Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 19:1
And it was told Joab, Behold, the king weepeth and mourneth for Absalom.
Ch. 2Sa 19:1-8. David roused from his grief by Joab
2. the victory ] The Heb. word means literally the salvation or deliverance. Cp. 1Sa 9:16; 1Sa 11:3; 2Sa 3:18, &c.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
CHAPTER XIX
David continues his lamentation for his son, and the people are
greatly discouraged, 1-4.
Joab reproves and threatens him with the general defection of
the people, 5-7.
David lays aside his mourning, and shows himself to the people,
who are thereby encouraged, 8.
The tribes take counsel to bring the king back to Jerusalem,
9-12.
He makes Amasa captain of the host in place of Joab, 13.
The king, returning, is met by Judah at Gilgal, 14, 15.
Shimei comes to meet David, and entreats for his life, which
David grants, 16-23.
Mephibosheth also meets him, and shows how he had been
slandered by Ziba, 24-30.
David is met by Barzillai, and between them there is an
affecting interview, 31-40.
Contention between the men of Judah and the men of Israel,
about bringing back the king, 41-43.
NOTES ON CHAP. XIX
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
It was told Joab, by his messengers, upon their return.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And it was told Joab,…. When returned to Mahanaim, or on his way to it; perhaps by the messengers he sent; and this report he had before he saw the king:
behold, the king weepeth and mourneth for Absalom; for the death of him, instead of rejoicing at the victory obtained, and the deliverance from his enemies.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
2Sa 19:1-3 David’s mourning, and Joab’s reproof. – 2Sa 19:1-6. When Joab was told that the king was mourning and weeping for Absalom, he went to him into the house to expostulate with him. 2Sa 19:5 introduces the continuation of 2Sa 19:1; 2Sa 19:2-4 contain parenthetical sentences, describing the impression made upon the people by the king’s mourning. Through the king’s deep trouble, the salvation (the victory) upon that day became mourning for all the people who had fought for David, and they went by stealth in to the city ( : they stole to come, came by stealth), “as people steal away who have covered themselves with shame, when they flee in battle.”
2Sa 19:4 But the king had covered his face, and cried aloud, “My son Absalom,” etc.
2Sa 19:5 Then Joab went into the house to the king, and said to him, “Thou hast shamed this day the faces of all thy servants who have saved thy life, and the life of thy sons and daughters, thy wives and concubines” (covered them with shame, by deceiving their hope that thou wouldest rejoice in the victory).
2Sa 19:6 , “to love” (i.e., in that thou lovest) “those who hate thee, and hatest those who love thee; for thou hast given to know to-day (through thy conduct) that chiefs and servants (commanders and soldiers) are nothing (are worth nothing); for I have perceived to-day (or I perceive to-day) that if ( for ) Absalom were alive, and we had all perished, that it would be right in thine eyes.”
2Sa 19:7 “And now rise up, go out and speak to the heart of thy servants (i.e., speak to them in a friendly manner: Gen 34:3; Gen 50:21, etc.): for I swear by Jehovah, if thou go not out, verily not a man will stay with thee to-night; and this will be worse to thee than all the evil that has come upon thee from thy youth until now.” Joab was certainly not only justified, but bound in David’s own interests, to expostulate with him upon his conduct, and to urge him to speak in a friendly manner to the people who had exposed their lives for him, inasmuch as his present conduct would necessarily stifle the affection of the people towards their king, and might be followed by the most serious results with reference to his throne. At the same time, he did this in so heartless and lordly a manner, that the king could not fail to be deeply hurt by his words.
2Sa 19:8 Nevertheless David was obliged to yield to his representations. “The king rose up, and sat in the gate, and … all the people came before the king,” i.e., the troops marched before the king, who (as we may supply from the context) manifested his good-will in both looks and words. But Israel, i.e., that portion of the people which had followed Absalom, had returned to its tents (i.e., gone home: cf. 2Sa 18:17). This sentence forms the transition to the account which follows.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Joab’s Reproof of David. | B. C. 1023. |
1 And it was told Joab, Behold, the king weepeth and mourneth for Absalom. 2 And the victory that day was turned into mourning unto all the people: for the people heard say that day how the king was grieved for his son. 3 And the people gat them by stealth that day into the city, as people being ashamed steal away when they flee in battle. 4 But the king covered his face, and the king cried with a loud voice, O my son Absalom, O Absalom, my son, my son! 5 And Joab came into the house to the king, and said, Thou hast shamed this day the faces of all thy servants, which this day have saved thy life, and the lives of thy sons and of thy daughters, and the lives of thy wives, and the lives of thy concubines; 6 In that thou lovest thine enemies, and hatest thy friends. For thou hast declared this day, that thou regardest neither princes nor servants: for this day I perceive, that if Absalom had lived, and all we had died this day, then it had pleased thee well. 7 Now therefore arise, go forth, and speak comfortably unto thy servants: for I swear by the LORD, if thou go not forth, there will not tarry one with thee this night: and that will be worse unto thee than all the evil that befel thee from thy youth until now. 8 Then the king arose, and sat in the gate. And they told unto all the people, saying, Behold, the king doth sit in the gate. And all the people came before the king: for Israel had fled every man to his tent.
Soon after the messengers had brought the news of the defeat and death of Absalom to the court of Mahanaim, Joab and his victorious army followed, to grace the king’s triumphs and receive his further orders. Now here we are told,
I. What a damp and disappointment it was to them to find the king in tears for Absalom’s death, which they construed as a token of displeasure against them for what they had done, whereas they expected him to have met them with joy and thanks for their good services: It was told Joab, v. 1. The report of it ran through the army (v. 2), how the king was grieved for his son. The people will take particular notice what their princes say and do. The more eyes we have upon us, and the greater our influence is, the more need we have to speak and act wisely and to govern our passions strictly. When they came to the city they found the king in close mourning, v. 4. He covered his face, and would not so much as look up, nor take any notice of the generals when they attended him. It could not but surprise them to find, 1. How the king proclaimed his passion, of which he ought to have been ashamed, and which he would have striven to smother and conceal if he had consulted either his reputation for courage, which was lessened by his mean submission to the tyranny of so absurd a passion, or his interest in the people, which would be prejudiced by his discountenancing what was done in zeal for his honour and the public safety. Yet see how he avows his grief: He cries with a loud voice, O my son Absalom! “My servants have all come home safe, but where is my son? He is dead; and, dying in sin, I fear he is lost for ever. I cannot now say, I shall go to him, for my soul shall not be gathered with such sinners; what shall be done for thee, O Absalom! my son, my son!” 2. How he prolonged his passion, even till the army had come up to him, which must be some time after he received the first intelligence. If he had contented himself with giving vent to his passion for an hour or two when he first heard the news, it would have been excusable, but to continue it thus for so bad a son as Absalom, like Jacob for so good a son as Joseph, with a resolution to go to the grave mourning and to stain his triumphs with his tears, was very unwise and very unworthy. Now see how ill this was taken by the people. They were loth to blame the king, for whatever he did used to please them (ch. iii. 36), but they took it as a great mortification to them. Their victory was turned into mourning, v. 2. They stole into the city as men ashamed, v. 3. In compliment to their sovereign, they would not rejoice in that which they perceived so afflictive to him, and yet they could not but be uneasy that they were thus obliged to conceal their joy. Superiors ought not to put such hardships as these on their inferiors.
II. How plainly and vehemently Joab reproved David for this indiscreet management of himself in this critical juncture. David never more needed the hearts of his subjects than now, nor was ever more concerned to secure his interest in their affections; and therefore whatever tended to disoblige them now was the most impolitic thing he could do, and the greatest wrong imaginable to his friends that adhered to him. Joab therefore censures him, v. 5-7. He speaks a great deal of reason, but not with the respect and deference which he owed to his prince. Is is fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked? A plain case may be fairly pleaded with those that are above us, and they may be reproved for what they do amiss, but it must not be done with rudeness and insolence. David did indeed need to be roused and alarmed; and Joab thought it no time to dally with him. If superiors do that which is foolish, they must neither think it strange nor take it ill if their inferiors tell them of it, perhaps too bluntly. 1. Joab magnifies the services of David’s soldiers: “This day they have saved thy life, and therefore deserve to be taken notice of, and have reason to resent it if they be not.” It is implied that Absalom, whom he honoured with his tears, sought his ruin and the ruin of his family, while those whom by his tears he puts a slight upon were such as preserved from ruin him and all that was dear to him. Great mischiefs have arisen to princes from the contempt of great merits. 2. He aggravates the discouragement David had given them: “Thou hast shamed their faces; for, while they have shown such a value for thy life, thou hast shown no value for theirs, but preferrest a spoiled wicked youth, a false traitor to his king and country, whom we are happily rid of, before all thy wise counsellors, brave commanders, and loyal subjects. What can be more absurd than to love thy enemies and hate thy friends?” 3. He advises him to present himself immediately at the head of his troops, to smile upon them, welcome them home, congratulate their success, and return them thanks for their services. Even those that may be commanded yet expect to be thanked when they do well, and ought to be. 4. He threatens him with another rebellion if he would not do this, intimating that rather than serve so ungrateful a prince he himself would head a revolt from him, and then (so confident is Joab of his own interest in the people) “there will not tarry with thee one man. If I go, they will go. Thou hast now nothing to mourn for: but, if thou persist, I will give thee something to mourn for (as Josephus expresses it) with a true and more bitter mourning.”
III. How prudently and mildly David took the reproof and counsel given him, v. 8. He shook off his grief, anointed his head, and washed his face, that he might not appear unto men to mourn, and then made his appearance in public in the gate, which was as the guild-hall of the city. Hither the people flocked to him to congratulate his and their safety, and all was well. Note, When we are convinced of a fault, we must amend, though we are told of it by our inferiors, and indecently, or in heat and passion.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Second Samuel – Chapter 19
David’s Bitter Grief, vs. 1-7
Joab soon heard the news that the king had taken the slaying of Absalom very badly. The great victory turned to a melancholy time because of the bitter grief of the king. The victors stole back into the city as though ashamed, like returning from a battle in defeat rather than like those who had won. The news spread fast of the king’s lamentation, and those who came by his chamber could hear his loud sobbing, mingled with those sorrowful words, “O my son Absalom, O Absalom, my son, my son!”
As on many previous occasions Joab took affairs in his own hands and approached the king with a harsh rebuke. Though one might wish to charge Joab with cold-heartedness in his words to David, there was still a great deal of logic in what he said. His argument to the king was 1) he had made the men who had fought and won the battle for him to feel ashamed; 2) the defeat of Absalom was the saving of David’s life and the lives of his sons, daughters, wives, and concubines, for Absalom would surely have slain all those who stood between him and the throne; 3) his great grief over Absalom indicated to his men that he hated them and loved his enemies. Finally, Joab said the people would conclude that it would have been pleasing to David for all of them to perish if Absalom could have been saved. Joab said David should arise and receive the people, congratulating them on their victory, as they doubtless expected. Otherwise, Joab swore, by the next day all of his men would have forsaken him, and the result would be worse than anything that had ever before happened to David in all his life.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES.
2Sa. 19:1. Comp. 2Sa. 18:33. The purpose of the informant was, it seems, to explain to Joab and the army why the king did not come forth to greet his returning victorious warriors. (Erdmann.)
2Sa. 19:2-3. These mens hearty participation in the sorrow of their beloved king, for whom they had perilled their lives, soon changed into gloomy dissatisfaction at the fact that the king, absorbed in his private grief, did not deign to bestow a look upon them. The description of the manner in which the troops, thus dissatisfied, returned to the city, is pyschologically very fine. (Erdmann.)
2Sa. 19:4. Covered his face. See on 2Sa. 15:20. A loud voice. According to the open and violent mode of expressing grief common in the East (and so also the heroes of the Illiad); there are striking illustrations of this in the Arabian Nights. (Translator of Langes Commentary.)
2Sa. 19:5. Thou hast shamed, etc. By deceiving their hopes that thou wouldest rejoice in the victory. (Keil.)
2Sa. 19:6 I perceive, etc. Joab dissects Davids words of lamentation with inexorable cruelty, and draws thence with his intellectual acuteness and the grim bitterness of his rude nature, consequences that are seemingly logical, yet lay far from Davids nature, though his conduct looked like what he was reproached with. (Erdmann.)
2Sa. 19:7. Speak comfortably. Lit., Speak to the heart. There will not tarry one. This threat, grounded as it was on Joabs unbounded popularity with the army, showed him to be a dangerous person; and that circumstance, together with the violation of an express order to deal gently for his sake with Absalom, produced in Davids mind a settled hatred, which was strongly manifested in his last directions to Solomon. (Jamieson.)
2Sa. 19:8. The people came, etc., i.e., the troops marched before the king, who (as we may supply from the context) manifested his good will both in looks and words (Keil). Israel. It is the other tribes, excepting Judah, that are meant. (Erdmann.) To his tent, i.e., gone home. It has been remarked that the use of this expression must have been handed down from the days of the wilderness-journeyings, when Israel did actually dwell in tents.
2Sa. 19:9. At strife, etc. The kingdom was completely disorganised. The sentiments of the three different parties are represented in this and the following versethe royalists, the adherents of Absalom, who had been very numerous, and those who were indifferent to the Davidio dynasty. (Jamieson.)
2Sa. 19:10. Why speak ye not? The people are re-assembled after their dispersion; their representatives consult zealously together about the restoration to the throne, to which they had raised the insurgent Absalom by the act of anointing. They reproach one another for doing nothing to restore the king. In their hearts, therefore, they feel the grievous wrong they have done an anointed of the Lord, as is shown indirectly by their words, in which Davids great deeds and the terrible misfortunes of the time just past are mentioned. (Erdmann.)
2Sa. 19:11. Why are ye the last? The backwardness of Judah in the movement is explained by the fact that the insurrection started in Judah, and Absalom was first recognised as king in Jerusalem. (Erdmann.) Conscious that they had offended David, and fearing Absaloms garrison in Zion, they did not dare to recall him. (Cornelius or Lapide.)
2Sa. 19:13. Captain of the host, etc. Very different opinions are held concerning this action of David. Ewald considers that it was not only a wise and politic act, but strictly considered no injustice to Joab, who, long notorious by his military roughness had now shown such disobedience to the royal command in the case of Absalom as could not be pardoned without offence to the royal dignity. On the other hand Keil says, It was not only unwise, but unjust, to give to Amasa, the traitor-general of the rebels, a promise on oath that he should be commander-in-chief in the place of Joab; for even if the promise was only given privately at first, the fact that it had been given could not remain a secret from Joab very long, and would be sure to stir up his ambition, and lead him to the commission of fresh crimes. For however Joab might have excited Davids anger by slaying Absalom, and by the offensive manner in which he had reproved the king, David ought to have suppressed his anger in existing circumstances.
2Sa. 19:14. The partial severance of the kingdom which David apprehended from the coldness and inaction of Judah, was nearly produced by the sudden impetuosity of their zeal in the cause of royalty. (Jamieson.) Throughout this narrative the tribal feeling which never wholly disappeared, is apparent, see 12, 2Sa. 20:4; 2Sa. 16:8. (Translator of Langes Commentary.)
2Sa. 19:15. To Jordan. From Mahanaim to the eastern bank of the river. Gilgal, west of the Jordan below Jericho. The place consecrated by the historical associations of Joshua and of Samuel, Jos. 5:9; Jos. 9:6; Jos. 10:6; 1Sa. 7:16; 1Sa. 15:33. (Wordsworth.)
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.2Sa. 19:1-15
DAVIDS RESTORATION
I. A good man must beware lest sorrow make him forgetful of duty. Davids deep grief at the death of Absalom made him insensible for a time to the claims of both God and man. He has now an abundant answer to his prayer, O Lord, turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness, yet his distress at the means by which his desire is accomplished is so great as to banish from his soul all sense of gratitude to God. The death of the rebel leader was the only way by which peace could be restored to the nation and the throne to the king, and was therefore an event which David should have regarded from other points of view beside the parental one. But, omitting to do this, his natural grief over an unworthy child is allowed to swallow up other emotions which should also have had a place in his soul, and which would have made him more alive to his duty to others. Davids fault here is one of which all in similar circumstances should beware. If we allow our thoughts to dwell entirely upon a personal loss, we shall forget both our gains and the gratitude and service we owe to God and our fellow-creatures, and thus show ourselves both self-willed and selfish. Immoderate and absorbing sorrow is a reflection upon the dealings of God, and no private sorrow can absolve a man from his obligations to others, especially when he has received from them much sympathy and devotion.
II. An ungodly man may sometimes administer needed rebuke to a servant of God. Only men of very high spiritual attainments and well-balanced character behave themselves at all times in such a manner as to deserve no reproach from the ungodly. David was perhaps the most godly man of his age, yet he well-merited the reproof which he now received from the unprincipled Joab. Although exception may be taken to the spirit of Joabs words, none can gainsay their truth. It was altogether unworthy of David to ignore, as he did at this time, the obligations which lay upon him as the anointed king of Israel and the object of so much loyal devotion. A great crisis in the history of the nation had now arrived, and if Joab had not roused him to action the consequences might have been most disastrous. David showed himself a true man by not refusing to listen to truth when spoken in anger; but, having brought Joabs accusations to the bar of conscience, and found himself guilty, he forthwith obeyed the call of duty, although it came to him by so unwelcome a messenger. Herein he manifested the true spirit of a child of God, who should ever be willing to acknowledge himself wrong even when the admission is felt to be very humiliating. But let us bear in mind it should be his aim to be so watchful as not to lay himself open to such reproof as David here merited and received from Joab. It was good neither for David nor for Joab, that the latter should be able more than once to convict the better man of wrong, and it is probably never for the interests of righteousness when a man of God and an unspiritual man stand in such a relation to each other.
III. A policy founded on injustice may have a short-lived success. It can hardly be doubted that Davids motive in promoting Amasa was a political one,that he ventured upon so unjust a measure out of no regard for his late enemy, but in the hope of reconciling those who had lately followed him in the rebellion. It certainly can be regarded in no other light than as an act of gross injustice to Joab, who had just won the victory which restored David to his throne. But, though it bore bitter fruit later on, for the moment it succeeded in bringing back the men of Judah who had revolted. It seems, however, impossible that those who had been faithful to him through all his trial could have seen the promotion of Amasa without a feeling of disappointment and mistrust. Yet the immediate result did not justify that most certain truth that what is morally wrong can never be politically right. The real and permanent results of any action may be long in manifesting themselves, and may often seem at first to be far different from what they really are, which shows how unsafe it is to make the apparent success or failure of a deed the standard by which to judge of its morality.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
2Sa. 19:1-8. The sinfulness of unmeasured grief. I. Wherein it consists and manifests itself.
1. As regards the Lord, in ignoring the gracious gifts which He sends us along with and amid our sufferings, and in frustrating His gracious design to purify us by suffering from all selfishness.
2. As regards our neighbour, in slighting and violating the duties of love that we owe Him.
3. As regards our own heart and conscience, in reckoning the powers of spirit and will by exhausting emotion and enervating inactivity. II. How it must be overcome.
1. Through the word of earnest admonition, which gives pain.
2. By energetically rising up to new life and faithful discharge of the duties of our calling.
3. By accepting the consolation and strength which come from above through the spirit of God.Langes Commentary.
2Sa. 19:11-15. Could not David himself go back with the victorious army he had with him in Gilead? He could, no doubt; but
1. He would go back as a prince, with the consent and unanimous approbation of the people, and not as a conqueror forcing his way. He would restore their liberties and not take occasion to seize them or encroach upon them.
2. He would go back in peace and safety, and be sure that he should meet with no difficulty or opposition on his return, and therefore would be well satisfied that the people were well affected to him before he would stir.
3. He would go back in honour and like himself, and therefore would go back, not at the head of his forces, but in the arms of his subjects, for the prince that has wisdom and goodness enough to make himself his peoples darling, without doubt makes a much better figure than the prince that has strength enough to make himself his peoples terror Our Lord Jesus will rule in those that invite Him to the throne in their hearts and not till He is invited. He first bows the heart and makes it willing in the day of His power, and then rules in the midst of his enemies (Psa. 110:2-3).Henry.
One of the best proofs, it seems to me, that Davids schooling was effectual, is this, that all his family griefs, his experience of his own evil, the desertion of his subjects, did not lead him to fancy that he should be following a course acceptable to God, if he retired to the deserts, or ceased to be a shepherd of Israel, instead of doing the work which was appointed for him. It shows how healthy and true his repentance and faith were that he again set himself to organise the people and to fight their battles, to feed them and rule them with all his power; when a religious prudence or self-interest might have whispered, Do thy best to make amends by services to God for the ills thou hast done; save thyself whatever become of thy people Israel. These ungodly suggestions, the like of which came as angels of light to so many Christian monarchs in the middle ages, and sent them to do penance for their evils and to seek a crown of glory in monasteries, may have presented themselves to the man after Gods own heart. If they did, he proved his title to the name by rejecting them. He showed that he could trust God to put him in the position that was best for him, that he knew God did not put him into the world to provide either for his body or his soul, but to glorify His name and to bless His creatures.Maurice.
2Sa. 19:14. So it will one day be with the Jewish nation, which is now serving an Absalom of their own will, but will then greet the return of their true king, and say, Blessed be the kingdom of our father David that cometh in the name of the Lord. (Mar. 11:9-10).Wordsworth.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
4. David Restored to Power, 2Sa. 19:1-43.
The Kings Grief Assuaged. 2Sa. 19:1-8
And it was told Joab, Behold, the king weepeth and mourneth for Absalom.
2 And the victory that day was turned into mourning unto all the people: for the people heard say that day how the king was grieved for his son.
3 And the people gat them by stealth that day into the city, as people being ashamed steal away when they flee in battle.
4 But the king covered his face, and the king cried with a loud voice, O my son Absalom, O Absalom, my son, my son!
5 And Joab came into the house to the king, and said Thou hast shamed this day the faces of all thy servants, which this day have saved thy life, and the lives of thy sons and of thy daughters, and the lives of thy wives, and the lives of thy concubines;
6 In that thou lovest thine enemies, and hatest thy friends. For thou hast declared this day, that thou regardest neither princes nor servants: for this day I perceive, that if Absalom had lived, and all we had died this day, then it had pleased thee well.
7 Now therefore arise, go forth, and speak comfortably unto thy servants: for I swear by the Lord, if thou go not forth, there will not tarry one with thee this night: and that will be worse unto thee than all the evil that befell thee from thy youth until now.
8 Then the king arose, and sat in the gate. And they old unto all the people, saying, Behold, the king doth sit in the gate. And all the people came before the king: for Israel had fled every man to his tent.
1.
How long did David continue mourning? 2Sa. 19:1
The fondness which David had showed to Absalom in his early indulgences finally broke out into uncontrolled grief when he learned of Absaloms death on the battlefield. David appeared to be in a state of shock, hoping against hope to the last that the news which he had received would prove to be false. The original word translated to express Davids weeping and mourning gave the idea of one trembling under strong emotion. David continued in such a state long enough for the word to get back to Joab and for it to become general knowledge among the people. The soldiers might have expected a triumphal entry back into the city where David was staying, but instead they were obliged to creep into the city like thieves and fugitives. Joab came immediately and told him that if he did not cease this kind of conduct the whole army would abandon him by nightfall (2Sa. 19:7).
2.
What is the meaning of Davids repeated reference to his son? 2Sa. 19:4
To understand this repeated cry of grief, the reader must remember not only the excessive indulgence and weakness of Davids fatherly affection for his son but also his anger at Joab and his captains. They had paid little regard to his command to protect the life of Absalom. David had a quick temper, and these mixed emotions prevented him from correctly judging the crime of his rebellious son who merited death. David was also forgetting the justice of God which had been made known in the death of Absalom. David declared that he would rather have died for Absalom than for Absalom to die while fighting against him. The Christian reader can almost hear the cry of God as He calls out for His wayward sons. God has said that He is not only willing to die for His children but in Jesus Christ God in the flesh has died for wayward mankind.
3.
Why did Joab rebuke David? 2Sa. 19:5
The people were greatly discouraged. As a captain over all the host, Joab knew the feelings of the people. The time demanded action. The soldiers had fought valiantly and won, and they had every right to expect a warm welcome. Davids demeanor greatly abashed the men. The king was in sadness over an aspect of the outcome of a victory; and their ardor was dampened. If the men were permitted to continue without a welcome, they would return to their homes with an ill feeling of disappointment and wrong at the hands of David; and in the end, they would turn against David. Joab was the intimate counselor and advisor of the king; and he had the courage by nature to speak boldly to the king. The time was right for such speaking.
4.
What confusion had David caused? 2Sa. 19:4
Joab said that David appeared to love his enemies and hate his friends. He was weeping over Absalom who had proved to be a very dangerous enemy. He acted as if he were angry with his men who had put down the revolt. David did have these mixed emotions, and they were apparent to those who saw his actions. Joab also said that David had no regard for his leaders and soldiers. He gave his men the impression that if everybody else had been killed and Absalom had lived he would have been happy.
5.
What action did Joab suggest? 2Sa. 19:7
Joab advised David to leave the chamber where he was weeping and mourning and go out to his men and put their minds at rest about the outcome of the battle. The word used here to describe the speaking to his men is the same as was used with regard to Shechems speaking to Dinah (Gen. 34:3). David had caused a very grievous misunderstanding among his men, and he needed to assure them that he did not feel the way he appeared to feel. Joab did not specify what evil had befallen David through his career, but David had seen hard times. He was forced to flee for a long time as Saul sought to kill him. David was brought very low when his sin with Bathsheba was exposed. He was greatly distressed when Amnon forced Tamar, and his sin led to Absaloms killing Amnon. Perhaps one of the greatest evils which have befallen him was the revolt of Absalom, although he had been extremely grieved when Absalom was killed. Joab said that the evil which he was about to bring on himself by his continued mourning over Absalom would be greater than all these others.
5.
What men had fled to their tents? 2Sa. 19:8
This passage should be compared with 2Sa. 17:24 and 2Sa. 18:16. The people of Israel were at a loss. Israel here mentioned should be construed to mean the followers of Absalom. They would be the ones placed in such a predicament by the death of the leader, but the fact that they had gone back to their homes left Davids men free to come out of the battlefield and stand before the king.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
DAVID REPROVED BY JOAB, 2Sa 19:1-8.
The stern and chivalrous Joab was highly indignant at the king’s grief. His nature was incapable of sympathy with the tender, paternal emotions of a soul like David’s, and with him the notion of crushing the rebellion and at the same time dealing tenderly with the arch-rebel, was the height of absurdity. He saw, too, that it was high time for David to turn his attention to the affairs of state, for such unmanly grief on a day of victory might lead to further disaffection, and even a general revolt of the people from a king that seemed to care more for an incorrigible son than for the national honour. The bold captain, therefore, ventures to approach his sovereign with words of sharp reproof.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Joab Rebukes The King For Dwelling Overmuch On The Death of His Traitorous Son Rather Than On Showing His Gratitude To Those Who Had Won Him Back His Kingship And Warns Him Of The Consequences ( 2Sa 19:1-8 a).
David’s grief over the loss of his son was so great that it did in fact become an obsession, with the result that he began to behave very foolishly by ignoring the great victory won by his troops and shutting himself away from everyone in deep mourning, and this at the very time when they were expecting a victory celebration. His men had come back filled with elation at their triumph, only to discover that the king whom they had been fighting for could only shut himself away in grief over the richly deserved death of his treacherous son. The consequence was that those who had fought so hard for him were creeping around and filled with shame. In other words, as a leader of men he was failing those who looked up to him, and allowing his personal feelings to affect his behaviour towards those who relied on him. He was allowing his family relations to once again interfere with his duty. The worst side of David’s attitude towards his subordinates was coming out.
But fortunately for David he had a loyal supporter in Joab, who came to him and bluntly pointed out to him that he was giving the impression to his men that his traitorous son meant more to him than those who loved him and were loyal to him, and that if only his son had survived he would not have minded how many of his own men had died. Consequently, if he was not very careful, he would discover that they would desert him.
This brought David to his senses as he recognised the truth of Joab’s words and he consequently left his room of mourning and went and sat in the gate in order to make himself available to his men. The result was that when the news got around his people gladly gathered around him, delighted that he had overcome his grief.
Analysis.
a
b And the victory that day was turned into mourning to all the people, for the people heard say that day, “The king grieves for his son.” And the people entered the city by stealth that day, as people who are ashamed steal away when they flee in battle (2Sa 19:2-3).
c And the king covered his face, and the king cried with a loud voice, “O my son Absalom, O Absalom, my son, my son!” (2Sa 19:4).
d And Joab came into the house to the king, and said, “You have this day shamed the faces of all your servants, who this day have saved your life, and the lives of your sons and of your daughters, and the lives of your wives, and the lives of your concubines, in that you love those who hate you, and hate those who love you” (2Sa 19:5).
c For you have declared this day, that princes and servants are nought to you. For this day I perceive, that if Absalom had lived, and all we had died this day, then it had pleased you well” (2Sa 19:6).
b “Now therefore arise, go forth, and speak comfortably to your servants, for I swear by YHWH, if you do not go forth, there will not tarry a man with you this night, and that will be worse to you than all the evil that has befallen you from your youth until now” (2Sa 19:7).
a Then the king arose, and sat in the gate. And they told all the people, saying, “Behold, the king is sitting in the gate,” and all the people came before the king (2Sa 19:8 a).
Note that in ‘a’ Joab was informed that David was weeping and mourning for Absalom, and in the parallel the people were informed that at last his weeping and mourning was over. In ‘b’ the people were creeping in and out of the city and behaving in a shamefaced way because of David’s attitude, and in the parallel Joab warned David that if he continued like he was doing they would creep away permanently, and then he would be worse off than he had ever been before. In ‘c’ the king could think of no one other than Absalom, and in the parallel Joab warned him that that was the impression that he was giving to his followers. Centrally in ‘d’ Joab made clear to David the impression that he had made on all who loved him that he cared more for his rebellious son than for them.
2Sa 19:1
‘ And it was told Joab, “See, the king weeps and mourns for Absalom.” ’
Presumably it was one of David’s close personal servants who reported David’s mourning and weeping to Joab, because he knew that people were being negatively affected by it. He clearly felt that as his commander-in-chief Joab was the man to deal with the situation.
2Sa 19:2
‘ And the victory that day was turned into mourning to all the people, for the people heard say that day, “The king grieves for his son.” ’
For David’s grieving had become common knowledge with the result that those who had naturally wanted to celebrate the great victory did not do so lest they upset the king. Instead they themselves began to feel one with his grief. It was adversely affecting the whole of the army who had fought so expertly for David.
2Sa 19:3
‘ And the people entered the city by stealth that day, as people who are ashamed steal away when they flee in battle.’
This was so much so that they were creeping in and out of the city stealthily, not wanting to draw attention to themselves, in the way that they would have done had they themselves had to flee from the battle. They must have felt very discouraged.
2Sa 19:4
‘ And the king covered his face, and the king cried with a loud voice, “O my son Absalom, O Absalom, my son, my son!” ’
Meanwhile the king was oblivious of everything else as he mourned his son. He sat above the gate-house with his face covered, and he cried with a loud voice, “O my son Absalom, O Absalom, my son, my son!” without any thought of how those who had fought for him, and especially those who had been wounded in the battle to save him from Absalom, might be feeling.
We have already had cause to see from the way that David had prayed about the child born to Bathsheba how emotional David could be. But it is quite clear that his love for Absalom was exceptionally deep. (Had it not been so he would probably have been aware much earlier of the danger that Absalom posed for his family).
2Sa 19:5-6
‘ And Joab came into the house to the king, and said, “You have this day shamed the faces of all your servants, who this day have saved your life, and the lives of your sons and of your daughters, and the lives of your wives, and the lives of your concubines, in that you love those who hate you, and hate those who love you. For you have declared this day, that princes and servants are nought to you. For this day I perceive, that if Absalom had lived, and all we had died this day, then it had pleased you well.”
Loyal Joab rightly decided that it was time that he faced David up with what he was doing. So he went in to him and pointed out that all he was doing was covering with shame those who had so bravely fought for him. They had saved his life, and the lives of his sons and daughters who might well have perished in the reprisals as presenting threats to Absalom’s position. And he was failing to show his gratitude. It is actually doubtful whether the wives and concubines would have been executed, but they would certainly have been put in ward. Joab was, however trying to make the strongest case possible.
As a result of his continual grieving David was demonstrating his love for the son who had hated him, but it was at the cost of those who loved him. He was ignoring their contribution and treating them as though they did not matter. Indeed he was giving the impression that it would not have mattered to him how many of them had died as long as Absalom had lived. And this despite the fact that one of the things that had always endeared David to his men was his concern for their welfare.
This was not denying that he had a right to grieve over his son. It was bringing out the responsibilities of a king. Those who take leading positions are responsible to keep their emotions in check and to treat those who are loyal to them suitably, even when they themselves have suffered loss.
2Sa 19:7
“ Now therefore arise, go forth, and speak comfortably to your servants, for I swear by YHWH, if you do not go forth, there will not tarry a man with you this night, and that will be worse to you than all the evil that has befallen you from your youth until now.”
So now David was urged by Joab to get up from his condition of mourning and speak words of comfort to his servants. And he warned him that if he did not do so the men might well desert him and leave him to his own devices. The consequence was that things would then be worse for him than they had ever been during the days of his worst troubles with Saul, days which Joab also had good cause to remember.
2Sa 19:8 a
‘Then the king arose, and sat in the gate. And they told all the people, saying, “Behold, the king is sitting in the gate,” and all the people came before the king.’
Recognising the rightness and fairness of Joab’s diagnosis David arose and went to sit in the gate where the people passed by. And when the news spread around that he was there they all took advantage of it by passing through the gate so as to greet the king. It made them feel that things were back to normal again.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2Sa 19:22 And David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries unto me? shall there any man be put to death this day in Israel? for do not I know that I am this day king over Israel?
2Sa 19:22
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
David Reinstated in his Royal Power
v. 1. And it was told Joab, Behold, the king weepeth and mourneth for Absalom. v. 2. And the victory, v. 3. And the people, v. 4. But the king covered his face, v. 5. And Joab came into the house to the king and said, v. 6. in that thou lovest thine enemies, v. 7. Now, therefore, arise, go forth, and speak comfortably unto, v. 8. Then the king, v. 9. And all the people, v. 10. And Absalom, whom we anointed over us, is dead in battle. Now, therefore, why speak ye not a word of bringing the king back? v. 11. And King David sent to Zadok and to Abiathar, the priests, saying, Speak unto the elders of Judah, saying, Why are ye the last to bring the king back to his house? seeing the speech of all Israel is come to the king, even to his house. v. 12. Ye are my brethren, ye are my bones and my flesh, v. 13. And say ye to Amasa, v. 14. And he, v. 15. So the king returned and came to Jordan. And Judah, v. 16. And Shimei, the son of Gera, a Benjamite, which was of Bahurim, v. 17. And there were a thousand men of Benjamin with him and Ziba, the servant of the house of Saul, v. 18. And there went over a ferry-boat to carry over the king’s household, and to do what he thought good, v. 19. and said unto the king, let not my lord impute iniquity unto me, v. 20. For thy servant doth know that I have sinned; therefore, behold, I am come the first this day of all the house of Joseph, v. 21. But Abishai, the son of Zeruiah, v. 22. And David, v. 23. Therefore the king,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
2Sa 19:2
The victory (Hebrew, the salvation) that day was turned into mourning. Naturally, the people did not understand the poignant emotions caused by the activity of David’s conscience, and were pained at this seeming ingratitude to them for their brave exertions in his behalf, and at what they must have regarded as indifference to the welfare of the nation. Nor would it be easy for us to understand his conduct during the flight from Jerusalem, and in bearing Shimei’s imprecations so tamely, did we not find in the psalms written at this time that David was suffering extreme and even excessive self-reproach and mental anguish at his past sin. It was a relief to bear Shimei’s rudeness, for God might remember it for good. Racked thus with self-reproach, he had urged upon his generals to spare the young man (2Sa 18:5), whose sin was part of a web which he had himself begun to spin, and in terror he waited for the result. Mentally it would have been better for him if he had gone to the battle instead of sitting in gloomy self-reproach between the gates. His eager inquiries, “Is the lad safe? meantHas the hand of justice again smitten me? and when he found that a second blow had fallen, his self control gave way. Joab, more statesmanlike, and with his personal feelings unmoved, notices the fresh wrong that David is committing, and is vexed at seeing his brave warriors slink into Mahanaim ashamed, instead of being welcomed with deserved praise. But their conduct in being so depressed at David’s sorrow is a proof of their affection for him, and it was plainly his duty to master his feelings, and to think of making a due return for the great service they had rendered him. The Hebrew word “salvation,” that is, deliverance, gives the better side of the idea, while “victory” is a coarser word, taken from the language of a people whose trade was war.
2Sa 19:5
And Joab said. Joab’s speech puts the alternative in a very incisive and even rude way before the king. But what he says is true, namely, that Absalom’s success would inevitably have been followed by the massacre, not only of David himself, but of his sons and daughters, and of the women who had accompanied him in his flight. Nor would it have stopped there. but the officers of his court, the captains of his army, his mighties, and all who had long eared for and loved him would have been put to the sword. It was this horrible certainty, according to Oriental usage, which made Absalom’s rebellion so abominable, and which steeled the heart of Joab against him when he saw him hanging in the tree. He regarded him as a fratricide and parricide, who had plotted murder on a large scale; and Joab was not made milder by the thought that this would have included himself and the heroes who had made David’s throne so great. With stern good sense he, therefore, bids the king suppress his mere personal feelings, and leave the chamber in which he had concealed himself, to go forth and “speak to the heart of his servants,” that is, thank and praise them in a friendly manner. For otherwise they would disperse and leave him; and this would be followed by the uprise of some other claimant of the thronesome relative, perhaps, of Saul, backed by the tribes of Benjamin and Ephraim; and David, abandoned by the nation, would fall an easy victim, with all his family, of this second rebellion. Absalom’s rapid success proved that David had many enemies, and without great prudence he might be left at Mahanaim as powerless as Ishbeshoth had been. The long delay between the death of this puppet king and David’s appointment to be sovereign of all Israel was probably owing to the same want of enthusiasm for David which had made the nation transfer its allegiance so lightly to the handsome Absalom. But with all his good sense Joab was coarse and rude. He was, moreover, utterly incapable of understanding David’s real feelings. He saw only a father giving way to an exaggerated loss for a handsome but worthless son. David really was condemning himself for having brought lust and murder into his own house by abominable sin.
2Sa 19:8
All the people came before the king. Probably they passed in review before him, and received his thanks. By thus acting in accordance with Joab’s wise counsel, David probably saved the nation from years of anarchy, and a fresh civil war. For Israel had fled every man to his tent; Hebrew, and Israel, that is, Absalom’s partisans, fled each man to his tentto his home. The Authorized Version confounds Israel with David’s soldiers, but consistently throughout the narrative “the hearts of the men of Israel are after Absalom” (2Sa 15:13; and see 2Sa 16:15, 2Sa 16:18; 2Sa 17:14, 2Sa 17:15, 2Sa 17:24, 2Sa 17:26; 2Sa 18:6, 2Sa 18:7, 2Sa 18:16, 2Sa 18:17).
2Sa 19:10
Absalom, whom we anointed over us. It is evident from these words that there had been some solemn anointing and appointment of Absalom, and this accounts for the manner in which his partisans are always described as “Israel,” while David’s men are simply “his servants.” With this anointment there must also have been a formal renunciation of David’s rule, and, being thus dethroned, he does not attempt to return until the nation summons him back. As the flight of David narrated in 2Sa 16:1-23. was extremely hurried, the conspirators must have kept their counsel well, and whatever rumours reached him apparently he disregarded. But meanwhile representatives of the tribes secretly convened at Hebron had claimed to act in the name of Israel, and, chosen a new king. The words certainly imply that, had Absalom lived, the Israelites would have considered themselves bound to obey him.
2Sa 19:11
David sent to Zadok and to Abiathar. The two high priests had remained behind at Jerusalem, to watch over David’s interests, and he now, by a messenger, probably Ahimaaz or Jonathan, urges them to quicken the proceedings of his own tribe. We may feel quite sure that there was discussion in Judah as well as in the other tribes; but the rebellion had begun at Hebron, and probably many of the leading chiefs were deeply implicated in Absalom’s proceedings. Probably they now regretted it, but hung back through fear of punishment. It was politic, therefore, to assure them of David’s kindly feelings, and that overtures on their side would be readily received, and the past forgiven.
2Sa 19:12
My bones; Hebrew, my bone and my flesh, so nearly related as to be part of my own self (Gen 2:23).
2Sa 19:13
Of my bone, and of my flesh; Hebrew, art thou not my bone and my flesh?a most near and dear relative. It is difficult to understand why in the Authorized Version this common metaphor in the Hebrew has been so meddled with, Ewald thinks that this purposed degradation of Joab and the substitution of Amasa in his stead was a wise and politic act. It was to some extent just, for Joab was a man stained with many murders; but politic it was not. Passing over the fact that Amasa had actually taken the command of the rebel army, he was an ambitious and selfish man, and could lay no claim to that sturdy fidelity which had characterized Joab throughout his long service. For all he had done had been for David’s good, and his advice, however roughly given, had averted grave misfortunes. Joab’s murder of Absalom was an act of wilful disobedience; but David had used Joab for a far meaner murder, committed, not for reasons of statesmanship; but for purposes of lust. The guilt of slaying Absalom was as nothing compared with that of slaying Uriah, nor was it so base as the assassination of Abner, which David had tolerated, though made angry by it. The dismissal of Joab could have been effected only by putting him to death, and this certainly he did not deserve at David’s hands; and the attempt, unless carried out secretly, would have led to tumult and insurrection. Joab, too, was a far more skilful general than Amasa, who, with larger forces, had just suffered a disastrous defeat; and if Joab was removed secretly, his brother Abishai remained to avenge him. David was, in fact, blinded by love for the son whom for so many years he had treated with coldness. There was a strong reaction now in the father’s mind, and under its influence he was prepared to sacrifice the nephew who had been faithful to him and saved him, for the nephew who had joined in Absalom’s rebellion. But possibly it had an immediate good effect, as Amasa, assured of forgiveness and promotion, now took David’s side.
2Sa 19:14
And he bowed, etc. It was not Amasa, but David, who made all the members of his tribe unanimous in his recall. And not only were the high priests active in his cause, but David, He may feel sure, sent numerous messages to all the more powerful men, assuring them of forgiveness and favour. In his general policy he was right. After the solemn anointing of Absalom, it was necessary for him to wait until some equally public and national act authorized his resumption of the royal power; and delay was dangerous. Every day now spent at Mabanaim might give the opportunity for fresh troubles.
2Sa 19:15
Gilgal. As Gilgal lay upon the west bank of the Jordan (Jos 5:9), near Jericho and the fords, it was a convenient place for the elders of Judah to await there the king. During the crossing, two interesting events happenedthe meeting of Shimei and David, and the leave taking of Barzillai the Gileadite. Shortly afterwards came the apology of Mephibosheth but it is uncertain whether he was among those who had come to Gilgal to welcome the king.
2Sa 19:16
Shimei the son of Gera. The fact that he came attended by a thousand men of the tribe of Benjamin is a proof, not only that he was a person of influence, but that he had exerted himself to bring over his tribesmen to David’s side. His adherence was, therefore, of importance. Ziba had always professed allegiance to David, and as he virtually represented the house of Stud, his presence was also valuable, even if prompted by the desire to keep Mephibosheth’s land. For though Absalom seemed to be the nation’s choice, yet there would be many legitimists who would consider that the crown belonged to Saul’s heirs, and who would watch the course of events for any opportunity favourable to their views. David’s victory ruined their hopes, and the public acts of Shimei and Ziba removed all fear of public disturbance on the part of Saul’s friends.
2Sa 19:17
They went over Jordan before the king. This might mean that, in bringing the king across, Shimei and the Benjamites led the way. But, first, the verb, which is a rare one, means that they dashed through the river impetuously; and secondly, before the king, means “in the king’s presence.” While the tribe of Judah remained on the left bank to receive the king on his landing, Shimei and Ziba sought favour by a show of excessive zeal, and forded the Jordan, so as to be the first to welcome him (see 2Sa 19:20).
2Sa 19:18
And there went over a ferry boat; more correctly, and the ferry boat kept crossing, went backwards and forwards to bring the king’s household over. Shimei fell down before the king, as he was come over Jordan. If this translation were right, instead of fording the river, Shimei would have waited on the western bank. Some commentators do take this view, but it is contradicted by the latter part of 2Sa 19:17. Really the Hebrew words signify no more than “at his crossing the Jordan,” that is, at some time or other during the passage. Shimei’s course was not only the boldest, but also the wisest. For, in the first place, his prompt surrender would commend itself to David’s generosity; and, secondly, had Abishai’s counsel been taken, it would have offended the thousand Benjamites who formed his escort, and also all the warriors present there from Israel (see 2Sa 19:40). Trouble and discontent would certainly have followed upon any attempt on David’s part to punish any of his enemies, and there might even have been armed resistance to his crossing.
2Sa 19:20
The first of all the house of Joseph. Shimei, who was a Benjamite, could not have thus claimed to be the representative of the northern tribes, had he remained on the western bank, where “half the people of Israel” were assembled. Strictly, “the house of Joseph” signified the tribe of Ephraim (Jdg 1:22, Jdg 1:35; and comp. Psa 78:67), and in this sense Shimei did not belong to it. But Ephraim claimed a supremacy over all Israel; and one cause of the opposition to David certainly was the transference of the leadership to the tribe of Judah. Even the long reign of Solomon failed to weld the tribes together, and as soon as the reins of power fell into the weak hands of Rehobeam, an Ephraimite. Jeroboam, whom Solomon had made “ruler ever all the charge of the house of Joseph” (1Ki 11:28), quickly wrested the ten tribes from him. In Amo 5:6 “the house of Joseph” signifies all the northern tribes, for the reason given in 1Ch 5:1, 1Ch 5:2; and such is its sense here. And Shimei compressed many powerful arguments in the phrase. For as a Benjamite he offered David the allegiance of the tribe which had given Israel its first king; while, as an Israelite, he professed also to represent the leading house of Ephraim, and all the northern tribes which usually followed its bidding.
2Sa 19:22
Ye sons of Zeruiah adversaries unto me; literally, that ye be to me for a Satan; rendered “adversary” in Num 22:22, but by Ewald in this place “tempter.” It probably means “one who would do me harm.” Though David speaks of the sons of Zeruiah in the plural (as in 2Sa 16:10), there is no reason to suppose that Joab shared in Abishai’s impetuosity. Indifferent as he was to the shedding of blood, he was too prudent and politic to put the people out of temper by an execution on the day of David’s return. In Israel over Israel. There is much force in this repetition. A short time before Israel had been for Absalom, but now, by Shimei’s submission, and that of the large body of Benjamites with him, David felt that once again he was king over the whole people.
2Sa 19:23
The king sware unto him. David’s magnanimity was not the result merely of policy, but also of joyful feeling at seeing all the tribes so readily welcome him back to the throne. But in spite of his oath, he orders Solomon to execute him, regarding what he had done as a sin past forgiveness. In so doing we can hardly acquit David of breaking his oath, even granting that Shimei’s repentance was insincere, and that the motive of his actions was the desire simply to save his life. But we must remember that our Lord described his injunction, “that ye love one another,” as “a new commandment” (Joh 13:34); and the utmost that can be said in David’s favour is that his character was generous and full of chivalry. A half excuse may be found for his order in the supposition that Shimei was an inveterate conspirator, and dangerous to Solomon’s peace. This view seems confirmed by the command given to Shimei to build a house at Jerusalem (1Ki 2:36), where he would always be under surveillance. But had not David himself praised the man who “sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not” (Psa 15:4)?
2Sa 19:24
Mephibosheth. The meeting of David and Mephibosheth possibly took place at Jerusalem (see on 2Sa 19:25), and, if so, the order of events is not chronological. Ziba certainly came to the Jordan fords, and the narrative may have been introduced here to complete the account of his doings. In neglecting his person and his dress, Mephibosheth was showing signs of heartfelt sorrow, and as he thus mourned during Absalom’s tenure of power, it exposed him to the usurper’s displeasure, and was a public avowal that his sympathies were with David. And his treatment was unjust; but David was in a strait. Ziba had been actively useful to him in his flight, and had also aided greatly in his recall. It was, probably, even owing to his influence that Shimei came with a thousand men of Benjamin. He deserved, therefore, a reward, but not at his master’s cost. His beard; Hebrew, the upper lip (see Le 13:45; Eze 24:17, Eze 24:22).
2Sa 19:25
When he was come to Jerusalem to meet the king. This certainly looks as if the meeting took place at Jerusalem, and apparently when David had reached the royal palace (see 2Sa 19:30). But what, then, is meant in 2Sa 19:24 by his “going down” to meet the king? If, too, he had been at Jerusalem all the while, how could he come there? Some, therefore, translate, “Then Jerusalem came to meet the king”a possible, but not a natural, rendering, nor one that agrees with 2Sa 19:30. Others consider that he had withdrawn to his house in the highlands of Benjamin at Gibeah of Saul; but David had given these lands to Ziba, and the crippled Mephibesheth would have met with rough treatment had he endeavoured to contest the ownership. The Arabic Version reads. “when he came from Jerusalem;” but it is not confirmed by any trustworthy authorities. The view of Kimchi is probably right, that Mephibosheth did go down to the Jordan fords to meet David, and certainly his duty required of him no less. He had been slandered and ill used, but the king believed him to be guilty, and regarded him with displeasure. To have remained, therefore, at home when all Judah and half Israel had gone to welcome David back, would have been culpable remissness. And though he was lame, yet the ride was not so long as to be very fatiguing. But he did not rush through the river, as Shimei and his thousand men had done; and when David had crossed, there was too much going on for him to get an audience. He followed, therefore, in David’s suite; but in Jerusalem the meeting actually took place. Thus the verses briefly record different facts: 2Sa 19:24 that Mephibosheth went with the vast crowd to welcome the king back; 2Sa 19:25 that in due time, in Jerusalem, the explanation was given, and Mephibosheth restored to favour.
2Sa 19:26
Thy servant said, I will saddle me an ass. This would mean, “Thy servant purposed, said within himself, that he would saddle an ass, not by his own hands, but by those of his servants.” All the versions, however, except the Chaldee, read, “Thy servant said to him, Saddle me an ass.” With this agrees the narrative in 2Sa 16:1. Mephibosheth ordered Ziba to saddle for him an ass, and one for an attendant, and to put hastily together a supply of food for the journey. And Ziba does so; but when everything is ready, he leaves his master in the lurch, and carries all away to David, to whom he falsely represents Mephibosheth as a traitor. In the words that follow, he unreservedly submits himself to David, on the ground that, though innocent in this affair, yet that, as a member of a dethroned dynasty, his life was forfeit, and that, in permitting him to live, and placing him among his friends, the king had done him an act of grace.
2Sa 19:29
Thou and Ziba divide the land. Two views are taken of this decisionthe one, that it was a complete reversal of the command in 2Sa 16:4, placing matters upon the old footing, by which Ziba was to have half the produce for cultivating the estate; the other, and apparently the most correct view, is that Ziba was now made actual owner of half the land, and Mephibosheth, instead of a half, would henceforth have only a quarter of the crops. The decision was not equitable, and David speaks in a curt and hurried manner, as though vexed with himself for what he was doing. As a matter of fact, Ziba’s treachery had been most useful to David. Besides the pleasure at the time of finding one man faithful, when “all men were liars” (Psa 116:11), Ziba had been most active in bringing over the tribe of Benjamin to David’s side; and though his motives were selfish and venal, yet, as the king reaped the benefit of his conduct, he was bound not to leave him without reward.
2Sa 19:30
Yea, let him take all. These words betray a feeling of resentment. Though outwardly they profess to regard the loss of the property with indifference, as compared with the joy of the king’s return, yet this sort of “I don’t care” answer usually covers anger. Blunt’s arguments, to show that Mephibosheth really was a traitor, are ingenious, but not convincing.
2Sa 19:31
Barzillai. Barzillai was so wealthy a man that, with some help from others, he had provided the king “of sustenance,” or, in more modern English, “with sustenance,” while his army lay encamped at Mahanaim; and now, though he was eighty years of age, he wished to attend the king in person until he reached the other side of Jordan.
2Sa 19:33
And I will feed thee. This is the same verb as that used in 2Sa 19:32, and translated “to provide of sustenance.”
2Sa 19:37
That I may die in mine own city by the grave of my father and of my mother. The inserted words, “and be buried,” are very matter of fact and commonplace. What Barzillai wished was that, when death overtook him, it should find him in the old abode of his family, where his father and mother had died, and where their tombs were. This regard for the family sepulchre was hereditary among the Israelites, who followed in it the example of their forefather (see Gen 49:29-31). Chimham. David remembered Barzillai’s kindness to the last, and. on his dying bed specially commended Chimham and his brothers to the care of Solomon. In Jer 41:17 we read of “the habitation of Chimham, which is by Bethlehem,” whence it has been supposed that David also endowed the sen of Barzillai with land near his own city. Stanley (‘Jewish Church,’ 2:201) considers that this was a caravanserai founded by Chimham for the hospitable lodging of travellers on their way to Egypt, and that Mary and Joseph found shelter there. It lay to the south of Bethlehem; but there is nothing more than the name to connect it with the son of Barzillai. In verse 40 he is called in the Hebrew Chimhan.
2Sa 19:40
Half the people of Israel. The northern tribes had been the first to debate the question of the king’s recall (2Sa 19:9), while the men of Judah hung back. But at the instigation of the high priests and of Amasa, who was actually in command, they determined upon David’s restoration, and acted so promptly and so independently of the rest of Israel that, when they reached Gilgal, only the delegates of a few tribes were in time to join them. As we read in 2Sa 19:41 of “all the men of Israel,” it is evident that the rest had rapidly followed. It would have been well if the tribe of Judah had informed the rest of their purpose, as the bringing of David back would then have been the act of all Israel; but tribal jealousies were the cause of Israel’s weakness throughout the time of the judges, and broke out into open disunion upon the death of Solomon.
2Sa 19:41
Why have our brethren the men of Judah stolen thee away? Why, that is, have they acted by stealth and without our concurrence? As they were discussing the matter, their decision should have been awaited, and David should not have crossed until formally invited so to do. The half of Israel consisted, probably, of the trans-Jordanic tribes, upon whom those on the west of the river looked contemptuously, and of Shimei and his Benjamites, and a few more in the immediate neighbourhood. The trans-Jordanie tribes are probably those described in 2Sa 19:39 as “the people who went with David over Jordan;” for certainly a powerful body of the men who had defeated Absalom would escort David back to Jerusalem to overawe the malcontents and prevent any opposition to his return.
2Sa 19:42
The king is near of kin to us. The pronouns are singular throughout: “He is near of kin to me. Why art thou angry? Have I eaten I have ten parts Why didst thou despise me?” and so everywhere. This is much more piquant; but such personification is contrary to the genius of our language. Have I eaten, etc.? Saul had boasted of enriching the Benjamites (1Sa 22:7), but probably the speaker intended only to protest the purity of his motives.
2Sa 19:43
I have ten parts in the king. One tribe disappears, which certainly was not Benjamin; nor was this warlike state thus early awed into obedience to Judah. In 1Ki 11:31, 1Ki 11:35, again, we have ten tribes given to Jeroboam, and here, also, not only must Benjamin be counted, but be included in the tribes rent from the house of David. The tribe that had disappeared was that of Simeon, partly lost among the desert races south of the Negeb, and partly absorbed by Judah. Its position always made it unimportant, and no trace can be found of its taking any part in the political life of Israel. Some strangers from Simeon are mentioned in 2Ch 15:9 as coming to the great gathering of Judah and Benjamin at Jerusalem after Asa had defeated Zerah the Ethiopian; and Josiah carried out his reformation in Simeon as well as in Manasseh, Ephraim, and Naphtali (2Ch 34:6). But it never seems to have emerged from a state of semi-barbarism, and no town can be found within its territories. We must, therefore, omit Simeon, and of course the Levites, who took no part in politics, and thus we have Judah standing alone, and all the rest determined to resist any attempt on its part to establish a hegemony, and restless even at having to endure the more ancient claims of Ephraim to be the leading tribe. By the ten parts which they claim in the king, they meant that, as king, he belonged equally to all, and not to his own tribe only. In this they were expressing a sound view of the royal position. The next words, literally, are, “And also in David I am more than thou;” to which the Septuagint adds, “And I am the firstborn rather than thou.” This is in accordance with 1Ch 5:1, and states an important claim always made by Ephraim; whereas the Hebrew, “I in David am more than thou,” is unintelligible. Except upon the score of numbers already stated, the right of each tribe in David was equal. Why then, etc.? rather, Why hast thou despised me? Was not my word the first for bringing back the king? (see 1Ch 5:9, and note on verse 40). Were fiercer. While the Israelites debated the matter calmly, the men of Judah met their complaint with harsh and bitter rejoinders. This explains the feud which followed.
HOMILETICS
2Sa 19:1-15
The facts are:
1. In consequence of David’s sorrowful isolation, the people mourn and betake themselves to the city ashamed and discouraged.
2. Joab, being informed of the fact, enters the king’s house, and sharply rebukes him for his conduct, charging him with disregarding the sacrifices his people had made, and caring more for his rebellious son than for his attached friends.
3. Joab then advises him at once to arise and go forth to encourage the people, pointing out that otherwise the greatest trial of his life will be sure to come in the alienation of his subjects.
4. The king thereupon sits in the gate of the city, and all the people come to him.
5. Meanwhile, during David’s sojourn at Mahanaim, the people of Israel are at variance as to the course to be pursued with reference to brining him back to rule over them, and it is urged that, under all the circumstances of the case, something should be done in that direction.
6. David, hearing of the intentions of Israel, sends to Zadok and Abiathar to suggest to the elders of Judah the impropriety of their being forestalled in the movement by their brethren of Israel.
7. He also instructs them to inform Amasa of his purpose to displace Joab in his favour.
8. The heart of the people of Judah being entirely won, they send unto him a message that he should return, and the king acting upon it, they meet him at Gilgal to conduct him over Jordan.
Solitariness in religious experience.
The isolation of David from his people during this absorption in what appeared to be a domestic sorrow caused pain to his staunchest friends, was very near imperilling his influence as sovereign, and gave some ostensible ground for the ungracious remonstrance of Joab. But the fact is, David was true to himself as a man of deepest piety, and the people were unable to enter into the actual struggle through which he was passing. Like One greater, he “trod the wine press alone.” It was not mere natural affection for a son, it was not pain that a son had been ungrateful, that crushed him and rendered him for the time forgetful of the claims of his people and the duties of his office. The key to the whole is to be sought in the prediction of Nathan (2Sa 12:9-12), the fulfilment of this in its severest form in the tragedy of the life just ended, and the keen perception of this in relation to his own dreadful sin. His distinct recognition of the chastising hand of God (2Sa 15:24-30) when, with bare feet and broken heart, he passed in silence and tears over Mount Olivet, was now repeated with, of course, the fuller and more overwhelming anguish attendant on the ruin of a life, yea, of a soul, as he felt, through his own great sin. Joab and the people never, perhaps, knew of Nathan’s declaration. It was always a latent element in David’s restored life of piety; but now it was the crushing force before which he could not hold up. He saw, as he believed, how his spiritual degeneracy, during those dark months of horrible sin and guilt, had acted perniciously on the spirit of his son; and he could not but feel that, in the temporal and spiritual destruction of his son, he was now reaping just what he had sown. Yet all this he had to bear alone! No one could share the dreadful secret; and in proportion as he saw what was involved in a ruined soul, so would be the utterness of his anguish. No wonder if in his solitary experience he forgot all earthly things, and gave himself up to the bitterness of his grief.
I. THERE ARE CRISES IN SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE. David was a man of many crises. The history and the Psalms reveal them. His call to kingship by Samuel meant an unrecorded experience of a most extraordinary kind. His anguish in exile when pursued by Saul put his faith to a terrible test. His sad fall was a descent into a pit of horrors. The tremendous conflict involved in his restoration is indicated in the fifty-first psalm, and now, when the judgment of God for his sin falls in heaviest form, he descends into the depths (Psa 130:1-8.) further, perhaps, than was ever known by any other man. We see similar crises in the lives of some others. Jacob knew the desolation of Bethel and the pains of the wrestling with the angel. Paul was dumb and blind before God till prayer brought him forth to light and peace; and he later on had experiences of things which it was “not lawful” to utter. Most men whose religion has depths have known times when anguish before God has shut out all thought and care of earthly things. Some have seasons of temptation equal to that of Bunyan’s Pilgrim in the Valley of the Shadow of Death. As a rule, religious life is a steady growth, but there are checks and disasters when the question of life itself is at stake. We can understand David’s experience in the case before us without having recourse to the hypothesis of a weak mind overborne by natural sorrow for the death of a favourite son.
II. CRISES IN RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE ARE OFTEN MOST ABSORBING. David was so absorbed in the spiritual anguish springing from a religious view of the ruin of Absalom in connection with his own great sin, as practically to forget that he was a king, and that a nation needed his guidance. The narrative is true to the spiritual facts that may be traced by a comparison of this event with the king’s previous conduct. The intensity of his nature, as revealed in the strong and passionate utterances of the psalms, whether in joy or sorrow, would add to the tendency to yield himself utterly to this greatest of all the calamities consequent on his sin. The passion with which he once pleaded for Bathsheba’s child (2Sa 12:16-20) was an instance of the same kind, only less than this, because here the trouble was the more serious in so far as the moral and bodily ruin of a son was a greater consequence of his sin. All who have entered into the solitariness of the great crises in the soul’s career know how at such times all earthly things seem to vanish into insignificance; and it is with extreme difficulty that ordinary and necessary duties can be attended to. Men have been known to forget to take food, and to isolate themselves from their friends. And no wonder, when the soul sees its sins in the awful light of God’s judgments, or is made to feel the consequences to others of its past deeds. Peter did not associate freely with friends that night on which he “went out and wept bitterly.”
III. THERE ARE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT DETERMINE THE DEGREE OF ABSORPTION IN THE SORROWS OF A RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE. David never felt anything like this. But the reason is plain. Never before did he see a connection between his own past conduct and so awful an event. The special elements contributing to his self-absorbing misery were a vivid remembrance of his dreadful sin in the case of Bathsheba and Uriah; a spiritual appreciation of the awful issue of his son’s life; a deep conviction that that issue was, in the judgment of God, in some way connected with his own sin; a contrast, inevitable in the association of ideas, of the end of Absalom with the hopes once cherished concerning him; a reflection, which could not but occasionally force itself in (2Sa 12:13), that he only was forgiven and saved; a feeling that no one on earth could enter into his sorrows and afford him consolation. All these circumstances gained force by the fact that constitutionally he always felt strongly, and religiously his superior spiritual discernment rendered sin and its effects the more terrible. So in our own experience there will be, perhaps, specialities which may render our absorption much more absolute than is that of others. The natural mental and moral texture of our nature, the conditions under which our sins were committed, the consequences which we can trace from our former sins, the vividness with which an ideal past is contrasted with present facts, the relative clearness of our spiritual perceptions and tenderness of our susceptibilities, and degree of homage paid to the majesty of God’s holy Law,all these may qualify the self-surrender to the experience of the time. We cannot expect cold and stolid men to bear the same troubles in the same way as do men of quick and highly developed spiritual sensibilities.
IV. THE SORROWS OF SUCH CRISES CANNOT BE SHARED. A community of experience is necessary to the creation of a sympathy coextensive with the depth of the sorrow. There were parents in Israel and Judah who had lost sons, and they would be able to enter into David’s grief to that extent, and he could so far speak to them of his trouble. There were sinful men at Mahanaim who knew what trouble of conscience was, and who might afford comfort to their neighbours when mourning over their guilt; but there was no man in all the world who had sinned as David had, and no one in the world, perhaps, who now saw what an unutterably awful thing sin in general was, and especially his sin. To no one except Nathan, who probably kept aloof from him, had the connection of David’s sin with this judgment on it been known. Consequently, David felt shut up to his own anguish. “Of the people there was none with him.” The transaction was between himself and God. He knew that the people did not understand him, and he could not explain himself to them. So is it with all our deepest experiences before God. We see our sins set in the light of his countenance, and no one can share the experience involved therein. Reversing the picture, it may be said that there are also seasons of blessedness in the course of life when the “joy is unspeakable and full of glory,” and which can never be fully told or even understood.
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. Let us remember that there are daily some persons passing through fearful crises in their religious life, and that it is possible to help all such by our prayers.
2. We should be very considerate of others who may appear to be unduly cast down, as there may be circumstances which, if known, would strengthen our pity.
3. It is very possible for us to misjudge others in the conduct they adopt, and make our own contracted experience a standard of judgment.
4. We may expect that those who are utterly broken down in spirit will be called out of their self-absorption by the voice of Providence.
5. It is a comfort to us all to know that God understands our real thoughts and feelings, and that we have a High Priest who is touched with a feeling of our infirmities, he having entered into deeper depths of sorrow than we can ever know.
The remoter consequences of sin.
The narrative sets forth the action of Joab to arouse the king from his self-absorption, and the changed attitude of the people towards him, as also the measures taken by David to bring about a reconciliation between himself and the entire nation. The great judgment on David’s sin was now passed. Nathan’s words had been fearfully fulfilled, but in what followed we see also some of the remoter consequences of the sin. Thus Joab’s rough treatment and unbecoming familiarity in the discharge of an honest duty were connected with the fact that David had put himself in Joab’s power by making him privy and accessory to the death of Uriah. The people were now almost alienated because of the absorption of the king in sorrow. which would not have happened but for the sin which created the sorrow. The question of the precedence of Judah in the matter of his restoration was the distinct formulation of a jealousy and sectional interest which subsequently resulted in a schism of the kingdom, and this question would not have arisen but for the chastisement for sin in the form of a son’s rebellion. Likewise the ultimate death of Amasa came through David’s having, probably because Joab bad been insulting and because a complete amnesty was deemed desirable, displaced Joab in his favour. These bitter streams all flowed into the remoter ramifications of life from the fountain of trouble opened by the fall of David. Hereon we may observe
I. THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN MAY COEXIST WITH THE ONWARD FLOW OF SOME OF ITS CONSEQUENCES. There is a certainty that David’s great guilt was covered (2Sa 12:13). The prayer of the fifty-first psalm had been fully answered, and privately he had been able to rejoice again in the God of his salvation. But we have in this history the spectacle of a pardoned, reconciled man, confident in his personal salvation, and the onward flow of a stream of social and material evils which, so far at least as they were related to him, sprang from his sin. The prediction of Nathan did not establish an arbitrary relation between his conduct to Bathsheba and Uriah, and the whole mental and moral condition implied therein, and the rebellion of Absalom and the perplexities of the situation after its suppression. There was an organic connection between the spiritual fall and the civil troubles. The spiritual element in us is the centre of our composite nature. A change for the worse in it radiates through the entire being, and as the outward relations are affected by the condition and direction taken by our various powers, so the inmost change is the spring of manifold and ever-flowing consequences. The deteriorated influence on others, consequent on a period of spiritual declension, cannot but act dynamically as a wave long after we have by repentance and faith been restored to God. The personal condemnation is gone, but the injury done on society is not gone. The intricate mass of material and social evils now afflicting the world is the outcome of deviation from the perfect will of God, and though some who thus deviated are now blessed in heaven, the quota they contributed by their former sins is still somewhere in the tangled mass.
II. SIN IS A DISTURBER OF MANY RELATIONS. David’s sin affected his relation to God and to his own family and people. It touched his personal influence among friends, his administration, and indirectly, through the rebellion, the lives and dearest interests of multitudes. The distress and uncertainty at Mahanaim after the defeat of Absalom and the hesitancy of the tribes to welcome him back, were traceable to what he had formerly done. Who can describe the manifold disturbances in the order of things produced in our world by the sin of Adam? The ramifications of the wave of disturbance created by any one sin are more than can be numbered. It is in the more conspicuous acts of transgression that we get visible traces of a widespread disturbance similar to what is caused by every inconspicuous act. A rebellious son in a home, a dishonest deed in business, a vicious habit,these reveal a manifest series of troubles in private, social, and public connections. No sinner sins to himself. Moral evil gives colour and form to all things. It infuses an element of defect, if not of positive evil, into every bodily, mental, and moral relation sustained by the sinning man.
III. THE DISTURBANCE CAUSED BY SIN FLOWS ON INTO THE REMOTE FUTURE. The great moral shock involved in David’s great sin produced effects which for years flowed on, and which, in fact, are flowing on now. The great storm in mid-ocean sends the under swell into far distant bays, and long after quietude has been restored at the centre the sullen roll falls on the beach. The whole subsequent course of Hebrew history was modified by the deed of evil done in secret. In so far as the power of David over the world is less, and different in kind, from what it would have undoubtedly been had he kept himself pure, so far his sin is still at work shaping the destinies of men. We can never call back the waves of pernicious influence we send forth in a single sinful act or feeling. It is the law of the universe that they go on. The supposed counteraction of them by subsequent repentance and amendment only means that we modify the influence previously sent forth,we make the world somewhat better than it would have been had the sinful influence gone out alone. We cannot annihilate it any more than we can annihilate force. The future is the sum of all the influences of the past.
IV. THE MANIFOLD AND EVER–FLOWING CONSEQUENCES OF SIN ARE NOT ADEQUATELY RECOGNIZED BY MANKIND. David recognized the rebellion and death of Absalom and the associated civil inconveniences as being in some way connected with his sin; but even he did not see, when at Mahanaim, that the subsequent death of Amasa and the schism of the two kingdoms were also a consequence of his conduct, and therefore of his sin. His own people probably did not even connect the troubles of the times with his sin, but rather with what they regarded as a foolish over fondness for a favourite son. In our life we do not sufficiently connect our bodily and mental imperfections with the sins of others in the past, or, in some cases, especially with our own sins. Political bodies and publicists fail to recognize the spiritual origin of vast and complicated social troubles. The Bible in this respect is the most statesmanlike and philosophical of all books, in that it gives prominence to sin as the determining factor in all our material and social troubles. A spiritual mind discerns the spiritual causes.
2Sa 19:16-30
The facts are:
1. Shimei, with a considerable Benjamite following, including Ziba and his household, joins the men of Judah to meet David at the Jordan.
2. Previous to the king being ferried over, Shimei falls down before him, confesses his past sins, and pleads for mercy, and urges as evidence of sincerity that he is the first to come and bid the king welcome.
3. On Abishai expressing his feeling that Shimei should rather be put to death for his evil deeds, David resents the suggestion, and in honour of the day of his restoration declares to Shimei that his life shall be spared. Mephibosheth also comes, with his person uncared for, to welcome the king at Jerusalem, and on being asked why he had not gone out with him into exile, explains that it was owing to the deception of his servant Ziba.
5. Placing himself and all his interests entirely at the king’s disposal, admitting that all his rights and privileges were, according to political custom, of pure clemency, he is told that he need not enter further into the question, but that he and Ziba should divide the land between them.
The influence of superior minds.
The section now under notice cannot be separated in import from the preceding words (2Sa 19:14, 2Sa 19:15), which relate that David bowed the heart of all the men of Judah so that they came to conduct him over Jordan. The particular instances of Shimei and Mephibosheth are special illustrations of the general truth expressed in David’s bowing the hearts of men. The mighty power of the king’s words and methods gathered around him the most bitter of foes and the most lonely and helpless of his friends. The facts bring out into view the influence which a superior mind exercises over others; and on the nature and conditions of this influence we may, by the help of the narrative in addition to broad facts in human life, make a few observations, noting
I. THE NATURAL BASIS. The bowing of the hearts of all the people indicates the swaying of an influence of an unusual kind. Whatever the means and whatever aids to this end came from the sudden transition of public feeling produced by Absalom’s death, the fact remains that there was in David’s nature as a man something which, when aroused, gave him a mental and moral power over others. Intellectually and morally he was a born king of men. If “king” = konig = konnen, “to be able,” then he, by virtue of his nature, was kingwas above others, and there went forth a spell which all recognized. Apart from special endowments, he was the superior man of the age. There were elements in him which, under evil disposition, would render him most capable of leading people captive in evil ways, and which, under a good disposition, did lay hold of them for their good. The history of mankind and the observation of daily life reveal the domination of one mind over others. The influence of mind is the most subtle and mighty thing we know. Millions sometimes submit to its spell. It is the proud prerogative of the select few to bow down the hearts of their fellows. All attempts to explain the fact by psychological analysis are insufficient. No analysis can get at the mysterious nature of the impact of one spirit on another: yet we knew that the reality has its root in the peculiar constitution of the individual. This applies to preacher, statesman, philosopher, poet, king. The Apostle Paul’s power was in its basis a constitutional power. Grace is grafted on nature, not a force apart from nature.
II. ACQUIRED INCREMENT. The native qualities of David determined the fact and the kind of his superior influence over other minds, though not its moral direction. But his education and experience in the gradual exercise of his powers in lower spheres of activity contributed to the mature form and range of his influence. The conqueror of lion and giant became, by an educational process, a conqueror of the hearts of men. The development of natural powers, whether of oratory, administration, will force, moral suasion, or the more nameless thing which goes out from one’s personal presence, is another way of saying that we have added to the store of influence which lay in the mental constitution from the first. The difference in the degree to which some men acquire this increment accounts, in large measure, for their ascendancy over the equally gifted. Perhaps this is the meaning of those who regard genius as a name for great powers duly developed by continuous exercise.
III. SPIRITUAL ENDOWMENT. In the case of David we must recognize this element in his superior power over the hearts of good and bad. Grace in him had perfected and beautified a fine nature. The spiritual is always the most subtle and subduing influence over men, when brought fairly into play. In spite of sin, men acknowledge the spell. The anointing by Samuel in the name of God was more than a formal act. David was indeed the Lord’s anointed. Hence all the natural and acquired qualities received an elevation and a tone which, when the dire evils of the great fall were not at work on him, gave to his words, his counsels, his movements, and commands a charm and force over men of most diverse temperament and character. In this he was like the apostles when they stood before men. We occasionally see now how greatly the power of certain minds is increased over others when they have the natural and acquired gifts baptized with the anointing of the Holy Spirit. A consecrated heart and intellect gains influence by its consecration. There are men who by oratory have bowed the hearts of thousands; but when such men have became true Christians, the bowing of the hearts under their words is a much more thorough and enduring victory. “Covet earnestly the best gifts” (1Co 12:31).
IV. CIRCUMSTANTIAL AIDS. The circumstances of the time gave advantage to David in the exercise of his ordinary powers. His friends had mourned his sorrowful isolation; his enemies had felt that, by defeat, they had placed themselves in an awkward position; his being aroused from his self-absorbing grief led him to calmly review the position of advantage in which now the goodness of God had placed him; the reflection that now a supreme effort was needed if he was to prevent the alienation of friends and follow up the fruits of victory so as to save the nation from anarchy, drew forth his entire soul into sympathy with the purpose of God in making him king; and, as a consequence, he so infused into his conversation with the people of Mahanaim, and into his messages to the elders of Judah, the whole power of his nature that he bowed the hearts of all. Events had prepared the minds of the people to receive the influence going forth from his very soul. The narrative evidently implies that there was some unusual persuasiveness in his manner and language, and it reached even to Shimei and Mephibosheth, who certainly were rendered more accessible to his influence by the change in affairs. Seasons of excitement and public interest are favourable to the putting forth of the influence which superior minds can exercise. The Day of Pentecost was a time which brought aid to the efforts of the apostles. A grave responsibility rests on gifted men to use their influence under such favouring circumstances as occasionally occur in human affairs.
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. It behoves us not to allow our gifts to be long unused, by reason of absorption in purely personal interests.
2. It is a scripturally enforced duty that we stir up the gifts that may lie in us.
3. Among the various powers that may be exercised in the world, we should especially desire and seek that of bowing down the hearts of men to the interests of God’s kingdom.
4. We may rest assured that, if we use our powers to the utmost in a good cause and in dependence on God, we shall overcome many an obstacle and win over even adverse hearts.
Royal clemency.
The sudden collapse of the rebellion placed David in a position of advantage, and yet of difficulty. He was not the man to care for sovereignty over a disunited people, and the attitude of those who had been in rebellion was not quite certain. Those who do wrong are suspicious of those against whom the wrong has been done when power comes into their hands. It was, therefore, the policy of David to convince them that they need not be under any apprehension of his using the recovered power to punish them. This was the evident meaning of the deputation of the high priests to the men of Judah, and the reason of the promotion of Amasa (together with his reasonable desire to express his sense of Joab’s dangerous liberty in disobeying a positive public command). The noble hearted king felt the importance of the restoration of peace and unity so deeply, and was so sensible of the mercy of God in answering his desire when in anguish (2Sa 15:25, 2Sa 15:26), that, on this occasion of joy, sobered though it was by thoughts of chastisement just past, he cannot but grant an amnesty to all his foes. In the exercise of this royal clemency we see set forth the following truths.
I. THE INFLUENCE ON MEN OF ALL CONDITIONS OF A TIDE OF SUCCESS. The turn of the tide had come for David, and with it men good and bad, great and small, throughout the land began to consider how they had better comport themselves under the new circumstances. Israel hastened to indicate readiness (2Sa 19:11). Judah was waiting for some encouragement to yield (2Sa 19:12-14), and receiving it, hasted to be first at Jordan (2Sa 19:15, 2Sa 19:41). And such representative men as Shimei and Ziba show eagerness to find favour with the victorious monarch. Probably only an active section of the less thoughtful people had really rejected David; the great mass were won over to the winning side because it was the winning side, and, now that David was returning to power, they, and also the real leaders of the rebellion, move on with the tide. Success has a great charm for some minds. The day of prosperity draws out many friends. In national and religious affairs multitudes are influenced, not by a calm and independent consideration of the merits of the question or system, but by the fact that there is a semblance of prosperity. Men are not without reason spoken of as a “flock;” they are disposed to go in with the rest. This is not the highest type of humanity.
II. DOUBTFUL LOYALTY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS OF LIFE. The real friends of Absalom and such men as Shimei fell in with the change in public opinion, and professed, the latter most eagerly and humbly, to welcome the king back. Allegiance is a matter of degrees, and springs from mixed motives. David had to feel for the rest of his days that policy governed the loyalty of some of his people. In national life there are many causes of unsteadiness of loyal attachment to the head of the statesome lying in the seat of authority, and some in ignorance, prejudice, or occasionally the convictions of the people. Every bond of union between moral beings implies a loyalty more or less defined to persons and interests. Master and servant, husband and wife, partners in business and government, teachers and pupils, create, by the relation formed, a demand. for loyalty the one to the other and to the common interests professedly sought by the union. The fellowship of the saints in Church life especially creates scope for mutual loyalty and common loyalty to Christ. We may see many things in one, for all truth is related; and therefore, in the doubtful loyalty of men in David’s time, with its necessary weakness to the national life, and injury to the highest interests of the kingdom, we see the evil brought on the world by defective loyalty in the various relationships men enter into; and especially do we see the pernicious effect of defective loyalty of professing Christians to the Church and to Christ. The practical bearings of this are very many and very wide.
III. INDICATIONS OF AN UNEASY CONSCIENCE. The moral value of actions is not to be seen by looking at them simply as actions; their form may be perfect, their real value is seen in their connections. It was a beautiful action to hasten over Jordan and be first to bid the king welcome; the most devoted of his friends could not do more; but for Shimei to do it, after his conduct towards David, took away from the deed the flow of its natural beauty. The act was evidence of an uneasy conscience conjoined with a cowardly, time serving policy. That he was truly penitent is not admissible from the tenor of his wordsthey sound hollow. It is not the custom of the true penitent to refer to his good deeds in proof of penitence (2Sa 19:20). Nor, perhaps, was Ziba without a restless conscience in thus seeking early to court the favour of the king, who would soon learn the facts concerning his former deception (2Sa 16:1-4). We here see that conscience is alive, even in very base men; that it is quiescent and seemingly at ease when either possibility of exposure or punishment is far off; that it is nevertheless sensitive to any change in events which tend to hasten exposure or punishment; that its greatest dread is falling into the hands of a supreme power; and that, instead of elevating the man, and prompting to renovation, it rather drags him down to the low and plausible means of avoiding what it knows is deserved. Let the religious teacher see how this action of conscience is verified in the case of many who have rejected Christ, the Lord’s Anointed. Once let them know that he is coming into his kingdom, and uneasiness will appear.
IV. THE INFLUENCE IN LIFE OF DOMINATING IDEAS. The son of Zeruiah (2Sa 19:21) wished to slay Shimei at once, and, had he done so, many would have said that the wicked man reaped the desert of his crimes. The anointed of the Lord desired that the man should not die, and many doubtless thought that the clemency was ill judged. But the reason of the totally diverse desires and judgments was that the two men were on that day governed by totally diverse ideas. Abishai was the hard, stern soldier, ruled in this instance by the sentiment of rigid discipline, and acting in all things under the idea of power; whereas David was the wise, generous king, ruled by the sentiment of love for his people, and acting in this instance under the idea of kingly grace. The one saw no reason in the event of the day for sparing an unworthy life; the other saw that kingly grace found befitting exercise when prosperity and joy were returning to all. The ideas that ruled the one life left no room for variation; those that ruled the other required variation. It is an important inquiry to what extent men’s lives are ruled by a few leading ideas, and what is the relation of these ideas to the impulses and dispositions that seem to lie next to the will. The Christian man has certain clear and definite conceptions concerning God, Christ, himself, the relation of the present to the future, which mark him off from the non-Christian man, and these form the intellectual elements that determine all his conduct toward God and man. Men of diverse ages differ much in the general conceptions they entertain on the details of life, and hence we get differences in the degree of conformity of conduct to an absolute standard of morality. In so far as we can procure unity of perception and unity of disposition, so far do we lay the basis for harmony of conduct and the welfare of civil society. Hence the radical and yet progressive work of true Christianity: it will bring “eye to eye” and heart to heart, and so establish peace forevermore. Hence also the importance of instilling in young and old such views as shall, by their range and controlling influence over the mind, practically determine conduct along the Christian line.
V. THE PATIENT WAITING OF THE DECEIVED, AND OPPRESSED. The personal appearance of Mephibosheth when he came to welcome David to Jerusalem was indicative of trouble and sorrow arising from neglect and poverty, and possibly real grief, experienced during the time of the rebellion. The conduct of Ziba and the loss of David’s table (2Sa 9:9-13; 2Sa 16:1-4) account for his poverty, and it is not likely that such a man as Absalom would make ample provision for one of the house of Saul. There is no trace of Mephibosheth having by treasonous means done wrong to David, though it is possible that, in real Oriental manner, he, like the sons of Zadok, may have assumed an outward prudential appearance of fidelity to the cause of Absalom. He was a helpless man, deceived and oppressed, and placed, by reason of his physical infirmity, in such a position as not to be able to extricate himself from trouble. His only chance was to wait and cherish hope that the generous king, who had so bountifully befriended him for his father’s sake, would return to power. A fair illustration is this of the patient waiting of men suffering from craft and wrong. The African race in slavery, deceived and robbed of their patrimony by men more strong and crafty, waited and hoped almost against hope for the day of freedom. Their only hope was in the rise of the beneficent kingly power of the Lord’s Anointed, and it did come. Others, such as the Waldenses and Malagasy, wronged and oppressed, waited for the coming of the better day, and it did come. Many a soul, deceived by the cunning craft of the father of lies, and robbed of moral and material wealth, has known the pains of poverty of spirit, and waited for the king’s gracious restoration. The Apostle Paul tells us, too, of the “whole creation,” afflicted with the ills consequent on the great rebellion against God, travailing in pain, and waiting for a better time (Rom 8:18-22). It is the joy of the preacher to be able to announce “the acceptable year of the Lord” to all who mourn. They shall not wait in vain (Isa 61:1 – 4).
VI. A PRACTICAL VIEW OF THE ANOMALIES OF LIFE. The position in which David found himself when, on hearing the story of Mephibosheth and observing his distressed circumstances, he had to decide with respect to the property at stake, was one of extreme delicacy and difficulty. In all good faith he had handed over the property to Ziba, and Ziba had befriended his friends in a time of need (2Sa 16:1, 2Sa 16:2), and had been foremost to welcome himself back (2Sa 19:17). The kindness of the man in the hour of need was a set off to his deceit. On the other hand, the forfeiture of the property of Mephibosheth by royal decree was based on false information; and being a member of a royal house, and not proved to have been openly disloyal, he certainly had a claim to restoration to rights. The brevity of the narrative leaves the actual decision of David in some obscurity (2Sa 19:29). But the sense seems to be that David solved the difficulty by restoring the old relations as a matter of practice (2Sa 9:9-11), without formally revoking the legal right of Ziba. As formerly, so now, the two families were to live on the produce of the soil, and in this there was great consideration, for Mephibosheth was physically incapable of looking after his own affairs. The example of David, as a matter of procedure, is worthy of attention. Life is crowded with difficulties analogous to this. Claims and counter claims force themselves on our attention. Wrongs have to be righted and merits have to be considered in alleviation of judgment. The principle on which David acted was a sound one, and can be used by us in all things, namely, to deal with anomalies practically, not merely speculatively, and to aim at a restoration of things to their natural basis. To bring men and things back to nature, so far as circumstances admit, is a safe and prudent rule. The old relationship of Ziba to Mephibosheth (2Sa 9:2 4), and the incapacity of the latter, rendered it most unwise to cut the knot of present complications by having recourse to the practical division indicated in 2Sa 9:9-12. There is a natural basis, if we will only take pains to find it, in our modern complications.
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. We should see in the returning success of the servant of God after a season of severe chastisement a token of our joyous return to the possession of privilege when we have been duly exercised by the chastisement of Providence (Heb 12:5-7).
2. Success is not to be regarded as less real because imperfect and weak men crowd in with it, though we ought to separate their attachment from the elements of endurance in the success.
3. In selecting friends we should not place much reliance on those most eager in their expression of interest. Words are to be tested by deeds.
4. It is incumbent on all Christians to purge from their relationships, whether of master, servant, professor of religion, member of Church, or subject of the realm, every trace of doubtful loyalty.
5. The profession of interest in religion is to be carefully weighed, seeing that an uneasy conscience will often prompt to a formal profession when there is not sincere love and faith.
6. It will be a great gain to the Church if we can instil into the minds of the young the most cardinal principles of Christianity, which, by their dominating power, will expel inferior views and lead to right action.
7. We may encourage the poor and oppressed to take heart from seeing how in the course of history God does vindicate the needy. The great vindications will be when the King of kings comes to judgment.
2Sa 19:31-43
The facts are:
1. Barzillai, having provided sustenance for David while he was at Mahanaim, and accompanying him over Jordan, is entreated to go and live with him at Jerusalem.
2. Barzillai, having no relish for the kind of life which he thought prevailed at court, pleads age and infirmity and a fear of being an incumbrance to David, as a reason for not complying with his request, but asks that his own son Chimham may be permitted to go.
3. David consents, promises to do for Barzillai all that he may require, kisses and blesses him, and, while the good old man returns home, David passes on to Gilgal, conducted by all the people of Judah and half the people of Israel.
4. The men of Israel protest against what they conceive to be the stealthy way in which the men of Judah forestalled them in bringing back the king.
5. The men of Judah assign, as the explanation of their conduct, that they were not mercenary, but that their near kinship was the clue to their zeal.
6. The controversy waxes strong on the men of Israel asserting in their rejoinder that, being ten tribes, they had more right in the king than had Judah.
A beautiful old age.
The scene described by the historian of the parting of Barzillai and David is one of the most touching to be found in Old Testament story; end the two elements which chiefly contribute to its interest arethe return of the banished king to his beloved city and his throne at the close of a most anxious season; and the beautiful character of the venerable man who had befriended him in his misfortunes, and now, with a consciousness that his own earthly course is nearly run, bids him an affectionate farewell. There are many venerable saints referred to in the Biblefrom the time of Enoch to the beloved exile of Patmosand they all convey to us a certain common instruction concerning life and its destiny, blended with what is peculiar to each; but we shall here confine attention to those features of a beautiful old age which are specially brought out in the description given of Barzillai.
I. OLD AGE ITSELF NATURALLY AWAKENS A TENDER INTEREST. This is the natural basis of all our regard for the aged, and is an element entering into the beauty which in some cases we recognize. In every age and clime, and among all except the most savage, age has won respect and developed tender feelings in the younger. We regard it as a sign of moral debasement when men fail to cherish tender consideration for the aged. The reasons that account for our best feelings are not always definite, and in this case they are certainly very subtlebeing hidden away in the thoughts and sentiments that grow with our growth. If we seek the analysis of our sentiment towards age, we shall find these items: a sense of our inferiority in all that makes up the deepest experiences of life; a conviction that the venerable form is the symbol of many a veiled sorrow and buried hope; a perception of traces of unrecorded conflicts; a feeling of sympathy with increasing infirmities; a remembrance of the fleeting character of the best and most vigorous manhood; and a reflection that a responsible being is getting near to the eternal world. In the presence of age we cannot but feel that to live is a grave and solemn business.
II. OLD AGE EXHIBITS A SPECIAL BEAUTY WHERE IT IS PERVADED BY KINDLY FEELINGS AND EARNEST PIETY. Sometimes we meet with old age rendered hard, bitter, venomed, and remorseful, and, while our hearts are touched with tender interest, we feel that we can only pitythere is no admiration, because there is no moral, and probably no physical, beauty. In Barzillai we see all the natural, physical beauties of age crowned by virtues of the most attractive kind. His generous provision for the king when in need, and his making an effort to see him happily on his way home, revealed kindliness. His desire to share in such valued society so far as strength permitted, his right estimate of what befits the closing days of life, and his quiet content with the comforts and joys of home, show his wisdom. His anxiety not to be a burden to the king amidst the duties and cares of government, and his request for a favour to his son (1Ki 2:7), prove his considerateness. His wish to live and die and be buried among the kindred whom he had loved so long, was evidence of his domestic affection. His having befriended, honoured, and loved the banished king when appearances were against him, and his being privileged to take so tender a leave of the Lord’s anointed, was a sign of distinguished loyalty. His obvious faith in the right cause when the rebellion was at its height, his bold identification of his interests with those of the Lord’s afflicted servant, his doing all for the right cause without any idea of compensation, was proof of deep piety. Thus the beauty of old age lies much in years being crowned with kindliness of disposition, wisdom of conduct, consideration of feeling, deep affection for one’s own people, faithfulness in the relationships of life, and calm and strong piety. How lovely is old age when so adorned!
III. AN OLD AGE THUS BEAUTIFIED IS VERY HELPFUL TO OTHERS. Barzillai was helpful to David in his trials and triumphs; but it was not the mere food (2Sa 17:28, 2Sa 17:29) which he, with others, brought that gave strength to David’s heart and raised his hope in God. The hoary head, crowned with the glory of true goodness, was more to David than all the material supplies. To have the friendship and the kindly attentions of a vendable man of God, was to the king a real spring of new life and vigour. The vain and trifling young man might go off to take sides with rebellion, but age, with its wisdom, its deep experience, its large heartedness and settled piety, was with him. As cold water to a thirsty soul was the loyalty and affection of so honoured a man. It is a blessing and real help to have the favour and sympathy of men who have had large experience in life, and have won for themselves imperishable honours; and, though the infirmities of age may seem to set a narrow limit to the usefulness of the aged, yet their moral power is very great. Their influence is quiet, but real and pervading. The tone they impart to home affects the world outside, and their known interest in Christ’s servants and the work they are doing, is power and cheer to many a heart.
IV. A BEAUTIFUL OLD AGE IS AN ABIDING CHARM IN THE MEMORY. David and Barzillai never met again on earth. Their parting partook of all the sweet tenderness of a final severance. Before David had finished his career, the venerable man had passed away to his blessed reward (1Ki 2:7). But it could not but be, as was evident from his charge to Solomon, that throughout his life David cherished the memory of the good old man, and found amid the cares and sorrows of life much comfort therein. The vision of that bent form, laden with precious fruits of a long and godly experience, bending before him and bidding him God speed in his high vocation would often use up and again cheer his spirit. The dead yet speak to us. Our memories retain the cherished form and words and tender embraces of venerable saints, and, as we think of their faith and hope and triumph over the world, we take fresh courage and struggle on. Thank God for aged Christians living or departed!
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. We see how wondrously God does, in his kind providence, sweeten the bitters of life by friendships which would not have been formed but for the trouble.
2. There is great blessedness in being enabled to render encouragement to God’s servants when they are engaged in arduous and perplexing service, and this form of usefulness may be sought by all, especially by the aged.
3. We should, in our own lives and in others, look for an advance of moral powers proportionate to the advance of age.
4. We should covet the honour of bringing our ripest and best attainments and placing them at the service of Christ.
The uses and perils of rivalry. It was natural that, at first, there should be some hesitation in at least the leaders of the people, both in Judah and Israel, in making overtures to David and in sending deputations to welcome him back. Israel, however, overcame this feeling first, and David, reasonably anxious that Judah, so near to him, should not be outdone, took means to inform them of what was in contemplation, and urged that they certainly need not hesitate, seeing that his promotion of Amasa was proof of his unchanged feelings of interest in them (2Sa 19:11-13). Influenced by desire not to be outdone in expressions of loyalty, they were first at Jordan. and carried off the honour of accompanying the king to Jerusalem. There is no evidence that David wished Judah to steal a march on Israel, and so embitter the feeling between them. Probably he thought that a conference would take place for joint action. His sole anxiety was that Judah should not be tardy in indicating restored allegiance and taking measures for showing it. For reasons not stated, Judah acted alone, much to the chagrin of Israel, and hence the controversy (2Sa 19:41, 2Sa 19:43) as to the relative right to manifest special interest in the king. It was a rivalry in good works, not unmixed with questionable feelings. Rivalry has its uses and its dangers.
I. IT TENDS TO STIMULATE ACTION AND DEVELOP LATENT POWERS. The thought that Israel might reach Jordan first, and so get the honour of showing attachment to the king, stirred up zeal in Judah, and drew forth whatever feeling of loyalty was latent in the community; and the fact that Judah outstripped Israel roused the heart of Israel to give verbal evidence of strong attachment to the king. This rivalry in accomplishing a common work enters into all life; it seems to have its roots deep down in our nature. It is associated with the conviction that duties have to be attended to, and that our honour is concerned in attending to them, at least as well as other people. Thus it is a side issue of the action of conscience, though it may easily develop unworthy feelings which will render its connection with conscience very obscure. Leaving out the question of improper feelings for the present, it doubtless does develop our powers, and even draws out latent forces, the existence of which had not been known. By the parallel action of the rivals much mutual instruction is gained as to methods of work, and weakness and strength of character, which instruction being applied, renders effort more successful.
II. IT TENDS TO KEEP THE IDEAL OF DUTY MORE CONSPICUOUSLY BEFORE THE MIND. The suggestion that Israel was about to welcome the king at once set before Judah in striking form the highest ideal of allegiance. Any thoughts concerning it hitherto cherished now were cleared of obscurity, and the duty was manifest. Rivalry among pupils, workmen, statesmen, and literary men necessarily causes all who enter into it to direct their attention from their own achievements as adequate, to the ideal towards which all are striving. This constant presence of a lofty ideal is a great gain to humanity. It is the absence of ideals which marks off the beast from man. When we are expected to provoke one another to love and good works, we at once think of the standard after which we are, as Christians, bound to strive (Php 3:12-14). The fact that others surpass us is a reminder of the vows we have taken, and so, setting the “mark” before us afresh, we press forward with renewed zeal. The healthful effect on us of the presence of a superior Christian is well known. The sight of holy men and women devoting their energies to the service of Christ in the world rebukes sloth, points to “what manner of persons” we ought to be, and so, by rendering the ideal more real to the mind, enable us to be more faithful to our Lord.
III. THERE IS, HOWEVER, A RISK OF LOSING SIGHT OF BROAD PRINCIPLES, AND BEING ABSORBED IN SIDE ISSUES. Judah and Israel were right in provoking to loyalty and reassertion of allegiance, and so far as they purely followed out the first impulse of rivalry all was well; but the ideal before them became obscured as soon as they began to dispute on a matter of detail as to precedence and personal motive. The question as to whether the motive of Judah was pure arose out of the zeal of Judah on the one side and the zeal of Israel on the other. Probably Judah did design to outwit Israel. The secrecy was not purely for the sake of loyalty to David, but to gratify pride in being first. It was not an open competition. Thus, by the minor feelings of the rivalry being allowed to gain ascendancy, there arose an issue which exposed a wholesome rivalry to the danger of being the occasion of sowing the seeds of permanent mischief. Here lies the great danger of rivalry in deeds and enterprises perfectly good in themselves. Especially is there a great risk in the matter of the competition of denominations and religious parties. Work is done, perhaps, to outstrip others, to gain notoriety, to gratify a love of pre-eminence, and also, in the heat of zeal, motives are impugned, and time and strength spent in mutual recriminations which had better be spent in rendering service to Christ.
IV. RIVALRY BRINGS FORTH ITS WORST FRUIT WHEN IT ISSUES IN PERMANENTLY DEBASED FEELINGS AND MUTUAL ESTRANGEMENT. We see in this controversy the beginning of an unholy feeling of jealousy and ill will, which, we know, issued at last in positive aversion and enmity. They were one people, the people of God, called to do a good and holy work in the world, and held under the government of God’s anointed. This consideration ought to have been uppermost in all times of effort and of difficulty. For one to seek to gratify pride at the cost of another was base; for the other to cherish bitterness of spirit was wrong; for both to weaken, by fierce controversy, the brotherly sentiment, and to create separate interests, instead of being one in devotion to their king and country, was a moral debasement from which they never recovered. To do Christian work well in rivalry requires watchfulness over motives, generous consideration of others, add delight in what they accomplish for the Master’s sake, and a conscientious maintenance of the honour and glory of Christ above all the petty considerations of personal or denominational interest. The mutual estrangement of Christians is a great calamity.. It has its root in the inferior feelings which have been allowed to mingle with genuine zeal for the kingdom of God; and the removal of it is to be sought in deep searching of heart, and a return to the simplicity of entire consecration to Christ’s service.
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. The holy rivalry of the primitive Christians (Joh 20:1-4) to be first at the sepulchre should be preferred as a model, both as to aim and spirit, to that of Judah and Israel.
2. The temptation to indulge in a feeling of personal pride should be met by a reflection on the serious evils that may issue from even one departure from purity.
3. In all our Christian enterprises it should be our endeavour to keep Christ and his honour clearly in view, and get inspiration from the zeal of others, not simply to outstrip them, but to bring more glory to him than any one else can.
4. In our efforts we should remember that we are all equally “kin” to Christ, and are equally dear to his heart.
5. In our estimate of Churches we are to give more weight to spiritual qualities than to numbers.
6. If on our guard against lurking evils, we may frequently ask ourselves how we can more perfectly prove our fidelity to our Lord and advance the honour of his Name.
HOMILIES BY B. DALE
2Sa 19:1-8
(MAHANAIM.)
Immoderate grief.
This interview between David and Joab throws light upon the character of both, and the relations subsisting between them.
1. The best of men are by no means perfect. David’s grief, although natural, and, in some respects, commendable, was unseasonable, excessive, and injurious; and exposed him to just reproof.
2. The worst of men are not altogether bad, but often exhibit admirable qualities. When Joab put Absalom to death against the king’s order he was actuated partly by regard for the king’s interest and the national welfare, “loyal disobedience;” he was also desirous of preventing unnecessary slaughter (2Sa 18:16), and showed a thoughtful concern for Ahimaaz (2Sa 18:19, 2Sa 18:20, 2Sa 18:22); and now, although his bearing toward the king was harsh and cruel (2Sa 3:24), he was fully justified in expostulating with him (as on another occasion, 2Sa 24:3).
3. The worst of men are often intimately associated with the best of men, and render them invaluable services; but their association is usually uncongenial, and productive of trouble and mischief (2Sa 3:39). By his great abilities Joab made himself necessary to David, and became confirmed in his high position (1Ch 11:6); and by his complicity “in the matter of Uriah,” he gained a despotic influence over him; hence his daring disobedience and overbearing attitude, and when the king, resenting his conduct, seeks to replace him as captain of the host, he strikes down his rival, then “calmly takes upon himself to execute the commission with which Amasa had been charged; and this done, ‘he returns to Jerusalem, unto the king,’ and once more he is ‘over all the host of Israel'” (Blunt, ‘Coincidences’). David’s inordinate grief was
I. REALLY REPRESENTABLE. “And the king covered his face,” etc. (2Sa 19:4). It was connected (as cause or effect) with:
1. The lack of due consideration of the moral causes of the event which he mourned over, and which was their natural and deserved consequence; and of the salutary influence which that event would have upon the nation. In surrendering himself to sorrow for the loss of his son, he was in some measure blind to the justice of his doom.
2. The absence of humble submission to the Divine will, such as he had previously displayed in “the day of his calamity” (2Sa 12:20; 2Sa 15:26; 2Sa 16:10).
3. The feeling of bitter resentment against those who had despised his commandment and disappointed his hopes. He would at first, perhaps, blame all his “servants;” and, when he was informed (2Sa 18:13) of the circumstances under which Absalom came to his end, would naturally regard the conduct of his executioners in its darkest aspect. “To understand this passionate utterance of anguish, we must bear in mind not only the excessive tenderness, or rather weakness, of David’s paternal affection toward his son, but also his anger that Joab and his generals should have paid so little regard to his command to deal gently with Absalom. With the king’s excitable temperament, this entirely prevented him from taking a just and correct view of the crime of his rebel son, which merited death, and of the penal justice of God, which had been manifested in his destruction” (Keil).
4. The neglect of urgent duties: thanksgiving to God for victory, the commendation of his faithful soldiers, the adoption of proper measures to confirm their attachment and secure peace and unity, the subordination of private grief to the public weal. “The deliverance that day was turned into mourning unto all the people,” etc. (2Sa 19:2). “Their hearty participation in the sorrow of their beloved king, for whom they had perilled their lives, soon changed to gloomy dissatisfaction at the fact that the king, absorbed in private grief, did not deign to bestow a look upon them” (Erdmann).
II. RUDELY REPROVED. “And Joab came into the house of the king,” etc. (2Sa 19:5-7). His reproof (2Sa 12:1) was:
1. Unfeeling, hard hearted, pitiless. He had no respect whatever for the natural feelings of the father; no sympathy with David’s intense and peculiar emotion,
2. Unscrupulous and reckless; whilst declaring the truth in part (2Sa 19:5), and as it appeared on the surface, casting unjust reproaches on the king for his heartless selfishness, ingratitude, and hatred (2Sa 19:6).
3. Unbecoming the relation of a subject to his sovereign; in language and manner, as well as in substance.
4. United, nevertheless, with wise counsel and solemn warning. “And now arise, go forth,” etc. (2Sa 19:7). No doubt David felt greatly hurt; and “the immediate effect of his indignation was a solemn vow to supersede Joab by Amasa; and in this was laid the lasting breach between himself and his nephew, which neither the one nor the other ever forgave” (Stanley) But, convinced that he had given occasion for reproof, he now patiently submitted to it (Psa 141:5.) “Hard natures and harsh words have their uses in life after all” (Scott). “The undisciplined word of Joab became a means of discipline to David, and the king turned from the destructive path into which unbridled feeling had led him.”
III. READILY RESTRAINED and laid aside. “And the king arose,” etc. (2Sa 19:8). “He was stung into action, and immediately roused himself to the discharge of his royal duties.” Would we overcome immoderate grief? We must:
1. Listen to the admonitions of truth, however disagreeable; and learn the evil of indulging it.
2. Receive the consoling assurances of Heaven, and pray for needful strength.
3. Repress it with prompt and determined effort.
4. Devote ourselves with diligence to necessary and useful activities.
“Heaven hath assigned
Two sovereign remedies for human grief:
Religion, surest, firmest, first, and best
Strength to the weak, and to the wounded, balm;
And strenuous action next.”
(Southey.)
Ordinary grief must be restrained within due bounds. But there is a sorrowtender, hopeful, godly sorrow for sin, to which we may freely and fully surrender ourselves; for it always conducts to greater purity, strength, and joy.D.
2Sa 19:15
David’s return to Jerusalem.
“And David returned, and came to the Jordan” (the eastern bank; while Judah came to Gilgal, joined by Shimei and Ziba; and a ferry boat was passing to and fro to carry over the king’s household, 2Sa 19:18); crossed over (to the western bank, conducted by Judah and half the people of Israel, 2Sa 19:39, 2Sa 19:40); came to Gilgal (where all the men of Israel met him, and a new contention arose, 2Sa 19:41; 2Sa 21:1); and finally (conducted by the men of Judah) to Jerusalem (2Sa 21:3). The return of David, like his flight, is described minutely and graphically. As he had been called to the throne by the voice of the people (2Sa 5:1-3), so he desired to return to it, not by force, but by their free consent; and would take no active measures for his restoration until he should receive some intimation thereof. “Our Lord Jesus will rule only in those that invite him to the throne in their hearts, and not till he is invited. He first bows the heart, and makes it willing.in the day of his power, then rules in the midst of his enemies (Psa 110:2, Psa 110:3)” (Matthew Henry). David’s restoration was distinguished by:
1. The returning allegiance of the rebellious. (2Sa 19:9,2Sa 19:10.) “All the tribes of Israel” (except Judah). Popular revolutions are usually followed by speedy reactions. Convinced of their error, ingratitude, and injustice by their defeat, remembering the great services which David had rendered on their behalf, and considering the present condition of affairs, “all the people” manifest a disposition to “bring the king back;” and this gratifying intelligence is reported to him while waiting at Mahanaim.
2. The decisive action of the dilatory. (2Sa 19:11-15.) “The men of Judah,” who, since the rebellion arose in their territory, feared the king’s displeasure, or proudly held aloof in continued disaffection under Amasa. But whoa assured of his regard, reminded of their kinship, and urged to activity, they are at once “drawn” unto him “as one man;” send the message, “Return,” etc.; and come to conduct him across the Jordan. Judah is again to the front. David’s appeal was conciliatory, and seems wise and just (though some think otherwise), however disastrous its ultimate effect.
3. The humble submission of the guilty. (2Sa 19:16-23.) Shimei, with a thousand men of Benjamin, and Ziba,’ etc. “They went eagerly [prosperously, Hebrew, tzalach] over the Jordan in the presence of the king” (2Sa 19:17); and “Shimei fell down before the king in his crossing over (abar) the Jordan” (while the transit was going on). “With a self-control rare in Western no less than Eastern history, every step in his progress was marked by forgiveness” (Maclear).
4. The joyful welcome of the suspected. (2Sa 19:24-30.) The innocent Mephibosheth, the grandson of Saul, now vindicated and restored to “all that he most cared forthe king’s favour, his old place at the king’s table, and the formal recognition of his ownership” of the inheritance.
5. The friendly greeting of the faithful. (2Sa 19:31-39). Barzillai, an aged and “very great man,” representative of the trans-Jordanic inhabitants; testifying his devotion to the king in prosperity, whom he had aided in adversity, and receiving his grateful benediction. How different is it with David now from what it had been at his former crossing (2Sa 17:22) 1 “This passage of the Jordan was the most memorable one since the days of Joshua.”
6. The zealous emulation of the tribes. (Verses 40-43.) Their strife for pre-eminence; “Ephraim envying Judah, and Judah vexing Ephraim’ (Isa 11:13), leading to a fresh revolt, which, however, is speedily overcome. David’s troubles, so incessant, so varied, so great, “from his youth” (verse 7), are not yet ended; but they are all ordered by the hand of God for his good. “Sanctified affliction is spiritual promotion.”
7. The complete establishment of the kingdom. (2Sa 20:3, 2Sa 20:22-26.) He sees again the habitation of the Lord (2Sa 15:25), and rules over a peaceful and united nation. His return is like the commencement of a new reign (verse 22). “The remainder of David’s lifea period probably of about ten yearsflowed on, so far as we can gather, in a bright calm, and an undisturbed course of improvements” (Ewald).D.
2Sa 19:16-23
(THE JORDAN.)
The pardon of Shimei.
The conduct of Shimei towards David in his flight (2Sa 16:5) was base and iniquitous. “The wheel turns round once more; Absalom is cast down and David returns in peace. Shimei suits his behaviour to the occasion, and is the first man, also, who hastes to greet him; and had the wheel turned round a hundred times, Shimei, I dare say, in every period of its rotation would have been uppermost” (Sterne). But he may have been actuated by something better than selfish and time-serving policy; at least, the history affords no intimation that his repentance was insincere and hypocritical. And he was forgiven by David (of whose clemency he had been persuaded)
I. ON THE CONFESSION OF WRONG DOING (2Sa 19:19, 2Sa 19:20) with:
1. Deep abasement. He “fell down before the king.”
2. Free, full, unqualified, and open self-condemnation. “Thy servant did perversely,” and “doth know that I have sinned.”
3. Fervent petition for mercy, “Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me,” etc.
4. Professed devotion and zealous endeavour to repair the wrong which had been done. “And behold I am come the first this day,” etc. He had brought with him a thousand men of Benjamin, to do honour to the king whom he had formerly despised; perhaps, also, to show the value of his reconciliation and services (which were really important at such a time, in the light of subsequent events, 2Sa 20:1). Confession must precede the assurance of forgiveness; and, when made in a becoming manner, should be graciously treated (Luk 17:3, Luk 17:4). God alone knows the heart.
II. AGAINST THE DEMAND FOR PUNISHMENT (2Sa 19:21, 2Sa 19:22); in which Abishai displayed, as before (2Sa 16:9):
1. An impulse of natural vengeance toward the evildoer; unaltered by change of circumstances, unsoothed by Shimei’s repentance.
2. A desire for the rigorous execution of the Law, according to which the traitor and blasphemer should suffer death “without mercy.” Its stern and relentless requirements, unmodified by its deeper and more merciful principles, are represented in “the sons of Zeruiah.”
3. A spirit of reckless imprudence; not less injurious to the king’s interests on “this day” of his triumphant return than it was on the day of his perilous flight.
4. An assumption of unjustifiable authority, and interference with the king’s rights and privileges, feelings and purposes; incurring a repetition of the rebuke, “What have I to do with you,” etc.? “Ye will be an adversary [satan, Num 22:22; 1Ch 21:1] to me;” hindering the exercise of mercy and the joy of my return (1Sa 11:12, 1Sa 11:13). “Get thee behind me, Satan” (Mat 16:23). “Our best friends must be considered as adversaries when they would persuade us to act contrary to our conscience and our duty” (Scott).
III. WITH THE ASSURANCE OF MERCY. “Thou shalt not die” (1Ch 21:23; 2Sa 12:13). “And the king sware unto him.” From:
1. An impulse of personal feeling of the noblest nature; by which (regarding Shimei’s offence as a personal one) he was raised above the level of “the Law,” and anticipated the forgiving spirit of a higher dispensation.
2. A sense of the exceeding mercy of God toward himself; by, which he was disposed to show mercy toward others.
3. A perception of the wisest policy to be adopted on such an extraordinary “day” as that of his restoration to the throne. “Shall there any man be put to death this day in Israel? For do I not know that I am this clay king over Israel?” (It is noticeable how frequently he is designated “the king” in this chapter.)
4. An exercise of the royal prerogative of pardon. This prerogative, indeed (though prompted by a generous impulse), he no doubt stretched beyond due bounds. Hence, reflecting on the matter at the close of his life (during which he kept faithfully to his oath), he committed (not from a feeling of personal revenge, but of sacred duty) the vindication of the Law to his successor (1Ki 2:8, 1Ki 2:9). “It can be explained only from the fact that David distinguished between his own personal interest and motive, which led him to pardon Shimei, without taking the theocratic legal standpoint and the theocratic interests of the kingdom, of which Solomon was the representative, and so held himself bound on theocratic political grounds to commit to his successor the execution of the legal prescription which he had passed over” (Erdmann).
REMARKS.
1. In showing mercy to private as well as public offenders, due regard must be paid to the claims of public justice.
2. It is better to err on the side of too much mercy than too much severity.
3. How vast is the mercy of God toward men, in him whom he has “exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour,” etc. (Act 5:31)!
4. Those who have received mercy must live in the sphere of mercy and obedience, otherwise mercy ceases to be of any avail (1Ki 2:42-46; Mat 18:32-35).D.
2Sa 19:24-30
(THE JORDAN.)
The vindication of Mephibosheth.
“He hath slandered thy servant unto my lord the king” (2Sa 19:27). The lame son of Jonathan comes upon the scene once more before his final disappearance. During the rebellion he seems to have continued at Jerusalem; and a strange spectacle he must have presented there, with his neglected person and mournful countenance. On hearing that the king was returning, he set out from Jerusalem (Hebrew, to; or “Jerusalem came,” Keil) to meet him. But he had been preceded by Ziba, who was present, when, in answer to the inquiry, “Wherefore,” etc; he said, “My lord, O king, my servant deceived me,” etc. (2Sa 16:1-4).
1. The unfortunate and helpless are commonly made the victims of a slanderous tongue. Others may not escape its venom; but these become its ready prey. Ziba knew that he could not be pursued and punished; and destroyed the reputation of his master with the king for the sake of his own profit.
2. The voice of slander is put to silence in the presence of honesty and truth. Already, before Mephibosheth spoke, his appearance must have borne witness to his innocence. His explanation of his conduct, the tone of his defence, and the silence of his accuser, would hardly fail to convince the king that, whatever may have been the designs of others concerning the house of Saul (2Sa 16:5), the son of his friend Jonathan was not implicated therein. Slander may remain long unchallenged; but it is sure to be ultimately put to shame.
3. No vindication from slander is able to do away with all its mischievous effects. The property of which Mephibosheth had been deprived might be restored in whole or in part; but the feelings and actions induced in others could not be obliterated. “Reluctant to think that he had been too hasty; having a royal aversion to admit that he could err and had been duped; and being, in his present humour of overlooking and pardoning everything, indisposed to the task of calling to account a man of such influence as Ziba, who had been forward in his cause when many tried friends forsook him, the king’s answer was something less than generous and much less than kind to the son of Jonathan” (Kitto).
4. Notwithstanding the wrong which he suffers, a man of humble and grateful heart still possesses abundant satisfaction. Seeking no revenge, acknowledging his dependence even for life, thankful for the kindness formerly shown toward him, and foregoing every claim (2Sa 19:27, 2Sa 19:28), he is little concerned about worldly possessions in comparison with the honour and welfare of his lord, and finds his chief delight in “the king’s favour.” “True to his noble saintly nature, all that he desires is to love and to be loved again” (Plumptre). “Let him also take all,” etc. (2Sa 19:30).
“Fret not thyself because of the evil doers,
Be not envious against the workers of iniquity,
The meek shall inherit the land,
And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace,” etc.
(Psa 37:1-11.)
D.
2Sa 19:31-40
(THE JORDAN.)
Old Barzillai.
“How long have I to live?” (2Sa 19:34). Barzillai dwelt at Rogelim (his own city, 2Sa 19:37), in Gilead, where, amidst the rich highland pastures, diligently superintending his flocks and herds, he spent his days in peace. He enjoyed “the blessing of the Old Testament”prosperity; and was “a very great [wealthy] man.” Like Machir ben-Ammiel (2Sa 9:4), he was loyal, hospitable, and generous (2Sa 17:28). One of his sons (1Ki 2:7), named Chimham, accompanied him to do honour to the king at his restoration. He was an octogenarian, his memory reaching back to the appointment of the first King of Israel, and Saul’s brilliant exploit on behalf of Jabesh-Gilead (1Sa 11:11). Of his genuine piety, his answer to the king’s invitation, “Come over with me, and I will provide (2Sa 19:32) for thee in Jerusalem,” leaves no room for doubt. “May we not legitimately infer that his conduct was influenced, not merely by loyalty to his earthly sovereign, but by the recognition of the higher spiritual truths, and the hope for Israel and the world, symbolized by the reign of David?” (Edersheim). More especially, he furnishes a picture of a beautiful old age (1Sa 12:2). To every one, if he should live long enough, old age will come, with impaired powers of judgment, sensibility, and activity (Ecc 12:1); but whether it will be honourable, useful, and happy depends on the course previously pursued and the character possessed. “Clearness and quickness of intellect are gone; all taste for the pleasures and delights of sense is gone; ambition is dead; capacity of change is departed. What is left? The old man lives in the past and in the future. The early child love for the father and mother who hung over his cradle eighty years ago remains fresh. He cannot ‘hear any more the voice of singing men and singing women;’ but he can hear, stealing through almost a century, the old tones, thin and ghostlike, of the dear ones whom he first learnt to love. The furthest past is fresh and vivid, and in memory of it is half his life. Also he looks forward familiarly and calmly to the very near end, and thinks much of death. That thought keeps house with him now, and is nearer to him than the world of living men is. Thus one-half of his life is memory, and the other half is hope; and all his hopes are now reduced to onethe hope to die, and then to be laid down and go to sleep again beside his father and mother. And so he returns to his city, and passes out of our sight” (Maclaren). Notice
I. HIS CLEAR RECOGNITION OF THE NEARNESS OF HIS APPROACHING END. “How many are the days of the years of my life?” etc. (2Sa 19:34, 2Sa 19:35; Gen 47:9). Many an old man considers not that he is old, and must shortly leave the world; he rather strives to keep both his age and his departure out of sight. But such a man as Barzillai is accustomed to reflect on his actual condition, deems himself a “stranger and pilgrim on the earth” (Heb 11:13; 1Ch 29:15); and feels certain that a few more steps will bring him to the end of his journey. He also understands what is possible and becoming during his brief continuance, and acts accordingly. “Can anything be more amiable than these simple and sensible words? What a cheerful and peaceful spirit do they breathe! and how does he put to shame very many old men of our day, who, the more the years perform their dismantling work upon them, are so much. the more zealously bent on concealing the decay of their strength behind the glittering surroundings of vain dignities, titles, and high alliances!” (Krummacher). “Usually the nearer men approach to the earth, they are more earthly minded; and, which is strange to amazement, at the sunset of life are providing for a long day” (W. Bates).
II. HIS CHEERFUL RESIGNATION UNDER THE INFIRMITIES OF ADVANCED AGE. He utters no complaint (such as is too common with others) at the failure of his mental and bodily powers, the loss of earthly pleasures formerly possessed, his incapacity for new enterprises and excitements, which, at an earlier age, might have been suitable and desirable. His language is singularly free from fretfulness, disappointment, and discontent. He perceives and acquiesces with a “glad contentment” in the will of God, who “hath made everything beautiful in its season” (Ecc 3:11), and, although deprived of some enjoyments, he is not destitute of others of a higher order. “It is this, the tasteless meats, the deafness to the singing men and singing women, the apathy to common pleasures, for which old age is pitied and deplored; but this is God’s mercy, it is not his vengeance; he deadens the keenness of our bodily senses only to guide us to immortality; we are disgusted with the pleasures of youth, we deride the objects of manly ambition, we are wearied with one worldly trifle or another, that Our thoughts may centre at last in God” (Sydney Smith. ‘On the Pleasures of Old Age’). “Old age may be not only venerable, but beautiful, and the object of reverence untinctured by compassion. The intellect, the emotions, the affections (the best of them) all alive,it is the passions and appetites only that are dead; and who that is wise and has felt the plague of them, does not, with the aged Cephalus, in Plato’s ‘Republic,’ account a serene freedom from their clamorous importunities a compensation for the loss of their tumultuous pleasures?” (‘Sel. from the Correspondence of R.E.H. Greyson, Esq.’).
III. HIS COURTEOUS REFUSAL OF THE PROFFER OF EARTHLY FAVOURS. What can even a monarch give him now? The society, the pleasures, the honours, of a court; enlarged influence, increased responsibility, more abundant wealth. Is it worth while for their sake to be transplanted to a new soil from the place where he has been so long growing; and when he must so soon be removed from the world altogether? If he had been a sensual, ambitious, or avaricious man, the craving for such things would have remained, and led him (like others) to grasp at their possession, though no longer able to enjoy them or employ them aright. “What so distressing as to see the withered face of old age dull and dead to every consideration of eternity, and kindling with life only at the mention of earthly vanities?” (Blaikie). He declines them, not because they are sinful and worthless in themselves, but because they are unsuitable to him. His heart is set on ether pleasures; his immediate duties are determined and sufficient for his strength. He will not take new burdens on himself, nor be a burden to others. He will accompany the king “a little way,” to show his loyal devotion, and then return (2Ki 4:13). “With all the dignity of self-respect, with the courtesy of a true gentleman, undervaluing not the king’s offers, but his own service to him, with the prudent love of a father for the son whom he recommends to his kindness, having outlived nothing really belonging to the true character of the life of man, he returned with the royal kiss and blessing, master of his own will, to his own place” (W. Romanis).
IV. HIS CHERISHED REMEMBRANCE OF PARENTS AND THE FAMILIAR SCENES OF HIS EARLY DAYS. “Let thy servant, I pray thee, turn back,” etc. (2Sa 19:37). His thoughts turn back to his native place, his childhood, his father and his mother, whom he must have loved and honoured (Exo 20:12); and the memory of whom, tender, affectionate, and reverent, is a fountain of pure and undying joy in his breast. How much does the happiness of old age depend upon its memories! Whilst in one case old age is tormented by the recollection of “the pleasures of sin,” in another it is gladdened by the recollection of the practice of piety; and such recollections mingle with and, in great measure, determine its anticipations.
“Son of Jesse, let me go:
Why should princely honours slay me?
Where the streams of Gilead flow,
Where the light first met mine eye,
Thither would I turn and die;
Where my parents’ ashes lie,
King of Israel! bid them lay me.”
(Sigourney.)
V. HIS CONSTANT DESIRE FOR REST in his “long home” (Ecc 12:5), “the house of eternity.” It is now a pervading and increasing feeling. He longs for repose in the sacred spot where his parents lie, as a pilgrim longs for home. The grave for him has no terrors. “He looks for a city which hath foundations,” etc. (Heb 11:10, Heb 11:16); and desires to be “gathered with his fathers,” and to be forever at rest in God (1Sa 25:1; 2Sa 7:12; Psa 49:15; Pro 14:32; Dan 12:13). “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace” (Luk 2:29). “A man should still be bound for home as you see all creatures be. Let a bird be far from the nest, and it grow towards night, she will home even upon the wings of the wind. Every poor beast, and every creature, though the entertainment be but slender at home, yet if you let it slip loose, it will home as fast as it can. Everything tends to its place; there is its safety, there is its rest, there it is preserved, there it is quiet. Now, since it is so with every creature, why should it not be so with us? Why should not we be for our home? This is not our home; here is not our rest. That is our home where our chief friends be, where our Father God is, where our Husband Christ is, where our chief kindred and acquaintance be, all the prophets and apostles and martyrs of God departed are; that is our home, and thither should we go” (R. Harris). “I am now passing through the latest stage of my pilgrimage on earth. My sun is speedily going down; but ere it wholly disappear, its parting beams stream sweetly forth upon the face of all things, and cover all the horizon with a blaze of glory. My Father’s house shines bright before my eyes. Its opening door invites me onward, and fills me with an earnest longing to be safe at home. My richest treasures and my dearest hopes are all packed up and gone before, while my whole soul is on the wing to follow after” (W. Gilpin).
VI. HIS CONSIDERATE REGARD for the welfare of those who survive him. “Let thy servant Chimham go over,” etc. (2Sa 19:38, 2Sa 19:40). He is not wholly absorbed in thoughts of past time or of his final rest; but is interested in the younger man now present with him, and sympathizes with his enjoyments and aspirations. He remembers his own youth. What he declines for himself, he seeks and obtains for his son (Jer 41:17). “When the king could not persuade the father, he gladly accepts the charge of his son. He seems to feel as if the care of this young man would bring comfort to his heart, which was still bleeding for the loss of Absalom. It was not in lightness that he made the request, and when on his death bed he remembered it and charged Solomon to show kindness to the son for the sake of what his father had done for him when he fled from the face of Absalom. In Barzillai we have
(1) a man who knows that he is old, but is not distressed by the thought of it;
(2) who is rich, but is satisfied with his natural possessions;
(3) of long experience, who has kept up his love of simple pleasures;
(4) and is attached to the past, but does not distrust the future” (John Ker). “It is a very reasonable conjecture of Grotius, that David, having a patrimony in the field of Bethlehem, the place of his nativity, bestowed it on Barzillai’s son; and from thence this place took the name of Chimham, which remained unto the days of Jeremiah” (Patrick). His descendants continue for ages to partake of the fruit of his piety and beneficence, to perpetuate his name and honour his memory (Ezr 2:61; Neh 7:63; Psa 102:28).D.
HOMILIES BY G. WOOD
2Sa 19:6
Loving enemies and hating friends.
“Thou lovest thine enemies, and hatest thy friends.” Joab’s remonstrance with David was rude, and in the language of exaggeration; yet in substance it was wise, as the issue proved. The king’s lamentations did show excessive love for his deceased son, who had been his deadly enemy; and his abandonment of himself to grief when he ought to have been thanking his brave friends as they returned from the battle, and congratulating them on the victory they had won for him, did indicate a present insensibility to their services and claims which might easily be construed as enmity. It is, however, no unusual thing for men to love their enemies and hate their friends; or at least, by their conduct, to give good reason for others to charge them with doing so.
I. THOSE DO SO WHO LOVE ERROR AND HATE THE TRUTH. For truth is one of our best friends, error one of our worst enemies. Moral and religious truth especially is life, health, guidance, happiness, to the soul; it leads to God and goodness and heaven. But error in such matters is death, disease, delusion; producing false peace and leading to destruction. Yet men often love the errors which favour what they are inclined to, and hate the truth which shows them their duties, sins, and dangers. They “love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil” (Joh 3:19). “Fools hate knowledge” (Pro 1:22). Hence they love false teachers and hate the true. “I hate him,” said Ahab of Micaiah, “for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil” (1Ki 22:8).
II. THOSE WHO LOVE THEIR LOWER RATHER THAN THEIR HIGHER SELF. Our lower nature is good in itself, but is very prone to run to excess, and become evil. Then, from a friend, it is transformed into an enemy. Our higher nature is a friend, especially when informed and directed by the Holy Spirit. Man’s worth and blessedness depend on his obeying the latter and subduing the former. Too often, however, he takes the opposite course, yielding himself to the government of the flesh, and resisting the promptings of the spirit.
III. THOSE WHO LOVE THE WICKED AND HATE THE GOOD. Associating with the former and finding pleasure in their practices, but avoiding the society of the latter; loving flatterers, and hating faithful reprovers and advisers. Ungodly and unholy men are necessarily, though it may be unconsciously and unintentionally, the enemies of the souls of those whom they influence, whether by conversation or example; and the more attractive they are, so much the more dangerous. “Evil company doth corrupt good manners” (1Co 15:33, Revised Version).
IV. THOSE WHO DELIGHT IN BAD BOOKS, AND DISLIKE AND NEGLECT GOOD ONES. Good books are good friends, promoting in us that which is good. The Bible is the best of books. Bad books, books which suggest and foster evil, are enemies; and the more they interest their readers, the more they injure them. Yet many delight in them, and dislike the books which would profit them.
V. THOSE, IN A WORD, WHO LOVE, IF NOT SATAN, HIS WAYS, AND LIVE IN ENMITY WITH GOD AND CHRIST. Satan is our chief enemy, the head and ruler of all other spiritual foes. He seeks our ruin by manifold devices, and, so that we serve him, is quite content that we should do so in the fashion we most approve. We may join which company of his servantsthe coarser or the more refined, the open or the secretwe may prefer. But to follow him in any way is, in effect, to love our worst enemy. Christ, on the other hand, and God in him, is our best Friend, who loves us most truly and most wisely, who has made greater sacrifices for us than any other can make, who has done for us what no other can do, who proffers us blessings beyond the power of any other to confer, who exalts those who love him to a position of honour and happiness to which no other can raise their friends, and lives on to bless them when others die and pass away. To reject him, to refuse him the love, allegiance, and obedience which he claims, is, in effect, to hate the Friend who is most of all needed by us, and most worthy to be loved with all the power of loving which our hearts possess.
Let those to whom these representations apply reflect on the sin and folly of which they are guilty; the incalculable good they are losing; the incalculable evils they are choosing. Their eyes will at length be opened; may it be in time!G.W.
2Sa 19:9
Late reflection and appreciation.
The rebels against King David having been defeated, and their chosen leader slain, they bethink themselves of their position and of the claims of their injured sovereign; and begin to stir up each other to obtain his return and reinstatement. Their words are obviously true; but the facts they now recognize were as truly facts when they rose in rebellion. It was only their feeling with respect to them that had changed. So it is commonly. Under the excitement of sinful feeling, the most obvious truths are forgotten and neglected. Well is it when there is a reawakening to their significance, and a consequent return to the path of duty. Especially desirable is it that all who are living without any due feeling of the claims of their great King should become sensible of them, and begin to render them a practical recognition.
I. THE ACTUAL AND ABIDING CLAIMS OF CHRIST TO BE ACCEPTED AND OBEYED AS KING.
1. His nature. Divine and human; including all qualifications for rule.
2. His Divine appointment. Signified in manifold ways.
3. The deliverance he has wrought. It is here said of David, “The king saved us,” etc. Our Lord has saved us in a more marvellous way, from enemies more to be dreaded than the heathen that harassed Israel. He has conquered, in personal conflict and through suffering unto death, Satan, the world, sin, and death. He has thus “saved us out of the hand of our enemies,” including those that, like the Philistines in relation to Israel, are nearest to us and most ready and able to harass usour own special besetting sins. True, the deliverance is not yet completely accomplished in actual experience; but it is assured, and as really ours, if we are Christ’s, as if we were already perfectly freed from all evil
II. THE INSENSIBILITY TO THESE CLAIMS WHICH COMMONLY PREVAILS. Looking at the lives of most men, even where Christ is made known, it is painfully manifest that they have no due sense of his rights and their duty to him; for they do not submit their minds, hearts, and lives to his government.
1. Causes of such insensibility.
(1) A depraved nature, whose spiritual sensibilities are further suppressed and benumbed by the practice of sin.
(2) Absorption in worldly pursuits. Leaving no opportunity for higher matters to attract attention, no time to think of them.
(3) Unconcern as to the enemies from whom Christ delivers. No conviction of sin; no sense of the evil of it; no desire for rescue from its guilt or power. The Deliverer, therefore, excites no real interest.
(4) Familiarity with the truth. The habit of hearing, or reading, or even repeating it, without accepting it; or of assenting to it without really believing it; or of accepting (in a sense) the atonement, and relying on Jesus for pardon, without receiving him as King. The process also of indulging feeling and sentiment about Christ, without rendering obedience; and of resisting the feelings which prompt to obedience, thus resisting and grieving the Holy Spirit. In this way the gospel becomes a means of hardening the heart against itself.
(5) The attractions of some pretender to the throne. As Absalom “stole the hearts of the men of Israel” (2Sa 15:6) by his youth, beauty, activity, assiduous attentions, insinuating address, and hints as to the defects of his father’s government, and the improvements which he would make if he were in power; so the hearts of many are withdrawn from the Lord Jesus by the attractions of some newly revived system of error in philosophy or religion, or anti-religion, of which the novelty (to them) is charming, and the representations of human nature more flattering, and the demands less exacting. The old king comes to be regarded and treated as worn out, quite unsuited to the needs of an enlightened and scientific age; and the young pretenders are welcomed, one by one class, and another by another, with shouts of joy and paeans of anticipated victory.
2. Effects of such insensibility.
(1) Negatively, in the prevention of faith and love, loyal obedience and active service.
(2) Positively, by leading to disaffection and active rebellion; as in the case of Israel and David.
III. THE HAPPY AWAKENING WHICH IS OFTEN EXPERIENCED. As in the case of the Israelites in respect to David. This may be produced:
1. By calamity. As the Israelites were awakened by defeat and disaster. Troubles stir the conscience, lead the soul to look around for support, throw an unusual light on objects, reveal the vanity of cherished dependencies, prepare for due appreciation of those which are solid and satisfying; and so lead to a right appreciation of Christ.
2. By impressive presentation of forgotten facts. As by the tribes of Israel to each other, reminding of their obligations to David, and the ill requital he had received from them. It may be a sermon heard with unaccustomed interest, or some part of the Holy Book read with a new perception of the significance and importance of its teaching, or the appeals, of a friend, or the statements of a tract, or words of parents or teachers long ago, recurring with new power to the mind; whatever it be that stirs the heart to consideration and renders it sensible of the rights and worth of Christ, blessed are the means, blessed the moment when such effects are produced.
3. Always by the enlightening and convincing Spirit. Whose work it is to reveal and glorify the Son of God (Joh 16:14).
IV. THE CHANGE PRODUCED BY THIS AWAKENING. Similar to that in the text.
1. In conduct.
(1) Return to allegiance, loyalty, and service to the rightful Sovereign. Incitement of others to return.
2. In position. The returning rebels are accepted, and restored to the privileges of faithful subjects. Not because the heavenly King is, like David, dependent on his subjects, needing them as much as they him, but of pure grace. However long they may have been insensible and rebellious, on coming to a sense of their duty, and seeking forgiveness, they are pardoned and restored to favour.
Lastly, the awakening may come too late, producing terror and remorse, but not repentance, and importunate prayers which are unavailing (see Luk 13:24-28).G.W.
2Sa 19:24-30
Inability hindering desired service.
Although some are disposed to accept Ziba’s account of his master’s conduct (2Sa 16:3) rather than Mephibosheth’s own, as given in these verses, there seems to be no just reason to doubt his truth and sincerity. He did not go with David because, owing to his lameness and the treachery and cunning of Ziba, he was unable to do so. The narrative suggests such thoughts as follow.
I. INABILITY DEBARS MANY CHRISTIANS FROM SOME DEMONSTRATIONS OF LOVE AND LOYALTY TO THEIR KING WHICH THEY WOULD FAIN MAKE. Indeed, every one, however strong in some respects, is weak in others. The inability may be in body or mind, in understanding, or heart, or speech, or in purse; but to its extent it disables from forms of service which others can adopt. We can only serve Christ with the faculties and powers we have. To attempt what we cannot accomplish is to be hindrances rather than helps.
II. INABILITY IN SOME RESPECTS WILL NOT PREVENT THE TRUE HEARTED FROM MAKING SUCH MANIFESTATIONS OF LOVE AND LOYALTY AS ARE WITHIN THEIR POWER. If Mephibesheth could not follow David in his exile. or take part in the contest, he could mourn for him, and exhibit signs of mourning; and this he did. He thus showed a courage as great as, or greater than, that of those who took part in the war. In like manner, every one, however feeble, poor, or obscure, may do something for Christ; and, if his heart be right, he will. He who cannot preach can speak to a neighbour. He who cannot say much for Christ can bring others where they can hear of him, or give them an instructive book or tract. He who cannot give much money towards the evangelization of the world can give a little, and at least can pray. He who cannot found a hospital can visit the sick poor. All have some power, and, according to the measure of their power, are responsible. All who love their King will employ such ability as they have in serving him. And the service is accepted by him which comes from a true heart and is according to the ability possessed. Work or gift for Christ is valued by him, not for its quantity, or even quality of the material, or merely mental kind, but for the love to him which it expresses; and many a man who wins the plaudits of men for his talents, his outward success in religious work, or his large gifts for its sustentation, is less pleasing to Christ than some poor and humble friend of his who can give and do but little, but thinks much of him, mourns in secret the dishonour done to him, and prays without ceasing for his triumph. Ziba’s handsome and timely presents were really of far less worth than helpless Mephibosheth’s mourning and self-neglect.
III. INABILITY IS LIABLE TO BE MISUNDERSTOOD AND MISREPRESENTED. Not only by the malicious or designing, as here, but by the inconsiderate. Men judge of others by their own peculiar standards. If truly zealous in a good cause, they show their zeal in the way most natural and available to themselves, and are ready to condemn as lukewarm those who do not adopt their methods, though these may with equal zeal seek the same ends by the means natural and available to them. Even David judged harshly and unjustly of Mephibosheth. It was, in truth, unreasonable to expect his lame friend to accompany him. He could only have been a burden. It was absurdly unjust to accept Ziba’s insinuation that his master was hoping to be placed on the vacant throne. But judgments equally unjust are constantly being pronounced upon zealous servants of Christ, whose only fault is that they are not of the same Order of mind, or cannot practise the same bustling activity as their accusers, or have not equal incomes, or equal physical strength or energy, or do not care to exhibit their “zeal for the Lord” (2Ki 10:16) in the same manner or to secure similar results. Happily, the King knows his servants better than they know each other.
IV. INABILITY IS OFTEN ASSOCIATED WITH QUALITIES THAT RECONCILE TO THE DISADVANTAGES WHICH BELONG TO IT. Mephibosheth was enabled to bear meekly what he had to endure, because he was humble, thankful, sincerely and disinterestedly devoted to the king, and ready to submit without murmuring to his will. Similar qualities are of great value to those servants of our Lord who are deficient in some endowments or possessions by which others are equipped for Christian service.
1. Thankfulness for, and contentment with, the powers and opportunities granted to them, and the kind and measure of success accorded to them.
2. Humility arising from the consciousness of their defects or unworthiness.
3. Absence of envy of those who are more abundantly favoured in respect to talents or success.
4. Consciousness of sincere devotion to the King, however men may reflect on them.
5. Joy that, by whomsoever and in whatever way, the King’s cause is triumphing. Such qualities are frequently found associated with deficient abilities, and go far to compensate those who possess them for the lack of power, or obvious efficiency, or appreciation of them and their work, which may be their lot. Let the less liberally endowed cultivate them.
V. INABILITY WILL AT LENGTH BE EXPLAINED AND JUSTIFIED. When the King comes back, all his servants will receive commendation and reward, not according to their several abilities, but according to their fidelity. Mistakes will be rectified, unjust judgments reversed. Many a plaudit will be hushed; many an inflated reputation will collapse; many a brave looking building will be reduced to a mass of rubbish by the searching fires, and the builder put to shame, if not utterly rejected (1Co 3:12-15). On the other hand, many an obscure and perhaps disregarded servant of Christ will find himself unexpectedly applauded and exalted. “Lord, when saw we thee,” etc.? (Mat 25:37).
Wherefore:
1. “Judge nothing before the time” (1Co 4:5).
2. Let Christians of limited powers and opportunities be encouraged to do their best. Their Lord appreciates their spirit and services, though men may mistake and misjudge; and he will pass a juster judgment than David did (2Sa 19:29) in the case of Mephibosheth.G.W.
2Sa 19:35
The privations of old age.
Barzillai graphically depicts these as experienced by himself. All old men have not exactly the same experience; but all who live to a great age must expect a similar diminution of their powers.
I. THE PRIVATIONS OF THE AGED.
1. Enfeebled or annihilated powers. Blunted or extinct senses; dulness or loss of sight, hearing, taste, smelling; feebleness of body and mind. Consequent inability for active employments. Loss of the pleasures which the exercise of vigorous faculties confers.
2. Increasing dependence on others. Possibly, unlike Barzillai, for the means of subsistence; certainly for much besides. Hence the old man is apt to become, and feel himself to be, “a burden,” putting the kindness and patience of others to a severe test. The discomfort arising from such dependance is often very great.
3. The sense of loneliness. Sometimes the aged survive all who have loved and cared for them, and, if not, they commonly feel themselves cut off from the interests and pleasures of the new generation.
II. HOW THESE PRIVATIONS SHOULD BE BORNE.
1. With cheerful submission and patience. Remembering that the order of nature which brings such ills to the aged, and the circumstances which occasion their own particular troubles, are the appointment of the infinitely wise and good Creator and Father. Recalling also their many years of vigorous faculty and lively enjoyment, and cherishing a gratitude which will suppress discontent.
2. With thankfulness for what remains. The love and care which provide for, or minister to, their needs and alleviate their troubles. Above all, the unchanging love of God and the Redeemer, and the spiritual blessings hence enjoyed.
3. With watchfulness against the temptations incident to old age. Such as those to fretfulness, irritability, impatience, envy of the young, and needless interference with their enjoyments. The revival with new power of old sinful propensities, ill tempers, and bad habits.
4. With joyful hope. Of speedy deliverance from all burdens and troubles, and the recommencement of life with renewed and perfected energies. Nothing can keep the aged Christian long out of heaven.
III. HOW OTHERS SHOULD REGARD THEM.
1. With respectful tenderness, sympathy, and readiness to alleviate them.
2. With diminished desire for the great prolongation of their own lives.
3. With steadfast aim and endeavour so to live that, if old age come, it may not be oppressed with the needless burdens and anxieties which a godless life leads to. Let the young keep in mind the admonition, “Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them” (Ecc 12:1).G.W.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
THIRD SECTION
The Restoration of Davids Royal Authority, which was now Endangered by Dissension between Judah and Israel and by the Insurrection of Sheba
2 Samuel 19-20
I. The Way opened for the Restoration of Davids Kingdom by Joabs Reproof of his Immoderate Grief for Absalom. 2Sa 19:1-8 [Hebrews 2-9]
1And it was told Joab, Behold, the king weepeth and mourneth for Absalom. 2And the victory [deliverance]1 that day was turned into mourning unto all the people; for the people heard say that day how [om. how, ins.:] The king was [is] grieved for his Song of Solomon 3 And the people gat them by stealth that day into the city, as 4people being ashamed steal away when they flee in battle. But [And] the king covered2 his face, and the king cried with a loud voice, O my son Absalom, O Absalom, my son, my son! 5And Joab came into the house to the king, and said, Thou hast shamed this day the faces of all thy servants, which [who] this day have saved thy life, and the lives of thy sons and of thy daughters, and the lives of thy wives, and the lives of thy concubines, in that thou lovest thine enemies, and hatest 6thy friends. For thou hast declared this day that thou regardest neither [not] princes nor [and] servants; for this day I perceive that, if3 Absalom had lived 7and all we had died this day, then it had pleased thee well. Now, therefore [And now], arise, go forth, and speak comfortably unto thy servants; for I swear by the Lord [Jehovah], if4 thou go not forth, there will not tarry one with thee this night; and5 that will be worse unto thee than all the evil that befel [hath befallen] 8thee from thy youth until now. Then [And] the king arose, and sat in the gate. And they told unto all the people, saying, Behold, the king doth sit in the gate; and all the people came before the king. [Transfer the rest of this verse to the next verse.6]
II. David prepares for his Return by Negotiations with the Men of Judah. 2Sa 19:9-14 [Heb. 1015]
For [And] Israel had fled, every man to his tent. 9And all the people were at strife throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, The king saved us out of the hand of our enemies, and he delivered us out of the hand of the Philistines; and now he is fled out of the land for [from7] Absalom. 10And Absalom, whom we anointed over us, is dead in battle. Now, therefore [And now], why speak ye not a word of bringing the king back8?
11And king David sent to Zadok and to Abiathar the priests, saying, Speak unto the elders of Judah, saying, Why are ye [will ye be] the last to bring the king back to his house? seeing the speech of all Israel is come to the king even [om. even] to his house.8 12Ye are my brethren, ye are my bones [bone] and my flesh; wherefore, then are ye [and why will ye be] the last to bring back the king? 13And say ye to Amasa, Art thou not of [om. of] my bone and of [om. of] my flesh? God do so to me and more also, if thou be not captain of the host before me continually in the room [instead] of Joab. 14And he bowed [inclined] the heart of all the men of Judah even [om. even] as the the heart of one man; so that [and] they sent this word unto the king, Return thou, and all thy servants.
III. Davids Passage over the Jordan under the Escort of the Men of Judah, with Three Incidents. 2Sa 19:15-40 a [Heb. 1641 a]
1. Pardoning of Shimei. 2Sa 19:15-23 [Heb. 1624]
15So [And] the king returned, and came to [ins. the] Jordan. And Judah came to Gilgal, to go9 to meet the king, to conduct the king over [ins. the] Jordan. 16And10 Shimei, the son of Gera, a [the] Benjamite [Benjaminite], which was of 17Bahurim, hasted and came down with the men of Judah to meet king David, And there were [om. there were] a thousand men of Benjamin with him, and Ziba the servant of the house of Saul, and his fifteen sons and his twenty servants with him; and they went over [ins. the] Jordan before the king. 18And there went over a ferry-boat [And the ferry-boat went over] to carry over the kings household, and to do what he thought good. And Shimei the son of Gera fell down before the king as he was come over [ins. the] Jordan; 19And said unto the king, Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me, neither do thou remember [and remember not] that which thy servant did perversely the day that my lord the king went out of Jerusalem, that the king should take it to his heart. 20For thy servant doth know that I have sinned; therefore [and] behold, I am come the first this day of all the 21house of Joseph to go [come] down to meet my lord the king. But [And] Abishai the son of Zeruiah answered, and said, Shall not Shimei be put to death for this, because he cursed the Lords [Jehovahs] anointed? 22And David said. What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah [ins.?] that ye should [for ye will] this day be adversaries unto me? [om.?] shall there any man be put to death this day 23in Israel? for do I not know that I am this day king over Israel? Therefore [And] the king said unto Shimei, Thou shalt not die. And the king sware unto him.
2. Mephibosheths Apology. 2Sa 19:24-30 [Heb. 2531]
24And Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king, and had neither dressed his feet,11 nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes, from the day king departed until the day he came again in peace. 25And it came to pass, when he was come to [better from] Jerusalem to meet the king, that the king said unto him, Wherefore wentest thou not with me, Mephibosheth? 26And he answered [said], My lord, O king, my servant deceived me; for thy servant said, I will saddle me an [the] ass, that I may [and] ride thereon, and go to12 the king, because thy servant is lame. And he hath slandered thy servant unto my lord the king. 27But my lord the king is as an angel of God; do, therefore, what is good in thine 28eyes. For, all of my fathers house were but dead men before my lord the king; yet didst thou [and thou didst] set thy servant among them that did eat at thine own table; what right, therefore, [and what right] have I yet to cry any more unto the king? 29And the king said unto him, Why speakest thou any more of thy matter? I have said [I say], Thou and Ziba divide the land. 30And Mephibosheth said unto the king, Yea, let him take all [Let him also take all] forasmuch as [after] my lord the king is come again [om. again] in peace unto his own house.
3. Barzillais Greeting and Blessing. 2Sa 19:31-40 a [Heb. 3241 a]
31And Barzillai the Gileadite came down from Rogelim, and went over [ins. the] 32Jordan with the king, to conduct him over [ins. the] Jordan.13 Now [And] Barzillai was a very aged man, even [om. even] fourscore years old; and he had provided the king of sustenance while he lay14 at Mahanaim; for he was a very great man. 33And the king said unto Barzillai, Come thou over with me, and I will feed thee with me in Jerusalem. 34And Barzillai said unto the king, How long have I to live [How many are the days of the years of my life] that I should go up with the king to Jerusalem? 35I am this day fourscore years old; and [om. and] can I discern between good and evil? can thy servant taste what I eat or [and] what I drink? can I hear any more the voice of singing men and singing women? wherefore then [and why] should thy servant be yet a burden unto my lord the king? 36Thy servant will go a little way over [ins. the] Jordan15 with the king; and why should the king recompense it me with such a reward [do me this favor16]? Let thy servant, I pray thee, turn back again [return], that I may die in mine own city and be buried [om. and be buried] by the grave of my father and of my mother.17 But behold thy servant Chimham, let him go over [37let thy servant Chimham go over] with my lord the king; and do to him what shall seem good unto thee. 38And the king answered [said], Chimham shall go over with me, and I will do to him that which shall seem good unto thee; and whatsoever thou shalt require of me, that will I do for thee. And all the people went over [ins. the] Jordan. 39And when the king was come over, the king kissed Barzillai, and blessed him; 40and he returned unto his own place. Then [And] the king went on to Gilgal, and Chimham went on with him.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
I. 2Sa 19:1-8. Davids immoderate grief for Absalom stopped by Joabs earnest representations.
2Sa 19:1. And it was told Joab, comp. 2Sa 18:33. The purpose of the informant, it seems, was to explain to Joab and the army why the king did not come forth to greet his returning victorious warriors. [Joab had apparently just returned from the field of battle.Tr.].
2Sa 19:2-3. Touching description of the impression made on the people by Davids violent grief, and their quiet and repressed behaviour. The deliverance that was achieved by the victory changed into mourning for the whole people.The news spread everywhere (the people heard that it was said): The king mourns for his son. But these mens hearty participation in the sorrow of the beloved king, for whom they had perilled their lives, soon changed to gloomy dissatisfaction at the fact that the king, absorbed in his private grief, did not deign to bestow a look on them. The description of the manner in which the troops, thus dissatisfied, returned to the city, is psychologically very fine. They stole away to enter the city, i.e., not: avoided entering the city (Vulgate, Luther, Mich., Niemeyer), but, instead of entering in military order as a victorious host, scattered and entered individually or in small groups, unobserved, as people steal in that have disgraced themselves by fleeing in battle, as disgraced fugitives. Mourning, therefore, instead of joy of victory, seeming shame instead of honor.
2Sa 19:4. Continued violent grief of David, who, overmastered by his feelings, forgets what he owes not only to the army, but also to his people and his royal position. Certainly the army, which had perilled goods and life to win the fugitive king back his kingdom, is very much concerned at his immoderate affliction, and Joab, who was doubtless conscious of having acted with a proper apprehension of the public situation, takes the liberty by an earnest word to remind the king of his governmental duty (Baumgarten). [The king covered his face, a sign of extreme grief or shame; comp. Isa 53:3 : he was as one hiding his face from us. He cried, with a loud voice, according to the open and violent mode of expressing grief common in the East (and so also the heroes of the Iliad); there are striking illustrations of this in the Arabian Nights.Tr.].
2Sa 19:5-7. Joabs representations to David, and first, accusatory reproof (2Sa 19:5-6), which is only partially just (2Sa 19:5). David had certainly, contrary to his duty as king and commander-in-chief of the army, done what Joab reproaches him with in the words: Thou hast to-day shamed the faces of all thy servants,= Thou hast destroyed the hopes (thy armys of praise, thy nearest friends of joy) (Thenius). It behooved the king to give the victorious army a reception in keeping with the victory. Who have saved thy life and the life of all thine, for this they put their lives at stake. [If Absalom had conquered, David and his whole household would probably have been slain, such being the Oriental custom.Tr.].But Joabs reproof goes on to what is partially untrue, 2Sa 19:6 : in that thou lovest them that hate thee, etc. This was true, certainly, for Absalom, who was his fathers enemy, was now the object of his fathers love; but it was a bitter untruth when Joab added: and hatest them that love thee; David had not deserved such a misapprehension of his heart and disposition, though his conduct had given occasion to it. That leaders and servants are not for thee, that is, not: that they are nothing (worth nothing) to thee (De Wette, Keil), but: are for thee as if they do not exist; Vulg.: because thou carest not for thy leaders. I perceive to day that, if18 Absalom lived, and we were all dead today, then.As Absalom, if he had conquered, would certainly have slain with his father all his household also (2Sa 19:5), so, says Joab, if Absalom had lived (as David in his lamentation desired) and he himself (Joab) had been slain in his place, Davids whole army would have shared in his destruction. Joab dissects Davids words of lamentation with inexorable cruelty, and draws thence with his intellectual acuteness and the grim bitterness of his rude nature consequences that are seemingly logical, yet lay far from Davids nature, though his conduct looked like what he was reproached with.Happily, Joabs speechwhich bears the stamp of military rudeness, disappointed ambition, cruel hard-heartedness and bitter resentment, and finds its justification only in the fact that it set aside Davids weak griefsoftens in the following words (2Sa 19:7), wherein he earnestly presses good counsel on David, and thus deserves well of him and the people. Arise, go forth, tear thyself from the grief in which thou art lost. Speak to the heart of thy servants (Homers [comp. Eng. encourage]), in friendly fashion, satisfy and refresh their minds; so the Vulg. (comp. Gen 34:3; Gen 1:21 and many other passages). The meaning is not: speak of their heart, i.e., their courage = praise them for their bravery (Jos.), which is against the usual signification of the words. I swear, if thou go not forth Joab does not threaten that he will lead the army away [Josephus], but he describes the indubitable result of the dissatisfaction in the army: it will not stay. Thus he points out what consequences Davids behaviour will have for his throne. Worse than all the evil, Joab rightly says, that would be; for by abandonment to grief he would give up the kingdom that God had a second time bestowed on him. Clericus: He intimates that the troops would abandon David, who, from silly weakness and foolish love of Absalom, acted as if he were angry with the victorious army, and elect another king.
2Sa 19:8. The effect of Joabs sharp words was that David shook off his grief, and seated himself in the gate.19 The news goes quickly through the people. All the people came before the king, who, in accordance with Joabs counsel, expressed to them his thanks and his kind feeling. Thus was the danger to Davids throne from the spirit of disintegration (which, as the succeeding history shows, continued after the victory) set aside by Joabs sharp and bitter word, which David took patiently, because he was obliged to acknowledge its justness.
II. 2Sa 19:9-14. Negotiations for Davids return. The last part of 2Sa 19:8 must be combined with 2Sa 19:9 into one sentence: And when Israel had fled, every man to his tent (comp. 2Sa 19:19) all the people strove together in all the tribes of Israel.It is the other tribes, excepting Judah, that are meant. Among them, after their terrible defeat, the revolutionary excitement had soon passed away, and by this victory, whereby the land was saved from grievous misfortune, mens minds were turned to David, as they recalled his heroic deeds at home and abroad. All the people strove together, reproaching one another with delay in bringing back the king. Why do ye keep quiet about bringing back the king?The people are reassembled after their dispersion; their representatives consult together zealously about the restoration to the throne, to which they had raised the insurgent Absalom by the act of anointing. They reproach one another for doing nothing to restore the king. In their hearts, therefore, they feel the grievous wrong they have done an anointed of the Lord, as is shown indirectly by their words, in which Davids great deeds and the misfortunes of the terrible time just past are mentioned; and now they prepare for the deed of solemnly going to meet David, whereby they will declare that their hearts have returned to him in the old love and fidelity.In 2Sa 19:9 after the word land, the Sept. adds: and from his kingdom and, meant doubtless as an explanatory statement.At the end of 2Sa 19:10 [Hebrews 11] the Sept., Vulg. (some MSS.) and Syriac have: and the word of all Israel came to the king, which occurs in the Heb. at the end of 2Sa 19:11 [Hebrews 12], and is there repeated by the versions [except Syr.Tr.] only the to his house is not added in 2Sa 19:10. If these words belonged at the end of 2Sa 19:10, they would assign the motive of Davids message in 2Sa 19:11 (Then., Bttch., Ew.); but we must hold (with Keil) that the difficulty that was found in them in 2Sa 19:11 (as an explanatory sentence) occasioned their insertion in 2Sa 19:10 as the ground of Davids message in 2Sa 19:11.20
2Sa 19:11. David sent, not the two high-priests Zadok and Abiathar to the elders (Ewald), but a message to these two priests, who had remained in Jerusalem (2Sa 15:27), to say to the elders: Why will ye be the last to bring the king back to his house? The rest of the verse declares that Davids message was occasioned by information of the procedures in the other tribes.*
Ver 12. My brethren are ye, my bone and my flesh are ye, that is, my nearest kindred, and the sharers of my name. The backwardness of Judah in the movement to restore David is explained by the fact that the insurrection started in Judah, and Absalom was first recognized as king in Jerusalem. Cornelius a Lapide: Conscious that they had offended David, and fearing Absaloms garrison in Zion, they did not dare to recall him.
2Sa 19:13. David sends to Amasa, Absaloms general (2Sa 17:25), referring to their relationship (1Ch 2:16-17), and promises him with solemn oath the chief command of the army in place of Joab. Ewald well says that this was not only a wise and politic act, but strictly considered no injustice to Joab, who, long notorious by his military roughness, had now shown such disobedience to the royal command in the case of Absalom, as could not be pardoned without offence to the kings dignity.
2Sa 19:14. And he inclined, that is, David (who is the subject in the preceding verse), not Amasa or one of the priests. It is conjectured by Thenius, and regarded as certain by Bttcher, that a passage has fallen out before 2Sa 19:14, because otherwise there is no mention of the carrying out of Davids instructions and the effect of the promise to Amasa, whereby the change in Judah was produced; but such an insertion is not indicated in any of the ancient versions, and is not required by the connection.After telling what David did in order to rouse his own tribe in consequence of the information received from the other tribes, the narrative states briefly that his wise procedure was crowned with complete success. He turned to him the heart of all the men of Judah as that of one man. With one accord they answered that they awaited his return, and made arrangements to bring him solemnly back. [David was sagacious enough to see that to go back to his own people by force had its dangers, and that to wait long for a universal invitation had equal dangers. His own tribe ought to be foremost in welcoming him home, but they had rebelled with Absalom. He resolved at once to reassure them of his favor, and even to make some concession to them This master-stroke of policy and of magnanimity was successful. The hearts of the people melted as one heart. It was the old David of Engedi and Ziklag. They sent a prompt invitation to him (Knox, David, the King, pp. 377, 378).Throughout this narrative the tribal feeling, which never wholly disappeared, is apparent; see 2Sa 19:12; 2Sa 20:4; 2Sa 16:8.Tr.]
III. 2Sa 19:15-40. Davids return over the Jordan under the escort of the men of Judah. 2Sa 19:15. The king returned, namely, from Mahanaim with his army and all his retinue, and came to the Jordan, comp. 2Sa 16:22; what a contrast to his situation when he went over the Jordan as a fugitive! On the other side Judah came to Gilgal, which (lying west of the Jordan-valley, below Jericho) was the rendezvous for the men that were solemnly to conduct David across the river from his position on the eastern bank. Thus is clearly given the scene of the following three incidents of the transit.
1. 2Sa 19:16-24. Shimeis meeting with David, and his pardon.
2Sa 19:16. Shimeiof Bahurim, comp. 2Sa 16:5 sq., 1Ki 2:8 sq.came down from the mountainous table-land into the Jordan-valley, having joined the men of Judah as they advanced to Gilgal to meet the king.
2Sa 19:17. The thousand Benjaminites with him (who had, therefore, joined the procession of the Judahites) show the consideration he enjoyed in the tribe of Benjamin, and testified that a change had taken place in the former hostile feeling in this tribe towards David (comp. 2Sa 19:21). He brought this large band in order to do greater honor to the king (S. Schmid). Among the Benjaminites, Ziba (who, at Davids flight, had acted a part so injurious to Mephibosheth) is specially mentioned, because he, with Shimei, represented the former adherents of Sauls house. He came with his fifteen sons and twenty servants probably with a bad conscience, in order to ward off betimes the effect of Mephibosheths counter-statements. For Shimei and Ziba, with their attendants, show themselves very quick and eager to come to the king, who was still on the eastern bank of the river; not: they went over (Then. [Eng. A. V.]), nor: came prosperously to (S. Schmid), but: they went quickly (pressed)21 over the Jordan, just as they had hastened down into the valley; and they did this in the presence of the king,22 who, they meant, should learn their zeal from their haste.
2Sa 19:18. Meantime, the ferry-boat, appointed to carry over the kings household, was in motion. While this was going on, Shimei fell down before the king, as he (Shimei) was come over the Jordan; the prostration was synchronous23 with the completion of the transit. David cannot be the subject [of the verb was come over], as Keil and Bunsen suppose, for then, either it must read: as he was purposing to go over, which is grammatically inadmissible, or: when he had gone over, which would not be according to the fact, since the king was still on the left [eastern] bank, and did not cross till after these incidents, comp. 2Sa 19:40-41.
2Sa 19:19. The iniquity for which Shimei asks pardon is his curse (2Sa 16:5 sq.); he begs the king not to remember it, to forgive and forget, not to take it into his heart and keep it there (the translation of Keil and De Wette: that the king should take note of it is too weak); not to make it the object of memory and thought.
2Sa 19:20. The ground of his request, namely, the confession: I acknowledge my sin, and the substantial proof of his penitence: I am come the first of the house of Joseph. Bttcher and Thenius, from the reading of the Sept.: of all Israel and of the house of Joseph, adopt of all the house of Israel as the true text, regarding the Joseph as the insertion of a later hand, in the time of the divided kingdom, when Israel and Judah were distinguished from one another. But not only do we find (Keil) in Solomons time the house of Joseph used as equivalent to the ten tribes (1Ki 11:28), but in Psa 78:67-68 (which belongs to Davids time) we have the contrast between the tent of Joseph and the tribe of Ephraim on the one side (as rejected by God), and the tribe of Judah on the other (as chosen by God). The designation of the tribes opposed to Judah by the name of the principal tribe Joseph (Jos 16:1) is as old as the jealousy of these tribes towards Judah, which did not begin with the division of the kingdom, but was only thereby permanently confirmed (Keil). [As Shimei was a Benjaminite, it would seem that the house of Joseph here is equivalent to Israel (the ten tribes). It is commonly supposed that this designation points to the time of the divided kingdom, and thus so far fixes the date of authorship of this passage (unless Bttchers emendation of text, above-stated, be adopted). Erdmanns examples do not show that the designation was in use earlier than the division of the kingdom; for the Book of Kings belongs to the time of the Exile, and Psalms 78 was probably written after Solomons time (comp. the tone of 2Sa 19:1). Still it is quite possible that, with the old tribal feeling coming down from the time of the Judges (when there was probably a double hegemony of Judah and Ephraim), Shimei may have used this phrase, which, therefore, cannot be held to be perfectly decisive of the date of authorship. Bible-Commentary suggests that he employed it in order to exculpate his own tribe by intimating that it was drawn away by the preponderating influence of the great house of Joseph. Tr.] Whether Shimeis request for forgiveness was a sign of sincere repentance, must be left undetermined; it may be doubted, when one reflects on his precipitation in seeking to be the first to do homage to David, and on the fact that his somewhat passionate cry for mercy coincided exactly with the happy turn in Davids fortunes. Certainly he desired, now that David had regained power, to secure his forfeited life and avoid punishment.
2Sa 19:21. Abishai storms out against Shimei (as in 2Sa 16:9), doubting the genuineness of his penitence, and demands his death.
2Sa 19:22. David refuses, as in 2Sa 16:10 sq. Though Abishai (in Joabs name also, for David addresses the sons of Zeruiah) rightly characterizes Shimeis offence as cursing the Lords Anointed, for which he deserved death (Exo 22:27; Lev 24:14 sq.; 2Ki 21:10), David will this day not employ the rigor of the law. Ye will be to me an adversary, literally, a satan (so Num 22:22, comp. Mat 16:23), not a peace-destroyer (Bunsen), or tempter (Ewald). He says: you will be a hindrance to me in the way of joy that I go to-day. Clericus: to injure me by your ill-timed severity. He lays stress on the to-day. Should any one be put to death to-day in Israel? for, do I not know that to-day I am become king over Israel? David will show mercy, not because he is now become king and has the right to pardon, but because he sees in his restoration to his kingdom a proof of restoration to the divine favor, and by showing favor to Shimei as his right will fulfil the obligation of gratitude to the Lord.
2Sa 19:23. Davids oath to spare Shimei shows that his mercy was occasioned by his present experience of the divine mercy. But his injunction to Solomon (1Ki 2:8 sq.) to punish Shimei for his reviling contradicts this promise. This contradiction is not removed by saying that Shimei was not promised immunity in the following reign (Hess), nor by the observation that he was a dangerous man capable of repeating under Solomon what he had done under David. David now pardoned Shimei, chiefly, no doubt, for political reasons, in order not to disturb the favorable feeling of the people, especially of Benjamin.24
2. 2Sa 19:24-30. Mephibosheths apology.
2Sa 19:24. Comp. 2Sa 9:6. He came down from Jerusalem to the Jordan. His feet and his beard he had not made; the word make [= dress] (Deu 21:12) is so used in German also [comp. similar use of do in English.Tr.]. The addition of the Sept.: nor cut his nails, is merely explanatory (Bunsen), and is not to be put into the text. He had not washed his feet or dressed his beard25thus he had mourned for David; in these signs of deep grief comp. Eze 24:17. This was a sign of his sincere, faithful attachment to the house of David, not a sign (Buns., Ewald) that his hopes had not been fulfilled in connection with the new government [Absaloms].
2Sa 19:25. As now Jerusalem came26 to meet the king.Jerusalem here stands for its inhabitants or their representatives; this is often the case, and the expression here cannot be called strange. The rendering of the Arabic: and when he came from Jerusalem introduces a repetition, Mephibosheths coming having been already stated [2Sa 19:24]; it is therefore the less warrantable (with Thenius) to change the text on the sole authority of this version. The translation: when Mephibosheth came to Jerusalem to meet the king (Sept., Luther, Michaelis, Maur.) contradicts the came down of 2Sa 19:24, and the whole connection from which it appears that during this conversation David was still at the Jordan. [This rendering of Erdmanns is improbable, 1) because it has already been stated that Judah had come to meet the king (2Sa 19:15), and 2) because it does not appear why the coming of the Jerusalemites should be the occasion of Davids addressing Mephibosheth.The rendering to Jerusalem (as in Eng. A. V.) would change the scene abruptly and without connection. It is easier to read from Jerusalem, which makes good sense, and agrees with the context. It is not a mere repetition of the came down of 2Sa 19:24, since the fact is here added that he came from Jerusalem. It may be, however, that, while he set out and came down to meet the king, the meeting did not actually occur till the latter had advanced on his march as far as Jerusalem.Tr.]Davids question: Why wentest thou not with me? presupposes the impression made on him by Zibas words (2Sa 16:3), and also contains a reproof.
2Sa 19:26. Mephibosheths answer: my servant deceived me, injured me by lies, deceived me (Bttcher); this is the common meaning of the word (Gen 29:25; Jos 9:22; 1Sa 19:17; 1Sa 28:12; 1Ch 12:17). The ground of this assertion: For thy servant (=I) said (not thought, as most expositors render, for it appears from what follows that Mephibosheth had given an order that Ziba did not execute), I will have the ass saddled and ride thereon and go to the king.Certainly the lame prince could not have thought of going himself to saddle the ass, an objection that Thenius urges against the text as he renders it: and I thought, I will saddle me the ass. He then adopts the text of the ancient versions (except Chaldee): Thy servant had said to him: saddle me the ass. But this change of text is unnecessary; the renderings of the versions are merely explanations. How often in all languages the expression to do a thing = to have it done (this very verb is so used in Gen 22:3)! To refuse to translate: I will cause to be saddled is merely to make a difficulty where none exists. The phrase: I said: I will characterizes the circumstantialness of the narrative. [According to Mephibosheths statement, then, Ziba, instead of obeying his masters order, had carried off animals and provisions, and used them in his own interests.Tr.].
2Sa 19:27. And he slandered thy servant.No sentence has fallen out before these words, explaining (Bttcher) how Mephibosheth was deceived by his servant. It is already involved in the word deceived that Ziba had not obeyed the order (Thenius). Mephibosheth had heard of Zibas slander (2Sa 16:3), and found it confirmed by the execution of Davids order that all the property should belong to Ziba. Davids reproachful question was a new confirmation of what he already knew. There is no trace here of a confused way of defending himself (Bunsen); his curt, summary mode of expression is explained by his excitement and by the situation of David who, occupied with his transit and the solemn escort of the people, had no time to listen to a long narrative. Mephibosheths statements were sufficient to establish his innocence, and to show how Ziba had deceived and slandered him.My lord the king is as the angel of God (comp. 2Sa 14:17) to know what is truth and right.
2Sa 19:28. Mephibosheth refers to Davids former kindness and commits to him his fate, remarking that, though innocent, he could not rightfully demand anything, since he was a member of Sauls house, all of whom were only dead men for the king, that is, all, himself included, might have been slain; being thus without rights, he could not complain or ask for help against the wrong done him.
2Sa 19:29. And the king said to him: Why speakest thou further of thy affairs?This means: there is no need of further excuse on thy part (Thenius), but also expresses displeasure at Ziba, whose deception David now saw through. Wrongly Bunsen: David saw through the complainant [Mephibosheth], and, wishing him well, made no further investigation. David is convinced of Mephibosheths innocence. But the words: I say (= I decide) thou and Ziba shall divide the land, are only a half-exculpation of the poor, innocent man. For they do not in any case (Buns.) contain the confirmation of his first arrangement (2Sa 9:7-10) and the retraction of his hasty decision in 2Sa 16:4, as if he meant to say: Everything remains as I ordered at first (Then.). The statement is simply: Divide the land between you, that is, Ziba and his sons (to whom David in 2Sa 16:4 gives all) are now to possess a part of the property; neither is the decision of 2Sa 16:4 entirely set aside, nor that of 2Sa 9:7-10, whereby Mephibosheth was made sole possessor, re-established. Thenius thinks that the original arrangement (2Sa 9:7-10) is here restored, in so far, namely, as Ziba and his sons had of course lived on the produce of the estate; but a servants being maintained from the produce of the estate is a different thing from his being part-owner. David now sees the error of his decision in 2Sa 16:4, and wishes publicly to recognize Mephibosheths innocence, but not factually and expressly to acknowledge his own over-haste by completely revoking that decision; and so open wrong is done Mephibosheth, who gets only a part of the estate. David was herein probably controlled by political considerations, being unwilling to make the respectable and influential Ziba his enemy. That Ziba does not attempt to rebut Mephibosheths statements proves his own guilt and the innocence of the latter.
2Sa 19:30. He said to the king: Let him take all also.Cornelius a Lapide: Mephibosheth seems to have said this, not from desire to insult David and murmur against God, but in the bitterness of his heart. The words express, not necessarily indeed resentment, but still Mephibosheths feeling that wrong had been done him; at the same time he indicates that he is not concerned about property, but that his heart rather goes out to his king, who will show him again his former kindness. Let Ziba have all the land, I am only glad that my lord the king is come again in peace to his own house; as his guest, I do not need the land for my support. Mephibosheth could not more touchingly and unselfishly express his faithfulness to David. [Davids feeling and motive in this procedure are not clear. If he thought Mephibosheth innocent, he was unjust towards him; if he thought the whole affair too uncertain to permit an absolute decision, he can hardly be defended against the charge of carelessness and precipitancy in making a decision. Perhaps he suspected the princes fidelity, but thought it not worth while to push the investigation; he was tired of intrigues and conflicts. Opinions differ as to Mephibosheths innocence, but the tone of his defence, the silence of Ziba, and the absence in the narrative (1518) of any hint of defection on his part, concur with his lameness in inclining us to absolve him from the charge of actual or intended rebellion.Tr.]
3. 2Sa 19:31-40. Barzillais greeting and blessing.
2Sa 19:31. Barzillai (see 2Sa 17:27) came down from the high region in which Rogelim in Gilead lay. Went with David over the Jordananticipatory statement of what did not take place till 2Sa 19:39, after the following conversation. To conduct him defines the statement in 2Sa 19:39; he intended to go with him only to the other side of the river, and then return27
2Sa 19:32. And he provided (2Sa 17:27-29) for the king during his long stay, abode28 in Mahanaim. He was a very great man, that is, rich, well thought of (Exo 11:3; Lev 19:15).
2Sa 19:33. The king said, Thou come over with me. The word thou is by its position emphatic, the king being chiefly concerned to take him along. That I may provide for thee.The provide here answers to that in 2Sa 19:32. David wished to requite his kindness.
2Sa 19:34. With modest thanks Barzillai declines the kings invitation: 1) referring to the shortness of his remaining life. How many days have I to live? my life is too short to go to court. 2) Referring to his senile weakness, which unfitted him for court-life. Eighty years old, he says, he is intellectually too dull to be useful as a counsellor in distinguishing between good and evil. (For similar constructions see Lev 27:12; Jon 4:11; 1Ki 3:9; Eze 44:23; Gen 26:28; Isa 59:2).But also his bodily senses, he says (taste and hearing), are too weak to enjoy the pleasures of court-life; 3) he objects that, being such a weak old man, he would be only a burden to the king.
2Sa 19:36. For a short while, for the present moment, will thy servant go over Jordan with the king; his purpose, he says, was merely to escort the king across the river, as appears from the context, 2Sa 19:32; 2Sa 19:37. The short while does not refer to the time he would have had to spend at court. [The word may also be rendered, as in Eng. A. V., a little way.Tr.] Why will the king requite me this requital or kindness? namely, with reference to Barzillais maintenance of the king (2Sa 19:32).
2Sa 19:37. As the king might have commanded him to go with him, he requests permission to return home. He is done with life, and wishes to die by the grave of his father and mother. F. W. Krummacher: Can any thing be more amiable than these simple and sensible words? What a cheerful and peaceful spirit they breathe on us!But in his stead he offers the king his son Chimham (1Ki 2:7), not to ask a favor for him, but to put him into his service. The Syr., Arab. and Josephus add my son after Chimham, which is a proper explanation, but not to be adopted into the text. In 2Sa 19:41 the name is written Chimhancomp. Jer 41:17. [Jer 41:17 mentions a geruth or sojourning-place of Chemoham or or Chimham. Stanley (Jewish Church, II. 201) thinks that this was a caravanserai (it was on the south of Bethlehem) for travellers to Egypt, and the same in which Joseph and Mary found shelter (Luk 2:7). The connection between the names is, however, not certain.Tr.]
2Sa 19:38. David receives Chimham, and promises Barzillai further to do all that he desires. I will do whatever thou shalt choose [require] of (literally, upon) me, where the upon expresses Davids sense of obligation. He does not here regard Barzillai as a suppliant for a favor. So Clericus. Comp. Jdg 19:20.
2Sa 19:39. Not till after this conversation does the passage across the river take place; why it must have occurred during the conversation (Then., Keil) does not appear from the context; and the space of transit was not great enough for the length of the talk. It is not merely almost (Thenius), but, from the fresh and individual touches of the picture, quite certain that this is the account of one who himself heard the conversation. And when the king was come over, he kissed Barzillai.That is, took leave of him, comp. Rth 1:9. This shows that Barzillai merely intended to accompany the king over the Jordan, and not further.
2Sa 19:40. The king went on to Gilgal, a noted place in the history of Israel, and specially fitted by its position to be a rendezvous for large bodies of men; comp. Jos 4:19; Jos 5:1-12; Jos 9:6; Jos 10:6; Jos 14:6; 1Sa 7:16; 1Sa 10:3; 1Sa 11:14-15; 1Sa 13:7-9.And Chimhan went on with him.Ewalds remark that this account of Barzillai is given at so great length obviously because his son Chimham and his family were afterwards renowned in Jerusalem, impairs the inherent significance of this episode (taken in connection with 2Sa 17:27-29) in Davids life, which displays in the most vivid and beautiful way the unchangeable fidelity of this noble and influential Gileadite land-owner, as a representative of the transjordanic region, and the grateful love and devotion of the hard-proved but now once more highly favored king, who in Barzillais love and faithfulness saw a proof of the divine grace and truth.
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. Right and wrong are remarkably mingled in the conduct of David and Joab, and in the affair between them immediately after Absaloms death. While the fathers grief for the lost son was altogether justifiable, the king by the immoderateness of his sorrow neglected his duty towards his people, through whom God had given him the victory; by his passionate grief, also, he disturbed the clearness of his mental view, and lamed his manly strength; and finally, absorbed in his loss, forgot to thank the Lord that He had avenged the honor of His name by the restoration of the theocratic kingdom to the well-being of the whole people; the whole kingdom of God in Israel, as the bearer and instrument of which he was chosen and called for the present and the future, disappears for him in the gloomy depth of grief, wherein he had buried himself with his feelings and thoughts.F. W. Krummacher: It is a reproach to him that he subordinated his kingly consciousness too much to his feelings as head of a family. In view of the general weal, he ought at least to have moderated his grief, given thanks to the Lord, and made acknowledgment of the faithful devotion of his brave soldiers. Over against this wrong Joab is altogether right in reminding the king of the danger of such a course, and reproving him with severe words. But the savage and bitter manner in which he approaches the king (though it was Gods means of averting a great evil from David and the nation) is to be condemned. His undisciplined word became a means of discipline to David, and the king turned from the destructive path into which unbridled feeling had led him.
2. Davids situation after his splendid victory was, in spite of the change of popular feeling in Israel, a critical one, on account of the hesitation of Judah, the most powerful tribe, and the real historical foundation of the theocratic kingdom, as it was founded in David. For the sins of its bearer, God had before mens eyes permitted this kingly structure, reared by His hand, to fall, in order to show that human sin must obstruct and ruin His cause, but to make manifest at the same time, that the maintenance of His kingdom is not dependent on human power and wisdom. The point now was the restoration of the ethical foundations of the theocratic kingdom, which were destroyed by the revolution first in the tribe of Judah, where the revolution began; this tribe must be brought back to its faithful obedience to David, its defection having been punished by the divine judgment on Absalom. Recognizing this, David showed discretion and wisdom in his negotiations with the elders, which had the desired result. He saw through the grounds of action of the other tribes, and perceived how dangerous it might be, if his own tribe Judah, his home and support, should be, as it were, conquered by the others, especially as the insurrection had found powerful aid among them. He therefore approached Judah with mildness. But he went beyond ordinary bounds in appointing the general of the insurrection, Amasa, his commander-in-chief in place of Joab, who had won him the victory. This act of political shrewdness, brought back Judah to him as one man. Peter Martyr: I would not altogether defend David in this, but I regard it as an arrangement of divine providence, which purposed through Amasa to turn Judah to David.
3. When Shimei meets David with confession of his fault, Abishai is the same hot-blooded zealot for Davids royal honor as in 2Sa 16:9, and is repulsed now, as then. He (with Joab, who was like him in character) is a type of fleshly zeal, as it is seen in the Sons of Thunder, who would call down fire from heaven on the Samaritans. But, in contrast with the law which, regarding reviling the king as reviling God, punishes it with death, David, by sparing the reviler passes out of the sphere of the Old Testament into that of the New Testament. The decision as to Shimeis sincerity he leaves to God, but, in view of the Lords pardoning mercy and goodness to himself, is led by the Spirit of the Lord to accept Shimeis actual confession, and pardon him. Thus he is the type of the merciful love of the New Testament kingdom of heaven in Christ, which blots out all guilt of sin on condition of true repentance; and he is also the type of forgiving love of enemies. He who has himself received forgiveness of sin from God, and can only praise Gods mercy as the source of all that he is and has, will also forgive his neighbor his sins. The antitype of the forgiving David is the king of the New Testament kingdom of God. Mat 18:23-25. David had accorded Shimei mercy by an oath, without reservation and without limitation to his own reign, as some hold against the sense of his words. His command to Solomon shortly before his death, to execute Shimei, is a falling back to the strictly legal standpoint, above which he had lifted himself here on the Jordan, and can be explained only from the fact that David distinguished between his own personal interest and motive, which led him to pardon Shimei, without taking the theocratic-legal standpoint, and the theocratic interests of the kingdom, of which Solomon was the representative, and so held himself bound on theocratic-political grounds, to commit to his successor the execution of the legal prescription, which he himself had passed over.
4. Half-way reparation of a hastily committed, and afterwards recognized wrong (as in Davids conduct to Ziba and Mephibosheth) is as great an injustice as complete neglect. While he pardons the criminal Shimei, he gives the innocent Mephibosheth only half his rights, and the other half he gives to the unrepentant slanderer Ziba, without a word of reproof, evidently in order to avoid making enemies of Zibas not uninfluential family in Benjamin. Peter Martyr: Davids acts are not only unjust, but self-contradictory; there he pardons a wicked man, here he oppresses a good man. Yet, though he sins so often, he does not abandon his faith; he is a weak man, but holds on to Gods word.Mephibosheth is an illustration of humility patiently bearing wrong. Peter Martyr: Mephibosheth thought perhaps, of the word of the law, that God visits sins on children to the third and fourth generation.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
2Sa 19:1-8. The sinfulness of unmeasured grief. I. Wherein it consists and manifests itself. 1) As regards the Lord, in ignoring the gracious gifts which He sends us along with and amid our sufferings, and in frustrating His gracious design to purify us by suffering from all selfishness; 2) As regards our neighbor, in slighting and violating the duties of love that we owe him; 3) As regards our own heart and conscience, in reckoning the powers of spirit and will by exhausting emotion and enervating inactivity. II. How it must be overcome: 1) Through the word of earnest admonition, which gives pain; 2) By energetically rising up to new life and faithful discharge of the duties of our calling; 3) By accepting the consolation and strength which come from above through the Spirit of God.
2Sa 19:9-15. What wins for a king his peoples heart? 1) Risking his life for their welfare in fighting against external foes; 2) Deeds of deliverance in the overthrow of internal foes; 3) Timely words of hearty, reconciling love, which anticipates and makes advances.
2Sa 19:16-40. The righteousness of love, showing itself in the fact that after the divine ordinance and after the example of divine righteousness it gives to every one his own: 1) As forgiving love, pardon to the enemy who confesses his wrong and begs forgiveness, 2Sa 19:16 sqq.; 2) As rebuking love, earnest admonition to the unloving zealot, 2Sa 19:21 sq.; 3) As self-denying love, which makes good the wrong done to our neighbor, and unreservedly restores him what belongs to him, 2Sa 19:24 sqq.; 4) As thankful love, ready every moment to requite to our neighbor by word and deed the benefits he has done us, 2Sa 19:31 sqq.
Barzillai the picture and example of a venerable and pious old age: 1) Blessed of God, it devotes the temporal goods it has received to the service of compassionate brotherly love, far from all avarice; 2) Honored by men, it desires not the vain honor of this world, far from all ambition; 3) Near the grave, it longs only for home, far from all disposition to find blessedness in this life; 4) But as long as God grants life, even with failing powers it still serves the Lord and His kingdom, and in this service honors him by the devotion even of its dearestfar from all self-seeking.[Saurin has a good sermon on Barzillai and Chimham, as suggesting and illustrating the fact that court life is in certain respects proper for the young and improper for the aged.Tr.]
Fr. Arndt: 2Sa 19:9-40. How David crowns his triumph, and prepares for himself a new and delightful future. 1) By forgiveness of the evil that has been shown him, and 2) By thankfulness for the good that he had likewise received.
2Sa 19:1-8. When once a man has overcome his feelings of grief and gives himself up to fresh activity, then the struggle is soon over, the evil is wholly conquered, the fountain of suffering is thoroughly stopped, the sting of suffering broken; reconciled with past and present, there arises to us for the future a new life.Osiander: God often so mingles joy and sorrow together, that the pious have in this world no complete joy, in order that they may the more earnestly long after things eternal. Psa 42:3 [2].Schlier: Let us never forget modesty, but always with genuine respect say what is necessary. Yet when we do that, let us also freely utter the truth, and never keep back through fear of men or men-pleasing.Wuert. B.: When men do wrong and are overhasty, we should indeed reprove them, but not unseasonably, nor with bitterness, envy, reviling, and too great violence. Psa 141:5.S. Schmid: A man of sense must bear a slight evil in order that a greater may be averted.Schlier: How many sore and bitter experiences we might spare ourselves, if we always made it our first wisdom to let ourselves be advised.
2Sa 19:9-14. [Taylor: David had been called to the throne at first by the choice of the people, as well as by the designation of Jehovah, and he would not move in the direction of resuming his regal dignity until, in some form or other, the desire of the tribes had been indicated to him.Tr.]Wuert. Bible: Men do not commonly recognize the good while they possess it, but only afterwards, when they have lost it and would like to have it again.[Henry: Good services done to the public, though they may be forgotten for a while, yet will be remembered again when men come to their right minds.Tr.]It is always better to be too gentle than too sharp; for a good word finds a good place, and gentleness wins hearts. Jdg 8:3; Jdg 12:3.Schlier: Let us also remember our sins and more and more humble ourselves, then we shall also be mild and gentle toward friend and foe, and so receive the blessing promised to all the merciful.Berl. B.: For such a God, whose goodness is as infinite as His power, it is not so hard to win hearts; He knows the true secret of winning them in the right way; because He knows how to touch them inwardly. Thus hast Thou, O love, inclined the heart of all believers as if it were only one man.
2Sa 19:15-23. [Taylor: In all this procedure David was not actuated by his usual sagacity; and the result of his apparent preference of Judah over the other tribes not only provoked another rebellion after his return to Jerusalem, but also prepared the way for the division of the kingdom, which took place in the days of his grandson, Rehoboam.Tr].There is no true forgiveness till the thought of the offences is wholly effaced from the heart. Psa 25:7.Starke: By honest confession and earnest repentance one may obtain mercy and forgiveness from men, how much more from the merciful God. Jam 4:9.Schlier: Gods mercy should open our hearts, should make us gentle and mild toward others; for the Lords sake who has forgiven us, we should also forgive others.Berl. B.: God cannot suffer such men as under the appearance of righteousness oppose His mercy.[Henry: David had severely revenged the abuses done to his ambassadors by the Ammonites (2Sa 12:31), but easily passes by the abuse done to himself by an Israelite. That was an affront to Israel in general, and touched the honor of his crown and kingdom; this was purely personal, and therefore (according to the usual disposition of good men) he could the more easily forgive it.Scott: Our best friends must be considered as adversaries, when they would persuade us to act contrary to our conscience and our duty. Mat 16:21-23.Tr.]
2Sa 19:24-30. Starke: For reviling and slander the first and chief occasion is given by selfishness and envy.God does not let the truth remain always defeated, but causes it at the proper time to come to light.Schlier: When a man does us good, we should remember him for it, and if sometimes wrong is done us, we will quickly forget the wrong, but the good that has befallen us we will not forget. A thankful man is sure to come to honor, even if in the meanwhile evil times do occasionally intervene; while ingratitude always comes to shame.[2Sa 19:29. Taylor: Every one knows that when he has been entrapped into the doing of an ungenerous or unjust thing, there springs up in him an irritation at himself, which is apt to betray itself in hastiness of speech and manner quite similar to that here manifested by David. But both the temper and the decision were unworthy of David.Tr.]
2Sa 19:31-40. Starke: Our gratitude to our neighbor should be shown not only by words, but also by the most devoted affection of the heart, and by actions themselves.Berl. B.: That is an honorable old age, which dies to the lusts and vanities of the world, seeks peace and quiet, earnestly thinks of the end and prepares for death.Osiander: If we cannot requite our benefactors in their life-time for their good deeds, we should at any rate make their posterity enjoy it.
[2Sa 19:7-8. In a time of overwhelming calamity the necessity for exertion is often a great blessing.
2Sa 19:9-10. The safety of popular institutions is in reaction.
2Sa 19:16-17. Among the sore trials of high station is the necessity of bearing with men who are grossly unworthy, but manage to command influence.Tr.]
IV. Strife between Judah and Israel over bringing David back. 2Sa 19:40 b43 [Heb. 41 b44.]
40And all the people of Judah conducted29 the king [ins. over] and also half the 41people of Israel; And behold, all the men of Israel came to the king, and said unto the king, Why have our brethren the men of Judah stolen thee away, and have brought the king, and his household, and all Davids men with him, over Jordan? 42And all the men of Judah answered the men of Israel, Because the king is near of kin to us [is near to me]; wherefore then be ye [and why art thou] angry for this matter? have we eaten at all of the kings cost? or hath he given us any gift?30 43And the men of Israel answered the men of Judah, and said, We [I] have ten parts in the king, and we have also more right in David than ye [and also in David31 I have more than thou]; why then did ye despise us [and why hast thou despised me], that our [my] advice should not be [was not] first had in bringing back our [my] king? And the words of the men of Judah were fiercer than the words of the men of Israel.
V. Shebas insurrection and Israels defection occasioned by this strife between Judah and Israel. Both quelled by Joab after his murder of Amasa. 2Sa 20:1-22
1And there happened to be there a man of Belial [a wicked man], whose [and his] name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite [Benjaminite]. And he blew a [the] trumpet, and said, We have no part in David, neither have we [and we have] no inheritance in the son of Jesse; every man to his tents,32 O Israel. 2So every man [And all the men] of Israel went up from after David, and followed Sheba the son of Bichri; but the men of Judah clave unto their king, from Jordan even [om. even] to Jerusalem. 3And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and fed [maintained] them, but went not in unto them; so [and] they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood [in lifelong widowhood33].
4Then said the king [And the king said] to Amasa, Assemble me the men of Judah 5within three days,34 and be thou here present. So [And] Amasa went to assemble the men of [om. the men of] Judah; but he tarried longer than the set time which he35 had appointed him. 6And David said to Abishai, Now shall [will] Sheba the son of Bichri do us more harm than did Absalom; take thou36 thy lords servants, and pursue after him, lest he get him fenced cities, and escape us. 7And there went out after him Joabs men, and the Cherethites and the Pelethites and all the mighty men; and they went out of Jerusalem, to pursue after Sheba the son of Bichri. 8When they were at the great stone which is in Gibeon, Amasa went before them [came towards them]. And Joabs garment that he had put on was girded unto him [And37 Joab was girded with his military dress as his garment], and upon it a girdle with [of] a sword fastened upon his loins in the sheath thereof 9[its sheath], and as he38 went forth, it fell out. And Joab said to Amasa, Art thou in health, my brother? And Joab took Amasa by the beard with the right hand 10to kiss him. But [And] Amasa took no heed to the sword that was in Joabs hand; so [and] he smote him therewith in the fifth rib [into the belly], and shed out his bowels to the ground, and struck him not again; and he died. So [And] Joab and Abishai his brother pursued after Sheba the son of Bichri. 11And one of Joabs men [young men] stood by him, and said, He that favoureth Joab, and he that is for David, let him go after Joab. And Amasa wallowed in blood in the midst of 12the highway. And when [om. when] the man saw that all the people stood still, [ins. and] he removed Amasa out of the highway into the field, and cast a cloth upon him, when he saw that every one that came by him stood still [or, because every one that came on him saw and stood still]. 13When he was removed out of the highway, all the people [every man] went on after Joab to pursue after Sheba the son of Bichri. 14And he went through all the tribes of Israel unto Abel and to Beth-maachah and all the Berites;39 and they were gathered together, and went also after him.
15And they came and besieged him in Abel of Beth-maachah [Abel-beth-maachah], and they cast up a bank against the city, and it stood in the trench [at the outer wall]; and all the people that were with Joab battered40 the wall to throw it down. 16Then cried a wise woman out of the city, Hear, hear; say, I pray you, unto Joab, Come near hither, that I may speak with thee. 17And when he was come [And he came] near unto her, [ins. and] the woman said, Art thou Joab? And he answered [said] I am he. Then [And] she said unto him, Hear the words of thine handmaid. And41 he answered [said], I do hear. 18Then she spake [And she said], saying, They were wont to speak in old time, saying, They shall surely [Let 19them] ask counsel at Abel; and so they ended the matter. I am one of them that are peaceable and faithful in Israel; thou seekest to destroy a city and a mother 20[a mother-city] in Israel; why wilt thou swallow up the inheritance of the Lord [Jehovah]? And Joab answered and said, Far be it, far be it, from me, that I should swallow up or destroy. 21The matter is not so; but a man of Mount Ephraim, Sheba the son of Bichri by name, hath lifted up his hand against the king, even [om. even] against David; deliver him only, and I will depart from the city. And the woman said unto Joab, Behold, his head shall be thrown to thee over 22[through] the wall. Then [And] the woman went unto all the people in her wisdom. And they cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri, and cast it out to Joab. And he blew a [the] trumpet, and they retired [dispersed] from the city, every man to his tent [tents]. And Joab returned to Jerusalem unto the king.
VI. Davids chief officers after the restoration of Ms royal authority. 2Sa 19:23-26
23Now [And] Joab was over all the host of Israel; and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and over the Pelethites; 24And Adoram was over the tribute; and Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder; 25And Sheva was scribe; and Zadok and Abiathar were the [om. the] priests; 26And Ira also the Jairite was a chief ruler42 about [to] David.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
2Sa 19:41-43. Strife between Judah and Israel about bringing David back.
2Sa 19:41 [40 b, Heb. 41 b]. The text () would be rendered: and as to the whole people of Judah, they had conducted, etc. (Keil). But this would be a strange and heavy construction, and the Qeri or margin is preferable [and Judah conducted, as in Eng. A. V.]. This last clause is to be connected with the following verse (Thenius): and when all the people of Judah had conducted the king, and also half the people of Israel, behold, then came all the men of Israel, etc. Besides Judah, half the people of Israel also acted as Davids escort over the Jordan. This part of Israel consisted first of the thousand Benjaminites that had come with Shimei, and then of others living near by, especially, it is probable, from the east-jordanic district (S. Schmid). The passage over the Jordan was completed, and David (as appears from the connection) with his escort had reached Gilgal (Bunsen), when there, not at the Jordan (Then., Ew.), all the men of Israel, that is, the body of deputized representatives of the other tribes (Clericus) arrived and made their complaint to David: Why have our brethren the men of Judah stolen thee away? escorted thee over so secretly, without informing us of their purpose? By directing this question to David, they at the same time reproached him, for very probably it had been learned that he had a hand in the movement, see 2Sa 19:11-12 (Then.). All Davids men are the faithful followers that had fled with him from Jerusalem (2Sa 15:17 sqq.). In all this we see, on the one hand, the discord between the main divisions of the nation, Judah and Israel, and on the other the eager rivalry in the exhibition of devotion to the king, which, however, contained in itself the seeds of further disorder. Grotius: an honorable contestbut, heated by bitter words, it afforded opportunity to those that desired revolution. Honorable indeed, says Tacitus, but the source of the worst things (Annal. I.).
2Sa 19:42. Not David, but the representatives of the tribe of Judah answered the reproach. Literally: the men of Judah answered against (Bttcher) the men of Israel, they met them with an answer.There is no need to insert (Thenius, after Sept., Syr., Arab.) and said after the word Israel, as in 2Sa 19:43; Bttcher remarks that the and said is omitted also in 1Sa 9:17; 1Sa 20:28.Because the king is nearer to me (not: the king is near to me); the because is the answer to the why? of 2Sa 19:41. Near = near of kin, comp. v. 1. Why art thou angry? there is no ground for it. [The Singular Pronoun here used (Eng. A. V. substitutes the Plural) perhaps refers to the individual speaker, who represented the nation or tribe, or the nation or tribe may be regarded as a unit.Tr.]Have we eaten of the king? To eat of the king = to be fed by the royal bounty (Clericus). Have we enjoyed advantages from him? Have you reason to be envious of us because we have enjoyed advantages that you were deprived of? Whether this is also a side-hit at the Benjaminites (Mich., Then., Buns., Keil), who enjoyed many favors from Saul (comp. 1Sa 22:7), must be left undecided; nothing of this sort is indicated in the words or the connection. Or, has anything been taken by us? not: has he given us any gift?43 [so Eng. A. V., whose rendering is defended in Text. and Gram.Tr.].
2Sa 19:43. The men of Israels answer to this hot discourse of the Judahites is still hotter. Over against the latters qualitative relation to David (he is nearer to us) they set the numerical quantitative: Ten parts have I in the king, and also in David more than thou.The ten parts are the ten tribes as against the two, Judah and Benjamin (Theodoret); the tribe of Benjamin might already after the removal of the royal residence to Jerusalem have attached itself more to Judah, as indeed it now came a thousand strong with Judah, and afterwards with this tribe formed the Judah-kingdom, 1Ki 12:21 (Thenius). Add to this that Jerusalem was within the tribe of Benjamin just on the border of Judah. The king belonged to the whole nation, and therefore Israel, with its ten tribes, had a ten-fold part in and claim on the king.And also in David more than thou.The above general statement is here specialized and individualized in respect to the person of David. The men of Israel had indeed deserved very ill of him. But this cannot be urged against the genuineness of the reading: in David (Then.), for the men of Judah had behaved still worse, since the insurrection originated among them. But Israels claim to superiority to Judah in having ten parts also in David does not refer to the fact that the insurrection began in Judah (O. v. Gerlach), for they (Israel) had straightway joined the rebellion. The words are to be taken simply in closest connection with the previous numerical statement in reference to the king. The sense is: in the kingdom of Israel you have no claim to a nearer relation to the king, who is put there for all the tribes, and to whom as king all the tribes stand equally near, so that we, with our ten, have a ten-fold claim on him. As this is true of every king, so also of David. Seb. Schmid: David is here considered not as of the tribe of Judah, but as king. But now we have ten parts in the king, therefore also in David as king, and so your argument from consanguinity is worthless. This hair-splitting calculation and passionate assertion of the mere numerical relation to David is psychologically quite characteristic of the ill feeling towards Judah that prevailed in Israel. Instead of and also in David more than thou, Bttcher and Thenius adopt the reading of the Sept.: and I am first-born44 (more) than thou. But this reading is suspicious at the outset, because the Sept. has also the reading of the Heb. text. Then Thenius explanation of the term firstborn from the tribes of Reuben and Simeon, whose ancestors were born before Judah, does not apply to the other tribes, whose stem-fathers were born after Judah; and to understand the term as meaning at the same time (Thenius) that Israel after Sauls death had held to his dynasty and continued the national name, seems very farfetched.Why hast thou despised me?The men of Israel felt that they had been made little of in that they had not been informed of the restoration and permitted to take part in it. In contrast with the solidarity of the revolutionary movement, which had united both sections, they here emphasize the jointness of the desire for and return to the old fealty.And was not my word the first to bring back my king? Literally: and was not my word first to me to bring back my king? On Israels word, comp. 2Sa 19:10-11. The to me is not to be attached (Keil) against the accents (and against the order of the words) to bring back [= bring back to me], but is apposition to my word, to emphasize the possessive pronoun my (Ges., 121, 3), and to bring out strongly the thought that Israel had first spoken of and counselled the kings restoration.Judahs reply to Israels words was still harder, more violent, than they. A violent war of words flamed up, wherein Israel, as feeling itself the aggrieved party, was led to a new, evil purpose, which shaped itself into a repetition of the rebellion just crushed. Comp. a Lapide: This scene paved the way to Shebas war. Learn from this proud quarrel of Judah and Israel how true is the proverb in Pro 15:1.
For the HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL and HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL sections, see 1Sa 20:1 ff.
Footnotes:
[1][2Sa 19:1. This verse is one of those cited among the Corrections of the Scribes. The exact nature of the correction is not stated, but Tanchum states that in Chron. instead of to his tents is written to his gods (Buxtorf). Geiger (Urschrift, pp. 290, 315) adopts this latter reading, and sees in it a trace of ancient Israelitish idolatry, to conceal which, he thinks, our text has been changed. But, as our reading is fully supported externally and internally, there is as little ground for this as for most other changes proposed by Geiger.Tr.]
[2][2Sa 19:2. , properly salvation, deliverance, not the idea of a conquering of enemies, but of being saved from them.Tr.]
[3][2Sa 19:4. Instead of , Wellhausen would write as if from (1Sa 21:10).Tr.]
[4][2Sa 19:6. Conditional sentence, in which condition and consequence are represented as non-existent; the protasis with (= ) and Adjective (or Participle), the apodosis with the Perfect. The action is stated in the simplest form: if Absalom is living, it is right, it being otherwise understood that Absalom is not living.Tr.]
[5][2Sa 19:7. Conditional sentence, in which both members are undetermined, put as mere possibilities. The protasis is in the form of simple assertion ( ), the apodosis has the Imperf. () with future sense.Tr.]
[6][2Sa 19:7. Sept.: and know thou that, etc., reading probably for ; but it had the latter reading also.Instead of some VSS., EDD. and MSS. have , which would not, however, alter the translation. The in this case merely carries on the sequence of time up to the limit, and is not to be rendered even (as if emphatic), as Eng. A. V. often does.Tr.]
[7][2Sa 19:8. So Thenius, Wellhausen, Bib.-Com., Erdmann.Tr.]
[8][2Sa 19:9. is rendered by Gesenius: from on, as conveying the notion that David had been a burden on Absalom; but it also sometimes = from the presence of, as in Gen 17:22. There is not sufficient ground, therefore, for Bttchers remark that the phrase is not Hebrew, and should at least be , or for regarding the as the remnant of an original , and from his kingdom (Sept.), which may be merely a marginal explanation. Syr.: come now, let us flee from the land from after Absalom, reading .Tr.]
[9][2Sa 19:10-11. The expression: to his house, at the end of 2Sa 19:11 is here inappropriate; for the talk among the people had certainly not come to the kings house (i. e. dwelling, as the context shows); it was perhaps repeated from the previous clause after the . Moreover this last clause seems to be better put at the end of 2Sa 19:10; it sounds more like the statement of the narrator than like a part of the kings speech to Judah. In 2Sa 19:10; it may have fallen out by similar ending, two successive clauses there ending in . See Erdmanns remarks in the Exposition.Tr.]
[10][2Sa 19:15. Instead of some ancient EDD. and MSS. have , to descend; but the weight of authority is on the side of the text.The Hiph. Inf. with Prep. is in this verse written , in 2Sa 19:18 (Heb. 19) .Tr.]
[11][2Sa 19:16 sqq. Wellhausen regards the statement about Ziba as a sort of parenthesis (2Sa 19:18 b being connected with 2Sa 19:16), and makes some changes in the text: he omits the before , and at the beginning of 2Sa 19:18 (Heb. 19) reads (so Vulg.; Syr. ), instead of . The account would then read: And Shimei, etc., came to meet David, and one thousand Benjaminites with him. And Ziba, etc., pressed () to the Jordan before the king, and crossed () the ford, etc. And Shimei fell down, etc. The reading of Vulg. at beginning of 2Sa 19:18 : and they crossed the ford, commends itself as appropriate, for we should not expect the statement about the ferry-boat to be inserted in the middle of the account of Sheba. But there seems to be no good ground for omitting the before and thus confining this action to Ziba and his party. Shimei (with whom Ziba was) may have managed the arrangements for the transportation of the kings household. Ziba may have assisted; but it is not necessary to suppose that it was out of gratitude for this service that David made the decision in 2Sa 19:29 (Heb. 30).Tr.]
[12][2Sa 19:24. The two verbs in the Sept. and may be two renderings of the same Heb. word (Wellh.). As Wellhausen remarks, to express both verbs, the Heb. would use the expression: he did not dress the nails () of his hands and of his feet, which hardly stood in our text.Other points in the account of Mephibosheth are referred to by Erdmann in the Exposition.Tr.]
[13][2Sa 19:26. Instead of some very good EDD. and MSS. have , which is a more natural reading, but is unsupported by ancient versions.Tr.]
[14][2Sa 19:31. The is omitted in some EDD. and MSS.; others have the Qeri.Tr.]
[15][2Sa 19:32. . The ancient versions and a few Heb. MSS. have the Infin. , which is the usual construction. Another reading given by De Rossi from some MSS. is , in his old age, which he thinks gives a good sense, but which will hardly commend itself.Tr.]
[16][2Sa 19:36. Wellhausen unnecessarily regards the words the Jordan as an addition to the text, on the ground that the expression: I will go a little way over the Jordan. is inappropriate, and that it was clearly not Barzillais purpose to cross the river. But he may well have desired to do the king the honor of escorting him across the boundary-line, the river, while he would not attach himself to the court by entering Jerusalem.Tr.]
[17][2Sa 19:36. The verb means in general: to perform an act towards one, whether of good or of evil. The context here indicates that it is a favor that is done: but the idea of reward, which is not properly contained in the word, is here better omitted in the courtly speech of Barzillai.Tr.]
[18][2Sa 19:40. The Heb. has Chimhan, which Bttch (though with scarcely any ground) regards as a Judaized form of the native name Chimham. There may have been different pronunciations of proper names (there are signs of this elsewhere in the Old Testament), or this different writing may be a scribal inadvertence (the difference is not retained in the ancient versions), proper names being especially liable to corruption.Tr.]
[19]Instead of read = .
[20][The gate was the place of assembly and business. See Rth 4:1-2; 2Ki 7:2; Job 29:7.Tr.]
[21][See Text, and Gram. In any case the words: to his house at the end of 2Sa 19:11 (Hebrews 12) seem out of place.Tr.]
[22] , to go over a thing, with , and Acc.; Sept.: ; Vulg.: et irrumpentes Jordanem transierunt.
[23][Others render: to meet the king; more exactly: into the presence of the king.Tr.]
[24]This is shown by the in .[The phrase: in his crossing over means during the general fact of crossing, and may very well here apply to David. While the crossing was going on (the statements of time are quite general and loose) Shimei fell down, etc. For remarks on the arrangement of these verses (1519) see Text. and Gram.Tr.]
[25][Davids charge to Solomon (1Ki 2:8-9) is defended as the act of a prudent ruler, or as that of a righteous theocratic judge; but on neither ground can it be seen why he should break his promise. Perhaps, if we knew the circumstances more fully, there would be some explanation; at present we can only say that Davids conduct was wrong, like many other acts of his.Tr.]
[26][Literally his lip heard, moustache (and perhaps the beard at the lower lip), Sept. , Chald. lip-beard.Tr.]
[27] , masc., referring to the inhabitants. On this gender ad sensum see Ew. 318 a.
[28]This is the meaning of . If this Kethib be retained, is to be taken as sign of Acc. of space with an exacter definition by . So Ges. (Thes.): that he might accompany him in crossing the river; the words designate the bed of the Jordan, and denotes the Acc. of place or space after a verb of going. So Maurer: that he might accompany him (i. e., = ) , and Bttcher: = id quod, to conduct him what (the piece of way) was in the Jordan (but not farther). It does not appear how this explanation leads to the absurd statement (Then.) that the octogenarian Barzillai went in the Jordan alongside of the ferry-boat, for the = the in the Jordan, denotes the space that, makes the breadth of the Jordan. The Qeri is adopted by Thenius, who appeals to the Sept, Chald. and Arabic (holding that the Keth. comes from miswriting for ), and renders: to escort him the Jordan [Acc.]; this gives the same sense, but is an attempt to lighten the certainly difficult Kethib.
[29] for (Maur., Bttch., Ew. 153, 2 b).
[30][2Sa 19:40. Eng. A. V. here adopts the Qeri, so Erdmann, Vulg. This reading is supported by Sept., Syr., Arab., Chald., and by a number of Heb. MSS. and printed editions.Tr.]
[31][2Sa 19:42. Bttcher and Erdmann: has anything been taken by us? The rendering of Eng. A. V. is that of the ancient versions, Gesen., Philippson, Cahen. In defence of it may be said that occurs elsewhere as Piel (1Ki 9:11), and that the parallelism does not absolutely demand the Infin. Absol. in the second member. On the other hand, Bttchers rendering of as introducing the agent is strange.Tr.]
[32][2Sa 19:43. The masoretic text is here supported by all the ancient versions except Sept., which gives , , but this word would hardly be followed in Heb. by the comparative = I am first-born over thee; it would be simply I am the first-born or, I am older () than thou. The material argument against the Sept. reading is given by Erdmann.After Bttcher inserts from the Sept. ; but (as he says) this expression is not found elsewhere, and the frequency of the Sept. would account for it here without the supposition of a in the Hebrew.Tr.]
[33][2Sa 19:3. Bttcher and Erdmann (retaining the masoretic pointing): in a widowhood during lifetime, that is, during the lifetime of the husband, which while it avoids a repetition is somewhat violent. The same sense is gotten by Wellhausen, who for (which he thinks a doubtful form) writes , and renders: living widows = widows of a living husband, which is also hard. The phrase widowhood of life (as in the masoretic pointing) naturally means lifelong widowhood, and so Ewald (Gesch. III. 262) understands it: widows that could never be married again.Tr.]
[34][2Sa 19:4. Before three days Wellh. thinks (and) necessary, since the is defined by this term of days. But as Amasa is ordered to present himself immediately after assembling the troops, the time assigned to this assembling will of course apply also to his coming, so that the insertion of and is unnecessary.Tr.]
[35][2Sa 19:5. As subject of the verb Sept. supplies David, Vulg. the king, and Syr. king David, which seem to be explanatory insertions, and do not call for correction of the simpler Heb. text (against Bttcher).Tr.]
[36][2Sa 19:6. Instead of some MSS. and printed editions have now (Vulg. igitur), and the ancient versions (except Chald.) add the Dat. commodi me.Instead of the Sing. some MSS. and EDD. Have the Plural eyes. Eng. A. V. follows the Vulg. in rendering: escape us. This phrase and the reading Joab instead of Abishai are discussed in the Exposition.Tr.]
[37][2Sa 19:8. This is the only possible translation of the Heb. text; but the whole sentence is difficult. The word garment, occurs only in poetical passages (so 2Ki 10:22 perhaps) and in late prose (Esth.), and the garment (especially, military dress) is construed with the verb , not with , see 1Sa 17:38-39 : Lev 6:3. It would be simpler to read: (or, ) and Joab was dressed in his military dress, the rest of the verse following as in the Heb., except that instead of the substantive girdle we should read the adjective (or the fem.) girded: and on it was girded a sword, etc. The first may have been repeated from the second. Wellhausen quotes the Itala: et Joab indutus est mandyam indutoriam suam super se et qladiwm rudentem in vagina sua cinctus erat ad lumbos suos and gets a Heb. text that reads: and Joab was clothed in his military dress on him, and with a sword fastened in his sheath he was girded upon his loins, where the reference of the to is not good, and the change of order in the latter part of the verse is unnecessaryTr.]
[38][2Sa 19:8. Erdmann and it ((i. e., the sheath) came out, and it (the sword) fell. But this change of subject is harsh, and it is better to read : it (the sword) came out (of the sheath) and fell. The Eng. A. V., referring the coming out to Joab, makes no sense. We may see also how appropriately the word in its sheath stands at the end of the sentence, just before the statement that the sword fell out of the sheathTr.]
[39][2Sa 19:14. Or, all Berim (Philippson), as the name of a region. Sept. , Syr. cities (misreading), Chald. Berim (a region) Vulg. electi, from to choose (Philippson), or = (Bttcher, Thenius, Wellh., Erdmann). Bib.-Com. suggests that means fortresses (from ), but no such form occurs. It is better to read: and all the choice young men were gathered together, etc. The rendering gathered is of the Qeri, which is supported by the versions, and by many MSS. and EDD. Chandler adopts as Kethib they were ardently excited, pursued ardently after him.Tr.]
[40][2Sa 19:15. Literally: were razing (or, easting down) to make the wall fall, a strange expression. Hence Ewald, Bttcher, Thenius and Erdmann make the participle a denominative from a pit, and render: were digging ditches to throw down the wall. But the form is elsewhere unknown (and none of the ancient versions suggest it here), and the military practice thus described is doubtful. As the text stands the word hardly yields a fair sense. But Chald. renders were thinking, purposing, which agrees with the Sept. , and perhaps represents the Heb. (Wellh.); the people were devising to throw down the wall.Tr.]
[41][2Sa 19:18. The Sept. is the only ancient version that offers material for alteration of the text of the womans speech, and this is discussed by Erdmann. Chald. paraphrases: And she said, saying, Remember now what is written in the book of the law to ask of the peace of a city (Waltons Polygl.: to ask of a city) in the beginning, saying, was it in this wise thy duty to ask of Abel, whether they are peaceable? We are peaceable, in fidelity with Israel, etc.; on this interpretation see further in notes to the Exposition. Syr.: The woman said, They used to say of old time that they asked the prophets, and then they destroyed; am I to make satisfaction for the sins of Israel, that thou desirest to slay the child and his mother in Israel? where the misreadings ( for and for ) are obvious. These versions (and the Vulg.) confirm the Heb. text, which, with all its difficulties, seems preferable to the Sept. variation adopted by Ewald and Wellhausen.Tr.]
[42][2Sa 19:26. the word ordinarily rendered priest. See on 2Sa 8:18.Tr.]
[43] is not Piel, and Pi. Particip. (hath he given us a gift?), for the Pi. is elsewhere , and this construction would require . And though = to help one with gifts (1Ki 9:11), our phrase does not therefore mean to give to one (Bttcher). Rather we have here the Pert. Niph. with Absol. Infin. (fem., as verbs , Ewald 240 d), corresponding to , literally: has anything been as to taking taken by us?has any thing at all been taken by us?
[44] Instead of .
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
The mourning of David for Absalom, is checked by Joab. David it invited back to his capital. This event is accomplished. A circumstance concerning Shimei, is related. These are the principal matters, of this chapter.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
(1) And it was told Joab, Behold, the king weepeth and mourneth for Absalom. (2) And the victory that day was turned into mourning unto all the people: for the people heard say that day how the king was grieved for his son. (3) And the people gat them by stealth that day into the city, as people being ashamed steal away when they flee in battle. (4) But the king covered his face, and the king cried with a loud voice, O my son Absalom, O Absalom, my son, my son!
The unbecoming sorrow of David, concerning the death of Absalom, could not but have its effect upon the whole army. Some, no doubt, felt displeased; and others commiserated the king: but, as the HOLY GHOST is silent, as to what passed between David and the LORD, on this occasion, we can only hope that the affliction was rendered profitable.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Bringing the King Back
2Sa 19:10
The rebellion was over; Absalom was dead; the messengers had not hesitated to bring what they thought would be the good tidings to the king. But how could they be good tidings, remembering the wonderful love which he bore for his son? A plaintive cry went up from him when he realized the fullness of the news, and he wished he had died instead. The joy of victory was turned to mourning; the people heard of the sorrow of the king, and little could they rejoice when they found he was bowed with sorrow. Little could they realize the joy of victory or what it meant, and they sent messengers to him one after another, and they held consultations between themselves; and then we come to these words: ‘Why therefore speak ye not a word of bringing the king back?’ He was there. He was still their king, but there seemed to be a division between himself and the people for the time; they could not realize that he was their king, they certainly did not enjoy his presence. And so the thought arose, ‘Why therefore speak ye not a word of bringing the king back?’ You know the result he sent an upbraiding but nevertheless a loving message to his son. And then he returned once more to his people. He realized what his return meant to them, as they felt that he was now again their king.
There is a spiritual truth in these words which appeals very continuously to some of us.
I. Rebellion Against the King. Realizing that Jesus Christ Himself is our lawful King, our Sovereign, and Saviour, may we ask ourselves what our position is in respect to Him? Many of these men had been rebels against the king; they had ranged themselves on the side of Absalom, and were willing to cast in their lot with his. But, rebels as they were, there now came the opportunity of owning their allegiance to the true king. Is it not possible for us to be rebels against our Lord Jesus Christ Himself? We may set something or somebody else up in our hearts to the exclusion of Himself; we may not own Him to be our Lord. We may not bow ourselves before Him. We may live our lives, so far as we can, without reference to Him; all our influence may be cast absolutely in the wrong direction. We may really be helping forward the kingdom of Satan rather than the kingdom of Christ. It is only too possible for us to be out-and-out rebels against Jesus Christ Himself, and to be casting in our lot with those who are vaunting against the cause of truth, righteousness, and justice. If that be the case if any of us are conscience-stricken and feel that we have been rebels against our Lord and against His kingdom shall we speak the word to bring Him back to us? The word must be a word of penitence, it must be a word of prayer, it must be a prayer offered up in faith, it must be a prayer to be followed by the subjection of ourselves, no matter what that may mean and involve in each individual case.
II. Separation from the King. Or there may be many of us who have not, at any rate consciously, been rebels against our Lord Jesus Christ, but who nevertheless feel that there has been something which has separated us from Him. We know that no longer are we enjoying communion with Him. It seems as though He were a long way from us. We realize not His presence with all the joy, and hope, and light which that presence brought us in days gone by. It seems that everything is miserable that once was joy. We remember, for instance, the time when we could kneel down and pray; or we remember the time when we used to delight to read God’s Word; or we remember when we could realize His presence in our daily life; or we remember when our communions were seasons of joy and spiritual refreshment; or we look back and recollect how we believed that He was not only in the world somewhere, but we believed that He was with us, we felt more joy in doing some work for Him, no matter how feeble it might be. Those were the bright, happy days of our spiritual life. But somehow or other there has been a change. We have lost the happiness which once we had, and things are not so clear and easy as they once seemed to be. We find ourselves walking in the darkness, groping our way and stumbling. We find all sorts of difficulties staring us in the face. We do not believe in prayer now, or, if we do, we do not pray; and we do not read God’s Holy Word, and we have given up our communions, or, if we still attend, it is merely a matter of form. How is it? Many of us, I think, find it very difficult to hold on. We find it so easy to go back. It is so difficult always to realize the presence of the King with us, and there are so many distractions in this world, there are so many influences brought to bear upon us.
III. To Bring the King Back. ‘Why therefore speak ye not a word of bringing the King back?’ Do you think He will come back? Do you think He will give us the joy that once we knew? Do you think He will come to speak the word of consolation? Do you think He will come to give us that strength which His presence alone can give? Yes; speak the word to bring the King back, for He is wanted now. If we have forgotten Him He has not forgotten us. If we have been weak in our own love, if we have been an easy prey to our spiritual foes, speak the word to bring Him back. Send a message through prayer to the King to ask him to come back to the heart from which He has been expelled. Ask Him to return with all the light and joy and sunshine which ever come from His presence with us.
References. XIX. 10. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xiv. No. 808. XIX. 31. D. T. Young, Neglected People of the Bible, p. 92. XIX. 33-37. W. H. Simcox, The Cessation of Prophecy, p. 123.
Fewness of Days
2Sa 19:34
Suppose we accommodate this inquiry of Barzillai, and apply it here and there along the sensitive line of our ever-changing life.
I. ‘How long have I to live,’ that I may make the most of what remains? That is a very proper question; we ought to ask ourselves that question every day. To make the most of what remains. What does remain? No man can tell. A breath. Where is your friend? He is dead. What thine hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; he that does it quickly does it twice. You have no time to lose; you have been haffling with yourself for the last six days, and you are six days nearer your end.
II. ‘How long have I to live,’ that I may set my house in order? You want a little time for preparation, you do not want to be hastened away so as to leave many things unarranged and unprovided for. What a beautiful thing it is to be able to stand over the grave of your friend, and to say, He did what he could; he was a sweet, heroic, valiant soul; in his own little way and sphere, take him for all in all, he was a man, we ne’er shall look upon his like again; so gentle as a father, so faithful as a friend, so wholly excellent and estimable in every capacity and aspect of life. If you want to set your house in order, make a just will. I know of no sweeter reading and I myself have no recollection of ever having been named in a will, so I can speak the more without prejudice I know no sweeter reading than a will after which men say, That is just, that is wisely conceived.
III. ‘How long have I to live,’ that I may do the most important things first? There is a gradation in importance; some things are important, others are more important, others again are most important, are indeed of superlative and inexpressible importance. That is a graduated scale which commends itself to common sense: why not apply it in all the regions and outgoings of life? It is not enough to be busy; you must be busy at the right time, in the right place, and in the right work.
‘How long have I to live,’ that I may pay all that I owe? This is not a question of money only, it is a far greater question. Pay the bill of thy neglect, and take a receipt from the hand of God.
Joseph Parker, City Temple Pulpit, vol. III. p. 185.
References. XIX. 34. Studies in Texts, vol. i. p. 175. H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, Common Life Religion, p. 36. XIX. 34-37. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture 2 Samuel, p. 113.
Controversy
2Sa 19:43
Here is the beginning of a long controversy which ended in the dismemberment of God’s people, and in the permanent alienation of those who by tradition, by hopes, and by privileges, were common children of a common Lord.
I. Guard against the controversial spirit. It has been well said by the late Bishop Moberly that the temper which prefers to denounce sin rather than faithfully and meekly endeavours to increase holiness in oneself and others; which rather likes railing at want of discipline, than sets itself in gentleness and prayer to bring about the restoration of it, is nearly connected with feebleness of moral fibre.
Guard against the controversial spirit. It more than anything else serves to damage the sensitiveness of the soul.
II. But while we deplore as deplore we must the divisions of Israel and Judah, the divisions which rend the seamless robe of Christ, we must not forget, at the same time, that as God can use the fierceness and the passions of men, so He can overrule for good ‘our unhappy divisions’. Nay, we may go further and say that, bad as they are, divisions are not all bad; and sad as it is, disunion is no ground for despair. The presence of controversy, and even the sad spectacle of division, do bear witness to the intense importance of Truth. The Church of Christ does not deal with views and opinions, but with the Faith. The Apostle St. Jude entreats us earnestly to contend for the Faith once delivered to the Saints.
Sad as it is, religious dissension will try a man’s earnestness, and will deepen conviction. Men do not contend for that about which they feel indifferent; sometimes it has been that the very sight of a quarrel has led men to believe that there was something worth contending for.
III. He who would use the weapons of controversy aright, whether in attack or defence, must look to it that he wears the right equipment, or he will find himself injured by the very force of the weapons which he was trying to wield. In a time of religious excitement, or among religious disputants, there is need for some very special excellences, which men do not always stop to perceive. And among these, not the least, we would put knowledge. If men knew more than they do of the Bible, a little of Church history, and a little of the true meaning of theological terms, there would be less misunderstanding and fewer religious bickerings.
And besides knowledge, the controversialist needs love. We need not think that this much-abused term commits us only to a vapid indifference, and a courteous surrender of vital truth. St. Paul was, if anyone, a practised controversialist. And yet he, in his writings, has supplied us with the most splendid and appealing utterances as to the power of love.
And more than all, the religious controversialist needs piety. The ark of God must be steadied with a holy hand, the fact that it is being shaken does not justify the unhallowed usage of Uzziah; not even Uzziah in the height of his prosperity can venture to take liberties in holy things. It needs a very chastened life, a very holy, refined touch to deal with things which concern the inner verities of the faith and the religious life of Christians. Purity, gentleness, piety, deep religious conviction these are the healing bath in which all controversial weapon must be steeped. W. C. E. Newbolt, Words of Exhortation, p. 40.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
Pine Traits In the Character of David
2 Samuel 17-19
IT will have been observed that we have not spared king David in our judgment of the evil which he wrought in Israel. We have been careful to mete out to him the full penalty, so that the scoffer should have no advantage over the Christian in condemning the iniquity of the king. We ourselves have trembled under the thunders of the judgment which has been pronounced upon him. Sometimes as the hot sentences fell we almost cried out, Spare the king! Let pity have some place in judgment! But we did not spare him; for we thought of the dead soldier the frank-hearted and valiant Uriah. But is it not time to inquire if there were any fine traits in the king’s character? Was he all corruption? Is it not legitimate, not to say generous, to arrest the process of judgment for a little while that we may inquire whether there was in David so base, so guilty anything that should excite our imagination and draw forth commendatory and righteous words?
Absalom has been killed. Notwithstanding the king’s injunctions respecting his rebel son, three darts have been delivered from the hand of Joab, and Absalom is dead. He was a faithless, most unworthy son; and now that three darts are quivering in his dead flesh, will the king rejoice that the rebel is no more? If so, his character has changed since king Saul died. Saul did not use David generously or justly, yet when he was killed we were present at the great cry of lamentation. Has king David changed? When the tidings were brought to him of Absalom’s fate he was utterly crushed: he “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 I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!” (xviii. 33). If these words had been found alone we should have said, This is a species of parental selfishness, the expression of a natural instinct. But they are all but identical with the words which were uttered respecting king Saul: they were the expression of a great generous heart, they were the poetry of a just and noble spirit. And again: “The king covered his face, and the king cried with a loud voice, O my son Absalom, O Absalom, my son, my son!” ( 2Sa 19:4 ). He cried in a great wilderness. His lamentation sounded hollow in the dreary void. So long as a man can feel distress in this way, there is hope of him; he is not an utterly dead and lost man. Wherever human feeling exhibits itself we may take hope. A tear shows that the door of the heart is still open. If we catch from the worst of men one word of penitence, one sigh of contrition, one utterance of deep genuine grief, let us not blot the man’s name out of the record: he yet may entertain the Son of God. Woe be unto him who is past feeling, who takes all tidings with equal indifference, who cares not whether the king be dead or the king be alive, how the battle has gone! He is past feeling; he has become a fool in Israel, and over his burial none will weep. Now that the judgment is passed, or that the clouds have ceased to pour down their wrath for one little moment, it is beautiful to see that the man who has been thus condemned, and justly so, still has a heart a great, responsive, sensitive heart. Let thus much at least be put down to his credit.
The king was swallowed up of grief; he could do nothing more; his state duties were suspended, his imperial relations were all but ignored. The people felt this most deeply:
“And Joab came into the house to the king, and said, Thou hast shamed this day the faces of all thy servants, which this day have saved thy life, and the lives of thy sons and of thy daughters, and the lives of thy wives, and the lives of thy concubines; in that thou lovest thine enemies, and hatest thy friends. For thou hast declared this day, that thou regardest neither princes nor servants: for this day I perceive, that if Absalom had lived, and all we had died this day, then it had pleased thee well. Now therefore arise, go forth, and speak comfortably unto thy servants: for I swear by the Lord, if thou go not forth, there will not tarry one with thee this night: and that will be worse unto thee than all the evil that befell thee from thy youth until now” ( 2Sa 19:5-7 ).
Joab was an arrogant and imperious man, full of “the insolence of office”; a murderer, and one who could take mean advantage of another man’s humiliation. Yet he was a statesman, longheaded and shrewd, the very Iscariot of the Old Testament! He was right as to his appraisement of the circumstances in which Israel was placed; and David, who was a longer-headed man, knew it quite as well as Joab: so he “arose, and sat in the gate” ( 2Sa 19:8 ). He shook off his sorrow, and became the king again. He said: A king must not give way to private grief too long; the king has imperial duties, royal obligations, and his place is not the chamber of solitude for ever; he must go out now and again, and sit in the gate, and show himself to the people. So there the king sat.
“And they told unto all the people saying, Behold the king doth sit in the gate. And all the people came before the king: for Israel had fled every man to his tent” ( 2Sa 19:8 ).
This is the right exercise of influence. We must not allow personal griefs to last so long as to injure public or general responsibility. Sorrow may degenerate into a species of selfishness. We may urge that we are still mourning, and the mourning in itself is not condemned: it may be right and proper; but life is larger than one hour of its duration; life has its duties; life is a battle-field; life is a continual controversy, and we miss the captain’s presence, the eldest soldier’s strong hand: we pine and perish because our leader is away. Thus the Bible has lessons for all circumstances and conditions of life: let those who need those lessons lay them wisely to heart.
Now the king was king again. The rebellion of Absalom was over, and the way was quite clear to the throne of Israel. Now it is the king’s turn to avenge himself. We have just heard Shimei curse and rave and foam with madness; we have seen that base man throwing stones at the king and dust upon the king’s servants; now the king will be avenged. What does Shimei do now?
“And Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite, which was of Bahurim, hasted and came down with the men of Judah to meet king David;…. And said unto the king, Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me, neither do thou remember that which thy servant did perversely the day that my lord the king went out of Jerusalem, that the king should take it to his heart. For thy servant doth know that I have sinned: therefore, behold, I am come the first this day of all the house of Joseph to go down to meet my lord the king” ( 2Sa 19:16 , 2Sa 19:19-20 ).
“But Abishai the son of Zeruiah, answered and said, Shall not Shimei be put to death for this, because he cursed the Lord’s anointed?” ( 2Sa 19:21 ).
Abishai would have gone forth, sword in hand, and decapitated the contrite coward, suspecting his contrition, and suspecting it justly. And David would say Yes; this is our opportunity: the wheel goes round, the whirligig of time keeps moving: now let the hands of my friends be upon this son of Gera and blot him out from the earth? But David did not speak so: said he,
“Shall there any man be put to death this day in Israel? for do not I know that I am this day king over Israel? Therefore the king said unto Shimei, Thou shalt not die. And the king sware unto him” ( 2Sa 19:22-23 ).
Was he not worth killing? Was he a sincere man? In a little time we shall see. Judgment overtook him, and crushed him, and he lives in history as a rebel and a liar. Let us not presume too much upon God’s clemency. We have done evil to our King: we have defiled his house; we have abandoned his altar; we have spent our spite and contempt upon his servants; we have said, Who is the Lord that we should serve him, or the Almighty that we should come unto him? The whole white heaven is empty, and we will do as we please upon the earth. Whilst we are talking so, let us refresh our memory with some historical instances. Shimei had his day: he cursed the king and threw stones at the head that was crowned; but he came and crawled before the same king, and asked for that king’s pity. And David spared him. May it not be so with us spiritually? Are there not times when we feel very independent; when we are, indeed, quite defiant from the religious point of view, when we say, The earth is ours and the fulness thereof: we will sow when we please and reap when we like; we will pull down our barns and build greater, and our profits shall be redundant, and the latter end shall be more than the first? And then we forget to pray and sing and do all the sweet duties of worship. But the Lord sitteth in the heavens; he will not willingly slay the children of men. He spares even blasphemers. But “kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little.” There is no escape from the final judgment. Shimei lives a day or two, but presently the fate he has invoked and deserved will swallow him up. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” There are threatenings as well as promises, and the threatenings are not the petulant words of defiance, but the solemn declarations of eternal righteousness. Sad is the lot of the enemy! He shall be dashed to pieces like a potter’s vessel.
Then there was a supposed enemy as well as a real one:
“And Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king, and had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes, from the day the king departed until the day he came again in peace” ( 2Sa 19:24 ).
Ziba had told lies to the king about Mephibosheth. Ziba had said: The lame dog tarries in Jerusalem, saying his chance has come now: the house of Saul will return to power; and Mephibosheth lies there in ambush, ready to seize the golden chance; I told thee before, at least suggestively, that he, the son of Saul, was of the quality of Saul (xvi. 3). David simply said to the lame man, “Wherefore wentest not thou with me, Mephibosheth?” ( 2Sa 19:25 ). A beautiful inquiry! The king is calm. His equanimity assists the expression of his justice. He is nobly generous. See him: fair, wrinkled, grave: grief written all over his face; a man who has seen life in its most troubled aspects, yet chastened, subdued, mellowed: a shepherd-boy turned into a comparatively and prematurely old man. Observe how he looks down upon the lame son of Jonathan, and says, “Wherefore wentest not thou with me, Mephibosheth? “I expected to have found thee in my train: wherefore didst thou not come?
“And he answered, My lord, O king, my servant deceived me: for thy servant said, I will saddle me an ass, that I may ride thereon, and go to the king; because thy servant is lame. And he hath slandered thy servant unto my lord the king; but my lord the king is as an angel of God: do therefore what is good in thine eyes” ( 2Sa 19:26-27 ).
And the king was generous to Mephibosheth. He seemed to understand the case. He knew the plots of liars, the plans of astute and selfish empirics and adventurers, and he saw in the face of the son of Jonathan some flash of sincerity that reminded him of his fastest friend and of his own oath. These qualities are not to be overlooked in estimating the character of king David. It was right that he should be thundered upon, and that the darts of God’s lightning should strike him; at the same time, it is right that we should depict all the finer features, all the more exquisite lineaments of this manifold character. “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.” So said the Son of David! Surely the historical father, the lineal ancestor, was not short of the quality which expresses itself in these noble exhortations. Let us quicken our eyes to see fine features, noble excellences; as well as quicken our judgment to criticise with exasperating severity.
David was tender-hearted. In his following there was an old man, eighty years old he said he was; “a very great man;” one of the three rich men who ministered to David when he came to Mahanaim ( 2Sa 17:27 ). He was one of those who
“Brought beds, and basons, and earthen vessels, and wheat, and barley, and flour, and parched corn, and beans, and lentiles, 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” ( 2Sa 17:28-29 ).
“And when the king was come over, the king kissed Barzillai, and blessed him; and he returned unto his own place” ( 2Sa 19:39 ).
“But behold thy servant Chimham; let him go over with my lord the king; and do to him what shall seem good unto thee. And the king answered, Chimham shall go over with me, and I will do to him that which shall seem good unto thee: and whatsoever thou shalt require of me, that will I do for thee” ( 2Sa 19:37-38 ).
A sudden temptation seized king David. A great wind smote his little boat on the lake and overturned it as it were without notice. The adversary the devil, who goeth about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, sprang upon king David, and the king gave way. He who killed the lion and the bear and the uncircumcised Philistine; he who was valiant beyond all soldiers and wise beyond all kings had his “vulnerable heel,” and was brought to the dust of humiliation. But his good qualities were many and strong. Some of his critics are not so good as their victim. They should at least restrain judgment, and be made sorrowfully quiet in the presence of much of his iniquity. Let us hand the case over to the living God.
But character is not a question of points, and particular excellences, or special defects: character is a matter of spirit, purpose, aim, and tone of life. Separate actions are not to be viewed as if they included the whole case: the question is, What would you do if you could? What is your supreme desire and purpose? What is the main current of your motive, impulse, and action? If the inquiry be met with words of self-condemnation, you give me an opportunity of declaring the eternal gospel. We are rejoiced wherein any man condemns himself, because the measure of his condemnation gives the exact degree in which the door of his heart is open to receive messages from heaven. There is only one cure for human iniquity; there is only one way by which human character can be purified and ennobled: “Ye must be born again.” “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” Then those sweet words, namely: “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” Then this gracious challenge: “What wilt thou that I should do unto thee?” Then this final assurance; “According to your faith be it unto you.” The transaction is between man and God, between the sinner and the Saviour, between the man who can do nothing for himself, and a Saviour who has died to redeem him. So do not go into despair because of wickedness, and do not go into presumption because of occasional good qualities; but remember that the question is a vital one, that the matter rests entirely with the condition of the heart: “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness.” “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.” These are David’s prayers, and they well become our sinful lips.
Prayer
Almighty God, thou dost turn our mourning into joy, and make our tears blessings. Thou dost abolish death and set the grave on the road to heaven. All this thou dost in Jesus Christ, thy dear Son, our one and only Saviour, infinite in his sufficiency, tender beyond all human love in his inexhaustible compassion. In ourselves we die, we wither away and are no more, but in Christ we have resurrection and immortality and heaven, yea, we have unsearchable riches; because he lives, we shall live also, and in his eternity we shall find the continuance of our being. This is our Christian hope; we received this hope at the cross, at the vacant sepulchre, in the ascension hour when Jesus went up far above all principality and power and dominion to plead for us and prepare for his saints a place. We bless thee for all Christian hope; it chases away the deepest shadows; it fills the inmost recesses of our being with a tender light: it floods the firmament with ineffable glory. We bless thee that no longer do we die death is abolished in Christ and by him: we now sleep unto rest, we are numbered with the mightiest of the Church of the firstborn: we now pass no grim monster, we are taken up into heaven. If thou wilt increase our faith so that we may lay hold of these truths more intelligently and more firmly, the earth shall charm us no more by its fascinations, its temptings shall be spurned as cruel mockeries, and whilst we are yet in the world we shall be in heaven with God.
We rejoice in the Christian sanctuary, in the calm Sabbath, in the open volume of revelation, in the communion of saints, in common prayer and praise, and in the mutual study of thy holy word. We pray that the light may come down from heaven, that there may be no darkness on the inspired page. May this opportunity be to us full of gladness, may it open as a gate upon heaven, may it come to us as liberty, the opening of the prison to them that are bound. May thy disquieted ones have rest, may thy troubled ones dry their tears and see beyond the clouds, may the weariest find rest and the most sinful feel the efficacy of the holy blood of sacrifice, and thus may every soul be blest, liberated, enriched, sanctified, and made content with the satisfaction of peace.
We mourn our sin: it is always before us, it overshadows our brightest gladness, it makes our feast a trouble, it turns our night into a time of judgment. O that we might know the cleansing of the blood of Christ, the liberty of complete pardon, the joy of final release from the burden and the torment of guilt. We are unequal to this task: for this wound we have no balm, for this sorrow we have no healing given by man. But there is balm in Gilead, there is blood on Calvary, there is a Sacrifice for sin O that our faith might answer the privileges that are given unto us in Christ, that so we might be made free and pure and glad for ever. Enable us by the ministry of thy Holy Spirit to know the truth, to love it, to hold it fast, to manifest it in all needful speech, in all beautifulness of behaviour, in all nobility of temper, so that by gentleness, pureness, charity and honourableness among men we may evermore preach the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. May thy truth dwell in us, touching every point of our life, making us glad even in the midst of sorrow, giving us outlook and mighty reach over all interior things in the time of trial and dismay.
We bless thee that we know what life is in Christ. We know that we must have trial, we must be weary, we must feel occasional darkness, but these are light afflictions: they endure but for a moment while we look at eternal things. Help us to fix our wandering vision upon the abiding realities, upon the infinite spaces, yea, upon the throne of God and the cross of Christ, then shall no enemy be able to trouble the depths of our peace.
Regard us as those who long to see thee and know thee and love thee with fuller love. Why else are we here? The world could please our senses and we could listen with momentary pleasure to the lying flatteries of time. Thou hast enabled us to outlive these, to know their true value, and to encounter them with sacred contempt. We yearn for true satisfaction we would find our contentment only in God. We humbly beseech thee, therefore, seeing that this is our yearning, to meet us and make us glad. Thy servants have come from the market place, from positions of responsibility, danger, anxiety and temptation: from the study and the closet. Thine handmaidens have come from the house and from the nursery, and from the sick chamber, and from manifold conditions of life. These dear little children, too, are here, hardly knowing why: they have come for explanation may that explanation give them joy. Regard us then as fathers, mothers, children, men and women who have responsibilities to sustain in life, and according to the necessity of each heart and the trouble of each spirit, according to the depth of the wound which gives us agony, and the height of the joy which makes us triumphant, do thou command thy fatherly blessing to rest upon us all. Thine are no partial showers, they are great rich rains that make the hills soft, and the rivers overflow. O that we might feel the impartiality of thy favour and grace, and all be blest according to our souls’ capacity.
We pray that thy word may enrich us, teach us somewhat, humble us, correct our estimates and views of life, give a new tone to our whole purpose and being, and thus be fraught with manifold blessings to us, as those who are living a life of probation and hope. Again we own our sin, again we ask for pardon; now and evermore, till the delivering angel come and set us free from time, will we must we each for himself say “God be merciful to me a sinner.” Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XXIII
DEATH OF ABSALOM; PREPARATION FOR SOLOMON’S ACCESSION,
AND THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE
2Sa 18:1-20:26
We should continually bear in mind that in order to interpret the inner life of David, the Davidic psalms must be studied in connection with the history. I never got a true insight into the character of this man, into his religious life, into his staying powers, until I studied the history very carefully in connection with the Psalms. I spent one whole summer studying the history of David in the Psalms.
David stopped at Mahanaim; that is the place where Jacob met the angelic host, as the name signifies. While Absalom was making his muster, David was also mustering a host; while Absalom was godless and prayerless, David was penitent for his sins, humble toward God, and courageous toward men. Absalom appointed as his commander-in-chief a nephew of David, a son of Abigail; David had for his commanders Joab, Joab’s brother Abishai, and the Gittite, Ittai.
One of the most touching things in connection with David’s atay at Mahanaim is the coming together from three different directions of three friends to help: “Shobi the son of Nahash of Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and Machir the son of Ammiel of Lo-debar, and Barzillai the Gileadite of Rogelim, brought beds, basins, and earthen vessels, and wheat, and barley, and meal, 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.” It is noticeable always, however, that a man of strong character will draw to him friends whose friendship cannot be broken. David’s character developed friendship so that people would come to him and stand by him to the very last extremity. Of course there were some traitors. Absalom could draw men to him, but could not hold them.
The battle between the opposing armies took place in what is called the “Wood of Ephraim,” a very considerable forest somewhere near the banks of the Jordan. David’s army was in three divisions. He wanted to lead in person, but they objected and he stayed over the gate of the city, with one concern in his heart, deeper than all others, and that was about the fate of his son, Absalom, he was very much devoted to him, foolishly so, as the charge that he gave to each officer as each division marched through the gate indicates: “For my sake deal gently with Absalom.” Absalom’s army was utterly routed.
I remember preaching a sermon in 1887, when canvassing the state for prohibition, on the text: “Do thyself no harm,” basing my argument upon this thought, that no man can cause a harm that he does to terminate in himself. A man might be somewhat excused for doing harm to himself, if he harms only himself. I illustrated Absalom’s banning himself in two scenes. First, on that battlefield 20,000 men lay dead; a man goes over the field and tries to identify the slain. He turns over a victim whose face is to the ground, and feels in his pockets to see if he can find anything to identify him, and perhaps finds a letter from his wife stained with his heart’s blood. It reads: “When are you coming home? The children every evening sit out on the gatepost and look toward the scene of war until their eyes fill with tears, then come in and say, ‘Mamma, whenever is papa coming home?’ ” Never! There are 20,000 men like him, 20,000 wives like that wife, and 40,000 children like those children, all harmed because Absalom did harm to himself! The other scene of the picture was the old man, the father, at the gate of the city, listening for news of the battle, and when the message is received, colder than lead and sharper than the dagger, it strikes his heart. Stripping off the crown and purple robe, he wraps himself in sackcloth, and puts ashes on his gray head. It breaks his heart. He wrings his hands and sobs: “O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! would God that I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!” In view of the father’s unspeakable grief, it was not right for that young man to harm himself, since the harm did not terminate in him.
That sermon changed more votes than all the speeches that had been made. Power in preaching consists in having an imagination that will enable you to make a scene live before you,
I preached another sermon in Waco that I think I shall never forget. It was an afternoon sermon, when all the churches in the city were united. I took a double text: “I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” That was the first part of the text. The other part was, “Absalom, my son, my son, would God that I had died for thee.” I contrasted the sorrow of David over his two children; the separation between him and his baby was temporary; they would soon be together forever, but the separation from Absalom was an eternal separation. He knew his child was lost forever, which accounts for his inconsolable grief. The power of that sermon was in vivid stress of two things: holding one picture up and saying, “Look at that,” and holding up the opposite picture and saying, “Look at that.”
The rebellion perished with the death of Absalom, but David was so utterly overwhelmed with his grief that he did not follow up his victory, and really he became sinful in his grief. It took the heart out of his own people. They became ashamed and sneaked back to town, feeling that their victory was dreadful to their king. Joab, though his heart was as hard as iron, was right in his rebuke; but it was very unfeelingly done, especially as he had been the one, in violation of orders to take the life of Absalom. This is what he said “Thou hast shamed this day the faces of all thy servants, which this day have saved thy life, and the lives of thy sons and thy daughters, and the lives of thy wives, and the lives of thy concubines; in that thou lovest them that hate thee, and hatest them that love thee. For thou hast declared this day, that princes and servants are naught unto thee: for this day I perceive, if Absalom had lived, and all we had died this day, then it had pleased thee well. Now therefore arise, go forth, and speak comfortably unto thy servants; for I swear by the Lord, if thou go not forth, there will not tarry a man with thee this night.” That was pretty straight talk, but it was successful, and it waked David up. He was so stunned by his grief that he took no steps to follow up his victory.
The question of his restoration came up with the people this way: “Shall we now take the king back to his throne? Absalom is dead and there is no other king.” And then David made overtures to Judah, his own tribe; he sent to Zadok and Abiathar, the priests, saying that the tribe of Judah was his own flesh and blood, and they had said nothing about his coming back. He then made this promise: “As the Lord God liveth I will make Amasa, Absalom’s general, commander-in-chief of my armies.” It would have been all right to dismiss Joab, but it certainly was impolitic to put a rebellious general at the head of his army. We will see directly that it cost Amasa his life.
The men who stood by David and won his victory for him felt like they were strangers here with these people who had been against him and the enemies’ general made their commander. Whenever a strong feeling of resentment exists there will always be somebody to give voice to it, hence the shout of Sheba: “To your tents, O Israel!” You will hear that cry again in the days of Rehoboam, when the same ten tribes say, “To your tents, O Israel! What have we in the son of Jesse?” The tribes were always loosely held together, and it was easy for them to separate and disintegrate. For some reason, not stated, Amasa was very dilatory to take command and subdue Sheba, and David commands Abishai, not Joab, to take command and pursue Sheba until he is caught and destroyed. Joab goes along as a volunteer, and on the way he meets Amasa whom he thus addressed: “Art thou in health, my brother?” And then stabs him under the fifth rib, Just as he had killed Abner; then he usurps command, Abishai giving way to him, and put down the rebellion very speedily. David did not feel strong enough to displace him again, so after that Joab was commander-in-chief, too big a man to be put out!
In going back to Jerusalem there were several touching things: In the first place that cursing man, Shirnei, comes out and makes submission and asks to be forgiven. David forgives him for the present. You will see later how he made provision for bringing him to judgment, but he forgave him for the present. The darkest blot on David, outside of the sin against Uriah, is in this paragraph, the meeting with Mephibosheth. Mephibosheth comes to meet him and David sternly asks why he had not gone out with him when he left Jerusalem. He gently explains that he was crippled and could not walk, and that he ordered his beast to be saddled and his servants went off and left him; that he is now glad to welcome David back, and that it was a falsehood that he ever intended to profit by David’s misfortunes. David then restores to him part of his property and lets that rascal Ziba keep half of it. In all this transaction Mephibosheth comes out in a much more favorable light than David: “Let him take it all forasmuch as my lord, the king, has come in peace unto his own house.” This does not show off David very well. It is customary for everybody in going over this part of the history, to speak with great favor of old Barzillai. Everything he did was pure disintereetedness. David offers compensation, offers to give him a permanent home in Jerusalem. He says this would not be a favor to him, as he is old and blind and cannot taste anything or discriminate. Then David asks him if there is not somebody in his house that he can promote, and the son of old Barzillai is promoted.
We will now consider the preparation David made for the succession to guard against any other rebellion. He wanted the succession established in his lifetime. If you are familiar with English history you know that a nation is in a great stir every time its king gets sick, unless it is clearly established who shall succeed him. The question for succession was a serious one when Queen Elizabeth died, and again at Queen Anne’s death, when the kingdom was transferred to the house of Hanover. Some of the most thrilling pages in history are devoted to these transition periods. David wanted no trouble about the succession; so he assembled the great convocation, consisting of princes, captains of thousands, and hundreds, etc., and caused them to recognize Solomon as his successor, and he was so announced. Every officer in the kingdom was precommitted to Solomon. And yet, notwithstanding this precaution, Adonijah, the third son prominent in history, now the oldest, since Absalom is dead, determined that he should be king. He adopted Absalom’s expedients, prepared chariots and men to run before him. He got Abiathar, one of the priests, and Joab to stand with him and went off to a place called En-rogel and there to be announced as king. David was too old and feeble to do anything, but the prophet Nathan sent the mother of Solomon to him to let him know what was impending. David took steps instantly to have Solomon crowned king, and proclamation made. Adonijah, when he heard that Solomon was king, returned to Jerusalem and begged for mercy, and the rebellion was ended. This led to the displacement of Abiathar as priest, and led to the permanency of the high priest in the line of Zadok, who stood firmly with David.
The crowning act of David’s life, the one most profitable in its lesson to us, was his provision for the erection of the great Temple. All the devoted treasure from Saul’s wars and his own, all the spoils of many nations subdued by him, immense treasures of gold, silver, precious stones, precious metal, and cloth were stored up for this purpose. Then by revelation from God the plans and specifications of the building and its furniture received by him were given to Solomon, accompanied by a solemn charge to build the house. But yet the gathered material was not sufficient for so great an enterprise. So David at this great convocation engineered the most remarkable public collection known to history the most remarkable in its method, its principles, and in the amount raised.
Method. First of all he, himself, out of his own proper fund, made a cash donation never equalled since, not even by Carnegie nor Rockefeller. The princes, and then all subordinate officers) followed the lead of their rulers.
Principles. (1) It was a “prepared” donation. (2) The preparation was “with all his might.” (3) The donation was for God’s house and cause. (4) It was prompted by “affection for God’s cause.” (5) It was purely voluntary. (6) It was preceded by a “willing consecration of himself to God.” (7) It was followed by great joy because a willing and not an extorted offering.
Amount. It staggers credulity to accept the vast total. The total, by any fair method of calculation, goes beyond anything else known to history. No offhand, impulsive collection could have produced such a result. It was a long-purposed, thoroughly prepared contribution flowing from the highest possible motives.
Lesson. Our preachers today should lay it to heart. We need the lesson particularly in times of financial stringency. We see our preachers scared to death without cause and our people demoralized. We need the application intensely. We should know that God is never straightened in himself that today, if we willingly consecrate ourselves to God first of all, like the Philippians who first gave themselves to the Lord, and if we have true affection for God’s cause, and if we purpose great things in our hearts, and prepare a collection, with all our might appealing to the voluntary principle in the loving hearts of God’s people, and ourselves have strong faith in God who is able even to raise the dead, then the stringency of the times will only brace us and call out our courage. But if we are whipped inside, if we feel that we are butting our heads against a stone wall, if we take counsel with our fears and become timid and hesitating moral cowards when we should be heroes, of course we will miserably fail. We will become grasshoppers in the sight of opposing giants, and grasshoppers in our own eight. Hard times, difficult situations, are methods of providence to prepare us. They are touchstones of character, revealing who are weaklings and who are heroes. Go off to thyself; shut out the world. Shut up thyself alone with God, fight the battle to a finish once for all in thine own heart, and then with the sublime audacity of faith, do thy work for the Lord.
QUESTIONS
1. Contrast Absalom and David as to character.
2. Who were chosen as commanders by Absalom and David respectively?
3. What was the touching incident at Mahanaim?
4. Give an account of the battle between David’s army and Absalom’s.
5. How did David show his concern for Absalom?
6. Show in two ways how Absalom in banning himself, harmed others.
7. Contrast David’s sorrow upon the death of his infant with that upon the death of Absalom.
8. How did the rebellion end?
9. Give Joab’s rebuke, and its effect on David.
10. How was David restored as king of the people?
11. What was his mistake, and its result?
12. What were the touching events on David’s return to Jerusalem?
13. What preparation did David make for a successor?
14. Who at once became competitor for the kingship?
15. What was his method?
16. How did this episode end?
17. What was the crowning act of David’s life?
18. How was the provision made?
19. What was the method?
20. What were the principles?
21. What was the amount?
22. What was the lesson, and its application?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
2Sa 19:1 And it was told Joab, Behold, the king weepeth and mourneth for Absalom.
Ver. 1. And it was told Joab. ] By Ahimaaz and Cushi, likely.
And mourneth.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Behold. Figure of speech Asterismos. App-6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 19
David’s grief for his son Absalom. David was there in his chamber wailing over Absalom.
So they told Joab, David’s really wailing over Absalom’s death. And Joab came unto David and he said, All right now David let’s cut this out. He said, These men have gone out and hazard their lives for you. And they’ve brought you victory over your enemies. But now they are sneaking back into town like they were criminals because of your great grief for Absalom, you’re actually making them ashamed of what they have done. And if you don’t change your behavior in a hurry, they’re all gonna turn against you none of them will ever go out and hazard their lives for you again. So you get out there among them. Dry your tears, and go out and congratulate them on the battle or else you’re gonna really lose out completely now, because these men that have been so loyal to you will surely turn against you. [This was actually good advice on Joab’s part.] And so David went out among the men there in the gate. And greeted them and so forth, and did really the right thing for these men who had hazard their lives for David ( 2Sa 19:1-8 ).
Now there began then a movement of bringing their king back. Actually they had more or less turned from David, Israel had turned, Jerusalem had turned, and now they have started a movement to bring David back.
And so David came back to the Jordan River, as he was returning to Jerusalem, and the first one to meet him at the Jordan River was this guy Shimei who was throwing rocks and cursing him on his way out. And now that David is coming back, Shimei is down there to visit him, and to greet him, and to welcome him back.
And he fell down before the king [verse eighteen] even as he came to the Jordan river. And he said to David, Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me, neither do thou remember that which thy servant did perversely the day that my lord the king went out of Jerusalem, that the king should take it to his heart. For thy servant doth know that I have sinned: therefore, I am come this first day, and all of the house of Joseph to meet my lord the king. And Abishai [who wanted to take off his head earlier] said to David, Shall not Shimei be put to death for this, because he cursed the Lord’s anointed? And David said, What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah, that you should this day be adversaries unto me? shall there be any man put to death this day in Israel? for do not I know that I am this day king over Israel? Therefore David said to Shimei, Thou shalt not die. And the king sware unto him ( 2Sa 19:18-23 ).
The next one to meet him was Mephibosheth who was the son of Jonathan. They had told David a lie, the servants of Mephibosheth had told David a lie saying that Mephibosheth had pledged allegiance to Abashi, or was trying to take over the kingdom himself after David fled.
So Mephibosheth came to David, and David said, Well how come you turned against me? And Mephibosheth said, That was a lie. I didn’t turn against you David, I’m crippled, and he said, I needed a donkey to ride on, and they deceived me [and they didn’t bring me a donkey, and therefore I was stuck.] ( 2Sa 19:24-27 ):
So David forgave him when he found out that it was all just a lie that had been told to him about Mephibosheth. So they bring back David the king, and this man that had met him and offered him all of these foods, and dainties and all, David sought to bring back, and to be with David in Jerusalem.
The guy said, “Hey man, I’m eighty years old. I’m happy here, and I’m too old to enjoy the dancing girls and all at this point. Why should I go back to Jerusalem? I just as soon die here where I am.” So David thanked him for all of his goodness, and left him.
Now there had been a continual sort of division between the northern tribes of Israel and the southern tribe of Judah. This division of course was manifested in the beginning of David’s reign. David reigned for seven years over Judah before he reigned over all of Israel. Now that there has been this division in the kingdom, this old rivalry rises again. There is this fellow in the northern kingdom, of course later on under David’s grandson Rehoboam there came the complete break, and Jeroboam became king of Israel, and Rehoboam the king of Judah, from that time on there were actually two nations. They never were united again, except in a few battles. The kings would get together in battles but quite often, and more often than not, they were fighting against each other rather than fighting with each other. It became a definite divided kingdom.
Interestingly enough, in the prophecy of Ezekiel where God promises to restore the nation, God promises in the restoration of the nation, that they would be one nation, not two when they were restored. Of course since 1948, in the restoration of the nation Israel, you don’t have the northern tribes versus the southern tribes. But there is a definite unity of all of the nation of Israel. The scriptures have been totally fulfilled, as they are unified as a nation, one ruler over them, and a unified nation, just as was predicted by Ezekiel so many years ago. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
The king’s sorrow affected the people. They stole back into Jerusalem silently, instead of with rejoicing, while he was left outside. Once again his words tell of his agony, the deepest note thereof being still revealed in the thrice repeated “my son.”
In the midst of his sorrow Joab came to him, again politic, but unsympathetic. There are times when men must rise above the grief of their own repentance and act for the sake of others. This was so now in the case of David, and Joab told him so with almost brutal frankness.
It is arresting to notice that on his return the men who had crossed his path in differing ways during the period of his temporary exile came back to David. Shirnei, the man who struck his foe in the dust, came fawning back, and David’s magnanimity was shown in sparing his life. Mephibosheth met him with all the signs of mourning for his absence, and David was comforted by his coming. Barzillai, who had helped him, set him back on his way to Jerusalem, and there was a tender parting between them. All this was followed by strife between Judah and Israel over the right of ringing in the king.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Mourning Too Late
2Sa 18:31-33; 2Sa 19:1-8
What an awful day that was for David, seated between the inner and outer gates, scanning the landscape, and speaking now and again to the sentry posted above him. Did not the Spirit work an even deeper repentance than ever before, recalling the self-indulgence, the failure to watch, the lapse of fellowship? But was it not also an hour when David put his finger on the Covenant and asked God, notwithstanding all, to do as he had said, 2Sa 7:15?
As David waited, his heart interceded for Absalom. How exactly his attitude is that of many who read these words, who are unable to join in the activities of life, and who spend days and nights in uttering one dear name before God! But he loves our Absaloms more than we do! David wished that he might have died for his son, and you have felt the same. But did not Jesus die for the ungodly? We must leave all with Him, the Judge of all the earth, but also its Redeemer and Savior.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
2Sa 19:18
According to old heathen mythology, there was a fabled river called Acheron, which the souls of the dead must cross. Its waters were muddy and bitter, and old Charon, who ferried them over, obliged each one to pay a sum of money for the passage. In this fable there is a remnant of sound belief in the existence of the soul, after it has left the body, in another state of being. The very river which the dead are represented as crossing has its counterpart in the language which Christians often use. Our notions of a ferry embrace convenient landing-places, boats for the conveyance of passengers, the payment of tolls, etc. It would not require much imagination to conjure up some of these in connection with the text.
There will come a moment in the life of each one of us when work, pleasure, folly, and wickedness will all be done with, and when we shall find ourselves on the shores of the river of death, with its dark, cold waters separating us from the better land. The golden city is on the other side, but the river must first be crossed. How are we to cross? The text will help us to understand. “There went over a ferry-boat to carry over the king’s household.” The ark of Christ’s Church is only a safe “ferry-boat” because it is preserved and guided by our Divine Lord. As long as we remain in His holy keeping no harm can come to us.
J. N. Norton, The King’s Ferry-boat, and Other Sermons for Children, p. 1.
Reference: 2Sa 19:31-37.-J. R. Macduff, Sunsets on the Hebrew Mountains, p. 100.
2Sa 19:31-40
(see also 2Sa 17:27-29; 1Ki 2:7; Jer 41:17; Ezr 2:61)
I. We have here a man who knows that he is old, but who is not distressed by the thought of it. There are old men who do not know that they are old, or who seek to suppress their knowledge of it. Few things in the world are so pleasant as the sight of such a conscious, cheerful, hopeful old age as that of Barzillai, certain that it has not long to stay, but interested to the last in the best things of life, in the cause of God and man and country and Church. We must prepare for such an old age as this: (1) by taking God with us early in the journey of life; (2) by providing beforehand the compensations which God is willing to give for everything that may be taken away by the changes of life.
II. We have here a man who is rich, but who is satisfied with his natural position. It is at the stage of prosperity that the dissatisfaction of many men begins. If Barzillai had been of the mind of many, he would have made his wealth buy wings for his vanity, and, old as he was, would have tried to flutter in the sunshine of the court. But he was a wiser man, and a happier, and stands in higher honour this day than if he had wronged his nature and finished his life with an act of folly.
III. We have a man of long experience, who has kept up his love of simple pleasures. We can infer this from the tone in which he speaks. He had reached an age when the love of sensational things fails in all but the most frivolous, yet the way in which he speaks of them puts them quietly aside, as not to his taste and never likely to have been so.
It is not a dream that man can keep the love of natural things in his heart and can call them up in fancy as he reads. If a man will but read his Bible with a fresh heart, he may walk with patriarchs in the world when it was young and green, may rest with Abraham under the shade of the oak of Mamre, and see the upspringing of the well to which the princes of Israel sang. He may sit on the mountain-top with Christ, among the lilies and the birds, to understand what they say and sing, and he may listen till he hears far off the final hymn which shall be a concert of nature round regenerated man.
IV. We have a man who is attached to the past, but who does not distrust the future. For himself he has grown up in the old way, and cannot change, but he thinks, “The new has its rights, and the world will be on. My son is here; the future is beaming in his face and beating in his heart; I give him into hands I can trust for leading him in the way of truth, of righteousness.” If the old can thus pass over into the new, there is security in all changes.
J. Ker, Sermons, 2nd series, p. 67.
References: 2Sa 19:33.-S. Baring-Gould, One Hundred Sermon Sketches, p. 150. 2Sa 19:33-35.-F. W. Hook. Parish Sermons, p. 119. 2Sa 19:34.-J. Van Oosterzee, Year of Salvation, vol. ii., p. 486; J. R. Macduff, Good Words, 1861, p. 523; Bishop Thorold, Ibid., 1885, p. 67; Homiletic Magazine, vol. xiv., p. 237; New Manual of Sunday-school Addresses, p. 72. 2Sa 19:34, 2Sa 19:35.-D. Moore, Penny Pulpit, No. 3456. 2Sa 19:35.-G. Brooks, Outlines of Sermons, p. 416. 2Sa 19:41 with 2Sa 20:1.-F. W. Krummacher, David the King of Israel, p. 457. 2Sam 19-W. M. Taylor, David King of Israel, pp. 238, 252. 2Sa 20:9.-J. N. Norton, Golden Truths, p. 119. 2Sa 20:16-22.-Homiletic Magazine, vol. ix., p. 337. 2Sa 20:21, 2Sa 20:22.-Scotch Sermons, p. 99. 2Sam 20-W. M. Taylor, David King of Israel, p. 252; Parker, vol. vii., p. 202. 2Sa 21:1.-F. W. Krummacher, David the King of Israel, p. 457; Bishop Armstrong, Parochial Sermons, p. 210. 2Sa 21:1-14.-W. Hanna, Christian Press, Jan. 10th, 1878; Homiletic Magazine, vol. ix., p. 82. 2Sa 21:8-10.-W. H. Jellett, The Elder Son, and Other Sermons, p. 90. 2Sa 21:9.-R. D. B. Rawnsley, Sermons in Country Churches, 3rd series, p. 168.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
9. The Return of the King
CHAPTER 19
1. The continued grief of the king (2Sa 19:1-8)
2. The return of the king (2Sa 19:9-16)
3. Mercy shown to Shimei (2Sa 19:17-23)
4. Mephibosheths joy (2Sa 19:24-30)
5. Barzillai and Chimham (2Sa 19:31-40)
6. Strife between Judah and Israel (2Sa 19:41-43)
What grief must have been Davids that the victory of that day was turned into mourning? And the people went about on tip-toe, like people ashamed after defeat. A great stillness pervaded everything, only broken by the loud and wailing voice of David: O, my son Absalom, O, Absalom my son, my son! All mourned with him. But what a man must this David have been to endear himself to his men, that his personal grief became so completely theirs?
Then Joab acted. He speaks as a wise statesman. It was a bold rebuke, but well deserved, for Davids continued mourning was more than weakness; it was selfishness. That he greatly resented the words of condemnation of Joab may be learned from the fact that immediately after he appointed Amasa as commander in chief of his army instead of Joab. The word was also spoken to bring the king back to Jerusalem from exile and he returned.
Once more Shimei appears upon the scene; he brings with him a thousand men of Benjamin and Ziba also. Shimei fell down before the King and implored his forgiveness. Though Abishai suggested his death, the mercy Shimei craved was readily granted and the King sware unto him. But the mercy shown was at the expense of righteousness. The ultimate fate of Shimei we shall find recorded in 1 Kings 2.
Mephibosheth appears next with undressed feet, untrimmed hair and unwashed clothes; he had been thus since the flight of the King. Zibas deception practised on the King is now discovered. But Davids conduct towards lame Mephibosheth cannot be justified. The impatience David showed when Mephibosheth speaks is proof that he felt guilty at the rash word he spoke to Ziba. Then he tells Mephibosheth that he and Ziba should divide the land. This was injustice. The deception of Ziba had deserved punishment. Beautiful is Mephibosheths answer. It shows a love and devotion which is almost unsurpassed in the Bible. Yea, let him take all, forasmuch as my lord the King is come again in peace to his own house. It was a sweet echo of Jonathans love for David. It hardly needs to be pointed out that in all this David still acts as a natural man and not as guided by Jehovah and His Spirit. His object was to make himself still more attractive with the people and conciliate the different factions. If he had acted in faith, remembering that the Lord had called him into the kingdom and that He was able to keep him, he would not have tried to gain his end by such means. The bright picture in this chapter is aged and unselfish Barzillai. And the strife between Judah and Israel on account of the King is the first indication of the great division and the internal strifes, which many years later broke out among the people. Thus failure is seen on all sides.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
2Sa 18:5, 2Sa 18:12, 2Sa 18:14, 2Sa 18:20, 2Sa 18:33, Pro 17:25
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
BRINGING BACK THE KING
AN OVERZEALOUS SERVANT (2Sa 19:1-8)
Joab was to David what Bismarck was to King William. He had the same iron in his blood, but sometimes, like the latter, he overdid things. The kaiser was glad to be rid of Bismarck, and Joabs conduct towards David is preparing the way for his successor. Those were too strong words he used in 2Sa 19:7, and show the power he assumed over the army.
A BACKWARD PEOPLE (2Sa 19:9-15)
Judah, the kings tribe, should have taken the initiative for this return, and the priests should have stirred them to it. It is disappointing that it was otherwise and perhaps explains Davids adroitness in choosing Amasa to superseded Joab, who persuades the people to act as one man.
Great Davids Greater Son
Why is His Church so silent about His coming back again? One would think He was not wanted back by the little that is said about it. And yet He has promised to come This same Jesus and to bring His reward with Him! Who can tell whether, if we spake one to another about it, we might not begin to act in such a manner as to hasten His coming? Will it be necessary for Him to cast away the present leaders of His Church and call to His aid some Amasa with the power to bow the hearts of His people toward Him as the heart of one man?
Why say ye not a word of bringing back the king? Why speak ye not of Jesus and His reign?
Why tell ye of His kingdom and of its glories sing? But nothing of His coming back again?
A LENIENT SOVEREIGN (2Sa 19:16-40)
We wonder David should have been so forbearing to Shimei (2Sa 19:16-23) when we consider the latters conduct in the last lesson; and on the other hand we are surprised that Mephibosheth should not have had more cordial treatment (2Sa 19:24-30). The meaning of verse 29 is not clear.
A JEALOUS OUTBREAK (2Sa 19:41 to 2Sa 20:26)
The closing verses of chapter 19 exhibit the beginning of that tribal dissension which ultimately led to the dismemberment of the kingdom.
Nothing is known of Sheba (2Sa 20:1-2), but he was of much influence among the adherents of the former dynasty of Saul.
Amasa seems to have been unequal to rallying the army and Abishai is called into the service, to the further affront of Joab. But the last named joins in the battle and doubtless with the wicked intention he afterward executes (2Sa 20:10). His influence with the army is seen in that, even under these circumstances, the warriors rally around him and are led to victory (2Sa 20:11-23). David is obliged to reinstate him, and the conclusion of the chapter shows the whole government reestablished in its wonted course.
A WRONG AVENGED (2Sa 21:1-14)
Joshua had made a covenant with the Gibeonites (Jos 9:3-27). But Saul, for political reasons, had violated its terms (2Sa 21:2) under what circumstances there is no record. It was a case of national guilt and received at Gods hands a national punishment (2Sa 21:1). The atonement rendered was awful and yet it might have been more severe. Moreover, God permitted, and indeed directed it (2Sa 21:3-9), and the Judge of all the earth shall do right (Genesis 18-25). Let the circumstance teach us to fear God and hate sin.
Michal, the daughter of Saul (2Sa 21:8) should be Michals sister, or else, the two sons were adopted and brought up by her though born of her sister.
AN EPOCH REACHED (2Sa 21:15-22)
David is beginning to feel his years and, in this war, he might have lost his life but for the interference of a stronger hand (2Sa 21:15-17). He must no more go out to battle. He, as king, is the light of Israel, and must not run into danger lest he be quenched.
Philistia was prolific in giants, but the Lord was with His people to overcome them (2Sa 21:18-22).
QUESTIONS
1. What late historic character does Joab suggest?
2. How does David seek ineffectually to rid himself of Joab?
3. Quote Act 1:11 and connect it with this lesson.
4. What arouses Israels jealousy of Judah?
5. What were the natural relations of Joab to Amasa and Abishai?
6. Relate the story of the first part of chapter 21 in your own words.
7. What lessons does it teach?
8. What epoch, physical and historical, has David reached?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
2Sa 19:13. Say ye to Amasa, Art thou not of my bone. It is probable that Amasa had refused to fight against David; at least he had not distinguished himself in the rebellion. David, in making Amasa captain general, was desirous to humble the unjustifiable ascendancy of Joab.
2Sa 19:29. Thou and Ziba divide the land. This was a breach of Davids covenant with Jonathan. Ziba had done great services for David in this war by his sons and his servants; but he had falsely impeached his master, and deceived the king. In this strait David took the middle path; he rent the half from Mephibosheth, and as some rabbins say, God rent the half of the kingdom from Davids house. Covenants once made in the name of the Lord are sacred bonds.
2Sa 19:40. Chimham went with the king. Barzillai, at the age of eighty, was wise in refusing a courtiers life, and in conceding it to his son. Retirement, when a man is admonished by infirmities, is the best wisdom of a virtuous mind.
REFLECTIONS.
Had this been a foreign war, and had Absalom been the prince of a hostile nation, Mahanaim had this day resounded with trumpets; harps and songs of praise would have gladdened all ranks of people. But Absalom falling under the curse, David wept aloud, and all the good inhabitants sympathized with their afflicted king. How powerful is passion! The idea of a son for ever lost, was, to David, for the moment, more than if he had lost his kingdom and his life. The victorious soldiers hearing of his grief sneaked into the city, as though they had been the defeated rebels. Joab alone, though now the most obnoxious man, had the courage to rouse him from his anguish, and remind him of the duties he owed to his victorious people. Joab was indeed the kings friend and nephew; and he had been faithful to him in adversity, which accounts for the bold and independent language in which he addressed his sovereign. By cogent arguments he succeeded; but from that day David regarded him as a bloody man; and he never saw his face without associating the idea of his forever ruined Absalom. How deplorable are the calamities of civil war! How provoking is the sin of a nation when God abandons them to its fury; and how critical the situation of men who drive the car of vengeance through the fury of intestine broils.
The dismission of Joab from command, and the appointment of Amasa to that high and arduous office, seem to have been acts of passion, rather than of prudence. Joab had indeed disobeyed the royal injunction by piercing Absalom; but he had obeyed God, and acted with the suffrages of the whole army. Therefore it was only the kings feeling which revolted against his general. Amasa being Absaloms captain, and having lost the battle and deserted his prince, could have no fair claims to pardon, much less to the high office of supreme command: nor could he, like Joab, have the confidence of the army. But God took advantage of Davids weakness to bring Amasa to the punishment he had richly merited.
The clemency which David showed to his misguided subjects after their defeat, does the highest honour to his feelings as a man, and to his wisdom as a king. In other nations, almost without exception, after the defeat of rebels we see a long and terrific parade of military executions, whereby one family is led to hate another for ages to come, and the countenance of revenge is not composed but in banishments and confiscations. But here the beams of mercy soon brightened on a penitent people. The tide of popular passion rolled to the opposite extreme; for the ten tribes almost went to war with Judah for bringing back the king before they had time to assemble to do him homage, and to grace the triumphs of his return. Happy is that king when his offending people sufficiently punish themselves by the reproaches of their own hearts. Oh blessed Jesus, what returns shall we make to thee for the wrongs we have done to thy love, and to thy cause? We would weep for our folly, and were it possible, repair our errors by a life of spotless obedience and constant love. Much indeed we ought to love, for we have much forgiven.
But how shall Shimei who cursed the king for a long time, and cursed him when Abishais sword was uplifted to destroy him; how shall Shimei see the kings face and live? Come Shimei, venture. If he spared thy life in the day of anger, he will not destroy thee in the day of repentance. Come Shimei, the first of sinners, with the first of penitents; come and bring a thousand of thy guilty brethren, that ye may all receive mercy together. Oh what encouragement is here shadowed forth for the rebels against heaven; for blasphemers of Gods name to repent, and approach the mercy-seat. Sinners, God has heard your wicked language. He is not unacquainted with the horrid imprecations you have invoked on your fellow creatures. Divine justice, like Abishai, has long said, Let me strike! Sinners be wise and tremble: you can make no head against heaven. Make haste then to humble yourselves while the softening powers of mercy keep back the terrors of justice. Make haste to bow before your indulgent God, lest his ministers of vengeance smite you in your stubborn sins. Embrace the present moment, while the king is graciously approaching his people, for if you lose this opportunity you may never have another.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Sa 19:1-8. Joab induces the king to present himself to the people.
1Sa 19:9-24. The Return of David (J).
2Sa 19:9-15. The two parts of 2Sa 19:11 must be transposed with the LXX, giving the following: Absaloms death left Western Palestine in a state of anarchy; the obvious remedy was the restoration of David, so that men said, Why speak ye not a word of bringing the king back? And the king learned what was being said throughout Israel; and king David sent to Zadok and to Abiathar the priests, saying, Speak unto the elders of Judah, saying, Why are ye the last to bring the king back? They were to promise Amasa that he should supplant Joab as commander-in-chief. The men of Judah invite the king to return, and come down to the Jordan to meet him.
2Sa 19:16-23. Shimei makes his peace with David (cf. 2Sa 16:5).
2Sa 19:24-30. Meri-baal (2Sa 4:4) comes to clear himself of the charges brought against him by Ziba (2Sa 16:3). David despairs of arriving at the truth, or is too busy to give time to the matter, or does not think it politic to offend either party; so he divides the property (2Sa 9:7, 2Sa 16:4) between them. Meri-baal, with the usual exaggerated Eastern courtesy, replies, Let him take the whole, now that my lord the king is safe home againwords which, we may be sure, were not intended to be taken literally.
2Sa 19:31-39. Barzillai (2Sa 17:27) escorts the king to the Jordan. It is generally agreed that the text and translation must be emended so as to make it clear that Barzillai came to the Jordan, but did not cross the river, thus: Barzillai declines an invitation to accompany the king to court; he will only (2Sa 19:36) come with him as far as the Jordan; he commends Chimham, probably his son, to the royal favour. As the king stood (so read for went over in 2Sa 19:39), watching his followers cross the river, he bade farewell to Barzillai.
2Sa 19:40-43. David crosses the Jordan, escorted by Judah and a contingent from Israel. The two parties engage in an unseemly wrangle as to their relative claims on the king and rights in bringing him back. The episode shows how little Judah was even yet regarded as an integral part of Israel. In 2Sa 19:43, instead of, And we have also more right in David than you, we should read with LXX, And I also am the firstborn rather than thou; i.e. compared to Israel, Judah is a late and inferior addition to the community.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Joab hears of David’s mourning for Absalom, and the people take this as an indication that perhaps it was wrong to win the battle. At least it subdued their pride of winning. We all need to take to heart the exhortation of Pro 24:7, “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls.” While we may be rightly thankful that the Lord Jesus will subdue all His enemies, yet we ought to feel the sorrow of their having to be judged. In some measure this was no doubt good for the people, but David carried it too far.
Joab, hard, callous warrior as he was, had no sorrow whatever for Absalom; he was glad he was dead, and had no sympathy for David nor for his mourning. He came to the king with sharply reproving words (vs.5-6), telling him that he had disgraced his servants who had saved his life and the lives of his entire household. In fact, he goes further, declaring that it is evident to Joab that David loved his enemies and hated his friends. Of course it was true that Absalom was David’s enemy, but Joab did not consider at all the fact that Absalom was also David’s son. He tells him that if all David’s men had died and Absalom had lived, David would have been pleased But if this had happened, David too would soon have been killed.
He strongly urged David to cease his mourning and go to the gate to speak encouraging words to his servants. He added the strong warning that otherwise David would lose the allegiance of all his people that very night. Joab swore by the Lord in declaring this (v.7), though he was exaggerating, in which case we should never dare to use the Lord’s name Still, David was shaken enough to do as Joab demanded, and went to sit in the gate. This drew the people back from their tents to come to listen to what the king might have to say, but his words are not recorded. Of course David was still in some town east of the Jordan River. Apparently scripture does not consider the name of the town important enough to mention it.
The victory over Absalom’s rebellion being accomplished, there was still the necessity of some work in the hearts of the people who had sided with Absalom before David would be welcomed back as king. There was disputing, but God moved in such a way as to exercise them to realize they had no other leader (now that Absalom was dead) except the king who had before saved them from their enemies. Many were asking why David was not therefore brought back to Jerusalem.
David, hearing of this movement among the people, sent to Zadok and Abiathar, asking them to speak to the elders of Judah, to ask them as to why they were so slow in bringing the king back when the common people were urging it. He presses the fact too that Judah was David’s own tribe, virtually his bone and his flesh. Why when the delay? He also uses a further influencing tool, by declaring that Amasa should be appointed commander of his army in place of Joab. This was rather a bold step on David’s part, for Amasa had sided with Absalom in his conspiracy, and it might be a serious question as to whether he could he trusted as commander of David’s army. But David wanted to show a conciliatory spirit toward those who had joined Absalom, and he also considered that Joab had proven himself too hard a man to rightly represent the king as commander of his army. He had spoken of Joab’s hardness before (2 Samuel 3:28-29; 38-39); and at this time his thoughts were no doubt further aggravated by his knowledge that Joab had killed Absalom in spite of David’s charge to him.
The hearts of the people were swayed by this message, and though previously ready to reject David, they send word to him to return to Jerusalem with his servants (v.14). The message to him is followed by a gesture of good will by the men of Judah in coming to meet him, even crossing the Jordan in order to escort him back.
As to individuals, Shimei is first mentioned as coming to meet the king, but with him 1000 men of Benjamin, all accompanying the men of Judah. Then Ziba is spoken of, with his sons and servants. He had before come to the king when he fled, now apparently went over Jordan before David. The king’s household was brought across the Jordan by ferryboat.
Shimei, who had cursed David when he was in deep distress, comes to meet him with a totally different attitude. Of course, he was afraid that he might suffer some just consequences of his wickedness now that David had regained his throne. He falls down before the king and confesses his wrong in the way he had insulted him, asking him not to impute this iniquity to him or remember against him the wrong he had done. He says he knows that he had sinned, therefore he is the first of all the house of Joseph to come down to meet the king. We are told in Chapter 16:5 that Shimei was of the house of Saul, which is of course from Benjamin, and verse 16 says he was a Benjamite. It seems strange therefore that he would speak of himself as being of the house of Joseph.
Abishai, as zealous and harsh as his brother Joab, urges David that Shimei should be put to death because he cursed the Lord’s anointed. But David decisively reproves Abishai for his attitude, for he has no intention of putting anyone to death now that God has in grace restored him to the throne. If he thought that it was his own ability or prowess that had recovered his authority, he might be likely to take advantage of his authority, but he knew it was God who had made him king, and on this occasion at least he wanted to rightly represent God. He tells Shimei he will not die. David would not, for his own sake, take revenge, though later, when nearing death, he charged Solomon to see that Shimei suffered for his wickedness (1Ki 2:8-9). This was simple righteousness, for after David’s death, there would be no question of David’s merely seeking revenge. Similarly, God may allow evil men to live today, but future eternal judgment awaits them.
Another individual of a different character (though also of Saul’s house) now comes to David. Mephibosheth had been evidently able to find help to enable him to come down to the Jordan to meet David. He had not cared for his lame feet nor trimmed his moustache nor washed his clothes during all the time that David had been away. This itself was fullest proof before David’s eyes that Ziba’s report of Mephibosheth had been false. Mephibosheth had no aspirations whatever to be king. When David questions him as to why he did not go with David (v.25), his answer is quite simple. He had told his servant Ziba that he wanted a donkey to ride to follow David, but Ziba deceived him, so that he was given no means of coming to David at that time. What he says as to Ziba’s slandering him is plainly true, and he declares his deep appreciation of David himself, as though he were an angel of God, remembering that David had shown him unusual grace at a time when Saul’s house was in danger of extermination (v.28). He tells David therefore that he has no right to expect anything of him.
David’s answer to Mephibosheth was sadly lacking in grace and truth. Evidently David was irritated because he did not like to admit his blunder in accepting Ziba’s slander of Mephibosheth. He ought to have apologized to Mephibosheth for this, and to have faced Ziba with the seriousness of his falsehood, but he dismissed Mephibosheth with no real courtesy, and told him he had decided that he and Ziba should divide the property that actually belonged to Mephibosheth, but which David had assigned to Ziba when he brought his false report. Though David is a type of Christ, yet in this case he badly misrepresented the righteousness of the Lord Jesus in the administering of his kingdom.
How much better than this was Mephibosheth’s response to David in this matter. He was not interested in the property, but in David himself. Let Ziba take all the land, he says, since David had come back in peace to his own house. Mephibosheth had not asked for his land back, though he was certainly entitled to all of it. He does not even suggest that Ziba should be punished for his falsehood and for his greed, but is willing to let him take everything. This is a refreshing picture of true Christian character today, for Christ Himself should certainly be “everything” to us. One would think that when David heard this he would be deeply ashamed of the irritable way in which he had spoken to Mephibosheth.
David was much more king in his treatment of Barzillai, whose devotedness brought him to show his thankfulness for David’s return, and accompany him over the Jordan (v.31). His riches had enabled him to furnish David with supplies during his exile from Jerusalem, and now David wants to return his kindness by providing for Barzillai at Jerusalem. But Barzillai wisely declines this. At his advanced age of 80 years there was no good reason for his leaving his accustomed home to seek to enjoy the pleasures of royal living. He would go across the Jordan in order to enjoy the king’s company for this brief time, but desired to return to his own home (vs.36-37). However, he asks that his servant Chimham should be given the favor of the king’s kindness in this way. The younger man would no doubt have opportunity of advancement when brought to the king’s court. Barzillai requests that David do for him as David saw fit. But David answers that he would do for Chimham whatever Barzillai desired, and anything more that he might request. Leaving David after crossing the Jordan, he would of course have to return back over the Jordan to his home in Gilead (v.39).
Traveling south the king follows the river to Gilgal, being escorted by the men of Judah and “half the people of Israel.” Ironically, it is at Gilgal that the fleshly quarrel breaks out between the Israelites and the men of Judah (vs.41-43). Gilgal was the place of judgment of the flesh — its cutting off by circumcision, — and yet there the selfishness of the flesh on both sides is seen in its most repulsive character. Israel accuses Judah of stealing away the king because Judah had come to escort him to Jerusalem.
But the men of Judah had no regard for the truth that “a soft answer turneth away wrath,” and they respond that they have a right to precedence over the men of Israel because David was from Judah The men of Israel answer this by claiming that they have ten shares in the king, since they were ten tribes while Judah and Benjamin were only two, and also insist that they were the first to advise the return of David. All of this is merely childish arguing over a matter of no consequence, but similar folly has too often caused sad ruptures in families, among friends, and even in the assembly of God. Why did David not pour oil on the troubled waters? Could he not have called the leaders on either side to sit down with him and to iron this matter out in a spirit of true concern for the welfare of all? But the men of Judah became more fierce in their words than the men of Israel.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
33
CHAPTER XXIV.
DAVID’S GRIEF FOR ABSALOM.
2Sa 18:19-33; 2Sa 19:1-4.
”NEXT to the calamity of losing a battle,” a great general used to say, “is that of gaining a victory.” The battle in the wood of Ephraim left twenty thousand of King David’s subjects dead or dying on the field. It is remarkable how little is made of this dismal fact. Men’s lives count for little in time of war, and death, even with its worst horrors, is just the common fate of warriors. Yet surely David and his friends could not think lightly of a calamity that cut down more of the sons of Israel than any battle since the fatal day of Mount Gilboa. Nor could they form a light estimate of the guilt of the man whose inordinate vanity and ambition had cost the nation such a fearful loss.
But all thoughts of this kind were for the moment brushed aside by the crowning fact that Absalom himself was dead. And this fact, as well as the tidings of the victory, must at once be carried to David. Mahanaim, where David was, was probably but a little distance from the field of battle. A friend offered to Joab to carry the news – Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok the priest. He had formerly been engaged in the same way, for he was one of those that had brought word to David of the result of Absalom’s council, and of other things that were going on in Jerusalem. But Joab did not wish that Ahimaaz should be the bearer of the news. He would not deprive him of the character of king’s messenger, but he would employ him as such another time. Meanwhile the matter was entrusted to another man, called in the Authorized Version Cushi, but in the Revised Version the Cushite. Whoever this may have been, he was a simple official, not like Ahimaaz, a personal friend of David. And this seems to have been Joab’s reason for employing him. It is evident that physically he was not better adapted to the task than Ahimaaz, for when the latter at last got leave to go he overran the Cushite. But Joab appears to have felt that it would be better that David should receive his first news from a mere official than from a personal friend. The personal friend would be likely to enter into details that the other would not give. It is clear that Joab was ill at ease in reference to his own share in the death of Absalom. He would fain keep that back from David, at least for a time; it would be enough for him at the first to know that the battle had been gained, and that Absalom was dead.
But Ahimaaz was persistent, and after the Cushite had been despatched he carried his point, and was allowed to go. Very graphic is the description of the running of the two men and of their arrival at Mahanaim. The king had taken his place at the gate of the city, and stationed a watchman on the wall above to look out eagerly lest anyone should come bringing news of the battle. In those primitive times there was no more rapid way of dispatching important news than by a swift well-trained runner on foot. In the clear atmosphere of the East first one man, then another, was seen running alone. By-and-bye, the watchman surmised that the foremost of the two was Ahimaaz; and when the king heard it, remembering his former message, he concluded that such a man must be the bearer of good tidings. As soon as he came within hearing of the king, he shouted out, “All is well.” Coming close, he fell on his face and blessed God for delivering the rebels into David’s hands. Before thanking him or thanking God, the king showed what was uppermost in his heart by asking, “Is the young man Absalom safe?” And here the moral courage of Ahimaaz failed him, and he gave an evasive answer: “When Joab sent the king’s servant, and me thy servant, I saw a great tumult, but I knew not what it was.” When he heard this the king bade him stand aside, till he should hear what the other messenger had to say. And the official messenger was more frank than the personal friend. For when the king repeated the question about Absalom, the answer was, “The enemies of my lord the king, and all that rise against thee to do thee hurt, be as that young man is.” The answer was couched in skilful words. It suggested the enormity of Absalom’s guilt, and of the danger to the king and the state which he had plotted, and the magnitude of the deliverance, seeing that he was now beyond the power of doing further evil.
But such soothing expressions were lost upon the king. The worst fears of his heart were realized – Absalom was dead. Gone from earth forever, beyond reach of the yearnings of his heart; gone to answer for crimes that were revolting in the sight of God and man. “The king was much moved; and he 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 I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!”
He had been a man of war, a man of the sword; he had been familiar with death, and had seen it once and again in his own family; but the tidings of Absalom’s death fell upon him with all the force of a first bereavement. Not more piercing is the wail of the young widow when suddenly the corpse of her beloved is borne into the house, not more overwhelming is her sensation, as if the solid earth were giving way beneath her, than the emotion that now prostrated King David.
Grief for the dead is always sacred; and however unworthy we may regard the object of it, we cannot but respect it in King David. Viewed simply as an expression of his unquenched affection for his son, and separated from its bearing on the interests of the kingdom, and from the air of repining it seemed to carry against the dispensation of God, it showed a marvelously tender and forgiving heart. In the midst of an odious and disgusting rebellion, and with the one object of seeking out his father and putting him to death, the heartless youth had been arrested and had met his deserved fate. Yet so far from showing satisfaction that the arm that had been raised to crush him was laid low in death, David could express no feelings but those of love and longing. Was it not a very wonderful love, coming very near to the feeling of Him who prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” like that “love Divine, all love excelling,” that follows the sinner through all his wanderings, and clings to him amid all his rebellions; the love of Him that not merely wished in a moment of excitement that He could die for His guilty children but did die for them, and in dying bore their guilt and took it away, and of which the brief but matchless record is that “having once loved His own that were with Him in the world, He loved them even unto the end?”
The elements of David’s intense agony, when he heard of Absalom’s death, were mainly three. In the first place, there was the loss of his son, of whom he could say that, with all his faults, he loved him still. A dear object had been plucked from his heart, and left it sick, vacant, desolate. A face he had often gazed on with delight lay cold in death. He had not been a good son, he had been very wicked; but affection has always its visions of a better future, and is ready to forgive unto seventy times seven. And then death is so dreadful when it fastens on the young. It seems so cruel to fell to the ground a bright young form; to extinguish by one blow his every joy, every hope, every dream; to reduce him to nothingness, so far as this life is concerned. An infinite pathos, in a father’s experience, surrounds a young man’s death. The regret, the longing, the conflict with the inevitable, seem to drain him of all energy, and leave him helpless in his sorrow.
Secondly, there was the terrible fact that Absalom had died in rebellion, without expressing one word of regret, without one request for forgiveness, without one act or word that it would be pleasant to recall in time to come, as a foil to the bitterness caused by his unnatural rebellion. Oh, if he had had but an hour to think of his position, to realize the lesson of his defeat, to ask his father’s forgiveness, to curse the infatuation of the last few years! How would one such word have softened the sting of his rebellion in his father’s breast! What a change it would have given to the aspect of his evil life! But not even the faint vestige of such a thing was ever shown; the unmitigated glare of that evil life must haunt his father evermore!
Thirdly, there was the fact that in this rebellious condition he had passed to the judgment of God. What hope could there be for such a man, living and dying as he had done? Where could he be now? Was not ”the great pit in the wood,” into which his unhonoured carcase had been flung, a type of another pit, the receptacle of his soul? What agony to the Christian heart is like that of thinking of the misery of dear ones who have died impenitent and unpardoned?
To these and similar elements of grief David appears to have abandoned himself without a struggle. But was this right? Ought he not to have made some acknowledgment of the Divine hand in his trial, as he did when Bathsheba’s child died? Ought he not to have acted as he did on another occasion, when he said, “I was dumb with silence, I opened not my mouth, because Thou didst it”? We have seen that in domestic matters he was not accustomed to place himself so thoroughly under the control of the Divine will as in the more public business of his life; and now we see that, when his parental feelings are crushed, he is left without the steadying influence of submission to the will of God. And in the agony of his private grief he forgets the public welfare of the nation. Noble and generous though the wish be, “Would God I had died for thee,” it was on public grounds out of the question. Let us imagine for one moment the wish realized. David has fallen and Absalom survives. What sort of kingdom would it have been? What would have been the fate of the gallant men who had defended David? What would have been the condition of God’s servants throughout the kingdom? What would have been the influence of so godless a monarch upon the interests of truth and the cause of God? It was a rash and unadvised utterance of affection. But for the rough faithfulness of Joab, the consequences would have been disastrous. “The victory that day was turned into mourning, for the people heard say that day how the king was grieved for his son.” Everyone was discouraged. The man for whom they had risked their lives had not a word of thanks to any of them, and could think of no one but that vile son of his, who was now dead. In the evening Joab came to him, and in his blunt way swore to him that if he was not more affable to the people they would not remain a night longer in his service. Roused by the reproaches and threatenings of his general, the king did now present himself among them. The people responded and came before him, and the effort he made to show himself agreeable kept them to their allegiance, and led on to the steps for his restoration that soon took place.
But it must have been an effort to abstract his attention from Absalom, and fix it on the brighter results of the battle. And not only that night, in the silence of his chamber, but for many a night, and perhaps many a day, during the rest of his life, the thought of that battle and its crowning catastrophe must have haunted David like an ugly dream. We seem to see him in some still hour of reverie recalling early days; – happy scenes rise around him; lovely children gambol at his side; he hears again the merry laugh of little Tamar, and smiles as he recalls some childish saying of Absalom; he is beginning, as of old, to forecast the future and shape out for them careers of honour and happiness; when, horror of horrors! the spell breaks; the bright vision gives way to dismal realities – Tamar’s dishonour, Amnon’s murder, Absalom’s insurrection, and, last not least, Absalom’s death, glare in the field of memory! Who will venture to say that David did not smart for his sins? Who that reflects would be willing to take the cup of sinful indulgence from his hands, sweet though it was in his mouth, when he sees it so bitter in the belly?
Two remarks may appropriately conclude this chapter, one with reference to grief from bereavements in general, the other with reference to the grief that may arise to Christians in connection with the spiritual condition of departed children.
1. With reference to grief from bereavements in general, it is to be observed that they will prove either a blessing or an evil according to the use to which they are turned. All grief in itself is a weakening thing – weakening both to the body and the mind, and it were a great error to suppose that it must do good in the end. There are some who seem to think that to resign themselves to overwhelming grief is a token of regard to the memory of the departed, and they take no pains to counteract the depressing influence. It is a painful thing to say, yet it is true, that a long-continued manifestation of overwhelming grief, instead of exciting sympathy, is more apt to cause annoyance. Not only does it depress the mourner himself, and unfit him for his duties to the living, but it depresses those that come in contact with him, and makes them think of him with a measure of impatience. And this suggests another remark. It is not right to obtrude our grief overmuch on others, especially if we are in a public position. Let us take example in this respect from our blessed Lord. Was any sorrow like unto His sorrow? Yet how little did He obtrude it even on the notice of His disciples! It was towards the end of His ministry before He even began to tell them of the dark scenes through which He was to pass; and even when He did tell them how He was to be betrayed and crucified, it was not to court their sympathy, but to prepare them for their part of the trial. And when the overwhelming agony of Gethsemane drew on, it was only three of the twelve that were permitted to be with Him. All such considerations show that it is a more Christian thing to conceal our griefs than to make others uncomfortable by obtruding them upon their notice. David was on the very eve of losing the affections of those who had risked everything for him, by abandoning himself to anguish for his private loss, and letting his distress for the dead interfere with his duty to the living.
And how many things are there to a Christian mind fitted to abate the first sharpness even of a great bereavement. Is it not the doing of a Father, infinitely kind? Is it not the doing of Him “who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all”? You say you can see no light through it, – it is dark, all dark, fearfully dark. Then you ought to fall back on the inscrutability of God. Hear Him saying, “What I do, thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter.” Resign yourself patiently to His hands, till He make the needed revelation, and rest assured that when it is made it will be worthy of God. “Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord, that the Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy.” Meanwhile, be impressed with the vanity of this life, and the infinite need of a higher portion. “Set your affection on things above, and not on the things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your Life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory.”
2. The other remark that falls to be made here concerns the grief that may arise to Christians in connection with the spiritual condition of departed children.
When the parent is either in doubt as to the happiness of a beloved one, or has cause to apprehend that the portion of that child is with the unbelievers, the pang which he experiences is one of the most acute which the human heart can know. Now here is a species of suffering which, if not peculiar to believers, falls on them far the most heavily, and is, in many cases, a haunting spectre of misery. The question naturally arises. Is it not strange that their very beliefs, as Christians, subject them to such acute sufferings? If one were a careless, unbelieving man, and one’s child died without evidence of grace, one would probably think nothing of it, because the things that are unseen and eternal are never in one’s thoughts. But just because one believes the testimony of God on this great subject, one becomes liable to a peculiar agony. Is this not strange indeed?
Yes, there is a mystery in it which we cannot wholly solve. But we must remember that it is in thorough accordance with a great law of Providence, the operation of which, in other matters, we cannot overlook. That law is, that the cultivation and refinement of any organ or faculty, while it greatly increases your capacity of enjoyment, increases at the same time your capacity, and it may be your occasions, of suffering. Let us take, for example, the habit of cleanliness. Where this habit prevails, there is much more enjoyment in life; but let a person of great cleanliness be surrounded by filth, his suffering is infinitely greater. Or take the cultivation of taste, and let us say of musical taste. It adds to life an immense capacity of enjoyment, but also a great capacity and often much occasion of suffering, because bad music or tasteless music, such as one may often have to endure, creates a misery unknown to the man of no musical culture. To a man of classical taste, bad writing or bad speaking, such as is met with every day, is likewise a source of irritation and suffering. If we advance to a moral and spiritual region, we may see that the cultivation of one’s ordinary affections, apart from religion, while on the whole it increases enjoyment, does also increase sorrow. If I lived and felt as a Stoic, I should enjoy family life much less than if I were tender-hearted and affectionate; but when I suffered a family bereavement I should suffer much less. These are simply illustrations of the great law of Providence that culture, while it increases happiness, increases suffering too. It is a higher application of the same law, that gracious culture, the culture of our spiritual affections under the power of the Spirit of God, in increasing our enjoyment does also increase our capacity of suffering. In reference to that great problem of natural religion, Why should a God of infinite benevolence have created creatures capable of suffering? one answer that has often been given is, that if they had not been capable of suffering they might not have been capable of enjoyment. But in pursuing these inquiries we get into an obscure region, in reference to which it is surely our duty patiently to wait for that increase of light which is promised to us in the second stage of our existence.
Yet still it remains to be asked. What comfort can there possibly be for Christian parents in such a cast as David’s? What possible consideration can ever reconcile them to the thought that their beloved ones have gone to the world of woe? Are not their children parts of themselves, and how is it possible for them to be completely saved if those who are so identified with them are lost? How can they ever be happy in a future life if eternally separated from those who were their nearest and dearest on earth? On such matters it has pleased God to allow a great cloud to rest which our eyes cannot pierce. We cannot solve this problem. We cannot reconcile perfect personal happiness, even in heaven, with the knowledge I hat beloved ones are lost. But God must have some way, worthy of Himself, of solving the problem. And we must just wait for His time of revelation. “God is His own interpreter, and He will make it plain.” The Judge of all the earth must act justly. And the song which will express the deepest feelings of the redeemed, when from the sea of glass, mingled with fire, they look back on the ways of Providence toward them, will be this: “Great and marvelous are Thy works. Lord God Almighty; just and true are all Thy ways, Thou King of saints. Who would not fear Thee and glorify Thy name, for Thou only art holy?”