The Disciplined Order of Christ

My wife Tillie and I had a wonderful month plus of travel, but we are glad to be home. The experiences we had of seeing the pyramids, temples and tombs of ancient Egypt and the magnificent sights of Jordan (especially Petra) was one we will cherish. We learned a great deal about history and the people of current Muslim cultures, and we are grateful to the Lord that we could make the trip.

For any regular readers out there, we are sorry for the lengthy period without posting a Bible study, but there was no way to continue during the overseas tour. In this essay we pick up where we left off in late May. In the last posted essay, we studied 2 Samuel 19:16-20:26, which records what I called “The Politics of David’s Restoration.” Since people took sides during the civil war of David’s reign, much healing was needed when David came back to the throne. Once the war was over, many who had participated in the rebellion came to David even before he returned to Jerusalem to make their peace, or to seek a place in the restored kingdom. As David dealt with the supplicants, we saw both the good and evil of politics at work.

With this essay we begin the last major portion of the book, which contains a hodgepodge of material that makes it a bit hard to classify. The information comes from various times in David’s reign, and it contains poetry as well as narrative and some historical records. So I, like Joyce Baldwin, will call it an “Epilogue.”

The first matter reported in the section is about a three-year famine in the land that led David to ask the Lord the reason for it. That is, after the famine had gone on for a prolonged length of time, David concluded it was a judgment of the Lord rather than a natural event. And he was correct.

In verses 1-9, we see that when David inquired, the Lord told him the famine was due to a sin committed by Saul when he had been king. Now this indicates that the famine took place fairly early in David’s reign, during the glory years. It had to be before David invited Mephibosheth to his table; and that is recorded in chapter nine.

Saul’s attempt to eliminate the Gibeonites is not itself recorded, so we don’t know the exact circumstances that led to the famine. However the covenant that Israel made with the Gibeonites is recorded. That record is found way back in chapter nine of the book of Joshua. The Gibeonites had tricked Israel into thinking they were from a far country rather than being part of the Canaanite peoples. And Israel made a covenant with the Gibeonites in the name of the Lord that they would not harm them.

This was the treaty Saul disregarded when he killed many of the Gibeonites of his day. Perhaps Saul did that near the end of his reign. At any rate, the Lord brought judgment upon Israel in regard to that sin of Saul’s after David became king.

Once David learned the cause of the famine, he called the Gibeonites to him and asked them what they would suggest as a way to forgive the sin. They replied that they didn’t want money as compensation. Instead they required blood for blood to expiate the sin. They asked that seven of Saul’s sons, using sons in the sense of descendants, be given to them for execution. This was in harmony with the Jewish law. Numbers 35:31, for example, declares that a murderer’s life cannot be saved by ransom with money. He must be executed. The number seven, of course, was a holy number.

Scholars differ as to the type of execution intended. Some want to argue for crucifixion, but the Hebrews didn’t do crucifixions. When they hung a man on a tree, he already was dead; and the hanging was an act of humiliation. The best likelihood for the mode of death is that they impaled them and left them unburied, an example of which is seen in Num. 25:4.

David agreed to their demand even though it was in opposition to the law’s requirement that fathers were not supposed to be put to death for the sins of their sons, nor sons put to death for the sins of their fathers. That’s Deut. 24:16.

David spared Mephibosheth, but he handed over two sons of Saul born to a concubine named Rizpah and five grandsons born to Saul’s daughter Merab. And they were killed “at the beginning of the barley harvest, which was in the spring.

The next paragraph (verses 10-14) shows the extraordinary love of Rizpah. Rizpah in her grief went to the site of the execution and protected the bodies day and night from carrion eating birds and animals until the drought-related famine was broken by rain. Of course once the rains came the bodies could be buried.

When the touching act of Rizpah was told to David, he decided to do something nice for Saul’s family. He had the bones of Saul and Jonathan collected from Jabesh-Gilead, and those of the seven “sons” of Saul who had been killed by the Gibeonites from their resting place; and then he had them all buried at the family tomb of Kish, the father of Saul, in the land of Benjamin. And prayers were answered once again in the land.

The balance of the chapter (verses 15-22) tells of four heroic acts performed by David’s men in the wars with the Philistines. Very few details are given, and the events appear to have occurred across a number of years. The same four incidents are paralleled, with only some minor differences of detail, in 1 Chron. 20:4-8.

The first of the four heroic actions involved David himself. David was personally involved in the battle, and he became very tired while fighting one of the descendants of the giants named Ishbibenob. Joab’s brother, Abishai, came to David’s rescue and killed Ishbibenob (vv. 15-16). That led to the decision that David would no longer personally fight in the wars (v. 17).

The second story is extremely brief. It simply states that Sibbecai killed a giant named Saph. Sibbecai was one of David’s commanders of 24,000 listed in 1 Chron. 27:11.

The third account is similarly brief. It tells us that Elhanan killed a giant named Goliath. In the parallel in 1 Chron. 20:5, we are told that he killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath. The scholars disagree about how to handle this. When they are all boiled down, the most likely possibility in my opinion is that the Chronicles account probably is correct; and this one in 2 Samuel is corrupt. But there is no way to know for sure.

The fourth and last incident is about a six-fingered, six-toed giant whom a nephew of David’s named Jonathan killed. The thing that links the four stories together is that descendants of the so-called giants were involved in them all. Since the information is so limited, the author may have taken it directly from some kind of list of heroic exploits.

Turning to application, to me the most admirable character in the chapter is Rizpah. You might want to meditate on what her example could mean to us.

The larger question relating to this chapter is this. Do you believe God really wanted David to sacrifice seven of Saul’s sons and grandsons as the Gibeonites requested? The Lord did send the rains in response (v. 14). But was the method chosen his intentional will? There certainly is room for debate here, but I don’t think so. God’s law clearly declared that sons are not to be put to dearth for the sins of the fathers. Therefore, to me this is an example of how God, in his interactions with human beings, sometimes accommodates himself to human frailties and weaknesses.

Due to a heavy travel schedule during the rest of May and June, this will be my last post on the website until July. We are traveling to PA and NC next week and to Egypt and Jordan next month. We are very much looking forward to seeing friends and relatives next week and the pyramids, etc. in Egypt, along with Petra, etc. in Jordan next month. In the meantime, may the Lord bless and keep you. Bob

In the last essay, we studied 2 Samuel 18:19-19:15, which records the restoration of David to his throne. In this essay we are ready for what I have called “The Politics of the Restoration.” During Israel’s civil war, people obviously took sides. Therefore much healing was needed as David came back to the throne. Many who had participated in the rebellion now were talking support of David for political reasons. They needed to be seen as David’s supporters if they were to have a future in Israel.

We already have seen David reaching out to his own tribe of Judah. But in verses 16-23 we see others taking the initiative and coming to David. Some wanted to patch up their relationships to David even before he returned to Jerusalem, while others desired to strengthen their ties to David.

Among the first to seek reconciliation with David was Shimei; and of those who wished to strengthen their relationship to him, one of the first was Ziba. Since Ziba is mentioned in only two verses (vv. 17-18), we will talk about Ziba first. He was the servant of Saul whom David had assigned to serve Jonathan’s son, Mephibosheth. You will recall that at the beginning of the revolt Ziba came to David saying that Mephibosheth had stayed in Jerusalem, because he was supporting Absalom in hope of getting the throne. It never occurred to David that Ziba was lying, so on the spot he gave all of Mephibosheth’s property to Ziba (16:1-4). Now we see Ziba rushing out to the Jordan in an attempt to patch things up. However nothing is said about any conversations he had with David.

Shimei is a more interesting case, and he gets more attention from the author. You will remember that Shimei was the Benjaminite of the house of Saul who had cursed David and thrown stones at him as David left Jerusalem (16:5-13). Now here he is, at the head of the line, seeking forgiveness.

Abishai saw right through Shimei’s self-interest and suggested that Shimei be put to death. But David, also playing politics, in demonstration of his secure hold on the throne, declared that no one would die that day. Then the king gave Shimei his oath that he would not kill him. And David honored that public oath. But David did not actually forgive Shimei; and years later, while on his deathbed, David took revenge by instructing his successor, Solomom, to kill Shimei (1 Kings 2:8-9).

The next suppliant we are told about, in verse 24-30, was Mephibosheth. David once again demonstrates his weakness. It rather quickly becomes clear that Ziba, who already had come to the Jordan to proclaim his allegiance, had misrepresented Mephibosheth to David in order to take advantage of his crippled master. Mephibosheth had not washed his feet or clothing, or trimmed his beard, all signs of deep mourning, since David left Jerusalem. And now he comes to David in complete humility asking for nothing but what the king would give.

David, apparently in his embarrassment that he had been taken in by Ziba, refused to completely undo the wrong. Instead he partially corrected it by misquoting himself. He had told Ziba back in 16:4 that Ziba could have all of Mephibosheth’s property. But now he declares that he had given Ziba half of it.

In verses 31-40 the author tells us about one more of the many individuals who undoubtedly came to David in those days. It was Barzillai the Giliadite, who had supplied David with provisions while he was in Mahanaim in Gilead (17:27-29).

David offered, out of courtesy more than anything, to take Barzillai back to Jerusalem where he would find a place for him. Barzillai politely refused the offer by suggesting he was too old. But then he asked David to take Chimham, who apparently was Barzillai’s son, and use him as David would, meaning of course show him favors. David agreed. And when David was giving Solomon those deathbed instructions that we mentioned earlier, he asked Solomon to let the sons of Barzillai continue to eat at the king’s table (1 Kings 2:7).

Unfortunately, as David prepared to return to Jerusalem, escorted by Judah and half of the other tribes, not everything went smoothly. Perhaps David miscalculated when he rallied the tribe of Judah to him. At any rate, we see in verses 41-43 that his action sparked a conflict.

“All the people of Israel” here refers to the leaders of the half of Israel that was not already gathered in support of David. They obviously felt that they were being shut out of their proper place in the restoration. The leaders of Judah defended themselves, and the incident escalated into a really angry argument.

Chapter 20 continues the story. What David was doing while this argument was going on is not said. But in any case, the politics spun out of control. The whole situation exploded into a renewal of the war when a Bejaminite named Sheba suddenly called on Israel to withdraw support from David, which they did, though it appears from the following account that most of them quickly abandoned the effort. Then David, accompanied by the tribe of Judah, returned to Jerusalem. Verse three tells us how David resolved the issue of the ten concubines he had left behind to look after his palace, all of whom Absalom had defiled. David took care of them the rest of their lives, but he had no relations with them. They lived as though they were widows.

Verses 4-13 make up an interesting passage. Verse four records David’s first assignment to Amasa, his new army commander. He was to gather the forces of Judah together and return in three days. But Amasa failed. It may have been because the people of Judah would not follow his orders. We aren’t told. But when he didn’t show up on time, David ordered Abishai to pursue Sheba, which he did with his own men, Joab’s men, and David’s bodyguards.

At some point Amasa caught up with them, apparently with the intention of taking command. But Joab, who apparently also was with the army (though unnamed to this point), as he had done so often in the past, took things into his own hands. He assassinated Amasa much as he had Abner years earlier (3:22-39). Then he and Abishai continued to pursue Sheba.

In verse 14-24 we see that the war came to an end in an unusual fashion. Joab, who now assumed command of David’s army, trapped Sheba and his fellow Bechites in the town of Abel, which was located in the extreme northern part of Israel, north of the Sea of Galilee, near the city of Dan. This indicates that the masses of people from the ten tribes already had abandoned Sheba. Only the Bechites, Sheba’s own group, still were with him.

Joab immediately besieged the city and built a ramp to the top of the wall. Then they began to break down the wall (vv. 14-16). All of that is what we would expect. But then something unusual took place.

A woman who is described as “wise” called from the city wall for Joab (v. 16). Joab came to hear what she had to say (v. 17). Therefore he must have had some knowledge that she represented the inhabitants of the city. First, she told Joab that in the past her city had a reputation of settling disputes. Then she explained that many in the city, like herself, were peaceable; and they didn’t want Joab to destroy their city. Joab replied that he would withdraw if they would deliver up Sheba. She told him, rather dramatically, “His head shall be thrown over the wall to you” (vv. 18-21). And that is what happened. So Joab pulled his army away and returned to Jerusalem (v. 22).

The passage ends with a summary of David’s officers of state. You may recall a similar list appeared near the end of the last major section of the book (8:16-18). Most of the names are the same. David’s sons no longer are listed as priests. Instead Ira the Jairite is listed as a priest. And a new department of government, so to speak, appears on the list; namely, a department of “forced labor” under the leadership of a man named Adoram.

Turning to application, we see both the good and evil of politics at work. On the dark side, we saw the self-serving of Shimei and Ziba, the squabbling of the tribes, and the rebellion of Sheba. And of course, once again we saw Joab get away with murder.

On the good side we see the humility of Mephibosheth and David’s treatment of Shimei (even though David’s oath to Shimei turned out in the end to be insincere) and his treatment of Barzillai. One thing is certain. Politics tends to be messy and ugly, and someone always gets hurt.

In the last study we studied 2 Samuel 17:24-18:18, which records Absalom’s defeat and death during his civil war against David. Turning now to today’s lesson, we will be studying 18:19 through 19:15. In this passage we see David’s restoration to the throne. But at first, David’s grief interferes in a rather large way. The passage opens in 18:19-32 with the account of how David learned of the fate of Absalom. Ahimaaz, the son of the priest, Zadok, and one of the two who had warned David of Absalom’s plans back at the start of the war, wanted to carry the news of the victory to David (v. 19). But Joab, knowing that David would not see Absalom’s death as good news, sent a Cushite instead (vv. 20-21). A Cushite, being a foreigner, would have been able to deliver the message without emotional involvement, which hopefully would enable David to receive the news with less emotion.

But Ahimaaz wanted desperately to participate in the task; and after further discussion, Joab gave him permission. Unfortunately for Joab’s plan, Ahimaaz was such a good runner that he outran the Cushite and arrived first, even though he may have taken a longer route (vv. 22-23).

At this point the narrative shifts to David who was waiting between the gates for news (v. 24). “Between the gates” was literally a space between double gates in city walls that were common at the time. When I was in Israel, I saw that configuration at several archaeological sites. The wall would be quite thick with two sets of gates, an inner gate and an outer gate. The city was more secure that way.

A sentinel on top of the gate, which probably was the highest point, saw a man running towards the city. Then he saw a second man running (vv. 25-26). When the first man got closer the lookout recognized Ahimaaz (v. 27).

Thus Ahimaaz arrived first and told David they had won the battle (v. 28). But David was more interested in knowing about Absalom. Ahimaaz, being aware of the caution that Joab had expressed, answered evasively (vv. 29-30). Then the Cushite arrived. He repeated the news about the victory; and in response to David’s inquiry about Absalom, he gave David the bad news (vv. 31-32).

The news about Absalom’s death greatly grieved David. Indeed he was so upset, he neglected his kingly duties to the people that day. In 18:33-19:8 we learn that David’s first reaction was to find a private place where he could weep. And as he wept, he cried out,” my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would I had died instead of you” (v. 33). Who can know what guilt accompanied this grief (v. 33). We already have seen the multiple opportunities David had to express love to Absalom and his other sons, but which he wasted. It is tempting to try to psychoanalyze David, but that really can’t be done. We don’t know enough about his make up, though we do know he was a complex individual.

David’s mourning was so excessive under the circumstances of just winning a great, decisive battle for his throne, especially when the one whom he was mourning was the leader of the rebellion, that it threw his army into confusion. In a situation like this, it was expected that the king would present himself to his troops and rejoice with them over the victory. They had put their lives on the line for him and his throne. And they should be rewarded. But David shut himself away.

David with his inappropriate mourning had caused his entire army to slink into the city feeling like they had fled the battlefield, rather than like they had just won a great victory (vv. 2-3). So Joab boldly went to the king and chastised David for his behavior. He accused David of bringing shame to the faces of the officers and men who had saved his life and throne, and the lives of his family. Moreover Joab accused the king of hating those who loved him, by loving someone who hated him. Joab even went so far as to suggest that David would have been happier if Absalom had lived, and all of his commanders and officers had died (vv. 5-6). And then Joab threatened David by saying that if David did not go out to his men, all of them would desert him by nightfall (v. 7). David listened to Joab’s advice. He got up and took his seat in the gate so that his troops could gather before him (v. 8). Nothing is recorded about what David said and did, but we can assume he spoke the right words to his men, and rewarded them in appropriate ways.

Now David was ready to return to Jerusalem to reclaim his throne. But he wanted the people to make a fuss about bringing him. And that kind of support was quick to come, even among the tribes that had supported Absalom. In 19:9-15 we see that many among the tribes that had largely supported Absalom believed that their tribes had done David an injustice in rebelling against him. So there was considerable talk that they should rally to him now (vv. 9-10). David heard this and sent word to his own tribe of Judah that he wanted their support at the forefront. He said this partly because he wanted to make sure Judah came to his support early and strongly, and partly to get back at Joab. David included in the message that he would make Amasa, Absalom’s former army commander, his army commander (vv. 11-13).

Some suggest that David’s arrangement to have the tribe of Judah at the forefront of the return was wise indeed. After all, the rebellion began in that tribe; and it would not look good for David’s own tribe to drag its feet in the restoration. But others believe that David’s action had the effect of driving a wedge between Judah and the other tribes. Later events seem to indicate that the latter view is correct (19:41-43).

But the decision to make Amasa his army commander was a very poor one. It wasn’t even a just thing to do. To begin, although it was a way of holding out an olive branch to the vanquished enemy, it was too high a price to pay. It would make no sense to David’s loyal supporters who had fought for him to make the rebel commander-in-chief who had fought against David commander-in -chief in place of Joab. Moreover it was a nasty and intentional blow to Joab, who could be a mean and nasty enemy. As it turned out, Amasa suffered the consequences of the decision. But that is a later story (20:9-10).

Turning to application, I would focus on the relationship between David and Joab. Their relationship went back to the days when David was fleeing Saul in the wilderness of Judea (1 Sam. 26:6). In those days Joab had been a loyal and effective comrade and friend of David’s. And then after David became king, Joab became his trusted military leader. He played a key role in many battles. But Joab was more than an army commander. Joab did David’s dirty work so to speak. For example, as you may remember, it was Joab who put Uriah the Hittite in the hottest area of battle, in order to cause Uriah’s death (2 Sam. 11:14-15). Joab also was a powerful figure at court. It was he, remember, who arranged for Absalom to return to Jerusalem.

Now Joab always had been bold and independent. He knew David’s secrets, and he took liberties with the king that no one else would have dared to take. But this time Joab went too far. He deliberately and openly disobeyed David’s order to protect Absalom. Indeed he killed the king’s son with his disobedience. And then, while David was grieving for Absalom, Joab came to David and berated him as if the king were a disobedient boy. David acknowledged that Joab was correct about his needing to go out to the people. But David was deeply angry with Joab. And as we have seen, David avenged himself on Joab by demoting Joab in favor of Amasa.

It seems to me that the primary lesson here is seen in Joab. For years Joab was a good friend and loyal commander of David’s forces. It made him a powerful person in Israel. But when he directly disobeyed David’s order to protect Absalom, he stepped too far over the bounds of his authority.

I believe some Christian leaders do the same thing. They serve God faithfully and loyally for years; and then they completely overstep the bounds of their authority. For some it is a sexual boundary that they overstep. They begin to believe that the heavy load of ministry they carry makes them an exception to the rule of sexual morality. For others it is a power boundary they overstep. They begin to believe that they are to dictate the behavior of those under their influence (spouses, children, congregations, etc.) rather than teach them the biblical principles of godly behavior. In other words they want the people under their influence to follow them instead of Jesus. Are you overstepping any boundaries?

Our study for today is 2 Samuel 17:24-18:18, which reports Absalom’s defeat and death during his civil war against David. Verses 17:24-29 set the position of David’s and Absalom’s forces prior to the decisive battle. The city of Mahanaim was located on the other side of the Jordan in Gilead near the River Jabbok. By the time of this major battle, David had raised a large army. Absalom also had recruited a large force; and he already had taken it across the Jordan to engage David’s army. Absalom’s army was under the command of a man named Amasa, who was a distant cousin of Joab’s. They camped at an unspecified place in Gilead.

Now I believe we need to realize at this point that the battle to be described in chapter 18 was not the only battle of the war. It was the climactic battle, the decisive battle. But there would have been other, lesser battles. Moreover it is important to recognize that a considerable amount of time would have passed since the events of 17:15-23. It would have taken David and Absalom a long time to gather and organize the large armies described here.

By the time of this battle, David had gathered support from many citizens. Indeed the situation in Mahanaim illustrates that. Some of the wealthier citizens of Mahanaim provided David and his troops with much needed food and other supplies as they prepared for the battle.

At the beginning of chapter 18 we see the final preparations by David for the coming battle. David divided his troops into three companies, each under the command of a general. His original plan was to lead the army himself, as commander in chief. But the three generals, Joab, Abishai, and Ittai the Gittite talked him out of that notion. They argued that it was too risky. A dead David would be the end of everything. A living David was worth 10,000 of any one of them.

That wasn’t much of an exaggeration. David was a fairly popular king. Only he had sufficient power with the people to command the kind of support that was needed to obtain a victory. If David had been killed, his army would have melted away in a flash; and Absalom would have been on the throne.

So the generals recommended that David remain behind in the city in command of the reserve troops, ready to send help if needed. He agreed, and they followed that plan. Therefore, as the army moved out to go to war, David stood in the city gate and reviewed the troops as they passed by.

There are two additional interesting aspects to this paragraph. First is the placement of Ittai the Gittite as a commander over a third of his army. We learned about Ittai back in chapter 15 (vv. 19-23). He was a foreigner who had come into David’s employ so recently that David offered to let him return to Jerusalem rather than risk his life and the lives of his men in David’s war against Absalom.

Now we see David giving Ittai the huge responsibility of commanding a third of his army. The king must have been greatly impressed with Ittai’s skills and loyalty. Undoubtedly David knew much more about him than we are told in the text. The fact that David made Ittai a general also suggests to me that the 600 Gittites mentioned in 15:18 were Ittai’s men, rather than old companions of David’s.

The second additional interesting aspect of this paragraph is David’s statement about his son Absalom to his commanders as they leave: “Deal gently for my sake with the young man Absalom.” And don’t miss the fact that other troops, in addition to the generals, heard David say that. That becomes important later.

“Deal gently for my sake with the young man Absalom.” There didn’t seem to be any doubt in David’s mind that his army would win the battle that day, and thus the war. He was concerned not about the outcome of the battle, but about his son. He was saying, in essence, “Go easy on my boy.” “Go easy on my boy to please me.”

Verses 6-8 give a very brief account of the battle. The place given as the location of the battle has created quite a debate among scholars. “The forest of Ephraim” is a phrase that normally would be associated with the territory settled by the tribe of Ephraim. But that territory is located north of Jerusalem on the western side of the Jordan River, and we have been told that the armies were in Gilead on the eastern side of the river.

Most scholars are convinced that the battle took place in Gilead rather than in traditional Ephraim. There is no known explanation for the name. Gilead is not a forested area today, but it could have been in the days of David. The Turks denuded much of the area of forests during their years of rule.

Gilead was a good place from David’s perspective. It was a region that was loyal to him, as we saw in 17:27-29, where the inhabitants supplied David and his men with food and other equipment. It seems that his men knew the terrain better, because as verse eight says of Absolom’s army, “the forest claimed more victims that day than the sword.” Apparently Absalom’s men tended to get lost in the woods; and many of them perished in one way or another during their wanderings. But David’s men knew how to survive in that area.

Next, in verses 9-15, comes the death of Absalom. Absalom supplies a perfect illustration of how the forest could devour a person. When Absalom saw certain of David’s men, he panicked, or simply made too quick a turn, or something; and the result was that his head got caught in the branches of a great oak tree. And it happened in such a way that he couldn’t free himself. His long hair, of which he was so proud, may have had something to do with it; but it was his head that was caught (v. 9).

Thus he was captured without a fight. There he was, hanging helpless from the tree; and any of David’s men who were present easily could have killed him. But they had heard David ask his generals to deal gently with Absalom. So one of them went to tell Joab who must have been near by, because he arrived on the scene fairly quickly (v.10). I suspect the soldier was surprised at Joab’s reaction. Joab wanted to know why the man hadn’t killed Absalom. Indeed Joab would have rewarded him had he done it (v. 11).

The man told Joab that he wouldn’t kill the king’s son for a thousand pieces of silver, because he took the king’s request that Absalom be protected as a command. And he reminded Joab that had he killed the king, Joab himself easily could become a witness against him (vv. 12-13). Joab quickly lost patience with the man, who in Joab’s view apparently had too much integrity for the situation (v. 14a). By this time Joab was at the scene where Absalom still hung from the tree. He wasted no time, but struck Absalom in the heart with three pointed staffs. However that didn’t kill Absalom, so Joab’s ten armor-bearers finished the job (vv. 14b-15).

There is an interesting side issue here. You may recall that Joab was the one who took the initiative to bring Absalom back to Jerusalem (back in chapter 14). Personally I believe that decision was strictly political; and so was this one. That is, at the time Joab arranged for Absalom to be restored at court, he believed that was the best thing for David and the country. Now things were totally different. Now in Joab’s view, the best thing for David and the country was for Absalom to be dead. So he killed him in spite of David’s request.

In verses 16-18 we see that Joab stopped the pursuit at that point in order to end the killing. Absalom was dead, which meant the war was over. There was no need to destroy any more fellow Hebrews. Then they buried Absalom’s body under a huge pile of stones. The author concluded the section by reminding his readers that Absalom earlier had erected a monument to himself that was still standing as he was writing the book. According to 2 Sam. 14:27, Absalom had three sons, so the statement that he had no son to keep his name in remembrance is a bit peculiar. Perhaps none of his sons lived to adulthood.

Turning to application, it seems to me that the great lesson to be seen in this passage is in David’s relationship to Absalom. Chapter 18, verse 5, is the key verse: “Deal gently for my sake with the young man Absalom.” In a way I find it quite touching that David wanted his generals to go easy on his son. David still loved Absalom in spite of all Absalom had done.

But another part of me wants to cry out, “Why didn’t you show him love? Why didn’t you love him enough to discipline him and the other boys when they were younger? When you permitted him to return to Jerusalem after his murder of Amnon, and gave him official restoration at court, why didn’t you go all the way and forgive him when you had the chance? What good was your love of your sons to anyone, including them? You spoiled them, but never gave yourself to them. You gave them money, but never played with them. You grieved over their sins, but never told them you loved them.

Our study for today, in which we shall see the main events of the civil war unfolding, is 2 Samuel 16:15-17:23. When David chose to abandon Jerusalem rather than defend it, Absalom and those who had gathered to his cause took it without a fight (v. 15). Then Hushai, following David’s plan, approached Absalom, proclaiming, “Long live the king!” (v. 16). Absalom was surprised by Hushai’s apparent defection from David; but after an explanation, he believed Hushai, and took him into his confidence (vv. 17-19).

Next, in verses 16:20-17:5, Ahithophel who was loyal to Absalom gave Absalom two pieces of advice. Ahithophel’s first advice to Absalom was to take the ten concubines that David left to care for the palace (15:16) and sexually use them, which he did. He had a tent with open sides pitched on the roof of the palace and had sex with his fathers concubines in full view of the public (16:20-22). This seems like strange advice to us, but in their cultural context it had wisdom. An act such as this made a final break with David. There was no going back. There never could be forgiveness; and under those circumstances, Absalom’s forces would fight harder, because they would believe that they didn’t dare lose the war. Incidentally, this was a fulfillment of Nathan’s prophecy back in 12:11. Absalom was publicly doing to David what David had done privately with Bathsheba.

Ahithophel’s second piece of advice to Absalom was to give Ahithophel 12,000 men to immediately take against David (17:1-4). The idea was to find David and kill him before he had any opportunity to raise a resistance against Absalom. Ahithophel’s advice was highly esteemed by Absalom, as it had been by his father before him (16:23). And Absalom and the elders liked it,

Ahithophel’s advice to pursue David immediately was solid. A swift blow might have defeated him, even if they weren’t able to kill him. But Absalom made the mistake of seeking a second opinion from Hushai, who was David’s man.

As we see in verses 5-14, Hushai offered a different strategy, one that would afford David time to organize, if it were followed. Hushai suggested that Ahithophel’s advice was flawed, because David and his men were experienced warriors who would fight the way a bear defends her cubs. Moreover David himself would be well hidden. There would be no chance of killing him. In addition, if word got out that some of Absalom’s troops were killed, it would discourage the rest of Absalom’s armies (vv. 7-10).

Hushai recommended, instead, that Absalom not attack until he could gather a great army from all Israel with which he could easily crush David and his forces (vv. 11-13). What Hushai did not say, and which Absalom and his elders did not think about, was the fact that once the dust settled, the people in the various tribes might rally to David as readily as to Absalom. And indeed that is what happened.

Notice the commentary by the author in the last sentence of verse 14. In his view the Lord was behind the decision by Absalom to follow Hushai’s advice, because the Lord wanted Absalom to be ruined.

Hushai had no way of knowing which advice Absalom would follow. So, as recorded in verses 15-22, he immediately sent word to David through the priests to cross the Jordan as soon as possible. The message consisted of a report on the two plans offered by Ahithophel and Hushai and a recommendation to cross the Jordan to safety immediately (vv. 15-16). The priest’s sons were stationed not in the city, but at a place called En-rogel, the spring of Rogel, located on the outskirts of the city. They were there, because their spying efforts would be discovered if they were seen moving in and out of the city. So a servant-girl was to carry the message to the sons of the priest at En-rogel, and they were to carry it to David from there (v. 17).

Unfortunately, they were seen anyway. A boy, who was a spy for Absalom, saw them and reported their activities. Only quick thinking and the help of a woman saved their lives. They hid in a well, and the woman placed a covering over the opening and spread drying grain on it (vv. 18-19). Then she then told Absalom’s people that they had gone in a certain direction, and they were not discovered (v 20).

Thus the mission of the sons of the priest was accomplished. David got Hushai’s message and crossed the Jordan to safety (vv. 21-22).

As it turned out, the situation wasn’t as urgent as it could have been, because Absalom decided to follow Hushai’s advice instead of Ahithophel’s. This crushed Ahithophel’s spirit, because he knew, or at least sensed, that David’s escape meant that David eventually would win the war. And of course that would be the end of Ahithophel. He would be killed as a traitor. So Ahithophel calmly went home and took his own life (v. 23).

Turning to application, we find in this passage a contrast between Ahithophel and Hushai. Let’s begin with Ahithophel. He started out as a trusted adviser to King David. Then he joined Absalom’s conspiracy as a trusted adviser of Absalom. But Absalom didn’t follow his advice. And Ahithophel ended up taking his own life.

Ahithophel made a choice. Politically it was a gamble that he lost. He backed the wrong horse, so to speak. And it cost him his life. But Ahithophel’s decision was more than a political decision. It was a moral decision. He betrayed David by his choice. And David was God’s anointed. Ahithophel by his choice went against God. Thus he demonstrated his poor character and his sinful nature. His example is one we do not want to follow.

And then there was Hushai. Absalom followed Hushai’s advice, and David won the war as a result. Hushai also had been a trusted adviser to David. But he chose to be loyal to God’s anointed, David, by posing as a defector on David’s behalf. Hushai’s decision, like that of Ahithophel, also was both political and moral. But Hushai chose the moral road of loyalty to God’s anointed, and thus to God. Therefore Hushai is a good example for us to follow.

Due to problems with my Internet connection and some out of state company, I have been unable to post a lesson the last couple of weeks. The company has returned home, and I am back on line. Therefore I can post a lesson this morning.

Our study for today is 2 Samuel 15:1-16:14, which reports Absalom’s rebellion and David’s subsequent flight from Jerusalem. In the last study Absalom returned to favor at David’s court, but with no reconciliation between him and his father, the king.

With David’s restoration of Absalom to favor at court, Absalom once again had the freedom to act the part of the king’s eldest son. And in verses 1-6 we see him immediately beginning to do so in style and with a sinister purpose.

The horse-drawn carriage and the fifty men were for show. They were intended as a display of princely pomp; and it succeeded. Absalom made a big impression on the minds of the people in Jerusalem. But he did much more than that.

Every day he spent time talking with the people from all over Israel who came to David’s court seeking justice. He engaged them in friendly conversation, and took the opportunity not only to sympathize with them, but also to feed their fears and grievances. Since he didn’t have to render any actual decisions, he easily could lead everyone to believe they were in the right. If only I were the judge, he would tell them, then you would get your justice.

Of course David could not personally hear every complainant; nor could his judges procure justice for everyone, no matter how hard they tried. It also is possible that the judges were not always as hardworking as they needed to be, or their judgments as just as they needed to be. So in this way Absalom was able to win the support of the people.

In addition to that, the people soon began to treat Absalom in kingly ways, bowing before him. And when they did that, Absalom would kiss their hands. Thus Absalom endeared himself to people by being personal with them. He stole their hearts, says verse six.

It’s hard to believe that David was unaware of Absalom’s activities. But as you well know, David never did anything to restrain his sons. After four years of this underhanded gathering of support, we see in verses 7-12 that Absalom was ready to make his move for the throne.

It is uncertain why Absalom chose Hebron as a base of operations. Perhaps the percentage of dissatisfied Israelites there was greater than other places. Perhaps he saw irony in beginning where David himself had begun many years before. Or perhaps it simply was because Hebron was the place of his birth.

At any rate, Absalom went to Hebron on the pretense of fulfilling a vow he supposedly had made to God while in Geshur. By getting David’s prior approval to go there, Absalom raised no suspicions and gave himself time to organize the revolt. David’s last words to his son are filled with irony. “Go in peace,” said David, as Absalom left to plan a war against him. So off to Hebron Absalom went; and there he began gathering sympathizers to himself.

Two specific things that Absalom did in Hebron are mentioned. One, he sent messengers, literally “spies,” into all of Israel. They are called “spies,” because they were to spy out the feelings of the people and to make the announcement that Absalom was king at a given signal so that all the tribes would think it was useless to resist the coup. And two, he sent for Ahithophel, a counselor of David’s whom he apparently previously had enlisted into his scheme. Ahithophel was the grandfather of Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11:3 compared with 23:43).

The coup was so well planned that Absalom had 200 of David’s key people in Jerusalem involved with Absalom’s feast at Hebron, and thus they were unavailable to help David. Moreover a large number of people whom Absalom previously had enlisted in the rebellion knew to come to Absalom at Hebron. This meant that a large force gathered quickly.

In verses 13-23 we see that David was informed about the coup attempt. Details of the report to David are not given, but David clearly understood that the situation was grave, because he made no attempt to defend Jerusalem, but instead fled to provide time to organize a resistance. All of David’s family, his officials and all others loyal to him fled with him, including of course his bodyguards, the Cherethites and Pelethites. The only people left behind were ten concubines, who were to care for the palace.

Notice that one man is singled out for special notice, namely, Ittai the Gittite. It is uncertain whether the 600 Gittites were Ittai’s men recently come with him from Gath, or that they were the faithful 600 men who had gathered around David at Gath in the early days when David was fleeing Saul (1 Sam. 27:2-3). In any case, Ittai apparently recently had allied himself with David; and so David gave him the option of returning to Jerusalem, where he could serve whomever turned out to be king at the end of the war. But Ittai was fiercely committed to be loyal to David to the death. So he stayed with David.

In verses 24-29 David sent Abiathar, Zadok, and the Levites who had come along carrying the Ark of the Covenant, back to Jerusalem. It was part of his strategy against Absalom. He instructed them to be his “eyes and ears” in Jerusalem, and their sons were to be messengers who would bring him information about Absalom’s activities.

We see in verses 30-31 that the adversity of Absalom’s rebellion humbled David. After sending the priests back to the city, David made the long climb up the Mount of Olives. But he didn’t just go up the mountain. He covered his head, removed his shoes, and wept as he made the climb, in a demonstration of grief and mourning. And the people joined him in the mourning.

Then word came to David of Ahithophel’s involvement with Absalom. He did the only thing he could—pray. He prayed that the Lord would “turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness.” And as we shall see, the Lord answered that prayer in a positive way.

In verses 32-37 David sets the rest of his strategy in place. At the top of the mountain, where there was a place of worship, an elderly advisor of his named Hushai came to join David. I say “elderly,” because that would be the only reason Hushai would have been a burden to David, as David says in verse 34.

David suggests that Hushai return to Jerusalem and pretend to join the conspiracy. Then he could work against the counsel of Ahithophel in Absalom’s camp, and work with the priests Zadok and Abiathar to get intelligence to David.

In 16:1-4 we find David still moving away from Jerusalem. He was just past the summit of the Mount of Olives when Ziba the servant of Mephibosheth, or your translation may have Merib-baal, came to him. As you see he came bearing many gifts and a story. His story was that Mephibosheth, Jonathan’s crippled son, had taken advantage of David’s woes and stayed in Jerusalem, thinking that he, Mephibosheth, as Saul’s only remaining heir, might get the crown back.

David believed Ziba; and he awarded Ziba all of Mephibosheth’s property on the spot. Now we are going to see later, in chapter 19:24-30, when Mephibosheth came to David, that Mephibosheth had a totally different story. So it may have been that Ziba was angling for the property from the beginning. But we will deal with that when we do chapter 19.

In verses 5-14 we see an interesting event. When David, as he traveled along, came to the village of Bahurim, a man named Shimei, also of the house of Saul, accosted him in a rather strange incident. When Shimei saw David and his company coming by, he came out of his house and began to curse and throw stones at David and his servants.

Joab’s brother, Abishai, immediately volunteered to take off the man’s head, but David would have none of it. David was willing to believe that the Lord himself may have inspired the man to curse him; and whether he did or not, the Lord might reward David for remaining humble. So David ordered the man left alone.

In verse 14 we find David and his group finally arriving at a safe place; namely the Jordan River. Once they managed to cross the Jordan, which they do in chapter 17, they would be safe. And there they could prepare themselves for war against Absalom.

Turning to application, I suggest you think about the key individuals. First, we note the characteristics exhibited by Absalom in chapter 15. He exhibited pride, cunning, disloyalty, and in the end, betrayal. All of these characteristics are negative and sinful. Therefore Absalom becomes a negative role model for us.

David, on the other hand, as always (apart from relations with his family) was at his best under duress. In this situation, we see his good characteristics emerging once again. He was gracious with Ittai. He exhibited good strategy by sending the priests and Hushai back to Jerusalem to be his eyes and ears. And more important, he once again exhibited humility. He took of his shoes in an act of penitence, wept, mourned, prayed, and worshipped before God as he left Jerusalem. And he took a humble attitude towards the cursing aimed at him by Shimei. In addition David expressed appreciation to Ziba, though in the end that appreciation may have been misguided. Therefore in these ways David is a good role model for us.

Today we continue our study of 2 Samuel. In the first half of the book we saw David’s rise to power and his glory days as king (1:1-9:13). Then beginning at chapter 10 we began to see David’s fall and its consequences. The fall commenced with David’s adultery with Bathsheba, followed by the murder of her husband, Uriah (11:1-27). The consequences were severe. First, the son born of his adultery died (12:13-23). Second, David’s son Amnon raped his half-sister Tamar (13:1-22). And third, we saw Absalom’s murder of Amnon in revenge of Tamar’s rape (13:23-39. Thus the Lord’s predictions about David’s family clearly were coming true.

All right, we are ready to take up chapter 14. Verse one tells us that Joab perceived that David’s mind was on Absalom. And that led Joab to go to considerable lengths, first, to get Absalom back in Jerusalem; and then second, to work out a reconciliation between David and his son. Most commentators have interpreted verse one, I assume on the basis of the last verse of chapter 13, to mean that David was well disposed towards Absalom. But neither 13:39 nor 14:1 actually state that David thought well of him. Thus others argue that although David was ready to let Absalom return to Jerusalem (we learn that in verse 21), he was not ready to reconcile with the man. The fact that David refused to meet face to face with Absalom for two years after Absalom’s return indicates this rather clearly (v. 28).

So the question arises as to why Joab was so interested in getting Absalom back in the capital. Obviously we cannot get into Joab’s head to answer that question. But we can speculate a bit. One possible reason is that Joab liked Absalom, that he was personally attached to him. But the more likely reason is that Joab saw Absalom as the best person to succeed David on the throne of Israel in spite of Absalom’s murder of the original crown prince, Amnon.

At any rate, Joab arranged for a “wise” woman from Tekoa to learn a complex story with which to convince David to permit Absalom to return. The word “wise” here means in the sense of “crafty.” She was a woman who could act out a convincing story before an important person. And she did a really good job. At first David seems to be completely taken in by her fabricated case. She told him she was a widow in extended deep grief, not due to the loss of her husband who had died much earlier, but due to the more recent loss of a son.

The story was that her only two sons got into a fight in the field. There was no one there to separate them, and the one, in the passion of the moment, killed the other. That is, she was saying to David that the killing was not a premeditated murder, but an act of passion (vv. 5-6).

Her family wanted blood revenge. That is, they wanted her to deliver the remaining son to them that he might be killed as punishment for the murder of his brother (v. 7). From their perspective, that seemed the only just thing to do. But from the widow’s perspective, it would be robbing her, and her dead husband, of the only remaining family heir. The family would come to an end with his death.

Verse eight tells us that David ruled in her favor. The orders to be issued were orders to permit the boy to live. The woman’s reply in verse nine was intended to absolve David of any guilt should his decision to let the boy live lead to any wrong-doing in the future. The blame would be on her and her family, not on the king.

David replied to her that if anyone bothered her about this matter in the future, she should bring it to his attention (v. 10). In verse 11, the woman seems to have desired additional assurance from the king beyond what he already had given her. He generously gave her the added assurance by repeating it with an oath added.

The woman, who was quite bold, had not completed her mission. So in verses 12 and 13 she asked to speak once more. And after receiving permission to do so, she very bluntly accused David of having done something against God’s people. This reminds us of Nathan’s confrontation of David, though it is not the same by any stretch.

“This word,” or “this decision” as the NRSV translates it, in verse 13 refers to David’s decision to let the woman’s son live. And the woman is claiming that David convicted himself of something. In other words she was saying that the decision to let her son live was inconsistent with his decision not to permit the banished Absalom to come home.

It is quite a shock to the reader to see her suddenly say something like that. Presumably David also was shocked. While the king sat there trying to figure out how to react to her, the woman went on to explain. She reminded David of the brevity of human life and of the mercy of God (v. 14). “We all must die,” she reminded David, the idea being to remind him that he only had so many years before his opportunity for fellowship with his son would be gone.

But the kicker was her contrast of David’s action to that of the Lord. God, who is merciful, not only does not take away life, he seeks ways to forgive those who deserve banishment. Wow! But the woman still was not finished. In verses 15-17 she cleverly returned to the context of her story, suggesting that it was her personal situation that led her to speak as she had. She began to speak to David in flattering terms, describing him as a man of insight, “like the angel of God” (v. 17).

At this point in the conversation David began to catch on. He had had some time to process what was happening. And he began to realize that there was more to this woman’s story than he knew. And he suspected the hand of his uncle Joab. So he asked her straight out if Joab was behind it. And she admitted he was.

Joab must have been nearby following as carefully as he could the whole conversation, because David was able to call him in (v. 21). Then David rendered his decision to Joab, since Joab rather than the woman was the one who actually had been seeking it. He granted permission for Absalom to return, and gave Joab the responsibility of bringing him, which he immediately did (v. 21). But David, although he took the road of mercy, went down the road only part of the way. He refused to forgive Absalom, and would not allow the young man into his presence (v. 24).

In verses 25-27 the author appears to be setting up the future narrative. The author provides information that helps prepare readers for several things that are coming. One, Absalom’s physical handsomeness was greater than any other. Two, he cut his hair only once a year. And three, he had three sons and a daughter.

This information is not very extensive, but it still is helpful. First, it helps explain why Absalom was wildly popular in Jerusalem. He now was the eldest of the king’s sons, and his striking good looks along with his beautiful family would have made him attractive to the people as a successor to the throne. Particular mention is made of the beauty of the daughter, who was named after Absalom’s raped sister.

Second, Absalom’s good looks also would have fired his ego. As we shall see, Absalom thought highly of himself. Indeed his preoccupation with his hair was an indication of that. Absalom thought so much of himself he felt obliged to seek his father’s throne before David’s death, and without the Lord’s approval.

And third, mention of Absalom’s hair also prepares the reader for the story of Absalom’s death, which would end the revolution he started. You will remember that he died because his long hair caught in a tree branch and left him hanging helpless where Joab easily could kill him (18:9-15).

In the balance of the chapter (vv. 28-33), we see the restless and self-involved attitude of Absalom in action. After two years of putting up with the king’s decree that Absalom not enter David’s presence, Absalom had had enough. He twice sent word to Joab that he wanted to see the king. Obviously Absalom believed Joab could arrange it. But Joab ignored Absalom’s messages. So Absalom forced Joab’s hand by burning Joab’s barley field.

It worked. Joab quickly came to complain. The old adage “hit them in the pocketbook” may be older than we thought. When Joab came, Absalom demanded that Joab get him an audience with the king. Absalom bitterly complained that he would have been better off to have stayed in Geshur; and he insisted that David could kill him if he still found guilt in him. But he wanted that audience. And he got it.

When Absalom’s opportunity finally came, he prostrated himself before David, and David kissed him. His kiss was the sign of Absalom’s restoration to favor. But it didn’t really indicate forgiveness. The conversation evidently was brief and formal, with no real reconciliation between the two men. It certainly did not create any loyalty in Absalom.

When we ask what we learn from this chapter, one thing leaps out at me. It is the failure of David to fully forgive. Absalom had committed an horrendous crime. Perhaps justice required some sort of severe punishment for Absalom. But that didn’t happen.

If we ask what David’s options were, David could have put a price on Absalom’s head and made it clear he never was to come back to Israel on pain of death. At least that would have been clean. But David didn’t do that. It seems he didn’t do anything. Absalom was out of the country, and David just left things alone.

Then when Absalom put pressure on Joab to help him return, David once again was faced with a choice. He could have refused. But in his weakness he decided to restore Absalom without forgiving him.

Then two years later, during the moment when Absalom was on his face before David after so many years, David had another opportunity to offer him full forgiveness. But David didn’t do it. That was a crucial moment in both their lives. Instead of a genuine, personal reconciliation, there was only a formal acceptance. And that eventually led to Absalom’s attempt to grasp David’s throne illegally. It seems to me that David, once he decided to move along the way of forgiveness, should have gone all the way with it. It might have avoided Absalom’s revolution, which would have avoided a great deal of personal pain for David, including the death of Absalom. Let us learn from this example to forgive those from whom we may be estranged, and be reconciled.

In our last essay we studied the first half of 2 Samuel, chapter 13, which is an account of Amnon’s rape of his half-sister Tamar. Thus began the fulfillment of the Lord’s prediction that David’s family would suffer because of David’s sins. In this essay we will complete our study of chapter 13, which tells us about Absolom’s revenge on his brother Amnon.

At the end of the last study (13:21-22), we learned that Absolom said nothing to Amnon about Amnon’s rape of Tamar at the time, but he hated his brother for the act. Now in verses 23-27 we learn that Absolom was biding his time for revenge. The exact location of Baal-Hazor is unknown. But evidently Absalom owned some property there, where he raised sheep. Sheepshearing time traditionally was a feast time.

So two years after the rape of Tamar, at sheep-shearing time, Absalom held a feast. And he invited his father, the king, and all of the king’s sons. Notice that Absalom invited the king personally (v. 24). But David turned down the invitation (v. 25). David’s suggestion that it would have been a burden for Absalom for David to attend the feast was correct. David couldn’t just go, as though it were a Saturday cook out. His presence would have required considerable security, and a large retinue of servants and officials accompanied him wherever he went. However, after special pleading, David gave permission for his sons to attend (vv. 26-27).

The particular mention of Amnon among all of the sons in verse 26 was not because of his role in the rape. It was because he was the crown prince. If David could not attend, then Amnon as the crown prince would represent him. Apparently, David believed that the mess with Tamar was in the forgotten past; and he didn’t fear that Absalom would retaliate, because he gave permission for all his sons, including the crown prince, to attend.

In verse 27 we once again have an additional sentence in the Greek Old Testament, which the NRSV includes. It reads, “Absalom made a feast like a king’s feast.” Some commentators suggest that this had implications in respect to Absalom’s own pretensions to the throne. Amnon’s death would make Absalom next in line. But that seems a bit of a stretch to me. The only appropriate feast for all of the king’s sons, including the crown prince, would be “a feast like a king’s feast.”

In verses 28-29 we see that with extra assurance from Absalom, Absolom’s servants assassinated Amnon. That was a rather brave thing for them to do. In effect, Absalom told them he would take the responsibility. But in that kind of culture, there were no assurances that Absalom actually could protect them. At any rate, they did what he commanded them.

The murder of Amnon created chaos at the feast. The other sons of David immediately fled the scene. Then in verses 30-36 we see something happen that we ought to expect in situations such as this, but we rarely do. The rumor mill immediately went to full speed. Somehow a report came to king David that all of his sons were dead (v. 30). And he believed it. David instantly went into grief. He tore his clothing and lay on the ground in his grief (v. 31). This is certainly understandable. Not only did he think that all of his sons were dead, he undoubtedly felt some guilt, thinking his approval of the affair made him partially responsible. David’s servants loyally joined him in grieving.

Then Jonadab, the same Jonadab who helped Amnon plan his crime, brought a bit of sanity to the situation. He grasped the fact that Absalom had no quarrel with any of his brothers other than Amnon, and Jonadab told the king that Amnon would be the only one dead (32-33).

Jonadab’s assessment of the situation soon proved true, as the king’s sons came riding up on their mules. They joined David and his servants in the weeping for Amnon (vv. 34-36). In verses 37-39 we see that Absalom had his revenge; but it was at great expense. He ended up fleeing from the authorities. Thus the incident ended in a kind of banishment for Absalom. He maintained his freedom; but he lost fellowship with his family in Israel, and lost all hope of any claim to the crown.

Absolom fled to, and took refuge in, the country of Geshur. Geshur was a kind of buffer state between Israel and Syria. It was located north of Gilead. It could be expected that Absalom would go there, because Talmai, the king of Geshur, was Absalom’s grandfather on his mother, Maacah’s, side. Absalom stayed with his grandfather for three years (vv. 37-38).

The reference in verse 37 to David’s mourning is a reference to Amnon. But verse 39, which has some major translation problems, suggests that after the three years of Absalom’s absence, the sting of Amnon’s loss to David had lessened; and he began to long for Absalom. However, as we shall see, David did nothing to bring Absalom home.

All right, turning to application, what must we take away from this lesson? First, this story illustrates one reason why the Bible teaches. “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.” Had Absalom let God handle the revenge instead of taking it upon himself, he would have saved himself a lot of trouble, even though things turned out fairly well for him after his three-year exile.

Second, David continued to show lack of wisdom in personal and family matters. If he didn’t feel guilt for his part in the murder of Amnon, he should have. He deceived himself when he believed that the bitter wounds cut by Amnon’s rape were healed enough to allow bringing the entire family, including Absalom and Amnon, together.

Third, there is confirmation of a standard principle; namely, that we should not believe everything we hear. The report that all of David’s sons were killed was patently untrue, but David believed it. We always should await confirmation of such information. It often is wrong.

In the last essay we studied 2 Samuel, chapter 12, which recorded Nathan’s confrontation of David on behalf of the Lord and the aftermath. In chapter 13 we begin to see the fulfillment of the Lord’s predictions about David’s family. David was a good king, but the conduct of his sons suggests he was a terrible father. It appears that David gave little attention to the raising of his sons, probably in part because they lived with their respective mothers who were jealous of one another. David likely spent little time in any of their homes. Their behavior also suggests that they were spoiled. They likely rarely ever were denied anything they wanted.

As they grew into manhood, David’s sons fancied that they might gratify their lusts as they pleased. They seem to have believed that their ambitions, no matter how perverted or wrong-headed, ought to come to pass. Thus they committed a series of crimes, which nearly cost David his life and his throne.

The NIV tells us in verse one, that David’s son, Amnon fell in love with his half-sister, Tamar “in the course of time. The NRSV translates the time reference as “some time passed.” Since David married Maacah, the mother of Absalom and Tamar after he became king at Hebron (2 Sam. 3:3), it would have been about 20 years later that these events took place, that is about the middle of David’s reign. We determined in the last study that David’s sin with Bathsheba took place about the middle of his reign (9:1-3). Therefore Amnon’s sin would not have been much later than David’s adulterous affair.

Amnon, whose mother was Ahinoam the Jezreelite, was David’s first-born son (2 Sam. 3:2). Thus he was older than Absalom and Tamar, his half-brother and sister. Although we just read that Amnon “fell in love” with Tamar, later developments make it clear that his “love” was lust.. Amnon gave himself to his lust for Tamar to such an extent that he made himself ill. The only thing holding him back from taking her by force was the fact that she was a virgin. But as we see, that didn’t prove to be an insurmountable barrier in the end.

Amnon had a cousin named Jonadab, who not only encouraged Amnon to yield to his lusts, but also suggested to him a plan for accomplishing it (vv. 3-5). Amnon followed the plan. He pretended to be seriously sick. And when his father came to visit him, he asked David to permit Tamar to come to him and bake some special cakes for him. The king’s permission was required because it would have been unusual to insist on food prepared by one particular member of the family. David agreed, and Tamar came to bake the cakes for him (vv. 6-8a).

Amnon evidently was in a bedroom off a larger room from which he could see Tamar make the cakes. She brought them to him and shook them out before him, but he wouldn’t eat them. Then Amnon ordered everyone except Tamar out of the room. Apparently pretending to be too weak to eat by himself, he asked Tamar to feed him. When she came close to do it, he grabbed her and invited her into his bed (vv. 8b-11).

Tamar realizing the gravity of the situation immediately tried to talk Amnon out of it (v. 12). She even suggested that their father might permit a marriage (v. 13), though that idea may have came more from her desperation than any actual possibility, because the law expressly forbade such marriages (Lev. 18:9; 20:17). But Amnon,. driven by his lust would not listen, and he raped her (v. 14).

As soon as Amnon had gratified his lust, it turned to loathing. And the loathing was stronger than the lust. So he ordered out of his presence (v. 15). When she protested, he had her thrown out (vv. 16-18). So she left in shame. But she didn’t cover it up. She put on ashes, tore her garment, and wailed in the classic signs of mourning (v. 19).

Her brother Absalom immediately figured out what had happened. His attempt to console Tamar was insensitive. He took the light approach, “he is your brother; do not take this to heart.” But as we shall see, Absalom himself did not take the matter lightly. As for Tamar, she took refuge in Absalom’s home (v. 20).

In verse 21 we see solid evidence of David’s weakness as a father. He learned what happened, and it made him angry. But he did nothing about it. The Greek Old Testament adds a statement to verse 21. The NIV does not include it, but the NRSV does. It reads, “but he [David] would not punish his son Amnon, because he loved him, for he was his first-born.” This statement may not have been in the original, but it undoubtedly accurately reflects the truth. Amnon was David’s his eldest son and heir apparent. And that was more important to him than justice. It also was ironic. David refused to punish his self-indulgent son’s crime of lust. And of course he himself had tried to get away with serious crimes, including one of lust.

As for Absalom, verse 22 tells us that he hated Amnon for what he did. And we know from reading ahead that he planned revenge. But he was extremely patient about it. In the beginning he simply stopped talking to Amnon. He said nothing to him, neither good nor bad.

Turning to application, I suggest you look at this chapter from the standpoint of each character. What can we learn from Tamar and Amnon? Tamar was a genuine victim in the incident. Amnon violated her unmercifully and then tried to shame her. Since the culture in which she lived was so totally different from ours, that makes it difficult to draw parallels in regard to the social implications. But rape is rape in any culture or age. We at least can say that Tamar did the right thing by not covering up her victimization. Many rape victims today never report the crimes. That brings them no justice and allows the rapist the freedom to rape again.

Amnon presents us with a despicable example of manhood. He was consumed by lust, and with the encouragement of his equally despicable cousin, he committed a horrible crime. We learn from his that serious sins, like lust, must be dealt with, through counseling if necessary, in order to avoid falling into even more serious sins.

And of course David sets before us an excellent example of how to be a bad parent and king. He not only was the father of both Tamar and Amnon, he was the king. David had the moral responsibility to promote genuine love in his family and justice in the land.

In the last essay we studied 2 Samuel, chapter 12, which recorded Nathan’s confrontation of David on behalf of the Lord and the aftermath. In chapter 13 we begin to see the fulfillment of the Lord’s predictions about David’s family. David was a good king, but the conduct of his sons suggests he was a terrible father. It appears that David gave little attention to the raising of his sons, probably in part because they lived with their respective mothers who were jealous of one another. David likely spent little time in any of their homes. Their behavior also suggests that they were spoiled. They likely rarely ever were denied anything they wanted.

As they grew into manhood, David’s sons fancied that they might gratify their lusts as they pleased. They seem to have believed that their ambitions, no matter how perverted or wrong-headed, ought to come to pass. Thus they committed a series of crimes, which nearly cost David his life and his throne.

The NIV tells us in verse one, that David’s son, Amnon fell in love with his half-sister, Tamar “in the course of time. The NRSV translates the time reference as “some time passed.” Since David married Maacah, the mother of Absalom and Tamar after he became king at Hebron (2 Sam. 3:3), it would have been about 20 years later that these events took place, that is about the middle of David’s reign. We determined in the last study that David’s sin with Bathsheba took place about the middle of his reign (9:1-3). Therefore Amnon’s sin would not have been much later than David’s adulterous affair.

Amnon, whose mother was Ahinoam the Jezreelite, was David’s first-born son (2 Sam. 3:2). Thus he was older than Absalom and Tamar, his half-brother and sister. Although we just read that Amnon “fell in love” with Tamar, later developments make it clear that his “love” was lust.. Amnon gave himself to his lust for Tamar to such an extent that he made himself ill. The only thing holding him back from taking her by force was the fact that she was a virgin. But as we see, that didn’t prove to be an insurmountable barrier in the end.

Amnon had a cousin named Jonadab, who not only encouraged Amnon to yield to his lusts, but also suggested to him a plan for accomplishing it (vv. 3-5). Amnon followed the plan. He pretended to be seriously sick. And when his father came to visit him, he asked David to permit Tamar to come to him and bake some special cakes for him. The king’s permission was required because it would have been unusual to insist on food prepared by one particular member of the family. David agreed, and Tamar came to bake the cakes for him (vv. 6-8a).

Amnon evidently was in a bedroom off a larger room from which he could see Tamar make the cakes. She brought them to him and shook them out before him, but he wouldn’t eat them. Then Amnon ordered everyone except Tamar out of the room. Apparently pretending to be too weak to eat by himself, he asked Tamar to feed him. When she came close to do it, he grabbed her and invited her into his bed (vv. 8b-11).

Tamar realizing the gravity of the situation immediately tried to talk Amnon out of it (v. 12). She even suggested that their father might permit a marriage (v. 13), though that idea may have came more from her desperation than any actual possibility, because the law expressly forbade such marriages (Lev. 18:9; 20:17). But Amnon,. driven by his lust would not listen, and he raped her (v. 14).

As soon as Amnon had gratified his lust, it turned to loathing. And the loathing was stronger than the lust. So he ordered out of his presence (v. 15). When she protested, he had her thrown out (vv. 16-18). So she left in shame. But she didn’t cover it up. She put on ashes, tore her garment, and wailed in the classic signs of mourning (v. 19).

Her brother Absalom immediately figured out what had happened. His attempt to console Tamar was insensitive. He took the light approach, “he is your brother; do not take this to heart.” But as we shall see, Absalom himself did not take the matter lightly. As for Tamar, she took refuge in Absalom’s home (v. 20).

In verse 21 we see solid evidence of David’s weakness as a father. He learned what happened, and it made him angry. But he did nothing about it. The Greek Old Testament adds a statement to verse 21. The NIV does not include it, but the NRSV does. It reads, “but he [David] would not punish his son Amnon, because he loved him, for he was his first-born.” This statement may not have been in the original, but it undoubtedly accurately reflects the truth. Amnon was David’s his eldest son and heir apparent. And that was more important to him than justice. It also was ironic. David refused to punish his self-indulgent son’s crime of lust. And of course he himself had tried to get away with serious crimes, including one of lust.

As for Absalom, verse 22 tells us that he hated Amnon for what he did. And we know from reading ahead that he planned revenge. But he was extremely patient about it. In the beginning he simply stopped talking to Amnon. He said nothing to him, neither good nor bad.

Turning to application, I suggest you look at this chapter from the standpoint of each character. What can we learn from Tamar and Amnon? Tamar was a genuine victim in the incident. Amnon violated her unmercifully and then tried to shame her. Since the culture in which she lived was so totally different from ours, that makes it difficult to draw parallels in regard to the social implications. But rape is rape in any culture or age. We at least can say that Tamar did the right thing by not covering up her victimization. Many rape victims today never report the crimes. That brings them no justice and allows the rapist the freedom to rape again.

Amnon presents us with a despicable example of manhood. He was consumed by lust, and with the encouragement of his equally despicable cousin, he committed a horrible crime. We learn from his that serious sins, like lust, must be dealt with, through counseling if necessary, in order to avoid falling into even more serious sins.

And of course David sets before us an excellent example of how to be a bad parent and king. He not only was the father of both Tamar and Amnon, he was the king. David had the moral responsibility to promote genuine love in his family and justice in the land.