41 43. Dispute between the men of Judah and the men of Israel<\/p>\n
41<\/strong>. And behold, all the men of Israel<\/em> ] This must be read in connexion with the preceding verse which introduces and explains it. The northern tribes had been foremost in proposing the restoration ( 2Sa 19:9-10<\/em><\/span>), but owing no doubt to tribal jealousies, they had not been invited by the men of Judah to the gathering at Gilgal to welcome the king. Consequently only a fraction of them, probably those from the immediate neighbourhood and the trans-Jordanic country, were there. But while the king was still at Gilgal, the rest of the Israelite representatives arrived, and complained to David that they had been unwarrantably forestalled by Judah, and cheated of the honour and privilege of escorting him back. Cp. the instances of Ephraimite jealousy in Jdg 8:1<\/span>; Jdg 12:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n stolen thee away<\/em> ] Brought thee home without our knowledge. They justly censured the men of Judah for doing by themselves that which should have been the united act of the whole nation, and possibly suspected that David himself was not altogether blameless ( 2Sa 19:11-12<\/em><\/span>).<\/p>\n It seems that David and his whole party made a halt at Gilgal 2Sa 19:15<\/span>; 1Sa 11:14<\/span>, and possibly made some solemn agreement there about the kingdom. But while they were there, all the men of Israel, representatives from the tribes not included in half the people of Israel 2Sa 19:40<\/span>, came up in great wrath at finding that the restoration had been accomplished without consulting them, and accused the men of Judah of unfair dealing.<\/P> <\/p>\n All the men of Israel, <\/B>to wit, such as were present. <\/P> Stolen thee away, <\/B>i.e. conveyed thee over Jordan hastily and privily, not expecting nor desiring our consent and concurrence in the business, which we were no less ready to afford than they. It is also a secret reflection upon the king, for permitting this precipitation. <\/P> All Davids men, <\/B>i.e. all thy men; such changes of persons being most frequent in the Hebrew language; thy officers, and guards, and soldiers. This is mentioned as an aggravation of their fault, that they did not only carry the king over Jordan, but all his men too, without asking their advice. <\/P> <\/p>\n And, behold, all the men of Israel came to the king<\/strong>,…. A large number of them, the other part that did not come over with David, some of their principal men, who met him upon the road:<\/p>\n and said unto the king, why have our brethren, the men of Judah, stolen thee away<\/strong>; secretly, privately, and unknown to them, and were bringing him back to Jerusalem:<\/p>\n and have brought the king, and his household, and all David’s men with him, over Jordan<\/strong>? him, and his family, and soldiers.<\/p>\n Tribal Friction, vs. 41-43<\/strong><\/p>\n The lack of <\/em>unity in David’s restoration by the tribes was evident in the fifty percent representation among those of the north who met him at the JorDa The old Ephraimite pride and jealousy afflicted all the tribes and they now manifested it against the tribe of Judah. They accused the men of Judah of stealing David away and bringing him back without advising them and consulting concerning their desires. The men of Judah gave the innocent response that they had undertaken the task because David was their kinsman, of their own tribe. Seemingly this should have been a satisfactory answer.<\/em><\/p>\n The Judahites said that they had claimed no special considerations of the king in their behalf, for having taken the lead in restoring him to the throne. They had not eaten at his cost nor received any gifts of him. But this did not satisfy the Israelites. They claimed ten parts in David to the one of Judah, and claimed that Judah had shown them despite and shunned to seek their advice. And so the quarrel raged, but Judah had the better of the argument.<\/p>\n Some lessons <\/em>from chapter 19: 1) <\/em>Grief that cannot be assuaged should be controlled for the good of all; 2) hesitation to do what one knows he should do will <\/em>only continue trouble; 3) mercy to others is always good if the one shown mercy is justified under God to receive it; 4) it is hard to undo mistakes when once made; 5) the best reward is to show appreciation for what was done; 6) the Devil is always stirring up trouble when things seem to be going well.<\/em><\/p>\n CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES.<\/strong><\/p>\n There.<\/strong> In Gilgal, at the assembly of the tribes; the word indicates directly the place;<\/em> indirectly the time of the following history. (Erdmann)<\/em>. A man of Belial.<\/strong> A worthless man. He was, says Luther, one of the great rogues of the high nobility, who had a large retinue among the people, and consideration or name, as Catiline in Rome. A Benjamite.<\/strong> Probably one of the rabid Sauline party, if he were not, as is possible, of Sauls own family. (Erdmann)<\/em> To his tents.<\/strong> See on 2Sa. 19:8<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2Sa. 19:2<\/span>. Went up.<\/strong> From the plain of Gilgal to the hill country of Ephraim. (Erdmann)<\/em>.<\/p>\n MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Chapter<\/em> 2Sa. 19:41<\/span>, to<\/em> 2Sa. 20:2<\/span><\/p>\n THE REBELLION OF SHEBA<\/p>\n I. The fidelity of those who serve from self-interest cannot be depended on for a single day<\/strong>. All the acts of the men of Israel at this time seem to have been inspired by one consideration only, viz., What line of policy looks most likely to promote our interests? There was no question as to their duty, either to God or man. Hence they rallied to the standard of Absalom when he bid fair to overturn the throne of his father, returned to David when they found they had embarked in a losing cause, and revolted again from him the first moment all did not fall out in accordance with their wishes. So little are those to be depended on who have no higher rule of life, and so greatly are those to be pitied who put their trust in them. We have ten parts in David<\/em>, said they, and, almost in the same breath, We have no part in him<\/em>. To-day, Hosanna<\/em>, to-morrow, Crucify<\/em>.Henry<\/em>.<\/p>\n II. The unreasoning discontent of the multitude is the opportunity of the selfish and ambitions leader.<\/strong> There are always men quick to take advantage of the passion and ignorance of their fellow creatures, and to use them as stepping stones for their own aggrandisement. But for the foolish petulance of the men of Israel on this occasion, this son of Bichri would have never had even the pitiful notoriety which he thereby acquired; and there have been many like him in all ages who have only risen from obscurity by similar means. It would have been indeed for the peace of the world if all such reckless men had met with as speedy a downfall as did Sheba, but they have often lived long enough to involve many more in a common ruin. Before men give themselves up to the leadership of another they should consider well whither he is leading them and what guarantees he can give that his motives are pure. But they cannot do this if they themselves are under the dominion of pride and envy, as the men of Israel were at this time. Where any unruly passion is in the ascendant, the voices of reason and conscience are not listened to, and downfall of some kind must come.<\/p>\n OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS<\/em><\/p>\n Chap, 19, 2Sa. 19:41-43<\/span>. In the conduct of the different tribes on this occasion, we may see a faithful picture of what is every day to be witnessed in the world around us. While some men, although convinced of the proper course to pursue, are still talking<\/em> about their intentionsare consulting with their own interestsresolving, and hesitating, and again resolvingyet, after all doing nothing effectually; others like the tribe of Judah, when once persuaded of their duty, admit no farther argument on its expediency, but act with promptitude and decision. This forward zeal, however, gave great umbrage to the rest of Israel, for, like other worldly characters, it was not so much the good itself that they desired to see done, as to have themselves the credit of performing it.Lindsay<\/em>.<\/p>\n (41) All the men of Israel.<\/strong>When David had crossed the Jordan, he naturally made a halt at Gilgal, and then the representatives of the remaining tribes came to him, full of wrath at the apparent neglect of them. Jealousies between the tribes, and especially between Judah on the one side and the ten tribes on the other, had all along existed, the tribe of Ephraim being particularly sensitive (Jdg. 8:1<\/span>; Jdg. 12:1<\/span>). By the successful wars of Saul these jealousies were held in check, but broke out in national separation on his death; after seven and a half years they were partially healed by David, and were kept in abeyance by the wise administration of Solomon, but at his death they broke out with fresh power, and dismembered the nation for ever.<\/p>\n 41<\/strong>. <\/strong> Why Judah stolen thee away <\/strong> Violent outburst of a deep jealousy that had been long maturing. <\/p>\n All David’s men <\/strong> His faithful adherents who had fled with him from Jerusalem or had rallied to his standard at Mahanaim.<\/p>\n Israel React Against What They See As The Favouritism Shown To Judah, and Judah’s Unwise Reply Results In A Further Rebellion (19:41-20:2). <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n The failure of David to treat Judah and Israel equally exacerbated the problems within his kingdom, and the consequence was that when the elders of Judah replied to the elders of Israel with harsh words, it resulted in open rebellion. But we cannot hide from the fact that this revealed the underlying currents that were at work in a ‘nation’ which had on the surface appeared to be so united. It revealed that it had simply been held together by the fear of the surrounding nations and its need for a strong king, but that once those nations had been subdued and had become vassals, and the strong king had become complacent and somewhat negligent, its unity had come under strain. It would have constantly required great wisdom and understanding to hold it together, and that was something that David in his backslidden had not displayed. <\/p>\n In order to understand something of this strain we must look back at history. The previous circumstances of history had unquestionably resulted in a definite division between ‘Judah’ to the south and ‘northern’ Israel, partly because Judah and Ephraim as the two largest and most powerful tribes were fierce rivals, partly as a result of geographical division, and partly as a result of the events of history. This situation had built up initially from the earliest days of the conquest when, after coming over the Jordan, Judah had gone southwards, absorbing much of Simeon within it (Jdg 1:3-21<\/span>; compare Jos 15:20-62<\/span>; Jos 19:1-9<\/span>), and had become lords of the south, while the remaining tribes had settled in the central highlands and the north, with the two major tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh holding large swathes of the central ground and influencing all the smaller tribes to the north. Dan had meanwhile been fragmented by Philistine pressure, and almost obliterated as far as their allotted land was concerned, resulting in a large proportion of the Danites moving northwards to Laish (Judges 18<\/span>), and leaving the remainder crushed by the Philistines, while little Benjamin, still gradually recovering from its near obliteration (Judges 20-21), was simply caught in the middle. The situation had also become further complicated in that from all appearances a large number of Simeonites who had not wanted to become absorbed by Judah, and had become unhappy with Judah’s influence and domination over them, had migrated northwards, thus becoming an identifiable part of the ‘ten tribes’ (2Sa 19:43<\/span>; 1Ki 11:31-32<\/span>; 1Ch 4:41-43<\/span>; 1Ch 12:24-25<\/span>), although with some inevitably remaining in the south (2Ch 15:9<\/span>). <\/p>\n The inevitable consequence of all this was that a distinct separation into two parts had developed between the northern tribes under the name of Israel, and the southern part that was identified as ‘Judah’, but which included smaller tribal groups, such as the Kenites, within it (Jdg 1:16<\/span>; compare 1Sa 27:10<\/span>). This separation had no doubt been further exacerbated by the fact that Judah were for a long period wholly occupied with the task of defending themselves against the Philistines (as well as against periodic invaders from the south like the Amalekites) with the result that later they could not contribute to the call to arms which was sent out when some northern tribes were in trouble (see for example the tribes included in the defeat of Moab in Jdg 3:27<\/span>, and then in the song of Deborah in Jdg 5:14-23<\/span>, and in all that followed). It had not, of course, been true to begin with because it was Judah under Othniel who had led the tribes in the defeat of Cushan-Rishathaim, king of Aram Naharaim (Mesoptamia) in Jdg 3:8-10<\/span>, and they were also involved in the early dispute that decimated the tribe of Benjamin (Juges 20-21). But it was undoubtedly so later. So while the ‘twelve tribes’ certainly remained loosely bound by the covenant treaty, and acknowledged that they were ‘brothers’, there had grown up an undoubted north-south divide, a division which was made even worse when David became king over Judah as a separate kingdom, with the northern and Transjordanian tribes choosing Ish-bosheth, the son of Saul as their king, a point at which they had become two nations. The consequence was that once they became united under David after the death of Ish-bosheth in order to counter the menace of the widely expanding Philistine empire, it was very much as a nation divided up into two parts by custom and tradition, but meanwhile acting together in partnership. <\/p>\n That they still felt themselves as united by an invisible bond (the covenant of YHWH) comes out in the time that it would take before they finally reluctantly separated, (they sought to compromise to the last). But as hot-headed people living in a hot climate and with strong feelings about their ‘rights’ they were always likely to come to blows. It would have required a deeper tact than David showed to hold them together when Judah, instead of being judicious, reacted to Israel’s complaint of favouritism with harsh words. <\/p>\n Analysis. <\/p>\n a <\/strong> And, behold, all the men of Israel came to the king, and said to the king, “Why have our brothers the men of Judah stolen you away, and brought the king, and his household, over the Jordan, and all David’s men with him?” And all the men of Judah answered the men of Israel, “Because the king is near of kin to us. Why then are you angry over this matter? Have we eaten at all at the king’s cost? Or has he given us any gift?” (2Sa 19:41-42<\/span>). <\/p>\n b <\/strong> And the men of Israel answered the men of Judah, and said, “We have ten parts in the king, and we have also more right in David than you, why then did you despise us, that our advice should not be first had in bringing back our king?” (2Sa 19:43<\/span> a). <\/p>\n c <\/strong> And the words of the men of Judah were fiercer than the words of the men of Israel (2Sa 19:43<\/span> b). <\/p>\n b <\/strong> And there happened to be there a base fellow, whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjaminite, and he blew the ram’s horn, and said, “We have no portion in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse. Every man to his tents, O Israel” (2Sa 20:1<\/span>). <\/p>\n a <\/strong> So all the men of Israel went up from following David, and followed Sheba the son of Bichri, but the men of Judah clung firmly to their king, from the Jordan even to Jerusalem (2Sa 20:2<\/span>). <\/p>\n Note that in ‘a’ there was a dispute between Israel and Judah, while in the parallel this resulted in Israel and Judah rallying under two leaders. In ‘b’ we have the grounds of Israel’s complaint, and in the parallel the consequence of Judah’s reply to that complaint. Centrally in ‘c’ it is emphasised that Judah’s reply had been totally unconciliatory, indeed brutal. <\/p>\n 2Sa 19:41<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And, behold, all the men of Israel came to the king, and said to the king, “Why have our brothers the men of Judah stolen you away, and brought the king, and his household, over the Jordan, and all David’s men with him?” ’ <\/p>\n David having been ceremonially transported over the Jordan and brought to Gilgal, with Israel only partly involved in the celebrations, the part of Israel not so involved reacted strongly. They felt that the honour of their tribes had been slighted in that while they had been the first to invite David back they had been snubbed as regards his actual return by not being invited to participate in the ceremonial return. In their eyes all the honour had gone to Judah who had been the last to respond to David. Thus they came to the king in a solemn assembly of the tribes, probably held at Gilgal, in order for the matter to be looked into and for their wrong to be righted. At this stage they appear to have been open to being reconciled. It was thus a time for conciliation and cool heads. <\/p>\n Given tribal pride Israel undoubtedly had a cause of grievance. For while we can certainly understand why David wanted to be sure that Judah, who had been the original cause of the rebellion, had been brought on side, there is no doubt that he had not sufficiently taken into account the sensitivities and feelings of Israel. He had failed to recognise the strong tribal rivalry that existed between the two sides which, once he had become king of the joint nations, had initially been hidden by the parlous situation in which they were, threatened on every side. It only manifested itself, as such things will, once the whole country had become secure and they began to have time to think about their own rights and privileges. And the tribal system meant that the nation, divided into tribes which were ruled by their own elders, was, in comparison with other nations, almost ‘democratic’, as it operated through its appointed elders. But as a result of continual mutual assistance the northern tribes on the West of the Jordan had formed a united bond which did not take in Judah. Thus it was not wise for their sensitivities to be ignored. They had still not become reconciled to the idea that the king was sovereign in all final decisions and could override the tribal leaders. In their eyes that was not the way in which their traditions presented kingship. They rather saw the king as being the servant of YHWH, and they believed that YHWH always listened to His people (Deu 17:17-20<\/span>). <\/p>\n It is in fact interesting that this viewpoint was tacitly supported by this coming together of ‘the assembly of Israel’, for the whole point of the assembly was in order to iron out difficulties between themselves and Judah, and be fair to all parties. It was here then that they had brought their grievance, ostensibly to David, but in fact to the whole assembly. It is noteworthy that David appears to have kept out of the argument. <\/p>\n 2Sa 19:42<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And all the men of Judah answered the men of Israel, “Because the king is near of kin to us. Why then are you angry over this matter? Have we eaten at all at the king’s cost? Or has he given us any gift?”’ <\/p>\n Initially Judah’s response in the assembly was fairly tactful. They pointed out that while it was true that they had been prominent in the crossing of the river celebration (along with Benjamin and the Gileadites), it was because the king was near kin to them. And they stressed that they had not gained any material benefit from what had happened. They were unable therefore to understand why Israel were so concerned and angry. Indeed it appeared strange to them because in their view it had been a family affair and they had gained nothing out of it. Thus as far as they saw it, Israel had nothing to grumble about. In which case what was it that was eating at their hearts? (They did not stop and think how they would have felt if Judah had been left out of the celebrations, nor considered the fact that Israel had in fact been proud of its king, and had seen him as partly ‘theirs’). <\/p>\n 2Sa 19:43<\/strong><\/span> a<\/strong> <\/p>\n ‘And the men of Israel answered the men of Judah, and said, “We have ten parts in the king, and we have also more right in David than you, why then did you despise us, that our advice should not be first had in bringing back our king?” <\/p>\n The bristling men of Israel soon told them. They were larger and more numerous than Judah and therefore considered that they had greater rights in the king who, in their view, ruled equally over the twelve tribes. They thus saw him as ten twelfths belonging to them. And furthermore they pointed out that they had been the first to invite David back as their king. Thus their not having been called to take part in the ceremonial of crossing the Jordan, or even be consulted about it, had been an almost unforgivable insult (even though at this stage they were probably open to being pacified). They considered that they should have been consulted about the crossing and that it should have awaited their coming so that they could play a full part in it. <\/p>\n We note here Israel’s view that they had ‘ten parts’ in the king. They thus saw themselves as representing ten tribes, as would become even more clear when the final split occurred (1Ki 11:31<\/span>). This was as much traditional as actual, for there had undoubtedly been considerable variations in the identity and make-up of the occupants of different parts of the land, and the areas contained many of other nationalities with whom they had inter-married and many of whom would have been adopted into the covenant and into the tribes. Furthermore there had undoubtedly been movements of sub-tribes (compare the movements of parts of Simeon and Dan mentioned earlier), as well as movements of individuals, due to various internal and external pressures, while many from all of these tribes would actually have moved to live in and around Jerusalem, both in order to be near the court and because it had become the centre of their worship of YHWH where the Ark of YHWH was to be found. <\/p>\n We should note here, for example, that Benjamin was considered as one of the ‘ten’, for Bishri, who led the revolt of the ten, was a Benjaminite. In 1Ki 12:21<\/span>, however, Benjamin was one of the ‘two’. This emphasises the fluidity of the situation. <\/p>\n 2Sa 19:43<\/strong><\/span> b <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n ‘And the words of the men of Judah were fiercer than the words of the men of Israel.’ <\/p>\n Sadly the men of Judah did not consider what was said and reply with conciliatory words. They were fiercely proud of their relationship with David. So instead of answering tactfully they returned fierce and contemptuous answers which simply riled the men of Israel, and resulted in their leaving the assembly in fury. (The histories of the church and of other nations are full of similar examples. How important it is for Christians to seek to see all viewpoints which arise among themselves, and then to be conciliatory, and to treat one another with fairness and with love, only demanding adherence to what are the most basic and central truths. Thereby much division could have been, and would be, avoided). <\/p>\n 2Sa 20:1<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> And there happened to be there a base fellow, whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjaminite, and he blew the ram’s horn, and said, “We have no portion in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse. Every man to his tents, O Israel.” ’ <\/p>\n The final consequence of the bitter arguments that had taken place in the assembly was that the men of Israel eventually walked away from the assembly in an aggrieved state, with the result that when a ‘base fellow’ named Bichri, who was a Benjaminite, blew the ram’s horn to summon the northern tribes to desert David and return home in order to prepare to exert their independence, there was an immediate response. If David wanted Judah then he could have them, and Judah could have him. In their view he had demonstrated by what had happened that he did not see Israel as having a part in him. Well, all right, if that was so Israel was done with him. (That is, a part of Israel. Certainly not the tribes in Transjordan). Judah had thus not done David any favours by their arrogant behaviour, and he himself seems to have been unconscious of what was happening, no doubt assuming that it would all blow over. Indeed, what follows appears to have caught him by surprise. Bichri’s call to Israel unfortunately turned out to be only too successful, at least as far as the going home was concerned. Once again the hot-heads had won, as they often do when passions are roused and people do not stop to think. <\/p>\n 2Sa 20:2<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n ‘<\/strong> So all the men of Israel went up from following David, and followed Sheba the son of Bichri; but the men of Judah clung firmly to their king, from the Jordan even to Jerusalem.’ <\/p>\n The result was that the men of Israel, so recently returned to David, seceded from the kingdom and ceased to follow him. Previously it had been the men of Judah who had been the source of rebellion. Now it was Israel. But it was certainly an indication of how little united the kingdom really was. On the other hand, in contrast to their previous attitude, the previously rebellious men of Judah stood firmly by their king and accompanied him to Jerusalem. <\/p>\n We must actually differentiate between the passive resistance of a large part of the northern tribes, and the active resistance aroused by Bichri in certain parts of the tribal lands. The former had responded to his call to go home, seeing themselves as no longer responsible to David. The latter actually took up arms with a view to armed secession. <\/p>\n 2Sa 19:41 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 David’s men with him, over Jordan?<\/p>\n Ver. 41. Why have they stolen thee away?] Fetched thee home without our privity: as if they alone had true title to thee, and true love toward thee? This is the voice of those who will shortly fight against David under the son of Bichri; so little hold is there of popular favour.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n And all David’s men with him, over Jordan.] Or thus; – “Why have our brethren the men of Judah stolen thee away, and have brought the king and his household over Jordan? Now all the men of David were with him,” that is, his soldiers; – and this made the men of Judah so bold and fierce, as 2Sa 19:42-43<\/span> .<\/p>\n Why . . . ? Figure of speech Erotesis. App-6. <\/p>\n Why have: Jdg 8:1, Jdg 12:1, Joh 7:5, Joh 7:6 <\/p>\n stolen: 2Sa 19:3, Gen 31:26, Gen 31:27 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 2Sa 3:12 – my hand 2Sa 18:7 – the people 2Sa 20:1 – And there 2Sa 20:2 – every man Pro 17:14 – beginning Pro 26:4 – General Ecc 10:13 – beginning<\/p>\n 2Sa 19:41. All the men of Israel That is, those that were present. It appears that David, to gratify his own tribe, had marched on, not expecting the coming of all the great men of Israel, who were making themselves ready to wait upon him. And therefore, when they were come together, and found that the tribe of Judah were unexpectedly beforehand with them, they resented the slight put upon them; and being joined and supported in their resentment by the rest of their brethren who had reconducted the king in conjunction with Judah, they all with one voice warmly expostulated with the king upon it. Why have the men of Judah stolen thee away? That is, why did they hasten the matter so, and not expect our concurrence and assistance, who were as zealous as themselves to bring the king back? And all Davids men with him All his officers, guards, and soldiers. This is mentioned as an aggravation of their fault, that they not only brought the king over Jordan, but all his men too, without asking their advice. <\/p>\n 19:41 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 David’s men with him, over {t} Jordan?<\/p>\n (t) Toward Jerusalem.<\/p>\n CHAPTER XXVII.<\/p>\n THE INSURRECTION OF SHEBA.<\/p>\n 2Sa 19:41-43; 2Sa 20:1-26.<\/p>\n DAVID was now virtually restored to his kingdom; but he had not even left Gilgal when fresh troubles began. The jealousy between Judah and Israel broke out in spite of him. The cause of complaint was on the part of the ten tribes; they were offended at not having been waited for to take part in escorting the king to Jerusalem. First, the men of Israel, in harsh language, accused the men of Judah of having stolen the king away, because they had transported him over the Jordan. To this the men of Judah replied that the king was of their kin; therefore they had taken the lead, but they had received no special reward or honour in consequence. The men of Israel, however, had an argument in reply to this: they were ten tribes, and therefore had so much more right to the king; and Judah had treated them with contempt in not consulting or co-operating with them in bringing him back. It is added that the words of the men of Judah were fiercer than the words of the men of Israel. <\/p>\n It is in a poor and paltry light that both sides appear in this inglorious dispute. There was no solid grievance whatever, nothing that might not have been easily settled if the soft answer that turneth away wrath had been resorted to instead of fierce and exasperating words. Alas I that miserable tendency of our nature to take offence when we think we have been overlooked, – what mischief and misery has it bred in the world! The men of Israel were foolish to take offence; but the men of Judah were neither magnanimous nor forbearing in dealing with their unreasonable humour. The noble spirit of clemency that David had shown awakened but little permanent response. The men of Judah, who were foremost in Absalom’s rebellion, were like the man in the parable that had been forgiven ten thousand talents, but had not the generosity to forgive the trifling offence committed against them, as they thought, by their brethren of Israel. So they seized their fellow-servant by the throat and demanded that he should pay them the uttermost farthing. Judah played false to his national character; for he was not “he whom his brethren should praise.” <\/p>\n What was the result? Any one acquainted with human nature might have foretold it with tolerable certainty. Given on one side a proneness to take offence, a readiness to think that one has been overlooked, and on the other a want of forbearance, a readiness to retaliate, – it is easy to see that the result will be a serious breach. It is just what we witness so often in children. One is apt to be dissatisfied, and complains of ill-treatment; another has no forbearance, and retorts angrily: the result is a quarrel, with this difference, that while the quarrels of children pass quickly away, the quarrels of nations or of factions last miserably long. <\/p>\n Much inflammable material being thus provided, a casual spark speedily set it on fire, Sheba, an artful Benjamite, raised the standard of revolt against David, and the excited ten tribes, smarting with the fierce words of the men of Judah, flocked to his standard. Most miserable proceeding! The quarrel had begun about a mere point of etiquette, and now they cast off God’s anointed king, and that, too, after the most signal token of God’s anger had fallen on Absalom and his rebellious crew. There are many wretched enough slaveries in this world, but the slavery of pride is perhaps the most mischievous and humiliating of all. <\/p>\n And here it cannot be amiss to call attention to the very great neglect of the rules and spirit of Christianity that is apt, even at the present day, to show itself among professing Christians in connection with their disputes. This is so very apparent that one is apt to think that the settlement of quarrels is the very last matter to which Christ’s followers learn to apply the example and instructions of their Master. When men begin in earnest to follow Christ, they usually pay considerable attention to certain of His precepts; they turn away from scandalous sins, they observe prayer, they show some interest in Christian objects, and they abandon some of the more frivolous ways of the world. But alas! when they fall into differences, they are prone in dealing with them to leave all Christ’s precepts behind them. See in what an unlovely and unloving spirit the controversies of Christians have usually been conducted; how much of bitterness and personal animosity they show, how little forbearance and generosity; how readily they seem to abandon themselves to the impulses of their own hearts. Controversy rouses temper, and temper creates a tempest through which you cannot see clearly. And how many are the quarrels in Churches or congregations that are carried on with all the heat and bitterness of unsanctified men! How much offence is taken at trifling neglects or mistakes! Who remembers, even in its spirit, the precept in the Sermon on the Mount, “If any man smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”? Who remembers the beatitude, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God”? Who bears in mind the Apostle’s horror at the unseemly spectacle of saints carrying their quarrels to heathen tribunals, instead of settling them as Christians quietly among themselves? Who weighs the earnest counsel, “Endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”? Who prizes our gracious Lord’s most blessed legacy, ”Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth give I unto you”? Do not all such texts show that it is incumbent on Christians to be most careful and watchful, when any difference arises, to guard against carnal feeling of every kind, and strive to the very utmost to manifest the spirit of Christ? Yet is it not at such times that they are most apt to leave all their Christianity behind them, and engage in unseemly wrangles with one another? Does not the devil very often get it all his own way, whoever may be in the right, and whoever in the wrong? And is not frequent occasion given thereby to the enemy to blaspheme, and, in the very circumstances that should bring out in clear and strong light the true spirit of Christianity, is there not often, in place of that, an exhibition of rudeness and bitterness that makes the world ask, What better are Christians than other men? <\/p>\n But let us return to King David and his people. The author of the insurrection was “a man of Belial, whose name was Sheba.” He is called “the son of Bichri, a Benjamite.” Benjamin had a son whose name was Becher, and the adjective formed from that would be Bichrite; some have thought that Bichri denotes not his father, but his family. Saul appears to have been of the same family (see Speaker’s Commentary in loco). It is thus quite possible that Sheba was a relation of Saul, and that he had always cherished a grudge against David for taking the throne which he had filled. Here, we may remark in passing, would have been a real temptation to Mephibosheth to join an insurrection, for if this had succeeded he was the man who would naturally have become king. But there is no reason to believe that Mephibosheth favoured Sheba, and therefore no reason to doubt the truth of the account he gave of himself to David. The war-cry of Sheba was an artful one – “We have no part in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse.” It was a scornful and exaggerated mockery of the claim that Judah had asserted as being of the same tribe with the king, whereas the other tribes stood in no such relation to him. “Very well,” was virtually the cry of Sheba – “if we have no part in David, neither any inheritance in the son of Jesse, let us get home as fast as possible, and leave his friends, the tribe of Judah, to make of him what they can.” It was not so much a setting up of a new rebellion as a scornful repudiation of all interest in the existing king. Instead of going with David from Gilgal to Jerusalem, they went up every man to his tent or to his home. It is not said that they intended actively to oppose David, and from this part of the narrative we should suppose that all that they intended was to make a public protest against the unworthy treatment which they held that they had received. It must have greatly disturbed the pleasure of David’s return to Jerusalem that this unseemly secession occurred by the way. A chill must have fallen upon his heart just as it was beginning to recover its elasticity. And much anxiety must have haunted him as to the issue – whether or not the movement would go on to another insurrection like Absalom’s; or whether, having discharged their dissatisfied feeling, the people of Israel would return sullenly to their allegiance. <\/p>\n Nor could the feelings of King David be much soothed when he re-entered his home. The greater part of his family had been with him in his exile, and when he returned his house was occupied by the ten women whom he had left to keep it, and with whom Absalom had behaved dishonourably. And here was another trouble resulting from the rebellion that could not be adjusted in a satisfactory way. The only way of disposing of them was to put them in ward, to shut them up in confinement, to wear out the rest of their lives in a dreary, joyless widowhood. All joy and brightness was thus taken out of their lives, and personal freedom was denied them. They were doomed, for no fault of theirs, to the weary lot of captives, cursing the day, probably, when their beauty had brought them to the palace, and wishing that they could exchange lots with the humblest of their sisters that breathed the air of freedom. Strange that, with all his spiritual instincts, David could not see that a system which led to such miserable results must lie under the curse of God! <\/p>\n As events proceeded, it appeared that active mischief was likely to arise from Sheba’s movement. He was accompanied by a body of followers, and the king was afraid lest he should get into some fenced city, and escape the correction which his wickedness deserved. He accordingly sent Amasa to assemble the men of Judah, and return within three days. This was Amasa’s first commission after his being appointed general of the troops. Whether he found the people unwilling to go out again immediately to war, or whether they were unwilling to accept him as their general, we are not told, but certainly he tarried longer than the time appointed. Thereupon the king, who was evidently alarmed at the serious dimensions which the insurrection of Sheba was assuming, sent for Abishai, Joab’s brother, and ordered him to take what troops were ready and start immediately to punish Sheba. Abishai took “Joab’s men, and the Cherethites and the Pelethites, and all the mighty men.” With these he went out from Jerusalem to pursue after Sheba. How Joab conducted himself on this occasion is a strange but characteristic chapter of his history. It does not appear that he had any dealings with David, or that David had any dealings with him. He simply went out with his brother, and, being a man of the strongest will and greatest daring, he seems to have resolved on some fit occasion to resume his command in spite of all the king’s arrangements. <\/p>\n They had not gone farther from Jerusalem than the Pool of Gibeon when they were overtaken by Amasa, followed doubtless by his troops. When Joab and Amasa met, Joab, actuated by jealousy towards him as having superseded him in the command of the army, treacherously slew him, leaving his dead body on the ground, and, along with Abishai, prepared to give pursuit after Sheba. An officer of Joab’s was stationed beside Amasa’s dead body, to call on the soldiers, when they saw that their chief was dead, to follow Joab as the friend of David. But the sight of the dead body of Amasa only made them stand still – horrified, most probably, at the crime of Joab, and unwilling to place themselves under one who had been guilty of such a crime. The body of Amasa was accordingly removed from the highway into the field, and his soldiers were then ready enough to follow Joab. Joab was now in undisturbed command of the whole force, having set aside all David’s arrangements as completely as if they had never been made. Little did David thus gain by superseding Joab and appointing Amasa in his room. The son of Zeruiah proved himself again too strong for him. The hideous crime by which he got rid of his rival was nothing to him. How he could reconcile all this with his duty to his king we are unable to see. No doubt he trusted to the principle that “success succeeds,” and believed firmly that if he were able entirely to suppress Sheba’s insurrection and return to Jerusalem with the news that every trace of the movement was obliterated, David would say nothing of the past, and silently restore the general who, with all his faults, did so well in the field. <\/p>\n Sheba was quite unable to offer opposition to the force that was thus led against him. He retreated northwards from station to station, passing in succession through the different tribes, until he came to the extreme northern border of the land. There, in a town called Abel-beth-Maachah, he took refuge, till Joab and his forces, accompanied by the Berites, a people of whom we know nothing, having overtaken him at Abel, besieged the town. Works were raised for the purpose of capturing Abel, and an assault was made on the wall for the purpose of throwing it down. Then a woman, gifted with the wisdom for which the place was proverbial, came to Joab to remonstrate against the siege. The ground of her remonstrance was that the people of Abel had done nothing on account of which their city should be destroyed. Joab, she said, was trying to destroy “a city and a mother in Israel,” and thereby to swallow up the inheritance of the Lord. In what sense was Joab seeking to destroy a mother in Israel? The word seems to be used to denote a mother-city or district capital, on which other places were depending. What you are trying to destroy is not a mere city of Israel, but a city which has its family of dependent villages, all of which must share in the ruin if we are destroyed. But Joab assured the woman that he had no such desire. All that he wished was to get at Sheba, who had taken refuge within the city. If that be all, said the woman, I will engage to throw his head to thee over the wall. It was the interest of the people of the city to get rid of the man who was bringing them into so serious a danger. It was not difficult for them to get Sheba decapitated, and to throw his head over the wall to Joab. By this means the conspiracy was ended. As in Absalom’s case, the death of the leader was the ruin of the cause. No further stand was made by any one. Indeed, it is probable that the great body of Sheba’s followers had fallen away from him in the course of his northern flight, and that only a handful were with him in Abel. So “Joab blew a trumpet, and they retired from the city, every man to his tent. And Joab returned unto Jerusalem, to the king.” <\/p>\n Thus, once again, the land had rest from war. At the close of the chapter we have a list of the chief officers of the kingdom, similar to that given in chapter 8 at the close of David’s foreign wars. It would appear that, peace being again restored, pains were taken by the king to improve and perfect the arrangements for the administration of the kingdom. The changes on the former list are not very numerous. Joab was again at the head of the army; Benaiah, as before, commanded the Cherethites and the Pelethites; Jehoshaphat was still recorder; Sheva (same as Seraiah) was scribe; and Zadok and Abiathar were priests. In two cases there was a change. A new office had been instituted – “Adoram was over the tribute;” the subjugation of so many foreign states which had to pay a yearly tribute to David called for this change. In the earlier list it is said that the king’s sons were chief rulers. No mention is made of king’s sons now; the chief ruler is Ira the Jairite. On the whole, there was little change; at the close of this war the kingdom was administered in the same manner and almost by the same men as before. <\/p>\n There is nothing to indicate that the kingdom was weakened in its external relations by the two insurrections that had taken place against David. It is to be observed that both of them were of very short duration. Between Absalom’s proclamation of himself at Hebron and his death in the wood of Ephraim there must have been a very short interval, not more than a fortnight. The insurrection of Sheba was probably all over in a week. Foreign powers could scarcely have heard of the beginning of the revolts before they heard of the close of them. There would be nothing therefore to give them any encouragement to rebel against David, and they do not appear to have made any such attempt. But in another and higher sense these revolts left painful consequences behind them. The chastening to which David was exposed in connection with them was very humbling. His glory as king was seriously impaired. It was humiliating that he should have had to fly from before his own son. It was hardly less humiliating that he was seen to lie so much at the mercy of Joab. He is unable to depose Joab, and when he tries to do so, Joab not only kills his successor, but takes possession by his own authority of the vacant place. And David can say nothing. In this relation of David to Joab we have a sample of the trials of kings. Nominally supreme, they are often the servants of their ministers and officers. Certainly David was not always his own master. Joab was really above him; frustrated, doubtless, some excellent plans; did great service by his rough patriotism and ready valour, but injured the good name of David and the reputation of his government by his daring crimes. The retrospect of this period of his reign could have given little satisfaction to the king, since he had to trace it, with all its calamities and sorrows, to his own evil conduct. And yet what David suffered, and what the nation suffered, was not, strictly speaking, the punishment of his sin. God had forgiven him his sin. David had sung, “Blessed is the man whose iniquity is forgiven, whose sin is covered.” What he now suffered was not the visitation of God’s wrath, but a fatherly chastening, designed to deepen his contrition and quicken his vigilance. And surely we may say. If the fatherly chastening was so severe, what would the Divine retribution have been? If these things were done in the green tree, what would have been done in the dry? If David, even though forgiven, could not but shudder at all the terrible results of that course of sin which began with his allowing himself to lust after Bathsheba, what must be the feeling of many a lost soul, in the world of woe, recalling its first step in open rebellion against God, and thinking of all the woes, innumerable and unutterable, that have sprung therefrom? Oh, sin, how terrible a curse thou bringest! What serpents spring up from the dragon’s teeth! And how awful the fate of those who awake all too late to a sense of what thou art! Grant, O God, of Thine infinite mercy, that we all may be wise in time; that we may ponder the solemn truth, that “the wages of sin is death”; and that, without a day’s delay, we may flee for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us, and find peace in believing on Him who came to take sin away by the sacrifice of Himself! <\/p>\n 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 David’s men with him, over Jordan? 41 43. Dispute between the men of Judah and the men of … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 19:41”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8564","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8564","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8564"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8564\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8564"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8564"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8564"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"