, sins not only against Gods holy ordination of love, but also against his neighbor, since the hard, impenitent heart is the more hardened by such weak love, and led into further evil, as Absaloms example shows.
3. Moral weakness makes one unforesighted and unwise, and often leads to the destruction of the moral ordinances of life, on which rests the welfare of private and public life. David, by his weakness towards Absalom, became guilty of the further dissolution of the theocratic rule of life in his house and in his kingdom; the breaking up of the royal family thereby produced was the cause and the starting-point of the breaking up of the theocratic kingdom by Absaloms revolt.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

2Sa 14:1-3. Cramer: The children of the world are wiser in their generation than the children of light, Luk 16:8. Wuert. B.: The greatest rogues have, commonly the best patrons, who take interest in them and try to help them through.[Hall: Good eyes see light through the smallest chink. The wit of Joab hath soon discerned Davids renewed affection, and knows how to serve him in that which he would, and would not, accomplish.Tr.]

2Sa 14:4-11. Starke: To represent something wisely is also a gift of God; for thereby much good is accomplished and much evil hindered, Pro 18:15.[Hall: We love ourselves better than others, but we see others better than ourselves: whoso would perfectly know his own case, let him view it in anothers person. Parables sped well with David: one drew him to repent of his own sin, another to remit Absaloms punishment.Tr.]Schlier: Foresight is profitable in all things, and doubly so when others wish to accomplish something with us. There are cases where certainly the first impression is the most correct, but as a rule it is better not to yield to the first momentary impression, but to prove everything. Had David first proved and inquired into the matter which with cunning and deceit was brought before him, he would not have given assurance with an oath.

2Sa 14:13 sqq. Schlier: If thou hast something against a person, forget not how soon thy adversary may die, how soon thou thyself also mayst perhaps have to pass away, and besides think of what God does to us, how rich is His mercy towards us.

2Sa 14:21 sqq. Cramer: It is easily done, to let loose an outrageous offender and a murderer, but not so easily is it excused before God: for thereby blood-guiltiness is brought on the land, and other great misfortunes caused; Eze 7:23.J. Lange: Wilful sinners also are not permitted, so long as they continue impenitent, to come into blessed communion with God, although instead of the well-deserved punishment they enjoy Gods long-suffering.Schlier: If thou wilt pardon, do it wholly, take out of thy heart everything thou hast against another person, forget also the injustice done thee, and make it thy concern again to show the other a whole and full heart.

2Sa 14:25. Starke: Ungodly men often receive from God the fairest gifts, 1Sa 9:2; 1Sa 17:4.Schlier: A fair body is also a gift of God, but what does all physical beauty help, if there does not also dwell therein a fair soul? A deformed and ugly man who has beauty of soul is worth more in the sight of God. The Lord looks at the heart.

2Sa 14:30. Lange: Friendship that has self-interest for its ground, does not commonly last long.

2Sa 14:33. Schlier: David is propitiated, but it does not occur to him to work for a thorough reconciliation in Absaloms heart also; he brings to meet his son the old, full love; but he does not observe whether his son is in condition really to receive such love.Chastisement without love is an outrage, no father is at liberty to plague or torture his child; but a love that cannot chastise is no love, and reaps a poor reward. A child that does not at the proper time feel the fathers rod, becomes at last a rod for his father.

[2Sa 14:1-20. The wise woman of Tekoah. Her previous reputation for worldly wisdom, known to Joab. Her skilful employment, at Joabs instance, of a parallel case, yet not too obviously similar. I. Observe the motives to which she appeals. Knowing Davids character, she makes good motives most prominent. 1) His course impolitic and unpopular (2Sa 14:13). 2) We are all mortal, and enmities should not be perpetual. 3) God is forgiving (2Sa 14:14). 4) She flatters him, a) as impartial (2Sa 14:17), b) as knowing everything (2Sa 14:20). II. Contrast this address with that of Nathan, 2 Samuel 12. In certain respects similar; but 1) One sent by Joab, the other by the Lord. 2) One designing and unscrupulous, the other sincere. 3) One mingling bad motives, the other employing only the good. 4) One flattering, the other humbling. 5) One giving the king an excuse for what he wishes to do, the other arousing him to what he ought to do. 6) One bringing upon David great temporal trouble, the other great spiritual blessing.

2Sa 14:14. Two great reasons for forbearance and forgiveness. 1) Both we and those who have wronged us must die, and so our enmities should not be undying. 2) God forbears, and is disposed to forgive.Tr.]

[2Sa 14:25. Causes which spoiled the character of Absalom. 1) The personal gift of extraordinary personal beauty. 2) Great power of bending others to his will (2Sa 14:30; 2Sa 13:28; 2Sa 15:6). 3) A doting father, weak through consciousness of his own great and well-known sins (2Sa 14:1). 4) A good excuse for indulging revenge and selfish ambition (2Sa 13:22-29). 5) Resentment at what seemed neglect by his father and by Joab (2Sa 14:28-29). 6) Success in reckless and defiant measures (2Sa 14:30-33). 7) Apprehension that the son of Bathsheba (2Sa 12:24-25) might supplant him as heir to the throne.Tr.]

Footnotes:

[1][2Sa 14:1. Erdmann renders: against and gives his reasons therefor in the Exposition. The versions generally and most commentators favor the rendering of Eng. A. V. The translation of this preposition depends on the view taken of the whole connection, on which see the notes on 2Sa 13:39.Tr.]

[2][2Sa 14:2. The Hithpael in the so-called hypocritical sense, a derivation from the reflexive or reflexive-declarative sense. See Conants Gesen., 54. Ewald, Gr., 124 a.Tr.]

[3][2Sa 14:2. The Eng. now is sometimes a proper rendering of the Heb. cohortative particle (rendered just before by I pray thee), but would here have too much the effect of an adverb of time.Tr.]

[4][2Sa 14:4. The reading came (, or, as in one MS. of Kennicott, ) is now generally adopted, and is required by the sense. Bruns (in De Rossi) thinks that the date of the introduction of the corrupt reading () may be fixed in this way: The correct reading is found in all the ancient versions (not excepting the Chald., the text of which in the London Polyglot is corrupt here, and should be ); but David Kimchi had the present reading () before him, while Cod. 154 has , whence it may be concluded that the corruption in question came between A. D. 1106 (date of Cod. 154) and 1190 (date of Kimchis commentary). This is a very interesting fact for Old Testament text-criticism, if it be true, for it then shows that our text exhibits very recent changes. It depends on the assumption that all codices in the beginning of the twelfth century had the same reading; but it is possible that Cod. 154 and Kimchis Cod. had different genealogies.Tr.]

[5][2Sa 14:5. The rendering: I am a widow, and my husband is dead, presents a useless tautology; Bttcher therefore suggests a relative force for the : inasmuch as my husband is dead; but it may be better (with Thenius) to connect this latter clause with the following verse: and my husband died and I had two sons, that is, when my husband died, I was left with two sons.Tr.]

[6][2Sa 14:6. For read . The suffix is hardly allowable here; the text-form may have been originally plural, so written because the two brothers formed the subject in the mind of the writer.Tr.]

[7][2Sa 14:7. So Syr. and Arab. It is more probable that this is the expression of the woman than that she should put it into the mouth of the kinsfolk (against Erdmann and Wellhausen). A may easily have passed into a . Bttcher proposes to read: we will kill, etc., and destroy (); even () the heir will they destroy, etc., which puts the expression about the heir into the womans mouth, but seems unnecessarily involved.Tr.]

[8][2Sa 14:11. The Inf. () has for its subject the Goel, and not the king as in Eng. A. V The word goel also is Sing., while in the succeeding clause the indef. Plu. construction is used, so that it might be rendered: and that my son be not destroyed.Tr.]

[9][2Sa 14:13. Instead of against, Thenius renders the Prep. () by in respect to, on the ground that David had expressed no thought contrary to the well-being of Gods people. But the woman covertly refers to his procedure towards Absalom as something against the people of God.Tr.]

[10][2Sa 14:13. The is better understood as a participle, either as Hithpael with assimilation of (as in Num 7:89; Eze 2:2; Eze 43:6) or as Piel (as Bttcher insists) with dagesh forte emphatic (as in Isa 52:5; 2Ch 36:16). Only in this way can the (as a faulty man) be easily construed, for, if the above form be taken as Infin. (from the kings speaking this word) we should more naturally expect after ; or possibly we might render (with the Sept.): from the speaking () of the king this thing is as a fault, where is read instead of .Tr.]

[11][2Sa 14:14. Bttcher: when we die it is as (with) water, etc. The needs of Eng. A. V. represents the Infinitive Absolute (emphatic).The difficulty in this verse lies partly in the translation of the second half, partly in the relation of thought between the two halves. The thought of our text is: The king has declared himself faulty, in that he does not restore his banished. We die and pass away; God does not take life, but devises means not to banish his banished. Here the expression: to banish one already banished, is hard, but may be perhaps understood in the pregnant sense of keeping banished the banished. So the representation of God as thinking thoughts or devising means to gain an end is somewhat rudely anthropomorphic, but is not wholly out of keeping with the times and with the terse and obscure address of the wise woman. Then, the reference to human mortality (allusion to Amnon, Absalom or David?) is to quicken the king to haste or to mercy, and the exhortation is enforced by a reference to the divine mercifulness.Various alterations have been proposed to get rid of supposed difficulties. Ewald (Gesch. Isrl. III. 236) changes to and renders: God takes not away the soul of one that thinks not to leave in banishment one banished by Himself. Here the devising and the banishing are transferred to the man; but the resultant thought (that God will not slay a merciful man) is not specially striking or appropriate. Wellhausen (reading for ) translates: We must die, etc., and when God takes away a soul, does He give it back? in which the second clause simply repeats the thought of the first. The attempts at alteration are all unsatisfactory, and the ancient versions help little or nothing. Sept.: and God will take life, even devising to thrust from Him an outcast; Theodotion: as water, etc., and the soul hopes not in it; Syr.: God takes not away the soul, but deviseth means that no one may wander from Him (or, perish through Him). The Vulg. is a tolerably literal rendering of the Heb.Houbigant (in Chandler) proposed to insert 2Sa 14:15-17 in 2Sa 14:11 after the word son; but there is no ground for this change nor advantage in it. There seems nothing better than to retain the present text.Tr.]

[12][2Sa 14:15. The word that () is omitted in several MSS. and printed EDD., and in Syr., Arab., Vulg., perhaps because it seemed superfluous (Sept. ).Patrick: though the people make me afraid. Philippson: when I came, etc., the people made me afraid. Better (if the be retained) as Eng. A. V.In the last clause one MS. of De Rossi has (hear) instead of (do), correction for the sake of propriety of expression.Tr.]

[13][2Sa 14:16. Something has here fallen out of the Heb. text, perhaps (Bttcher). Vulg. takes the word as collective (de manu omnium qui volebant). Syriac (as not infrequently) gives a condensed rendering: I will speak to the king; perhaps he will deliver his handmaid from the hand of men, that they destroy not me and my son, etc. Yet the diffuse language of the Heb. is more in keeping with the character of a glib-tongued woman assumed by the speaker.Tr.]

[14][2Sa 14:17. Syriac: the word of my lord the king shall be sure, and shall be an offering (), misunderstanding the text.Wellhausen reads at the beginning: and the woman said (after the Sept.), as the common formula introducing the conclusion of a long discourse. This is rendered somewhat probable by the voluntative form of the following sentence; but this form is not decisive for a change of text.Tr.]

[15][2Sa 14:21. So the Kethib (text). Qeri (margin) has second person: thou hast done, on which De Rossi says that many of his MSS. and printed EDD. have not this Qeri; and he quotes R. Jacob Chayyim and Norzi, the former of whom says that not more than one MS. in a thousand has this Qeri, and the latter that it is not found in the correctest Spanish MSS. The ancient, VSS. also follow the Kethib, for which, therefore, the external authority is complete. Bttcher, however, defends the Qeri on the ground that it better suits the initial: behold, now, and that a change from it to the Kethib is more easily explicable than the converse. But, as the text gives a good sense, these considerations (even if they were unquestionable) cannot avail against the external evidence.Tr.]

[16][2Sa 14:22. Kethib (his) in all the VSS. except Vulg.; Qeri (thy) in Vulg., and some MSS. and EDD. The text is properly retained by Erdmann and Eng. A. V.Tr.]

[17][According to the Talmud (Menachoth, 85, 2) there were important oil-plantations near Tekoah, and the women there were noted for their shrewdness (Philippson).Tr.]

[18]The error in the Heb. text may easily be accounted for by supposing that in the manuscript to be copied the [came] stood immediately over the following [said] (Thenius).

[19]There is no reason for changing to (Ewald, 252 a; Then.), since, the suffix with verbs , though infrequent, is not unexampled; nor does the Plu. suit here (Keil).[By reading we avoid the intolerable repetition of the Hebrew text, and the inappropriateness of the plural.Tr.]

[20] [or ] instead of the text-word .

[21][Bishop Patrick points out how cleverly the womans story was put, so as essentially to include Absaloms case, while yet it was different enough from it to avoid rousing the kings suspicions at the outset.Tr.]

[22]Instead of the Kethib read Qeri an unusual form of the Infin. Absolute. Comp. Ew. 240 e. [Or, Inf. Construct may be read.Tr.]

[23]Instead of [Inf. with ], Vulg., Chald., Syr. read the Participle , which does not change the sense. [So Eng. A. V. See Textual and Grammatical.Tr.]

[24]There is no need to write (with Thenius) before (after Sept. and Vulg.), since (the man that was, had in mind, to destroy) is naturally supplied (Gesen. 132, 3, Rem. 1). [On this comp. Text. and Gramm. Eng. A. V. supplies that would.Tr.]

[25] is later softer form for , Mic 6:10; Ew. 53 c.

[26] = [from time to time].Tr.].

[27] (ordinary Hiph. of , 2 pers. plu.) instead of (Hiph. according to , 1 pers. sing.).

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

CONTENTS

The afflictions of David are not over, and therefore in this chapter we are presented with the preliminary step leading to a new scourge. By the ministry of Joab methods are adopted for a reconciliation between David and his son Absalom. The king permits him to come back, and after some little difficulty a good understanding is established between them.

2Sa 14:1

(1) Now Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived that the king’s heart was toward Absalom.

Observe, that it was David’s natural tenderness to his son which Joab took advantage of. If the Reader will take the pains to examine David’s history more closely, he will find that, for the most part, his sins and consequent chastisements, were induced by consulting the feelings of nature more than the glory of God. His winking at Absalom’s murder was contrary to God’s law. Alas! how little do we keep a steady eye to what the Lord hath said, instead of what we feel.

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

Absalom

2 Samuel 14-16

THESE chapters are full of men who reveal human nature in its best and its worst aspects. What plots and counterplots are here! What hypocrisy, and what unfeigned sorrow! The whole world is in these few chapters in miniature. What action, what colour, what passion, what cunning! But where the crowd is so great, discrimination is the more necessary. Let us, then, discriminate between those who serve God and those who serve him not.

In chapter 14 we have a picture of Absalom:

“But in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty: from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him. And when he polled his head, (for it was at every year’s end that he polled it: because the hair was heavy on him, therefore he polled it:) he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels after the king’s weight” ( 2Sa 14:25-26 ).

Absalom having been for a long time voluntarily or involuntarily exiled from the capital, came back again as the result of a very cunning intrigue on the part of Joab. But Joab would not come to see him. For two whole years Absalom was left to do what he could with his own society he “saw not the king’s face” ( 2Sa 14:28 ). He sent for Joab, but Joab would not come. Then what did he do? Here he showed that if he was without wisdom, he was not without craft and sagacity of a certain narrow and penetrating kind:

“Therefore he said unto his servants, See, Joab’s field is near mine, and he hath barley there; go and set it on fire. And Absalom’s servants set the field on fire. Then Joab arose, and came to Absalom unto his house, and said unto him, Wherefore have thy servants set my field on fire?” ( 2Sa 14:30-31 ).

Thus we get a taste of the quality of men. For two whole years Joab paid no attention to the returned son of David, but the moment his barley-field was set on fire he paid Absalom a visit of inquiry. It was crafty on the part of Absalom. Perhaps he looked upon it as a last resort and thought the end would justify the means. But there is a spiritual use of this incident which is well worth considering. We do not strain the text when we get out of it such spiritual uses. Is it not so that when we will not go to God lovingly, voluntarily, he sets our barley-fields on fire, saying, Now they will pray? We desert his church, we abandon his book, we release ourselves from all religious responsibilities; God calls, and we will not hear; then he sets all the harvest in a blaze, and we become religious instantaneously. Or he sends the cold east wind to blow upon the earth day and night, week after week; then we begin to consider whether we had not better appeal to his mercy and beseech the exercise of his clemency. Though Absalom had no such gracious intent in view, yet it is lawful to learn a lesson even from an enemy and from a man who turns the events of life to practical purpose. We are the richer if we have lost a barley-field, and found the God of the harvest. He will make up the barley-field to us, if so be we accept the providence aright, and say, This is God’s thought concerning us severe outwardly, a temporary loss, but concealing wondrous solicitude, expressing a purpose of love in a flame of fire; let us arise, and go to our father, and say to him across the blazing field, “Father, we have sinned.” Those who will not come at the voice of love may be constrained to come at the bidding of terror.

We wonder how a man so beautiful as Absalom will deport himself in the practical affairs of life; and we are not permitted to wonder long, for in chapter 2Sa 15:1-6 the answer is given.

“And it came to pass after this, that Absalom prepared him chariots and horses, and fifty men to run before him ” ( 2Sa 15:1 ).

Where is personal beauty now? Mark the insidious progress. “Absalom prepared him chariots and horses,” but we have seen that they were forbidden in Israel. Egyptians and Assyrians and the heathen nations might boast themselves of their iron chariots and their strong horses, but Israel was to have neither the one nor the other. This is the first time we read of chariots and horses in connection with Israel. This man is determined to make a very showy appeal to the public imagination. He will take that imagination captive. When the children of Israel see this innovation they will think it justified, because it was originated by the king’s son; and there is something in men, including the children of Israel, that responds to great chariots, to rushing horses whose necks are clothed with thunder; and Absalom knows enough of human nature to know that this appeal will not be lost upon people who asked for a king that they might be like the other nations of the earth. They would have a king, and God says, You shall have enough of them! God sometimes over-answers the prayers of people. He says in effect: You want kings or one king? The answer is: We want a king one king. God says: You shall have a hundred kings; you shall have kings until you are surfeited with them; I will keep up the supply of kings, and ply you at every point. Verily, he gives men their desire and sends leanness into their souls.

“And Absalom rose up early” ( 2Sa 15:2 ). Ambition is not a long sleeper. A man who has made up his mind to conquer the world can easily conquer himself so far as to get up quite early in the morning. This was a bid for popularity, as well as an expression of energy. We admire this. He means it. He is no sluggard. He does not begin his day at twelve o’clock: he looks out for the sun, and almost chides that rising light, saying, I have been watching for thee: how long thou hast tarried! If men can get up early in the morning to do that which is traitorous, unholy, and unworthy, are the servants of the living God to be sleeping away their opportunities? “I went by the field of the slothful, and by the vineyard of the man void of understanding; and, lo, it was all grown over with thorns, and nettles had covered the face thereof, and the stone wall thereof was broken down.” Saith the sluggard, “Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep.” Thus his poverty comes as one that travelleth, and his want as an armed man. We should be more energetic, more passionate; we should recall enthusiasm; for religion dead, is irreligion. Let the cunning and crafty man for a time have his way; his policy is worthy of him, and is a thing to be admired for its astuteness and adaptation of means to ends.

“And it was so, that when any man that had a controversy came to the king for judgment, then Absalom called unto him, and said, Of what city art thou? And he said, Thy servant is of one of the tribes of Israel. And Absalom said unto him, See, thy matters are good and right; but there is no man deputed of the king to hear thee. Absalom said moreover, Oh that I were made judge in the land, that every man which hath any suit or cause might come unto me, and I would do him justice!” ( 2Sa 15:2-4 ).

The eternal speech of the mere demagogue! Bad men have no originality; they are like their father, the devil, who has only one lie and keeps repeating it through all the ages: it is the same lame story; the same poor, earthly selfish appeal; the same base, narrow villainy; the same rag that is held out as if it were a purse that contained all earth’s gold. And men run after it. Who has not misled the people by making them great promises which could never be redeemed? Have we not known man after man stand up as upon a pedestal and say, “Friends, what you want is——” and then came a glowing programme authorised only by the signature of the unknown speaker. He would divide the land, and apportion the gold, and settle the hours of labour, and create an earthly paradise, and open a public road to heaven. Falsehood is not scrupulous: it abounds in flattering promises, all of which are to be realised without any toil or labour on our part! That circumstance should at once doom such promises to contempt. There is no position upon earth worth having, except as the result of labour, the prize of training, the crown of honest capability or industry. Strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth to any kingdom that is everlasting and blissful; wide the gate, broad the road, leading to destruction an infinite turnpike down to hell! Believe not those who come with paper programmes only: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they are of God,” and the test is this: self-denial, payment for all you have, an honest quid pro quo , a fair commerce and barter, honest wages for honest toil. But people who have grievances or grudges or controversies are in a temper of mind which prepares them to hear the speeches of the Absaloms of the ages: they are in immediate necessity, and on the ground of the proverb “Any port in a storm,” they may be glad to avail themselves of any promise that is large enough and reckless enough.

Then how he flattered his suitors and invested his affections:

“And it was so, that when any man came nigh to him to do him obeisance, he put forth his hand, and took him, and kissed him” ( 2Sa 15:5 ).

Now came the open revolt; now the king left his palace and became a wanderer. David saw the day was darkening, and he hastened away, saying,

“Arise, and let us flee; for we shall not else escape from Absalom; make speed to depart, lest he overtake us suddenly, and bring evil upon us, and smite the city with the edge of the sword…. And the king went forth, and all the people after him, and tarried in a place that was far off” ( 2Sa 15:14-17 ).

See how David is beginning to suffer. He was told that the sword should never depart from his house because of the murdered man. The man was buried, but his grave reeked as a hidden furnace. We cannot bury murdered men, so that the soil shall lie quietly on their dead breasts and make no sign. It is well that the king should be thus punished. Banish him, strip him, smite him with rods of iron, O ye holy angels: for this is just. See what sin comes to:

“And all the country wept with a loud voice; and all the people passed over: the king also himself passed over the brook Kidron, and all the people passed over, toward the way of the wilderness…. And David went up by the ascent of mount Olivet, and wept as he went up, and had his head covered, and he went barefoot: and all the people that was with him covered every man his head, and they went up weeping as they went up” ( 2Sa 15:23-30 ).

This comes of murdering Uriah! “The way of transgressors is hard.” When we have wept our sympathetic tears over banished king David, let us go down to the grave of the valiant Uriah the honest and ill-used soldier and cry still more copiously over his dishonoured body. It is right that David’s harp should be broken, that David’s throat should be choked, and that for songs he should have groaning and distress. God takes care of his law; man cannot sin against it without being made to feel the penalty of justice.

And David weeps as he goes up by mount Olivet. We cannot but pity David now and again. He was a noble soul he was a poet When the devil gave him breathing space he said beautiful things, and purposed charitable actions. Perhaps we may never pity David more than when his punishment took the form of humiliation ( 2Sa 16:5-14 ).

“And when king David came to Bahurim, behold, thence came out a man of the family of the house of Saul, whose name was Shimei, the son of Gera: he came forth, and cursed still as he came” ( 2Sa 16:5 ).

There may be dignity in some cursing. There we do not pity king David. But in the sixth verse a new phase is revealed of the bitterness of his humiliation: “And he [Shimei] cast stones at David, and at all the servants of king David: … and thus said Shimei when he cursed, Come out, come out, thou bloody man, and thou man of Belial: the Lord hath returned upon thee all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose stead thou hast reigned” ( 2Sa 16:7-8 ). This was right. Humble him still more; throw stones at him, spit upon him, mock him! It is right that society should thus take up the cause of dead men. David knew this. The people asked if they might not go over and take off the head of Shimei; but David said, “No; ‘let him curse, because the Lord hath said unto him, Curse David;’ wait: this is right: by-and-by ‘it may be that the Lord will look on mine affliction, and that the Lord will requite me good for his cursing this day.'” A man knows his punishment is just. So “Shimei went along on the hill’s side over against him, and cursed as he went, and threw stones at him, and cast dust;” and the object of all this violent derision was the darling of Israel! “The way of transgressors is hard.” Do not tempt the living God; do not come within the sweep of his sword or within the rush of his thunder. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” This would be the end of sin upon the earth but for the great evangelical provision but for the cross of Christ, the Saviour of the world. It is well to see what sin really comes to to watch the black harvest grow, and to be made to go into the field with the sickle and begin to cut it down. But there is still mercy with God, but it is mercy through righteousness; there is compassion in heaven, but it is compassion that expresses law. God can now be just, yet the justifier of the ungodly. He can now forgive thieves, murderers, and the worst of men of every phase and type, but he can only do this because of the priesthood of his own Son. A mystery we cannot explain; but we feel our need of it when we feel the agony of sin and the justness of our punishment. This cross is not to be taken to pieces, and explained in literal words, and made easy to the common understanding: “Great is the mystery of godliness.” Our intellectual eyes cannot see it, our vain imagination cannot bear the glory, but when we are stricken down because of sin, and penitent because we have felt its distress and abominableness in the sight of God, then something within us yea, the very soul catches a glimpse of the cross the beginning of heaven, because beginning of pardon.

Whilst we must be severe upon David, and therefore upon ourselves for David was bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, only exceptionally sinful in the accident, not in the essence and reality of things it is right also to turn in the other direction, and ask, Is there any pity in heaven? Is there any compassion in God? Is there any way of escaping the results of iniquity? And whilst we ask the question, a great voice, a voice as of many waters, sounds, and resounds, saying, “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon;” so, though there is terrible law, there also is a gracious gospel.

Prayer

Almighty God, we rejoice that thou hast promised to slay the prince of this world. We cannot understand his existence, but we can attest it. He is a murderer from the beginning, and a liar; but he is under thy control: for there is but one living and true God. We know nothing of time; we cannot tell what happened in the world’s Yesterday; we dimly remember what happened in our own. We cannot tell what the world’s To-morrow will be, except through thy gracious revelation: it is to be a Sabbath day, a day of the Son of man, a period cut out of the glory of heaven. This is enough to know. We are glad to know it, for the night is heavy upon us; there is no message from the darkness; our sight leads us but to despair. But through our faith thou dost send us gospels, pure as dew, radiant as light, glad as music The whole earth shall be filled with the glory of God. We wonder at the time it takes long, long time; but then we cannot tell what time is: we go only by our mechanism and our own consciousness: we have yet to learn that there is neither thousand years nor one day to the Lord, that all such misleading definitions are unknown in the economy of heaven. Help us to rest in the Lord and wait patiently for him, knowing that he will give us our heart’s desire, if that desire be that his kingdom should come, and his will be done on earth as it is done in heaven. For all religious comfort we bless thee. Other comfort fades and perishes in the using, but this tender solace reaches the whole life, subdues and delights the whole spirit: it is the very comfort of God the very grace of the cross of Christ. We would open our hearts to receive it; we would be no longer disquieted and tossed to and fro as if living in an uncontrollable tumult: we would rest in the living God; we would say, The Lord reigneth: the Lord doeth all things well: all things work together for good to them that love God; and repeating these great assurances, our joy will return, and the peace of God will make us calm. Let thy mercies be daily multiplied towards us according to our need. May every heart feel the nearness of God and know the preciousness of Jesus Christ, and witness to the sanctifying energy of the Holy Spirit. Then, come what may high hills, or deep, long, weary valleys the road will all lead to one place the city whose walls are jasper and whose streets are gold. Amen.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

XXII

THE SIN OF NUMBERING THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL,

ITS PENALTY, AND THE HISTORY OF ABSALOM

2Sa 13:1-39 ; 2Sa 14:1-33 ; 2Sa 15:1-6 ; 2Sa 21:1-11 ; 2Sa 24:1-25 ; 1Ch 21:1-30

On page 138 of the Harmony preserved in both 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles, is an account of another great affliction from God, and this affliction took the form of a pestilence in which 70,000 people perished. In one account it is said that the Lord moved David to number Israel, in the other that Satan instigated it. God is sometimes said to do things that he permits. There was a spirit of sinfulness in both the nation and king, on account of the great prosperity of the nation. Some preachers holding protracted meetings, and some pastors in giving their church roll, manifest a great desire to put stress upon numbers. So David ordered a census taken of the people. We search both these accounts in vain to find the law of the census carried out, that whenever a census was taken a certain sum of money from each one whose census was taken was to be put into the sanctuary. It was not wrong to take a census, because God himself ordered a census in Numbers. The sin was in the motive which prompted David to number Israel on this occasion. Satan was at his old trick of trying to turn the people against God, that God might smite the people. Oftentimes when we do things, the devil is back of the motive which prompts us to do them. It is a strange thing that the spirit of man can receive direct impact from another spirit.

It is also a strange thing that a man so secular-minded as Joab, understood the evil of this thing better than David. Joab worked at taking this census for nearly ten months, but did not complete it; be did not take the census of Levi or Benjamin. 1 Chronicles gives the result in round numbers, which does not exactly harmonize with 2 Samuel, one attempting to give only round numbers. Both show a great increase in population. After the thing was done, David’s conscience smote him, he felt that here were both error and sin; and he prayed about it, and when he prayed, God sent him a message, making this proposition: “I offer thee three things” [try and put yourself in David’s place and see which of these three things you would have accepted.] (1) “Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land?” He had just passed through three years of famine, and did not want to see another, especially one twice as long as the other. (2) “Or wilt thou flee three months before thy foes, while they pursue thee?” He rejected that because it put him at the mercy of man. (3) The last alternative was, “Or shall there be three days’ pestilence in thy land?” And David made a remarkable answer: “Let us fall now into the hands of the Lord, for his mercies are great; and let me not fall into the hands of man.” I would myself always prefer that God be the one to smite me rather than man. “Man’s inhumanity to man makes countless millions mourn.” It is astonishing how cruel man can be to man and woman to woman, especially woman to woman. Always prefer God’s punishment; he loves you better than anyone else, and will not put on you more than is just; but when the human gets into the judgment seat, there is no telling what may happen. Before this three days’ pestilence had ended 70,000 people had died. The pestilence was now moving upon the capital, and David was going to offer a sacrifice to God and implore his mercy. When he saw the angel of death with his drawn sword, about to swoop down upon Jerusalem, then comes out the magnanimity of David: “Lo, I have sinned and I have done perversely; but these sheep, what have they done?” Who greater than David used similar language in order to protect his flock? Our Lord in Gethsemane. Thereupon God ordered a sacrifice to be made, its object being to placate God, to stay the plague, a glorious type of the ultimate atonement.

When I was a student at Independence, the convention met there, and Dr. Bayless, then pastor of the First Baptist Church at Waco, took this text: “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.” He commenced: “When the flaming sword of divine justice was flashing in the sunbeams of heaven, and whistling in its fiery wrath, Jesus interposed and bared his breast, saying, ‘Smite me instead.’ ” Bayless was a very eloquent preacher. But though our Lord interposed, yet on him, crushed with imputed sin, that sword was about to fall. His shrinking humanity prayed, “Save me from the sword!” But the Father answered, “Awake, O Sword, smite the shepherd and let the flock be scattered.” And here we find the type.

The threshing floor of Araunah became the site of Solomon’s Temple. It was the place where Abraham brought his son, and bound him on an altar, and lifted up the knife when the voice of God called: “Abraham, stay thy hand, God himself hath provided a sacrifice.” There Abraham started to offer Isaac; there the Temple was afterward built, and the brazen altar erected on which these sacrificial types were slain. I ask you not only to notice David’s vicarious expiation, but also the spirit of David as set forth in 2Sa 24:24 , page 141; “Neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God, which cost me nothing.” That old Canaanite man was a generous fellow, and offered to give him that place for such a purpose and to furnish the oxen for the sacrifice, but David refused to make an offering that cost him nothing. Brother Truett preaches a great sermon on that subject: “God forbid that I should offer an offering unto the Lord that costs me nothing.” When he wants to get a really sacrificial collection; wants people to give until it hurts, he takes that text and preaches his sermon. We must not select for God that which costs us nothing. I will not say tens or hundreds, but I wills ay thousands of times in my life I have made such offerings where it cost me something where it really hurt.

History of Absalom. In the last discussion it was shown that there had been a number of antecedent sins in connection with Absalom: (1) It was a sin that the Geshurites had been left in the land. (2) It was a sin that David had married & Geshurite. (3) That he had married for State reasons. (4) That he had multiplied wives. (5) That he did not instruct and discipline Absalom. Absalom stands among the most remarkable characters of the Old Testament. He was the handsomest man in his day, according to the record. He was perfect in physical symmetry and body. That counts a good deal with many people, but here it is not a case of “pretty is that pretty does.” He had outside beauties to a marvelous degree. In that poem of N. P. Willis, he assumes that Absalom’s body is before David in the shroud, and says that as the shroud settled upon the body it revealed in outline the matchless symmetry of Absalom. Absalom had remarkable courage; there is nothing in the history to indicate that he was ever afraid of anything or anybody. Again, he had great decision of character; he knew exactly what he wanted; he was utterly unscrupulous as to the means to secure it. However, he was a man of most remarkable patience; he had passions and hate, and yet he could hold his peace and wait years to strike. That shows that he was not impulsive; that he could keep his passions under the most rigid control. The idea of a young man like Absalom under such an indignity waiting two years and then carefully planning and bringing his victims under his hand and smiting them without mercy! That is malice aforethought. He alone could make Joab bend to him; he sent for Joab, but Joab did not come; then he sent to his servant saying, “Set fire to Joab’s barley field.” That brought him! Spurgeon has a sermon on that. You know that a terrapin will not crawl when you are looking at him unless you put a coal of fire on his back. Absalom put a coal of fire on Joab’s back. Then, to show the character of the man, he could get up early in the morning and go to the gate of the city and listen to every grievance in the nation, pat each fellow on the back and whisper in his ear, “Oh, if I were judge in Israel your wrong would be righted!” There is your politician. Now for a man to keep that up for years indicates a fixedness of purpose, absolute control over his manner. Whoever supposes Absalom to have been a weak-minded man is mistaken. Whoever supposes him to have been a religious man is mistaken. He had not a spark of religion.

David’s oldest son, Amnon, commits the awful offense set forth in the first paragraph of this section. Words cannot describe the villainy of it, and if Absalom under the hot indignation of the moment had smitten Amnon, he would have been acquitted by any jury. But that was not Absalom’s method. He intended to hit and hit to kill, but he was going to take his time, and let it be as sudden as death itself when it came. David refrains from punishing Amnon. Under the Jewish law he could have been put to death at once, and he ought to have been, but David could not administer the law; seeing his own guilt in a similar case, stripped him of the moral power to execute the law.

You will find that whenever you do wrong, it will make you more silent in your condemnation of wrong in others.

We now come to a subject that has been the theme of my own preaching a good deal: “Now Joab, the son of Zeruiah, perceived that the king’s heart was toward Absalom,” but he also perceived that that affection was taking no steps to bring about a reconciliation, so he falls upon a plan. He sent a wise woman of Tekoa to find David, feigning a grievance as set forth here, who among other things said, “We must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again,” i.e., from one against whom our anger is extended, but in behalf of whom we are interceding. The fact that God had not killed him was proof that he was soaring him that he might repent. “But God deviseth means whereby his banished shall not be perpetually expelled.” The application intended is this: “Now David, you are doing just the other way. You have only a short time to live, and when you die your opportunities of reconciliation are gone forever. Imitate God; devise means to bring your banished one home.” David acted on this advice and sent Joab after Absalom, but he did not imitate God fully; he had Absalom brought to Jerusalem, but would not see him. Absalom waited there under a cloud for three years, and when he could stand it no longer, by burning Joab’s barley field he forced him to bring about a reconciliation. Absalom’s object in bringing about this reconciliation was to put him in position to rebel. He knew that the tenth son, Solomon, wag announced as the successor to David, and he was the older son, and under the ordinary laws of primogeniture entitled to the kingdom. So he determines to be king.

David at this time, as we learn from Psa 41 , was laboring under an awful and loathsome sickness a sickness that separated him from his family, from his children, and from his friends. This caused him to be forgotten to a great extent. It was a case of “when you drop out of sight, you drop out of mind.” While the people saw nothing of David, they were seeing much of Absalom; he had his chariot and followers, and paraded the streets every day, and his admirers would say, “There is a king for you! We want a king that is somebody!” David in retirement, Absalom conspicuous, making promises, and being the oldest son, captured the hearts of the people. Among these was Ahithophel. Then Absalom sent spies out all over the country and said, “When you hear the trumpet blow, you may know that Absalom is reigning.” He went down to Hebron and announced himself as king. When the word is brought to David that the people have gone from him, there seems to be no thought in his mind of resistance; he prepares to leave the city, leave the ark of God and the house of God. Leaving his concubines and taking his wives and children with him) he sets out, and upon reaching Mount Olivet, looks back upon the abandoned city, and weeps. A great number of the psalms were composed to commemorate his feelings during this flight. Both priests, Abiathar and Zadok, wanted to take the ark with them, but David sent them back, saying he wanted some there to watch for him and send him word. Never in the annals of time do we find a more lively historic portraiture of men and events than here. Each lives before us as we read: “Ittai, Abiathar, Zadok, Hushai, Ziba, Shirnei, and Abishai.”

QUESTIONS

1. How do you harmonize 2Sa 24:1 and 1Ch 21:1 ?

2. What was the sin of this numbering of Israel?

3. What was the lessons to preachers?

4. What was David’s course?

5. What was God’s proposition to David?

6. What was David’s answer, and reason for his choice?

7. How was the plague finally stayed?

8. What type here, and the New Testament fulfilment?

9. What was the site of Solomon’s Temple?

10. What historic events connected are with this place?

11. What great text for a sermon here, and who has preached a noted sermon from it?

12. Rehearse here the antecedent sins in connection with Absalom?

13. What was his physical appearance?

14. Analyze his character.

15. What was the lesson to preachers from the sin of Amnon and David’s attitude toward it?

16. What was the lesson for David from the woman of Tekoa?

17. How did David receive it?

18. To what expedient did Absalom resort, and why?

19. What was David’s disadvantage and Absalom’s advantage here?

20. What was David’s course when he saw that the hearts of the people had turned toward Absalom?

21. What was the nature of this part of the history?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

2Sa 14:1 Now Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived that the king’s heart [was] toward Absalom.

Ver. 1. Now Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived, ] sc., By probable signs; as being a cunning old courtier, and long conversant about David: he could easily find which way his pulse beat.

That the king’s heart was toward Absalom.] As the eldest now (for Chileab alias Daniel was dead), the fairest of all his sons, and the people’s darling. Only he wanted a fair excuse of fetching him home. Joab, therefore, to gratify David and ingratiate with Absalom, secretly brides this Tekoitess, by her wily discourse to bring about the business. How many good princes are persuaded to anything by the cunning craftiness of their favourites and followers; yea, even bought and sold by them! as it was said of Aurelian the emperor.

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

Chapter 14

So Joab realizing that David is proud and stubborn and really wants to see his son, but won’t make the first move, got hold of a widow woman in Tekoah, and he said to her, Now you go and tell David this story. [Tell him that you had, tell him you had two sons, and they got in a fight, you’re a widow, and your two sons got in a fight. And they were out in a field, and there was no one around to separate them, and one of your sons hit the other and killed him. Now the rest of the family is wanting to put your one son to death. But if he dies then you don’t have anybody, there’s no descendants, there’s no one to carry on the family name, and it’s just the end. And so tell them that they are not to take revenge against my one son.] So this woman came to David, and she told the story, My two boys they were out in the field fighting, and they were really going at it, no one to separate them, and the one killed the other, and now the avengers of blood are trying to kill the one son. But if he’s gone I won’t have anybody, I’ll be left. [And so forth] And David said, Your son will be pardoned, he’s forgiven. And so she said to him, Well why should it be to me, and not to my master’s house ( 2Sa 14:1-9 )?

She brought the fact, the fact to David that much the same thing had happened, if he would forgive her son the avengers of blood because of the murder, then why wouldn’t he forgive his own son, and bring him back. David realized he had been caught up in the same kind of a thing that Nathan caught him in, tell the story, and give a judgment. David’s quite a guy; he sticks by his judgments.

So he said, one thing before you go, I want to ask you this, and I want you to tell me straight, is Joab behind this? And she said, O surely you have the knowledge of an angel no one can hide anything from you, yes Joab is behind it. And so Joab sent for Absalom to come back, but David refused to see him. He can go back to his house, but David still ( 2Sa 14:19-20 , 2Sa 14:23-24 ),

This pride thing and all, isn’t it stupid this pride of ours? The thing we really want to do we won’t do because we just, you know, we want to stop the fight, we don’t want to go on. “But I’m not gonna say I’m sorry first! She’s got to say it before I’m gonna say it!” I’m really miserable, and I really don’t like this going on, and I really want it to be all over, but “I’m not gonna say it first, no way! She’s got to come to me!” We do these stupid things, because of our stupid pride. We allow things to go on and simmer; we allow things to go on in turmoil just because of our own stupid pride!

So Absalom isn’t the kind that you can just ignore, and he wanted Joab to come over, and to set up a meeting with his dad. But Joab wouldn’t even come to see him. He sent several messages to Joab to come, and Joab refused to come. So he said to his servants, “Well, these barley fields are getting pretty dry, go over and set them on fire.” So his servants set Joab’s field on fire, and Joab came storming over, “What’s the big idea your servants burning my field?”

He said, “Well I wanted to see you, I told you several times, you never would answer. So here you are.”

And so he told Joab, I want you to make arrangements for me to see my father. And so Joab came, made the arrangements, and David saw Absalom ( 2Sa 14:32-33 ).

There was the forgiveness the weeping, the rekindling of love and so forth. Except that Absalom began at that point to conspire against his own father. “

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

Opinions widely differ over why Joab set himself to bring Absalom back. The most probable reason- is that he “perceived that the king’s heart was toward Absalom.” There is certainly a strange fascination about this rugged and surly soldier Joab. He never paused at a deed of blood, and yet underneath the rough exterior was a strange tenderness in his regard for David.

David is seen again as desiring to be consistent. In the case of the woman of Tekoa, as in that of Nathan, when he had declared a principle, he stood by it when it was applied to himself. Absalom was brought back, but in the interest of the kingdom his punishment was not wholly removed. He was not allowed to see his father, and did not see him for two years.

We have a remarkable picture of Absalom, evidently a handsome man of physical perfection. He was daring, or we might more aptly describe him as a daredevil. When Joab would not come to him, he set fire to his barley, and so compelled him to come. The result was that he was admitted to the presence of his father, and was embraced by him.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

Joabs Plea for the Fugitive

2Sa 14:1-17

Joab had ends of his own to serve in securing the return of Absalom. Were the two sworn together to hatch a great plot? Or was Absalom shrewdly using Joab to advance his own selfish interests? David hesitated. If he recalled Absalom without punishment, the foundations of law and order would be shaken throughout the kingdom. Joab saw that in some way he must satisfy this natural conflict in the royal mind; and it was for this purpose that he summoned from Tekoa, a village twelve miles south of Jerusalem, this woman of unusual intelligence. By an apt parable she showed that on occasions even murder might be condoned.

In her discourse she dropped the golden sentence that even God devises means that His banished be not expelled. Yes, God has devised means, but how much they cost! In Davids case there was no attempt to meet the demands of a broken law, but Gods means include this. In the person of the Son of His love, He has satisfied the demands of law and honored them by Jesus obedience unto the death of the Cross! He is just and the Justifier! Righteousness and peace kissed each other at the cross of Jesus. See Psa 85:10.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

2Sa 14:14

I. God’s heaviest punishment is separation from Himself. There are degrees of separation-degrees in intensity and degrees in duration. There are two great divisions: the banished and the expelled. The banished wish to come back, the expelled do not; the banished have lost peace, the expelled have forfeited life.

II. Banishment is judicial, but it is not final. It is bitter, but it is curative. It is severe, but it is love. The banished must beware lest they go off further and further to remoter lands, lengthening and deepening their own punishment, till they get out of reach, beyond sound of recall and the circle of attraction, and then their banishment may become punishment.

III. God is always devising how His banished may be restored. His Son died that there might be a welcome to all the banished ones, and that expulsion might be a word unknown in heaven’s vocabulary.

J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 10th series, p. 97.

References: 2Sa 14:14.-Parker, vol. vii., p. 237; S. Cox, Expositor’s Notebook, p. 9; M. Daniell, Penny Pulpit, No. 2491; Homiletic Magazine, vol. xii., p. 22; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xvi., No. 950. 2Sa 14:25.-Expositor, 2nd series, vol. viii., p. 176. 2Sa 14:29-31.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. x., No. 563. 2Sam 14-18.-Parker, vol. vii., p. 174. 2Sa 15:6.-Ibid., p. 238. 2Sa 15:10.-F. W. Krummacher, David the King of Israel, p. 401. 2Sa 15:13.-T. Coster, Christian World Pulpit; vol. xxii., p. 395.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

4. David and Absalom

CHAPTER 14

1. Joabs scheme (2Sa 14:1-3)

2. The woman of Tekoah before the king (2Sa 14:4-20)

3. Joab brings Absalom to Jerusalem (2Sa 14:21-24)

4. Absaloms beauty (2Sa 14:25-27)

5. Absalom sees his father (2Sa 14:28-33)

In all these records of those sad events we hear not a word that David inquired of the Lord. Joab now appears upon the scene again and that for evil, though he did not mean to do evil to the king. He concocts a scheme by which Absalom is to be brought back into the favor of the king. This he must have tried many times before, for verses 19 and 22 indicate this. It seems almost as if Joab imitated Nathan, when he came with his message to David. But God had not sent him and Davids conscience was not touched. The wisdom he used was not the wisdom from above, but the wisdom of a cunning man. The whole story was deception and the wise woman of Tekoah lent herself as a willing instrument. And David finds out that it is all a plot and, blinded by a mere love for Absalom, without thinking of the claims of God in this case, he becomes a willing victim to the scheme of Joab. And so Absalom was brought back. The King commands, Let him turn to his own house, and let him not see my face. It was an evil hour when it happened. Absaloms rebellion and the kings exile were the fruit of the unscrupulous plot of Joab.

Absaloms physical beauty was great with magnificent hair. (The statement that his hair weighed 200 shekels is undoubtedly the error of a scribe who copied the manuscript. The Hebrew letters which stand for 20 and for 200 are similar. It should no doubt be 20 shekels.) He was thus fitted to do the work of winning the people to himself and became the leader of a rebellion. The deed he had done in avenging the crime against his sister was most likely looked upon by the mass of the people as a noble and heroic deed. That behind the beautiful exterior there was a proud, violent and evil spirit may be seen in his deed, when after Joabs refusal to come to him, he set the barley field of Joab on fire. Then a reconciliation between David and Absalom followed: Once more we notice here the consequences of Davids fatal weakness, as manifested in his irresolution and half measures. Morally paralysed, so to speak, in consequence of his own guilt, his position sensibly and increasingly weakened in popular estimation, that series of disasters, which had formed the burden of Gods predicted judgments, now followed in the natural sequence of events. If ever before his return from Geshur Absalom had been a kind of popular hero, his presence in Jerusalem for two years in semi-banishment must have increased the general sympathy.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

am 2977, bc 1027, An, Ex, Is, 464

Joab: 2Sa 2:18, 1Ch 2:16

toward Absalom: 2Sa 13:39, 2Sa 18:33, 2Sa 19:2, 2Sa 19:4, Pro 29:26

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

2Sa 14:1. That the kings heart was toward Absalom That he longed to see him, and have him restored to his country; but was ashamed to show kindness to one whom Gods law and his own conscience obliged him to punish. He wanted, therefore, a fair pretence for it, with which Joab now furnished him.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

2Sa 14:2. Tekoah; a city of Judah, twelve miles south of Jerusalem. 2Ch 11:6.

2Sa 14:6. The one smote the other, probably with some weapon, or sharp instrument. The lord Ellenboroughs Act directs that all persons cutting and maiming with such instruments, shall be capitally convicted.

2Sa 14:26. He weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels. Poole, in his Synopsis of the Critics, has a long note here. The Septuagint, followed by Josephus and the Vulgate, reads, He set, or valued, his hair at two hundred shekels; for it is said to have been bought by the ladies in Jerusalem. Two hundred shekels, or five Roman pounds, would be too heavy for one years growth of his hair.

2Sa 14:33. The king kissed Absalom; a full token of the royal favour as a son, and as a prince. Had Absalom been now a good man, all this had passed without regret: in this pardon of a fratricide David was too precipitate.

REFLECTIONS.

David, too indulgent to Amnon, was not less so, after a while, to Absalom. His feelings as a father gradually gained the ascendency over his prudence and fortitude as a judge and a king. David was perfectly aware of the atrocity of the crime, however mitigated by the provocation; and though the lapse of time did not diminish the guilt, yet it removed the painful recollections to a greater distance; while the affections of a father to an exiled son were invariably the same, David, long an exile himself, pitied the soul of his son, exposed to the pagan morals of Talmais court.

Joab, though a good general, and faithful to the king in all his troubles, here discovered a policy but too common to those who surround the throne. He studiously turned the kings passion to his private interest. Chileab being dead, as is supposed, Joab saw that Absalom was the heir apparent; and he thought by bringing him back, he would lay him under such obligations as to ensure his own ascendency in the affairs of state, and in the military command.Joab had yet farther views, and views intimately connected with his internal repose. He well knew that the kings conscience accused him for not executing judgment upon him for the blood of Abner; and he thought, if the king in regard to Uriah, if Absalom in regard to Amnon, stood in a similar situation of guilt, no man in Israel could then either make him afraid or ashamed. How mean is the policy, how many are the artifices of men, oppressed with conscious guilt, and loaded with public reproach. But all this finesse merely encreased his own and his countrys troubles. The web was so thin that the king immediately saw through it; and the web of the wicked, intended to cover their crimes, has generally some hole left, into which justice thrusts a finger and gives the whole a terrible rent. So in the issue it proved to Joab.But how contrary is all this artifice to the simplicity of the kingdom of heaven. Indeed, in earthly courts, the tinsel is soon worn off; and in Gods presence it is totally inadmissible. Except a man be converted, and become as a little child, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Joab, knowing that the assassination of Amnon, when invited as a brother and intoxicated at a feast, was regarded with horror, wished to confer the honour of his recal on a third person, a widow of Tekoah, who no doubt had an only son in exile; and the relations, more wishful of the family estate than of justice, had still kept him abroad. The speech he put into the mouth of this woman is a specimen, that he was well skilled in the human heart. She pleads well for the life and liberty of her son; and so far she is a fine model for a sinner in pleading with God for pardon and salvation. He should take words with him, and fill his mouth with arguments, nor rest till he receive a pardon sealed with promises.

A kindness conferred on the wicked is but to make them the more ungrateful, and afford them opportunities of greater wickedness. To Absalom a limited pardon was insupportable; for he had no shame, no repentance, no love but to himself. He preferred liberty at Geshur, to the smallest restraints at home: and when fair speeches failed with Joab, he took the liberty of burning his corn. He wanted to see the kings face, but more through pride than filial affection. Here is a true portrait of a bad man under national or ecclesiastical displeasure: the pride and naughtiness of his heart reproach the fairest sentence, and revolt at the mildest strokes of justice. To rise gradually by repentance, piety and virtue, the only way in which an offender can rise in the eyes of heaven, is to him insupportable. He therefore justifies himself, and demands with threats immediate restoration: and the receiving of such a character to the peace of the church, is too often as the restoration of Absalom, pregnant with greater mischiefs than all his former faults. What wisdom, what firmness, what compassion should distinguish the ministers of justice, and those entrusted with discipline in the church.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

2 Samuel 14. The Return of Absalom (J).

2Sa 14:1-8. Joab perceives the kings longing for his son (p. 67), and sends to him a woman of Tekoa (p. 31), about 5 miles S. of Beth-lehem, with a trumped-up tale that she was in danger of being left childless, because one of her two sons had killed his brother, and the kinsfolk wished to put the survivor to death. The king promised to intervene.

2Sa 14:9-17. The woman continued to importune him, and at last she seems to admit that her story is a parable and to apply it to the king. 2Sa 14:14 is difficult; the first part, no doubt, means, Life is uncertain, either the king or his son may die at any time; then it will be too late for them to be reconciled, or for Absalom to be reinstated. In the latter part, the text is probably corrupt; the favourite restoration is: And God will not take away the life of him that thinketh thoughts in order not to banish from him (i.e. keep in exile), one that is banished, i.e. God will not condemn David for leniency to Absalom (cf. Driver). It seems a roundabout way of putting things, but that may be in keeping with the occasion and the womans character.

2Sa 14:15-17. These verses may have stood originally somewhere before 2Sa 14:13, in which the woman reveals her real purpose.

2Sa 14:18-24. The woman admits that she has been sent by Joab. The king allows Joab to fetch Absalom home, but will not allow the returned exile to enter the royal presence.

2Sa 14:25-27. Absaloms beauty; his family. Probably a later addition.

2Sa 14:26. two hundred shekels, after the kings weight: Cent.B estimates the weight at 355/7 1b., and, with others, regards this phrase as modelled on legends on foreign weights, and as an indication of post-exilic authorship.

2Sa 14:27. In 2Sa 18:18 Absalom has no sons, and in 1Ki 15:2, we read of Maacah, the daughter of Absalom.

2Sa 14:28-33. Joab having refused to visit Absalom, the prince secures his attendance by a ruse, and induces Joab to complete the reconciliation between father and son.

2Sa 14:30. Perhaps we should add at the end of this verse, And Joabs servants came to him with their clothes rent and said: The servants of Absalom have set the field on fire.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

David’s concern for Absalom became known to Joab. Joab was a man not too concerned about truth and justice, but rather about the outward prosperity of the kingdom of Israel, for he knew that his own position depended on this. He considered that if Absalom could be brought back, the kingdom would have a better appearance of unity under David. But he did not know what danger he was inviting when he employed a wise woman to speak to David by means of a parabolic form of speech that was cunningly conceived.

He asks the woman to act before David as though she was a mourner, having mourned for a long time for a dead relative. He told her what to say, and she was the kind of woman who could play the part well. When he came to David she appeared to be in deep distress, prostrating herself before him and entreating his help. In response to his question she answered that she was a widow having had two sons, and that the two had fought together in the field where no-one was present to intervene, and one had struck the other fatally.

Of course Joab meant this to apply to the case of Absalom’s killing of Ammon. But the cases were not parallel. First, David had more than two sons. Secondly, they did not fight together: one had deliberately planned to kill the other and did so in cold blood, the other being totally off guard.

She says her whole family was determined that her remaining son should be put to death and this would leave her alone and with no heir. David’s family had not demanded death for Absalom: in fact three years had elapsed, and people generally would not be thinking any more about the matter. No doubt Absalom’s fear had kept him away all this time, and also David’s own conscience (not his relatives) told him that it would not be right to receive Absalom back as though he was not guilty Yet neither David nor anyone else was demanding that Absalom should die.

David wisely told the woman to return to her home and wait for David’s consideration of her case (v.8). but the woman wanted an answer immediately. She knew she could not afford to have David enquire of others about her case. Therefore she tells him, in effect, that she and her father’s house would accept the blame for anything that might result from David’s making a decision immediately, and he and his throne would be guiltless (v.9). How well she know how to influence David’s feelings! Yet he ought to have known well that he could not depend only upon the witness of one woman who was manifestly partial to her own cause. Still, he went half way on her behalf, telling her that anyone who pressed her with this matter she should bring to David, and he would see that she was not pressured again.

Having gained this much ground, being assured that David would protect her, she would not desist until she had his assurance as to her son also. She pleads with him, appealing to his regard for the Lord, his God, that he would not permit the avenger of blood to destroy her son. Of course it was Absalom she had in mind, but no-one was urging that he should be destroyed. However, David, without any inquiry as to the full truth of the case, made a decision and gave her his word, binding it with an oath by God’s name, that her son would not be harmed.

Her hardest task of getting this committal from David had been accomplished. Now she respectfully asks his permission to speak a further word; and takes advantage of this to apply David’s committal to his relationship with Absalom. She asks him why he had planned such a thing against the people of God. This was bold language, and not an accurate representation of the facts, for David was not planning to kill Absalom. But she implied that people might think so because David had not brought Absalom back again. She refers to Absalom as “his (David’s) banished.” She speaks of the king as being “faulty” because his own pronouncement as to her son was not carried out with his own Son. But David should have seen that her whole comparison was incorrect: the cases were by no means parallel.

She uses truth in her argument, for in verse 14 she says, “we shall surely die and become like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again.” She is really asking, is there to be no recovery before the inevitable end of our lives in death? God does not take away a life, she says, but devises means by which His banished might not be expelled from Him. She seeks to express the truth of 2Pe 3:9, that “God is not willing that any should perish,” but she does not include with it “but that all should come to repentance.” It is true also that God has, in the cross of Christ, devised a wonderful means of restoring banished, sinful souls. But even this does not apply to those who will not repent. This was the one fatal flaw in applying these things to Absalom. Even David knew perfectly well that Absalom had not shown any sign of repentance.

The wise woman continues to speak (in verses 15-17) as though she had accurately portrayed her own case, telling David that the people had made her afraid and this moved her to come to David, feeling she could possibly count on him to protect her and her son. Further than this, in verse17 she says she had told herself that she could have confidence in the word of the king to give her comfort in his discerning of good and evil. This was flattery in order to gain her point with David. She was really telling him that he was wise enough to discern that her argument was good, and to back this up she adds, “may the Lord your God be with you.” She was the kind of woman who knew how to “wrap people around her finger.”

Her persistence in transferring the whole matter to Absalom’s case could not but raise David’s suspicions that Joab was involved in this, for he knew that Joab wanted Absalom brought back to Jerusalem. In answer to his question about this, she now has to admit that the whole thing was planned by Joab, though she flatters David by telling him that he was as wise as an angel of God in his discerning of this.

But again David was not so wise in his acting before sober consideration of this matter before God. Wisdom would have discerned the serious discrepancies in Joab’s illustration, and have left Absalom where he was until there was some evidence of repentance on his part. but David allowed his feelings for Absalom to take precedence, and told Joab to bring Absalom back to Jerusalem.

Joab was highly pleased that David had listened to his advice and even prostrated himself in thanksgiving before him (v.22). How mistaken he was in thinking that such action would consolidate the unity of the kingdom! Outwardly it might seem so, but Absalom’s haughty pride was a grave danger to the kingdom, and Joab was totally blind to this. David however still had a very serious reserve, telling Joab to send Absalom to his own home, but refusing to see Absalom himself (v.24). How could he rightly express any fellowship with Absalom when the young man was still hardened in self-righteousness?

We are told now Absalom’s attractive physical appearance, so outstanding that he drew the attention of all the people. “From the sole of his foot to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him.” Physically this was true, but Absalom ought to have known that spiritually “from the sole of the feet even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but wounds and bruises and putrifying sores” (Isa 1:6). He was evidently proud of the growth of his hair also, for he let it grow for a year before cutting it. Long hair is a glory to a woman, but a shame to a man (1Co 11:14-15). It is intended to signify subjection, but this was only hypocrisy on Absalom’s part. So proud was he of its luxuriant growth that he weighed his hair when he cut it! its weight was the equivalent of 5 pounds! Php 3:19 speaks of such people as those “whose glory is in their shame.” it is added also that Absalom had three sons and a beautiful daughter whom he named after his sister Tamar (v.27).

Two more years passed, which made five years in which David had been waiting for some sign of repentance on Absalom’s part. Absalom knew perfectly well why his father did not want to see him, but he apparently counted on time healing the rupture without his acknowledging any wrong.

Finally Absalom took the initiative, sending for Joab to act as an intermediary. But Joab would not come. Twice he refused to come to Absalom. But Absalom was a determined young man, and his purposes would not be served until he was restored fully into the favor of the king — at least outwardly before the people. He told his servants to set fire to a field of ripened barley belonging to Joab (v.30). This brought Joab to Absalom in protest, though we do not read of Absalom ‘s ever paying Joab for his loss.

Absalom however insists to Joab that he should be permitted to see David’s face. He says it would be better for him to be still in Geshur if this is not to be allowed. But his attitude was still defiant and self-righteous. He makes not the slightest admission of wrong on his part, but says that if there was any iniquity in him, the king could execute him. The king, being informed by Joab of Absalom’s demand, yielded to this pressure, though we may be sure it must have been with uneasy thoughts. Joab called for Absalom to come to David, and “the king kissed Absalom” (v.33). This is all that is said. There is no mention of any pleasant conversation between them. How different the case of the prodigal son when he returned in genuine repentance. His father “ran and fell on his neck and kissed him” (Luk 15:20). But David sought to show love while compromising righteousness. This could not possibly bring good results, as the following history proves.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

14:1 Now Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived that the king’s {a} heart [was] toward Absalom.

(a) That the king favoured him.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Joab’s scheme to secure Absalom’s pardon 14:1-20

Evidently Joab (David’s commander-in-chief and nephew by his half-sister, Zeruiah; 1Ch 2:16) concluded that it would be politically better for David and Israel if David brought Absalom back to Jerusalem from Geshur (cf. 2Sa 14:7; 2Sa 14:13-15). Absalom was, of course, now David’s heir to the throne by custom, though Yahweh had designated Solomon to succeed his father. David had a great love for Absalom even though he was a murderer (2Sa 14:1; cf. 2Sa 13:37; cf. 2Sa 13:39). David had a large capacity to love; he loved God and many other people greatly. Often people who love greatly find it difficult to confront and discipline.

The story Joab gave the "actress" from Tekoa (10 miles south of Jerusalem) to tell duplicated David’s own problem with Absalom (cf. the story that God had put in Nathan’s mouth, 2Sa 12:1-4). By putting the murderer to death, the woman’s hostile relatives would have deprived her of her means of support (2Sa 14:7; cf. the story of Cain and Abel, Gen 4:1-8). By putting Absalom to death, David would have deprived himself of his heir, which Joab evidently perceived Absalom to be. Since David promised not to execute the woman’s son (2Sa 14:11), it would be inconsistent for him to refrain from pardoning Absalom (2Sa 14:13). The wise woman urged David to remember the LORD his God, specifically, His mercy (2Sa 14:11).

"David’s reference to the ’hair’ of the woman’s ’son’ is both ironic and poignant: The hair of his own son Absalom was not only an index of his handsome appearance (cf. 2Sa 14:25-26) but would also contribute to his undoing (cf. 2Sa 18:9-15)." [Note: Youngblood, pp. 978-79.]

The woman’s references to "the people of God" (i.e., Israel, 2Sa 14:13; cf. 2Sa 14:14-15; 2Sa 14:17) point to popular support for Absalom and a common desire that David would pardon him and allow him to return to Jerusalem.

David had personally experienced God’s mercy and had escaped death for his adultery and murder (2Sa 12:13). The woman appealed to David to deal with Absalom as God had dealt with him, or the nation would suffer (2Sa 14:14). 2Sa 14:14 is a key verse in this chapter. The wise "actress" reminded David that God does not take away life, that is, He does not delight in punishing people. Rather He plans ways by which guilty people can enjoy reconciliation with Himself. The Cross of Christ is the greatest historical proof of this truth. Judgment is God’s "strange" work (Isa 28:21); mercy is what He delights to display. Thus, David should be godly and make a way to show mercy to Absalom, rather than punishing him with death, according to Joab.

David knew that Joab wanted him to pardon Absalom. He sensed that the woman’s arguments had come from him (2Sa 14:18-19). Joab had written the script for the skit that she had performed (2Sa 14:19-20).

"Ironically, Joab’s demise begins at precisely the point where another woman (Bathsheba) is sent to the king by a thoroughly self-interested [?] statesman (Nathan) in order to foil the succession of the next in line after Absalom (Adonijah) and so to secure the crown for Solomon (1Ki 1:11-31)." [Note: George G. Nicol, "The Wisdom of Joab and the Wise Woman of Tekoa," Studia Theologica 36 (1982):101.]

There are parallels between this incident and Abigail’s appeal to David in 1Sa 25:24. [Note: See J. Hoftijzer, "David and the Tekoite Woman," Vetus Testamentum 20:4 (October 1970):419-44.]

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

9

CHAPTER XVIII.

ABSALOM BANISHED AND BROUGHT BACK

2Sa 13:38-39 – 2Sa 14:1-33.

GESHUR, to which Absalom fled after the murder of Amnon, accompanied in all likelihood by the men who had slain him, was a small kingdom in Syria, lying between Mount Hermon and Damascus. Maacah, Absalom’s mother, was the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur, so that Absalom was there among his own relations. There is no reason to believe that Talmai and his people had renounced the idolatrous worship that prevailed in Syria. For David to ally himself in marriage with an idolatrous people was not in accordance with the law. In law, Absalom must have been a Hebrew, circumcised the eighth day; but in spirit he would probably have no little sympathy with his mother’s religion. His utter alienation in heart from his father; the unconcern with which he sought to drive from the throne the man who had been so solemnly called to it by God; the vow which he pretended to have taken, when away in Syria, that if he were invited back to Jerusalem he would “serve the Lord,” all point to a man infected in no small degree with the spirit, if not addicted to the practice, of idolatry. And the tenor of his life, so full of cold-blooded wickedness, exemplified well the influence of idolatry, which bred neither fear of God nor love of man.

We have seen that Amnon had not that profound hold on David’s heart which Absalom had; and therefore it is little wonder that when time had subdued the keen sensation of horror, the king “was comforted concerning Amnon, seeing he was dead.” There was no great blank left in his heart, no irrepressible craving of the soul for the return of the departed. But it was otherwise in the case of Absalom, – “the king’s heart was towards him.” David was in a painful dilemma, placed between two opposite impulses, the judicial and the paternal; the judicial calling for the punishment of Absalom, the paternal craving his restoration. Absalom in the most flagrant way had broken a law older even than the Sinai legislation, for it had been given to Noah after the flood – “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” But the deep affection of David for Absalom not only caused him to shrink from executing that law, but made him most desirous to have him near him again, pardoned, penitent as he no doubt hoped, and enjoying all the rights and privileges of the king’s son. The first part of the chapter now before us records the manner in which David, hi great weakness, sacrificed the judicial to the paternal, sacrificed his judgment to his feelings, and the welfare of the kingdom for the gratification of his affection. For it was too evident that Absalom was not a fit man to succeed David on the throne. If Saul was unfit to rule over God’s people, and as God’s vicegerent, much more was Absalom. Not only was he not the right kind of man, but, as his actions had showed, he was the very opposite. By his own wicked deed he was now an outlaw and an exile; he was out of sight and likely to pass out of mind; and it was most undesirable that any step should be taken to bring him back among the people, and give him every chance of the succession. Yet in spite of all this the king in his secret heart desired to get Absalom back. And Joab, not studying the welfare of the kingdom, but having regard only to the strong wishes of the king and of the heir-apparent, devised a scheme for fulfilling their desire.

That collision of the paternal and the judicial, which David removed by sacrificing the judicial, brings to our mind a discord of the same kind on a much greater scale, which received a solution of a very different kind. The sin of man created the same difficulty in the government of God. The judicial spirit, demanding man’s punishment, came into collision with the paternal, desiring his happiness. How were they to be reconciled? This is the great question on which the priests of the world, when unacquainted with Divine revelation, have perplexed themselves since the world began. When we study the world’s religions, we see very clearly that it has never been held satisfactory to solve the problem as David solved his difficulty, by simply sacrificing the judicial. The human conscience refuses to accept of such a settlement. It demands that some satisfaction shall be made to that law of which the Divine Judge is the administrator. It cannot bear to see God abandoning His judgment-seat in order that He may show indiscriminate mercy. Fantastic and foolish in the last degree, grim and repulsive too, in many cases, have been the devices by which it has been sought to supply the necessary satisfaction. The awful sacrifices of Moloch, the mutilations of Juggernaut, the penances of popery, are most repulsive solutions, while they all testify to the intuitive conviction of mankind that something in the form of atonement is indispensable. But if these solutions repel us, not less satisfactory is the opposite view, now so current, that nothing in the shape of sin-offering is necessary, that no consideration needs to be taken of the judicial, that the infinite clemency of God is adequate to deal with the case, and that a true belief in His most loving fatherhood is all that is required for the forgiveness and acceptance of His erring children. In reality this is no solution at all; it is just David’s method of sacrificing the judicial; it satisfies no healthy conscience, it brings solid peace to no troubled soul. The true and only solution, by which due regard is shown both to the judicial and the paternal, is that which is so fully unfolded and enforced in the Epistles of St. Paul. ”God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing unto men their trespasses. . . . For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.”

Returning to the narrative, we have next to examine the stratagem of Joab, designed to commit the king unwittingly to the recall of Absalom. The idea of the method may quite possibly have been derived from Nathan’s parable of the ewe lamb. The design was to get the king to give judgment in an imaginary case, and thus commit him to a similar judgment in the case of Absalom. But there was a world-wide difference between the purpose of the parable of Nathan and that of the wise woman of Tekoah. Nathan’s parable was designed to rouse the king’s conscience as against his feelings; the woman of Tekoah’s, as prompted by Joab, to rouse his feelings as against his conscience. Joab found a fitting tool for his purpose in a wise woman of Tekoah, a small town in the south of Judah. She was evidently an accommodating and unscrupulous person; but there is no reason to compare her to the woman of Endor, whose services Saul had resorted to. She seems to have been a woman of dramatic faculty, clever at personating another, and at acting a part. Her skill in this way becoming known to Joab, he arranged with her to go to the king with a fictitious story, and induce him now to bring back Absalom. Her story bore that she was a widow who had been left with two sons, one of whom in a quarrel killed his brother in the field. All the family were risen against her to constrain her to give up the murderer to death, but if she did so her remaining coal would be quenched, and neither name nor remainder left to her husband on the face of the earth. On hearing the case, the king seems to have been impressed in the woman’s favour, and promised to give an order accordingly. Further conversation obtained clearer assurances from him that he would protect her from the avenger of blood. Then, dropping so far her disguise, she ventured to remonstrate with the king, inasmuch as he had not dealt with his own son as he was prepared to deal with hers. “Wherefore then hast thou devised such a thing against the people of God? for in speaking this word, the king is as one that is guilty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished one. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt upon the ground which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God take away life, but deviseth means that he that is banished be not an outcast from Him.” We cannot but be struck, though not favourably, with the pious tone which the woman here assumed to David. She represents that the continued banishment of Absalom is against the people of God, – it is not for the nation’s interest that the heir-apparent should be forever banished. It is against the example of God, who, in administering His providence, does not launch His arrows at once against the destroyer of life, but rather shows him mercy, and allows him to return to his former condition. Clemency is a divine-like attribute. The king who can disentangle difficulties, and give such prominence to mercy, is like an angel of God. It is a divine-like work he undertakes when he recalls his banished. She can pray, when he is about to undertake such a business, “The Lord thy God be with thee” (R.V.). She knew that any difficulties the king might have in recalling his son would arise from his fears that he would be acting against God’s will. The clever woman fills his eye with considerations on one side – the mercy and forbearance of God, the pathos of human life, the duty of not making things worse than they necessarily are. She knew he would be startled when she named Absalom. She knew that though he had given judgment on the general principle as involved in the imaginary case she had put before him, he might demur to the application of that principle to the case of Absalom. Her instructions from Joab were to get the king to sanction Absalom’s return. The king has a surmise that the hand of Joab is in the whole transaction, and the woman acknowledges that it is so. After the interview with the woman, David sends for Joab, and gives him leave to fetch back Absalom. Joab goes to Geshur and brings Absalom to Jerusalem.

But David’s treatment of Absalom when he returns does not bear out the character for unerring wisdom which the woman had given him. The king refuses to see his son, and for two years Absalom lives in his own house, without enjoying any of the privileges of the king’s son. By this means David took away all the grace of the transaction, and irritated Absalom. He was afraid to exercise his royal prerogative in pardoning him out-and-out. His conscience told him it ought not to be done. To restore at once one who had sinned so flagrantly to all his dignity and power was against the grain. Though therefore he had given his consent to Absalom returning to Jerusalem, for all practical purposes he might as well have been at Geshur. And Absalom was not the man to bear this quietly. How would his proud spirit like to hear of royal festivals at which all were present but he? How would he like to hear of distinguished visitors to the king from the surrounding countries, and he alone excluded from their society? His spirit would be chafed like that of a wild beast in its cage. Now it was, we cannot doubt, that he felt a new estrangement from his father, and conceived the project of seizing upon his throne. Now too it probably was that he began to gather around him the party that ultimately gave him his short-lived triumph. There would be sympathy for him in some quarters as an ill-used man; while there would rally to him all who were discontented with David’s government, whether on personal or on public grounds. The enemies of his godliness, emboldened by his conduct towards Uriah, finding there what Daniel’s enemies in a future age tried in vain to find ill his conduct, would begin to think seriously of the possibility of a change. Probably Joab began to apprehend the coming danger when he refused once and again to speak to Absalom. It seemed to be the impression both of David and of Joab that there would be danger to the state in his complete restoration. Two years of this state of things had passed, and the patience of Absalom was exhausted. He sent for Joab to negotiate for a change of arrangements. But Joab would not see him. A second time he sent, and a second time Joab declined. Joab was really in a great difficulty. He seems to have seen that he had made a mistake in bringing Absalom to Jerusalem, but it was a mistake out of which he could not extricate himself He was unwilling to go back, and he was afraid to go forward. He had not courage to undo the mistake he had made in inviting Absalom to return by banishing him again. If he should meet Absalom he knew he would be unable to meet the arguments by which he would press him to complete what he had begun when he invited him back. Therefore he studiously avoided him. But Absalom was not to be outdone in this way. He fell on a rude stratagem for bringing Joab to his presence. Their fields being adjacent to each other, Absalom sent his servants to set Joab’s barley on fire. The irritation of such an unprovoked injury overcame Joab’s unwillingness to meet Absalom; he went to him in a rage and demanded why this had been done. The matter of the barley would be easy to arrange; but now that lie had met Joab he showed him that there were just two modes of treatment open to David, – either really to pardon, or really to punish him. This probably was just what Joab felt. There was no good, but much harm in the half-and-half policy which the king was pursuing. If Absalom was pardoned, let him be on friendly terms with the king. If he was not pardoned, let him be put to death for the crime he had committed.

Joab was unable to refute Absalom’s reasoning. And when he went to the king he would press that view on him likewise. And now, after two years of a half-and-half measure, the king sees no alternative but to yield. “When he had called for Absalom, he came to the king, and bowed himself to his face on the ground before the king; and the king kissed Absalom.” This was the token of reconciliation and friendship. But it would not be with a clear conscience or an easy mind that David saw the murderer of his brother in full possession of the honours of the king’s son.

In all this conduct of King David we can trace only the infatuation of one left to the guidance of his own mind. It is blunder after blunder. Like many good but mistaken men, he erred both in inflicting punishments and in bestowing favours. Much that ought to be punished such persons pass over; what they do select for punishment is probably something trivial; and when they punish it is in a way so injudicious as to defeat its ends. And some, like David, keep oscillating between punishment and favour so as at once to destroy the effect of the one and the grace of the other. His example may well show all of you who have to do with such things the need of great carefulness in this important matter. Penalties, to be effectual, should be for marked offences, but when incurred should be firmly maintained. Only when the purpose of the punishment is attained ought reconciliation to take place, and when that comes it should be full-hearted and complete, restoring the offender to the full benefit of his place and privilege, both in the home and in the hearts of his parents.

So David lets Absalom loose, as it were, on the people of Jerusalem. He is a young man of fine appearance and fascinating manners. “In all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty; from the sole of the foot even to the crown of the head there was no blemish in him. And when he polled his head (for it was at every year’s end that he polled it; because his hair was heavy on him, therefore he polled it) the weight of the hair of his head was two hundred shekels after the king’s weight.” No doubt this had something to do with David’s great liking for him. He could not but look on him with pride, and think with pleasure how much he was admired by others. The affection which owed so much to a cause of this sort was not likely to be of the highest or purest quality. What then are we to say of David’s fondness for Absalom? Was it wrong for a father to be attached to his child? Was it wrong for him to love even a wicked child? No one can for a moment think so who remembers that “God commended His love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.” There is a sense in which loving emotions may warrantably be more powerfully excited in the breast of a godly parent toward an erring child than toward a wise and good one. The very thought that a child is in the thraldom of sin creates a feeling of almost infinite pathos with reference to his condition. The loving desire for his good and his happiness becomes more intense from the very sense of the disorder and misery in which he lies. The sheep that has strayed from the fold is the object of a more profound emotion than the ninety- and-nine that are safe within it. In this sense a parent cannot love his child, even his sinful and erring child, too well. The love that seeks another’s highest good can never be too intense, for it is the very counterpart and image of God’s love for sinful men.

But, as far as we can gather, David’s love for Absalom was not exclusively of this kind. It was a fondness that led him to wink at his faults even when they became flagrant, and that desired to see him occupying a place of honour and responsibility for which he certainly was far from qualified. This was more than the love of benevolence. The love of benevolence has, in the Christian bosom, an unlimited sphere- It may be given to the most unworthy. But the love of complacency, of delight in any one, of desire for his company, desire for close relations with him, confidence in him, as one to whom our own interests and the interests of others may be safely entrusted, is a quite different feeling. This kind of love must ever be regulated by the degree of true excellence, of genuine worth, possessed by the person loved. The fault in David’s love to Absalom was not that he was too benevolait, not that he wished his son too well. It was that he had too much complacency or delight in him, delight resting on very superficial ground, and that he was too willing to have him entrusted with the most vital interests of the nation. This fondness for Absalom was a sort of infatuation, to which David never could have yielded if he had remembered the hundred and first Psalm, and if he had thought of the kind of men whom alone when he wrote that psalm he determined to promote to influence in the kingdom.

And on this we found a general lesson of no small importance. Young persons, let us say emphatically young women, and perhaps Christian young women, are apt to be captivated by superficial qualities, qualities like those of Absalom, and in some cases are not only ready but eager to marry those who possess them. In their blindness they are willing to commit not only their own interests but the interests of their children, if they should have any, to men who are not Christians, perhaps barely moral, and who are therefore not worthy of their trust. Here it is that affection should be watched and restrained. Christians should never allow their affections to be engaged by any whom, on Christian grounds, they do not thoroughly esteem. All honour to those who, at great sacrifice, have honoured this rule! All honour to Christian parents who bring up their children to feel that, if they are Christians themselves, they can marry only in the Lord! Alas for those who deem accidental and superficial qualities sufficient grounds for a union which involves the deepest interests of souls for time and for eternity! In David’s ill- founded complacency in Absalom, and the woeful disasters which flowed from it, let them see a beacon to warn them against any union which has not mutual esteem for its foundation, and does not recognize those higher interests in reference to which the memorable words were spoken by our Lord, “What is a man profited if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary