There happened to be there a wicked 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!”
Parallel Translations
-
There happened to be there a wicked 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!”
-
And there happened to be there a man of Belial, whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite: and he blew a trumpet, and said, We have no part in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: every man to his tents, O Israel.
-
Now there happened to be there a base fellow, whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite; and he blew the horn, and said: 'We have no portion in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse; every man to his tents, O Israel.'
Cross-references (20)
Passages linked to 2 Samuel 20:1 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- 1 Kings 12:16 When all Israel saw that the king didn’t listen to them, the people answered the king, saying, “What portion have we in David? We don’t have an inheritance in the son of Jesse. To your tents, Israel! Now see to your own house, David.” So Israel departed to their tents.
- Deuteronomy 13:13 certain wicked fellows have gone out from among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, “Let’s go and serve other gods,” which you have not known,
- 2 Chronicles 10:16 When all Israel saw that the king didn’t listen to them, the people answered the king, saying, “What portion do we have in David? We don’t have an inheritance in the son of Jesse! Every man to your tents, Israel! Now see to your own house, David.” So all Israel departed to their tents.
- Judges 3:27 When he had come, he blew a trumpet in the hill country of Ephraim; and the children of Israel went down with him from the hill country, and he led them.
- Judges 19:22 As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain wicked fellows, surrounded the house, beating at the door; and they spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying, “Bring out the man who came into your house, that we can have sex with him!”
- 1 Samuel 2:12 Now the sons of Eli were wicked men. They didn’t know Yahweh.
- 1 Samuel 22:7-8 Saul said to his servants who stood around him, “Hear now, you Benjamites! Will the son of Jesse give everyone of you fields and vineyards? Will he make you all captains of thousands and captains of hundreds, that all of you have conspired against me, and there is no one who discloses to me when my son makes a treaty with the son of Jesse, and there is none of you who is sorry for me, or discloses to me that my son has stirred up my servant against me, to lie in wait, as it is today?”
- 1 Samuel 30:22 Then all the wicked men and worthless fellows, of those who went with David, answered and said, “Because they didn’t go with us, we will not give them anything of the plunder that we have recovered, except to every man his wife and his children, that he may lead them away, and depart.”
- 2 Samuel 15:10 But Absalom sent spies throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, “As soon as you hear the sound of the trumpet, then you shall say, ‘Absalom is king in Hebron!’ ”
- 2 Samuel 19:41-43 Behold, all the men of Israel came to the king, and said to the king, “Why have our brothers the men of Judah stolen you away, and brought the king, and his household, over the Jordan, and all David’s men with him?” All the men of Judah answered the men of Israel, “Because the king is a close relative to us. Why then are you angry about this matter? Have we eaten at all at the king’s cost? Or has he given us any gift?” The men of Israel answered the men of Judah, and said, “We have ten parts in the king, and we have also more claim to David than you. Why then did you despise us, that our advice should not be first had in bringing back our king?” The words of the men of Judah were fiercer than the words of the men of Israel.
- 2 Samuel 23:6 But all the ungodly will be as thorns to be thrust away, because they can’t be taken with the hand,
- 2 Chronicles 10:6 King Rehoboam took counsel with the old men, who had stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, saying, “What counsel do you give me about how to answer these people?”
- Psalms 17:13 Arise, Yahweh, confront him. Cast him down. Deliver my soul from the wicked by your sword;
- Psalms 34:19 Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but Yahweh delivers him out of them all.
- Proverbs 24:21-22 My son, fear Yahweh and the king. Don’t join those who are rebellious; for their calamity will rise suddenly. Who knows what destruction may come from them both?
- Proverbs 25:8 Don’t be hasty in bringing charges to court. What will you do in the end when your neighbor shames you?
- Proverbs 26:21 As coals are to hot embers, and wood to fire, so is a contentious man to kindling strife.
- Habakkuk 1:12-13 Aren’t you from everlasting, Yahweh my God, my Holy One? We will not die. Yahweh, you have appointed him for judgment. You, Rock, have established him to punish. You who have purer eyes than to see evil, and who cannot look on perversity, why do you tolerate those who deal treacherously, and keep silent when the wicked swallows up the man who is more righteous than he,
- Luke 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent an envoy after him, saying, ‘We don’t want this man to reign over us.’
- Luke 19:27 But bring those enemies of mine who didn’t want me to reign over them here, and kill them before me.’ ”
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (21 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain He thought by speaking contemptuously of the king, to…
He thought by speaking contemptuously of the king, to stir the people rather to sedition, or else by causing Israel to depart, thought that they of Judah would have less esteemed him.
Where the ten tribes contended against Judah.
Read full note →
As they of Judah say.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain 2Sa 20:1 And there happened to be there a…
2Sa 20:1 And there happened to be there a man of Belial, whose name [was] Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite: and he blew a trumpet, and said, We have no part in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: every man to his tents, O Israel.
Ver. 1. And there happened to be there.] As all places are full of such beautefeaus and Belialists: so is hell too. God permitted, and the devil instigated this fellow to stir up this rebellion for a further correction to David; and, as some think, for his late unjust dealing with Mephibosheth.
Read full note →
A man of Belial.] Iniquus et nebulo, flagellum Reip, et flabellum seditionis; such as amongst us were Jack Cade or Wat Tyler, who dared to say that all the laws of England should come out of his mouth.
A Benjamite.] Of the house of Saul likely; and, as some think, one of Absalom’s captains against David, even the next to Amasa. {a}
And he blew a trumpet.] Himself being Tuba rebellionis, blew a trumpet, that he might thereby assemble, and get audience among the discontented multitude, that shallow brained but great and many headed beast.
We have no part in David,] viz., As the men of Judah say, - thus he maketh use of the late unhappy contention to advance his ambitious design of setting up himself or some other of his tribe, - let us therefore relinquish him as a stranger, and make a new choice of one that will care more for us. It vexed the ten tribes, perhaps, that David sent Zadok and Abiathar to the men of Judah, to persuade with them to fetch back the king, and not unto them, and that he seemed to incline rather to them than to the rest. A prince had need to carry an even hand over his subjects, of various nations especially; or else there will be somewhat to do with them; as was lately here with the English and Scots in King James’s reign. Charles V is famous for this virtue, Ut qui singulis se parem immo patrem exhibebat.
In the son of Jesse.] This expression savoureth of Saul, and of the old enmity.
Every man to his tents, O Israel.] Look you to your business, and let him look to his.
{a} A Lapide.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain There happened to be there; his presence was casual…
There happened to be there; his presence was casual in itself, though certain, and ordered by God’s providence.
Man of Belial; a lawless person, one that attempted to shake off the yoke of civil authority. See Deu 13:13.
Read full note →
Benjamite; aggrieved at the translation of the kingdom from Saul and that tribe to David.
We have no part in David: the tribe of Judah have monopolized the king to themselves, and will not allow us any share in him; let them therefore enjoy him alone, and let us seek out a new king.
The son of Jesse; an expression of contempt, implying their rejection of him, that he was no more to be owned as their king, but as a private person, as the son of Jesse.
Every man to his tents; let us all desist from this unthankful office of bringing the king back, and go each to our homes, that we may consider, and then meet together to choose a new king.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain David, in the midst of his triumphs, has here…
David, in the midst of his triumphs, has here the affliction to see his kingdom disturbed and his family disgraced.
I. His subjects revolting from him at the instigation of a man of Belial, whom they followed when they forsook the man after God's own heart. Observe, 1. That this happened immediately upon the crushing of Absalom's rebellion. We must not think it strange, while we are in this world, if the end of one trouble be the beginning of another: deep sometimes calls unto deep. 2. That the people were now just returning to their allegiance, when, of a sudden, they flew off from it. When a reconciliation is newly made, it ought to be handled with great tenderness and caution, lest the peace break again before it be settled. A broken bone, when it is set, must have time to knot. 3. That the ring-leader of this rebellion was Sheba, a Benjamite by birth (Sa2 20:1), who had his habitation in Mount Ephraim, Sa2 20:21. Shimei and he were both of Saul's tribe, and both retained the ancient grudge of that house. Against the kingdom of the Messiah there is an hereditary enmity in the serpent's seed, and a succession of attempts to overthrow it (Psa 2:1, Psa 2:2); but he that sits in heaven laughs at them all. 4. That the occasion of it was that foolish quarrel, which we read of in the close of the foregoing chapter, between the elders of Israel and the elders of Judah, about bringing the king back. It was a point of honour that was disputed between them, which had most interest in David. "We are more numerous," say the elders of Israel. "We are nearer akin to him," say the elders of Judah. Now one would think David very safe and happy when his subjects are striving which shall love him best, and be most forward to show him respect; yet even that strife proves the occasion of a rebellion. The men of Israel complained to David of the slight which the men of Judah had put upon them. If he had now countenanced their complaint, commended their zeal, and returned them thanks for it, he might have confirmed them in his interest; but he seemed partial to his own tribe: Their words prevailed above the words of the men of Israel; as some read the last words of the foregoing chapter. David inclined to justify them, and, when the men of Israel perceived this, they flew off with indignation. "If the king will suffer himself to be engrossed by the men of Judah, let him and them make their best of one another, and we will set up one for ourselves. We thought we had ten parts in David, but such an interest will not be allowed us; the men of Judah tell us, in effect, we have no part in him, and therefore we will have none, nor will we attend him any further in his return to Jerusalem, nor own him for our king." This was proclaimed by Sheba (Sa2 20:1), who probably was a man of note, and had been active in Absalom's rebellion; the disgusted Israelites took the hint, and went up from after David to follow Sheba (Sa2 20:2), that is, the generality of them did so, only the men of Judah adhered to him. Learn hence, (1.) That it is as impolitic for princes to be partial in their attentions to their subjects as it is for parents to be so to their children; both should carry it with an even hand. (2.) Those know not what they do that make light of the affections of their inferiors, by not countenancing and accepting it. Their hatred may be feared whose love is despised. (3.) The beginning of strife is as the letting forth of water; it is therefore wisdom to leave it off before it be meddled with, Pro 17:14. How great a matter doth a little of this fire kindle! (4.) The perverting of words is the subverting of peace; and much mischief is made by forcing invidious constructions upon what is said and written and drawing consequences that were never intended. The men of Judah said, The king is near of kin to us. "By this," say the men of Israel, "you mean that we have no part in him;" whereas they meant no such thing. (5.) People are very apt to run into extremes. We have ten parts in David, said they; and, almost in the next breath, We have no part in him. Today Hosanna, tomorrow Crucify.
Read full note →
II. His concubines imprisoned for life, and he himself under a necessity of putting them in confinement, because they had been defiled by Absalom, Sa2 20:3. David had multiplied wives, contrary to the law and they proved a grief and shame to him. Those whom he had sinfully taken pleasure in he was now, 1. Obliged, in duty, to put away, they being rendered unclean to him by the vile uncleanness his son had committed with them. Those whom he had loved must now be loathed. 2. Obliged, in prudence, to shut up in privacy, not to be seen abroad for shame, lest the sight of them should give occasion to people to speak of what Absalom had done to them, which ought not to be so much as named, Co1 5:1. That that villany might be buried in obscurity. 3. Obliged, in justice to shut up in prison, to punish them for their easy submission to Absalom's lust, despairing perhaps of David's return, and giving him up for gone. Let none expect to do ill and fare well.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain And there happened to be a man of Belial,....…
And there happened to be a man of Belial,.... A wicked man, as the Targum, a lawless, yokeless man, that had cast off the yoke of the law, and was without it, as Belial is by some interpreted; or one unprofitable and useless, yea, noxious and pernicious: this man, though, with respect to second causes, may be said to be there by chance, yet it was so ordered by the providence of God that he should be present at this time for the further fulfilment of the threatening to David, that the sword should not depart from his house:
whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite; one perhaps that had been in the rebellion of Absalom, and had a grudge against David for the removal of the kingdom out of that tribe:
Read full note →
and he blew a trumpet; which was done to draw off the Israelites from David, and gather a party to himself:
and said, we have no part in David; so he interpreted what the men of Judah said, because they claimed kindred to David, the rest of the Israelites had no interest in him; thus they, who just before said they had ten parts in him, now had none at all:
neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse; so he calls David by way of contempt, as if he was no king, but a private person, and a descendant from a mean family:
every man to his tent, O Israel; there to consider what to do, and whom to choose to be their king, and let Judah take David for their king, and enjoy him alone, since they had so slighted, and dealt so injuriously and roughly with the rest of the tribes.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain A new rebellion raised by Sheba, ver. 1, 2.…
A new rebellion raised by Sheba, ver. 1, 2. David confines his ten concubines for life, ver. 3. Joab murders Amasa, ver. 4-12. Pursues Sheba to Abel, ver. 13-15. He is delivered up, ver. 16-22. David's great officers, ver. 23-26.
Happened - His presence was casual in itself, though ordered by God's providence. No part - The tribe of Judah have monopolized the king to themselves, and will not allow us any share in him; let them therefore enjoy him alone, and let us seek out a new king. The son of Jesse - An expression of contempt, implying that he was no more to be owned as their king, but as a private person, as the son of Jesse. To his tents - Let us all desist from this unthankful office, of bringing the king back, and go each to our homes, that we may consider, and then meet together to chuse a new king.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Sheba raises an insurrection, and gains a party in…
CHAPTER XX
Sheba raises an insurrection, and gains a party in Israel, 1, 2.
Read full note →
David shuts up the ten concubines who were defiled by Absalom,
3.
Amasa is sent to assemble the men of Judah, 4, 5.
And in the mean time Abishai is sent to pursue Sheba, 6, 7.
Joab treacherously murders Amasa, 8-12.
Joab and the army continue the pursuit of Sheba, 13, 14.
He is besieged in Abel; and, by the counsels of a wise woman,
the people of Abel cut off his head, and throw it over the
wall to Joab; who blows the trumpet of peace, and he and his
men return to Jerusalem, 15-22.
Account of David's civil and military officers, 23-26.
NOTES ON CHAP. XX
Verse 1. Sheba, the son of Bichri] As this man was a Benjamite, he probably belonged to the family of Saul; and he seems to have had considerable influence in Israel to raise such an insurrection: but we know nothing farther of him than what is related in this place.
We have no part in David] We of Israel, we of the ten tribes, are under no obligation to the house of David. Leave him, and let every man fall into the ranks under his own leader.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain 2Sa 20:1. There happened to be there, &c. —…
2Sa 20:1. There happened to be there, &c. — His presence was casual in itself, though ordered by God’s providence. A man of Belial — A wicked and lawless person, one who attempted to shake off the yoke of civil authority. A Benjamite — And therefore grieved at the translation of the kingdom from Saul and that tribe, to David and the tribe of Judah. We have no part in David — The tribe of Judah have monopolized the king to themselves, and will not allow us any share in him; let them therefore enjoy him alone, and let us seek out a new king. The son of Jesse — An expression of contempt, implying that he was no more to be owned as their king, but as a private person, as the son of Jesse. To his tents — Let us all desist from that unthankful office, of bringing the king back, and go each to our homes, that we may consider, and then meet together to choose a new king.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain The son of Bichri ... - Rather, “a Bichrite,”…
The son of Bichri ... - Rather, “a Bichrite,” formed like the names “Ahohite,” “Hachmonite,” etc. 2Sa 23:8-9, and so called from Becher, the son of Benjamin Gen 46:21; 1Ch 7:6-8 Saul was also of this family. It is evident that the transfer of the royalty from their tribe to that of Judah still rankled in the hearts of many Benjamites (2Sa 16:8 note).
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Belial. Septuagint, "lawless." --- Jemini. The tribe of Benjamin…
Belial. Septuagint, "lawless." --- Jemini. The tribe of Benjamin continued to be rather disaffected. (Haydock) --- Part. This was an usual mode of expressing a disunion, 3 Kings xii. 16., and Acts viii. 21. (Calmet) --- See chap. xix. 43. (Haydock) Seba was perhaps a kinsman of Saul, (Menochius) in come command. (Calmet)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain For the Chapter 20 passage and footnotes, see 1Sa_19:1…
For the Chapter 20 passage and footnotes, see 1Sa_19:1 ff.
2Sa_20:1-22. Sheba’s insurrection, Israel’s defection, both quelled by Joab.
Read full note →
2Sa_20:1. There was1 there, namely, in Gilgal at the assembly of the tribes; the word “there” indicates directly the place, indirectly the time of the following history, so that the causal connection between it and the preceding scene is obvious. On the person of Sheba, Luther remarks (probably correctly) in his marginal notes: “he was one of the great rogues of the high nobility, who had a large retinue among the people, and consideration or name, as Catiline at Rome.”2 He was a “wicked” man (Luther: heilloser [Eng. A. V. wrongly: “son of Belial]), comp. 1Sa_25:17; 1Sa_25:25. A Benjaminite, probably (to judge from his conduct) one of the rabid Sauline party, if he were not (as is possible) of Saul’s own family—We have no part in David.—This is said in contrast with 2Sa_19:42-43, and with a sharp emphasis on the “no” [“there is not to us part in David”]. David is called the son of Jesse contemptuously in contrast with Saul. “We have nothing in common with him, nothing to do with him,” comp. Deu_10:9. From his blowing the trumpet it may be surmised that he was a military commander, having control of a somewhat large body of men.—Every man to his tents, that is, home, as in 2Sa_18:17; 2Sa_19:9. The expression is an echo from the tent-life of the people in the wilderness.
2Sa_20:2. All Israel “went up” from David, namely, from the plain of Gilgal to the hill-country of Ephraim. The whole representation of Israel listens to Sheba’s rebellious signal, and follows him, which is to be explained only by the anger against Judah, freshly excited by the quarrel over bringing the king back. The men of Judah “clave to their king,” crowded close around him [rather, faithfully adhered to him—Tr.] and escorted him “from the Jordan to Jerusalem.” The expression: “from the Jordan” does not contradict the fact that the assembly took place in Gilgal (as Thenius holds from this, that it took place on the Jordan); it is not to be explained (with Keil against Thenius) by the remark that the “Judahites” had already escorted the king over the Jordan, but (Gilgal being near the Jordan) is to be taken as a general designation, such as we often use in respect to rivers.
2Sa_20:3. David’s return to his house at Jerusalem. The ten concubines (2Sa_15:16; 2Sa_16:20 sqq.) that he had left behind—he put in a house of ward, and maintained them, but remained apart from them.3 Grotius: “He pardoned their fear indeed [i. e., their fault committed through fear], but would not approach them, since they were impure for him (having been approached by his son), nor let others approach them, as they were royal concubines.” They lived in “widowhood of life,”4 that is, “whereas death had entered the house, widowhood during the lifetime of the husband.” (Böttch.), comp. Deu_24:1 sqq.; Isa_1:1. [So Targum, Gill, Philippson. It may also be rendered: “in a lifelong widowhood,” i. e., as long as they lived; but the objection to this is, that it repeats the statement of the preceding clause.—Tr.]
2Sa_20:4. And the king said to Amasa, Call me, etc., namely, to follow and attack the insurgent Sheba. In giving Amasa this commission, David’s purpose is to fulfil to him his promise, 2Sa_19:14. And do thou present thyself here, after three days, when the men of Judah shall have assembled, that thou mayest lead them out to battle. Then David intended formally to appoint him commander-in-chief, and assign him the more important duties. In various respects David here acted unwisely: 1) in bestowing on the late insurgent leader, Amasa an unbounded confidence, that was soon proved to be misplaced, 2Sa_20:5-6; 2 Samuel 2) in respect to Joab who, with all his rudeness and cruelty, had remained faithful to David, and by his splendid victory over Amasa, had saved the kingdom; 3) in respect to his faithful tribe of Judah, who must have been offended by this preference shown for the leader of the revolution. [On the other hand, the insurgent Judahites might be pleased by this honor done their general (comp. 2Sa_19:14), and the men of Israel affected by seeing their former general in David’s service (Patrick); Amasa had probably shown himself an efficient commander, and Joab was not undeserving of punishment.—Tr.).
2Sa_20:5. He tarried5 over the set time, (three days), either because he met with distrust and opposition among the people, and could not so soon execute his commission, or because he did not wish to make haste, and nourished in his breast traitorous designs, [or, possibly, because of natural lack of vigor.—Tr.].
2Sa_20:6. And David said to Abishai. Instead of “Abishai,” Thenius (after Syr. and Josephus) would read “Joab,” since from the present text we cannot account for the appearance of Joab in 2Sa_20:8, (he is previously not mentioned—only his people mentioned in 2Sa_20:7); the “men of Joab” would certainly not have marched out, unless Joab had had the supreme command. He takes the original reading (after the Sept.) in 2Sa_20:7 to be: “and there marched out after him Abishai and the men of Joab,” and thinks that from this, “Abishai” got into 2Sa_20:6 instead of “Joab,” while in 2Sa_20:7 the word “Abishai” fell out from its likeness to the following word (אנשי). Against which Böttcher rightly says that the Syriac and Josephus here made an arbitrary change in the Hebrew, and put “Joab” instead of Abishai, because they thought (from what follows) that the former ought to be named here. “How,” asks Böttcher, “if Joab had originally stood in the text, could Abishai have been accidentally or purposely written for it, since the two names are very different, and Abishai is not mentioned till 2Sa_20:10?” Rather in the Sept. (Cod. Vat.) the Abishai might have gotten from 2Sa_20:6 (beginning) into 2Sa_20:7 (beginning); indeed its insertion is evidently due to the exception that was taken to the omission of his name in 2Sa_20:7 while in 2Sa_20:6 he is entrusted with the command. To get rid of the difficulties, Böttcher proposes to read in 2Sa_20:6 : “And David said to Joab: behold, the three days are past, shall we wait for Amasa? now will Sheba, etc.,” (Sept. Vat. reading: “and David said to Amasa”). But this adoption of a variation of the Sept. (which clearly came from a misunderstanding), and the supposed omission of a whole line by the error of a transcriber is artificial and untrustworthy. There remains nothing but to retain the masoretic text (which is confirmed by all the Versions except the Syriac): “and David said to Abishai.” Joab was still David’s official commander-in-chief, though the latter had unwisely promised the command to Amasa; the sending of Amasa to collect the troops was indeed occasioned by that promise; but Joab was not yet deprived of the command. But David speaks to Abishai about Amasa’s delay and not to Joab, because he wished to have nothing to do with the latter on account of his crabbedness, and further knew that he would take Amasa’s appointment ill. David expresses the apprehension: Now will Sheba … become more hurtful (dangerous) than Absalom, the revolution will become more widespread and powerful than before, unless we march immediately against Sheba. Take thou thy Lord’s servants, the troops with the king in Jerusalem, the standing army (the particular parts of which are mentioned in 2Sa_20:7), in distinction from, the levy of the people, for which Amasa was sent. And pursue after him, for, as Sheba had gotten a good start in these three days, everything depended on quickly overtaking him. Lest he get him fenced cities,—this he fears has already happened (as the form of the Hebrew verb6 shows). And turn away our eye; the verb (הִצִּיל) means “to take away” (Gen_31:9; Gen_31:16; Psa_119:43; 1Sa_30:22; Hos_2:11), “lest he take away our view,” deceive us (Maurer); Vulg.; “and escape us” [so Eng. A. V.]; Gesen and De Wette: “that he may not escape our eye by throwing himself with his followers into fortified cities” (as actually happened, 2Sa_20:15). Maurer well compares the similar expression: “to steal one’s heart (mind),” i. e., to deceive him, Gen_31:20; 2Sa_15:6. Ewald translates: “lest he trouble our eye,” deriving the verb from a stem7 = “to be shaded” (Neh_13:19, comp. Eze_31:3), that is, lest he cause us care and vexation; so also Bunsen, and so already the Sept.; “Lest he darken (shade) our eyes.” Certainly this translation gives too weak a sense (Then.). But, with this derivation of the verb, the meaning might still be: “that he darken not our sight,” hiding himself from us in fortified cities, so that our sight of his hostile preparations is obscured, and we cannot clearly follow and overcome him.—Böttcher, Thenius and Keil, referring to Deu_32:10; Zec_2:10, where the “apple of the eye” is the figure of valuable possession, render: “and pluck out our eye,” i. e., severely injure us; but it is the eye, not the apple of the eye, that is here spoken of, nor is there anything here that is compared to the apple of the eye, since the “fortified cities” could not be so meant.
2Sa_20:7. “After him,” that is, after Abishai. The men of Joab=his immediate military followers, under his special control. Yet they were not the less “David’s servants.” This view is favored by the expression: “Joab’s people.” If the phrase were intended to indicate a body of men “that Joab in this emergency had collected at his own costs, and with whom as volunteers he himself as volunteer intended to go into this war” (Ewald), this fact would necessarily have been mentioned in the narrative. The Cherethites and Pelethites, the royal body-guard (see on 2Sa_8:18), whom “the necessity of the case now brought out” (Ewald). The Gibborim [mighty men] are the six hundred heroes, (2Sa_15:8) who with the body-guard accompanied David when he fled from Absalom. These two bodies together with the “men of Joab” formed the only troops now at the king’s disposal, whom he calls “the servants of thy lord” (2Sa_20:6). As the case required the greatest haste (2Sa_20:6), he ordered Abishai to follow Sheba for the present with those troops (Ew.). The words “out of Jerusalem” are added because of the local statement that follows.
2Sa_20:8. When they came to the great stone of Gibeon—which was doubtless an isolated rock of considerable size. Gibeon lay northwest of Jerusalem in the mountains of Ephraim, whither Sheba (2Sa_20:2) had gone. Amasa came towards them, literally “before their face” (De Wette). He was (2Sa_20:4) to have proclaimed the arriere-ban [summoned the people to war] in Judah. Here he is found in the tribe of Benjamin. As he meets the troops advancing to the northwest, he must be coming from the opposite direction, as we should expect from David’s order. The cause of his delay thus was that he had gone northward from Judah into Benjamin. Coming thence on his way to Jerusalem (2Sa_20:4) with the troops he had raised, he meets these others at “the great stone in Gibeon.” Here Joab, before mentioned, suddenly comes on the scene. As David had not deprived him of the command, we must suppose that he was advancing with the permanent force under Abishai to the field, where Amasa’s retarded levies were to join him. Joab regarded himself as still commander-in-chief, and, that Amasa might not attain this honor, he put him out of the way (2Sa_20:10) by murder. It is not to be assumed that David (2Sa_20:6) had ordered Abishai to march out with Joab, and that this is not mentioned for brevity’s sake (Keil), nor that David had given Joab the command (omitted in this compendious account) to go along to the field.—The minute description of Joab’s military dress and arms is intended to make it clear how the latter could suddenly kill Amasa without any one’s noticing his purpose. “And Joab was girded with his military coat as his clothing,8 and on it the girdle of the sword, which was fastened on his loins in its sheath; and this [the sheath] came out, and it [the sword] fell down.” The girdle is expressly mentioned in order to show how the sword did not depend from it as usual, but, with its sheath, was thrust in and held by it (Thenius). “And it (referring to the preceding “sheath”) came out” of the girdle, as if accidentally in consequence of a movement, “and it (the sword) fell to the ground”; so Maurer, Böttcher. Mich., Dathe, Schulz render: “he brought (Hiphil) it (the sword) out, so that it fell”; but this, inasmuch as it is supported by no ancient version, is arbitrary. To render “and he (Joab) went forth” (De Wette, Keil [Eng. A. V., Philippson, Bib.-Com.]) is against the connection, since it does not appear whence Joab went forth. [A slight change in the Hebrew, making pronoun and verb feminine (after Sept., and substantially Vulg.) will give: “and it (the sword) came out and fell down,” which is much simpler and more natural.—Tr.]
2Sa_20:9. Joab performed this manipulation with the sword just before he met Amasa, making such a movement that the sword should fall, as it were accidentally, to the ground, and he could take it up in his left hand, so as with the right hand to lay hold of Amasa’s beard in friendly greeting. No surprise would be felt, therefore, at his holding the sword in his left hand, with which he had taken it up from the ground. From the friendly address: Art thou in health, my brother? Amasa would all the less suspect anything evil, since he was Joab’s rival. The grasping the beard with the right hand is not for the purpose of kissing the beard9 (Winer, Art. Bart.), but is a caressing gesture, like an embrace, intended to draw down the face to kiss it [so Eng. A. V., to kiss him]. So Amasa could suspect no evil. [“My brother”—he was his first cousin, 1Ch_3:16-17 (Bib.-Com.).—Tr.]
2Sa_20:10. And Amasa took no heed to the sword that was in Joab’s (left) hand. The murder of Amasa by Joab was, therefore, a cleverly contrived and malicious act, the product of jealousy and desire of revenge. “Thus this rude soldier’s friendship and repose was merely a pretence, that he might take his revenge at the first opportunity” (Ewald). “He did it not the second time,” did not repeat the blow; his stroke was mortal! [He stabbed him in the belly (not “in the fifth rib,” as in Eng. A. V.), so that his bowels came out.—Tr.]. With the same violence that he had shown in the murder, Joab, with his brother Abishai, now rushes after Sheba, without bestowing a moment’s notice on Amasa struggling in the agonies of death. The words: Joab and Abishai his brother, from the connection favor the view that Joab had gone out at the head (together with Abishai) of the body of troops under Abishai.
2Sa_20:11. One of Joab’s henchmen remained by (עַל) Amasa; no doubt at Joab’s command, in order to send Amasa’s levies on to Joab and Abishai with the cry: “He that hath pleasure in Joab, etc.”; pleasure: Joab, used to victory, doubtless inspired more confidence. “And he that is for David”—this refers to the defection from David into which Amasa had led the people, [and is intended to identify Joab’s cause with David’s.—Tr.].
2Sa_20:12 sqq. How vivid and touching the picture here of Amasa wallowing in his blood on the road, the advancing crowd of people stopping by him, his consequent hasty removal from the road, and the throwing a cloth over him to hide him from the sight of the passers-by, and so to prevent their stopping, and avoid the possible unfavorable impression for Joab and his cause that the sight of the body would make on the people! [Nobody knew the cause of his death, in the hurry there was no time to inquire, the danger from Sheba was imminent, and so the crowd passed on without investigating the matter.—Tr.]
2Sa_20:13. Only now, it is expressly stated, do the people follow on after Joab without delay. “Every man (or, all the men) went on.” As it is clear from the context that these are Amasa’s levies out of Israel, it is not necessary (with Then., after Sept.) to insert “of Israel” after “all the men.”
2Sa_20:14. “And he went through.” This refers to Joab, who now, as general-in-chief of the army, rushed through all the tribes of Israel northward from Ephraim (Manasseh, Issachar, Zebulon, Naphtali), Sheba flying before him and first reaching a strong position in the extreme north. [Others (Patrick, Wellhausen) think that Sheba is here the subject, and this is favored by the fact that the “him” in 2Sa_20:15 (and so in 2Sa_20:14, end) which refers to Sheba, seems to represent the same person as the subject of the verb “went through;” moreover this verb would naturally refer to the person last mentioned in 2Sa_20:13.—Tr.] To Abel and Beth-Maachah.—Abel, in the north of Naphtali, very near Beth-Maachah, the two being near and west of Ijon [Iyyon] and Dan (1Ki_15:20; 2Ki_15:29); in 2Ch_16:4 it is called Abel-mayim, from the neighboring lake Merom on the south, or, more probably, from the well-watered Merj Ayun, the present village Abil el Kamh, i. e., Wheat-meadow. On account of its proximity to Beth-Maachah, it is often combined with this = Abel-Beth-Maacah, 2Sa_20:15; 1Ki_15:20; 2Ki_15:29; but the “and” here connecting the two names is not for that reason to be stricken out (Ewald, Thenius). By the addition “Beth-Maachah” and Mayim (2Ch_16:4) it is distinguished from several other places of this name [Abel], which signifies “meadow.” If the word Berim (בֵּרִים) indicates a region of country [Eng. A. V.: Berites] it must be connected with the preceding verb: and he went through all Berim, though then the absence of the preposition [in the Heb., as in Eng. A. V.], and still more, this appended statement of place after it has been mentioned to what point Joab went, would be surprising. But no such region is known in northern Palestine, nor any similar name of a place. We are therefore justified in supposing a corruption of the text. A suggestion for an emendation of the text is given by the Sept.: “to Beth-Maachah, and all in Charri [this suggests the Heb. bachurim, “choice, chosen young men”], and they were gathered together,” etc.; and by the Vulg.: “and all the chosen men were assembled to him.” Clericus remarks that this looks as if they read “chosen” (הבחורים), but declines to express a judgment in the matter. We must probably read:10 “and all kinds of arms-bearing men” (Then., Winer, s. v., Habarim), or: “and all the (there residing) young men” (Ew., Böttch.). Böttcher thinks it probable (but without sufficient ground) that we should add: “who were in the cities.” We may render then (changing to Perfect the following verb): “and all the young men were gathered together,”11 etc., or (keeping the form in the text): “and all the young men, and (as an additional fact) they were gathered together and went also after him,” i. e., in his march through all the tribes to Abel and Beth-Maachah. That is, the young men as far as the extreme north gathered about him; the “also” refers to the statement in 2Sa_20:13 that “every man went on after Joab,” that is, all that had assembled in Ephraim at Gibeon [2Sa_20:8]; to these were added all the young men in the other tribes. Thereby the victory was already decided for Joab.
2Sa_20:15 sqq. Sheba besieged.—Sheba had found refuge in Abel-Beth-Maachah12—a strongly fortified place, which, as fortress, served by the quantity of water about it, also as a protection towards the north and east. In this city they besieged him.—He had therefore thrown himself into it. It cannot be gathered from the connection that the inhabitants (who could have done nothing against his sudden seizure of the city) took part with Sheba against David; we may rather infer from the procedure of the “wise woman” that they were opposed to the insurgent. They threw up an embankment against the city; and it (the embankment) stood—that is, rose at [= joined on to] the wall of the outer works of the fortress, the outer wall (Sept. προτειχίσματι [the pomerium, or open space without the wall, in which the embankment was placed in order the more easily to batter the city-walls.—Tr.]). The rest of 2Sa_20:15 is to be taken as protasis, the apodosis beginning with 2Sa_20:16 : “And as all the people, etc., then cried a wise woman.” The usual rendering: “as they destroyed, in order to throw down the wall” [so Eng. A. V.] involves a contradiction; for if they destroyed, what was left to be thrown down? and this verb (שִׁחֵת) is used (Eze_26:4) of the complete tearing down of walls (Then.). Also in 2Sa_20:20 Joab says: “Far be it from me to destroy.” It is better with Ewald and Böttcher13 to take the Participle as a denominative (from שַׁחַת, “a pit, ditch”), and render: “they dug ditches to throw down the wall,” by undermining. Josephus: “he ordered them to undermine the walls.” Then cried a wise woman (comp. 2Sa_14:2 sq.; 1Sa_25:3 sq.) from the city.—This expression gives a sufficiently vivid picture of the situation, and there is no need (with Thenius) to change the text after Syr. and Arab.: “down from the wall of the city,” and Sept.: “from the wall,” where the differences of wording show these renderings to be explanatory local descriptions.
2Sa_20:18 sqq. The woman’s words to Joab are variously explained. Maurer (after Dathe: “inquiry ought first, said she, to have been made of Abel, and then it ought to have been decided what is to be done”) renders: “and she said: it should first have been said: ‘let the city be consulted;’ so they would have finished the matter.” So also De Wette: “one should first have said: one must inquire in Abel, and so the end would have been reached.” But this is too artificial an expression for the situation. The same remark is to be made of Böttcher’s translation: “And she said, as if she would say: ‘One should first, however, speak, speak, as if she would say: One should ask, ask in Abel; and so the matter would be finished;’ ” that is, the woman protested against Joab’s violent procedure without previous negotiation. Certainly such a protest is to be supposed in the woman’s words. But these are to be translated (with Thenius) simply after the text as follows: “They used to say in old time: let Abel be inquired of; and so they ended (the matter).” Vulg.2 Samuel 14 : “It was said in the old proverb: those that ask, ask in Abel; and so they finished.” Sept.: “It was formerly said, They shall ask in Abel, and so they left off.” The sense is: It was formerly a proverbial saying: “inquire at Abel,” and if the decision there made was acted on, the affair was satisfactorily concluded; so now, the inhabitants of Abel ought first to have been communicated with, instead of straightway investing and besieging the city; then your design respecting Sheba would have been accomplished. It is assumed and affirmed that Abel was proverbial for the discretion and wisdom of its inhabitants. This wisdom the “wise woman” illustrates factually by her discourse. It is to be noted also that the negotiation before laying siege to a city (and a foreign city, indeed) such as the woman here refers to, is prescribed in the law, Deu_20:10 sqq., comp. Num_21:21.—Some codices of the Sept. read: “It was formerly said, It was asked in Abel and in Dan if they left off what the faithful of Israel established,” after which Ewald15 adopts as original text: “Let it be asked in Abel and in Dan, whether what the devout men of Israel formerly ordained has there gone out of I use” [that is, if, when a new custom comes up, one wishes to find out whether old Israelitish usage exists anywhere, he must go to Abel and Dan; the implication being that Joab is violating old custom.—Tr.] But Keil rightly remarks that this addition of the Sept. (“what the devout men,” etc.), which is critically of so little value that Tisch. in his edition of the Sept. does not think it worthy of mention, is evidently a gloss or paraphrase of the last words of the verse: “and so they finished” [in connection with the “faithful in Israel” of the next verse.—Tr.] [Tisch. in his Sept. (4th ed.) does give these words as a part of the text of the Vatican manuscript; but they seem to be clearly a duplet or double rendering.—Tr.]
2Sa_20:19. I am of the peaceable, faithful ones of Israel. The woman says “I” in the name of the city; the plural predicates [“peaceable, faithful”] refer to the inhabitants of the city. Clericus: “I am of the number of the peaceable and faithful in Israel, says our city.” The meaning is: We are peaceable and faithful people, averse to insurrection; you ought first to have communicated with us, and then the thing would have been understood. It is herein indirectly stated that the city had no thought of taking part with Sheba, who had thrown himself into it. Whether this was the feeling in the city from the beginning, or was reached only when it was threatened with destruction by the siege, cannot be determined. Anyhow the woman was able cleverly to avert the threatened evil.—Böttcher changes the text, so as to read: “people16 (that are) the peaceablest, truest in Israel thou seekest to kill,” and Ewald: “we are (or better, we are still) peaceable, etc., and thou seekest,” etc.; but there is no necessity for any change.—Thou seekest to kill a city and mother in Israel, that is, one of the chief cities of Israel, comp. 2Sa_8:1. Why wilt thou destroy the inheritance of the Lord? The city pertained to the people that the Lord had chosen for His possession. Comp. the discourse of the wise woman of Tekoah, 2Sa_20:16. [Though the Heb. text of the woman’s discourse here is harsh and obscure, no proposed changes better it. As it stands, she seems to say: “Abel is proverbial for its wisdom. You should have entered into negotiations with us instead of attempting to destroy an important city in Israel.” The margin of Eng. A. V. reads: “they plainly spake in the beginning, saying, Surely they will ask of Abel, and so make an end,” that is, in the beginning of the siege the inhabitants expressed the expectation that Joab would communicate with them, and this rendering is approved by Patrick as more literal than the text of Eng. A. V.; but it does not give the proverb-like coloring of the original. Philippson mentions among other Jewish renderings that of the Midrash which haggadistically identifies the wise woman with Serah, the daughter of Asher (Gen_46:17), who is made to refer in her sharp discourse with Joab to Deu_20:10, the law of sieges. Erdmann also holds that this law is here alluded to; but there is no intimation of this; the woman intimates only generally that it would have been conducive to a proper understanding if Joab had communicated with the besieged.—Tr.]
2Sa_20:20 sqq. Joab, impressed by the woman’s words, declares that it is not his purpose to destroy the city, but only to get possession of the insurgent Sheba, who [2Sa_20:21] has lifted up his hand against the king. Perhaps the woman first learned from these words the real state of the case and the guilt of Sheba. She said immediately that his head should be thrown through the wall, through one of the openings in the wall, where the besieged might watch and shoot at the enemy, and through which perhaps she spoke with Joab. [Eng. A. V., wrongly: “over the wall.”—Tr.]
2Sa_20:22. She went to all the people, to report concerning her interview with Joab—a self-evident fact that it was unnecessary to mention in the text. After “people” Sept. adds: “and spoke to the whole city,” a correct explanatory remark, but not to be inserted in the text (as Ew. and Then, think). Equally unnecessary is Böttcher’s alteration: “and the woman went into the city, and spoke to all the people.” The words of the text: She came … in her wisdom (i. e., with her proposition to Joab, which she persuaded the people to accept) are indeed of laconic curtness; but this quite suits this rapid narration. By the delivery of the traitor’s head Joab’s end was gained. He ordered the trumpet to be sounded, as sign that the army should retire from the siege, and set out on the return-march. And they dispersed from the city, namely, the warriors that had joined him (2Sa_20:13). And Joab returned, with the warriors with whom he had left Jerusalem (2Sa_20:7), to the king, to announce to him the end of the insurrection. “The issue of this occurrence, how David received the victorious Joab, is omitted in our present narrative; he was doubtless now also forbearing to a man who as a soldier was indispensable to him, and who, with all his punishment-deserving savagery, always meant well for his government” (Ewald).
2Sa_20:23-26. List of David’s highest officers after the restoration of his authority. See the Introduction, p. 18 sq., as to the relation between this list and that in 2Sa_8:16-18, and their position and significance in respect to the two chief periods of the history of David and his kingdom, of which history they form the conclusion. [The two lists are appropriately placed at the two beginnings of David’s kingdom, and the differences between them are explained by the changes brought by time.—Tr.]
2Sa_20:23. 1) Joab, commander of the whole army17 of Israel,—as in 2Sa_8:16, except that the “Israel” is not inserted there. Joab remained commander-in-chief notwithstanding David’s overhasty decision, 2Sa_19:3.—2) Benaiah, son of Jehoiada, commander of the bodyguard, as in 2Sa_8:18. Comp. 1Ki_2:25-46, where he performed the execution ordered by Solomon, and 2 Samuel 20:35, where he is named commander-in-chief in Joab’s place, and as such is mentioned in the list of Solomon’s state-officers, 2Sa_4:1-6. He was over the Cherethites and Pelethites. Cherethites is the marginal reading, for which the text has the equivalent Cari18 (2Ki_11:1; 2Ki_11:19); see on 2Sa_8:18.
2Sa_20:24.–3) Adoram (1Ki_12:18) = Adoniram (1Ki_4:6; 5:28), and = Hadoram (2Ch_10:18). He was not “rent-master” (Luther) [Eng. A. V., “over the tribute”], for the word (מַם) never19means “tribute, tax,” but overseer of the public works or tribute-work [Germ. frohn, manorial work], a new office (not mentioned in 2Sa_8:16 sq.), the nature of which is indicated in 1 Kings 5:27 sq. compared with 1Ki_4:6. Adoram, put into this office in the latter years of David, held it till Rehoboam’s time, 1Ki_12:18. [The name Adoram, if it be correct (Sept., Syr., Arab. have Adoniram, Vulg. and Chald. as Heb.) must be considered an unusual contraction of the longer form; possibly it is an imitation (though an incorrect one) of such names as Jehoram.—Tr.]—4) Jehoshaphat, son of Ahilud was “chancellor” [Eng. A. V., less well: recorder]; see on 2Sa_8:16.
2Sa_20:25.—5) Sheva (or, Sheya) = Seraiah (2Sa_8:17) was scribe or state-secretary.—6) Zadok and Abiathar, high-priests, 2Sa_8:17.
2Sa_20:26.—7) Ira, the Jairite, confidential counsellor to David, a new officer; in 2Sa_8:18 “sons of David” are said to have held this office. [The word here rendered “counsellor” (Eng. A. V.: “chief ruler”) is the ordinary term for “priest,” which rendering some would here retain. See on 2Sa_8:18 for the discussion of the meaning.—Tr.] Instead of “Jairite” Thenius (after Syr.) reads “Jattirite” (of Jattir), especially as this city Jattir in the mountains of Judah (Jos_15:48; Jos_21:14) is mentioned in 1Sa_30:27 among those particularly friendly to David. But the rendering of the Syriac is derived from 2Sa_23:38 on account of the name Ira there found, which, however, represents a different person from this. Thenius, holding that the narrator wrote the history chaps. 11–20 in David’s life-time, since he here breaks off without relating the history up to David’s death, concludes from the way in which Ira is introduced (“and also Ira,” etc.) that the author [Ira] here at the close appends his own name; but this latter assumption is unwarranted, even granting the other.
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. The truthfulness and justice of the theocratic historical narrative is shown, as everywhere in the frank statement of the sins of God’s instruments, so here in the unveiled narration of David’s errors in the way whereby God brought him back to his kingdom, and also of the unhappy results of his overhasty measures. His message to Judah, after he heard of Israel’s preparations to bring him back (2Sa_19:12) was a mistake, since it was of such a nature as to kindle anew the fire of jealousy between the two section of the people; he thereby put Judah before Israel (who had begun the movement for restoration), and the result was the violent war of words, 2Sa_19:41-43. His mistake in holding out to the rebel Amasa the certain prospect of the chief command, led to the murder of the latter by Joab. David had made Joab the companion and instrument of his crime against Uriah; and this community in crime was a collateral cause of the retention of the latter in the highest military office (2Sa_20:23).
2. God the Lord, as king of His people, permits sin to work out its extremest evil consequences, in order to reveal His justice in the punishment of sin by sin, and in wise ways hidden from men to further the ends of His kingdom, by making human sin serviceable thereto. By one bad man the greater part of the nation is seduced into insurrection, after David had erred in looking too much to his own honor at his restoration, and regarding flesh and blood (2Sa_19:12), neglecting to make the Lord’s honor his highest point of view, and to subordinate everything to it. By the second sudden failure of his hopes, based on the popular favor, and his natural-fleshly relations to the people, he is to be brought again to know that the Lord alone is his strength, his protection and his help. The unjustly displaced Joab becomes a second time the saviour and restorer of the theocratic kingdom, striding over the corpse of the murdered ex-traitor to victory over the insurrection; whence David was to learn anew, that the ways of the Lord are not our ways, and His thoughts not our thoughts, and that He in His wisdom and might in the ways that He chooses and to the goal that He has fixed, performs things that in men’s eyes, and through men’s sins are most involved and confused.
3. The greatest confusion of affairs suddenly arises by the concatenation of various sins and crimes, just after the certain prospect of restoration to kingdom, and peace dawns on David. Jealous quarreling divides the people into two hostile parts. The king is powerless to extinguish the fire of anger and hatred. An insurgent quickly carries the greater part of the people off from David. Civil war once more rages throughout the whole nation. The army-leader appointed by the king is treacherously murdered by the unwisely aggrieved Joab. But in this confusion God’s wisdom goes its quiet, hidden way, and His almighty hand leads the sorely tried king, who in this chaotic whirl, must see the consequences of his own errors, back to complete and triumphant royal dominion. While to men’s eyes the co-operation of many evil powers seems to endanger the kingdom of God to the utmost, and its affairs appear to be confused and disturbed in the unhappiest fashion, the wonderful working of the living God reveals itself most gloriously in the unravelment of the worst entanglements, and in the introduction of new and unexpected triumphs for His government.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
2Sa_19:41-43. Envy and jealousy among God’s people always spring from a passionate self-interest, which puts one’s own honor in place of God’s honor, and often, under the pretence of zeal for the one, makes the other the aim of all its striving;—they produce a spiritual blinding in which it becomes impossible to recognize God’s designs in the matters of His kingdom, an embittering of hearts and minds, whereby brotherly love is changed into hate, and a rending of the divinely joined bonds of union, from which follow wrangling, discord and party hostility.—[Henry: If a good work be done, and well done, let us not be displeased, nor the work disparaged, though we had no hand in it.—Tr.].—From hearts full of bitterness, and rancor flow evil words; these react upon the hearts of those who quarrel, and nurse the flame of hate and discord.—An unloving disposition ends in hard and injurious words; and from evil words it is but one step to evil deeds.
2Sa_20:1. sq. The ambition of one man often pulls down what many with united forces have built up in a state, and may from one spark of discord kindle a great fire of uproar and insurrection, whereby a whole people is plunged into ruin.—The traitorous voice that leads to uprising against the divinely ordered authorities is followed by all that will not recognize in these authorities the ordination and action of God, and that have turned their hearts away from the living God.—Osiander: God tempers with a cross the prosperity of His elect, in order that they may be kept in His fear. Rom_5:3 sq.—Schlier: David must learn from every new experience, what grief and heart-pain it brings to forsake the Lord and not fear Him. And assuredly David did recognize in all these chastisements that again and again broke over him, not merely the hand of men, but above all, the hand of the Lord.—Starke: It is righteous in God to requite, and to measure with the measure wherewith we have measured, Luk_6:38. [From Hall]: He had lift up his hand against a faithful subject; now a faithless dares to lift up his hand against him.—That is the way of the world: now it exalts one to heaven, now casts him down to earth; let us not then trust in men, but in God.
2Sa_20:3. Schlier: David well knew that nothing more surely and quickly brings in the Lord’s help than to put away what is unbecoming. When trouble rises let us turn to the Lord, and put away what is an offence in His eyes, and cleanse heart and house of all that is displeasing to Him.
2Sa_20:4. The Lord forsakes not His people even when they make mistakes, and does not inflict on us the penalty even when we go astray.
2Sa_20:6. Wuert. B.: Pious men are not always steadfast and strong in faith, but amid assaults and trouble often grow pusillanimous, often as weak as if they had never met and withstood an assault. Then let us diligently pray: Lord, increase our faith.
2Sa_20:8-10. Starke: The world is full of insidious courtesies and flatteries, a love-token is the sign and the design is to betray. Psa_55:22 [21].—Hedinger [from Hall]: There is no enmity so dangerous, as that which comes masked with love…Thus spiritually deals the world with our souls, it kisses us and stabs us at once: if it did not embrace us with one hand, it could not murder us with the other.
2Sa_20:13-15. Schlier: From this we may learn how much a man that does his duty at the right time can perform; that which does most harm is not the evil men do, but their weakness in respect to doing good.—Starke: Let the ungodly flee where they will, and seek shelter for themselves and their sins, yet the divine vengeance pursues them, Psa_139:7.
2Sa_20:16-17. Wisdom is better and mightier than all weapons. Pro_11:14. [Hall: There is no reason that sex should disparage, where the virtue and merit are no less than masculine. Surely the soul acknowledgeth no sex, neither is varied according to the outward frame. How oft have we known female hearts in the breasts of men, and contrarily manly powers in the weaker vessels.—Tr.] 2Sa_20:18-19. Cramer: The best bulwark of a city is, in addition to the true service of God, to hold fast its fidelity to the authorities, to study peace and avoid insurrection and revolt; for he who lives in innocence lives in safety. Pro_10:9.
2Sa_20:20-21. Wuert. B.: Often a single ungodly man can bring whole cities and churches into great distress and misfortune, and a single pious man can preserve them. Gen_34:5; 1Sa_22:18. [Henry: A great deal of mischief would be prevented, if contending parties would but understand one another. The city obstinately holds out, believing Joab aims at its ruin; Joab furiously attacks it, believing all its citizens confederates with Sheba; whereas both were mistaken; let both sides be undeceived, and the matter is soon accommodated.—Tr.]
2Sa_20:22. He that takes the sword shall perish by the sword, Mat_26:52, and he that sets himself against the authorities deserves to pay the penalty with his life. Rom_13:2. When we punish the wicked we should spare the innocent. Eze_18:20; Gen_18:25
2Sa_20:25-26. Osiander: The counsellors of princes should be priests of righteousness, that is, should administer justice and righteousness.
Footnotes:
[1] נִקְרָא “there happened,” Niph. of קרה = קרא “to meet,” not from קרא “to call, name” = “a noted, famous man” (Luther).
[2]So Patrick, after Victorinus Strigelius; but we know nothing definitely about it.—As Aphiah (1Sa_9:1) is the same as Abiah (1Ch_7:8), Sheba was so far of the same family as Saul.—Tr.]
[3] אֲלֵיהֶם, masc. suffix for fem., the general, less determined instead of the more determined, Gen_31:9; Amo_3:2; 2Ki_14:13, Ew., § 181 c. [Some MSS. and EDD. of De Rossi have the Fem.—Tr.]
[4] אַלְמְנוּת adverbial Acc. defined by הַיּוּת; one cod. of Kennicott has בְּאל׳ (Böttcher). [This reading is given by De Rossi.—Tr.
[5]Kethib וַיְּיַחֵרְ is Impf. Pi. of אחר = יחר, Qeri וַיּוֹחֵר is Impf. Hiph. or Qal of the same verb; the latter is unnecessary.
[6] פֶּן with the Perf., in expressions “of fear of a thing that, as is almost certainly conjectured, has already happened = μὴ, 2Ki_2:16; 2Ki_10:23” (Ew. § 337 b).
[7] הִצִּיל as Hiph. of צלל:
[8] לְבֻשׁו “his clothing” is descriptive addition to מִדּוֹ “his military garment,” over which he had put the sword-girdle. It is unnecessary (with Then., after Sept. and Vulg.) to point חָגוּר “girded” instead of חֲגוֹר “girdle.”
[9][However it is a custom in the East to kiss the beard (d’Arvieux in Philippson).—Tr.]
[10] כָּל־בַּחֻרִים (Then.) or כָל־הַבַּחֻרִים (Ew.). Sept.: πάντες ἐν χαῤῥι, as if כָל־בְּחָרִי. [On this reading see further in “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.]
[11]Instead of the Kethib ויקלהו we are to read the Qeri ויקהלו (Sept., Vulg., Chald.). If, instead of changing this co Perfect נִקְהֲלוּ, we keep the Impf. וַיִּקָּהְלוּ, the ו must be regarded as adding a new statement, as in Gen_22:24; 1Sa_25:27 (Böttcher).
[12]On the ָה- in בּאֳבֵלָה Böttcher remarks: “where the relation remains purely local (which is not the case in 2Sa_20:18), the adverbial –ָה in innumerable cases remains with the Preposition in names of cities.”
[13]Böttcher: שָׁחַת may easily, along with its proper Hiph., have had a denominative Hiph. from שַׁחַת, = “to make ditches;” comp. הִפְרִים, proper Hiphil of פָּרַם, and also denominative from פַּרְסָה = “to cleave the hoof,” and הִשְׁבִּיר, Hiph. of שָׁבַר and denom. from שֶׁבֶר, = “to sell grain.” [On this and the proposed rendering: “they thought (= were trying) to throw down the wall,” see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.]
[14]Vulg.: Sermo, inquit, dicebatur in veteri proverbio: qui interrogant, interrogant in Abela, et sic perficiebant. Sept.: καὶ εἶπε λόγος ἐλαλήθη ἐν πρώτοις, λεγόντων· Ἐρωτῶντες ἐπερωτήσουσιν ἐν Ἀβέλ, καὶ οὕτως ἐξέλιπον.
[15]Sept. εἰ ἐξέλιπον ἅ ἔθεντο οὶ πιστοὶ τοῦ Ισραήλ. Ew.: בְּאָבֵל וּבְדָן הֲתַמּוּ אֲשֶׁר שָׂמוּ אֱמוּנֵי ישְׂרָאֵל.
[16]Böttcher: אַנְשֵׁי instead of אָנכִי. Ewald: אֲנַחְנוּ or עֹדֶנּוּ, and ו before אַתָּה.
[17] הַצָּבָא, Abs. instead of Const., probably “from the error of a transcriber, who wrote this frequently-occurring form before he noticed that the word ‘Israel’ followed” (Thenius).
[18] הַכָּרִי, from כּוּר “to dig.”
[19][It seems to have this meaning in Est_10:1, but is commonly used as Dr. Erdmann says.—Tr.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain SHEBA’S REBELLION, 2Sa_20:1-22.
SHEBA’S REBELLION, 2Sa_20:1-22.
1. A man of Belial — See note on 1Sa_1:16.
Read full note →
A Benjamite — And therefore probably affected with strong desire to have his tribe recover the ascendency which it lost by the death of Saul. Sheba had probably been a leading spirit in Absalom’s rebellion, and was evidently a man of great influence among the people.
He blew a trumpet — The signal of insurrection (2Sa_15:10) as well as retreat. 2Sa_18:16. It served to assemble the people and secure their attention.
We have no part in David — At that moment of excited and bitter contention this cry acted like a charm to precipitate rebellion.
Every man to his tents — To his house or lodging place. On the meaning of tent in such connexion, see note at 1Sa_17:54.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain Ch. 20. Sheba’s Rebellion
Ch. 20. Sheba’s Rebellion
1, 2. Fresh outbreak of rebellion, headed by Sheba
Read full note →
1. there] At Gilgal. The dispute offered an immediate opening to a bold and ambitious leader, who hoped to restore the sovereignty to the tribe of Benjamin.
a man of Belial] A worthless or wicked man. Cp. 1Sa_10:27, and note on 1Sa_1:16.
the son of Bichri] Rather, a Bichrite, or member of the clan tracing its descent from Becher the second son of Benjamin (Gen_46:21).
part] Better, portion, a different word from that in ch. 2Sa_19:43, and the same as that in 1Ki_12:16.
the son of Jesse] There is a touch of contempt in this name for David. Cp. 1Sa_20:27; 1Sa_20:30-31; 1Sa_22:7-9; 1Sa_22:13; 1Sa_25:10.
every man to his tents] Nominally a call to disperse and return to their homes (1Sa_13:2; 2Sa_18:17); really an invitation to join him in rebellion. The same words served as the signal for the revolt from Rehoboam (1Ki_12:16).
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (1) Sheba, the son of Bichri.—The English follows the…
(1) Sheba, the son of Bichri.—The English follows the ancient versions in taking Bichri as a proper name. Most recent commentators consider it as a patronymic, the Bichrite, i.e., of the family of Becher, the second son of Benjamin. He was, to this extent at least, of the same clan with Saul. He was there, at Gilgal, with the representatives of the ten tribes, and took advantage of the dispute just mentioned to renew the rebellion of Absalom.
Every man to his tents.—Comp. the cry of Jeroboam as he inaugurated his rebellion (1Ki_12:16). It was the signal of revolt.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain There happened to be there a man of Belial.…
There happened to be there a man of Belial. The fierce words of the men of Judah led to evil results. It was a time when all wise and thoughtful persons would have laboured for peace, and tried to soothe and appease the angry passions fomented by the late war. Instead of this, the men of Judah irritated the Israelites with insult and contumely, and the day, intended as one of rejoicing and of the restoration of David to his throne by common consent, saw the rebellion break forth afresh. Among those who had taken part in the discussion with Judah was Sheba, a man of Belial, that is, a worthless fellow, but possibly possessed of rank and influence; for, according to many commentators, ben-Bichri does not mean the son of Bichri, but "a descendant of Becher," the second son of Benjamin, (Gen_46:21) and possibly the representative of the mishpachah descended from him. But it is remarkable that this son of Benjamin disappears from the genealogies, and that no mishpachah of Bichrites is mentioned either in Num_26:38 or in 1Ch_8:1. In both places Ashbel, who is enumerated as the third son in Gen_46:21, takes the second place. We must be content, therefore, to leave this matter in uncertainty; but evidently Sheba had come with Shimei and Ziba to welcome David back, and, with the rest of the thousand Benjamites, had rushed with loud cries of welcome across the Jordan, and, but for this altercation, would have remained faithful. But tribal jealousies were always ready to break forth, and were a permanent source of weakness; and now, stung by some jibe at Benjamin, Sheba gave orders to a trumpeter to give the signal for the breaking up of the meeting, and, as is commonly the case in large and excited gatherings, the crowd obeyed the unauthorized dictation of one man. His words are contemptuous enough. David is no king, but a private person, and the son, not of a great chief, but of Jesse merely, a yeoman of Bethlehem. Every man to his tents. "To his tent" meant "to his home". (see 2Sa_18:17) But this withdrawal home signified the rejection of David"s government. Almost the same words are used in 1Ki_12:16.
Vers. 1-13. The facts are:
Read full note →
1. Among the men who discuss the question of priority with Judah is aworthless man named Sheba, and he raises the cry of revolt against David, and the men of Israel follow him, while those of Judah cleave to the king.
2. David enters his house and makes arrangement for the sustenance of hisconcubines, who henceforth live in virtual widowhood.
3. David, observing that Amasa was tardy in executing his orders to gather the men of Judah, directs Abishai to go out with Joab"s men in pursuit of Sheba.
4. While they are obeying the king"s orders, Amasa joins them at Gibeon; whereupon Joab, under pretext of saluting Amasa and inquiring concerning his health, smites him, while off his guard, unto death.
5. While the pursuit after Sheba continues, one of Joab"s partisans calls upon the people to show their preference for Joab and David by following after Joab, which they do when the bleeding corpse is no longer on the road to arrest their progress.
Man"s revolt against Christ.
The hot controversy between the men of Israel and Judah issued in more than words. The discussion took its rise in a pretended interest in the restoration of David to the throne, but, becoming mixed up with personal matters, it first developed an alienation of one part of the nation from another; and then the more humiliated section turned their alienation from their brethren into the more dangerous form of revolt against the authority of the king whom those brethren claimed as specially theirs. (2Sa_19:42, 2Sa_19:43) There is always in human society some restless, unscrupulous spirit ready to take advantage of divergent sentiments, and form them into expressions of positive opinion and antagonistic action. The man of Belial used up the elements of discord for securing what, at first, was not contemplated namely, an open repudiation of the right of David to exercise kingly authority over the people. In this revolt against David, the Lord"s anointed, we have an illustration of the nature and some of the causes and pleas of man"s revolt against Christ.
I MAN"S REVOLT AGAINST CHRIST CONSISTS ESSENTIALLY OF A REJECTION OF A DIVINE CLAIM. Sheba not only would not have David as his king, but he distinctly indicates as chief reason his rejection of the Divine claim of David to the throne, and which the nation had previously recognized. In speaking contemptuously of him as the "son of Jesse," he clearly ignores the selection and anointing of him by Samuel in the name of God. David is not the Lord"s anointed; only Jesse"s son a mere man, to be treated as any other man. The people also who followed Sheba did so on this basis that whatever may have been once, there was now in David no more right than in any other man; he was not endowed with Divine authority. This is exactly the case with modern infidelity men will not submit to Christ. They repudiate all claim to Divine authority. To them he is a mere man possessing no eternal and unchallengeable right to demand the obedience of all men to his yoke. He is the Nazarene, the carpenter"s Son, not the beloved Son of God, anointed of God to be Prince and Saviour. It is a simple matter of choice whether they shall accept his testimony and do what he declares is right. This spirit of revolt against the Divine in Christ is the essence of every form of modern infidelity, be it scientific rejection of the supernatural or pure agnosticism. Once recognize him as the anointed Lord of all, all forms of submission to his teaching and will follow; once reject him in this respect, and high treason is the practical issue.
II A REJECTION OF CHRIST"S DIVINE CLAIM PROCEEDS FROM UNBELIEF IN GOD"S SELF-REVELATION TO MAN. If ever Sheba was a believer in Samuel"s mission, he had certainly ceased to be so now, or else had come to believe that revelation had ceased. No one could hold to the Divine appointment of Moses and of Samuel to gradually unfold the purpose of God to Israel, and at the same time logically refuse to submit to David as king, unless he could show that God had set up another. This revolt, therefore, was the expression of a practical unbelief in the fact of a revelation of God to the Jewish people. In like manner, when we look into the reason for the rejection of the Divine claim of Christ, it is to he found in a prior assumption, namely, that a self-revelation of God to mankind by special means distinct from natural law, though not in contravention of it, is a fiction. With a dogmatism evidently based on ignorance, the supernatural is said to be impossible, i.e. we know so well the constitution of all things, and the only possible relation of God to all things, that we can affirm that no such a Divine Lord and King as Christ is said to be, could be a reality. He was simply a much misunderstood man. It is obvious that, as Sheba"s unbelief in Samuel"s mission was no credit to his memory or historic knowledge, (1Sa_16:13) so the unbelief in God"s self-revelation to man is no credit to man"s humility or judgment.
III REVOLT AGAINST CHRIST"S CLAIMS THUS ORIGINATING IS SUSTAINED BY VARIOUS PLEAS. Sheba"s unbelief was in the background, his pleas were in front. He could not have gained so many over to his side by any enunciation of abstract views as to the reality or continuance of a revelation of God"s purpose. Men are influenced in action by more superficial and concrete forms of thought. The mistakes of David"s government, his reputed partiality to the son whom he fought against, his errors of conduct in the case of Bathsheba, his apparent preference for Judah, and the apprehension that Judah would gain an ascendency in public affairs, these pleas would give an appearance of public reason for the conduct pursued. Nor did he or his followers care to consider that incidents in a fallible life do not annihilate a Divine purpose running through that life. We find the same course adopted in relation to the authority of Christ. Though none can convict him of sin, advantage is taken of the mistakes of the Church, the seemingly tardy progress of Christianity, the peculiar structure of Old Testament history, and what seem to be occasional discrepancies in the gospel record, and, in fact, anything that can be construed into a weakness, in order to justify a total rejection of Christ"s supreme authority. An ingenious mind, bent on resisting the holy Saviour, will never lack plausible reasons for open revolt.
IV REVOLT AGAINST CHRIST IS A COURSE OF CONDUCT DEVOID OF POSITIVE REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE. Sheba"s principles, so far as he had any, were negative. There was nothing in his words or deeds that indicated any definite principle on which the state was to be governed. Hitherto the theocratic principle, enunciated and enforced by Samuel, regulated the setting up and setting aside of rulers. The spiritual interests of the nation were the prime concern. Now, Divine authority being ignored, there was no principle to determine the destiny of the people. The conflicting whims and passions of men were to contend for supremacy, and the grand purpose for which the nation had been hitherto supposed to exist in relation to Messiah and the world was lost to view. In the same way, the course of human affairs, without Christ, is aimless, chaotic. Infidelity and agnosticism rest on negations. Individual life is as a ship without a helm.
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. There is always in human nature a latent tendency to restlessness underauthority, and we should both be on our guard against this in our own lives, and also avoid whatever may develop it in others.
2. The quarrels and disputes of Christian men on matters of governmentand precedence may generate, by degrees, feelings of alienation from religion.
3. In this life we should not be surprised if, like David, we find the pathwayof returning prosperity shaded by some transient clouds.
4. The zeal of crowds in a bad cause is more due to the influence of cleverand restless leaders than to any profound convictions or intelligent views in the people themselves.
Unsanctified power.
We pass over David"s provision for his concubines, simply noting how wise and considerate he was in thus cutting himself free from old associations full of reminiscences of sorrow, and at the same time doing no injustice to any one concerned. The chief figure in the narrative before us is Joab, who here stands out as a strong man bent on a definite purpose, and able to carry out his will in spite of moral, social, and loyal considerations. All the other men referred to are as pigmies beside him, and the orders even of the king are so far bent to his will that he becomes practically master of the situation. Regarding him as an illustration of unsanctified power, we notice
I GREAT ABILITIES. Joab was a man of great natural abilities. This is obvious throughout his career. There was not one in the army to compare with him. Great natural abilities are the base of power among men. In some men they are purely intellectual, in others they are those of will. For influencing action and obtaining an ascendency over multitudes, will force must be strong. This partly accounts for success in commerce, in statesmanship, in Church government, in popular movements.
II STRONG PASSIONS. Passions are not abilities; they are rather the fire that feeds the energy of the will. Joab was a man whose passions were very strong, though no boisterous and impulsive. His jealousy and hatred of Amass, who had been appointed to supersede him in command, were intense. These, blended with contempt for his inferiority, disgust at David"s choice, and a lofty pride which would not deign to remonstrate with the king, formed such a strenuous force on the naturally powerful will, that to kill his rival was a decision which no ordinary obstacles could hinder in accomplishment. When unholy passions, deliberately cherished, concentrate on a powerful will, there results one of the most formidable instances of unsanctified power. Such men are to be dreaded. They cannot but make a great impression on weaker natures, and bend them to their own designs. They are illustrations of what woe comes to mankind when distinguished powers, incorporated in the constitution of man, receive a bent of evil rather than of good. A being who becomes a Miltonic Satan might be a real archangel. It is the spirit that makes the one or the other.
III A DREAD SECRET. To many the bearing of Joab toward the authority of David in this matter of Amasa may be an enigma, seeing that he raised no revolt, but was rather zealous for the king. But that which made Joab so terrible an example of unsanctified power was his possession of the dreadful secret of Uriah"s death. (2Sa_11:14-25) He knew too much of David"s former guilt; and so all his great natural abilities were concentrated in holding a firm grip on the king"s public reputation. It is true, David had found forgiveness with God, and was a new man; but he knew that Joab had him in his power in matters that came nearest to a man"s life, and Joab perfectly understood that David dared not do what otherwise he would doubtless have done. This possession of secret knowledge concerning others always gives increased power. Whoever knows of the financial weakness of a commercial firm, or the private delinquencies of individuals, or of original social inferiority of persons aiming to figure in society, if it be known that he knows, holds a power over these parties which they dread, and which, if he be unholy, he can use in most painful form. Those are to be pitied indeed who have caused their failings and sins to become the secret of unholy men.
IV FAMILIARITY WITH SUFFERING. Bad as great power is in a man of strong passions and possessed of special knowledge, it is a more terrible thing when the moral sensibilities have been blunted by familiarity with sufferings. Joab had seen many a man dying in agonies. War does not improve the feelings of men. It was with no compunctions of conscience, as far as we can see, that he dew Amasa. What was a bleeding corpse to the man who had smitten many a hew, and who now was governed by jealousy, hatred, contempt, and pride? It is this loss of moral sensibility which has made such men as Napoleon I so terrible a scourge. There are other men of, perhaps, equally strong will, but their moral susceptibilities restrain them from brutality.
V CLEANLY DEFINED PURPOSE. Joab knew what he intended to do. The narrative shows that he watched for opportunity. He did not wish to encourage revolt against royal authority, but he did wish and purpose to avenge his displacement from supreme command by the death of his rival, to prove his power to David by actually assuming the leadership and suppressing the revolt, and to vindicate before the people his superiority in the state. Purpose, clearly defined, is a practical addition to power. It avoids waste of energy, and converts subsidiary appliances into instruments of great significance. By such purpose the whole nature of the man and all his strong and unhallowed passions are condensed and concentrated into one channel.
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. We see the supreme importance of prayer for the converting power ofthe Holy Spirit, so that men of great natural powers may have them governed by a principle according to the will of God.
2. The appearance of unhallowed feelings in the heart should be at once anoccasion of prayer and self-control, as they will be sure to combine to influence us to deeds of wrong.
3. There is more real honour in being a man of lowly abilities, but under thesway of holy dispositions, than in possessing the highest powers destitute of such a disposition.
4. If we can only secure progress in life or continued possession ofprivileges by using abilities wickedly, it is infinitely better to lose all than thus sink deeper in moral and spiritual degradation.
5. According to our abilities will be the account we shall have to give untoGod.
HOMILIES BY B. DALE. Vers. 1-3. (GILGAL.)
The insurrection of Sheba.
We have no part in David, And we have no inheritance in the son of Jesse; Every man to his tents, O Israel! (Ver. 1; 1Ki_12:16)
Before the restoration of David was completed, a new rebellion broke out. The people were still disquieted, like the sea after a storm; the independent action of Judah in conducting the king over the Jordan aroused the jealousy of the other tribes; at Gilgal, (1Sa_11:15 1Sa_13:8-10 1Sa_15:12, 1Sa_15:13) where the representatives of the latter assembled and met the king, a fierce altercation ensued; (2Sa_19:40-43) and shortly afterwards the trumpet was blown by Sheba the Bichrite. (Gen_46:21) "He who lately (with the rest of Israel) claimed ten parts in David as king, disclaims and disowns him now, as having no part in him at all. David before had raised his hand against a faithful subject, Uriah, and therefore now a faithless subject raises his hand against him; as a man sinneth, so ofttimes he is punished. And as bees, when they are once up in a swarm, are ready to light upon every bough, so the Israelites, being stirred up by the late rebellion of Absalom, are apt here also to follow Sheba; especially finding nothing but clemency, and David"s passing by their former revolt" (Guild). Concerning this insurrection, observe that (like others which have since occurred)
I IT AROSE OUT OF AN EVIL DISPOSITION INDULGED BY THE PEOPLE. They were:
1. Discontented with the government of David; the restlessness, lawlessness, and ungodliness which they displayed in joining Absalom"s revolt were only partial? corrected by recent chastisement; (2Sa_19:9, 2Sa_19:10) their complaint to the king concerning the conduct of "the men of Judah" (ver. 41) was due more to regard for their own honour than zeal for his; and was an indirect expression of their dissatisfaction at the disrespect which he bad shown toward them, for "very probably it had been learned that he had a hand in the movement.
2. Contentious in their treatment of their "brethren;" ready to find occasion of offence "because of envy" and ill will; their auger being increased by the proud and contemptuous bearing of the latter. Whatever may have been the motives of the men of Judah in their recent action, they were now as blamable as the men of Israel; each party sought to exalt itself and depreciate the other; and "the words of the men of Judah were more violent than the words of the men of Israel" (ver. 43). "Grievous words stir up anger". (Pro_15:1, 18 25:15 29:22) How differently had Gideon spoken to the men of Ephraim under similar circumstances! (Jud 8:1-3)
3. Self-blinded. Indifferent to their true interests, without proper self-control, liable to surrender themselves to the guidance of an ambitious leader, and prepared for open rebellion. Having violated the spirit of unity, they were ready to destroy the formal union of the tribes, which it had cost so much to bring about, and on which their strength and prosperity so much depended. "Where jealousy and. faction are, there is confusion and every vile deed". (Jam_3:16 Jam_4:1, Jam_4:11)
II IT WAS INSTIGATED BY A WORTHLESS LEADER, "A man of Belial, a Benjamite"; (like Shimei, 2Sa_16:11) "a man of the mountains of Ephraim" (ver. 21); who probably took an active part in the late rebellion, and had numerous dependents. "He was one of the great rogues of the high nobility, who had a large retinue among the people, and consideration or name, as Cataline at Rome" (Luther).
1. The worst (as well as the best) elements of a people find their chiefembodiment in some one man, who is the product of the prevailing spirit of his time, and adapted to be its leader.
Avarice, envy, pride, Three fatal sparks, have set the hearts of all On fire. (Dante. )
In his selfish ambition, Sheba sought for himself individually what the men of Israel sought for themselves as a whole.
1. Such a man clearly perceives the popular feeling and tendency, withwhich he sympathizes, and finds therein his opportunity for effecting his own purposes. The design of Sheba was, doubtless, to become head of a new combination of the northern tribes.
2. He seizes a suitable moment for raising his seditious cry; and, instead ofquenching the sparks of discord, kindles them into a blaze. "They claim David as their own. Let them have him. We disclaim him altogether. The son of Jesse! Let every man cast off his yoke, return home, and unite with me in securing liberty, equality, and fraternity!" What at another time would have been without effect, is now irresistible with the people. Nothing is more unstable than a multitude; one day crying, "Hosanna!" another, "Not this Man, but Barabbas!
III IT ATTAINED A DANGEROUS MAGNITUDE. "And all the men of Israel went up from after David, and followed Sheba the son of Bichri" (ver. 2); "Now will Sheba do us more harm than Absalom" (ver. 6). The insurrection:
1. Was joined in by great numbers of the people.
2. Spread over the greater portion of the country. "He went through all thetribes of Israel," rousing them to action, and gaining possession of the fortified cities.
3. Threatened to produce a permanent disruption of the kingdom. "It was,in fact, all but an anticipation of the revolt of Jeroboam. It was not, as in the case of Absalom, a mere conflict between two factions in the court of Judah, but a struggle arising out of that conflict, on the part of the tribe of Benjamin to recover its lost ascendency" (Stanley). With what anxieties must it have filled the mind of the restored monarch! And how must it have led him to feel his dependence upon God! The influence for evil which one bad man sometimes exerts is enormous. (Ecc_9:18) It is, nevertheless, limited; and, though it prevail for a season, it is at length "brought to nought". (Psa_37:12, Psa_37:20, Psa_37:35-40)
IV IT ENDED IN UTTER DISCOMFITURE. The first act of David, on arriving at Jerusalem, attended by the men of Judah, who "clave unto the king" (after setting his house in order, ver. 3), was to adopt energetic measures to put down the insurrection; and these succeeded (though in a different manner from what he expected).
1. Many who at first followed Sheba deserted him when they had time for reflection and saw the approach of the king"s army; so that he found it necessary to seek safety in the far north.
2. He was beheaded by those among whom he sought refuge; and"rewarded according to his wickedness". (2Sa_3:39) "Evil pursueth sinners". (Pro_13:21 Pro_11:19)
3. All the people returned to their allegiance. "While to men"s eyes thecooperation of many evil powers seems to endanger the kingdom of God to the utmost, and its affairs appear to be confused and disturbed in the unhappiest fashion, the wonderful working of the living God reveals itself most gloriously in the unravelment of the worst entanglements, and in the introduction of new and unexpected triumphs for his government" (Erdmann). D.
HOMILIES BY G. WOOD Vers. 1, 2.
Departure from and adherence to Christ.
A sudden change in the aspect of affairs. The occasion was a fierce dispute between the Israelites and the men of Judah as to the right of the latter to go so far towards the restoration of the king without consulting the former. The causes, however, are to be found partly in old jealousies between the tribes; partly in the unallayed resentment of the Benjamites on account of the setting aside of the house of Saul from the royalty, and its transfer to the tribe of Judah; partly in the excitement of men"s minds by the rebellion under Absalom, and its suppression. A spark only was wanted to produce another desolating flame, and that was supplied by the sudden summons of Sheba to the men of Israel. Hence another insurrection, which seems to have been begun without consideration, and which was brought to an end speedily and ignominiously. The men of Israel followed. Sheba; but those of Judah "clave unto their king," and conducted him "from Jordan even to Jerusalem." The division thus for the time produced has its counterpart in the spiritual sphere. It may serve to illustrate especially the more open and manifest departures from the Divine King which at times occur, under, perhaps, some leader, and the steadfast adherence to him of his friends, which, at such times, becomes more pronounced and manifest.
I THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF DEFECTION FROM CHRIST.
1. Its nature. It is the casting off of his rule over mind, heart, life. It may be secret or it may be open, and may be with or without emphatic declaration, with or without open adherence to a leader of rebellion against him. But it ought not to be confounded with separation from a particular Church, or renunciation of a particular humanly constructed creed. We do wrong if we condemn any one as having departed from Christ because he has departed from us. There is room for great variety of conception and expression as to Christian truth, and of modes of sincerely and truly serving Christ; and he recognizes, as loyal subjects of his, many in all Churches, and not a few outside all Churches. At the same time, it must be, and ought to be, distinctly maintained that to reject his supreme authority in matters of belief and practice, to think and express our thoughts without regard to his teaching, to feel and act without recognition of his commands, is to reject him; to openly declare that we no longer recognize his authority is open rebellion against him.
2. Its causes.
(1) Original unreality in professed adherence to Christ. The religion of many is hereditary and traditional, and therefore only formal. They have experienced no radical change of heart. They are without true faith and love. "They have no root," and so "in time of temptation fall away". (Luk_8:13)
(2) Dislike of the government and laws of Christ. Their holiness, the extent of their requirements, their unbending nature, the restraints they impose. Pride revolts against them, and self-will, and carnality in general; and the propounders of religions that are more indulgent to the lower nature are eagerly listened to and accepted.
(3) Superficial feeling as to the need of Christ. He is not felt to be indispensable to the soul; to part from him is not felt to involve very serious loss.
(4) Neglect of devotion. It is by habits of prayer and other spiritual exercises that the soul is kept in communion with Christ, and his Spirit received, through whose influences faith, love, and obedience are maintained in vigour. The kingdom of Christ is spiritual, and can be realized only through the power of the Holy Ghost.
(5) Dissatisfaction with the results of serving Christ. A superficial religion must be unsatisfactory.; and when the vanity of its exercises and fruits is felt, no wonder if it should be given up altogether. To experience the substantial blessedness of serving Christ, we must commit ourselves to him heartily and wholly. Then we shall know too well his preciousness to heed those who would entice us to forsake him.
(6) The influence of others. The men of Israel would not have deserted David when they did, if Sheba had not blown his trumpet and summoned them to follow him. In like manner, the latent disloyalty of men to Christ may remain concealed, and they may appear to be, and regard themselves as being, his good subjects, until some bolder spirit heads a revolt, and "draws away disciples after him!". (Act_20:30) Or the pernicious influence may come from inconsistent Christians, unworthy ministers of religion, or corrupt Churches. Men do not sufficiently distinguish between Christ and his professed representatives, and find in the evil discerned in them an excuse for deserting him.
(7) Disbelief of Christ"s power, or will, to execute justice on those who are unfaithful to him. Did men realize the tremendous issues involved in cleaving to or rejecting Christ, they would not so loosely hold their religion or so readily abandon it. Did they seriously regard his picture of the doom of those who will not have him for their King (Luk_19:27) as representing an awful reality, they would be more concerned to escape it.
II REASONS WHICH INDUCE THE FAITHFUL TO CLEAVE TO THEIR KING, WHOEVER MAY DESERT HIM.
1. Faith in his Divine authority. That he is King by Divine right, and must and will reign, and make all his foes his footstool (Psa 2:110:1; 1Co_15:25)
2. Love to him. Originating in gratitude for his redeeming love, becoming attachment to him from discernment and approval of his infinite excellences, and to his government and laws, because the renewed heart is in harmony with them.
3. Experience of the blessings of his reign. In the heart, the home, the people who truly serve him. Hence, intense satisfaction with his service.
4. Hope of a yet happier experience when his reign is fully established and perfected. Hope, as the "anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast", (Heb_6:19) keeps the soul steadfast when storms of temptation arise. To give up Christ would be, it is felt, to give up hope of glory in his "everlasting kingdom". (2Pe_1:11)
1. Perception of the worthlessness of his rivals. Observe the contrast presented between Sheba and David the one "a man of Belial" (worthlessness), the other "their king." Similarly, when "many of Christ"s disciples went back, and walked no more with him," and he, turning to the twelve, asked, "Will ye also go away?" Peter exclaimed, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God". (Joh_6:66-69) And still we may ask, "To whom shall we go?" Where shall we find one to take the place of Christ? Who has equal claims on our confidence and
2. affection? Who can confer equal benefits? Not the irreligious multitude, whether of the coarser or the more refined sort. Not the leaders of sceptical thought, some of whom simply ignore all that renders Christ precious to the Christian; others maintain that nothing can be known of God, and that all that is believed respecting him and his relation to men belongs to the region of imagination, not of truth; and others proffer a religion without a God. The Christian sees that all who would tempt him to forsake his Lord can offer him as substitutes only "vain things, which cannot profit nor deliver". (1Sa_12:21)
3. Expectation of the coming of Christ. The account to be then rendered, the judgments to be pronounced, the rewards and punishments to be distributed. The certainty that "he," and only he, "that shall endure unto the end shall be saved". (Mat_24:13) For these reasons, and such as these, some of which are felt most by one, and some by another; whilst many may follow this or that pretender, Christians who are really such will "cleave unto their King. G.W.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain And there happened to be there a man of…
2Sa_20:1-5
And there happened to be there a man of Belial.
Read full note →
Rebellion of Sheba
This chapter is a relation of Shebas rebellion.
1. The trumpet of this new rebellion was a son of Belial, Sheba the son of Bichri, whom God by His providence ordered to be present when this paroxism or hot fit of contention happened betwixt the tribe of Judah and the tribes of Israel as before. The Devil (who loves to fish in troubled waters) strikes in with this opportunity, as a fit hour of temptation for him, and excites this Belialist to blow a trumpet and to sound a retreat in the ears of those Israelites, saying [Seeing the men of Judah say that we have no part in David, but they do monopolize him to themselves] let them have him, and let us choose another for ourselves, hoping that they would choose him, because he was a Benjamite akin to Saul, and supposed to be the chiefest captain under Amasa to Absalom (2Sa_20:1.)
2. This Belialist (so-called) was for casting off the yoke of David (as the Hebrew word Belial signifies) and being grieved that the kingdom was translated from Sauls house to David, he bespatters David, calling him the son of Jesse, a private person, so the crown could not descend upon David by inheritance, and therefore (saith he) we are at liberty to choose a new king. This opprobrious title that Sheba gave David here did savour of Saul (who had oft called him so in contempt) and of the old enmity: and possibly Sheba might aggravate to those Israelites, that David had sent Zadock and Abiathar to the men of Judah that they might be persuaded to fetch back the King, but he sent them not to our elders; therefore seeing he hath so slighted us, let us look to our own concerns, and let him look to his (2Sa_20:1.)
3. Behold how great a flame of fire a little spark doth kindle (Jam_3:5) when God gives way thereunto, Shebas presence and influence upon those Israelites, though casual in itself, and as to men, yet was it ordered so by the providence of God, who permitted the devil to blow up this blast of rebellion for several reasons: as
(1) first, For a further exercise of Davids faith and patience;
(2) secondly, To purge out of Davids kingdom all factious and seditious spirits;
(3) thirdly, To punish Sheba the ringleader of those rebels;
(4) fourthly, To animadvert David to his betraying Uriah, and of his spearing Shimei, and (as some add) of his unjust dealing with his dear Mephibosheth, &c., for these and other sins of David God was pleased to correct him again with this new affliction, before he was well got out of the old. (C. Ness.)
Revolt and pursuit of Sheba. -
1. We are first introduced to Sheba, the son of Bichri, or, as it is read by recent commentators, the Bichrite--that is, a member of the family of Becher, the second son of Benjamin. This man was, therefore, by so much related to the clan of Saul. It is difficult to get the old taint out of the blood. Sheba is a minimised Saul, full of hostility to David and all his interests. Even bad men have their opportunity in life. We have seen again and again how easy it is to do mischief. Sheba, a man who probably had no power to construct a positive fame by deeds of beneficence and the origination of statesmanlike policies, had it in his power to set fire to dangerous substances and bring into peril a movement which promised to consummate itself in the happiest results to Israel. The historical instance ought to be a continual lesson. The meanest man may pull down a wall, or set fire to a palace, or whisper a slander concerning the character of a king. The remarkable thing is that whilst society is well aware of all this possibility, it is willing to lend an ear to every wicked speaker Who arises, insisting upon the old and detestable sophism flint although the report may not be wholly and literally true, there yet must be some foundation for it.
2. Sheba is described in the text as a man of Belial, in other words, a child of the devil. A mans spiriutal parentage is known by the deeds in which he delights. We have in the first verse a kind of double genealogy of Sheba; he is called the son of Bichri, a Benjamite, and he is also described as a man of Belial. It would seem as if in some cases men had a lineal physical descent, and had also a direct spiritual ancestry. Account for it as we may, there are practical differences in spirit and character which would seem almost to suggest two different grades or qualities of human nature. Whilst it is profoundly and sadly true that all men are apostates, and that there is none righteous, no, not one, it is also undeniable that there are chiefs in the army of evil, princes of sin, royal and dominating personages in the whole kingdom of wickedness. They are ingenious in the device of evil; their imagination is afire with the very spirit of perdition; they can invent new departures, striking policies, undreamed-of cruelties, unimaginable wanderings from the path of rectitude. It is most certain that many men simply follow a multitude to do evil; they have little or no invention of their own; they would never originate rebellions or lead insurrections, or devise plots involving great disasters; they are but followers, imitators, echoes not voices, persons who go by the bulk and not by detail, being only of consequence in proportion to their multiudinousness, having no independent spirit of their own when taken one by one.
3. David, being now impatient of the insolence of Joab, and willing to avail himself of an opportunity of superseding that able but arrogant captain, gave an appointment to Amasa. As Amasa went forth he encountered an unexpected foe in the person of Joab. It is explained in the text how Joab by a peculiar arrangement of his dress--a girdle bound round his military coat--had contrived to conceal a dagger which would fall out as lie advanced. The dagger falling out thus gave Joab an opportunity of naturally picking it up, as he wished to use it, without exciting the suspicion of Amasa. Thus even in so small a trick the depravity of Joab is made manifest. Taking Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him, Joab smote him in the fifth rib, with but one blow; but that a fatal stroke. Joab would thus tolerate no rivals by whomsoever they might have been appointed. This desperateness of spirit was really part of the greatness of the man,--that is to say, apart from such desperateness he never could have brought to bear all his various faculties of statesman and soldier. Morality has often commented upon the circumstance that great talents should be turned to base uses. So it is the world over: the completer the education as a merely intellectual exercise, the more disastrous is the power to do evil, unless the education has been supported and chastened by adequate moral training. It is mere idolatry to admire greatness alone: when that greatness is held in check by enlightened consciousness, then its recognition really involves an act of worship to him who is the Spirit of Righteousness and the teacher of the world. It is but lust, however, to say that we are not to judge Joab by the morality of a much later age. Morality itself is part of an infinite but most beneficent evolution. Even a good cause may have bad supporters. The cause in which Joab was now engaged was unquestionably a good one, being nothing less than the restoration of David to his kingly position in Israel, and by so much the fulfilment of a divine covenant. Joab had a good cause, but he brought to its support a very questionable character. Is not this same instance repeating itself along the whole line of history? Is not the Church indebted to many a man whose heart is in the world and whose ambition is his only god? Are there not some men eloquent of tongue whose hearts are silent as to true worship? Is not good money often given by polluted hands? (J. Parker, D. D.)
Disunion the devils policy.
Cyrus, in Herodotus, going to fight against Scythia, coming to a broad river, and not being able to pass over it, cut and divided it into divers arms and sluices, and so made it passable for all his army. This is the devils policy; he laboureth to divide the people of God, and separate us into divers sects and factions, that so he may easily overcome us. This needs no comment. What is needed is that by a spirit of brotherly love we promote the unity of all the churches, and the peace and concord of that to which we belong. May the peace of the church be as a river. Unity is strength. Divide and conquer is Satans watchword to his myrmidons. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
When the South Carolina convention broke up with a declaration of secession from the north, and the Civil War was thereby proclaimed, there were great jubilations. Bells were rung, cannon saluted, and the street,s were filled with the noise and display of great parades. But what a drama of blood it led to, and what a tragedy of disastrous defeat was its end! (H. O. Mackey.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain The Rebellion of Sheba
The Rebellion of Sheba
Sheba takes advantage of the jealousy of the men of Israel to begin a rebellion, which, but for the prompt action of Joab, might have resulted in a disruption between Israel and Judah. During this expedition Amasa is murdered by Joab. The chapter concludes with a list of David's officers.
Read full note →
This chapter evidently continues the narrative of the concluding vv. of the preceding. During the period of the Judges, Ephraim had been the leading tribe and they could not brook to see their place taken by Judah. For the present their attempt failed, and the rule of Solomon was too strong for them to renew it. But on the accession of Rehoboam the old jealousy broke out again.
This chapter ends the account which the editor took from the document he has been following since 2 Samuel 9. The list with which it concludes is similar to that at lihe close of the earlier document (2Sa_8:16-18).
1. The son of Bichri] rather, 'a son of Bichri,' i.e. a member of that clan (1Ch_7:6-8).
We have no part.. Israel] This was the very cry raised by the rebellious Israelites in the time of Rehoboam (1Ki_12:16).
3. See 2Sa_15:16; 2Sa_16:21, 2Sa_16:22.
5. He tarried] The reason is unknown.
6. Abishai] When Amasa failed him, David, determined at all hazards to suspend Joab, turned to Abishai. Joab went with his brother, in order to watch for his opportunity, which soon came.
8. It would seem that Joab had two swords, and that Amasa, seeing one lying on the ground, did not suspect that he had another.
9. Took Amasa by the beard.. to kiss him] This is said to be still an Arab custom.
14. Unto Abel, and to Beth-maachah] read 'unto Abel of Beth-maachah.' All the Berites] read 'all the Bichrites' (see on 2Sa_20:1). Sheba went to the Bichrites (his kinsmen) and then proceeded to Abel-beth-maachah, in the extreme N. of Palestine, where he was besieged by Joab.
15. They cast up a bank against the city] cp. 2Ki_19:32. It enabled the besiegers to bring their battering-rams close up to the wall. It stood in the trench] RV 'it stood against the rampart.'
18. The wisdom of the inhabitants of Abel was so generally accepted, that their decision settled all disputed questions. The woman says this to give weight to her remonstrance.
19. A city and a mother] i.e. a mother-city, a metropolis.
20. Joab was utterly unscrupulous, but never wantonly cruel: cp. 2Sa_18:16.
23-26. This list of officers concludes this part of the book. What follows is an appendix. When we compare it with the list given in 2Sa_8:16-18, we find the amount of variation which we should expect, if one list refers to the earlier and the other to the later part of the reign. The names of Joab, Benaiah, Jehoshaphat, Zadok, and Abiathar occur in both lists. Sheva replaces Seraiah, and Ira takes the place of David's sons, while the office of Adoram is new.
24. Adoram] He held the same office through the long reign of Solomon till the accession of Rehoboam (1Ki_12:18). It has, however, been supposed that the Adoram mentioned in Kings was the son and successor of the Adoram mentioned here.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain 10. The Revolt of Sheba
10. The Revolt of Sheba
CHAPTER 20
Read full note →
1. Sheba’s revolt (2Sa 20:1-2)
2. The ten concubines shut up (2Sa 20:3)
3. Amasa’s failure (2Sa 20:4-6)
4. Joab and the death of Amasa (2Sa 20:7-13)
5. Joab, the wise woman and the death of Sheba (2Sa 20:14-22)
6. David’s officials (2Sa 20:23-26)
The final revolt in David’s reign was headed by a wicked man, whose name was Sheba. Israel sided with him, probably as the result of the dissension recorded at the close of the previous chapter. Judah remained loyal to David. The act of David in shutting up unto the day of their death the ten concubines to live in widowhood was necessitated on account of what had taken place (16:21). Amasa being now the leader of the hosts of David (2Sa 19:13) is called to subdue the revolt; but he proves a failure and could not mobilize the army. Abishai is commissioned then and with him is also Joab. All the mighty men, including the executioners and runners (Cherethites and Pelethites) pursued after Sheba. Then Amasa appeared on the scene. Joab was girded around his loins with a sword which was in the scabbard and the sword fell out. Joab picked up the sword but Amasa did not see the sword in his hand. Then Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand, while he held the sword in his left. Then he smote Amasa deliberately so that he died. He might have lied himself out of the accusation that he murdered Amasa by saying he fell into the sword and that it was an accident. But 1Ki 2:32 gives the reckoning with unscrupulous Joab for the innocent blood he had shed. Jealousy had led Joab to murder Amasa. And Sheba was killed in Abel, the city in which he sought shelter. On the advice of the woman mentioned in the story, he was beheaded. The revolt ended.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain The Murder of Amasa
The Murder of Amasa
v. 1. And there happened to be there a man of Belial, a vain and worthless scoundrel, whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite, evidently one of the rabid party of Saul; and he blew a trumpet, as a call to all those who thought as he did on account of the strained relations between Judah and Israel, and said, we have no part in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse, the northern tribes had nothing in common with him, nothing to do with him; every man to his tents, O Israel! It was a call to rebellion.
Read full note →
v. 2. So every man of Israel, of the ten northern tribes, went up from after David, renouncing his allegiance to the king, and followed Sheba, the son of Bichri; but the men of Judah clave unto their king, from Jordan even to Jerusalem. They remained loyal, they did not permit their faithfulness to be shaken.
v. 3. And David came to his house at Jerusalem, after the outbreak of this rebellion; and the king took the ten women, his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, 2Sa 15:16; 2Sa 16:21-22, and put them in ward, in a house by themselves, and fed, maintained, them, but went not in unto them, for they were impure to him, having been approached by Absalom. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood, in perpetual widowhood.
v. 4. Then said the king to Amasa, Assemble me the men of Judah within three days, he was given orders to mobilize them for the purpose of punishing the rebel Sheba, and be thou here present, for David intended formally to appoint him commander-in-chief, 2Sa 19:13,
v. 5. So Amasa went to assemble the men of Judah; but he tarried longer than the set time which he had appointed him, he delayed beyond the three days given him, the reason for this state of affairs not being mentioned.
v. 6. And David said to Abishai, one of his commanders, Now shall Sheba, the son of Bichri, do us more harm than did Absalom, on account of the delay in calling him to account; take thou thy lord’s servants, the part of the standing army stationed at Jerusalem, and pursue after him, lest he get him fenced cities and escape us, literally, "and deliver himself from our eyes," or, "darken not our eight," by hiding himself and eventually harming the cause of David,
v. 7. And there went out after him Joab’s men, for as such the standing army was known, and the Cherethites and the Pelethites, 2Sa 8:18, and all the mighty men; and they went out of Jerusalem to pursue after Sheba, the son of Bichri.
v. 8. When they were at the great stone which is in Gibeon, northwest of Jerusalem, Amasa went before them, coming towards them with the levy of troops which he had raised. And Joab’s garment that he had put on was girded unto him, his military garment being held close to his body by the girdle, and upon it a girdle with a sword fastened upon his loins in the sheath thereof; and as he went forth, rather, the sheath slipped out, it fell out, that is, the sword fell to the ground. This apparent accident happened just before Amasa came up to Joab, and the fact that the latter picked up and held the sword in his left hand would arouse no suspicions.
v. 9. And Joab, apparently with sincere friendliness, said to Amasa, Art thou in health, my brother? And Joab took Amasa by the beard with the right hand to kiss him, drawing down his face with a caressing gesture.
v. 10. But Amasa took no heed to the sword that was in Joab’s hand, namely, in his left, with which he had just picked it up; so he, Joab, smote him therewith in the fifth rib, in the abdomen, and shed out his bowels to the ground, and struck him not again, for there was no need for repeating the blow; and he died. It was a cold-blooded murder, an act of malice, the product of jealousy and the desire for revenge. So Joab and Abishai, after the murder of Amasa, pursued after Sheba, the son of Bichri.
v. 11. And-one of Joab’s men stood by him, Amasa, and said, He that favoreth Joab, has pleasure and confidence in him, and he that is for David, let him go after Joab, the cause of David thus being identified with that of Joab.
v. 12. And Amasa wallowed in blood in the midst of the highway, a conspicuous object. And when the man who had been left behind by Joab saw that all the people stood still, he removed Amasa out of the highway into the field, and cast a cloth upon him, so that his corpse would no longer draw attention, when he saw that every one that came by him stood still. Thus the danger of an unfavorable impression for Joab and his cause was removed, for the crowd now passed forward without inquiring into the matter.
v. 13. When he was removed out of the highway, all the people went on after Joab to pursue after Sheba, the son of Bichri. The act of Joab in removing his rival in this manner is inexcusable. The higher the public office which a person holds, the more he must be able to overlook ingratitude and slights.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 to be at the same place
to be at the same place
This refers to the town of Gilgal.
Read full note →
Sheba ... Bikri
These are names of men. (See: How to Translate Names)
We have no part in David, neither have we any inheritance in the son of Jesse
Both of these statements mean the same thing. Sheba is emphasizing that he and the tribes of Israel have no relationship with David. AT: "The inheritance of David and his father's family does not belong to us" or "We are not a part of David and his father's family" (See: Parallelism and Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
translationWords
trouble
Benjamin
trumpet
David
inherit
Jesse
king
Jerusalem
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 20:1 Down with the dynasty of David! By the…
20:1 Down with the dynasty of David! By the same rallying cry, the northern Israelites later dissociated themselves from Solomon (1 Kgs 12:16). Sheba’s failed revolt foreshadowed the ultimate failure of the northern kingdom, which was founded on a similar revolt by Jeroboam (1 Kgs 12).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.