SS Lesson Archive Week 5

Fairview Baptist Church
2040 Main Street WW - Ashland, Kentucky 41102
"Where Everybody Is Somebody and Jesus is Lord"

1. What took place between the end of chapter 12 and the beginning of chapter 15?

8. Why do you think David fled from Jerusalem and let Absalom occupy it (v. 14)?

11. What does David’s choice to leave Jerusalem rather than stay and fight teach us about our pride as we deal with crises?

13. Do you think Zadok or David ordered the ark of the covenant of God to go with the people?

16. As we consider David’s response to the crisis thus far, what do we learn about dealing with crises in life?

21. Why is it important that we consider the well-being of other people as we seek to deal with our own crises?

3. According to verse 30, how would you describe David’s mental state as he left the city along with much of his family and many willing volunteers?

5. What did David do when he learned that Ahithophel, one of his counselors, had joined Absalom’s revolt (v. 31)?

16. What examples do we see of David continuing to rely on and accept the help of his friends?

17. What are some times in your live that God has worked on your behalf through others?

18. What are the usual options of how to respond when willing friends and acquaintances offer to assist in times of crisis?

19. What is the danger in saying, “I don’t want to be a bother”? Why would we be willing to suffer unnecessarily for pride’s sake?

20. Knowing that some people will not ask for help, what can our class do to make sure we are there for our friends when they need us?

12. Do you think Joab placed himself at risk by his speaking to the king in this manner? Why, or why not?

19. What do we learn about resuming our responsibilities even though we may still be in grief?

21. Why is it necessary in times of crisis to listen to the wise counsel of others?

22. What usually results when we get hold of our emotions, trust God, and resume our responsibilities in times of crisis?

Lesson Outline, Introduction, Discussion Questions, and Conclusion adapted from the following sources:

SOURCE: Bible Studies For Life: Life Ventures Leaders Guide; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234

SOURCE: The Herschel Hobbs Commentary; Family Bible Study; by Robert J. Dean; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; 1 LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.

COMMENTARY:

(NOTE: Commentary for the focal verses comes from two sources: “The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Old Testament” and “The Old Testament Survey Series: The Books Of History” and is provided for your study.)

I. Continue to Trust God (2 Sam. 15:13-14,24-26) Commentary

A narrative whose main subject is fleeing is likely to contain a large number of verbs of motion, and vv. 13-37 are no exception. The most important of them are ‘br (“pass by, cross over, move on, march”), which occurs nine times (vv. 18 [bis], 22 [bis], 23 [ter], 24 [“leaving”], 33 [“go”]); shwb (“return, go back”) eight times (vv. 19, 20, 20 [“take”], 25 [“take,” “bring ... back”], 27, 29 [“took ... back”], 34); bw’ (“come, enter, arrive”) seven times (vv. 13, 18 [“accompanied”], 20, 28, 32, 37 [bis]); and hlk (“go, walk, come”) seven times (vv. 14 [“leave”], 19, 20 [three times, two of which are rendered as portions of other idioms in the interests of English style], 22, 30 [“was barefoot,” lit., “was walking barefoot”]).

In his discussion of the Court History of David, Wharton makes an especially noteworthy observation concerning vv. 13-37:

All the utterly real issues between people and people and between God and people that swirl throughout 2 Samuel 9-20, 1 Kings 1-2 also swirl about Jesus as he moves toward the cross. One must think that the Gospel writers were acutely aware of this when they depicted Jesus’ Maundy Thursday walk to the Mount of Olives in ways so graphically reminiscent of the “passion” of the first Meshiach in 2 Samuel 15:13-37. Even the detail of Judas’ betrayal of Jesus, and his subsequent suicide, have no remote parallel anywhere in Scripture, with the remarkable exception of Ahithophel, who betrayed the Lord’s anointed and thus opened the door to suicidal despair (2 Samuel 17:23).

The literary unit divides naturally into four roughly equal sections. A paragraph summarizing the preparations for and the beginning of the flight (vv. 13-18) is followed by David’s instructions to three of his supporters, one at the outset of the journey (Ittai, vv. 19-23) and the other two en route (one to Zadok, vv. 24-31; the other to Hushai, vv. 32-37).

15:13-18 Wayyabo’ (“came,” “arrived”) begins vv. 13 and 37, thus becoming a part of an inclusio that brackets the entire literary unit (vv. 13-37). The word rendered “messenger” (v. 13; cf. Jer 51:31) is a participial form of ngd (“tell”; cf. 18:11) and refers to one who brings a report, usually a bearer of bad news, as in this case: The hearts of the men of Israel are now “with” Absalom; they are following him with total devotion (for the idiom, cf. 1 Kings 11:4, where the heart of David’s son Solomon is described as having been turned “after” other gods [same Heb. word in both cases]) because he “stole the[ir] hearts” (see v. 6). Thus Israel’s “gift of the kingdom to David is revoked.... The kingdom is now taken from him.”

David sees no way out but to “flee” (v. 14; cf. the title of Psalm 3), an activity that is not new to him (cf. 1 Sam 19:12, 18; 22:17) — and a cruelly ironic twist on Absalom’s earlier flight from Jerusalem to escape his father (see 13:34, 37-38). To his officials David counsels the utmost speed (mhr “immediately”) since Absalom can be expected to “move quickly” (mhr). If Absalom succeeds in overtaking David and his men, they will be brought to ruin and Jerusalem will be “put ... to the sword,” a terrifying fate at best (see 1 Sam 22:19).

Loyal to a fault (v. 15), the king’s “officials” indicate that they, his “servants” (same Heb. word; 1 Sam 1:11; 16:15-16), are ready to abide by whatever decision he “chooses” (bhr perhaps a deliberate wordplay on brh [“flee”] in v. 14). And so it is (vv. 16-17) that “the king set out, with” virtually everyone in the palace (“his entire household,” v. 16; “all the people,” v. 17) “following him.” In addition to his numerous wives (3:2; 12:8; 1 Sam 25:43), David also had many concubines (see 5:13), ten of whom he leaves behind to take care of the palace. Ahithophel would soon counsel the triumphant usurper, Absalom, to have sexual relations with David’s concubines in full public view (cf. 16:21-22), as a result of which David would eventually put them under house arrest “till the day of their death” (20:3).

The first stop reached by the fleeing king and his retinue is a “place some distance away” (bet hammerhaq v. 17), perhaps the “last house” on the eastern edge of Jerusalem. David pauses temporarily as all his officials, together with his crack mercenary corps (the “Kerethites and Pelethites,” v. 18), march on ahead. In addition, “six hundred” (cf. 1 Sam 23:13; 27:2; 30:9; for the significance of the number) “Gittites” (originally citizens of the Philistine city of Gath [modern Tell es-Safi, about twenty-four miles west-southwest of Jerusalem]), doubtless also mercenaries, march before the king. By any reckoning David has a sizable and dependable military force to protect him from whatever contingency might arise from Absalom’s delusions of grandeur.

15:19-23 The first high official in David’s retinue to whom the king speaks is Ittai (v. 19), the leader of the Gittite mercenaries, who is apparently considered trustworthy enough to share command of Israelite troops as well (18:2). Apparently of Philistine origin, the name Ittai can hardly be separated from Itiya and Witiya, names of one or more governors of the Philistine city of Ashkelon who appear in several Amarna letters written almost four centuries before the time of David. Since the name is non-Semitic, it does not mean “(God Is) With Me” or the like. Although ‘ittay (“Ittai”) is found in association with ‘ittanu (“with us,” v. 19) and ‘itto (“with him,” v. 22), the appearance of the alternate forms ‘immanu (“with us”) and ‘immak (“with you,” v. 20) at a greater distance from “Ittai” make it more likely that the ‘itt- forms are wordplays than that they are attempts to define the name.

Addressing Ittai, David wants to know why “you” (v. 19), of all people (the pronoun is emphatic), would wish to accompany him in his flight. “The king” (David) recommends that Ittai return to Jerusalem and stay with “the king” (thus the MT; the NIV renders “King Absalom” to resolve the ambiguity). It would seem that David considers Absalom’s coup d’etat a fait accompli (cf. v. 34). Ittai has nothing to gain and everything to lose by remaining with David. After all, he is already a displaced person from his Philistine homeland. Because of Ittai’s recent arrival on the scene, David is reluctant to make him “wander about” (v. 20; cf. Ps 59:11), like the Israelites in the Sinai desert (cf. Num 32:13), on a journey of uncertain destination. Commending him to the “kindness and faithfulness” of God (for the importance of this phrase to covenant relationships, see 2:6), he therefore commands him to return to Jerusalem with his fellow Gittites.

Not to be dissuaded, however, Ittai takes the most solemn of oaths (v. 21; 1 Sam 14:39; 20:3; 25:26) as he swears undying loyalty to David. Like Ruth before him in a similar situation (cf. Ruth 1:16-17), Ittai pledges that he will never leave the king, whether in “life or death” (a Deuteronomic phrase, cf. Deut 30:15, 19). And as in the case of Naomi (cf. Ruth 1:18), David—however reluctantly—honors Ittai’s determination and agrees to let him march on, together with all his men and “the families” that are with him.

Whatever problems certain citizens of Jerusalem and other towns may have with David (v. 6), people living in the countryside see him in a different light. He is their king—and as he and his followers pass by, the people weep “aloud” (v. 23; cf. 1 Sam 28:12 [“at the top of her voice”]) as an expression of their fear for an uncertain future. Prefiguring the passion of another anointed King centuries later (cf. John 18:1), David crosses the Kidron Valley, a stream bed east of Jerusalem that is dry most of the year. Large numbers of his followers continue on toward the northern part of the Desert of Judah, David and his immediate retainers apparently moving along at a somewhat slower pace (cf. 16:1).

Just as vv. 30-31 serve as a transition between David’s conversations with Zadok and Hushai, so also v. 23 serves as a natural segue from David’s discussion with Ittai to that with Zadok.

15:24-31 Sharing priestly duties during at least part of the reign of David, Zadok and Abiathar (v. 24; 20:25; 1 Sam 22:20) decide to accompany him on his flight from Jerusalem. Not wanting to leave the ark of the covenant in the city and perhaps trusting in its supposed powers as a military palladium if war should break out (see 1 Sam 4:3-4), Levites carry it (6:13; 1 Sam 6:15) across the Kidron. As during another procession of the ark (see 6:13), the Levites halt long enough for sacrifices to be offered. The ceremony continues until all the refugees have left Jerusalem (cf. similarly Josh 3:17; 4:11).

David’s instructions to Zadok are divided into two parts, the first having to do with the return of the ark to Jerusalem (vv. 25-26) and the second with the role of Zadok and Abiathar as listening posts there to keep David informed of important developments concerning Absalom’s burgeoning rebellion (vv. 27-29). Sensing no need for the ark to accompany him, David directs Zadok to take it back to the city (v. 25). Like Gideon (cf. Judg 6:17), he hopes to “find favor in the LORD’s eyes” (cf. also Gen 6:8). Indeed, he is prepared to resign himself to the will of God, to whatever seems good “to him” (v. 26, lit., “in his eyes”). David is confident that if the Lord so chooses, he will bring him back to Jerusalem to see again not only the ark in its proper setting but also the Lord’s “dwelling place” (v. 25), probably in this context a reference to the city itself (cf. Isa 33:20, where Jerusalem is called a peaceful “abode” [same Heb. word in both cases]). But if the Lord declares that he is not “pleased” with David (v. 26)—unlike during his many experiences of fleeing from his enemies, when he reveled in the fact that the Lord “delighted” in him (22:20; same Heb. word)—he will accept that also with equanimity. Like the Gibeonites in the presence of Joshua (cf. Josh 9:25, the wording of which is echoed here), David is “ready” to throw himself on the mercy of the court (the equivalent of hineni [“I am ready”], the characteristic response of the servant [often translated “Here I am”; cf. Gen 22:1, 11], is rendered simply “We are” in Josh 9:25). As the people of Gibeon were prepared to accept “whatever seems good” to Joshua, so David is resigned to “whatever seems good” to the Lord.

In both verses of his second statement to Zadok (vv. 27-28), David begins with a form of the verb r’h (“see”; re’u [“See”] at the beginning of v. 28 is omitted by the NIV in the interests of style). Although “Aren’t you a seer?” (v. 27) is a possible translation of hrw’h ‘th (for the role of a seer in ancient Israel, see 1 Sam 9:9), the Hebrew phrase is not stated negatively. In addition, the presence of r’w in v. 28 (the same word is translated “Listen!” in 13:28) makes it likely that the two expressions should be understood in the same way. “Do you see?” (in the sense of an imperative “See,” “Look”) would parallel nicely the “See” that begins v. 28 (for a similar example compare hr’h ‘th [“do you see,” Ezek 8:6] with hr’yt [“do you see,” “have you seen”] in the same context [Ezek 8:12, 15, 17]; cf. 1 Sam 10:24; 17:25). If it be argued that Zadok is here called a “seer” because his divinely imparted knowledge will enable him to “inform” David (v. 28), it is necessary to point out that (1) ordinary human knowledge is sufficient to “inform” (the verb, a participial form of which occurs in v. 13 [“messenger”], commonly means simply “tell”); (2) more than one person will “inform” David (the “you” before “to inform” is plural); (3) when “Zadok does inform David, it is because he in his turn is informed by Hushai (2 Sam. xvii 15), not because of Zadok’s position as oracle priest.”

Zadok will be of more help to David back in Jerusalem than if he flees with him, so David tells him to return to the city with his son Ahimaaz and Abiathar’s son Jonathan (v. 27). “Ahimaaz” and “Jonathan” have occurred already in the books of Samuel as the names of other men (1 Sam 13:2; 14:50). (Zadok’s son Ahimaaz as well as Abiathar have been suggested as possible authors of David’s Court History.) The specificity (and perhaps also the urgency) of David’s request is underscored by his addendum: “your [pl.] two sons with you [pl.]” (v. 27; the NIV prefaces the phrase with “You and Abiathar take” to clarify in English the Heb. intention). David wants to make sure that Zadok understands that the two priests and their two sons—all four of them—are to return to Jerusalem.

As for David himself, he will continue on his way and wait at the “fords [reading ‘abrot with the Kethiv; cf. 17:16, where many MSS likewise read ‘abrot instead of ‘arbot (thus Qere in v. 28), “steppes”] in the desert” (v. 28) on the west bank of the Jordan (cf. 17:16; cf. further 19:18). Although the exact site is unknown, “fords” is a more likely reading than “steppes” because “it gives a more specific location for the purpose of passing on the information.” David expects Zadok and Abiathar to be involved together in gathering data about Absalom’s plans (“you” in v. 28 is plural). Following David’s instructions (v. 29), the two men “took” (the verb is singular, stressing Zadok’s primary responsibility) the ark back to Jerusalem (cf. vv. 25-26) and “stayed” (pl.) there (cf. vv. 27-28).

After dismissing Zadok and Abiathar, David ascends the storied hill east of Jerusalem (cf. 1 Kings 11:7; Ezek 11:23), the Mount of Olives (v. 30)—eventually linked to Jesus’ triumphal entry (cf. Luke 19:29, 37), his teaching ministry (the so-called Olivet discourse; cf. Mark 13:3), his agony at Gethsemane (cf. Luke 22:39), his ascension (cf. Acts 1:11-12), and his second advent (cf. Zech 14:4). Facing the eminence on which Solomon’s temple was later built, the Mount of Olives is about twenty-seven hundred feet high and rises about two hundred feet above the city itself. As David and the people with him climb the hill, they express their sorrow and sense of love by “weeping” (v. 30) and their despair and sense of foreboding by covering their heads (cf. Esth 6:12; 7:8; Jer 14:3-4). In addition, David walks barefoot to symbolize the shameful exile on which he is now embarking (cf. Isa 20:2-3; cf. similarly Mic 1:8).

“Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown,” wrote William Shakespeare (KH IV, part 2, 3.1.31). A harried king feels surrounded by conspirators (cf. v. 12; 1 Sam 22:8, 13), and David’s intelligence network (see 10:5) informs David that Ahithophel (see v. 12) is among them (cf. v. 31). The news alarms David, and he turns to God for help. “It was clear to David ... that Ahithophel as counsellor of the king not only held one of the highest court positions of confidence but also that whoever had the benefit of this advice in political or military matters would be successful.... This makes all the more understandable why David appealed as a last resort to the only power he thought able to intervene and to disqualify the counsel of a man considered practically infallible.”

15:32-37 The summit of the Mount of Olives was a place “where people used to worship God” (v. 32)—and where false gods would later be worshiped (cf. 1 Kings 11:7). Upon arriving there David finds Hushai the Arkite waiting to “meet” him (qr’; cf. also 16:1), his robe “torn” (qr‘; the wordplay is perhaps intentional) and dust on his head (signs of anguish and distress 1:2; 13:19; 1 Sam 4:12). Hushai’s clan, the Arkites (‘arki), lived near Ataroth (cf. Josh 16:2) “in NE Ephraim on the border with Manasseh” and should not be confused with the Arkites (‘arqi) who were one of the ten traditional tribal groups in the Canaanite orbit (cf. Gen 10:17) and who lived in Arqat, modern Tell Arqa (about 120 miles north-northeast of the Sea of Galilee).

As in the case of Zadok and Abiathar (cf. vv. 24-29), David is convinced that Hushai will be of more value to him back in Jerusalem than as a fellow refugee. Hushai will only be a “burden” to the king if he accompanies him (v. 33; cf. 19:35 for Barzillai’s perspective self-evaluation in the parallel section; cf. also Num 11:11, 17; Job 7:20). David therefore tells Hushai to return to the city and promise Absalom the same kind of faithful service that he had already given to David himself (v. 34). By becoming a member of Absalom’s inner council, Hushai would be able to assist David by “frustrating” Ahithophel’s advice (a not uncommon role of competent and clever counselors in ancient times; cf. Ezra 4:5). David had already prayed that the Lord would turn Ahithophel’s “counsel” into foolishness (v. 31), and now he is convinced that Hushai can be a divinely empowered instrument to accomplish the goal of “frustrating” (and so it would be; cf. 17:14) Ahithophel’s “advice” (v. 34; same Heb. word as that for “counsel” in v. 31). Hushai thus becomes a key link in David’s resources of “statecraft and espionage in order to counter the sagacity of Ahithophel.”

Zadok and Abiathar are to be David’s eyes and ears in the palace while the king is fleeing (see v. 28), and he wants Hushai to collaborate with them by telling them anything he hears there (v. 35; “you hear” is singular). The three men will then send the priests’ two sons to David with whatever helpful information they have been able to gather (v. 36; “Send” and “you hear” are plural).

And so it is that Absalom, the king’s treasonous son, and Hushai, the king’s loyal “friend” (v. 37; 16:16), arrive at Jerusalem simultaneously.

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Old Testament; Frank E. Gaebelein; General Editor; Zondervan Publishing House; A Division of Harper Collins Publishers

The Old Testament Survey Series: The Books Of History (2 Sam. 15:1- [13-14,24-26] - 37)

From the moment Absalom set foot on Israelite soil he plotted the overthrow of his father. The handsome devil, as some have called him, used several tactics not unfamiliar to the Christian. Satan often uses the same tactics in an effort to get people to join his rebellion against heaven’s king.

First, Absalom put on a big show to impress his countrymen. He secured a chariot and horses. This is the first recorded use of horses by a member of the royal family. Compared to the mule which David used for transportation, these horses must indeed have been impressive. Furthermore, fifty runners preceded Absalom as he rode into the city. These advance PR men stirred up the crowds to give the crown prince a royal welcome (15:1).

Second, Absalom worked hard. He rose early and stood beside the way of the gate to greet the people much as a modern politician might “pump the flesh” at a factory entrance at the start of the morning shift. No palace hours for this prince!

Third, he showed a personal interest in all who came to the gate with court cases. He would inquire about the litigant’s city and the nature of his case. Fourth, Absalom used flattery to good advantage. He would always agree that the legal claim of each petitioner was right. Fifth, he treated the litigants as more or less equals. If any came near to do obeisance Absalom would take hold of the man and greet him with a kiss upon the cheek. This crown prince developed the reputation of being down to earth, just one of the common folks.

Sixth, Absalom sought to discredit the king in the eyes of his subjects. He pointed out to each petitioner that no one was present to hear cases on behalf of the king. The implication was that King David was derelict in duty. Absalom would openly express the desire that he might be appointed judge so that he might render justice to all who sought it (15:2-5).

By these six stratagems Absalom was able to steal away the hearts of the men of Israel. After four years of preparation Absalom was ready to launch his rebellion (15:6).

Absalom went to his father and requested permission to go to Hebron to honor a vow which he had made while still living in Geshur. While in exile, he had sworn that if he was restored to Jerusalem he would “serve Yahweh.” Since David was a man of piety, he was anxious to encourage any spiritual inclination on the part of a son, especially this son. Suspecting nothing, David put his blessing on Absalom’s trip. Absalom chose Hebron as the site to launch his rebellion because (1) it was in the heart of Judah, his base of support; (2) it was a royal city antedating Jerusalem; (3) it was the town where Absalom had been born (2 Sam 3:3); and (4) it was a safe distance from Jerusalem where David’s soldiers might crush the revolt before it gained momentum (15:7-9).

Absalom dispatched secret agents throughout the tribes of Israel to alert his supporters that the moment was near. A trumpet signal relayed across the land would indicate that Absalom had been declared king (15:10).

Two hundred of the leading citizens of Jerusalem were invited to accompany the crown prince to Hebron. They had no idea that they were being used by a rebel. Absalom wanted it to appear in Jerusalem that his rebellion had massive support among the national leaders. He sent for the influential Ahithophel, David’s counselor, who previously had assured Absalom of his support. Why Ahithophel was willing to back a revolt against David is not stated in the text.^22-2 His support, however, gave the entire effort credibility. The sacred historian indicates that the conspiracy was strong. Absalom’s following kept on increasing (15:11-12).

A messenger arrived at David’s palace with the news that the hearts of the men of Israel were with Absalom. David seems to have panicked. He ordered an immediate evacuation of Jerusalem. He probably wished to spare the capital the agony of a protracted siege. The king stressed the urgency of quickly departing from the city lest the forces loyal to Absalom overtake and slaughter them. The servants pledged themselves to do whatever the king ordered. Their support for David’s plan to flee indicates that militarily evacuation was the best option (15:13-15).

David probably anticipated that his absence from Jerusalem would be of short duration. He therefore left ten of his concubines to tend the palace. He never anticipated that these women would become pawns in Absalom’s bid for power (15:16).

The royal entourage stopped at the last house within the city limits. David sadly watched his servants and his six hundred foreign personal bodyguards march out before him (15:17-18).

At various points along the exit route David was met by friends who in different ways expressed their support for their humiliated king.

Ittai the Gittite (15:19-23). David questioned Ittai the Gittite, the commander of the king’s guards, as to why he was leaving. The royal bodyguard should remain with the new king. Ittai had only recently cast his lot with David. He did not need to feel obligated to follow David into an uncertain future. Ittai, however, replied that he would serve David wherever he may go and even to death. After hearing this resolute commitment, David permitted Ittai and his men and their families to leave Jerusalem with him. The sad procession marched down Mt. Zion, across the Kidron, up the ascent of Olivet in the direction of the wilderness. All the country was weeping with a loud voice (15:19-23).

Zadok and Abiathar (15:24-29). The chief priests Zadok and Abiathar and the Levites who where in Jerusalem stood beside the ark of God as David and his supporters exited the city. David ordered the ark returned to the city. He reasoned that if God showed him favor he would eventually return to Jerusalem to the ark and Yahweh’s habitation. Yet if the Lord no longer took delight in David, this man of faith was prepared to accept whatever future God might have planned for him. Zadok and his sons could do David a great service by keeping him informed of developments in Jerusalem. David would wait at the fords of the Jordan until he received directions from Zadok. Since this priest was also a seer (prophet), David trusted his insight into the what actions he should take in response to Absalom’s threat (15:24-29).

SOURCE: The Old Testament Survey Series: The Books Of History; By James E. Smith; College Press Publishing Company, Joplin, Missouri.

II. Don’t Isolate Yourself from Others (2 Sam. 15:30-37) Commentary

15:24-31 Sharing priestly duties during at least part of the reign of David, Zadok and Abiathar (v. 24; 20:25; 8:17; 1 Sam 22:20) decide to accompany him on his flight from Jerusalem. Not wanting to leave the ark of the covenant in the city and perhaps trusting in its supposed powers as a military palladium if war should break out (see 1 Sam 4:3-4), Levites carry it (see 6:13; 1 Sam 6:15) across the Kidron. As during another procession of the ark (see 6:13), the Levites halt long enough for sacrifices to be offered. The ceremony continues until all the refugees have left Jerusalem (cf. similarly Josh 3:17; 4:11).

In both verses of his second statement to Zadok (vv. 27-28), David begins with a form of the verb r’h (“see”; re’u [“See”] at the beginning of v. 28 is omitted by the NIV in the interests of style). Although “Aren’t you a seer?” (v. 27) is a possible translation of hrw’h ‘th (for the role of a seer in ancient Israel, see 1 Sam 9:9), the Hebrew phrase is not stated negatively. In addition, the presence of r’w in v. 28 (the same word is translated “Listen!” in 13:28) makes it likely that the two expressions should be understood in the same way. “Do you see?” (in the sense of an imperative “See,” “Look”) would parallel nicely the “See” that begins v. 28 (for a similar example compare hr’h ‘th [“do you see,” Ezek 8:6] with hr’yt [“do you see,” “have you seen”] in the same context [Ezek 8:12, 15, 17]; cf. 1 Sam 10:24; 17:25). If it be argued that Zadok is here called a “seer” because his divinely imparted knowledge will enable him to “inform” David (v. 28), it is necessary to point out that (1) ordinary human knowledge is sufficient to “inform” (the verb, a participial form of which occurs in v. 13 [“messenger”], commonly means simply “tell”); (2) more than one person will “inform” David (the “you” before “to inform” is plural); (3) when “Zadok does inform David, it is because he in his turn is informed by Hushai (2 Sam. XVII 15), not because of Zadok’s position as oracle priest.”

Zadok will be of more help to David back in Jerusalem than if he flees with him, so David tells him to return to the city with his son Ahimaaz and Abiathar’s son Jonathan (v. 27). “Ahimaaz” and “Jonathan” have occurred already in the books of Samuel as the names of other men (1 Sam 13:2; 14:50). (Zadok’s son Ahimaaz as well as Abiathar have been suggested as possible authors of David’s Court History [9:1—20:26].) The specificity (and perhaps also the urgency) of David’s request is underscored by his addendum: “your [pl.] two sons with you [pl.]” (v. 27; the NIV prefaces the phrase with “You and Abiathar take” to clarify in English the Heb. intention). David wants to make sure that Zadok understands that the two priests and their two sons—all four of them—are to return to Jerusalem.

As for David himself, he will continue on his way and wait at the “fords [reading ‘abrot with the Kethiv; cf. 17:16, where many MSS likewise read ‘abrot (cf. BHS) instead of ‘arbot (thus Qere in v. 28), “steppes”] in the desert” (v. 28) on the west bank of the Jordan (cf. 17:16; cf. further 19:18). Although the exact site is unknown, “fords” is a more likely reading than “steppes” because “it gives a more specific location for the purpose of passing on the information” (Anderson, p. 201). David expects Zadok and Abiathar to be involved together in gathering data about Absalom’s plans (“you” in v. 28 is plural). Following David’s instructions (v. 29), the two men “took” (the verb is singular, stressing Zadok’s primary responsibility) the ark back to Jerusalem (cf. vv. 25-26) and “stayed” (pl.) there (cf. vv. 27-28).

“Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown,” wrote William Shakespeare. A harried king feels surrounded by conspirators (cf. v. 12; 1 Sam 22:8, 13), and David’s intelligence network (see 10:5) informs David that Ahithophel (see v. 12) is among them (cf. v. 31). The news alarms David, and he turns to God for help. “It was clear to David ... that Ahithophel as counsellor of the king not only held one of the highest court positions of confidence but also that whoever had the benefit of this advice in political or military matters would be successful.... This makes all the more understandable why David appealed as a last resort to the only power he thought able to intervene and to disqualify the counsel of a man considered practically infallible.” “O LORD, turn Ahithophel’s counsel into foolishness” (v. 31; cf. Isa 44:25 [“nonsense”]).

15:32-37 The summit of the Mount of Olives was a place “where people used to worship God” (v. 32)—and where false gods would later be worshiped (cf. 1 Kings 11:7). Upon arriving there David finds Hushai the Arkite waiting to “meet” him (qr’; cf. also 16:1), his robe “torn” (qr‘; the wordplay is perhaps intentional) and dust on his head (signs of anguish and distress; 1:2; 13:19; 1 Sam 4:12). Hushai’s clan, the Arkites (‘arki), lived near Ataroth (cf. Josh 16:2) “in NE Ephraim on the border with Manasseh” and should not be confused with the Arkites (‘arqi) who were one of the ten traditional tribal groups in the Canaanite orbit (cf. Gen 10:17) and who lived in Arqat, modern Tell Arqa (about 120 miles north-northeast of the Sea of Galilee).

And so it is that Absalom, the king’s treasonous son, and Hushai, the king’s loyal “friend” (v. 37; 16:16), arrive at Jerusalem simultaneously.

SOURCE: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Old Testament; Frank E. Gaebelein; General Editor; Zondervan Publishing House; A Division of Harper Collins Publishers

Hushai the Archite (15:30-37). The royal fugitives slowly made their way up the ascent of the Mt. of Olives. David was barefoot, his head was covered, and he was weeping. His agony was even greater when he learned that his close adviser Ahithophel was among the conspirators. David prayed that the counsel of Ahithophel might be turned to foolishness. As if in answer to his prayer, Hushai, another royal counselor, met David near the summit of Olivet. His clothing was torn and he had dust on his head in mourning over the turn of events. David suggested that Hushai would be of more help to return to Jerusalem and offer his services to Absalom. David wanted Hushai to (1) frustrate the counsel of Ahithophel; and (2) report Absalom’s plans to Zadok and Abiathar. Zadok’s two sons in turn would relay that information to David (15:30-37).

SOURCE: The Old Testament Survey Series: The Books Of History; By James E. Smith; College Press Publishing Company, Joplin, Missouri.

III. Fulfill Your Responsibilities (2 Sam. 19:7-8a) Commentary

19:5-8 Rosenberg aptly characterizes this subsection: “Joab, asserting the reasons of state security that demanded Absalom’s death, accuses David of grave discourtesy to his supporters and friends—the words [vv. 5-7] are extraordinarily frank and represent Joab’s only open rebuke of the king throughout the entire Davidic history” (p. 166)—a rebuke that will cost him dearly (cf. v. 13), at least temporarily.

Whereas the narrator employs ‘am (“people”) to describe David’s “army/troops/ men” (vv. 2, 3, 8), Joab uses ‘abadim (“servants”)—a term implying loyalty, obedience, dependence—for the same purpose (vv. 5, 6, 7). Stressing not only the thoughtless immediacy of the king’s insensitivity but also the urgent need for prompt action, Joab makes use of the word “today” no less than five times (twice in v. 5 [“Today,” “just”], three times in v. 6 [omitted once by the NIV for stylistic reasons]).

David’s army commander begins by upbraiding him for humiliating the very men (“your men,” v. 5) who are responsible for having saved the king’s life as well as the lives of all who are near and dear to him (nepesh [“life”], which appears four times in the verse, is omitted by the NIV before “[your] concubines”), including those of his “wives and concubines” (5:13; 12:8; 1 Sam 25:43; see also 1 Sam 1:2). Joab is of course right: “David’s men” (18:7) have in fact won the battle. But the heart of Joab’s complaint is that David loves those who hate him and hates those who love him (v. 6). Although Joab’s accusation has been called a “colossal hyperbole,” “it accurately reflects the topsy-turvy nature of the king’s extreme emotions. Its similarity to the description of Amnon’s swing from love to hatred (13:15) reminds the reader that such emotions are common to father and son, both of whom commit grave acts of injustice.” Whatever else it may involve, at the very least “love” in this context surely implies covenant loyalty (1:26; 1 Sam 16:21; 18:1-4; 20:17).

Joab has received the clear impression that the “commanders” (v. 6, including himself, Abishai, and Ittai [cf. 18:5]) and their men mean nothing at all to the king. Indeed, in his present frame of mind David would trade Absalom’s life for those of everyone else (ironically, “if [lu’] Absalom were alive” echoes 18:12: “if [lu’] a thousand shekels were weighed out into my hands, I would not lift my hand against the king’s son”). Conroy observes on 18:33 that “David wished that he had died himself instead of Absalom, but here Joab accuses him of wishing Absalom were alive even if that meant the loss of the whole army.” The ambiguity of David’s behavior when issues of life and death are at stake is explored also in 12:18-23.

Joab’s final statement in his rebuke begins and ends with “now” (v. 7). He swears on oath to David that if the king does not immediately go out and “encourage” (v. 7; lit., “speak to the heart of”; cf. 2 Chronicles 32:6 [“encourage”]) his “men” (‘abadim) by nightfall not a “man” (‘ish) will remain loyal to him. The troops of Judah thus having deserted David, no greater calamity for him throughout his entire life could possibly be imagined.

However reluctantly, the king is prodded into action by Joab’s harsh words. If David formerly sat in the gateway of Mahanaim awaiting news of the battle’s outcome (cf. 18:24), he now takes his seat there in his official capacity of adjudicating the grievances (see 15:2; cf. also 1 Kings 22:10) of any and “all” of the “men” (lit., “people”; see v. 5) of Judah (“all,” which appears twice in the MT of v. 8, is omitted by the NIV after “When” for reasons of style). The literary unit ends by echoing the earlier report that the Israelites had “fled to their homes” (18:17; the NIV has wrongly placed v. 8b, the contents of which constitute one of a series of concluding statements [cf. v. 39; 18:17; 20:22; cf. also 1 Sam 2:11; 7:17; 10:25-26; 15:34; 24:22; 26:25], at the beginning of the next section).

SOURCE: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Old Testament; Frank E. Gaebelein; General Editor; Zondervan Publishing House; A Division of Harper Collins Publishers

19:5-8 As the troops returned from the battle their joyous spirit was quickly turned to gloom by the news that David was grieving over his dead son. His troops sulked back into the city as though they had lost the battle. The king continued to agonize over his son with such a loud voice that the men in the city could hear his wailing (19:1-4).

Sensing a major morale problem, Joab came and spoke bluntly to David. The king’s agony had caused the men who had saved the lives of the royal family to feel as though they had done something wrong. David appeared to love those who hated him, and to hate those who loved him. Had the result of the battle been reversed, said the general, David would have been more pleased. If David did not immediately go out and express appreciation to his troops all of them would desert him that very night. Joab may have been threatening to lead the troops away from David. In any case, David was jarred into action. He went out and sat in the city gate. All his supporters gathered around him.

SOURCE: The Old Testament Survey Series: The Books Of History; By James E. Smith; College Press Publishing Company, Joplin, Missouri.

The Gate (19:8): The gate served as the city’s legal and business center. It was the place where the king would render judgments in legal suits and where business transactions would occur. “Absalom stole the hearts of the men of

Israel

” by David’s absence from the gate (2 Sam. 15:6). The one who controlled the gate controlled the city. It provided access and limitation to the city. The king controlled the gate, telling who could come and go into the city. In this case, the gate represented a return to normalcy for David. After a long flight and the death of his son Absalom, David returned to normalcy by taking his rightful place in the gate of the city.

SOURCE: Family Bible Study; Life Truths; Leader Guide; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN.

AMNON (am' nahn): Personal name meaning, “trustworthy, faithful.” 1. The firstborn son of King David (2 Sam. 3:2). He raped his half-sister Tamar. Tamar’s brother Absalom avenged this outrage by killing Amnon (2 Sam. 13:1-20). This incident marked the beginning of the decline of David’s family following his adulterous relationship with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah.

ABSALOM (ab' suh luhm): Personal name meaning, “father of peace.” See Abishalom. Third son of King David, who rebelled against his father and was murdered by Joab, David’s commander (2 Sam. 3:3; 13-19). Absalom apparently resented being ignored by his father and resented his brother Ammon going unpunished for raping Tamar, Absalom’s full sister. Being overindulged and ambitious, Absalom became the spokesman for the people (2 Sam. 15:1-6). They, in turn, gladly proclaimed him king in Hebron (15:10), where David was first crowned (2:4). Battle ensued. David left Jerusalem and sent his army to find Absalom but not to hurt him (15:5), but Joab murdered him (15:14). David’s lament over Absalom shows the depth of a father’s love over the loss of a son as well as regret for personal failures which led to family and national tragedies.

TAMAR (Tay' mahr): Personal name meaning, “date palm.” A daughter of David raped by her half brother, Amnon (2 Sam. 13:14). The act was avenged by her full brother, Absalom, when he had Amnon murdered (13:28-29). These acts were part of Nathan’s prophecy that the sword would never depart from David’s house (2 Sam. 12:10).

TALMAI (Tal' mehi): Personal name meaning, “plowman,” or else derived from the Hurrian word for big. King of Geshur, father of David’s wife Maacah and grandfather of Absalom (2 Sam. 3:3; 1 Chron. 3:2). After Absalom murdered his half brother Amnon, he took refuge with his grandfather (2 Sam. 13:37).

AHITHOPHEL (uh hihth' oh fehl): Personal name meaning, “brother of folly” if it is not a scribal attempt to hide an original name including a Canaanite god such as Ahibaal. David’s counselor who joined Absalom’s revolt against King David (2 Sam. 15:12). David prayed that his counsel might be turned to foolishness (15:31) and commissioned the faithful Hushai to help Zadok and Abiathar, the priests, counteract the counsel of Ahithophel. Ahithophel led Absalom to show his rebellion was for real by taking over his father’s concubines (16:15-23). Ahithophel’s counsel was famous as being equal to the word of God (16:23). Hushai, however, persuaded Absalom not to follow Ahithophel’s military advice (ch. 17), this being God’s work (17:14). Disgraced, Ahithophel returned home to Giloh, put his house in order, and hanged himself (17:23). He may have been the grandfather of Bathsheba, David’s partner in sin and wife (2 Sam. 11:3; 23:34).

ZADOK (Zay' dahk): Personal name meaning, “righteous,” a short form of Zedekiah, “the Lord is righteous.”

Son of Ahitub and father of Ahimaaz, descended from Aaron through Eleazar and was a priest in the time of David (2 Sam. 8:17; 1 Chron. 6:3-8). He is named in company with Abiathar, who was descended from Aaron through Ithamar (1 Chron. 24:3). See Abiathar. Zadok was loyal to David when Adonijah rebelled in his father’s old age (1 Kings 1). As a consequence, he continued as a priest in Solomon’s day. Abiathar was soon removed in accordance with the prophecy to Eli (1 Sam. 2:31-33; 1 Kings 2:26-27). The genealogy of Zadok is given in 1 Chronicles 6:3-15 from Aaron through Eleazar on down to Jehozadak of postexilic times (compare Zech. 6:11). The genealogy mentions a second Zadok seven generations later of whom we know little, but his name emphasizes the fact that standard names do reappear in genealogical lists.

In a touching scene Zadok with Abiathar carried the ark to go with David in his flight from Absalom (2 Sam. 15:24). David sent them back to carry on their worship in Jerusalem and be spies for him. Zadok’s son Ahimaaz was the go-between and was also the first to bring David news of Absalom’s defeat (2 Sam 18:27). David then appealed to Zadok and Abiathar to arrange a welcome for him to come back to Jerusalem.

In later days Ezekiel declared that the priests who were sons of Zadok were the only faithful ones at the time of the Exile, and that they only would be allowed to serve in the ideal future Temple. This statement agrees with the genealogies of Chronicles which list only two families as far as the captivity—David of Judah and Zadok the descendant of Aaron through Eleazar. The returning priests, including Joshua son of Jehozadak (1 Chron. 6:15) and Ezra (7:1-7), were of the line of Zadok which lasted long into the intertestamental period. The line of Ithamar after the removal of Eli’s family was of less importance. The Zadokites to a degree lived up to their name as righteous priests of the Lord.

ABIATHAR (uh bi' uh thahr): Personal name meaning, “father of abundance.” The son of Ahimelech and the eleventh high priest in succession from Aaron through the line of Eli. He survived the slaughter of the priests at Nob and fled to David, hiding in the cave of Adullam from King Saul (1 Sam. 22). Having escaped with the ephod, Abiathar became the high priest and chief counselor for David (1 Sam. 23:6). Repeatedly, he inquired of the Lord for David (1 Sam. 23:9; 30:7; 2 Sam. 2:1; 5:19). Abiathar shared with Zadok the responsibility of taking the ark to Jerusalem (1 Chron. 15:11, 12; 2 Samuel 15:24). While Abiathar remained faithful to David during Absalom’s rebellion (2 Sam. 15), he later supported Adonijah as successor of King David instead of Solomon (1 Kings 1:7). Solomon deposed him from the priesthood and banished him to Anathoth, his home town, fulfilling the prophecy to Eli (1 Sam. 2:31-35). Only because of his faithful service to Solomon’s father, King David, was he spared the death penalty (1 Kings 2:26, 27). Zadok was then made the official high priest (1 Kings 2:35), though Abiathar retained the title (1 Kings 4:4). Abiathar’s two sons, Ahimelech and Jonathan, followed their father in the priesthood. Even while Abiathar was serving as high priest, his son, Ahimelech, became prominent in priestly service (1 Sam. 21:1-9; 2 Sam. 8:17; 1 Chron. 18:16; 24:3, 6, 31).

Mark 2:26 records Jesus’ statement that David took the showbread from the place of worship when Abiathar was high priest at Nob. 1 Samuel 21:1 reports that this happened when Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, was still the high priest. However, a few days after this incident Abiathar did become high priest (1 Sam. 22:19-20). Some New Testament Greek manuscripts omit “when Abiathar was high priest.” It may be that Abiathar was co-priest with his father. Or a copyist of the Gospel of Mark may have copied the text wrong.

HUSHAI (Hew' shi): Personal name meaning, “quick,” “from Hushah,” or “gift of brotherhood.” The name could represent copying transposition from an original Shuah. This would designate his family as from Shuhu, the Syrian state in the central Euphrates region or a state in Edom or Arabia. The clan became a part of Israel as a clan of the tribe of Benjamin living in Archi southwest of Bethel (Josh. 16:2). Hushai was “David’s friend” (2 Sam. 15:37), probably referring to an official government post as in Egypt, a close personal adviser somewhat like the secretary of state. As David escaped, leaving Jerusalem to his son Absalom, Hushai joined him, mourning (2 Sam. 15:32). David sent him back to deceive Absalom (2 Sam. 15:34; 16:16-19). His counsel to Absalom bought time for David to establish new headquarters and gather forces for new strategy (2 Sam. 17).

Solomon’s commissioner in charge of collecting royal provisions in Asher was the son of Hushai, perhaps the same as “David’s friend” (1 Kings 4:16).

ZIBA (Zi' buh): Personal name, perhaps Aramaic for “branch.” Servant of Saul. When David desired to show kindness to surviving members of Jonathan’s family, Ziba directed David to Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 9:1-8). David placed Ziba in charge of Mephibosheth’s restored property (9:9-13). During Absalom’s rebellion, Ziba assisted David with supplies and (falsely) accused Mephibosheth of treason (2 Sam. 16:1-4). David rewarded Ziba with Mephibosheth’s property. Mephibosheth met David on his return to power in Jerusalem and accused Ziba of deception (2 Sam. 19:24-29). David, either uncertain whom to believe or else desiring to leave no strong rivals, divided Saul’s property between Ziba and Mephibosheth.

MEPHIBOSHETH (Me phibo sheth): Personal name meaning, “shame destroyer” or “image breaker.” A son of Jonathan, who was granted special position and privilege in David’s court (2 Sam. 9). Jonathan was killed in battle when Mephibosheth was five years old. Fearing that the Philistines would seek the life of the young boy, a nurse fled with him, but in her haste she dropped him and crippled him in both feet (2 Sam. 4:4). Mephibosheth may be an intentional change by copyists to avoid writing the pagan god’s name “baal.” The original name would be Merib-Baal (1 Chron. 8:34). When David invited Mephibosheth to be a part of his court, he entrusted the family property to a steward, Ziba. During the Absalom rebellion Ziba tried unsuccessfully to turn David against Mephibosheth. Upon the king’s return to Jerusalem, Mephibosheth vindicated himself and was allowed to remain in the king’s house (2 Sam. 16; 19).

SHIMEI (shih meh' i): Personal name meaning, “my being heard.” Relative of King Saul who cursed and opposed David as he fled from Absalom (2 Sam. 16). When David returned after Absalom’s death, Shimei met him and pleaded for forgiveness and mercy, which David granted because of the festive occasion (2 Sam. 19). Solomon followed David’s advice and had Shimei slain (1 Kings 2).

ABISHAI (uhb' ih shay i): Personal name meaning, “father exists.” Son of David’s sister Zeruiah and brother of Joab, David’s general (1 Chron. 2:15-16). He was with David when he spared Abner (1 Sam. 26:7) and with Joab pursuing Abner (2 Sam. 2:24) and killing Abner (2 Sam. 3:30). He commanded troops against Ammon (2 Sam. 10). He sought to kill Shimei for cursing David, but the king restrained him (2 Sam. 16; 19:21). He led a third of David’s troops against David’s son Absalom (2 Sam. 18). He commanded forces against Sheba, who led a northern rebellion against David (2 Sam. 20). He killed Isbi-benob, the Philistine giant who threatened David (2 Sam. 21:15-17). A mighty captain, he was still not among David’s elite three (2 Sam. 23:8-19). He was famed for killing 18,000 Edomites (1 Chron. 18:12).

JONATHAN (Jahn' uh thuhn): Personal name meaning, “Yahweh gave.” Son of Abiathar the priest in service to David (2 Sam. 15:36; 1 Kings 1:42-43).

AHIMAAZ (uh hihm' uh az): Personal name with uncertain meaning, “brother of anger” and “my brother is counselor,” being suggestions. Son of Zadok, one of David’s priests (2 Sam. 15:27). He served as one of David’s secret messengers from the court when Absalom rebelled and drove his father from Jerusalem (2 Sam. 15:36; 7:17). Once he had to hide in a well to keep from being found out (17:18-21). He was a swift runner, overtaking Cushi to bring tidings to David (18:19-29), but he did not report Absalom’s death. He maintained a reputation as a “good man” (18:27).

AMASA (uh may' suh): Personal name meaning, “burden” or “bear a burden.” 1. Captain of Judah’s army replacing Joab during Absalom’s rebellion against his father David (2 Sam. 17:25). He is related to David, but the texts leave some question as to the exact relationship. Abigail was Amasa’s mother. His father was either Ithra an Israelite (2 Sam. 17:25) or Jether the Ishmaelite (1 Chron. 2:17). She was sister of Zeruiah, Joab’s mother (2 Sam. 17:25) or sister to David and to Zeruiah, Joab’s mother (1 Chron. 2:16). When he defeated the rebel forces and Joab murdered Absalom (2 Sam. 18:14), David made peaceful overtones to Judah by inviting Amasa as his relative to assume command of his army (2 Sam. 19:13). When called to battle, Amasa appeared too late (2 Sam. 20:4-5). Joab marched among David’s army and cunningly killed Amasa (2 Sam. 20:10). This served as reason for David to advise Solomon to do away with Joab (1 Kings 2:5) and thus reason for Solomon to kill Joab (1 Kings 2:28-34).

SHOBI (shoh' bi): Personal name of uncertain meaning. Ammonite who helped David as he fled across Jordan from Absalom (2 Sam. 17:27).

MAKIR (May' kir): NIV spelling of Machir. MACHIR (May' kihr): Personal name meaning “sold.” Son of Ammiel and member of the tribe of Manasseh. He came from the site of Lo-debar, perhaps a village near Mahanaim. He is recognized in the Old Testament for the assistance he provided Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan (2 Sam. 9, especially vv. 4-5) and David during the period of Absalom’s rebellion (2 Sam. 17:27-29).

BARZILLAI (Bahr zihl' lay i): Personal name meaning, “made of iron.” 1. Man from Gilead east of the Jordan who met David at Mahanaim as he fled from Absalom. Barzillai and others gave needed supplies for David’s company (1 Sam. 17:27-29). When David returned to Jerusalem, the eighty-year-old Barzillai accompanied him across the Jordan but refused to go to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 19:31-39). Barzillai may have served as David’s host while he stayed east of the Jordan. His sons went to Jerusalem, and the dying David ensured their welfare (1 Kings 2:7).

SOURCE: Holman Bible Dictionary; General Editor, David S. Dockery; Editorial Team, Trent C. Butler, Christopher L. Church, Linda L. Scott, Marsha A. Ellis Smith, James Emery White; Holman Bible Publishers; Nashville, Tennessee.

Dr. Smothers is professor of religion at Palm Beach Atlantic College, Palm Beach, Florida.

BSALOM WAS ONE OF THOSE MEN who had many attributes for success, yet he lacked the most important ones: patience, discipline, and common sense. He is one of the main characters in the court history of King David (2 Sam. 9—20; 1 Kings 1—2). The story is told there of how David’s family disintegrated because of sin. Several tragedies are related in this court history, but none caused David as much personal anguish as the death of Absalom.

David was not close to any of his children. They apparently were unsupervised by their father. There is evidence that the children were spoiled (1 Kings 1:6). Amnon, the oldest son, raped his half-sister, Tamar, who was the full sister of Absalom. Two years later, after careful planning, Absalom slew Amnon. He fled to the court of his maternal grandfather, Talmai, the king of Geshur, where he lived for three years. Finally Absalom was permitted to return to Jerusalem, but for two more years David refused to see him. Absalom was made to live away from the court, a belated attempt at discipline.

Absalom was an unusually handsome man. He had no physical blemish; his luxuriant head of hair was legendary (2 Sam. 14:25-26). Such features, like a professional athlete of today, stood him in good stead politically. He wanted the throne badly and contrived to usurp it.

Actually, Absalom probably gained support by calling for a return of tribal rights that were lost when David consolidated the administration at Jerusalem. We assume this position was Absalom’s because he was supported by the elders who had lost power.

The account of his rise to power and his swift demise is well-known (2 Sam. 15—18). During the decisive battle against David, Absalom’s head was caught, apparently by his hair, in the branches of an oak (2 Sam. 18:9). Joab shot Absalom with three arrows before he could free himself, and ten soldiers “smote Absalom, and slew him” (v. 15). The rabbis were to make much of these details in later tradition. There follows the pitiful scene of David weeping helplessly over the death of Absalom.

The biblical historian narrated these events realistically and honestly. His purpose was to demonstrate how sin destroys a family.

As tradition developed, the rabbis used Absalom as an example of how life can be ruined by lack of parental discipline, by vanity, false ambition, and greed.¹

The rabbis blamed David for contributing to Absalom’s downfall through his lack of parental supervision. Both the haggadic (hah-GAD-ihk; Jewish lore) material and the Midrash Rabbah (MIHD-rash RAB-uhth; Midrash is commentary; Rabbah is a division of the Midrash) deal with this theme.

When a man refrains from chastising his son, in the end he (the son) will come to bad manners, to degeneracy, and he (the son) will hate him (the father). David did not discipline Absalom his son and did not chastise him. He went forth to bad manners and sought to kill his father, and caused him to walk barefoot so the he cried, and there fell away from Israel how many thousands and how may myriads, and he caused many hard things which had no end. Again in the haggadic material we read: Rabbi Yohanan on behalf of Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai—More painful is bad manners in the midst of the house of a man than the war of Gog and Magog, as it is said: “Psalm of David when he fled from before Absalom his son,” and it is said afterwards—“Oh, Lord, how many are my enemies. Many are the ones rising against me.”²

Absalom’s beautiful hair was in rabbinic tradition the symbol of his vanity. In Mishnah Sotah 1:8 (MIHSH-nuh-SOH-tah; the Mishnah is an ancient part of the Jewish Talmud; Sotah is a division) we read: “Absalom gloried in his hair—therefore he was hanged by his hair.” This is elaborated to mean that by his long hair Absalom entangled the people to rebel against his father, and by it he became entangled. In the Midrash Rabbah we read: “It was taught: Rabbi Judah the Prince said: Absalom was a perpetual Nazarite, and (yet) he shaved (his head) once in twelve month.”³ And in the Mekilta Shirah 6, (Mekhilta is a collection of material, supplementary to the Midrash; Shirah is a division) we have this:

Did you ever hear of an oak tree having a heart? And yet in the oak tree in whose branches Absalom was caught, we read that upon its heart he was held up alive while the darts were thrust through him. This is to show that when a man becomes so heartless as to make war against his own father, nature itself takes on a heart to avenge the deed.⁴

False ambition and pride is exemplified by Absalom. He did not receive what he desired, and even what he possessed was taken from him.⁵ “Inasmuch as he stole away three hearts, the heart of his father, the heart of the court, and the heart of Israel, therefore three darts were thrust into him” (Mishnah Sotah 1:8). In the Midrash we read: “It is written, ‘Now in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty.’ Lest one should suppose that he was beautiful in everything . . . it was taught in the school of R. Ishmael: When Absalom was suspended from the terebinth he seized his sword and attempted to cut off his hair, but at that instant the netherworld opened up beneath him. And as a retribution for his having cohabited with his father’s ten concubines, ten lances were driven into his body.”⁶

Finally, in later Jewish tradition Absalom was the epitome of the greedy person. Several passages deal with the eye of Absalom, the symbol of his greed. “Abba Saul said, I was burying the dead (that is, digging a grave). One time a cave was opened beneath me, and I was standing in the eyeball of a dead man up to my nose. When I turned around, they said, It is the eye of Absalom.”⁷

For the rabbis, Absalom had no redeeming qualities. They believed he had gone to the seventh, or lowest, section of Gehenna (Mishnah Sotah 10), and Rabbi Meir taught that he had no share in the life to come (Sanhedrin 103).⁸

Today, in the Kidron Valley east of Jerusalem, the traveler can see an ornate tomb which traditionally has been called the Tomb of Absalom. It is not, of course, since it is of Greek design; but the name of Absalom lives on as an example of poor parenting and tragic ambition. ♦

2. H. N. Bialik and Y. H. Rabnizke, Sepher Haggadah (Tel Aviv: The Dvir Co., Ltd.,), p. 90 (in Hebrew).

3. H. Freedman and M. Simon (trans. and eds.), Midrash Rabbah (London: The Soncino Press, 1939), Numbers 1, p. 287.

SOURCE: Biblical Illustrator; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234.

Robert A. Street is professor of computer information systems and Old Testament, Campbellsville University, Campbellsville, Kentucky.

NLIKE THE AMERICAN CONCEPT of separation of church and state, the constant interactions between the political leaders and religious leaders of ancient Israel can be traced back at least to the first king of the United Monarchy. David’s involvement with religious appointments actually preceded his being anointed king. This connection continued during his reign. David’s close association with the leadership of the priesthood can be seen by examining his changing relationships with two men, Abiathar and Zadok. After David’s death, his son Solomon continued to be involved in the selection of the chief or high priest.

Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech and descendant of Eli of the line of Ithamar, Aaron’s younger son, is first encountered as a refugee from a slaughter. Due to the assisting of David by the priests of the city of Nob, Saul hired Doeg the Edomite to “fall upon the priests.” Doeg slaughtered nearly everyone at Nob. Only the priest Abiathar escaped. He fled to David’s camp and related the events. David pledged him safety (1 Sam. 21-22). Abiathar, however, did not come empty-handed. He brought with him the ephod (1 Sam. 23:6), a symbol of God’s presence. Abiathar remained with David during the years of conflict with Saul.

In the early days of his kingship after Saul’s death, David moved the ark of the covenant from Kiriath-jearim (1 Sam. 6:21—7:2; 1 Chron. 13:6), which is also called Baalah (2 Sam. 6:2-3; 1 Chron. 13:6). The ark was to be relocated to his new capital, Jerusalem. Though the movement of the ark to Jerusalem was religious in nature, the action also had political significance. By moving the ark to Jerusalem, the city of David would become both the political and religious center for Israel. Thus, Jerusalem would be the national focal locale of faith and politics.

During the transport of the ark, tragedy struck (1 Chron. 13:9-14; 2 Sam. 6:6-11) and the ark was placed in the house of Obed-Edom. Three months later, David again set plan into action for moving the ark to Jerusalem. This time the ark was to be transported only by Levites (1 Chron. 15:1-2).

Among the Levitical priests were Abiathar and Zadok, who are identified as the chiefs of the fathers of the Levites (15:11). Zadok was a descendant of Eleazar, the third son of Aaron (6:4-8). After the ark was moved successfully to Jerusalem, David appointed both Zadok and Abiathar’s son Ahimelech as priests, presumably chief priest (2 Sam. 8:15). Representing two lines of Aaron, Abiathar and Zadok presented unified support of David from the ancient lineage of the priesthood. The dual priesthood continued through David’s reign.

Apparently, during the formative years of the monarchy, the king’s power included appointing priests, instructing and appointing the Levites (1 Chron. 15:16-24; 16:4-6), and even offering sacrifices (2 Sam. 6:17-18).

When David’s son Absalom attempted to dethrone his father, both Abiathar and Zadok were loyal to the king. Rather than engage Absalom’s forces in battle, David and his court fled Jerusalem (2 Sam. 15:13-14). Among those to flee were Abiathar, Zadok (2 Sam. 15:24), and the Levites, who took along with them the ark of the covenant. David instructed Zadok, his son Ahimaaz, and Jonathan the son of Abiathar to return with the ark. Abiathar also returned with them (2 Sam. 15:25-29). This proved to be good planning and strategy on David’s part for Hushai got word to Abiathar and Zadok of Absalom’s plans (2 Sam. 17:15). They sent their sons to warn David of Absalom’s plans (2 Sam. 17:15-21).

Though loyal to David during the rebellion of Absalom, later Abiathar along with Joab supported Adonijah in his bid for the throne (1 Kings 1). Zadok along with Nathan the prophet and Bathsheba, championed Solomon. With David’s blessing, Solomon was anointed king by Zadok at Gihon (1 Kings 1:32-39). Though crowned king, Solomon was not yet in power. David remained king until his death.

After David’s death, Solomon had Benaiah son of Jehoiada kill Adonijah (1 Kings 2:13-25). This same Benaiah was sent to kill Joab, David’s general. Joab was slain in the tabernacle (1 Kings 2:28-34). Abiathar fared better. Solomon deposed Abiathar as priest and exiled him to Anathoth, a town north of Jerusalem (1 Kings 2:26-27). Though Abiathar was removed from the scene, possibly he was the ancestor of the prophet Jeremiah who came from Anathoth.

Solomon placed Zadok “in the room of Abiathar” (1 Kings 2:35, KJV). Thus, Zadok became the sole chief priest under Solomon. With Zadok the role of high priest seems to have taken on a role of major importance. Known as the Zadokite priesthood, Zadok’s heirs continued in Jerusalem until Nebuchadnezzar exiled them to Babylon.

Zadok’s influence on the priesthood and Hebrew religion might even be greater. After the Persian king Cyrus issued his edict allowing the captive Hebrews to return to Jerusalem, the Zadokite priests became the ruling power in Jerusalem. In New Testament times the group who controlled the temple and the Sanhedrin was known as the Sadducees. The Sadducees traced their origin back to Zadok.

When the Romans destroyed the temple, the Sadducees and their influence ceased. The loss of the temple marked an effective end to the priesthood in Jewish religion.

SOURCE: Biblical Illustrator; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234; Fall 2002.

Joel F. Drinkard, Jr. is professor of Old Testament, Hebrew, and archaeology, and the curator of the Joseph A. Callaway Archaeological Museum at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky.

HE OLD TESTAMENT has numerous references to city gates; these references give us a great deal of information about city gates in the biblical period. This article will discuss gates on the basis of archaeological evidence and biblical passages relating to gates.

Gates in Iron Age Israel (1200-586 BC) routinely had two or more sets of pier walls creating chambers on each side of the gateway. The most common patterns were tow, four, or six chambers. The number of chambers does not seem to be related to size of the site, the chronology within Iron Age Israel, of location (Israel or Judah or neighboring states). Instead the number of chambers seems to depend on the topography of the site and the use made of the gate complex. Most gates at major sites in Israel and surrounding lands were made entirely of stone, or stone lower courses and mud brick above. Pier walls were typically about 6 feet wide, chambers about 9 feet wide and 15-18 feet deep. And the gates often had towers on either side. At a number of sites, inner and outer gates have been discovered.

Gates were not just entryways into and out of cities and towns, but they certainly did provide entry and egress. The gate complex was at the center of activity for the city. Obviously gates had a defensive purpose of offering protection to the citizens inside. As such the gate complex often had military installations associated with it. The gate complex included the entryway doors (Neh. 6:1; 7:1), towers (2 Chron. 26:9), and gate bars (Judg. 16:3; 2 Chron. 8:5) that could be put in place to secure the town.

Benches were located in the chambers and immediately inside and outside the gate at many sites including Beersheba,² Gezer,³ and Tel Dan.⁴ Such benches are often related to biblical texts which speak of “sitting in the gate” (2 Sam. 19:8). However, these benches vary in height from about 6 inches to over 30 inches, some too low to sit on, others too high, and others too narrow. In these instances, the bench was probably a shelf on which items could be placed.

In addition, many major business and social activities took place at the gate complex. An open plaza (Hebrew, rechob, “street, square, plaza,” Gen. 19:2; Judg. 19:15; 2 Sam. 21:12) was often located just inside or outside the gate. The plaza was the market place where merchants offered their goods, and the people would gather to buy and sell. It was the equivalent of today’s mall and farmer’s market all in one. Archaeologists have excavated such plazas at Beersheba,⁵ Tel Dan,⁶ and other sites. The market or plaza was a natural gathering place. In such a plaza Hezekiah spoke to the assembled people to encourage them at the time of Sennacherib’s attack (2 Chron. 32:6). Likewise, Ezra read the Book of the Law to the assembled people in the plaza of the Water Gate of Jerusalem (Neh. 8:1,3). Since many benches in gate chamber were often quite small, to what did the phrase “sitting in the gate” refer? Most likely it referred to sitting anywhere in the gate complex, either just inside or just outside the gate, but especially in the plaza. Lot was “in the gate of Sodom” (Gen. 19:1)⁷ probably in the plaza area since this is where the angels proposed to spend the night (v. 2). It is also where the Levite sat with his concubine when he was going to spend the night at Gibeah (Judg. 19:15).

Not all such plazas were inside the gate. There is at least one reference to “streets” or “bazaars” (Hebrew, chuts ) which were located outside the gate (1 Kings 20:34, the basic meaning of chuts is “outside”). The late Israeli archaeologist, Avraham Biran, interpreted such structures excavated outside the gate at Tel Dan as the chuts.⁸ Again their location close to the gate makes perfect sense. They are the place merchants would offer goods for sale. A location just inside or just outside the city gates is convenient, readily accessible, and also easily kept under the watchful eye of officials to prevent trouble. Another place associated with the gate and just outside the city is a threshing floor. The kings of Israel and Judah held a summit meeting seated on their thrones at the threshing floor at the entrance to the gate of Samaria (1 Kings 22:10). Like the bazaars, the threshing floor would be a large open public space, perfect for a public meeting.

The gate complex thus was the place persons gathered and transacted business. Abraham negotiated to purchase the field and burial cave for Sarah (Gen. 23:10-16) at the city gate of Hebron (or Kiriath-Arba ). Similarly, Boaz negotiated for the purchase of Elimelech’s property including the hand of Ruth in marriage (Ruth 4:1-12) at the gate of Bethlehem.

High places or sanctuaries were associated with city gates during the Iron Age. Josiah broke down the high places of the city gate as part of his religious reform (2 Kings 23:8). Archaeologists have discovered city-gate sanctuaries at Tel Dan and Bethsaida. The Iron Age gate complex at Bethsaida had at least seven stele, which were worshiped in the high places in the city gate complex.⁹ One just to the right of the gate had a couple of steps leading up to a basalt basin for libation offerings. A stele with a bovine-headed deity sat above the libation area. At Tel Dan four sets of standing stones (Hebrew, masseboth) have been discovered in the gate complex.¹⁰

Biblical references to “justice in the gates” refers to justice dispensed in or near the gate complex. Because the gate complex was the place the people gathered for business and socialization, and because it was a place of public assembly for reading the Law and encouraging the people, it was also the expected place for holding court. Accusations were made in public, the trial took place in public, and the decision was given in a public place. So also the sentence was carried out in public (Amos 5:15; Deut. 17:5; 21:18-21; 22:23-24).

Turning to the focal passage, 2 Samuel 19:7-8, the larger context can help readers visualize the gate complex where David was sitting. Before the battle between David’s forces and Absalom’s forces, David stood “at the side of the gate” as the army marched out (2 Sam. 18:4). He was probably standing just outside the gate reviewing the troops. He then is described as “sitting between the two gates” when a watchman went up to the roof of the gate and saw a runner bringing news of the battle (v. 24). The description suggests Mahanaim had an inner and outer gate, such as ones found at Beersheba, Tel Dan, Megiddo, and others. When David heard that Absalom had been killed he “went up to the upper chamber of the gate” and wept (v. 33). The upper chamber would either be a second story or a rooftop room of the gate complex. Finally, David got up from his mourning and “sat in the gate”; when the people heard that “the king is sitting in the gate,” all the people came before the king (19:8). So the gate at Mahanaim had an inner and outer gate, a second story or roof room, and a place for the king to sit between the inner and outer gate. At Tel Dan excavators discovered a platform in the open area between the inner and outer gate. The platform originally had a canopy over it. The excavator suggests that the platform was the location of a seat for the king, a visiting dignitary, or a deity. That reconstructed platform may help persons today visualize where David sat for the people to come before him. On a throne in the plaza of Mahanaim, David was re-acclaimed as king by the people after the army had successfully put down Absalom’s rebellion. ♦

1. See drawing: Ze’ev Herzon, “Tel Beersheba,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (NEAEHL), ed. Ephraim Stern, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993), 167.

4. Avraham Biran, “Dan” in NEAEHL, vol. 1, 329-30; avraham Biran, “Sacred Spaces,” Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR) 24.5 (September/October 1998): 38-45.

9. Rami Arav, Richard A. Freund, and John F. Shroder, Jr., “Bethsaida Rediscovered,” BAR 26.1 (January/February 2000): 44-56; Rami Arav, email message, October 15, 2009; and Tina Haettner Bolmquist, Gates and Gods (Stockholm; Almqvist & Wicksell, 1999), 50-57.

SOURCE: Biblical Illustrator; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234; Vol. 36, No. 4; Summer 2010.

BIBLE CHARACTER TRIVIA

Where In The Bible Is The Answer To This Week’s Trivia Question Found? What prophet was himself the subject of prophecy?

The answer to last week’s trivia question: Whose curiosity to see led to a changed life? Answer: Zacchaeus; Luke 19:1-10.

Study Theme: Keys To Success					What This Lesson Is About:
Week of:			Lesson Title:		This lesson is about managing devastating circumstances in our lives.
	Aug. 1		Respect God’s Holiness
	Aug. 8		Focus on God’s Purposes
	Aug. 15		Demonstrate Kindness
	Aug. 22		Deal With Personal Sin
X	*Aug. 29*		*Face Crises With Courage*

BACKGROUND PASSAGE:				2 Samuel 13–19
FOCAL PASSAGE:				2 Samuel 15:13-14,24-26,30-37; 19:7-8a
LIFE IMPACT:				This lesson can help you successfully navigate through crisis situations in your life.
LESSON OUTLINE:				I. Continue to Trust God (2 Sam. 15:13-14,24-26) II. Don’t Isolate Yourself from Others (2 Sam. 15:30-37) III. Fulfill Your Responsibilities (2 Sam. 19:7-8a)
OVERVIEW OF BACKGROUND PASSAGE:
Absalom Murders Amnon 13:1-39 Although God forgave David, the consequences of his sin were immediately seen in his household. Just as David had lusted for Bathsheba, Amnon, the king’s eldest son, desired his half-sister Tamar. He lured Tamar into his private quarters and raped her. However, his guilt was too great for his conscience, and he despised her afterwards. He dismissed her, and she took refuge in the house of Absalom, her brother (13:1-20). David, like Eli and Samuel, had no control over his sons. Absalom harbored his hatred for Amnon for two years until an occasion arose to kill him. Absalom held a festival attended by Amnon. At the command, Absalom’s servants murdered Amnon. Absalom fled to Geshur where he took refuge with his maternal grandfather, Talmi, the king of Geshur (3:3). David wept for his son Amnon, who was special to the king as his eldest and successor to the throne. Yet he longed to see Absalom for the three years they were estranged (13:21-39). Absalom Returns to David 14:1-33 Perhaps out of concern for the state of the kingdom, Joab wanted David’s potential successor returned to the royal house. Similar to Nathan’s ruse (chap. 12), Joab sent to the king a woman of Tekoa who pretended to be a woman in mourning. She sought the king’s mercy on her only surviving son, who had murdered his brother. When David ruled that the son should be spared, the woman challenged David to reconsider his banishment of his own son Absalom. David agreed and dispatched Joab to retrieve him. David, however, refused to see Absalom’s face upon his return to Jerusalem. Absalom’s Coup 15:1-37 Four years later the crown prince mounted an insurrection against the king by taking the king’s place in the eyes of the people. Ironically, David’s kingdom almost collapsed as a result of his own mishandling of his subjects rather than external threats. Absalom began to play the role of king. He had a private standing guard and functioned as final arbiter of judicial cases. Absalom stole away the hearts of the people, and he attempted to steal the kingdom from David. At Hebron, where his father had been declared king, Absalom’s coconspirators acclaimed him king. Among their ranks was David’s political advisor, Ahithophel (15:1-12). Joined by a small but loyal contingency of Kerethites and Pelethites (8:18), David fled across the Kidron Valley toward the desert. He left behind his royal harem. Ittai the Gittite and his six hundred mercenary soldiers (Philistines from Gath) went with David. David sent Zadok and Abiathar back to Jerusalem with the ark of the Lord. David knew that the ark belonged in the house of God. He believed that if God so desired he would return one day to see the holy place of the Lord. The two priests, as prophetic seers, could aid David by learning of Absalom’s plans and inquiring of the Lord in his behalf. Also, David countered the wisdom of Ahithophel by ordering Hushai the Arkite to remain in Absalom’s service in order to confound the coup’s strategy (15:13-37). David’s Anguish in Flight 16:1-23 The dark shadow of Saul again was cast over David as he fled his kingdom. Ziba, Saul’s servant and manager of Mephibosheth’s estate, maliciously defamed Mephibosheth to better himself (compare 19:24-28). David granted the lands of Saul to Ziba (16:1-4). Shimei, a member of Saul’s family, cursed David, calling him a “man of blood” (16:7). This charge probably reflected the enmity many harbored against David. It may refer to David’s turning members of Saul’s family over to the Gibeonites for execution (chap. 21). Shimei attributed David’s pain to the Lord’s retribution. David perceived that Shimei’s curse, though not altogether just, was part of God’s chastening for his sin. David repelled Abishai’s ambition to kill Saul’s kinsman. David believed that God’s vengeance or mercies alone would decide his and Shimei’s fates (16:5-14). Meanwhile, Hushai arrived in Jerusalem to win Absalom’s favor. Absalom, not yet ready to trust Hushai, turned to Ahithophel for advice. He counseled Absalom to announce his takeover by the symbolic gesture of publicly sleeping with David’s concubines (compare 1 Kings 2:17-25). Absalom’s incestuous act thus fulfilled Nathan’s prophecy (12:11). The narrator compared the political adeptness of Ahithophel to the word of God revealed to the prophets (16:15-23). God Frustrates Ahithophel’s Advice 17:1-29 Hushai’s task was a formidable one (16:23). Ahithophel advised Absalom to attack David while his troops were in disarray (17:1-4). This time Absalom heard the second opinion of Hushai, who argued that such a tactic would fail because of David’s wily experience in warfare (17:5-13). Absalom postponed his attack, which meant that David had the opportunity to withdraw. The Lord “determined to frustrate the good advice of Ahithophel” and thereby doomed Absalom (17:14; compare 15:34). The outcome of the war was decided before the first blow was struck. Absalom’s strategy was relayed to David’s camp at the river fords through Jonathan and Ahimaaz, the sons of Zadok and Abiathar (compare 15:35-36). Meanwhile, the wicked Ahithophel took his own life because he knew that Hushai’s plan meant the end of Absalom’s kingdom (15:15-23). David in exile set up his provisional base in Mahanaim across the Jordan (compare 2:8). Absalom established his military command by giving Amasa, Joab’s relative, charge of the army. While Absalom organized for battle, David’s friends—Shobi, Makir, and Barzillai—refreshed his fatigued army (17:24-29). Absalom’s Death 18:1-33 The story of Absalom’s death focuses on David as father rather than as king. David himself remained behind the battle lines at the advice of his troops. He dispatched his commanders, instructing them to care for Absalom’s life. Absalom, on the other hand, entered into the battle as it raged in the forests of Ephraim and beyond. The terrain was so precarious that more died from its pits and thickets than the sword. Absalom himself was its victim. He was caught by the head (compare 14:26) in a tree and was suspended in midair. Though reminded of David’s instructions to spare Absalom, Joab killed the helpless prince (18:1-17). The tragedy and disgrace of how Absalom died was even sadder because he had no heir (18:18). His three sons had apparently also died (compare 14:27). The story’s detailed description of the two messengers and David’s hopes dashed by their news accentuates the anguish of David the father (18:19-33). David’s sin had spelled disaster for his family and crippled his own soul: “O my son Absalom! My son, my son Absalom. If only I had died instead of you—O Absalom, my son!” (18:33). King David Returns 19:1-43 Joab continued to place the state of the nation above the feelings of the king. The aftermath of the war required a stronger show of Davidic leadership. Joab rebuked David for mourning the death of his enemies instead of greeting his triumphant soldiers. David took his place at the gate to receive his troops (19:1-8). The tribes of Israel urged their leaders to reinstall David as their king. The men of Judah were initially reluctant. David replaced Joab with Amasa in a gesture of reconciliation. No doubt, Joab’s demotion was also due to his killing of Absalom. The king also extended his generosity by sparing Shimei’s life, hearing out the explanation of Mephibosheth, and sharing Saul’s inheritance with Ziba in spite of his treachery. Furthermore, he welcomed to his court the son of his loyal advisor Barzillai (19:9-40). The undercurrent of strife between Israel and Judah became apparent when the men of Israel were left out of the welcoming party that ushered David home. They interpreted this as exclusion from David’s kingdom (19:41-43). The succession of northern tribes from Jerusalem occurred in the reign of David’s grandson, Rehoboam (compare 1 Kgs 12:16-20). SOURCE: Holman Bible Handbook; General Editor David S. Dockery; Holman Bible Publishers; Nashville, Tennessee
INTRODUCTION:
All people will at some point in their lives face a crisis—devastating illness or a loved one, a rebellious child, problems on the job or loss of a job, or some other difficult situation. By examining the way David faced devastating circumstances in his life, we can learn important lessons for successfully dealing with our own crises. Ask the Lord to use the truths of this lesson to provide you with the courage you need to successfully navigate the crisis situations you face.
I.		Continue to Trust God (2 Sam. 15:13-14,24-26)
¹³ Then an informer came to David and reported, “The hearts of the men of Israel are with Absalom.” ¹⁴ David said to all the servants with him in Jerusalem , “Get up. We have to flee, or we will not escape from Absalom! Leave quickly, or he will overtake us, heap disaster on us, and strike the city with the edge of the sword.” ²⁴ Zadok was also there, and all the Levites with him were carrying the ark of the covenant of God. They set the ark of God down, and Abiathar offered sacrifices until the people had finished marching past. ²⁵ Then the king instructed Zadok, “Return the ark of God to the city. If I find favor in the Lord’s eyes, He will bring me back and allow me to see both it and its dwelling place. ²⁶ However, if He should say, ‘I do not delight in you,’ then here I am—He can do with me whatever pleases Him.”

I. Continue to Trust God (2 Sam. 15:13-14,24-26) Commentary

II. Don’t Isolate Yourself from Others (2 Sam. 15:30-37) Commentary

III. Fulfill Your Responsibilities (2 Sam. 19:7-8a) Commentary

DIGGING DEEPER: