Deeper Commentary
2Sa 16:1 When David was a little past the top, behold, Ziba the
servant of Mephibosheth met him, with a couple of donkeys saddled, and on
them two hundred loaves of bread, one hundred clusters of raisins, one
hundred summer fruits and a skin of wine-
As noted on 2 Sam. 15, the circumstances David faced repeated incidents
throughout his earlier life, or the essence of them. He had earlier
unexpectedly encountered a gift of 200 loaves of bread coming towards him in
the wilderness, from Abigail (1 Sam. 25:18). She may well have been with him
at this time too. Raisins and wine were also part of the present Abigail had
sent him. The situations were clearly controlled by God. David was being
comforted, as we are by perceiving these things, that situations never spin
totally out of Divine control. Even in our lowest moments there are
evidences that somehow God is involved, even if we cannot attach meaning to
event.
2Sa 16:2 The king said to Ziba, What do you mean by these? Ziba said, The
donkeys are for the king’s household to ride on; and the bread and summer
fruit for the young men to eat; and the wine, that such as are faint in
the wilderness may drink-
We will learn from 2 Sam. 19:26,27 that Ziba had deceived
Mephibosheth, who had desperately wanted to come to support David. It
could be that Ziba was going over to Absalom's side, and the present was
intended for him; whilst he abandonned his master Mephibosheth, who wanted
to support David. But encountering David and his sizeable party on the
road, Ziba changed his position and claimed the gift was for David, and
Mephibosheth was aiming to become king.
Psalm 23:5
"You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies" refers to
this time. Shimei and other "enemies" were aware of his path. The
reference is to the feasts prepared for him in the desert by Ziba (2 Sam.
16:2) and Barzillai (2 Sam. 17:27-29). But the phrase "prepare a table" is
that used of the preparation of the table of shewbread (Ex. 40:4), and it
is used in a religious sense in Is. 65:11; Ez. 23:41. Perhaps David held
some kind of religious ceremony whilst on the run, the equivalent to our
breaking of bread meeting. And his experience of the Lord's table
strengthened him with great encouragement, as we also can experience.
"What do you mean by these?" and David's reference to Saul as
Ziba's master (:3) suggest he was cynical of Ziba's gift. But he is
persuaded by it and accepts what Ziba says, that Ziba is faithful to David
and Mephibosheth was trying to become king in the line of Saul. And so he
gives Ziba what he tacitly wants- the estate of Saul handed over to him
from Mephibosheth. But later David will find that Ziba was lying (2 Sam.
19:26). Again we see the deceiver deceived; and he was deceived whilst on
one level suspecting what was going on, just as happened to him with Amnon
and twice with Absalom; just as happened with Uriah.
2Sa 16:3 The king said, Where is your master’s son? Ziba said to the king,
Behold, he is staying in Jerusalem; for he said, ‘Today the house of
Israel will restore me the kingdom of my father’-
A bit of reflection would have indicated the untruth of this; because
clearly Absalom was obsessed with becoming king, and would not want to
restore the house of Saul after all they had done to the house of David.
Further, Mephibosheth was from Benjamin, and it was the people of Judah,
especially those in Hebron, who wanted Absalom to rule over them. It was
he and not the reclusive cripple Mephibosheth who had stolen the hearts of
Israel. David is told the truth of the matter in 2 Sam. 19:25-30.
But the point is that David is again portrayed as being deceived, and an
inept judge of where truth lies. His deceit of Uriah yet again is played
out before his eyes. In 2 Sam. 14 he likewise failed to discern the true
intention of the woman from Tekoah, and was again duped. Absalom's
complaint that David was not a fit judge was not therefore untrue. And it
was part of being the king of Israel that he should judge, and judge
justly. David desperately hung on to being king when he should have
realized his own failure as king, resigned, and focused on the wonderful
promise of the future eternal king in his line- the Lord Jesus.
2Sa 16:4 Then the king said to Ziba, Behold, all that pertains to
Mephibosheth is yours. Ziba said, I do obeisance. Let me find grace in your
sight, my lord, O king-
Although the news was fake, David didn't know that at the time. It
would have seemed that all the grace he had shown to the house of Saul was
in vain, and had not resulted in any loyalty but rather in an ill fated,
opportunistic attempt to grab power for himself. This fake news was surely
used by God to provoke in David a collapse mentality, which was intended
to make him cast himself further upon God's grace alone. But
we have here another example of David acting too hastily, as he did to the
woman from Tekoa.
2Sa 16:5 When king David came to Bahurim, behold, a man of the family of
the house of Saul came out, whose name was Shimei the son of Gera. He came
out and cursed continually as he came-
Psalm 7 is relevant to this cursing. Ps. 7:1 describes it as "A
meditation by David, which he sang to Yahweh, concerning the words of Cush
the Benjamite". But
Cush may be another name for Shimei; or perhaps "the black one of
Benjamin" may be another term for Saul. But much in the Psalm is so
appropriate to Shimei's cursing of David as he fled from Absalom. But it
could equally refer to some supporter of Saul the Benjamite during David's
wilderness years. Most likely it could be that a Psalm composed in the
wilderness years was later rewritten by David with reference to Shimei's
abuse of him.
Psalm 109:17
Why did the cursing of Shimei happen at Bahurim? It was to here that the weeping husband of David's ex-wife Michal had followed her (2 Sam. 3:16), after David had cruelly commanded that she should be taken from him [despite having had children by him] and live in disgrace at Jerusalem. He never slept with her and she was effectively a prisoner of court. This was a cruel thing to have done, a way of getting back at his ex and establishing his own power. Paltiel her husband followed her until Bahurim, where he was forced to go back. Now David is weeping at Bahurim, having lost all he once held dear. He is being made to understand how Paltiel felt, and the Father was thereby seeking to elicit David's repentance. There is no evidence that David responded to the Divine nudge in this case. We would love to read that he sent word to release Michal and let her return to Paltiel, but there is nothing at all to suggest this. Rather we are told that she remained desolate in David's house until the day of her death.
David's route out of Jerusalem towards Mahanaim was the very route Uriah would have taken to Rabbah. Every step of his miserable path he would have been reminded of the fatal journey he had sent Uriah on. But still he was met by grace on that path, with feasts prepared for him.
2Sa 16:6 He cast stones at David, and at all the servants of king David;
and all the people and all the mighty men were on his right hand and on
his left-
Death by stoning was the punishment for adultery, and it was hard for
David to argue that this was inappropriate. He had been saved from that by
grace, but now it seemed that God was demanding that the death penalty be
carried out. David would have been beating himself up that he had not
responded to the grace shown him as he ought to have done.
David was marching through a valley with steep sides, from the top of
which Shimei could cast stones. Psalm 23 refers to this march, especially
Psalm 23:4 "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death". There was naturally the fear of an ambush, for David's location was
thereby clearly known to his enemies.
2Sa 16:7 Shimei said when he cursed, Be gone, be gone, you man of blood, and
base fellow!-
Shimei called David a "bloodthirsty man" (:7,8 s.w.). And the same words are used by God about David (1 Chron.
28:3). So we can wonder whether David was too quick in Ps. 5:6 to assume
that the 'man of blood' who was hated by God and was of course not him.
"Base fellow" is "man of Belial" and that is just what Abigail had
called Nabal (1 Sam. 25:25). Doubtless David had prided himself on doing
the right thing in waiting that Nabal the "man of Belial" to die of
natural causes before taking Abigail as wife. But he is being shown that
he is no better than Nabal. Indeed later David is to admit that he has
"done foolishly" (2 Sam. 24:10), no better than Nabal the fool. So
possibly he did learn from this. Again we see that all his sufferings were
not mere karma, not Divine anger for the sake of it; but judgments
designed to elicit his repentance and appreciation of the dimensions of
his actions and their effect upon others. That this continued so long and
so repeatedly in his life suggests he overall failed to get most of the
lessons most of the time. Likewise with all our experiences.
2Sa 16:8 Yahweh has returned on you all the blood of the house of Saul, in
whose place you have reigned! Yahweh has delivered the kingdom into the
hand of Absalom your son! Behold, you are caught by your own sinfulness,
because you are a man of blood!-
It was the blood of Uriah and the soldiers killed alongside him which
was being punished. But Shimei says that David had shed the blood of the
house of Saul. This was all a cruel mixture of truth and error. David
would likely have noted the reference to the house of Saul, and wrongly
corroborated it with Ziba's claim that in fact Absalom was planning to be
co-regent along with Mephibosheth. Shimei's accusation was false-
David was not fleeing from Absalom because of anything he had done to
Saul. Indeed he had consistently acted honourably towards Saul and his
family, the very opposite of Shimei's false accusation. But the purpose of
the obviously false accusation was to elicit humility in David and
recognition of his sin with Uriah and Bathsheba; for that was the real
reason why he was fleeing from Absalom. And indeed David had been a
"bloodthirsty man". David did have blood on his hands, and the experience
of false accusation was intended to elicit his recognition of that. The
blood he had on his hands was of Uriah and the soldiers of Israel; not the
blood of Saul and his family who were slain by God. And that is often the
purpose behind our experience of false accusation- to elicit in us an
awareness of our actual sins. And it possibly worked, because David
accepts that this cursing is from Yahweh. We too need to spiritually
respond to false accusation as we are intended to and not get hung up in
bitterness upon the injustice of it. And yet despite Shimei's curses being
not wrong in essence, David was still so hurt by them that he asked
Solomon to slay Shimei. This was surely a case of hurt pride.
Amnon did "wrong" to Tamar David's daughter (2 Sam. 13:16). "Wrong" here is the same word translated "evil" in the punishment upon David in 2 Sam. 12:10 "I will raise up evil against you from within your own house / family". The "evil" of Amnon was therefore indeed his own error and sin, but it was used by God and 'raised up' in that God confirmed Amnon in his evil in order to punish David. At the time of Absalom's rebellion, Shimei comments that "Evil [s.w.] has overtaken you [David] because you are a man of blood" (2 Sam. 16:8). But David proactively sought to avoid that "evil": "Get up! Let us flee [from Absalom]... or he will soon... bring evil [s.w.] upon us" (2 Sam. 15:14). We see here the complexities of God's workings. The "evil" was indeed to come upon David, yet he took steps to avoid some of it and God confirmed him in that and delivered him from Absalom. And so 2 Sam. 17.14 "For the LORD had ordained to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, so that the LORD might bring ruin [evil] on Absalom" (NRSV). The complexities and ebb and flow of all this working are beyond any final human analysis; and this explains why there appear various things in our lives which clearly feel to be of Divine intervention, but whose meaning is beyond our analysis.
We could render "You are in your own evil". This evil was the evil God had said would arise from David's own house, and Shimei is consciously alluding to this- hence David's comment that Yahweh has bidden Shimei curse in this way. But still David seeks to wriggle out of it, hoping that because of this manifestation of the evil, God would bless him with good (:12). Although he perceives God has raised up Shimei to curse him, he is far from penitent and bitterly resents this consequence- later commanding Solomon to murder him. Again he shoots the messenger, just as he did with the man who told him of Saul's death, as his servants feared he would do to them if they told him his child by Bathsheba had died, and as I suggest Ahimaaz did when he couldn't bring himself to tell David that his son Absalom was dead.
We ponder the truth of "Yahweh has delivered the kingdom into the hand of Absalom". So far in the Hebrew Bible, nobody has ever claimed that they are speaking for Yahweh when in fact they weren't. David understands Shimei as acting on Yahweh's behalf (:10). The language is so similar to Yahweh's judgment of 1 Sam. 15:28 “The Lord has this day torn the kingship over Israel away from you [Saul] and has given it to another [David]". For David, this should have made no difference, and it should have honed his focus upon the promise of 2 Sam. 7- that after his death, he would be resurrected to see his Divine seed reigning on his throne eternally. So quite possibly God did take the kingdom away from David and give it to Absalom; but he was vain and therefore slain, and so the kingdom returned to David.
2Sa 16:9 Then Abishai the son of Zeruiah said to the king, Why should this
dead dog curse my lord the king?-
This was how David had felt about himself (1 Sam. 24:14 cp. 2 Sam.
9:8; 16:9)
Please let me go over and take off his
head-
The Philistines in 1 Sam. 29:4 recalled how David had carried the
head of Goliath to Saul (1 Sam. 17:57). To carry the heads of a king's
enemies was a way to get the king's favour, as in Jud. 7:25; 2 Sam. 4:8;
16:9; 20:21; 2 Kings 10:6-8. Again we see the inspired, historical record
has consistency. It would have required a clever editor to insert this
theme of beheading to curry a leader's favour throughout the entire
Biblical record. But the histories were clearly written at different
times; a later hand would not have thought of all these realistic touches
to sprinkle so consistently throughout it. The internal harmony of the
Bible is to me the greatest indication that it is what it claims to be,
the Divinely inspired word of God, evidencing His editing throughout.
It was Abishai who had wanted to kill Saul in 1 Sam. 26:8,9 but was then restrained by David; and David now twice restrains him from killing Shimei, Saul's relative (2 Sam. 16:9; 19:22,23).
2Sa 16:10 The king said, What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah?
Because he curses, and because Yahweh has said to him, ‘Curse David’, who
then shall say, ‘Why have you done so?’-
To curse the king was a capital offence under the law (Ex.
22:28). Abishai was acting according to the law- if indeed David was still
king. The fact David restrains him could be read as his recognition that
he was not in fact the king of Israel at this point. He is at least
willing to accept that he may have lost the throne; and this temporary
loss of the throne was surely to make him focus more on the promised seed
of 2 Sam. 7, who after David's death would reign eternally upon David's
throne, in David's resurrected presence.
David assumes that “the Lord hath said unto [Shimei], Curse David”; but later he orders Solomon to punish Shimei for doing this. So it seems that David had a way of assuming God had spoken when it was more his own assumption. It is another example of David's tendency to wildly over interpret, which led him to a mistaken obsession about building the temple and assuming Solomon to be his Messianic seed.
Or we could read this as an example of where Yahweh confirms an evil man in his evil way, telling him to do what he wants to do; just as the evil spirit from Yahweh confirmed Saul in his downwards path. And indeed there was some truth in Shimei's cursing of David; for he was guilty of blood and should have been stoned to death. We note with possible interest that another "son of Gera", Ehud, also spoke a word of Yahweh as judgment to a wicked king (Jud. 3:15).
2Sa 16:11 David said to Abishai, and to all his servants, Behold, my son,
who came forth from my bowels, seeks my life. How much more this
Benjamite, now? Leave him alone, and let him curse; for Yahweh has invited
him-
David graciously overlooked Shimei's cursing, promising him that he
would not die because of it (2 Sam. 16:10,11; 19:23). But he didn't keep
up that level of grace to the end: he later asked Solomon to ensure that
Shimei was killed for that incident (1 Kings 2:8,9). And one wonders
whether it was Shimei’s words which so broke David’s heart that he later
wrote: “Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the
poor and needy man…as he loved cursing, so let it come unto him; as he
delighted not in blessing, so may it be far from him. He clothed himself
also with cursing as with a garment…” (Ps. 109:16-18). Again we
see in David both grace and less noble feelings at the same time- pride,
vindictiveness, unforgiveness...
2Sa 16:12 It may be that Yahweh will look on the wrong done to me, and
that Yahweh will repay me good for the cursing of me today-
Hannah's request in 1 Sam. 1:11 that God look upon her affliction and
answer it was heard, and she became an inspiration to her descendant
David; who often makes the same request, unashamed to be inspired by the
example of a woman (s.w. 2 Sam. 16:12; Ps. 9:13; 25:18 and so often in the
Psalms).
David still considers that he is unfairly suffering "wrong" ['evil']. Although this was the specific punishment for his great sins in the Bathsheba affair. And yet he has just accepted that Shimei's stoning of him was just and from God, in that he deserved it. We see here what we surely have all experienced- lip service to the idea that we are sinners and justly condemned to suffering and death, and yet chafing at these things being unfair in our personal case. All at the very same time.
I suggest that it is at this exact moment, reflecting upon Shimei's words, that Psalm 3 was composed in David's mind. And without doubt Ps. 109:28 fits in here: "They may curse, but You bless. When they arise, they will be shamed, but Your servant shall rejoice. Let my adversaries be clothed with dishonour, may they cover themselves with their own shame as with a robe". The rest of the Psalm is David's ranting against Shimei and Ahithophel, with some words of it being quoted in the New Testament about Judas. But the logic is concerning. David doesn't accept that the cursing of Shimei is just, even though he admits God has bidden Shimei curse. Even at this time, he begs for judgment upon Shimei. And he likes to imagine that because he was being cursed, therefore God would have pity upon him and bless him. David thereby refuses any idea that there is a connection between his sins and his experience of being cursed. The essential accusations of Shimei were true, even if the details weren't. David's reaction here seems typical- thinking he can as it were bend some good from God out of his sufferings for his sins.
2Sa 16:13 So David and his men went by the way; and Shimei went along on
the hillside opposite him, and cursed as he went, threw stones at him, and
threw dust-
The language of cursing and dust recalls Gen. 3:19. That David's sin is
indeed an epitome of all our sins is proved by the way in which the record
of it is framed in the language of the fall. Adam is presented as David.
Gen. 2:8,17 = 2 Sam. 12:5; Gen. 2:17 = 2 Sam. 12:9; Gen. 6:2 = 2 Sam.
12:9; Gen. 3:17 = 2 Sam. 12:10; Gen. 3:7 = 2 Sam. 12:11; Gen. 3:8 = 2 Sam.
11:24; 12:12; Gen. 3:21 = 2 Sam. 12:13; Gen. 3:17 = 2 Sam. 16:11; Gen.
3:19 = 2 Sam. 16:13. It should also be noted that David/Bathsheba language
is used to describe Israel's spiritually fallen state (e.g. Ps. 38:7=Is.
1:6; Ps. 51:7=Is. 1:18; Ps. 65:2=Is. 40:15). David recognized this in Ps.
51:17, where he likens his own state to that of Zion, which also needed to
be revived by God's mercy. As David's sin is likened to the killing of a
lamb (2 Sam. 12:4), so the Jews killed Jesus. The troubles which therefore
came upon his kingdom have certain similarities with the events of
AD67-70. They were also repeated in the Nazi Holocaust, and
will yet be. Israel are yet to fully repent after the pattern of David.
Throughout all these experiences, David was composing Psalms. Ps 7:4,5 records David's objections to having his glory rolled in the dust by Shimei, an allusion to Shimei throwing dust at him. He denies that he has done evil to people as accused, and insists he has done only good. This was true of the house of Saul, but he fails to see that he had been a man of blood to Uriah.
2Sa 16:14 The king, and all the people who were with him, became weary;
and he refreshed himself there-
The day David fled Jerusalem is recorded in more detail than any day
in Biblical history. The tragedy of a good man having to suffer for his
sins is thereby underlined to us.
2Sa 16:15 Absalom, and all the people, the men of Israel, came to
Jerusalem, and Ahithophel with him-
Absalom entered Jerusalem the day David fled (2 Sam. 15:37; 17:1).
Ahithophel's advice to attack David immediately was undoubtedly the best
advice.
2Sa 16:16 It happened, when Hushai the Archite, David’s friend, had come
to Absalom, that Hushai said to Absalom, Long live the king! Long live the
king!-
Hushai doesn't define which king he has in mind. This raises the
question as to whether lying is always wrong, necessarily. Rahab's lies
and those of the Hebrew midwives at the exodus are rewarded as acts of
faith. But this is of course a slippery slope. But such open questions are
left for our reflection, underlining that spiritual life cannot be run by
laws but by principles. See on 2 Sam. 17:20.
2Sa 16:17 Absalom said to Hushai, Is this your kindness to your friend?
Why didn’t you go with your friend?-
There is a kind of parallel here with David probing Ittai as to
whether he wasn't in fact an agent of Absalom (2 Sam. 15:19).
Here we have another example of a man knowing or suspecting that he is being lied to or likely to be deceived, and falling headlong for the deception anyway. This happens several times to David, and I have noted that this was precisely the case with Uriah as he returned to the battlefront with a letter from David, and as he marched to an engagement where he was sure he would be killed. What David did is being played out before his eyes yet again.
2Sa 16:18 Hushai said to Absalom, No; but whoever Yahweh and this people,
and all the men of Israel have chosen, his will I be, and with him I will
stay-
This again (as noted on :16) is phrased ambiguously; for Hushai
believed that Yahweh and the true Israel of God had chosen David and not
Absalom. Hushai's double speak is so obvious! We enquire why
Absalom didn't see through it. We can only conclude that God's Spirit can
work directly on human minds to blind and also reveal.
2Sa 16:19 Again, whom should I serve? Shouldn’t I serve in the presence of
his son? As I have served in your father’s presence, so will I be in your
presence-
Hushai accepts that David has indeed lost the throne, for the time
being.
2Sa 16:20 Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, Give your counsel what we shall
do-
Ahithophel's counsel directly leads to the fulfilment of Nathan's
prophecy that a usurper would sleep with David's wives. Perhaps he based
his counsel about this upon Nathan's words. But probably those words of
Nathan had been privately stated to David and not generally known. So we
reflect how Ahithophel's advice and Absalom's acceptance of it was all of
their own genuine freewill. And yet it was to fulfil God's word of
punishment.
2Sa 16:21 Ahithophel said to Absalom, Go in to your father’s concubines,
that he has left to keep the house. Then all Israel will hear that you are
abhorred by your father. Then the hands of all who are with you will be
strong-
Ahithophel assumed that such behaviour would make David hate Absalom.
But he had not factored in David's deep spirituality and humility. For
this did not make David hate Absalom, and at his death, David was
heartbroken, despite having been reestablished as king. Further, I
suggested on 2 Sam. 15:16 that David left his concubines in Jerusalem
fully aware of what would happen according to Nathan's prophecy. But he
did not seek to stop that prophecy coming true; he humbled himself to
accept his sin and the judgment pronounced for it.
The record in 2 Sam. 15:16; 16:21 uses a slightly strange word as to how David "left ten women, who were concubines, to keep [specifically, to guard] the house". We of course wonder how the ten women were supposed to guard David's house against Absalom's army. If we stick with just the idea of 'keeping the house', why would David so wish there to be no break in the housekeeping in his absence? I suggest the better translation is that he left the ten women 'in the guard house'. And so again we have the scenes with Uriah played out again before David's eyes. He slept with Uriah's wife, called Uriah back from the front, got him drunk and urged him to go home and sleep with his wife. But Uzziah instead lay down to sleep with David's servants at the gate of David's house- clearly, the guard house: "Uriah slept at the door of the king’s house with all the servants of his lord" (2 Sam. 11:9). Now David used that same guard house to try to hide ten of his women. We may note that the guarded house they were finally kept in (2 Sam. 20:3), the house of guarding / keeping, is described with a related word to that used for 'keeping / guarding' in 2 Sam. 15:16; 16:21.
The reasoning was that some Israelites guessed that David and
Absalom might reconcile; and then David would seek revenge upon those who
had backed Absalom. So the idea was to make David so hate Absalom that it
was clear to everyone that there would never be any reconciliation between
them. To publically lay with David's wives was the ultimate humiliation
for David. His lack of response to it shows him to have been truly weak
and humiliated.
2Sa 16:22 So they spread Absalom a tent on the top of the house; and
Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel-
Walking upon the roof of his house connects with several passages
which associate the roof top with a place of idolatry: 2 Kings 23:12; Jer.
19:13; 32:29; Zeph. 1:5. It may be that David regularly worshipped the
idol of Bathsheba in his mind, upon the bed which he had on the house top.
David's sin with Bathsheba is therefore not such a momentary slip.
Significantly, it was in that very place where Absalom later lay with his
wives in retribution for what he had done (2 Sam. 16:22). From this we
could infer that David lay with Bathsheba in that same place on the roof
top. This is significant insofar as it shows how exactly the thought leads
to the action. David's thoughts in that spot were translated into that
very action, in precisely the same physical location.
We recall that David had intentionally left those women behind. Had he really loved them, he would by all means have taken them with him- and so the threatened judgment of 2 Sam. 12:11,12 would not have come true: "I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun". God of course foresaw David's lack of love for those women. Again we note that although people are said to love David, David is never recorded as loving anyone.
These women were likely the concubines / harem of Saul, which had been given to David by Yahweh [Nathan rebuked David about taking Bathsheba because "I gave your master's wives into your bosom"]. Now they were used and claimed by Absalom. Again the incident was designed to recall Nathan's words to David's memory.
2Sa 16:23 The counsel of Ahithophel, which he gave in those days, was as
if a man inquired at the oracle of God: so was all the counsel of
Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom-
As noted above, Ahithophel's words about sleeping with the
concubines were in fact a repetition of Nathan's inspired, prophetic words
to David. Ahithophel was perhaps indeed inspired at times to speak God's words as a
prophet. But this didn't mean therefore that all he said was true. The
fact Absalom will now prefer Hushai's advice over Ahithophel's shows how
Absalom didn't respect God's word. He ignored the words of the man
accepted as an inspired prophet, and instead followed advice which was
designed to appeal to his pride. And yet Absalom's failure
was all in God's purpose. Again we marvel at the intricacy of how God
works with men.
Previous Chapter
