Deeper Commentary
2Sa 20:1 There happened to be there-
That wonderful scene of grace and unity at David's restoration in 2
Sam. 19 was attended by some who were unmoved by it; and sought for their
own faction to have power.
A base fellow, whose name was
Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite: and he blew the trumpet and said, We
have no portion in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse.
Every man to his tents, Israel!-
True as the Proverbs are which condemn "a worthless / wicked person"
(Prov. 6:12; 16:27; 19:28), again we have a subtext of Solomon seeking to
justify himself and his father David, and to criticize the various
competitors to Solomon's throne. "A worthless person" is the term used for
Nabal (1 Sam. 25:17), those in David's camp who were not fully supportive
of David (1 Sam. 30:22), Sheba who plotted to overthrow the Davidic line
as king (2 Sam. 20:1), and particularly of those who wanted to overthrow
Solomon as king (2 Chron. 13:7). We note the speculation
that Sheba was the father of Bath-Sheba. In this case we see the same
scenario as with Ahithophel- Bathsheba's family were bitter with David
because of what he did, and the consequences kept returning upon David.
From the Divine viewpoint, this was in hope that he would repent.
"We have no portion in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse. Every man to his tents, Israel!" was to be repeated by those who didn't want David's line reigning over them (1 Kings 12:16). The sentiment of Sheba didn't go away, and it was likely because of the repugnance of David's character and behaviour in so many ways. And yet he was God's man, and the huge amount of Biblical information about him is there to present us with the challenge of an unpleasant man, with so many character and behavioural weaknesses, who had a heart for God and will be saved by grace. He is without doubt the major human figure of the Old Testament; and his ultimate salvation is there to encourage so many of God's children who are so similar to him.
"We have no portion in David" seems to directly, intentionally contradict the statement by the men of Israel that they had ten parts in David (2 Sam. 19:43). We could take this as a call to establish a separate Benjamite-led state independent of the others. The seeds of division were clearly there within Israel well before the division into Israel and Judah at Rehoboam's time. Despite just having stated that they had ten parts in David, "all the men of Israel changed from following David, and followed Sheba" (:2). Their desire for this was strong, as David himself recognized in :6 “Sheba son of Bichri will do us more harm than Absalom”. They strongly hankered to return to how things were under Saul, when Benjamin rather than Judah dominated- despite the fact Saul practiced nepotism. This was about as bizarre as the Israelites wanting to return to Egypt. But we have here yet another example of how man thinks that "the former days were better". This is a strong part of our native wiring.
We note that Sheba's catch cry was that Israel had no part in
David, and :2 states that the men of Israel followed Sheba rather than
David. Clearly there was disillusion with David personally-
unsurprisingly. The same words are used when the kingdom divides; the
majority of Israel wanted no part in "David" (1 Kings 12:16). This is all
tacit reflection of how disillusioned the populace was with "David"
personally. David's own tribe of Judah rebelled against him in supporting
Absalom, and now the other tribes showed their feelings by supporting
Sheba under the credo of "we have no part in David". David clearly lacked
popular support after the Bathsheba incident and only remained in power
because there remained no credible alternative to him.
2Sa 20:2 So all the men of Israel changed from following David, and
followed Sheba the son of Bichri; but the men of Judah joined with their
king, from the Jordan even to Jerusalem-
We see the fickle nature of human hearts. They had been won by David
from Saul, then Absalom had stolen the hearts of the men of Judah, and in
2 Sam. 19:14 David bows those hearts back to him, in a very short space of
time; and then those hearts are won by Sheba in 2 Sam. 20:2. We think of
how the people who once cried "Hosanna" were soon shouting "crucify Him!",
and soon after that were so supportive of the apostles preaching Jesus as
Christ that the authorities were scared to touch them.
But "from Jordan even to Jerusalem" reflects how the argument between Judah and the other tribes began due to the quarrel about bringing David back as king by crossing the Jordan. Basically the other tribes withdrew and Judah alone conducted David from Jordan to Jerusalem and this led to the discontent of the others.
2Sa 20:3 David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten
women his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in
custody, and provided them with sustenance, but didn’t go in to them. So
they were shut up to the day of their death, living in widowhood-
These were presumably the concubines with whom Absalom had slept. The
implication could be that this was when he first returned from exile in
Mahanaim. Which would mean that the revolt of Sheba was almost immediately
after he had crossed the Jordan, making a mockery of the 'unity meeting'
held at Gilgal in 2 Sam. 19 to officially restore David as king.
Why did David do this when Sheba began his rebellion? Possibly because he feared Sheba may lay with them as Absalom had done. Whatever the reason, David shows no care for the women as persons, for his actions precluded them from personal relationships and left them as prisoners of the court. He had treated others like this not least Michal.
The women were placed in custody, prisoners of the court, until they died. Nor did David sleep with them. This all seems like punishment- for sleeping with Absalom? But this seems a harsh punishment, seeing they had little choice. And this likely was Saul's harem which David had taken over, as Nathan reminded him in 2 Sam. 12. Had David taken these women with him to safety, then the incident need never have occurred. We wonder at how David could be so harsh in judgment given his own sexual and related sins. It was the same punishment he gave to Michal his ex-wife. He appears to still not 'get it' regarding the seriousness of his sin and the greatness of God's grace to him. Another reading is that he made them live in "widowhood" as a kind of permanent mourning for Absalom who David sees as having married them by sleeping with them. But by refusing them sex and children, enforcing this by imprisoning them, we see David having no care about those women as persons. It was all for the symbolism of 'grief for Absalom'.
2Sa 20:4 Then the king said to Amasa, Call me the men of Judah together
within three days, and be here present-
2Sa 20:5 So Amasa went to call the men of Judah together; but he stayed
longer than the set time which he had appointed him-
The delay in raising an army may have been because many were
unwilling to come out and support David. As Samuel tarried longer than the set time Saul expected (1 Sam.
13:8), so Amasa "tarried longer than the set time which [David] had
appointed him" (2 Sam. 20:5). Circumstances repeat within our lives and
between our lives and those of others in Biblical history; that we might
learn the lessons and take comfort from the scriptures, that man is not
alone.
2Sa 20:6 David said to Abishai-
Amasa had been appointed general, but he was absent. Instead of
treating Joab as the second in command, David addressed Joab's brother
Abishai as the de facto army general. All this provoked huge resentment in
Joab. It seems David had a personality clash with Joab, frustrated at his
refusal to understand grace and complaining that Joab was "too hard" for
him.
Now Sheba the son of Bichri will do us
more harm than Absalom did. Take your lord’s servants, and pursue after
him, otherwise he will get himself fortified cities, and escape out of our
sight-
David is far more proactive and not as mournfully passive as he was
during Absalom's rebellion. This reflects how he realized that Absalom's
putsch was the fulfilment of Nathan's words to him about the consequences
of his sin with Bathsheba. But he clearly didn't see Sheba's power grab in
the same light.
David's plan to immediately hunt Sheba without delay and
besiege him in a walled city was exactly the advice of Ahithophel to
Absalom against David. It could be argued that David is just doing to
others as was done to him, and in this he showed no grace. Or he was again
experiencing history being played out before his present experience. He
was now feeling like his son Absalom had felt and reasoning like Absalom,
the son he both loved and hated [according to the Psalms]. Like Absalom,
David wastes time by trying to raise a large army- but then he cuts that
short and Joab goes after Sheba personally. Just as Absalom had done.
2Sa 20:7 There went out after him Joab’s men, and the Cherethites, the
Pelethites and all the mighty men; and they went out of Jerusalem, to
pursue after Sheba the son of Bichri-
The abiding loyalty of these men to David (2 Sam. 8:18; 15:18) is
incredible. Joab's sad end at Solomon's hands in 1 Kings 2:28 is the more
tragic. The idea could be that the "him" is Amasa rather than
Abishai. Joab's
troops were loyal to their new general and went "after" Amasa. Joab calmly
murders Amasa and then leads the troops to victory over Sheba, rallying
them after him- thus declaring himself the de facto general again. His victory
against Sheba and retention of power for David meant it was impossible for
David to really sanction Joab for the murder of Amasa.
2Sa 20:8 When they were at the great stone which is in Gibeon, Amasa came
to meet them-
Amasa had presumably been raising an army in Benjamin.
Literally, "Amasa went before them". Having raised some forces, by a rapid
march he overtook the soldiers of Joab and Abishai at Gibeon, and there
assumed the place of commander over them too. And thus demoted Joab and
Abishai, whose soldiers were loyal to them and not Amasa whom they had
just been fighting. It was a recipe for disaster, reflecting David's
unwisdom.
Joab was clothed in his battledress that he had put on, and
on it was a sash with a sword fastened on his waist in its sheath-
The only person in David's life whose belt is noted is Joab (2 Sam.
20:8; 1 Kings 2:5). But Ps. 109:8,19 wish curses upon the man who was well
known for his belt. See notes there for the extent of David's anger with
Joab and his desire for the man's condemnation because of it- even though
David was not himself perfect.
And as
he went forth it fell out-
It seemed that the sword at Joab’s side accidentally fell out
of its scabbard as he went toward Amasa to greet him (2 Sam. 20:8) – but
it was on purpose, of course. The Bible sometimes describes things as they
appear, even if that appearance is incorrect.
2Sa 20:9 Joab said to Amasa, Is it well with you, my brother? Joab took
Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him-
Amasa was surely aware of how Joab had slain Abner, but as will be
discussed on :10, on another level, he took no cognizance of this. "Well
with you" is the word shalom, and is referred to in Solomon's
comment that Joab shed the blood of war in peace, perhaps meaning 'in the
name of peace' (1 Kings 2:5).
2Sa 20:10 But Amasa took no heed to the sword that was in Joab’s hand. So
he struck him with it in the body, and shed out his bowels to the ground,
and didn’t strike him again; and he died. Joab and Abishai his brother
pursued after Sheba the son of Bichri-
There are many similarities between Joab's murder of Asahel
and how Abner, Saul's general, had murdered Joab's brother Asahel (2 Sam.
2:18-23). Both incidents occurred near Gibeon. There was dialogue between
the killer and the slain before the killing, which was through piercing
the enemy's belly. Both times the soldiers paused because of the killing,
but in both cases Joab did not stop but went on pursuing the fleeing
enemy, unto victory. I suggest the similarities are to suggest to us that
Joab all these years later was still motivated by blood lust. He wanted to
do to another as had been done to his brother. And this kind of thing
plays out continually in the minds and deeds of men, unless the influence
of the Spirit breaks the cycle of psychological inevitability.
Joab had murdered Abner
in the same way in 2 Sam. 3:27. We note the
internal consistency in the record of Joab's character; another reason to
believe these records are absolutely credible and inspired by God.
See on 2 Sam. 19:6.
The blood of Amasa went all over Joab, even into his sandals (1
Kings 2:5).
Joab is being painted as a man who was a man of blood, for
whom human life meant little and he slew too quickly. And David protests
that Joab and his brothers are too "hard" for him, implying that he is a
softy unlike them. But that is not the case. David is also a man of blood,
killing easily, by deception and without reason; and Joab is his alter ego
rather than his opposite. And David fails to perceive that. We too have
alter egos, people who behave similarly to us in other contexts. They are
placed in our lives to provoke our introspection, and yet too easily like
David we end up condemning them. We think of David's eager condemnation of
the man in the parable who had stolen his neighbour's beloved lamb.
We wonder why Amasa "took no heed to the sword...". Drivers can see an accident coming, but not swerve; there is a lack of
cognition somewhere in the human psyche. Pilots take off at times knowing
that their wings are frozen, and crash. Amasa saw the sword and must have
seen the possibility of death, but didn’t take cognizance of it. Samson must have known, on one level, what Delilah would do. The
human Lord Jesus knew Judas would betray Him, and yet acted on another
level as if He didn’t. It should have been obvious to the British and
French that Germany would start a war in 1938. But mankind is in amnesia,
somewhere, somehow, we fail to recognize the obvious. Likewise with the
nearness of the Lord’s return, with the urgency of our task in witness,
with the evident need to follow God’s word- this lack of cognizance so
often comes into play. We really ought to pray, earnestly, for open hearts
and eyes and obedient lives before our daily reading.
It is part of human nature not to perceive the obvious when we have a subconscious reason not to, or a distraction. Maybe Amasa was more concerned about fighting Sheba, and considered that Joab would of course not touch him because they were soldiers fighting on the same side. Or we can know something on one level, but not on another. It helps explain why the Lord Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas would betray him (Jn. 6:64), and yet how He could really trust in Judas as his own familiar friend, confide in him (Ps. 41:9), tell him that he would sit with the other eleven on thrones in the Kingdom (Mt. 19:28). This was ever a serious contradiction for me, until considering the Samson : Delilah relationship in depth. A man can know something about someone on one level, but act and feel towards them in a quite different way than this knowledge requires. In the same way, it was in one sense true that the Jews “knew not whence I come” (Jn. 8:24,14 RV) and yet in another sense they knew perfectly well the Divine origin of Jesus (Jn. 7:28). David likewise must have known Absalom’s deceit; but he chose not to see it, for love’s sake. “They also that seek after my life lay snares for me: and they that seek my hurt speak mischievous things [just as Absalom did in the gate]... but I, as a deaf man, heard not” (Ps. 38:12,13). One also gets the sense that the Gibeonites’ deception was somehow guessed by the elders of Israel, but against their better judgment they disregarded the telltale signs (Josh. 9:7). Amasa, taking no heed to the sword in Joab’s hand... against his better judgment, surely, is another example.
2Sa 20:11 There stood by him one of Joab’s young men and said, He who
favours Joab, and he who is for David, let him follow Joab!-
We see here the beginnings of Joab's move towards trying to himself
seize power at the time of Adonijah's rebellion. He places his name before
David's, and asks men to follow him rather than David. We learn how evil
actions begin with baby steps towards them.
2Sa 20:12 Amasa lay wallowing in his blood in the midst of the highway.
When the man saw that all the people stood still, he carried Amasa out of
the highway into the field, and cast a garment over him, when he saw that
everybody who came by him stood still-
It was a particularly bloody murder (1 Kings 2:5). "The men" were the
troops Amasa had raised to be loyal to David; see on :13.
2Sa 20:13 When he was removed out of the highway, all the people went on
after Joab, to pursue after Sheba the son of Bichri-
"All the people" refers to the troops Amasa had raised to fight on
David's side against Sheba; they followed Joab,
which would indicate that Amasa's delay in coming was not due to any
disloyalty to David; see on :5. So this delay was used as an excuse by
Joab to doubt Amasa's loyalty, and use that as a cover for slaying him-
when his motive was really personal jealousy. This covering of the motive
of personal jealousy goes on all the time in life.
2Sa 20:14 He went through all the tribes of Israel to Abel, and to Beth
Maacah, and all the Berites: and they were gathered together, and went
also after him-
The location of any place called Berim is unknown, so we may go with
LXX "and all the chosen men were gathered together". Abel Beth
Maacah (:15) may well have connections with Maacah, mother of Absalom.
Quite possibly he went there because there was much discontent with David
there.
2Sa 20:15 They came and besieged him in Abel of Beth Maacah, and they cast
up a mound against the city, and it stood against the rampart; and all the
people who were with Joab battered at the wall, in order to throw it down-
"Battered" translates a word meaning 'to undermine' or to dig pits.
By all means they were seeking to tear down the wall, yet we will see on
:18 that Joab had disobeyed the command of Dt. 20:10 to firstly dialogue
before besieging a city. LXX "all the people with Joab proposed to
throw down the wall". This was the advice of Hushai, to drag the wall of
any city where David was into a river. Again and again, David is being
reminded of his previous salvations by grace.
2Sa 20:16 Then a wise woman cried out of the city-
LXX "from the wall". Again
we have the murder of a man by a wall, due to betrayal by his own side,
recalling that of Uriah. Both Uriah and Sheba perished because of a woman.
The Hebrew in :21 is literally "through the wall" s.w. "at" a window in
Gen 26:8. The reference is to one of the apertures made for the archers.
This was how Uriah was slain, by an archer shooting through such a window
on the wall. And it was through such an opening that the woman spoke to
Joab and possibly passed Sheba's head to him. Constantly the scenes
associated with the Bathsheba and Uriah debacle are replayed to David,
with God thereby ever seeking to nudge him towards greater realization and
repentance. His confession was that "Against You, You only have I sinned",
in contrast with Joseph's appreciation that adultery is a sin against both
God and man. David never seems to have grasped this. Despite all the
constant oblique reminders.
Hear, hear! Please say to Joab, ‘Come near here, that I may speak
with you’-
This coming near to a city wall recalls the murder of Uriah, again
under Joab's command and with Joab's full complicity. Joab would
immediately have thought 'I must be careful not to be killed as Uriah
was'. All these rebellions were related to David's sin against Bathsheba
and Uriah, and there are many conscious and unconscious allusions back to
it.
2Sa 20:17 He came near to her; and the woman said, Are you Joab? He
answered, I am. Then she said to him, Hear the words of your handmaid. He
answered, I do hear-
Abigail's plea "Hear the words of your handmaid" (1 Sam. 15:24) was
repeated by the woman of 2 Sam. 20:17. But Abigail herself had modelled
her behaviour on women like Rebekah (1 Sam. 25:23 = Gen. 24:18,46). This
is how functional fellowship occurs between God's people, both over time
and in contemporary relationships. We copy that which is Godly and good
which we observe in other believers, both those we know and those we meet
in the Bible.
2Sa 20:18 Then she spoke saying, They used to say in old times, ‘They
shall surely ask counsel at Abel’; and so they resolved things-
The text is difficult. The idea may be that as in AVmg. "They plainly
spake in the beginning, saying, Surely they will ask of Abel, and so make
an end", meaning that Joab ought to have done as in Dt. 20:10 and summoned
the city to surrender before besieging it. Joab comes over as over hasty
and with no interest in following the Biblical rules of engagement. Hence
LXX also hints at this: "It was asked in Abel and in Dan whether the
customs have failed which the faithful of Israel ordained".
LXX "Of old time they said thus, Surely one was asked in Abel, and Dan, whether the faithful in Israel failed in what they purposed; they will surely ask in Abel, even in like manner, whether they have failed. I am a peaceable one of the strong ones in Israel; but thou seekest to destroy a city and a mother city in Israel: why dost thou seek to ruin the inheritance of the Lord?".
2Sa 20:19 I am among those who are peaceable and faithful in Israel. You
seek to destroy a city and a mother in Israel. Why will you swallow up the
inheritance of Yahweh?-
Joab was looking to destroy the city for the sake of his mission
against Sheba. The woman's argument is that which should be used against
all such campaigns which are based around guilt by association. The
grammar suggests she speaks of herself as a personification of the city:
"I am peaceable faithful ones of Israel". Cities are often called mothers
(as 2 Sam. 8:1), and their surrounding villages are called their
daughters. And she may be saying that the whole city was faithful
to Israel, which calls forth Joab's response that if this were so, why
then were they harbouring Sheba. The woman's claim to be faithful in
Israel may mean that she was faithful to David as king of Israel. She
seems to be saying that Joab ought to have begun with dialogue rather than
besieging the city and thus assuming their disloyalty. This would've been
in accordance with the law which prescribed that a city should be summoned
to surrender before it was besieged (Dt. 20:10).
2Sa 20:20 Joab answered, Far be it, far be it from me, that I should
swallow up or destroy-
Joab may mean 'I am personally not doing this to you, I have a Divine
mandate to destroy a false leader called Sheba'. But that doesn't actually
answer the woman's wisdom of :19. Joab ought to have asked for the head of
Sheba at the start, but he doesn't apologize for his actions and his
refusal to seek dialogue first; see on :18.
2Sa 20:21 The matter is not so. But a man of the hill country of Ephraim,
Sheba the son of Bichri by name, has lifted up his hand against the king,
even against David. Deliver him only, and I will depart from the city. The
woman said to Joab, Behold, his head shall be thrown to you over the wall-
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.
2Sa 20:22 Then the woman went to all the people in her wisdom. They cut
off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri, and threw it out to Joab. He blew
the trumpet, and they were dispersed from the city, each man to his tent.
Joab returned to Jerusalem to the king-
Joab has before blown a trumpet to end a civil war and further
bloodshed. Although he was a renowned and unjustified murderer, he seems
also to have had a genuine concern to limit bloodshed within Israel. This
is the kind of contradiction within human characters which is brought out
continually in the record; we see it especially in David's character. We
reflect upon it, and realize these were not just isolated individuals, but
are typical of us all. Solomon later alludes to the wisdom of this woman
in this situation (Ecc. 9:13-16), again with the unspoken implication that
Joab was a fool. Solomon's writings are true enough but constantly contain
attacks upon those with whom he or his father had had conflicts; and
Solomon slew Joab as a contender against his power base.
2Sa 20:23 Now Joab was over all the army of Israel; and Benaiah the son of
Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and over the Pelethites-
That is, Joab was restored to be over the army, as David had given
that job to Amasa as a sign of grace to his betrayers. Again David
is shown to be powerless and manipulated. Joab asked Amasa's men and also
Abishai's men to follow him if they followed David, and they did. Joab
therefore effectively declared himself commander of all the army- against
David's wishes, but with David unable to stop him because of how the
soldiers were loyal to Joab and had all agreed to his leadership in the
campaign against Sheba. The powerlessness of David comes to a crescendo on
his deathbed, where he is impotent, even with the gorgeous Abishag
ministering to him; with Bathsheba on the scene as well. Perhaps this
gradual and consistent taking of power away from this once strong and
powerful warrior was to humble him, so that he might be saved.
2Sa 20:24 and Adoram was over the men subject to forced labour; and
Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was the recorder-
This is a similar list to that in 2 Sam. 8:6-8, but with the addition
of the office of Adoram "over the men subject to forced labour". This was
exactly what Samuel had predicted Israel's king would do. And it seems
David fell into this too, and Solomon took that unwisdom far further, to
the point that people complained he was beating and whipping them with his
demands.
The list of officers now given is similar to that when David first became king. But there is one difference. Adoram was over the forced labour, and he remained throughout Solomon's reign until he was killed when Rehoboam became king. David began to use forced labour, a kind of equivalent to demanding taxation, paid by labour rather than in cash. This was just what Samuel had warned Israel of regarding a king. Solomon extrapolated from his father's weakness in this, as he did regarding women and horses.
2Sa 20:25 and Sheva was scribe; and Zadok and Abiathar were priests-
We note how those faithful to David in his wilderness years were in
office for 40 years (2 Sam. 8:6-8). This is highly unusual in political
circles. The impressive long term continuity in David's inner circle
reflects a unity which was achieved by genuine respect and loyalty towards
David and his specific Divine anointing as king-
despite his evident weaknesses and failures. We too are to be loyal to our
weaker brethren for the sake of who they are in Christ.
Likewise only a truly
Christ-centered approach brings true unity amongst God's people and
servants.
2Sa 20:26 and also Ira the Jairite was chief minister to David-
The similarity with the list of 2 Sam. 8:6-8 but this office replaces the
comment that "David's sons were chief rulers". They had either been killed
or were deemed by David unsuitable. We notice that Solomon, the son with
whom David came to be besotted after the loss of Absalom, doesn't figure
in any of this, perhaps because of his youth. The absence
of reference to David's sons is tacit reflection of how David's dreams for
his "house" to fulfil the promises of 2 Samuel 7 hadn't worked out. Does
this suggest David had lost relationship with his sons who previously held
this office? That would be a hint that he had failed in his efforts to
fulfil the promise of 2 Sam. 7 through his immediate family. Everything
was nudging him to accept the only fulfilment of his family hopes would be
through his future seed, the Lord Jesus. LXX has "priest" for "chief
minister".
Previous Chapter
