Ch. 20. Sheba’s Rebellion<\/p>\n
1, 2. Fresh outbreak of rebellion, headed by Sheba<\/p>\n
1<\/strong>. there<\/em> ] At Gilgal. The dispute offered an immediate opening to a bold and ambitious leader, who hoped to restore the sovereignty to the tribe of Benjamin.<\/p>\n a man of Belial<\/em> ] A worthless<\/strong> or wicked<\/strong> man. Cp. 1Sa 10:27<\/span>, and note on 1Sa 1:16<\/span>.<\/p>\n the son of Bichri<\/em> ] Rather, a Bichrite<\/strong>, or member of the clan tracing its descent from Becher the second son of Benjamin (Gen 46:21<\/span>).<\/p>\n part<\/em> ] Better, portion<\/strong>, a different word from that in ch. 2Sa 19:43<\/span>, and the same as that in 1Ki 12:16<\/span>.<\/p>\n the son of Jesse<\/em> ] There is a touch of contempt in this name for David. Cp. 1Sa 20:27<\/span>; 1Sa 20:30-31<\/span>; 1Sa 22:7-9 ; 1Sa 22:13<\/span>; 1Sa 25:10<\/span>.<\/p>\n every man to his tents<\/em> ] Nominally a call to disperse and return to their homes (1Sa 13:2<\/span>; 2Sa 18:17<\/span>); really an invitation to join him in rebellion. The same words served as the signal for the revolt from Rehoboam (1Ki 12:16<\/span>).<\/p>\n The son of Bichri … – <\/B>Rather, a Bichrite, formed like the names Ahohite, Hachmonite, etc. 2Sa 23:8-9<\/span>, and so called from Becher, the son of Benjamin Gen 46:21<\/span>; 1Ch 7:6-8<\/span> Saul was also of this family. It is evident that the transfer of the royalty from their tribe to that of Judah still rankled in the hearts of many Benjamites (2Sa 16:8<\/span> note).<\/P><\/p>\n 2Sa 20:1-5<\/span><\/p>\n And there happened to be there a man of Belial.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Rebellion of Sheba<\/strong><\/p>\n This chapter is a relation of Shebas rebellion.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The trumpet of this new rebellion was a son of Belial, Sheba the son of Bichri, whom God by His providence ordered to be present when this paroxism or hot fit of contention happened betwixt the tribe of Judah and the tribes of Israel as before. The Devil (who loves to fish in troubled waters) strikes in with this opportunity, as a fit hour of temptation for him, and excites this Belialist to blow a trumpet and to sound a retreat in the ears of those Israelites, saying [Seeing the men of Judah say that we have no part in David, but they do monopolize him to themselves] let them have him, and let us choose another for ourselves, hoping that they would choose him, because he was a Benjamite akin to Saul, and supposed to be the chiefest captain under Amasa to Absalom (2Sa 20:1<\/span>.)<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>This Belialist (so-called) was for casting off the yoke of David (as the Hebrew word Belial signifies) and being grieved that the kingdom was translated from Sauls house to David, he bespatters David, calling him the son of Jesse, a private person, so the crown could not descend upon David by inheritance, and therefore (saith he) we are at liberty to choose a new king. This opprobrious title that Sheba gave David here did savour of Saul (who had oft called him so in contempt) and of the old enmity: and possibly Sheba might aggravate to those Israelites, that David had sent Zadock and Abiathar to the men of Judah that they might be persuaded to fetch back the King, but he sent them not to our elders; therefore seeing he hath so slighted us, let us look to our own concerns, and let him look to his (2Sa 20:1<\/span>.)<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Behold how great a flame of fire a little spark doth kindle (Jam 3:5<\/span>) when God gives way thereunto, Shebas presence and influence upon those Israelites, though casual in itself, and as to men, yet was it ordered so by the providence of God, who permitted the devil to blow up this blast of rebellion for several reasons: as<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> first, For a further exercise of Davids faith and patience;<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> secondly, To purge out of Davids kingdom all factious and seditious spirits;<\/p>\n (3)<\/strong> thirdly, To punish Sheba the ringleader of those rebels;<\/p>\n (4)<\/strong> fourthly, To animadvert David to his betraying Uriah, and of his spearing Shimei, and (as some add) of his unjust dealing with his dear Mephibosheth, &c., for these and other sins of David God was pleased to correct him again with this new affliction, before he was well got out of the old. (C. Ness<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Revolt and pursuit of Sheba. –<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>We are first introduced to Sheba, the son of Bichri, or, as it is read by recent commentators, the Bichrite–that is, a member of the family of Becher, the second son of Benjamin. This man was, therefore, by so much related to the clan of Saul. It is difficult to get the old taint out of the blood. Sheba is a minimised Saul, full of hostility to David and all his interests. Even bad men have their opportunity in life. We have seen again and again how easy it is to do mischief. Sheba, a man who probably had no power to construct a positive fame by deeds of beneficence and the origination of statesmanlike policies, had it in his power to set fire to dangerous substances and bring into peril a movement which promised to consummate itself in the happiest results to Israel. The historical instance ought to be a continual lesson. The meanest man may pull down a wall, or set fire to a palace, or whisper a slander concerning the character of a king. The remarkable thing is that whilst society is well aware of all this possibility, it is willing to lend an ear to every wicked speaker Who arises, insisting upon the old and detestable sophism flint although the report may not be wholly and literally true, there yet must be some foundation for it.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Sheba is described in the text as a man of Belial, in other words, a child of the devil. A mans spiriutal parentage is known by the deeds in which he delights. We have in the first verse a kind of double genealogy of Sheba; he is called the son of Bichri, a Benjamite, and he is also described as a man of Belial. It would seem as if in some cases men had a lineal physical descent, and had also a direct spiritual ancestry. Account for it as we may, there are practical differences in spirit and character which would seem almost to suggest two different grades or qualities of human nature. Whilst it is profoundly and sadly true that all men are apostates, and that there is none righteous, no, not one, it is also undeniable that there are chiefs in the army of evil, princes of sin, royal and dominating personages in the whole kingdom of wickedness. They are ingenious in the device of evil; their imagination is afire with the very spirit of perdition; they can invent new departures, striking policies, undreamed-of cruelties, unimaginable wanderings from the path of rectitude. It is most certain that many men simply follow a multitude to do evil; they have little or no invention of their own; they would never originate rebellions or lead insurrections, or devise plots involving great disasters; they are but followers, imitators, echoes not voices, persons who go by the bulk and not by detail, being only of consequence in proportion to their multiudinousness, having no independent spirit of their own when taken one by one.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>David, being now impatient of the insolence of Joab, and willing to avail himself of an opportunity of superseding that able but arrogant captain, gave an appointment to Amasa. As Amasa went forth he encountered an unexpected foe in the person of Joab. It is explained in the text how Joab by a peculiar arrangement of his dress–a girdle bound round his military coat–had contrived to conceal a dagger which would fall out as lie advanced. The dagger falling out thus gave Joab an opportunity of naturally picking it up, as he wished to use it, without exciting the suspicion of Amasa. Thus even in so small a trick the depravity of Joab is made manifest. Taking Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him, Joab smote him in the fifth rib, with but one blow; but that a fatal stroke. Joab would thus tolerate no rivals by whomsoever they might have been appointed. This desperateness of spirit was really part of the greatness of the man,–that is to say, apart from such desperateness he never could have brought to bear all <\/strong>his various faculties of statesman and soldier. Morality has often commented upon the circumstance that great talents should be turned to base uses. So it is the world over: the completer the education as a merely intellectual exercise, the more disastrous is the power to do evil, unless the education has been supported and chastened by adequate moral training. It is mere idolatry to admire greatness alone: when that greatness is held in check by enlightened consciousness, then its recognition really involves an act of worship to him who is the Spirit of Righteousness and the teacher of the world. It is but lust, however, to say that we are not to judge Joab by the morality of a much later age. Morality itself is part of an infinite but most beneficent evolution. Even a good cause may have bad supporters. The cause in which Joab was now engaged was unquestionably a good one, being nothing less than the restoration of David to his kingly position in Israel, and by so much the fulfilment of a divine covenant. Joab had a good cause, but he brought to its support a very questionable character. Is not this same instance repeating itself along the whole line of history? Is not the Church indebted to many a man whose heart is in the world and whose ambition is his only god? Are there not some men eloquent of tongue whose hearts are silent as to true worship? Is not good money often given by polluted hands? (J. Parker, D. D<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Disunion the devils policy.<\/strong><\/p>\n Cyrus, in Herodotus, going to fight against Scythia, coming to a broad river, and not being able to pass over it, cut and divided it into divers arms and sluices, and so made it passable for all his army. This is the devils policy; he laboureth to divide the people of God, and separate us into divers sects and factions, that so he may easily overcome us. This needs no comment. What is needed is that by a spirit of brotherly love we promote the unity of all the churches, and the peace and concord of that to which we belong. May the peace of the church be as a river. Unity is strength. Divide and conquer is Satans watchword to his myrmidons. (C. H. Spurgeon<\/em>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n When the South Carolina convention broke up with a declaration of secession from the north, and the Civil War was thereby proclaimed, there were great jubilations. Bells were rung, cannon saluted, and the street,s were filled with the noise and display of great parades. But what a drama of blood it led to, and what a tragedy of disastrous defeat was its end! (H. O. Mackey<\/em>.)<\/p>\n CHAPTER XX <\/P> Sheba raises an insurrection, and gains a party in Israel<\/I>, 1, 2.<\/P> David shuts up the ten concubines who were defiled by Absalom<\/I>,<\/P> 3.<\/P> Amasa is sent to assemble the men of Judah<\/I>, 4, 5.<\/P> And in the mean time Abishai is sent to pursue Sheba<\/I>, 6, 7.<\/P> Joab treacherously murders Amasa<\/I>, 8-12.<\/P> Joab and the army continue the pursuit of Sheba<\/I>, 13, 14.<\/P> He is besieged in Abel; and, by the counsels of a wise woman,<\/I><\/P> the people of Abel cut off his head, and throw it over the<\/I><\/P> wall to Joab; who blows the trumpet of peace, and he and his<\/I><\/P> men return to Jerusalem<\/I>, 15-22.<\/P> Account of David’s civil and military officers<\/I>, 23-26. <\/P> NOTES ON CHAP. XX<\/P> <\/P> Verse 1<\/span>. Sheba, the son of Bichri<\/B><\/I>] As this man was a Benjamite<\/I>, he probably belonged to the family of Saul; and he seems to have had considerable influence in Israel to raise such an insurrection: but we know nothing farther of him than what is related in this place.<\/P> <\/P> We have no part in David<\/B><\/I>] We of Israel, we of the ten tribes, are under no obligation to the house of David. Leave him, and let every man fall into the ranks under his own leader.<\/P> <\/p>\n There happened to be there; <\/B>his presence was casual in itself, though certain, and ordered by Gods providence. <\/P> Man of Belial; <\/B>a lawless person, one that attempted to shake off the yoke of civil authority. See Deu 13:13<\/span>. <\/P> Benjamite; <\/B>aggrieved at the translation of the kingdom from Saul and that tribe to David. <\/P> We have no part in David:<\/B> the tribe of Judah have monopolized the king to themselves, and will not allow us any share in him; let them therefore enjoy him alone, and let us seek out a new king. <\/P> The son of Jesse; <\/B>an expression of contempt, implying their rejection of him, that he was no more to be owned as their king, but as a private person, as the son of Jesse. <\/P> Every man to his tents; <\/B>let us all desist from this unthankful office of bringing the king back, and go each to our homes, that we may consider, and then meet together to choose a new king. <\/P> <\/p>\n 1. Sheba . . . a Benjamite<\/B>Thoughnothing is known of this man, he must have been a person ofconsiderable power and influence, before he could have raised sosudden and extensive a sedition. He belonged to the tribe ofBenjamin, where the adherents of Saul’s dynasty were still numerous;and perceiving the strong disgust of the other tribes with the partassumed by Judah in the restoration, his ill-designing heart resolvedto turn it to the overthrow of David’s authority in Israel. <\/P> every man to his tents<\/B>Thisproverbial expression may have had its foundation in the fact, thatmany of the Israelite peasantry adhered to the custom of thepatriarchs who tilled land, and yet lived in tents, as Syrianpeasants often do still. This was the usual watchword of nationalinsurrection, and from the actual temper of the people, it wasfollowed by effects beyond what he probably anticipated.<\/P><\/p>\n And there happened to be a man of Belial<\/strong>,…. A wicked man, as the Targum, a lawless, yokeless man, that had cast off the yoke of the law, and was without it, as Belial is by some interpreted; or one unprofitable and useless, yea, noxious and pernicious: this man, though, with respect to second causes, may be said to be there by chance, yet it was so ordered by the providence of God that he should be present at this time for the further fulfilment of the threatening to David, that the sword should not depart from his house:<\/p>\n whose name [was] Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite<\/strong>; one perhaps that had been in the rebellion of Absalom, and had a grudge against David for the removal of the kingdom out of that tribe:<\/p>\n and he blew a trumpet<\/strong>; which was done to draw off the Israelites from David, and gather a party to himself:<\/p>\n and said, we have no part in David<\/strong>; so he interpreted what the men of Judah said, because they claimed kindred to David, the rest of the Israelites had no interest in him; thus they, who just before said they had ten parts in him, now had none at all:<\/p>\n neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse<\/strong>; so he calls David by way of contempt, as if he was no king, but a private person, and a descendant from a mean family:<\/p>\n every man to his tent, O Israel<\/strong>; there to consider what to do, and whom to choose to be their king, and let Judah take David for their king, and enjoy him alone, since they had so slighted, and dealt so injuriously and roughly with the rest of the tribes.<\/p>\n Sheba’s Rebellion. – 2Sa 20:1<\/span>. There happened to be a worthless man there, named Sheba<\/em>, a Benjaminite. He blew the trumpet, and said, “We have no part in David, nor inheritance in the son of Jesse. Every man to his tents, O Israel!” “To his tents,”<\/em> i.e., to his home, as in 2Sa 19:9<\/span>, etc. <\/p>\n 2Sa 20:2<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> All the men of Israel responded to this call, and went up (to the mountains) away from David and after Sheba; but the men of Judah adhered to their king from the Jordan to Jerusalem. The construction of with … is a pregnant one: they adhered to and followed him. The expression “from Jordan”<\/em> does not prove that Sheba’s rebellion broke out at the Jordan itself, and before David’s arrival in Gilgal, but may be accounted for from the fact that the men of Judah had already fetched the king back across the Jordan. <\/p>\n 2Sa 20:3<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> As soon as David returned to his palace at Jerusalem, he brought the ten concubines whom he had left behind, and with whom Absalom had lain, into a place of safety, and took care of them, without going in unto them any more. The masculine suffixes attached to , , and are used, as they frequently are, as being the more general and indefinite, instead of the feminine, which is the more definite form. Thus were they shut up in lifelong widowhood until the day of their death. is an adverbial accusative, and signifies “condition in life;” literally, in widowhood of life.<\/p>\n 2Sa 20:4<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> David then ordered Amasa to call the men of Judah to pursue Sheba the rebel, and attack him within three days, and then to present himself to him again. This commission was intended as the commencement of the fulfilment of the promise which David had given to Amasa (2Sa 19:14<\/span>). It was no doubt his intention to give him the command over the army that marched against Sheba, and after the defeat of the rebel to make him commander-in-chief. But this first step towards the fulfilment of the promise was a very imprudent act, like the promise itself, since Joab, who had been commander of the army for so many years, was grievously offended by it; and moreover, being a well-tried general, he had incomparably more distinction in the tribe of Judah than Amasa, who had taken part in Absalom’s rebellion and even led the rebel army, could possibly have.<\/p>\n 2Sa 20:5-6<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> But when Amasa stayed out beyond the time fixed for the execution of the royal commission (the Chethib<\/em> is the Piel<\/em> , whilst the Keri<\/em> is either the Hiphil<\/em> , or the imperfect Kal<\/em> of = , cf. , 2Sa 20:9<\/span>, and is quite unnecessary), probably because the men of Judah distrusted him, and were not very ready to respond to his summons, David said to Abishai, “Now will Sheba the son of Bichri be more injurious (more dangerous) to us than Absalom. Take thou the servants (soldiers) of thy lord and pursue after him, lest he reach fortified cities, and tear out our eye<\/em>,” i.e., do us a serious injury. This is the correct explanation given by Bttcher, who refers to Deu 32:10<\/span> and Zec 2:12<\/span>, where the apple of the eye is the figure used to signify the most valuable possession; for the general explanation, “and withdraw from our eye,” cannot be grammatically sustained.<\/p>\n 2Sa 20:7<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Thus there went after him<\/em> (Abishai) Joab’s men<\/em> (the corps commanded by Joab), and the Crethi and Plethi <\/em> (see at 2Sa 8:18<\/span>), out of Jerusalem, to pursue Sheba.<\/p>\n 2Sa 20:8<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> “When they were by the great stone at Gibeon, and Amasa came to meet them (there), Joab was girded with his armour-coat as his clothing, and the girdle of the sword was bound over it upon his loins in its sheath, which came out, and it fell (i.e., the sheath came out of the sword-belt in which it was fastened, and the sword fell to the ground), Joab said to Amasa,” etc. The eighth verse contains only circumstantial clauses, the latter of which (from onwards) are subordinate to the earlier ones, so that (2Sa 20:9<\/span>) is attached to the first clause, which describes the meeting between the advancing army and Amasa.<\/p>\n There is something striking, however, in the fact that Joab appears among them, and indeed, as we see from what follows, as the commander of the forces; for according to 2Sa 20:6<\/span>, David had commissioned Abishai, Joab’s brother, to pursue Sheba, and even in 2Sa 20:7<\/span> Joab’s men only are mentioned. This difficulty can hardly be solved in any other manner than by the simple assumption that David had told Abishai to go out with Joab, and that this circumstance is passed over in the brief account in 2Sa 20:6<\/span>, in which the principal facts alone are given, and consequently the name of Joab does not occur there. Clericus adopts the following explanation. “Mention,” he says, “has hitherto been made simply of the command given to Abishai, but this included an order to Joab to go as well; and there is nothing to preclude the supposition that Joab’s name was mentioned by the king, although this is not distinctly stated in the brief account before us.”<\/p>\n (Note: This difficulty cannot be removed by emendations of the text, inasmuch as all the early translators, with the exception of the Syriac, had our Hebrew text before them. Thenius does indeed propose to alter Abishai<\/em> into Joab<\/em> in 2Sa 20:6<\/span>, after the example of Josephus and the Syriac; but, as Bttcher observes, if Joab<\/em> had originally formed part of the text, it could not have been altered into Abishai either accidentally or intentionally, and the Syriac translators and Josephus have inserted Joab<\/em> merely from conjecture, because they inferred from what follows that Joab’s name ought to be found here. But whilst this is perfectly true, there is no ground for Bttcher’s own conjecture, that in the original text 2Sa 20:6<\/span> read as follows: “Then David said to Joab, Behold, the three days are gone: shall we wait for Amasa?” and through the copyist’s carelessness a whole line was left out. For this conjecture has no tenable support in the senseless reading of the Cod. Vat<\/em>., for .)<\/p>\n 2Sa 20:9-10<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> Joab asked Amasa how he was, and laid hold of his bear with his right hand to kiss him. And as Amasa took no heed of the sword in Joab’s hand, he smote him with it in the paunch (abdomen), and shed out his bowels upon the ground, “ and repeated not<\/em> (the stroke) to him<\/em> ” (cf. 1Sa 26:8<\/span>). Laying hold of the beard to kiss is still customary among Arabs and Turks as a sign of friendly welcome (vid., Arvieux, Merkwrdige Nachrichten<\/em>, iv. p. 182, and Harmar, Beobachtungen<\/em>, ii. p. 61). The reason for this assassination was Joab’s jealousy of Amasa. Joab and Abishai then followed Sheba.<\/p>\n 2Sa 20:11<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> One of Joab’s attendants remained standing by him (Amasa), no doubt at Joab’s command, and said to the people who came thither, i.e., to the men of Judah who were collected together by Amasa (vid., 2Sa 20:4<\/span>), “He that favoureth Joab, and he that (is) for David, let him (go) after Joab,” i.e., follow him to battle against Sheba.<\/p>\n 2Sa 20:12-13<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> Amasa lay wallowing in blood in the midst of the road; and when the man (the attendant) saw that all the people stood still (by the corpse), he turned (pushed) Amasa from the road to the field, and threw a cloth over him, whereupon they all passed by and went after Joab.<\/p>\n 2Sa 20:14<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> But Joab “went through all the tribes of Israel to Abela, and Beth-maacah, and all Berim.” Abela<\/em> (2Sa 20:15<\/span>), or Abel<\/em> (2Sa 20:18<\/span>), has been preserved in the large Christian village of Abil<\/em>, a place with ruins, and called Abil-el-Kamh<\/em> on account of its excellent wheat ( Kamh<\/em>), which lies to the north-west of Lake Huleh, upon a Tell on the eastern side of the river Derdra<\/em>; not in Ibl-el-Hawa<\/em>, a place to the north of this, upon the ridge between Merj Ayun<\/em> and Wady et Teim<\/em> (vid., Ritter, Erdk<\/em>. xv. pp. 240, 241; Robinson<\/em>, Bibl<\/em>. Researches<\/em>, pp. 372-3; and v. de Velde, Mem<\/em>. p. 280). Beth-maacah<\/em> was quite close to Abela; so that the names of the two places are connected together in 2Sa 20:15<\/span>, and afterwards, as Abel-beth-maacah<\/em> (vid., 1Ki 15:20<\/span>, and 2Ki 15:29<\/span>), also called Abel-maim<\/em> in 2Ch 16:4<\/span>. Berim<\/em> is the name of a district which is unknown to us; and even the early translators did not know how to render it. There is nothing, however, either in the is the lxx or the omnes viri electi <\/em> of the Vulgate, to warrant an alteration of the text. The latter, in fact, rests upon a mere conjecture, which is altogether unsuitable; for the subject to cannot be on account of the vav consec<\/em>., but must be obtained from . The Chethib<\/em> is evidently a slip of the pen for .<\/p>\n 2Sa 20:15<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> They besieged him (Sheba) in Abel-beth-maacah, and piled up a rampart against the city<\/em>, so that it rose up by the town-moat<\/em> ( , the moat with the low wall belonging to it); and all the people with Joab destroyed to throw down the wall<\/em>.<\/p>\n 2Sa 20:16-18<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> Then a wise woman of the city desired to speak to Joab, and said (from the wall) to him (2Sa 20:18<\/span>), “They were formerly accustomed to say, ask Abel; and so they brought (a thing) to pass.” These words show that Abel had formerly been celebrated for the wisdom of its inhabitants.<\/p>\n 2Sa 20:19<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> “I am of the peaceable, faithful in Israel: thou seekest to slay a city and mother in Israel; wherefore wilt thou destroy the inheritance of Jehovah?” The construing of with a predicate in the plural may be explained on the simple ground that the woman spoke in the name of the city as well as in its favour, and therefore had the citizens in her mind at the time, as is very evident from the figurative expression (mother) for mother-city or capital.<\/p>\n (Note: The correctness of the text is not to be called in question, as Thenius and Bttcher suppose, for the simple reason that all the older translators have followed the Hebrew text, including even the lxx with their ; whereas the words , which some of the MSS contain at the close of 2Sa 20:18<\/span> after , and upon which Thenius and Bttcher have founded their conjectures, are evidently a gloss or paraphrase of , and of so little value on critical grounds, that Tischendorf did not even think the reading worth mentioning in his edition of the Septuagint.)<\/p>\n The woman gave Joab to understand, in the first place, that he ought to have asked the inhabitants of Abela whether they intended to fight for Sheba before commencing the siege and destruction of the town, according to the law laid down in Deu 20:10<\/span>. with reference to the siege of foreign towns; and secondly, that he ought to have taken into consideration the peaceableness and fidelity of the citizens of Abela, and not to destroy the peace-loving citizens and members of the nation of God.<\/p>\n 2Sa 20:20<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> The woman’s words made an impression upon Joab. He felt the truthfulness of her reproaches, and replied, “Far be it, far be it from me, to swallow up or destroy.” , as in the case of oaths: “ truly not<\/em>.” <\/p>\n 2Sa 20:21<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> “It is not so (sc., as thou sayest), but a man of the mountains of Ephraim (which extended into the tribe of Benjamin: see at 1Sa 1:1<\/span>), Sheba the son of Bichri, hath lifted up his hand against the king David. Only give him up, and I will draw away from the city.” The woman promised him this: “Behold, his head shall be thrown out to thee over the wall.” <\/p>\n 2Sa 20:22<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> She then came to all the people (i.e., the citizens of the town) “ with her wisdom<\/em>,” i.e., with the wise counsel which she had given to Joab, and which he had accepted; whereupon the citizens cut off Sheba’s head, and threw it out to Joab. Then Joab had a trumpet blown for a retreat, and the men disbanded, whilst he himself returned to Jerusalem to the king.<\/p>\n Sheba’s Rebellion.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 1023.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE> 1 And there happened to be there a man of Belial, whose name was<\/I> Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite: and he blew a trumpet, and said, We have no part in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: every man to his tents, O Israel. 2 So every man of Israel went up from after David, and<\/I> followed Sheba the son of Bichri: but the men of Judah clave unto their king, from Jordan even to Jerusalem. 3 And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his<\/I> concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and fed them, but went not in unto them. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood.<\/P> David, in the midst of his triumphs, has here the affliction to see his kingdom disturbed and his family disgraced.<\/P> I. His subjects revolting from him at the instigation of a man of Belial,<\/I> whom they followed when they forsook the man after God’s own heart.<\/I> Observe, 1. That this happened immediately upon the crushing of Absalom’s rebellion. We must not think it strange, while we are in this world, if the end of one trouble be the beginning of another: deep sometimes calls unto deep. 2. That the people were now just returning to their allegiance, when, of a sudden, they flew off from it. When a reconciliation is newly made, it ought to be handled with great tenderness and caution, lest the peace break again before it be settled. A broken bone, when it is set, must have time to knot. 3. That the ring-leader of this rebellion was Sheba, a Benjamite by birth (v.<\/I><\/span> 1<\/span>), who had his habitation in Mount Ephraim, v.<\/I><\/span>Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n