Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 17:24
Then David came to Mahanaim. And Absalom passed over Jordan, he and all the men of Israel with him.
24 26. Progress of the Rebellion
24. to Mahanaim ] See note on ch. 2Sa 2:8. It was chosen for David’s head-quarters as the most important and strongest city in the trans-Jordanic country, which was evidently the least disaffected.
And Absalom passed over Jordan ] Before this a considerable interval must have elapsed, during which Absalom was formally anointed (ch. 2Sa 19:10), and a general levy of the nation raised according to Hushai’s counsel, while David had time to organize his forces and establish himself at Mahanaim.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Mahanaim – See 2Sa 2:8. The same reasons which induced Abner to choose it for Ishbosheth probablv made it a good rallying point for David. It was a strong city, in a well-provisioned country, with a mountainous district for retreat in case of need, and with a warlike and friendly population.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Mahanaim; a place in the country of Gilead, bordering upon the land of the Ammonites, 2Sa 17:27. See Gen 32:2; 2Sa 2:8.
Absalom passed over Jordan; not speedily, but when all the men of Israel were gathered together according to Hushais counsel, who are said to be with him here, as it follows.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
24. Then David came to Mahanaiminthe high eastern country of Gilead, the seat of Ish-bosheth’sgovernment.
Absalom passed over JordanItis not said how long an interval elapsed, but there must have beensufficient time to make the intended levy throughout the kingdom.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then David came to Mahanaim,…. A city on the other side Jordan in the tribe of Gad, Jos 13:26, famous for its being the place where the angels of God met Jacob, Ge 32:1; and was for some time the seat of Ishbosheth the son of Saul, 2Sa 2:8;
and Absalom passed over Jordan, he, and all the men of Israel with him; not directly after David, but some time after, when, according to the counsel of Hushai, he had gathered all the warlike men of Israel to him that he could, and with this army pursued his father; not content to drive him to the other side Jordan, sought to seize his person, and take away his life, and so secure the crown and kingdom to him, of which he made no doubt, having such a numerous army, on which he relied.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The account of the civil war, which terminated with Absalom’s defeat and death, is introduced in 2Sa 17:24-26 with a description of the relative position of the two hostile parties. David had come to Mahanaim, a city probably a fortified one, on the east of the Jordan, not far from the ford of the Jabbok (see at 2Sa 2:8). Absalom had also gone over the Jordan, “he and all the men with him,” i.e., all the fighting men that he had gathered together according to Hushai’s advice, and encamped in the land of Gilead.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
David Finds Refuge at Mahanaim, vs. 24-29
Mahanaim was located in Gilead, east of the Jordan, in the valley of the Jabbok not far from where Jacob wrestled with the angel (Genesis 32). In fact Jacob named the place when he was returning from his long sojourn with his uncle, Laban. It meant “two hosts” and was so named because Jacob was given the vision of God’s host encamped alongside his own host. It was the same area where Saul’s family sought refuge after his death in battle at mount Gilboa. Here Mephibosheth had resided for many years until brought to Jerusalem by David.
Absalom soon followed David with his army seeking to complete his subjugation of the land by overrunning his father’s stronghold. He had placed Amasa as captain over the host in the stead of Joab. Joab and Amasa were cousins, the mother of Amasa being Abigail, the sister of Zeruiah, Joab’s mother. His father was a man named Ithra, but called Jether in 1Ch 2:17, where he is also called an Ishmaelite. Some scholars say “Ishmaelite” is the correct rendering. Absalom pitched his army here in Gilead awaiting a final showdown with David.
Meanwhile David had his needs well supplied by friends in the area, who brought to him bedding, utensils, and a variety of food supplies. Among the chief suppliers was Shobi, the son of Nahash the former king of Ammon, who was now subject to Israel. Hanun had succeed his father as king of Ammon, but his insult had provoked a disastrous war with Israel, in which he was deposed (2Sa 10:1 ff). Shobi was evidently a younger prince who was placed over the conquered country by David.
Others were Machir of Lo-debar, who had nourished and cared for the exiled Mephibosheth for may years, and Barzillai a rich Gileadite of Rogelim. This place was some fifty miles north of Mahanaim, in upper Gilead, which had been allotted to the half-tribe of Manasseh. These men recognized the need of the fugitive king and came to his aid.
A few lessons include 1) Wise counsel from man’s standpoint is often very foolish in God’s view; 2) foolish proposals that cater to a person’s pride will usually be accepted by the proud; 3) God will overrule the attempts of men to frustrate His will; 4) sadly many wise men go to their deaths tragically because they left God out of their plans; 5) God will provide for His children the things they need.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(24) Mahanaim.See Note on 2Sa. 2:8. The same reasons which made it a favourable place for the capital of Ish-bosheth, recommended it also as a place of refuge to David and a rallying point for his adherents.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
The Two Opposing Armies Prepare For Battle (17:24-18:4a).
Just as Absalom had come to Jerusalem (2Sa 16:15), so David came to Mahanaim. Mahanaim had been the royal city of Ish-bosheth. Now it would welcome David. It would seem clear that Transjordan had not sided with Absalom. Absalom consequently crossed the Jordan at the head of his army (just as Hushai had advised) ready to meet David whose men, however, would not allow him to expose himself at the head of his army. So the battle was set, but here it was David who was receiving assistance from all around, including from Ammon. The rebellion had not taken hold in Transjordan.
Analysis.
a
b And Absalom set Amasa over the host instead of Joab. Now Amasa was the son of a man, whose name was Ithra the Israelite, who went in to Abigal the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah, Joab’s mother (2Sa 17:25).
c And Israel and Absalom encamped in the land of Gilead (2Sa 17:26).
d And it came about when David was come to Mahanaim, that Shobi the son of Nahash of Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and Machir the son of Ammiel of Lodebar, and Barzillai the Gileadite of Rogelim, brought beds, and basins, and earthen vessels, and wheat, and barley, and meal, and parched grain, and beans, and lentils, and parched pulse, and honey, and butter, and sheep, and cheese of the herd, for David, and for the people who were with him, to eat, for they said, “The people are hungry, and weary, and thirsty, in the wilderness” (2Sa 17:27).
c And David numbered the people who were with him, and set captains of thousands and captains of hundreds over them (2Sa 18:1).
b And David sent forth the people, a third part under the hand of Joab, and a third part under the hand of Abishai the son of Zeruiah, Joab’s brother, and a third part under the hand of Ittai the Gittite (2Sa 18:2 a).
a And the king said to the people, “I will surely go forth with you myself also.” But the people said, “You shall not go forth, for if we flee away, they will not care for us; neither if half of us die, will they care for us; but you are worth ten thousand of us, therefore now it is better that you be ready to succour us out of the city.” And the king said to them, “What seems best to you I will do” (2Sa 18:2-4 a).
Note that in ‘a’ Absalom is at the head of his men and will venture into battle (as advised by Hushai), while in the parallel when David attempts to go forth with his people they will not allow him to do so. We already observe the difference between the war experience of the two opposing sides. In ‘b’ the leadership of the rebels is defined, and in the parallel the leadership of David’s forces is. In ‘c’ the rebels gather themselves together in their camp, and in the parallel David musters his own forces. Central in ‘d’ is the fact that help is flocking to David at Mahanaim from every quarter.
2Sa 17:24
‘ Then David came to Mahanaim. And Absalom passed over the Jordan, he and all the men of Israel with him.’
Here the description of large events is described succintly. David and his party arrived in Mahanaim where his household could be protected, to which help was flooding in, and from which his own army could now issue forth, organised and without having to worry about guarding the wagons. Mahanaim was a fortified city to the east of the Jordan, and was not far not far from the ford of the Jabbok (see 2Sa 2:8). It had been a refuge for Ishbosheth from the Philistines. It would now be a refuge for David from his son. Meanwhile Absalom, at the head of his army, crossed the Jordan in readiness to do battle, with the aim of doing it personally as advised by Hushai. The fact that Absalom was personally in charge is further emphasised by the parallel in the chiasmus. It was in complete contrast to David. In a civil war this factor could be important, for the whole purpose of the war was the death of the opposing royal claimant. That was why Hushai had fooled Absalom into taking a risk that he should not have taken.
2Sa 17:25
‘ And Absalom set Amasa over the host instead of Joab. Now Amasa was the son of a man, whose name was Ithra the Israelite, who went in to Abigal the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah, Joab’s mother.’
Meanwhile the host of Israel (in so far as it had followed Absalom) was placed under a new commander who had necessarily replaced Joab, who had continued his support for David. His name was Amasa. The description of his genealogy indicates some of the complications that genealogies could produce in ancient societies. We should note first of all that he is stated to have been the son of Yithra ‘the Israelite’. This unusual designation of someone as ‘the Israelite’ is so rare from our viewpoint (we would normally expect the appellation connected with an Israelite to indicate a tribal or regional derivation, e.g. the Ephraimite, the Jezreelite), that it demands a special explanation, and the most probable explanation is that it was seen as conferring an honoured recognition on one who was not by normal appellation an Israelite. In 1Ch 2:17 he is in fact called Yether the Ishmaelite. Thus ‘the Israelite’ may have been a title arising from Absalom’s aim (or the aim of someone earlier) to please and honour Amasa by officially re-designating his father as a true-born ‘Israelite’, (which he might well have been to a certain extent, even though an Ishmaelite, if his earlier forebears had been adopted sufficiently long before into Israel, just as the mixed multitude of Exo 12:38 were adopted as Israelites at Sinai). In fact, of course, many who were naturalised Israelites also bore an appellation (like Ishmaelite) that suggested that they were otherwise. It is, for example, probable that the forebears of Uriah the Hittite had become naturalised Israelites, and we could cite many other examples. So rather than seeing this as a copying error (which is so often all too easily assumed) we should probably see it as an indication of the way in which a special honour could be conferred. A man could in fact be both an Ishmaelite (by derivation) and an Israelite (by adoption). Calling him ‘the Israelite’ might therefore have been seen as conferring on him special distinction. After all the overall term ‘the Israelites’ or ‘all Israel’ did undoubtedly include a miscellany of people from many backgrounds.
Then we note that ‘he went in to Abigal.’ The wording may suggest forcible entry and indicate the kind of case described in Deu 22:28-29, in which case he might have been discreetly adopted, as an Ishmaelite, into the family into which he then married, thus becoming ‘the Israelite’. (On the other hand, ‘went in to’ does indicate normal sexual intercourse in 1Ch 2:21; 1Ch 7:23, so that this might be reading in something that is not there). Abigal is then described as the daughter of Nahash. She is probably called Abigail in 1Ch 2:17, where she appears to be the daughter of Jesse. Which then is correct? The answer is that both might be correct. Her true father may have been Nahash, and her father by adoption (when he married her widowed mother) Jesse. The same may also have been true of Zeruiah. (The fact that Nahash of Rabbah in 2Sa 17:27 has to be distinguished by the addition of ‘of Rabbah’ serves as corroboration of the fact that the mention of a Nahash here is correct). It is a reminder that the derivations of women were not seen as having the same importance as those of men. We do not know the name of David’s mother, and Zeruiah and/or Abigail may well have been his adopted half-sisters. Further speculation is groundless and unnecessary as it can lead nowhere, being merely surmise. But it does serve to demonstrate that we should be wary before we start talking about ‘errors’ when the problem might simply be our lack of knowledge.
2Sa 17:26
‘ And Israel and Absalom encamped in the land of Gilead.’
Having crossed the Jordan, Israel and Absalom encamped in ‘the land of Gilead’. The placing of Absalom’s name after Israel may have been in order to underline the fact that Absalom was with the Israelite army, just as Hushai (and therefore YHWH) had ‘advised’. Thus YHWH’s purpose was seen as going forward to its destined end.
The designation ‘Gilead’ was used in so many ways that it was a term of wide meaning. It could often be seen as covering a large part, or even the whole, of Israelite Transjordan. Here, however, the intention was probably to indicate a smaller region in the north, within relative striking distance of Mahanaim.
2Sa 17:27
‘ And it came about when David was come to Mahanaim, that Shobi the son of Nahash of Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and Machir the son of Ammiel of Lodebar, and Barzillai the Gileadite of Rogelim, brought beds, and basins, and earthen vessels, and wheat, and barley, and meal, and parched grain, and beans, and lentils, and parched pulse, and honey, and butter, and sheep, and cheese of the herd, for David, and for the people who were with him, to eat, for they said, “The people are hungry, and weary, and thirsty, in the wilderness.”
Meanwhile David’s cause was prospering. His support included that of the royal family of Ammon, and some of the wealthiest Israelites in Transjordan. Their support would undoubtedly include men whom they would put at David’s disposal. Thus Shobi, the son of Nahash of Rabbah, the capital of Ammon, brought provisions for him, almost certainly on behalf of the royal family of Ammon, while Machir, a clan leader from Lo-debar and firm Saulide (he had protected Mephibosheth), and Barzillai, another influential Israelite from Gilead, brought provisions from their respective areas. The impression intended to be given is that the whole of Transjordan were flocking to David’s side, and were expressing it in practical ways. To a certain extent David was now reaping his reward for the mercy that he had shown to the house of Saul, while Shobi may well have been made vassal king by David in the place of Hanun (2Sa 12:26-31)
2Sa 18:1
‘ And David numbered the people who were with him, and set captains of thousands and captains of hundreds over them.’
This was the point at which David numbered and marshalled his forces, which were now seemingly considerably larger, no doubt supplemented by men from Transjordan, and loyal subjects flocking over the Jordan. Dividing them into units of ‘thousands’ and ‘hundreds’, he would set over them experienced commanders and sub-commanders who would prepare them for the battle ahead. These would all be officers experienced in fighting under all conditions. He was no longer on the run, and was now ready to fight back. The situation foreseen both by Ahithophel and Hushai had come to fruition.
2Sa 18:2
‘ And David sent forth the people, a third part under the hand of Joab, and a third part under the hand of Abishai the son of Zeruiah, Joab’s brother, and a third part under the hand of Ittai the Gittite. And the king said to the people, “I will surely go forth with you myself also.” ’
His forces were then divided up into three main sections, each commanded by an experienced general (something which Absalom could not match). The first was Joab, the second Abishai his brother, both of whom were totally committed to David and had been with him since his wilderness days, and the third was the noble Ittai the Gittite, the Philistine mercenary leader who had earlier committed himself to David (2Sa 15:19-22). It was a fearsome combination.
2Sa 18:3
‘ But the people said, “You shall not go forth, for if we flee away, they will not care for us; neither if half of us die, will they care for us; but you are worth ten thousand of us, therefore now it is better that you be ready to succour us out of the city.” ’
And crucially ‘the people’ would not allow David to risk his life in the fighting. In view of the fact that it was a civil war the preservation of his life was rightly seen as paramount. It was for him that they were fighting. Once he was dead there would be no point in continuing the fight, for it was not nation fighting nation, but one single nation warring over the kingship. Furthermore they knew that if David was not with them they would be able to fight a normal battle, knowing that if they had to flee they would not necessarily be relentlessly sought out by those who knew that David was with them and had to be found at any cost. It would thus relieve the intensity of the battle on all fronts. And that brings out the folly of Absalom in personally leading Israel (on Hushai’s, and YHWH’s, ‘advice’). He was making himself the target at which all efforts would be aimed, and on which the intensest focus would be directed, simply because once he was dead the rebellion would be at an end.
Besides, as they further pointed out, they wanted David to be in the city so that he could direct any necessary operations in support of any section of his forces that might seem to require it. They had full confidence in his overall generalship, and knew that he could be depended on to make the right decisions. Absalom might still have the advantage in numbers, but he was clearly going to be outmanoeuvred on all flanks by David and his experienced generals.
2Sa 18:4 a
‘And the king said to them, “What seems best to you I will do.”
Acknowledging his people’s love and concern, David bowed to their will. In accordance with their wish he would take his stance behind the battle area, ready to intervene if and where necessary.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
3. The Civil War
2Sa 17:24 to 2Sa 18:33 [2Sa 19:1]
a. David at Mahanaim. 2Sa 17:24-29
24Then [And] David came to Mahanaim. And Absalom passed over Jordan, he and all the men of Israel with him. 25And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab, which [and] Amasa was a mans son,13 whose name was Ithra, an Israelite [the Ishmaelite], that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister 26to Zeruiah, Joabs mother. So [And] Israel and Absalom pitched in the land of Gilead. 27And it came to pass, when David was come to Mahanaim, that Shobi the son of Nahash of Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and Machir the son of 28Ammiel of Lo-debar, and Barzillai the Gileadite of Rogelim, Brought14 beds, and basons, and earthen vessels, and wheat, and barley, and flour, and parched corn, and beans, and lentiles, and parched pulse [corn], 29And honey, and butter [curds], and sheep, and cheese of kine, for David, and for the people that were with him, to eat; for they said, The people is [got15] hungry, and weary, and thirsty in the wilderness.
b. The battle in the forest of Ephraim. 2Sa 18:1-8
1And David numbered [mustered] the people that were with him, and set captains of thousands and captains of hundreds over them. 2And David sent forth [gave16] a third part of the people under [into4] the hand of Joab, and a third part under [into] the hand of Abishai the son of Zeruiah, Joabs brother, and a third part under [into] the hand of Ittai the Gittite. And the king said unto the people, 3I will surely [om. surely] go forth with you myself also. But [And] the people answered [said], Thou shalt not go forth; for if we flee away, they will not care for [pay attention to17] us; neither [and] if half of us die, will they care for us [they will not pay attention to us]; but now thou [for thou5] art worth ten thousand of us; therefore [and] now it is better that thou succour us out of the city. 4And the king said unto them, What seemeth you best I will do. And the king stood by the gate-side, and all the people came out [went forth] by hundreds and by thousands. 5And the king commanded Joab and Abishai and Ittai, saying, Deal gently for my sake with the young man, even with [om. even with] Absalom. And all the people 6heard when the king gave all the captains charge concerning Absalom. So [And] the people went out into the field against Israel; and the battle was [or, took place] 7in the wood of Ephraim. Where [And] the people of Israel were slain [smitten there] before the servants of David, and there was there18 a great slaughter that day 8of twenty thousand men. For [And] the battle was there scattered over the face of all the country; and the wood devoured more people that day than the sword devoured.
c. Absalom murdered by Joab. 2Sa 18:9-18
9And Absalom met19 the servants of David. And Absalom rode [was riding] upon a [the] mule, and the mule went under the thick boughs of a [the] great oak [terebinth], and his head caught hold of the oak [terebinth], and he was taken up between the heaven and the earth, and the mule that was under him went away 10[passed on]. And a certain man saw it, and told Joab, and said, Behold, I saw Absalom hanged in an oak [the terebinth]. And Joab said unto the man that told 11him, And behold, thou sawest him, and why didst thou not smite him there to the ground? and I would have given thee ten shekels [pieces] of silver, and a girdle. 12And the man said unto Joab, Though20 I should receive a thousand shekels [pieces] of silver in mine hand, yet would I not put forth my hand against the kings son; for in our hearing the king charged thee and Abishai and Ittai, saying, Beware 13that none touch the young man Absalom. Otherwise21 I should have wrought falsehood against mine own life; for there is no matter hid from the king, and thou thyself wouldest have set thyself against me. 14Then said Joab [And Joab said], I may not tarry thus with thee. And he took three darts22 in his hand, and thrust them through [into] the heart of Absalom, while he was yet alive in the midst of the oak [terebinth]. 15And ten young men that bare Joabs armour compassed about and smote Absalom, and slew him. 16And Joab blew the trumpet, and the people 17returned from pursuing after Israel, for Joab held back23 the people. And24 they took Absalom, and cast him into a [the] great pit in the wood, and laid a very great 18heap of stones upon him; and all Israel fled, every one to his tent. Now [And] Absalom in his lifetime had taken and reared up for himself a [the] pillar,25 which is in the kings dale; for he said, I have no son to keep my name in remembrance; and he called the pillar after his own name, and it is called unto this day, Absaloms place [monument].
d. The tidings of joy and grief. Davids lament over Absalom. 2Sa 17:19-29 [2Sa 19:1]
19Then said Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok [And Ahimaaz the son of Zadok said], Let me now run, and bear the king tidings how [om. how] that the Lord [Jehovah] hath avenged [delivered] him of [from] his enemies. 20And Joab said unto him, Thou shalt not bear tidings this day, but thou shalt bear tidings another day; but this day thou shalt bear no tidings, because26 the kings son is dead. 21Then said Joab to Cushi [And Joab said to the Cushite], Go, tell the king what thou hast seen. And Cushi [the Cushite] bowed himself unto Joab and ran. 22Then said Ahimaaz the son of Zadok [And Ahimaaz the son of Zadok said] yet again to Joab, But, however, let me, I pray thee, also run after Cushi [the Cushite]. And Joab said, Wherefore wilt thou run, my son, seeing that thou hast no tidings ready.27 23But howsoever, said he,28 let me run. And he said unto him, Run. Then [And] Ahimaaz ran by the way of the plain, and overran Cushi [the Cushite].
24And David sat [was sitting] between the two gates; and the watchman went up to the roof over [of] the gate unto the wall, and lifted up his eyes, and looked 25[saw], and behold a man running alone. And the watchman cried [called] and told the king. And the king said, If he be alone, there is tidings in his mouth. And he came apace and drew near [he came nearer and nearer]. 26And the watchman saw another man running; and the watchman called unto the porter,29 and said, Behold, another [om. another, ins. a] man running alone. And the king said, He also bringeth tidings. 27And the watchman said, Methinketh the running of the foremost is like the running of Ahimaaz the son of Zadok. And the king said, He is a good man, and cometh with good tidings. 28And Ahimaaz called, and said unto the king, All is well [Peace!] And he fell down to the earth upon his face before the king, and said, Blessed be the Lord [Jehovah] thy God, which hath delivered up the men that lifted up their hand against my lord the king. 29And the king said, Is the young man Absalom safe? And Ahimaaz answered [said] When Joab sent the kings servant and me [om. the kings servant and me30] thy servant, I saw a great tumult, but I knew not what it was. 30And the king said unto him [om. unto him], Turn aside, and stand here. And he turned aside and stood still. 31And behold, Cushi [the Cushite] came; and Cushi [the Cushite] said, Tidings, my lord the king, for the Lord [Let my lord the king receive the tidings that Jehovah] hath avenged [delivered] thee this day of [from] all them that rose up against thee. 32And the king said unto Cushi [the Cushite], Is the young man Absalom safe? And Cushi answered [the Cushite said], The enemies of my lord the king, and all that rise against thee to do thee hurt [for evil] be as that [the] young man is [om. is]. [Heb. 19:1]. 33And the king was much moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept; and as he went, thus he said, O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! would God [O that] I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
a. 2Sa 17:24-29. David at Mahanaim
2Sa 17:24. To Mahanaim, east of the Jordan (which he had crossed in the night, passing through the Jordan-valley, 2Sa 17:22), probably a fortified place, north of the Jabbok, suitable for a rendezvous for gathering an army, whence it was chosen by Abner as Ishbosheths capital-city. See on 2Sa 2:8. [A well-provisioned country, friendly to David (Bib.-Com.).Tr.]Absaloms passage over the Jordan took place when he had had time to gather (according to Hushais counsel) all the men of Israel, that is, all the military force of the country (comp. 2Sa 17:11 sq.). 2Sa 17:25. Whether Amasa, appointed by Absalom captain in place of Joab (who remained faithful to David), is the same with the Amasai of 1Ch 12:17-18 (Ewald, Bertheau), must be left undetermined. If this conjecture were correct, the man, so cordially received by David (1Ch 12:17), would have committed grave wrong in attaching himself to Absalom (Then.). Elsewhere the phrase son of a man (or woman) is defined by a following appositional word or genitive (Bttcher); but here the defining phrase is introduced by and [and his name was Ithra], so that we have the independent assertion: son of a man, which is meaningless. Perhaps the text originally had: whose name was ( ), and the relative pronoun has fallen out (from the following ). Bttcher conjectures that foreigner () stood after man, comp. 2Sa 1:13 [it would then read: Amasa was the son of a foreigner, and his name was Ithra.Tr.].With this would agree that Ithra was an Ishmaelite, for so we must here read instead of Israelite, after 1Ch 2:17, where Jether is shortened form of Ithra (Sept.: the Jezreelite, Jos 19:18, so Davids wife Ahinoam, 1Sa 28:3). The designation of Ithra as an Israelite would be superfluous; but the statement that he was an Ishmaelite serves to illustrate the fact that Amasa was an illegitimate son of Abigail. If Nahash be taken as a mans name, and the word sister in apposition with Abigail, then Zeruiah and Abigail are daughters of Davids mother by her first marriage with Nahash, step-daughters of Jesse, and on this side step-sisters of David (so the older expositors, Michaelis and Schultz). But Nahash may, with Movers and Thenius (who refers to 1Ch 4:12, where it is the name of a city), be taken as a womans name, here a second wife of Jesse. In this case also the two, Zeruiah and Abigail, would be Davids step-sisters. Clericus supposes Nahash to be another name, or a surname of Jesse; Capellus would read Jesse instead of Nahash (after a variant of the Sept.); Bttcher puts sister in apposition with Nahash, which he regards as a womans name. [It is an old Jewish view that Nahash is another name of Jesse. For many persons, says Kimchi, had two names, and this (Nahash) signifies a serpent. From whence it is that when Isaiah (2Sa 14:29) saith: out of the serpents root (or, the root of Nahash) shall come forth a cockatrice or basilisk, the Chaldee paraphrase expounds it, out of the root of Jesse shall come forth the Messiah; who was typified by the brazen serpent in the wilderness (Patrick). This would be baseless allegorizing, even if Nahash were proved to be another name of Jesse, which is not probable. The omission of the name Nahash in 1Ch 2:16 is against the view that it belongs to a daughter of Jesse; more probably it is the name of the otherwise unknown father of Abigail. See Text. and Gram.Tr.]
2Sa 17:26. Absalom pitched his camp in Gilead. Nothing is said of a siege (Ewald) of Mahanaim. Against this view is the fact that David, as appears from what follows, here got supplies of men and provisions, formed an army, and organized it in three divisions, which required time. It is hence evident that David was able to establish himself strongly at Mahanaim without being attacked by Absaloms army.
2Sa 17:27-29. David receives reinforcements and provisions. Shobi, the son of Nahash, from Rabbah, the capital of the Ammonites; this last statement guards against the possible error that Shobi was a brother of Abigail (Thenius). Rabbah, on the lower Jabbok (2Sa 12:26-31), belonged to Davids empire, and now remained true to him. Shobi, if not an Israelite, was perhaps a son of the deceased Ammonite king Nahash and brother of the Hanun (2Sa 10:1 sqq.) conquered by David (Keil), or a member of the royal house of Ammon favored by David (Ewald). [Shobi was hardly tributary king of Ammon (Bib.-Com.), else he would have been called king.Tr.]Machir, son of Ammiel of Lodebar, who had received Jonathans lame son Mephibosheth into his house (2Sa 9:4).Barzillai, a Gileadite of Rogelim, an otherwise unknown place, mentioned besides here only in 2Sa 19:32. The Sept. (alone among the ancient versions) inserts ten before beds and before basons; but this does not agree with the connection, since the articles mentioned were brought by several persons for the people (2Sa 17:29), and therefore certainly in considerable quantities. Ten would have been too few for Davids court and army (Ew.); the insertion of this number in the Sept. was perhaps suggested by 1Sa 17:17-18. Whether they were fine mattress-beds (Ew.) must be left undecided. Basons, metallic vessels for preparing food. Parched food (), comp. 1Sa 17:17. As not only corn-grains, but also pulse-beans were roasted (Bochart, Hier. II. 582, Harmar, Beobacht. I. 255 sq.), the second word may refer to pulse, of which, as well as of corn, two kinds are named; and therefore the omission of the second () as an error (Sept., Syr., Arab.) is unnecessary [Eng. A. V. retains it, and renders: parched pulse]. The last term in the list ( ) is variously translated; Vulg.: fat calves; Theod.: sucking calves; Chald., Syr., Rabbin.: cheese of kine (cows) [so Eng. A. V.]. The last sense agrees better with the preceding words [Eng. A. V. incorrectly: butter]; the first sense accords with the sheep (small cattle). Sept. transfers the Heb. word: saphoth of oxen. The meaning of the Heb. phrase is doubtful. The verb in this sentence (brought) stands strangely and unnaturally after the long list of articles; it is therefore better, with Sept., Vulg., Syr., Arab., to supply a verb-form (partcp.) at the beginning of 2Sa 17:28, and then to insert and before the verb in 2Sa 17:29 : they brought beds, etc., and gave them to David. [Eng. A. V. simply transfers the verb to the beginning of 2Sa 17:28. On the reading see Text. and Gram. Patrick calls attention to the food of the times (only one sort of meat) as indicated by the list in 2Sa 17:28-29, and Bib.-Com. remarks that Gods care for David was evident in the kindness of these people.Tr.]
For the HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL and HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL sections, see 1Sa 18:1 ff.
Footnotes:
[13][2Sa 17:25. Probably we should read: the son of a stranger (foreigner) ( , or ). Instead of Israelite editors now generally read: Ishmaelite (1Ch 2:17). The old Jewish view is that Ithra or Jithra or Jether (another name for Jesse) was an Israelite by birth, but had lived long among the Ishmaelites, or was an Ishmaelite by birth and an Israelite by religion (a proselyte), and that the phrase son of a man = a man of distinction (so Philippson); but this is less probable than that our text is corrupt. Wordsworth supposes that the name Israelite may be used in distinction from Judahite, to show that Jithra did not belong to the tribe of Judah; but Cahen remarks that this designation (Israelite) seems not to have come into use till after the division of the kingdom.Wellhausen thinks that daughter of Nahash is for son of Nahash, and is an insertion from 2Sa 17:27. a not improbable supposition; the statement would then be: Amasa was the son of a foreigner named Jethra the Ishmaelite, who went in unto Abigail, sister to Zeruiah, Joabs mother. Abigail and Zeruiah would then be full sisters to David, and Amasa illegitimate son of Abigail, and cousin of Joab.The reading of Sept. and Vulg.: Jezreelite is less probable than the Ishmaelite of 1Ch 2:17, because our text indicates (by the maimed phrase: son of a man) that Jethra was a non-Israelite. The Arabic reading is noticeable: and Absalom made his lance-bearer in place of Ahithophel, a man named Amsa, son of a rich man named Jether.Tr.]
[14][2Sa 17:28. The verb does not occur in the Heb. till 2Sa 17:29, whence it is proposed to insert (with the versions) a verb or participle () at the beginning of 2Sa 17:28. The verb in 2Sa 17:29 may be retained, and would, indeed, serve to govern the nouns in 2Sa 17:28, but for the phrase for the people to eat, since the things mentioned in that verse are not all eatables. The difficulty, however, still exists if (with Erdmann) we supply the copula before the brought of 2Sa 17:29; we may then say that the word eat is used of the principal part of the things brought (in which case it will not be absolutely necessary to supply the verb at the beginning of 2Sa 17:28), or, we may suppose that the articles last mentioned (2Sa 17:29, together with the parched corn at end of verse 28, the repetition of which would thus be explained) were brought ready for immediate eating, the others (2Sa 17:28) as a store of provisions.The word corn is retained in its proper sense = grain, though liable to be misunderstood by American readers for maize.Tr.]
[15][2Sa 17:29. The people were not at Mahanaim, and had gotten hungry during the march through the wilderness.Tr.]
[16][2Sa 18:2. The verb does not mean sent forth, nor had the army yet begun its march (2Sa 18:6); the phrase means either: to send by the hand of some one, or: to give over to some one, here the latter.The adverb surely is too strong for the signification of the Infinitive Absolute.Tr.]
[17][2Sa 18:3. Literally: set heart on us. thou instead of now is read by Sept., Vulg., Sym., and by one or two MSS.Syr. has now; its text here (followed by Arab.) is badly maimed.Instead of out of the city Sept., an anonymous Greek version and Vulg., have in the city, which is perhaps merely an explanatory rendering. The absence of the Art. in creates a difficulty. Bib.-Com., taking as Hiph. participle of , proposes to render: that thou be to us a stirrer-up in helping us, i.e., that thou help us by stirring us up. But the construction here does not favor this rendering; the verb (Hiphil) is followed by the Acc. of the person or thing roused, and frequently by (against) with the person against whom it is roused; the Infin. here also would from the construction rather have for its subject the roused than the rouser. It is better to supply the Art. , or else to read .Kethib for Hiph. Infin.; Qeri Qal.Tr.]
[18][2Sa 18:7. Omitted by Sept. as unnecessary. The first there in this verse is retained in Sept. (not omitted, as Wellh. says).Tr.]
[19][2Sa 18:9. Wellhausen: from the connection with [in the presence of] and from 2Sa 18:10 it appears that the text is incorrect; read perhaps [and Absalom feared]. But the construction is supported by Deu 22:6 (Bib.-Com.), and the statement of 2Sa 18:10 is properly explained by this statement that Absalom in his flight met, accidentally came across some of Davids men.Tr.]
[20][2Sa 18:12. Read the Qeri or (= ).Though I should weigh () into (upon) my hand; instead of the Act. Particip. Wellhausen reads the Pass. : though there were weighed into my hand, but the man might easily conceive of the weighing as done by himself.Tr.]
[21][2Sa 18:13. Eng. A. V. here follows the Qeri (my life, Kethib his life). The whole verse is difficult in text and meaning. The line of thought seems to favor the marginal reading against his life; but it is then difficult to see whether the man presents two reasons for not killing Absalom: 1) his regard for the kings command (2Sa 18:12), 2) his fear of the consequences to himself (2Sa 17:13), or only the former. Moreover whether the last phrase in the verse is to be rendered thou wilt have to stand before him (to give account, or testimony), or thou wilt stand (appear) against me is uncertain; the latter is more probable. In the first part of our verse the Sept. had a different text from the Heb.: guard me the young man Absalom, not to do wrong against his life, which would simplify the mans address. We may adopt the reading ( instead of ), or keep the Heb. text and render: or if I acted falsely against his life, then nothing is concealed from the king, and thou wouldest take stand against me.Tr.]
[22][2Sa 18:14. The word () not dart, but staff, and is contrasted with the word spear () in 2Sa 23:21. Either, then, we must suppose Joab to have used an uncommon weapon (Erdmann) or we must change the text. Erdmann states the objections to Thenius proposed reading , and it would be hard to account for an alteration of or into .Instead of: in the heart () of the terebinth. Thenius proposes to read after Syr. and Vulg.: hung in () the terebinth, for which there seems no necessity; the renderings of these two versions are merely interpretations.Tr.]
[23][2Sa 18:16. Sept., Vulg., Thenius, Keil, Erdmann render: Joab wished to spare the people, but the rendering of Eng. A. V. seems better because the idea of wish is not contained in the Hebrew, and the phrase the people in connection with Joab more naturally refers to Davids army.Tr.]
[24][2Sa 18:17. Wellhausen objects to the order of 2Sa 17:14-17, because it represents Absalom, already half-dead from hanging, as surviving Joabs stabbing with the staves or darts, and finally meeting his death from the young men. He would make the last word of 2Sa 18:15 and 2Sa 18:16 follow 2Sa 18:14, and then insert 2Sa 18:15; 2Sa 18:17, so as to read: 14, Joab took three darts, etc., in the terebinth, and killed him, 16 and blew the trumpet, and held back the people. 15 and ten young men compassed about Absalom, 17 and took him, etc. Though this is ingenious, it is not required by the text. Joabs wounds did not kill Absalom, and the zealous armor-bearers finished him; then Joab called in his soldiers, and they (indef. subject = Passive) took Absalom and cast him into the pit.Tr.]
[25][2Sa 18:18. This word has the sign of determination (), and yet is not followed by a determinative noun; whence Wellhausen would supply (in place of following ), and render: took the pillar of the Asherah [idol-image] in the kings dale and set it up. But (apart from the fact that does not occur after a construct , in 1Ki 14:23; 1Ki 17:10 the two words are used co-ordinately) this is an example of a word determined by a relative clause, as in Gen 40:3. See Ew. 277 d, 2), and Ges. 116.At the end of the verse = monument, a different word from that rendered pillar.Tr.]
[26][2Sa 18:20. Eng. A. V. here adopts the Qeri : for the kings son is dead. Syr. and Chald., omitting the , render: thou wilt not announce except that the kings son is dead, which, however, the present Heb. will not bear. usually means therefore, but here = because (= ).Tr.]
[27][2Sa 18:22. Eng. A. V. takes = to thee, and Qal. Act. Particip. fem. of , = finding, ready: Erdmann renders the Particip. reward-finding, Philippson: profitable; Wellhausen takes it as Hoph. of () = brought out, paid out (Gen 38:25); Bib.-Com.: sufficing, which commends itself as appropriate.According to Bttcher, it is only when the pronoun is emphatic that we can render to thee; and here it is better = go thou (= and if thou go). But the pronoun may be emphatic here.Tr.]
[28][2Sa 18:23. Insert at the beginning of the verse.Tr.]
[29][2Sa 18:26. Instead of porter Erdmann, Then., Bttcher, Wellhausen (after Sept. and Syr.) read gate, which, however, is not necessary, and this statement is not in conflict with 2Sa 18:25, where the watchman seems to speak directly to the king.After the second Thenius and Wellhausen (Sept., Vulg., Syr.) insert another; but Bttcher properly remarks that this would naturally be inserted by the versions (so Eng. A. V. inserts it) from the preceding part of the verse, while its omission could not so well be accounted for.Tr.]
[30][2Sa 18:29. Erdmann renders as Eng. A. V., but the construction, as it stands, is awkward and improbable. The simplest procedure seems to be that of Wellhausen, to omit (though it is not easy to account for its insertion). Some (so Bib.-Com.) prefer the Vulg. rendering, on which see Erdmann in the Exposition. Related questions, such as the person of the Cushite, will there be referred to.Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
(24) Then David came to Mahanaim. And Absalom passed over Jordan, he and all the men of Israel with him. (25) And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a man’s son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab’s mother. (26) So Israel and Absalom pitched in the land of Gilead. (27) And it came to pass, when David was come to Mahanaim, that Shobi the son of Nahash of Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and Machir the son of Ammiel of Lodebar, and Barzillai the Gileadite of Rogelim, (28) Brought beds, and basons, and earthen vessels, and wheat, and barley, and flour, and parched corn, and beans, and lentiles, and parched pulse, (29) And honey, and butter, and sheep, and cheese of kine, for David, and for the people that were with him, to eat: for they said, The people is hungry, and weary, and thirsty, in the wilderness.
We have here a view of the different armies. But behold, Reader, him the LORD provided for his servant, and raised up friends to support him in the wilderness. But oh! how infinitely short are these things, to what the LORD JESUS is doing for his little army, in all their wilderness dispensations. Yes! dear LORD! thou knowest that thy people are hungry, and weary, and thirsty; but thou givest them that bread of life and that water of life in secret, which is thyself; and thou art to them, that rest wherewith thou causeth the weary to rest, and their refreshment; of which the honey, and butter, and sheep, and beds, and basons, and parched corn, given to David, were but faint resemblances! Joh 6:51 , etc.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2Sa 17:24 Then David came to Mahanaim. And Absalom passed over Jordan, he and all the men of Israel with him.
Ver. 24. Then David came to Mahanaim. ] Where Jacob sometime had met with a double camp of angels, that made a lane for him, as it were. Gen 32:2 The remembrance of this was some relief doubtless to distressed David; for there God spoke with us, Hos 12:4 as he did likewise when he said to Joshua, “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.” Heb 13:5
And Absalom passed over Jordan.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
all. Figure of speech Synecdoche (of Genus). App-6. The whole put for the greater part
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Mahanaim: 2Sa 2:8, Gen 32:2, Jos 13:26
Reciprocal: Jos 21:38 – Mahanaim 2Sa 17:22 – and they passed 2Sa 19:3 – into the city 1Ki 4:14 – Mahanaim 1Ch 6:80 – Mahanaim
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2Sa 17:24. David came to Mahanaim A place in the country of Gilead, bordering upon the land of the Ammonites, lately the residence of Ish- bosheth, and anciently the resting-place of Jacob; where God had placed him under the protection of two hosts of angels. The kings distress here, at this time, would naturally lead him to reflect on the distress of his great ancestor in the same place; when, being encompassed with a weak and helpless family of wives and children, as David now was, he received information that Esau was coming against him with a strong band of men. And Absalom passed over Jordan Not immediately, but as soon as all the men of Israel, who are here said to be with him, were gathered together to him, according to Hushais counsel, which required some time, during which David had an opportunity to strengthen himself, by gathering an army also.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
CHAPTER XXI.
FROM JERUSALEM TO MAHANAIM.
2Sa 16:1-14; 2Sa 17:15-22 and 2Sa 17:24-26.
AS David proceeds on his painful journey, there flows from his heart a gentle current of humble contrite, gracious feeling. If recent events have thrown any doubt on the reality of his goodness, this fragrant narrative will restore the balance. Many a man would have been beside himself with rage at the treatment he had undergone. Many another man would have been restless with terror, looking behind him every other moment to see if the usurper’s army was not hastening in pursuit of him. It is touching to see David, mild, self-possessed, thoroughly humble, and most considerate of others. Adversity is the element in which he shines; it is in prosperity he falls; in adversity he rises beautifully. After the humbling events in his life to which our attention has been lately called, it is a relief to witness the noble bearing of the venerable saint amid the pelting of this most pitiless storm.
It was when David was a little past the summit of Mount Olivet, and soon after he had sent back Hushai, that Ziba came after him, – that servant of Saul that had told him of Mephibosheth the son of Jonathan, and whom he had appointed to take charge of the property that had belonged to Saul, now made over to Mephibosheth. The young man himself was to be as one of the king’s sons, and was to eat at the royal table. Ziba’s account of him was, that when he heard of the insurrection he remained at Jerusalem, in the expectation that on that very day the kingdom of his father would be restored to him. It can hardly be imagined that Mephibosheth was so silly as to think or say anything of the kind. Either Ziba must have been slandering him now, or Mephibosheth must have slandered Ziba when David returned (see 2Sa 19:24-30). With that remarkable impartiality which distinguishes the history, the facts and the statements of the parties are recorded as they occurred, but we are left to form our own judgment regarding them. All things considered, it is likely that Ziba was the slanderer and Mephibosheth the injured man. Mephibosheth was too feeble a man, both in mind and in body, to be forming bold schemes by which he might benefit from the insurrection. We prefer to believe that the son of Jonathan had so much of his father’s nobility as to cling to David in the hour of his trial, and be desirous of throwing in his lot with him. If, however, Ziba was a slanderer and a liar, the strange thing about him is that he should have taken this opportunity to give effect to his villainy. It is strange that, with a soul full of treachery, he should have taken the trouble to come after David at all, and still more that he should have made a contribution to his scanty stores. We should have expected such a man to remain with Absalom, and look to him for the reward of unrighteousness. He brought with him for David’s use a couple of asses saddled, and two hundred loaves of bread, and an hundred clusters of raisins, and an hundred of summer fruits, and a bottle of wine. We get a vivid idea of the extreme haste with which David and his company must have left Jerusalem, and their destitution of the very necessaries of life as they fled, from this catalogue of Ziba’s contributions. Not even were there beasts of burden “for the king’s household” – even Bathsheba and Solomon may have been going on foot. David was evidently impressed by the gift, and his opinion of Mephibosheth was not so high as to prevent him from believing that he was capable of the course ascribed to him. Yet we cannot but think there was undue haste in his at once transferring to Ziba the whole of Mephibosheth’s property. We can only say, in vindication of David, that his confidence even in those who had been most indebted to him had received so rude a shock in the conduct of Absalom, that he was ready to say in his haste, “All men are liars;” he was ready to suspect every man of deserting him, except those that gave palpable evidence that they were on his side. In this number it seemed at the moment that Ziba was, while Mephibosheth was not; and trusting to his first impression, and acting with the promptitude necessary in war, he made the transfer. It is true that afterwards he discovered his mistake; and some may think that when he did he did not make a sufficient rectification. He directed Ziba and Mephibosheth to divide the property between them; but in explanation it has been suggested that this was equivalent to the old arrangement, by which Ziba was to cultivate the land, and Mephibosheth to receive the fruits; and if half the produce went to the proprietor, and the other half to the cultivator, the arrangement may have been a just and satisfactory one after all.
But if Ziba sinned in the way of smooth treachery, Shimei, the next person with whom David came in contact, sinned not less in the opposite fashion, by his outrageous insolence and invective. It is said of this man that he was of the family of the house of Saul, and that fact goes far to account for his atrocious behaviour. We get a glimpse of that inveterate jealousy of David which during the long period of his reign slept in the bosom of the family of Saul, and which seemed now. like a volcano, to burst out all the more fiercely for its long suppression. When the throne passed from the family of Saul, Shimei would of course experience a great social fall. To be no longer connected with the royal family would be a great mortification to one who was vain of such distinctions. Outwardly, he was obliged to bear his fall with resignation, but inwardly the spirit of disappointment and jealousy raged in his breast. When the opportunity of revenge against David came, the rage and venom of his spirit poured out in a filthy torrent. There is no mistaking the mean nature of the man to take such an opportunity of venting his malignity on David. To trample on the fallen, to press a man when his back is at the wall, to pierce with fresh wounds the body of a stricken warrior, is the mean resource of ungenerous cowardice. But it is too much the way of the world. “If there be any quarrels, any exceptions,” says Bishop Hall, “against a man, let him look to have them laid in his dish when he fares the hardest. This practice have wicked men learned of their master, to take the utmost advantage of their afflictions.”
If Shimei had contented himself with denouncing the policy of David, the forbearance of his victim would not have been so remarkable. But Shimei was guilty of every form of offensive and provoking assault. He threw stones, he called abusive names, he hurled wicked charges against David; he declared that God was fighting against him, and fighting justly against such a man of blood, such a man of Belial. And, as if this were not enough, he stung him in the most sensitive part of his nature, reproaching him with the fact that it was his son that now reigned instead of him, because the Lord had delivered the kingdom into his hand But even all this accumulation of coarse and shameful abuse failed to ruffle David’s equanimity. Abishai, Joab’s brother, was enraged at the presumption of a fellow who had no right to take such an attitude, and whose insolence deserved a prompt and sharp castigation. But David never thirsted for the blood of foes. Even while the rocks were echoing Shimei’s charges, David gave very remarkable evidence of the spirit of a chastened child of God. He showed the same forbearance that he had shown twice on former occasions in sparing the life of Saul. “Why,” asked Abishai, ”should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go, I pray thee, and take off his head.” ”So let him curse,” was David’s answer, “because the Lord hath said unto him, Curse David.” It was but partially true that the Lord had told him to do so. The Lord had only permitted him to do it; He had only placed David in circumstances which allowed Shimei to pour out his insolence. This use of the expression, “The Lord hath said unto him,” may be a useful guide to its true meaning in some passages of Scripture where it has seemed at first as if God gave very strange directions. The pretext that Providence had afforded to Shimei was this, “Behold, my son, which came out of my bowels, seeketh my life; how much more then may this Benjamite do it? Let him alone, and let him curse, for the Lord hath bidden him. It may be that the Lord will requite me good for his cursing this day.” It is touching to remark how keenly David felt this dreadful trial as coming from his own son.
“So the struck eagle stretched upon the plain,
No more through rolling clouds to soar again,
Viewed his own feather on the fatal dart
That winged the shaft that quivered in his heart;
Keen were his pangs, but keener far to feel
He nursed the pinion which impelled the steel;
While the same plumage that had warmed his nest
Drank the last life-drop of his bleeding breast.”
But even the fact that it was his own son that was the author of all his present calamities would not have made David so meek under the outrage of Shimei if he had not felt that God was using such men as instruments to chastise him for his sins. For though God had never said to Shimei, “Curse David,” He had let him become an instrument of chastisement and humiliation against him. It was the fact of his being such an instrument in God’s hands that made the King so unwilling to interfere with him. David’s reverence for God’s appointment was like that which afterwards led our Lord to say, ”The cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink of it?” Unlike though David and Jesus were in the cause of their sufferings, yet there is a remarkable resemblance in their bearing under them. The meek resignation of David as he went out from the holy city had a strong resemblance to the meek resignation of Jesus as He was being led from the same city to Calvary. The gentle consideration of David for the welfare of his people as he toiled up Mount Olivet was parallel to the same feeling of Jesus expressed to the daughters of Jerusalem as He toiled up to Calvary. The forbearance of David to Shimei was like the spirit of the prayer – “Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do.” The overawing sense that God had ordained their sufferings was similar in both. David owed his sufferings solely to himself; Jesus owed His solely to the relation in which He had placed Himself to sinners as the Sin-bearer. It is beautiful to see David so meek and lowly under the sense of his sins – breathing the spirit of the prophet’s words, “I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower, and will watch to see what he will say unto me, and what I shall answer when I am reproved.”
There was another thought in David’s mind that helped him to bear his sufferings with meek submission. It is this that is expressed in the words, “It may be that the Lord will requite me good for his cursing this day.” He felt that, as coming from the hand of God, all that he had suffered was just and righteous. He had done wickedly, and he deserved to be humbled and chastened by God, and by such instruments as God might appoint. But the particular words and acts of these instruments might be highly unjust to him: though Shimei was God’s instrument for humiliating him, yet the curses of Shimei were alike unrighteous and outrageous; the charge that he had shed the blood of Saul’s house, and seized Saul’s kingdom by violence, was outrageously false; but it was better to bear the wrong, and leave the rectifying of it in God’s hands; for God detests unfair dealing, and when His servants receive it He will look to it and redress it in His own time and way. And this is a very important and valuable consideration for those servants of God who are exposed to abusive language and treatment from scurrilous opponents, or, what is too common in our day, scurrilous newspapers. If injustice is done them, let them, like David, trust to God to redress the wrong; God is a God of justice, and God will not see them treated unjustly. And hence that remarkable statement which forms a sort of appendix to the seven beatitudes – “Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you, and speak all manner of evil against you falsely for My name’s sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you.”
Ere we return to Jerusalem to witness the progress of events in Absalom’s camp and cabinet, let us accompany David to his resting-place beyond the Jordan. Through the counsel of Hushai, afterwards to be considered, he had reached the plains of Jordan in safety; had accomplished the passage of the river, and traversed the path on the other side as far as Mahanaim, somewhere to the south of the Lake of Gennesareth, the place where Ishbosheth had held his court. It was a singular mercy that he was able to accomplish this journey, which in the condition of his followers must have occupied several days, without opposition in front or molestation in his rear. Tokens of the Lord’s loving care were not wanting to encourage him on the way. It must have been a great relief to him to learn that Ahithophel’s proposal of an immediate pursuit had been arrested through the counsel of Hushai. It was a further token for good, that the lives of the priests’ sons, Jonathan and Ahimaaz, which had been endangered as they bore tidings for him, had been mercifully preserved. After learning the result of Hushai’s counsel, they proceeded, incautiously perhaps, to reach David, and were observed and pursued. But a friendly woman concealed them in a well, as Rahab the harlot had hid the spies in the roof of her house; and though they ran a great risk, they contrived to reach David’s camp in peace.
And when David reached Mahanaim, where he halted to await the course of events, Shobi, the son of Nahash, king of Ammon, and Machir, the son of Ammiel of Lo-debar, and Barzillai the Gileadite of Rogelim, brought beds, and basons, and earthen vessels, and wheat, and barley, and flour, and parched corn, and beans, and lentils, and parched pulse, and honey, and butter, and sheep, and cheese of kine, for David and for the people that were with him to eat; for they said. The people is hungry, and weary, and thirsty in the wilderness.” Some of those who thus befriended him were only requiting former favours. Shobi may be supposed to have been ashamed of his father’s insulting conduct when David sent messengers to comfort him on his father’s death. Machir, the son of Ammiel of Lo-debar, was the friend who had cared for Mephibosheth, and was doubtless thankful for David’s generosity to him. Of Barzillai we know nothing more than is told us here. But David could not have reckoned on the friendship of these men, nor on its taking so useful and practical a turn. The Lord’s hand was manifest in the turning of the hearts of these people to him. How hard bestead he and his followers were is but too apparent from the fact that these supplies were most welcome in their condition. And David must have derived no small measure of encouragement even from these trifling matters; they showed that God had not forgotten him, and they raised the expectation that further tokens of His love and care would not be withheld.
The district where David now was, “the other side of Jordan,” lay far apart from Jerusalem and the more frequented places in the country, and, in all probability, it was but little affected by the arts of Absalom. The inhabitants lay under strong obligations to David; in former times they had suffered most from their neighbours, Moab, Ammon, and especially Syria; and now they enjoyed a very different lot, owing to the fact that those powerful nations had been brought under David’s rule. It was a fertile district, abounding in all kinds of farm and garden produce, and therefore well adapted to support an army that had no regular means of supply. The people of this district seem to have been friendly to David’s cause. The little force that had followed him from Jerusalem would now be largely recruited; and, even to the outward sense, he would be in a far better condition to receive the assault of Absalom than on the day when he left the city.
The third Psalm, according to the superscription – and in this case there seems no cause to dispute it – was composed ”when David fled from Absalom his son.” It is a psalm of wonderful serenity and perfect trust. It begins with a touching reference to the multitude of the insurgents, and the rapidity with which they increased. Everything confirms the statement that “the conspiracy was strong, and that the people increased continually with Absalom.” We seem to understand better why David fled from Jerusalem; even there the great bulk of the people were with the usurper. We see, too, how godless and unbelieving the conspirators were – “Many there be which say of my soul, There is no help for him in God.” God was cast out of their reckoning as of no consideration in the case; it was all moonshine, his pretended trust in Him. Material forces were the only real power; the idea of God’s favour was only cant, or at best but “a devout imagination.” But the foundation of his trust was too firm to be shaken either by the multitude of the insurgents or the bitterness of their sneers. “Thou, Lord, art a shield unto me “-ever protecting me, “my glory,” – ever honouring me, “and the lifter up of mine head,” – ever setting me on high because I have known Thy name. No doubt he had felt some tumult of soul when the insurrection began. But prayer brought him tranquility. “I cried unto God with my voice, and He heard me out of His holy hill.” How real the communion must have been that brought tranquility to him amid such a sea of trouble! Even in the midst of his agitation he can lie down and sleep, and awake refreshed in mind and body. “I will not be afraid of ten thousands of the people that have set themselves against me round about.” Faith already sees his enemies defeated and receiving the doom of ungodly men. “Arise, O Lord; save me, O my God; for Thou hast smitten all mine enemies upon the cheek bone; Thou hast broken the teeth of the ungodly.” And he closes as confidently and serenely as if victory had already come – “Salvation belongeth unto the Lord; Thy blessing is upon Thy people.”
If, in this solemn crisis of his history, David is a pattern to us of meek submission, not less is he a pattern of perfect trust. He is strong in faith, giving glory to God, and feeling assured that what He has promised He is able also to perform. Deeply conscious of his own sin, he at the same time most cordially believes in the word and promise of God. He knows that, though chastened, he is not forsaken. He bows his head in meek acknowledgment of the righteousness of the chastisement; but he lays hold with unwavering trust on the mercy of God. This union of submission and trust, is one of priceless value, and much to be sought by every good man. Under the deepest sense of sin and unworthiness, you may rejoice and you ought to rejoice, in the provision of grace. And while rejoicing most cordially in the provision of grace, you ought to be contrite and humble for your sin. You are grievously defective if you want either of these elements. If the sense of sin weighs on you with unbroken pressure, if it keeps you from believing in forgiving mercy, if it hinders you from looking to the cross, to Him who taketh away the sin of the world, there is a grievous defect. If your joy in forgiving mercy has no element of contrition, no chastened sense of unworthiness, there is no less grievous a defect in the opposite direction. Let us try at once to feel our unworthiness, and to rejoice in the mercy that freely pardons and accepts. Let us look to the rock whence we are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence we are digged; feeling that we are great sinners, but that the Lord Jesus Christ is a great Saviour; and finding our joy in that faithful saying, ever worthy of all acceptation, that “Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners,” even the chief.