2 SAMUEL 14 COMMENTARYEDITED BY GLENN PEASE

Absalom Returns to Jerusalem

1 Joab son of Zeruiah knew that the king's heart longed for Absalom.

GILL, "Now Joab the son of Zeruiah,.... The general of David's army:

perceived that the king's heart was towards Absalom; and longed to have him returned, though he knew not how to bring it about with credit to himself, his crime being so foul, and worthy of death. This Joab perceived by some words he now and then dropped, and by his conduct, not seeking by any ways and means to bring him to justice, and being now reconciled to the death of Amnon; wherefore Joab devised a way to make known to him his own mind, and the sense of the people, which would serve to encourage him to restore him; and the rather Joab was inclined to take such a step, as he knew it would establish him in the king's favour, and ingratiate him into the affection of Absalom, the next heir to the crown, as well as please the people, whose darling he was. Though Abarbinel is of opinion that Joab proceeded upon another view of things, not because he saw the heart and affection of David were towards Absalom, but the reverse; that though David restrained himself and his servants from going out after Absalom, yet Joab knew that the heart of the king was against him, and that his heart was to take vengeance on him, though he did not go out to seek him; he perceived there was still enmity and hatred in his heart to take vengeance on Absalom, and therefore he took the following method to remove it, and reconcile his mind to him; and so the Targum,"and Joab the son of Zeruiah knew that the heart of the king was to go, out against Absalom;''and it may be observed, that when Joab had so far prevailed upon him as to admit him to bring him back to Jerusalem, he would not suffer him to see his face, nor did he for two years after.

HENRY, "Here is, I. Joab's design to get Absalom recalled out of banishment, his crime pardoned, and his attainder reversed, 2Sa_14:1. Joab made himself very busy in this affair. 1. As a courtier that was studious, by all ways possible, to ingratiate himself with his prince and improve his interest in his favour: He perceived that the king's heart was towards Absalom, and that, the heat of his displeasure being over, he still retained his old affection for him, and only wanted a friend to court him to be reconciled, and to contrive for him how he might do it without impeaching the honour of his justice. Joab, finding how David stood affected, undertook this good office. 2. As a friend to Absalom, for whom perhaps he had a particular kindness, whom at least he looked upon as the rising sun, to whom it was his interest to recommend himself. He plainly foresaw that his father would at length be reconciled to him, and therefore thought he should make both his friends if he were instrumental to bring it about. 3. As a statesman, and one concerned for the public

1

welfare. He knew how much Absalom was the darling of the people, and, if David should die while he was in banishment, it might occasion a civil war between those that were for him and those that were against him; for it is probable that though all Israel loved his person, yet they were much divided upon his case. 4. As one who was himself a delinquent, by the murder of Abner. He was conscious to himself of the guilt of blood, and that he was himself obnoxious to public justice, and therefore whatever favour he could procure to be shown to Absalom would corroborate his reprieve.

II. His contrivance to do it by laying somewhat of a parallel case before the king, which was done so dexterously by the person he employed that the king took it for a real case, and gave judgment upon it, as he had done upon Nathan's parable; and, the judgment being in favour of the criminal, the manager might, by that, discover his sentiments so far as to venture upon the application of it, and to show that it was the case of his own family, which, it is probable, she was instructed not to proceed to if the king's judgment upon her case should be severe.

K&D, "When Joab perceived that the king's heart was against Absalom, he sent for a cunning woman from Tekoah, to work upon the king and change his mind, so that he might grant forgiveness to Absalom. 2Sa_14:1 is understood by the majority of commentators, in accordance with the Syriac and Vulgate, as signifying that Joab learned that the king's heart was inclined towards Absalom, was well disposed towards him again. But this explanation is neither philologically sustained, nor in

accordance with the context. לב, written with על and without any verb, so that היה has

to be supplied, only occurs again in Dan_11:28, where the preposition has the meaning “against.” It is no argument against this meaning here, that if David had been ill disposed towards Absalom, there would have been no necessity to state that Joab perceived it; for we cannot see why Joab should only have perceived or noticed David's friendly feelings, and not his unfriendly feelings as well. If, however, Joab had noticed the re-awakening of David's good feelings towards Absalom, there would have been no necessity for him to bring the cunning woman from Tekoah to induce him to consent to Absalom's return. Moreover, David would not in that case have refused to allow Absalom to see his face for two whole years after his return to Jerusalem (2Sa_14:24). Tekoah, the home of the prophet Amos, the present Tekua, two hours to the south of Bethlehem (see at Jos_15:59, lxx). The “wise woman” was to put on mourning, as a woman who had been mourning for a long while for some

one that was dead (ל to set or show herself mourning), and to go to the king in ,הת

this attire, and say what Joab had put into her mouth.

CONSTABLE, "Joab's scheme to secure Absalom's pardon 14:1-20Evidently Joab (David's commander-in-chief and nephew by his half-sister, Zeruiah; 1Chron. 2:16) concluded that it would be politically better for David and Israel if Davidbrought Absalom back to Jerusalem from Geshur (cf. vv. 7, 13-15). Absalom was, ofcourse, now David's heir to the throne by custom, though Yahweh had designatedSolomon to succeed his father. David had a great love for Absalom even though he was a murderer (v. 1; cf. 13:37, 39). David had a large capacity to love; he loved God and many other people greatly. Often people who love greatly find it difficult to confront and discipline.The story Joab gave the actress from Tekoa (10 miles south of Jerusalem) to tellduplicated David's own problem with Absalom (cf. the story that God had put in

2

Nathan's mouth, 12:1-4). By putting the murderer to death, the woman's hostile relatives would have deprived her of her means of support (v. 7; cf. the story of Cain and Abel, Gen. 4:1-8). By putting Absalom to death, David would have deprived himself of his heir, which Joab evidently perceived Absalom to be. Since David promised not to execute the woman's son (v. 11) it was inconsistent for him to refrain from pardoning Absalom (v. 13). The wise woman urged David to remember the LORD his God, specifically, Hismercy (v. 11)."David's reference to the 'hair' of the woman's 'son' is both ironic andpoignant: The hair of his own son Absalom was not only an index of hishandsome appearance (cf. vv. 25-26) but would also contribute to hisundoing (cf. 18:9-15)."233 The woman's references to "the people of God" (i.e., Israel, v. 13; cf. vv. 14-15, 17) point to popular support for Absalom and a common desire that David would pardon him and allow him to return to Jerusalem.David had personally experienced God's mercy and had escaped death for his adulteryand murder (12:13). The woman appealed to David to deal with Absalom as God haddealt with him or the nation would suffer (v. 14). Verse 14 is a key verse in this chapter.The wise actress reminded David that God does not take away life, that is, He does not delight in punishing people. Rather He plans ways by which guilty people can enjoy reconciliation with Himself. The Cross is the greatest historical proof of this truth. Judgment is God's "strange" work (Isa. 28:21); mercy is what He delights to display. Thus David should be godly and make a way to show mercy to Absalom rather than punishing him with death, according to Joab.233Youngblood, pp. 978-79.

David knew that Joab wanted him to pardon Absalom. He sensed that the woman'sarguments had come from him (vv. 18-19). Joab had written the script for the little skitthat she had performed (vv. 19-20)."Ironically, Joab's demise begins at precisely the point where anotherwoman (Bathsheba) is sent to the king by a thoroughly self-interested [?]statesman (Nathan) in order to foil the succession of the next in line afterAbsalom (Adonijah) and so to secure the crown for Solomon (1 Ki 1.11-31)."234

PULPIT, "The king's heart was toward Absalom. Again there is a diversity of view as to the right rendering. The preposition does not usually mean "toward," but "against," and is so rendered in 2 Samuel 14:13. The whole phrase occurs again only in Daniel 11:28, and certainly there implies enmity. The whole attitude of David towards Absalom is one of persistent hostility, and, even when Joab had obtained his recall, for two full years he would not admit him into his presence. What has led most commentators to force the meaning here and in 2 Samuel 13:39 is the passionate burst of grief when news was brought of Absalom's death following upon the anxious orders given to the generals to be careful of the young man's life. But David was a man of very warm affections, and while this would make him feel intense sorrow for the death of a son by his brother's hand, and stern indignation towards the murderer, there would still lie deep in the father's heart true love towards his sinning child, and Absalom's fall was sad enough to cause a strong revulsion of feeling. David's grief would be not merely for the death of his son, but that he should have died so miserably, and in an attempt so shameful. Was not, too, the natural grief of a father made the more deep by the feeling that this was the third stage of the penalty denounced on his own sin, and that the son's death was the result of the father's crime?

3

PINK, "It was fleshly sentiment, and not a concern for God’s glory, which moved David to authorize Joab to bring back Absalom. Some of our readers may regard this as a harsh verdict and say, "Possibly the writer is not a parent, if he were, perhaps he would better understand the case before him. Was not David actuated by love for his erring son? Surely God does not expect His people to be without natural affection." Ah, dear reader, the claims of the Lord are both high and comprehensive, and His requirements much more exacting than many like to recognize. Right eyes are to be plucked out and right hands cut off (Matthew 5:29,30)—things which are very dear to us—if they prove a hindrance to our treading the Narrow Way; and that is indeed a painful sacrifice, is it not?—so painful, that nothing short of the supernatural but sufficient grace of God can enable any of us thereunto.

"If any man come to Me," said the Lord Christ, "and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26). No wonder that He bade intending disciples to "set down first and count the cost" (Luke 14:28). Christ will be Lord of all, or He will not be Lord at all. He requires the throne of our hearts, and all other interests and inclinations must bow before His sovereign will. Alas, how little are His claims emphasized today! How His holy standard has been lowered! How His Gospel has been cheapened! How maudlin sentimentality now ousts the principles of holiness in the great majority of those who bear His name! How those who endeavor, in their feeble way, to press the divine requirements are now condemned as being heartless and censorious.

"But surely a Christian is not required to become an unemotional stoic, devoid of all natural affection." No, indeed; grace in the heart does not harden, but softens. Nevertheless, holiness, and not carnal sentiment, is to dominate the Christian. Natural affections are not to be granted a lawless license, but are to be regulated by the precepts of Scripture. A Christian is permitted to lament the death of a fellow-believer, yet is he bidden to "sorrow not even as others which have no hope" (1 Thess. 4:13). We are exhorted to mortify "inordinate affection" (Col. 3:5), that is, lawless and excessive fondness. And sometimes we have to choose—as David did—between honoring God by an obedience which requires us to set aside the yearnings of nature, or dishonor Him by yielding to fleshly emotions: in such a case self (the natural man) is to be denied.

Take it on its lowest ground. Do not those parents defeat their own ends who, from a miscalled "love," fail to deal sternly with the disobedience and defiance of their little ones; and who when their children are grown up, wink at their sins? How many a shiftless youth, whose every whim is gratified by his doting mother, develops into a worthless wastrel! How many a flighty daughter is allowed her own way, under the pretext of "letting her have a good time," only to end in her becoming a woman of the streets! Even the natural man is responsible to bring his affections under the control of his judgment, and not let his heart run away with his head. But the child of God is to be regulated by far higher and holier principles, and is to subordinate the yearnings of nature to the glory of God by obeying His commandments.

Now in his ordering Joab to Fetch back Absalom from Geshur, David acted according to the dictates of "natural affection," and not out of any regard to the honor of the

4

Lord. Joab knew how to work upon his weakness, as is evident from the success of his scheme through the woman of Tekoah. She so wrought upon his sentiments that he rashly gave a verdict in favor of the criminal depicted in her story; and then she persuaded him to restore his treacherous son. Yet nothing could possibly justify him in disregarding the divine law, which cried aloud for the avenging of Amnon. God had given no commandment for his son to be restored, and therefore His blessing did not attend it. David paid dearly for his foolish pity, as we shall see from the sequel; and that is recorded for our learning. God grant that some parents at least who read these lines will take this solemn lesson to heart.

"So Joab arose and went to Geshur, and brought Absalom to Jerusalem. And the king said, Let him turn to his own house, and let him not see my face. So Absalom returned to his own house, and saw not the king’s face" (vv. 23, 24). Previously we read that "David mourned for his son every day" and "the soul of king David was consumed (margin) to go forth unto Absalom" (13:37, 39), whereas now that he is brought back to Jerusalem orders are given that he must not see the kings face. What a strange thing human nature is! What expedients it will resort to and compromises it will make in order to save its face. Possibly some of the more godly of David’s counselors had demurred at his Routing of the Law, and maybe his own heart was uneasy over the step he had taken; and so as a sop to his conscience, and in order to quiet the censures of others, Absalom was confined to his own private dwelling.

Some writers are of the opinion that this measure of the king was designed for the humbling of his son, hoping that he would now be brought to see the heinousness of his sin and repent for it. But surely there had been sufficient time for that in his three years’ sojourn in Geshur. No, we believe that what we have pointed out above is the more likely explanation. By permitting Absalom to return to his own house David exercised mercy, and by denying him entrance to the court he made a show of justice, persuading himself by this interdict he evidenced his abhorrence of Amnon’s murder. Nevertheless the fact remained that, as chief magistrate in Israel, David had set aside the divine law. Therefore he must not be surprised if his wayward son now resorts to further lawlessness, for there is no escape from the outworking of the principle of sowing and reaping.

"But in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty: from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him" (v. 25). How this reveals the low state of the Nation at that time! Absalom was not esteemed for his moral worth, for he was utterly lacking in piety, wisdom, or justice. His handsome physique was what appealed to the people. His abominable wickedness was ignored, but his person was admired—which only served to increase his arrogance, ending in his utter ruin. Alas, how often a corrupt mind indwells a sound body. How sad it is to observe our decadent generation valuing physical beauty and prowess more highly than moral virtues and spiritual graces. The allowing of his luxuriant hair to grow to such a length, and then afterwards weighing it (v. 26), shows the pride and effeminacy of the man. The three sons born to him (v. 27) evidently died at an early age: see 18:18.

"So Absalom dwelt two full years in Jerusalem, and saw not the king’s face. Therefore Absalom sent for Joab, to have sent him to the king; but he would not come to him, and when he sent again the second time, he would not come" (vv. 28, 29). In the light of the immediate sequel it is clear that Absalom was chafing at his confinement (that

5

he "sent for Joab" indicates he was virtually a prisoner in his own house) because it interfered with the development of his evil plans, and that the reason why he was anxious to be reconciled to the king was that he might obtain his liberty and thus be able to win the Nation over to himself. Probably this was the reason why Joab declined to visit him: suspecting his disloyal designs, knowing what a dangerous character he was to be at large.

"Therefore he said unto his servants, See Joab’s field is near mine and he hath barley there; go and set it on fire. And Absalom’s servants set the field on fire" (v. 30). He was still the same self-willed character: "who is lord over us?" being the language of all his actions. The three years he had spent at Geshur and his two years of isolation in Jerusalem had wrought no change in him: his heart was not humbled and his pride was not mortified. Instead of being thankful that his life has been spared, he deems himself sorely wronged for being secluded from the court. Instead of being grateful to Joab for bringing him back from Geshur, he now takes a mean revenge upon him because he refused his present request. Such conduct displayed a self-will that would brook no denial; a man of violence ready to go to any lengths in order to have his own way. The fear of God was not in him, nor had he any respect for his neighbor.

"Then Joab arose, and came to Absalom unto his house, and said unto him, Wherefore have thy servants set my field on fire?" (v. 31). At first sight it seems strange after twice refusing to see Absalom, that now, after being insulted and injured, Joab should grant his request, and mediate for him with the king; yet a little reflection will make it clear. Joab was a shrewd politician, with his finger on the public’s pulse, and he knew full well that Absalom stood high in the favor of the people (v. 25): and now that he had further proof of the fury and power of the man—his servants being ready at his bidding to do violence unto the property of the general of the army!—he was afraid further to cross his will; and probably, with an eye to the future, he also wished to keep in his good books.

"And Absalom answered Joab, Behold, I sent unto thee, saying. Come hither, that I may send thee to the king, to say, Wherefore am I come From Geshur? it had been good for me to have been there still: now therefore let me see the king’s face; and if there be any iniquity in me, let him kill me" (v. 32). What an arrogant and insolent attitude to assume toward his royal parent: one which manifested the grossest ingratitude, a contempt for the king’s authority, and a deliberate challenge for him to enforce the law. Rightly did Matthew Henry point out, "His message was haughty and imperious, and very unbecoming either a son or a subject. He undervalued the favour that had been shown him in recalling him from banishment, and restoring him to his own house. He denies his own crimes, though most notorious, and will not own that there was any iniquity in him, insinuating that, therefore, he had been wronged in the rebukes he had been under. He defies the king’s justice, ‘Let him kill me, if he can find it in his heart,’ knowing he loved him too well to do it."

"So Joab came to the king, and told him: and when he had called for Absalom, he came to the king, and bowed himself on his face to the ground before the king; and the king kissed Absalom" (v. 33). Alas, notwithstanding his insulting rudeness Absalom prevailed upon the king to yield. His better judgment blinded by intemperate affection for his son, David invited Absalom to the palace. By prostrating himself before the king Absalom feigned submission to his authority, yet his heart was full of base designs to secure the throne for himself. David sealed his pardon with a kiss, instead

6

of allowing the Law to take its course. As another has well said. "David’s inordinate tenderness only paved the way for Absalom’s open rebellion. Terrible warning! Deal tenderly with evil, and it will, assuredly, rise to a head and crush you in the end. On the other hand, meet evil with a face of flint, and victory is sure. Sport not with the serpent, but at once crush it beneath your feet."

Whilst all this trouble was brewing around David a strange passiveness seems to have crept over him, and to have continued till his flight before Absalom. The narrative is singularly silent about him. He appears to be paralyzed by the consciousness of his past sins: he originated nothing. He dared not punish Amnon, and could only weep when he heard of Absalom’s crime. He weakly craved for the return of the latter, but could not bring himself to send for him till Joab urged it. A flash of his old kingliness appeared for a moment in his refusal to see his son, but even that vanished when Joab chose to insist that Absalom should return to the court. He had no will of his own, but had become a mere tool in the hands of his fierce general—Joab having gained this hold over him by his complicity in Uriah’s murder. At every step he was dogged by the consequences of his own wrong-doings, even though God had pardoned his sins.

Beautifully did Alexander Maclaren, in his little work, "The Life of David as reflected in his Psalms," throw light upon this particular stage of his career, and we feel we cannot do our readers a better service than close this chapter with a rather lengthy quotation therefrom. "It is not probable that many Psalms were made in those dreary days. But the forty-first and fifty-fifth are with reasonable probability, referred to this period by many commentators. They give a very touching picture of the old king during the four years in which Absalom’s conspiracy was being hatched. It seems from the forty-first that the pain and sorrow of his heart had brought on some serious illness, which his enemies had used for their own purposes and embittered by hypocritical condolences and ill-concealed glee. The sensitive nature of the Psalmist winces under their heartless desertion of him, and pours our its plaint in this pathetic lament. He begins with a blessing on those who ‘consider the afflicted’—having reference, perhaps, to the few who were faithful to him in his languishing sickness. He passes thence to his own case, and, after humble confession of his sin—almost in the words of the fifty-first Psalm—he tells how his sick bed had been surrounded by different visitors.

"His disease drew no pity, but only fierce impatience that he lingered in life so long. ‘Mine enemies speak evil of me—when will he die, and his name have perished?’ One of them, in especial, who must have been a man in high position to gain access to the sick chamber, has been conspicuous by his lying words of condolence. ‘If he come to see me, he speaketh vanity.’ The sight of the sick king touched no cord of affection, but only increased the traitor’s animosity—‘his heart gathered evil to itself’—and then, having watched his pale face for wished-for unfavorable symptoms, the false friend hurries from the bedside to talk of his hopeless illness—‘he goeth abroad, he telleth it.’ The tidings spread, and are stealthily passed from one conspirator to another: ‘all that hate me whisper together against me.’ They exaggerate the gravity of his condition, and are glad because, making the wish the father to the thought, they believe him dying—‘a thing of Belial’ (i.e. a destructive disease) say they, ‘is poured out upon him, and now that he lieth, he shall rise up no more.

"We should be disposed to refer the thirty-ninth Psalm also to this period. It, too, is the meditation of one in sickness, which he knows to be a divine judgment for his sin.

7

There is little trace of enemies in it; but his attitude is that of silent submission, while wicked men are disquieted around him—which is precisely the characteristic peculiarity of his conduct at this period. It consists of two parts (vv. 1-6 and 7-13), in both of which the subjects of his meditations are the same, but the tone of them different. His own sickness and mortality, and man’s fleeting, shadowy life, are his themes. The former has led him to think of the latter.

"It may be observed that this supposition of a protracted illness, which is based upon these Psalms, throws light upon the singular passiveness of David during the maturing of Absalom’s conspiracy, and may naturally be supposed to have favoured his schemes, an essential part of which was to ingratiate himself with suitors who came to the king for judgment, by affecting great regret that no man was deputed of the king to hear them. The accumulation of untried causes, and the apparent disorganization of the judicial machinery, are well accounted for by David’s sickness."

PULPIT, 2 Samuel 14:1-20

The facts are:

1. Joab, observing that the king's heart was still adverse to Absalom, devised, in order to bring him round to a different feeling, that a wise woman from Tekoah should appear before him and plead a cause.

2. The woman appears before the king, and narrates as facts certain circumstances, namely,

3. David, touched with her story, undertakes to grant her request, whereupon the woman, recognizing the usage in such cases, desires to exonerate the king from blame in this exercise of his clemency.

4. The king giving her a renewed assurance of safety, should any reproach her for thus trading on his clemency, she again, by a reference to God's presence and knowledge, dwells on the royal promise; whereupon he swears most solemnly that the son shall be spared.

5. The woman then ventures to bring the royal concession to her to bear on the case of Absalom, by suggesting that, in granting her request as a just one, he virtually brings blame on himself for cherishing revengeful feeling against a banished one, and he one of the people of God.

6. She fortifies her argument by alluding to man's inevitable mortality and to God's way of dealing with wrong doers, namely, that he devises means of restoring the exile.

7. Reverting to her own suit, she next pretends that the people's desire for vengeance has caused the fear which prompts this her request, believing, as she does, in the

8

king's magnanimity and superior discrimination.

8. David, perceiving that she is presenting a parabolic case, now asks whether Joab is not at the origin of it, which, with an Oriental compliment to his discernment, she candidly admits.

Astuteness in human affairs.

There are a few facts which, put together, seem to warrant the conclusion that David was hostile in mind to Absalom, and that therefore the expression in 2 Samuel 14:1, rendered "toward," should be "adverse to," על . These facts are, his evident sorrow for Amnon; the related flight of Absalom and absence for three years, but no mention of any messenger of peace being sent to him; the necessity of the device of the wise woman to awaken kindly interest in the king; and his unwillingness to see Absalom lot two years after having yielded to the force of the argument for his restoration (2 Samuel 14:28). It was in the endeavour to overcome the king's hostility that Joab manifested the remarkable astuteness of his nature. Taking Joab's conduct in this instance as our exemplar, we may get an insight as to what constitutes the astuteness in human affairs which then gave and always has given some men an advantage over others.

I. THERE IS A SHREWD OBSERVATION OF EVENTS. Joab was not a mere military man, whose range of observation was limited by his profession. He had his eyes wide open to notice, in their bearing one on the other, the various incidents in the history of Israel, embracing both the private and public life, king and people. The remark that he perceived that the king's heart was adverse to Absalom is but an index of the man's character. Some generals would simply have confined their attention to military duties, paying little or no heed to what passed in the mind of the king, and what was the effect of his attitude on the nation. The widely and minutely observant eye is a great blessing, and, when under the government of a holy purpose, is a means of personal and relative enrichment. All men astute in affairs have cultivated it with zeal, and its activity and range account in part for the superiority they have acquired over their fellow creatures. Human life is a voluminous book, ever being laid, page by page, before us; and he who can with simple and steady glance note what is there written, and treasure up the record for future use, has procured an advantage, which, in days to come, will be converted into power. "The wise man's eyes are in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness" (Ecclesiastes 2:14).

II. THERE IS A CONSTANT LOOKING AHEAD. This characteristic of Joab is seen in many instances (e.g. 2 Samuel 11:16, 2 Samuel 11:18-20; 2 Samuel 12:28; 2 Samuel 13:19). He was a man who sought to forecast the issue of events at present transpiring, or conditions that might arise to modify his plans. He seemed to see the complications that might arise should Absalom be kept in perpetual exile, both on account of his fine manly bearing being popular with the people, and of the possible strife should the king die, and the exile then return to contend with a nominee of David's. The prophetic forecast is a vision of coming reality; the forecast of astuteness

9

is the clever calculation of the bearings of passing events on what may be, the tracking out by anticipation the working on men and things of the various forces now in operation. In so far as a man possesses this quality, he certainly is a power in society, and his opinions with reference to contingencies, and the provision wherewith to meet them, should have weight. The degree to which some men injure themselves and others because they have no prevision, no power of anticipating events, is often very painful. In so far as this kind of prevision can be cultivated in early years, apart from the cunning with which it is sometimes allied, so will be the gain for the entire life.

III. THERE IS A SEEKING OF PERSONAL ENDS COMBINED WITH PUBLIC GOOD. Selfish cunning looks on, but looks only for self, and cares not for general interests. Astuteness looks on, but seeks deliberately to combine the personal and the general good. The former may be a prominent consideration, but the latter has a real place sincerely given. In Joab we have a striking example of this. Even in the killing of Abner Joab probably felt that the presence of such a rival might bring on troubles in Israel. When, by complicity with David's sin (2 Samuel 11:17), he advanced his own ambition by gaining power over David, he had an idea that the country would be the stronger for king and general to be of one mind. His sending for David to conquer Rabbah (2 Samuel 12:26-30) promoted his own influence over the king, and at the same time gave the nation the advantage of a regal triumph. No doubt he foresaw that, as Absalom was now the eldest son, he might possibly come to the throne, and hence it was important to secure his favour by being the instrument of procuring his recall; at the same time, he saw it would be better for king and people that this family quarrel should be adjusted. There is no astuteness in pure benevolence, and there is no pure benevolence in astuteness. Its characteristic is that it uses a knowledge of men and things, and an anticipation of coming and possible events, in such a way as to secure personal interests in promoting public good. There is too much conscience for pure selfishness, and too little for pure benevolence. These children of the world are certainly wise in their generation (Luke 16:8).

IV. THERE IS A SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OF HUMAN NATURE, AND OF THE MEANS OF ACTING ON IT. Joab knew men—their foibles and their strength. He had acquired that kind of penetration which comes of having much to do with men of divers temperaments and preferences. He knew how to touch David's natural ambition at Rabbah (2 Samuel 12:28-30). He understood how he would feign displeasure and sorrow at the assault which brought about the death of Uriah, and how the courtiers could be put off suspicion (2 Samuel 12:20, 2 Samuel 12:21). He knew that a story appealing to generous, magnanimous feelings would be sure to touch the king's heart (2 Samuel 14:2). This knowledge of men is an inestimable treasure for practical purposes. Some persons never acquire it, and consequently are at a great disadvantage in the struggle for life. Others avail themselves of it for low, cunning purposes, which are more becoming fiends than men. The astute man, whose character is toned by a moral aim, uses his knowledge to avoid some and secure the favour of others, and also to bring men round to the furtherance of the objects he has in hand. There is not in such a quality the simplicity which sometimes passes for Christian guilelessness; it may even seem, in some cases, to savour of cunning; but there are instances in which it combines the wisdom of the serpent and the harmlessness of the dove. The Apostle

10

Paul was certainly an astute Christian. He knew men, and how to deal with them on Christian principles. His addresses before his judges and his Epistles bear witness.

GENERAL LESSONS.

1. All who wish to be effective in Christian service should endeavour to extend their knowledge of human nature; for it is said of Christ that he knew what was in man (John 2:25).

2. In seeking a more thorough knowledge of human nature, we should avoid the risking the habitual feeling of distrust and suspicion which many of the sad facts of life may well suggest; for our Saviour, who knew all that is in man, the worst and the best, acted in his relations to them on the principle of generous consideration.

3. We should see to it that the intellectual qualities of astuteness are allied in us with Christian qualities that will save us from low cunning and mere utilitarian motive, and make duty the guide of action.

4. It behoves us to make use of all innocent means—"wise women," if need be—parables, or direct argument, to bring others to act in accordance with the will of God.

5. In dealing with men we should endeavour to touch the better springs of action in their nature, and assume that they are prepared to do justly and generously.

Means to bring back the banished.

The woman of Tekoah showed her wisdom in very deftly blending the argument suggested by Joab with thoughts and pleadings designed to meet the successive replies of the king. To gain her point, she proceeded from the assumption of his natural sympathy with a distressed widow up to the overwhelming argument derived from a consideration of God's method in dealing with his children when they are, by reason of their sins, banished from his presence, There may seem to be a weakness in the parallel she implies between the case of her sons and the case of Absalom and Amnon, inasmuch as the death of Amnon was brought about by a deliberate design, while the death of the other was a consequence of a sudden strife; but in reality she was right. The strife of her sons was "in the field," but there may have been antecedents which led to that mortal conflict; and, so far as concerned the sons of David, it was to all intents and purposes a family quarrel, brought on by the wrong done to Absalom in the ruin of his sister, and the wise woman evidently regarded the whole affair as a "strife in the field." Provocation had been given by Amnon, and the anger of Absalom, thus aroused, occasioned his death. Amnon would not have died, but for his attack on the honour of Absalom. Two things in the final argument come

11

home to David.

I. MAN'S CONDITION BY REASON OF SIN IS ONE OF BANISHMENT. As truly as Absalom was now banished from David as a consequence of his transgressions, so man is separated from God. The information given us of the fallen angels is slight, but it amounts to this—that they are banished because of sin (2 Peter 2:4; Jud 2 Peter 1:6). Our first parents were banished from Paradise because of sin. Those who are not welcomed at last to heaven will have to refer the banishment to sin (Matthew 7:23; Matthew 25:45, Matthew 25:46; Revelation 21:27). The state of mankind, while sin is loved and followed, is one of alienation. The carnal mind is not subject to the Law of God. We are as sheep going astray. Apart from any positive decree, the fact of sin constitutes moral severance from God. The child wanders, heedless of the Father's love, and all the moral laws of the universe combine with psychological laws to keep him, while in that state, outside the blessed sphere of fellowship and rest. It was instinctive for Absalom to flee from the face of the king. He banished himself by his deed, and the king could not render it otherwise. It is instinctive for one in sin to rice from the face of the holy God, and the Eternal, though omnipotent, cannot render it otherwise. The constitution of nature renders it inevitable. To suppose that it is an arbitrary arrangement is to imagine an impossibility. No power can make sin equivalent to holiness, and consequently no power can confer on sin the blessedness of the Divine favour.

II. GOD NEVERTHELESS REGARDS THE BANISHED AS HIS. Absalom was the son of David, though an exiled wanderer. David felt for him the mingled sorrow and displeasure of a just and good parent. The change of character and position does not destroy natural relationship. Adam was God's wandering child when, with sad heart, he turned his back on Paradise. The prodigal son is represented as being a son, though wasting his substance with riotous living. Our Saviour, in teaching us how to pray, would have us think of God as our Father. The whole tenor of his life on earth was to cause sinful men to feel that God the Father locks on them as his, even while in rebellion against his will. Had he disowned us in this respect, there would indeed have been no hope. It is much to know, in our sins and errors and dreadful guilt, that we are God's offspring, that he has a proprietary right in us, and thinks of us as only a father can think of his children (Ezekiel 33:11).

III. GOD MAKES PROVISION FOR BRINGING THE BANISHED BACK TO HIMSELF. "He doth devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him." Wonderful words for that age, and from a widow! The great and precious truth is the comfort of myriads all over the world, and the occasion of wonder and joy in heaven. Such an incidental statement reveals to us that the pious of Israel in those times possessed much fuller and clearer knowledge concerning God and his salvation than they sometimes get credit for, or would be inferred from the outlines of national history contained in the Bible. The history is designed to trace the great historic line along which Christ came, and the fact that God was, through the Jewish people, working out a great purpose to be gradually revealed in Christ. We are not told of all the detailed teaching of holy priests and prophets. We may fairly regard this wonderful statement of the widow as an index of truth widely possessed, distinct from the

12

provision of such means of blessing as the brazen serpent and the cities of refuge. There is a twofold sense in which the expression may be understood.

1. God provides means for the redemption of the world. The Mosaic economy was, in some of its institutions, a shadow of the provision that centres in the cross of Christ. Our salvation is of God. If he does not find means to cover sin and influence our evil hearts, there is no hope. We cannot, and are unwilling. He deviseth means (John 3:16). There is an intimation of the wisdom requisite. Sin produces such confusion in the moral sphere, and runs so against the order of government, and lays so strong a hold on the human heart, that only infinite wisdom could find out the way by which we might come back to God. Hence the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the appointment of faith as the condition and of preaching as the instrumentality, are all ascribed to the wisdom and goodness of God. It is by the Church thus saved that the wisdom of God is revealed to all ages (Romans 3:23-26; Romans 4:16; Romans 8:14; 1 Corinthians 1:21-30; Ephesians 3:10).

2. God provides means for the restoration of those who backslide from him. By chastisements, by the voice of prophets and conscience, by the pleading of the Spirit, by the varied events of providence causing the erring child to feel how evil and bitter a thing it is to depart from God, he opens a way by which they are brought back again. David knew this. "He restoreth my soul" (Psalms 23:3). How wonderfully wise and gentle these means often are is well known to many who once were as sheep going astray, and had lost the blessedness of fellowship formerly known.

"Return!… O chosen of my love!

Fear not to meet thy beckoning Saviour's view

Long ere I called thee by thy name, I knew

That very treacherously thou wouldst deal;

Now I have seen thy ways, yet I will heal.

Return! Wilt thou yet linger far from me?

My wrath is turned away, I have redeemed thee."

IV. GOD'S WAYS IN DEALING WITH HIS BANISHED ONES ARE A MODEL FOR US. The wise woman had spoken of the ways of God with his banished ones in

13

order to induce David to follow in the same course with respect to Absalom—the implication being that, when once a good man is reminded of the ways of God, he will without further urging act in the same manner. The parallel between the relation of Absalom to David and the relation of a sinner to God may not in every detail be perfect; but there being a resemblance in the substantial facts—banishment of a son because of high-handed deeds of wrong—it follows that there should be a resemblance, in the bearing of the earthly father king to his son, to that of God to his sinful child. The two features of God's bearing toward his own are:

The reference evidently is not to the legal code, which in several cases recognizes capital punishment for certain offences, for ends civil and social, but to the general principle and method of God's dealing with sinful man in his highest relations to himself. He desireth not the death of the sinner, and therefore he, speaking after the manner of men, finds out some way of bringing about a restoration to favour consistent with his own honour and the claims of righteousness. In the New Testament this example is set forth in strong and varied terms (Matthew 5:43-48; Matthew 6:14, Matthew 6:15; Ephesians 4:31, Ephesians 4:32). The fact that there is a model in God's bearing toward us is only half the truth. It is our duty and privilege to act according to it. It is not enough to be kindly disposed. We are to "devise devices"—take the initiative—in seeking to restore those who may have done wrong and merited our displeasure. This is the hard lesson taught by Christ, which even his own people are so slow to learn. When will Christians be as Christ was and act as Christ did? It is often easier to sing hymns, hear sermons, and bow the knee in prayer.

GENERAL LESSONS.

1. The proper course for the poor and sorrowful and oppressed is, after the example of this widow, to have recourse to him who sitteth as King in Zion; for his ear is ever open to their cry, and there is an open way of access to his throne.

2. In all our approaches to the supreme throne we may, with more confidence than was displayed by this widow in David, act on the assumption of a mercy and wisdom that never fail.

3. It is not only a solace to the weary heart, but a sure means of help in our domestic cares, if we bring them before the notice of our God.

4. We see how often the best and most exalted of men, in their conduct and feelings, come far short of the character they should manifest, and how they may require even the teaching which comes from the spirit and deeds of the poor and troubled to raise them to a higher level of life.

5. It is possible for good men to be kind and generous towards others, and at the same

14

time be unaware, till forced to see it, that there are features in their personal conduct day by day not in accord with the general generosity which they recognize and display.

6. We need to be reminded that the death of those we have cared for, should it come about while we are not acting kindly toward them (2 Samuel 14:14), is an unalterable event, a change which renders acts of kindness impossible—as water spilt on the ground cannot be gathered up again; and consequently we should seize passing opportunities of blessing them.

7. The sinful state of man is as unnatural as is exile to a king's son, and should ever be so represented (Isaiah 1:2, Isaiah 1:3).

8. All thanks and praise are due to God, in that he needed not any one to procure our restoration; all is of his own eternal love and free grace.

9. We should distinguish between the human setting of a truth and the truth itself. To "devise a means" is a human way of expressing the truth that God, from the beginning, before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4; Revelation 13:8), ordained and arranged for our salvation, but that we see the prearrangement coming into form subsequent to the advent of sin, and think of it as being devised to meet that event after its occurrence. We say, "the sun rises," but it does not. Our forms of expression consequent on the appearance of things to us is not the exact utterance of absolute truth.

10. The force of a Divine example, when brought to bear on men who recognize the government of God, will often compel conviction when other means fail.

COFFMAN, "ABSALOM FORGIVEN AND BROUGHT BACK TO JERUSALEM

This chapter and through 2 Samuel 19 relate the tragic account of Absalom's rebellion against David, which ended in Joab's killing the evil rebel as he hung by that gorgeous head of hair tangled in the branches of a tree. Following his murder of Amnon, Absalom had fled to Geshur where he remained three years, and King David would have done very well to let him rot in Geshur, but one of the weaknesses of the great king was his sentimental attachment to his children, whose sins he would not punish and whose lives he refused to discipline. Joab detected the longing in David's heart for the return of Absalom and actually achieved it by the ruse described in this chapter.

JOAB ENLISTED THE HELP OF A WOMAN OF TEKOA

"Now Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived that the king's heart went out to Absalom.

15

And Joab went to Tekoa, and fetched from there a wise woman, and said to her, "Pretend to be a mourner, and put on mourning garments; do not anoint yourself with oil, but behave like a woman who has been mourning many days for the dead; and go to the king, and speak to him." So Joab put the words in her mouth."

Joab's motivation here was very likely personal. "Absalom had the best prospect of succeeding David to the throne; and Joab thought that this action on his part would be the best way to secure himself against the punishment which he deserved for the murder of Abner."[1] Joab's procedure was similar to that of Nathan who brought before David an alleged court case, but which was actually a parable. A significant fact which emerges here is that any wronged person in the entire kingdom had the right to appeal to the king himself for judgment.

"The king's heart went out to Absalom" (2 Samuel 14:1). The KJV reads, "The king's heart went out toward Absalom," but, "The proposition here does not really mean either TO or TOWARD, but AGAINST, and it is so rendered in 2 Samuel 14:13."[2] Furthermore, David's refusal to see Absalom's face for two whole years after his return to Jerusalem is very difficult to reconcile with the common translations of this verse.

"Joab sent to Tekoa" (2 Samuel 14:2). "Tekoa is the modern Khirbet Taqua about ten miles south of Jerusalem. Since Joab was reared near Tekoa, he probably knew the wise woman whom he asked to help him, at least by reputation."[3] Tekoa was famous as the residence of the great prophet Amos.

"Pretend to be a mourner" (2 Samuel 14:2). Adam Clarke believed that, "The principal facts in the wise woman's story could have been real and that Joab found a person whose circumstances conformed to that which he wished to present."[4] Such opinions appear to be unacceptable because of Joab's instructions to the woman that she should PRETEND to be a mourner. We believe that her entire story was a clever fabrication.

ELLICOTT, "(1) Was toward Absalom.—This, like the last verse of the previous chapter, may be understood in either of two opposite senses: either David’s heart yearned for Absalom (as the Authorised Version, Vulg., LXX., Syr.), or it was hostile to him. The Hebrew preposition is used in both senses, though more frequently in the latter, and unquestionably expresses hostility in the only other place (Daniel 11:28) in which this form of the phrase occurs. The verse would then be translated, “And Joab the son of Zeruiah knew that the king’s heart was against Absalom.” Hence his stratagem to obtain his recall, which would otherwise have been quite unnecessary.

WHEDON, "ABSALOM’S RETURN AND RESTORATION TO FAVOUR, 2 Samuel 14:1-33.

16

1. Joab… perceived — He was always artful, shrewd, foreseeing, and laying plans for the future. From what he knew of the king’s heart he had reason to think that Absalom might be the next king of Israel, and then how important to himself that Absalom feel indebted to him for his restoration from exile.

Toward Absalom — Not against him, as several interpreters explain the sense, for that would contradict 2 Samuel 13:39, and render inexplicable the later conduct of the king towards Absalom. 2 Samuel 18:5; 2 Samuel 18:12; 2 Samuel 18:33. Besides, if Joab had known that the king was bitterly hostile to Absalom, we cannot see his object in interceding for him. When Absalom was engaged in the war of rebellion against David it was by Joab’s hand that he was slain. 2 Samuel 18:14.

CONSTABLE, "Joab's scheme to secure Absalom's pardon 14:1-20

Evidently Joab (David's commander-in-chief and nephew by his half-sister, Zeruiah; 1 Chronicles 2:16) concluded that it would be politically better for David and Israel if David brought Absalom back to Jerusalem from Geshur (cf. 2 Samuel 14:7; 2 Samuel 14:13-15). Absalom was, of course, now David's heir to the throne by custom, though Yahweh had designated Solomon to succeed his father. David had a great love for Absalom even though he was a murderer (2 Samuel 14:1; cf. 2 Samuel 13:37; cf. 2 Samuel 13:39). David had a large capacity to love; he loved God and many other people greatly. Often people who love greatly find it difficult to confront and discipline.

The story Joab gave the "actress" from Tekoa (10 miles south of Jerusalem) to tell duplicated David's own problem with Absalom (cf. the story that God had put in Nathan's mouth, 2 Samuel 12:1-4). By putting the murderer to death, the woman's hostile relatives would have deprived her of her means of support (2 Samuel 14:7; cf. the story of Cain and Abel, Genesis 4:1-8). By putting Absalom to death, David would have deprived himself of his heir, which Joab evidently perceived Absalom to be. Since David promised not to execute the woman's son (2 Samuel 14:11), it would be inconsistent for him to refrain from pardoning Absalom (2 Samuel 14:13). The wise woman urged David to remember the LORD his God, specifically, His mercy (2 Samuel 14:11).

"David's reference to the 'hair' of the woman's 'son' is both ironic and poignant: The hair of his own son Absalom was not only an index of his handsome appearance (cf. 2 Samuel 14:25-26) but would also contribute to his undoing (cf. 2 Samuel 18:9-15)." [Note: Youngblood, pp. 978-79.]

The woman's references to "the people of God" (i.e., Israel, 2 Samuel 14:13; cf. 2 Samuel 14:14-15; 2 Samuel 14:17) point to popular support for Absalom and a common desire that David would pardon him and allow him to return to Jerusalem.

David had personally experienced God's mercy and had escaped death for his adultery and murder (2 Samuel 12:13). The woman appealed to David to deal with Absalom as

17

God had dealt with him, or the nation would suffer (2 Samuel 14:14). 2 Samuel 14:14 is a key verse in this chapter. The wise "actress" reminded David that God does not take away life, that is, He does not delight in punishing people. Rather He plans ways by which guilty people can enjoy reconciliation with Himself. The Cross of Christ is the greatest historical proof of this truth. Judgment is God's "strange" work (Isaiah 28:21); mercy is what He delights to display. Thus, David should be godly and make a way to show mercy to Absalom, rather than punishing him with death, according to Joab.

David knew that Joab wanted him to pardon Absalom. He sensed that the woman's arguments had come from him (2 Samuel 14:18-19). Joab had written the script for the skit that she had performed (2 Samuel 14:19-20).

"Ironically, Joab's demise begins at precisely the point where another woman (Bathsheba) is sent to the king by a thoroughly self-interested [?] statesman (Nathan) in order to foil the succession of the next in line after Absalom (Adonijah) and so to secure the crown for Solomon (1 Kings 1:11-31)." [Note: George G. Nicol, "The Wisdom of Joab and the Wise Woman of Tekoa," Studia Theologica 36 (1982):101.]

There are parallels between this incident and Abigail's appeal to David in 1 Samuel 25:24. [Note: See J. Hoftijzer, "David and the Tekoite Woman," Vetus Testamentum 20:4 (October 1970):419-44.]

HAWKER, "The afflictions of David are not over, and therefore in this chapter we are presented with the preliminary step leading to a new scourge. By the ministry of Joab methods are adopted for a reconciliation between David and his son Absalom. The king permits him to come back, and after some little difficulty a good understanding is established between them.

2 Samuel 14:1

(1) ¶ Now Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived that the king's heart was toward Absalom.

Observe, that it was David's natural tenderness to his son which Joab took advantage of. If the Reader will take the pains to examine David's history more closely, he will find that, for the most part, his sins and consequent chastisements, were induced by consulting the feelings of nature more than the glory of God. His winking at Absalom's murder was contrary to God's law. Alas! how little do we keep a steady eye to what the Lord hath said, instead of what we feel.

LANGE, "2 Samuel 14:1. Though David’s soul was comforted for Amnon’s death, and he had consequently desisted from the pursuit of Absalom, his anger at the latter’s fratricide had nevertheless not disappeared. This supposition is psychologically

18

necessary, since otherwise David would appear as an extremely weak man; and it is supported by the fact that he would not see Absalom for two years after his return [ 2 Samuel 14:28]. For this reason the latter clause of this verse is to be explained as indicating not David’s returning inclination to Absalom (as Vulg, Sept, Syr, Arab. [Eng. A. V.], Joseph, Cleric, and most modern expositors), but his enduring disinclination towards him. [Erdmann renders: “Joab perceived that the king’s heart was against Absalom.”—Tr.] It might have been supposed from the discontinuance of the pursuit that David’s heart had turned to him; but Joab, who had exact knowledge of court-affairs, observed that the king’s heart was against him. How the word “perceived” is contrary to this view (Maur, Then.) does not appear, since it contains the simple statement that David was still hostilely disposed towards Absalom. And “in the only other place where this construction (without substantive verb) occurs, Daniel 11:28, the Prep. means against” (Keil). [The Prep. (על) is often used, however, in the general sense of “towards,” sometimes with favorable meaning, and the absence of the subst. verb is not important. The whole connection (somewhat disguised by the division of chapters) seems to favor the rendering of Eng. A. V. In the last verse of the preceding chapter David’s heart goes forth towards Absalom (see annotations on that verse), and here Joab is said to perceive it, so that he devises a scheme to remove the king’s judicial objections to recalling Absalom. The understanding of the narrative, however, is not affected by the rendering of the Prep. In either case Joab appears as a shrewd man. Possibly he was influenced by a genuine feeling of kindness towards David and Absalom; it is more likely perhaps that he wished to ingratiate himself with them and the people (Patrick). A. P. Stanley (in Smith’s Bib. Dict.): “Joab combines with the ruder qualities of the soldier something of a more statesmanlike character, which brings him more nearly to a level with his youthful uncle, and unquestionably gives him the second place in the whole history of David’s reign.” Wordsworth: “Joab is the impersonation of worldly policy, and temporal ambition practising on the weakness of princes for its self-interests.” Bib. Comm.: “He ever appears wily and politic and unscrupulous.”—Tr.]

PETT, "Verses 1-21

In Accordance With What He Sees To Be The King’s Desire, Joab Successfully (But Unwisely) Works To Bring About The Return Of Absalom Through a Wise Woman (2 Samuel 14:1-21).

As so often throughout David’s reign Joab, who otherwise was totally loyal, felt that he had in this instance a right to interfere in the affairs of David when he considered that it might be to his own benefit. He had done it in the case of Abner, when it had seemed that Abner might usurp his position as commander-in-chief, even though he had some justification in that case, in that he was exacting blood vengeance on behalf of his family (2 Samuel 3:27). He will later do it in the case of Amasa, another commander chosen by David, ostensibly because of his failure to carry out military orders, but no doubt also because he too had usurped his position as commander-in-chief (2 Samuel 19:13; 2 Samuel 20:10). He will later even do it by seeking to promote Adonijah’s claims to the throne as the eldest surviving son, over against Solomon, possibly because he knew that he was not popular with Solomon (see 1 Kings 2:5-6). Yet he was certainly steadfastly loyal to David in every other way, at

19

least while David was still active, and he had shared with him his wilderness years. What he probably did have in mind was that as Absalom was the eldest son, and therefore heir presumptive, if he could put Absalom in his debt, then once Absalom succeeded to the throne after David’s death he would remember what he owed to Joab.

But his interference here, while possibly with the best of intentions because as David’s cousin he knew David’s thoughts better than most, would undoubtedly bring catastrophe on Israel. We should remember that by his actions Absalom had already rebelled against the throne once. It should therefore have been clear to all that he was not to be trusted. Yet Joab, by the use of deceit, persuaded David to let him return to Jerusalem against David’s own better judgment, thus eventually doing David great harm. The truth was that if Absalom was to return he should really have returned to enter a City of Refuge, where his case could be decided. Alternatively he should not have been allowed to return at all. What was not right on any account was to gloss over his sin in accordance with Joab’s suggestion through the wise woman. (It is ironic that the one whose only defence in the case of his killing of Abner was that he was obtaining blood vengeance, should in the case of Absalom take up a different position). So as a result of Joab’s interference David allowed himself to be jockeyed into the unacceptable position of allowing Absalom to return under safe conduct, while being unwilling to have dealings with him because of his sin, both factors which undoubtedly led to Absalom’s rebellion.

We must recognise that the only reason why Absalom should want to return from his honoured position in the court of the king of Geshur would be in order to establish his right to succeed to the throne of Israel, so that once he became aware of how David felt about him he would have recognised that his succession was unlikely to be approved by David. We can see why, in his view, this would leave him with only one alternative, an attempted coup. There was no way that Absalom would have been willing to live peacefully under Solomon’s rule, or even Adonijah’s. He would therefore have been best left in Geshur, which he would have been had it not been for Joab’s intrigues.

One important lesson, therefore, that comes out of this narrative is that we should be wary as to whose advice we listen to, especially if it conflicts with our own conscience, and even though it tends to be in line with our inclinations. In this case we have YHWH on the one hand secretly acting on David’s behalf and protecting him against the full consequences of his own sin, and on the other we have Joab secretly acting against David’s best interests, although not fully aware of it, because he primarily had in mind his own best interests.

Analysis.

a Now Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived that the king’s heart was

20

against/toward Absalom (2 Samuel 14:1).

b And Joab sent to Tekoa, and fetched from there a wise woman, and said to her, “I pray you, feign yourself to be a mourner, and put on mourning apparel, I pray you, and do not anoint yourself with oil, but be as a woman who has for a long time mourned for the dead, and go in to the king, and speak on this manner to him.” So Joab put the words in her mouth (2 Samuel 14:2-3).

c And when the woman of Tekoa spoke to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, and did obeisance, and said, “Help, O king” (2 Samuel 14:4).

d And the king said to her, “What ails you?” And she answered, “Of a truth I am a widow, and my husband is dead. And your handmaid had two sons, and they two strove together in the field, and there was none to part them, but the one smote the other, and killed him. And, behold, the whole family is risen against your handmaid, and they say, ‘Deliver him who smote his brother, that we may kill him for the life of his brother whom he slew, and so destroy the heir also.’ Thus will they quench my coal which is left, and will leave to my husband neither name nor remainder upon the face of the earth” (2 Samuel 14:5-7).

e And the king said to the woman, “Go to your house, and I will give charge concerning you.” And the woman of Tekoa said to the king, “My lord, O king, the iniquity be on me, and on my father’s house, and the king and his throne be guiltless.” And the king said, “Whoever says anything to you, bring him to me, and he shall not touch you any more” (2 Samuel 14:8-11).

f Then she said, “I pray you, let the king remember YHWH your God, that the avenger of blood destroy not any more, lest they destroy my son.” And he said, “As YHWH lives, there shall not one hair of your son fall to the earth” (2 Samuel 14:11).

e Then the woman said, “Let your handmaid, I pray you, speak a word to my lord the king.” And he said, “Say on.” And the woman said, “Why then have you devised such a thing against the people of God? For in speaking this word the king is as one who is guilty, in that the king does not fetch home again his banished one. For we must necessarily die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again, neither does God take away life, but devises means, so that he that is banished continue not as an outcast from him” (2 Samuel 14:12-14).

d “Now, therefore, seeing that I am come to speak this word to my lord the king, it is because the people have made me afraid, and your handmaid said, ‘I will now speak to the king, it may be that the king will perform the request of his servant. For the king will hear, to deliver his servant out of the hand of the man that would destroy me and my son together out of the inheritance of God” (2 Samuel 14:15-16).

c “Then your handmaid said, ‘Let, I pray you, the word of my lord the king be comfortable, for as an angel of God, so is my lord the king to discern good and bad, and YHWH your God be with you” (2 Samuel 14:17).

b Then the king answered and said to the woman, “Do not hide from me, I pray you, anything that I shall ask you.” And the woman said, “Let my lord the king now speak.” And the king said, “Is the hand of Joab with you in all this?” And the woman answered and said, “As your soul lives, my lord the king, none can turn to the right hand or to the left from anything that my lord the king has spoken, for your servant Joab, he bade me, and he put all these words in the mouth of your handmaid. To

21

change the face of the matter has your servant Joab done this thing, and my lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are in the earth” (2 Samuel 14:18-20).

a And the king said to Joab, “Behold now, I have done this thing. Go therefore, bring the young man Absalom back” (2 Samuel 14:21).

Note that in ‘a’ Joab perceives David’s attitude towards Absalom, and in the parallel David gives Joab permission to bring Absalom back. In ‘b’ Joab calls on the wise woman of Tekoa to go to David and puts words into her mouth, and in the parallel she admits that Joab sent her and that what she has spoken have been words put into her mouth by Joab. In ‘c’ she pleads to David for help, and in the parallel she is grateful for his ‘helpfulness’. In ‘d’ she tells the story of her son who has slain his brother and is in danger of blood vengeance, pleading his cause, and in the parallel she speaks of David as having given his assurance that he will deliver her son out of the hands of the avenger of blood. In ‘e’ she prays that the king might be guiltless in respect of his concession, and in the parallel she draws out that he is guilty because in giving the concession he has demonstrated his inconsistency. Centrally in ‘f’ the woman deals with the main issue, the setting aside of the right of blood vengeance.

2 Samuel 14:1

‘Now Joab the son of Zeruiah perceived that the king’s heart was against (or ’toward’) Absalom.’

How we translate and interpret this verse will depend on our view of 2 Samuel 13:39. The ancient Aramaic translation preserved in the Targum, which probably dates back to before the time of Christ, translates as ‘and Joab the son of Zeruiah knew that the heart of the king was to go out against Absalom’ (the verb being read in from 2 Samuel 13:39. Apart from ‘perceived’ there is no verb in the Hebrew text). It will be observed that the Targum agrees with the way that we have translated 2 Samuel 13:39 (and incidentally disagrees with the Rabbinic ideas). Thus we have the alternatives of either seeing this as referring to David’s antagonism towards Absalom in view of what he had done, possibly including attempts to have him extradited, or as seeing it as referring to his yearning love for Absalom, a love which is certainly revealed later. But the latter does not sit well with David’s being unwilling to allow Absalom into his presence even when he had been allowed to return to Jerusalem. Indeed had he yearned for him so affectionately he could undoubtedly have arranged a reconciliation a good time before, instead of waiting for a few years.

So our view is that what the text means is that Joab perceived the anger and antagonism that was still in David’s heart towards Absalom because he had slain Amnon, with the result that Absalom was still under the threat of blood vengeance from David and his family, while aware that in his heart David still had genuine affection for Absalom. And that he acted on that basis for his own interests, seeing Absalom as a possible heir to the throne, but never dreaming that Absalom would openly rebel.

22

2 So Joab sent someone to Tekoa and had a wise woman brought from there. He said to her, "Pretend you are in mourning. Dress in mourning clothes, and don't use any cosmetic lotions. Act like a woman who has spent many days grieving for the dead.

BARNES, "Tekoah - In the south of Judah, six miles from Bethlehem, the modern Tekua. The rough, wild district was well suited for the lawless profession of the wise woman; it abounds in caves, as does the country near Endor.

CLARKE, "Joab sent to Tekoah - Tekoah, according to St. Jerome, was a little city in the tribe of Judah, about twelve miles from Jerusalem.

There are several circumstances relative to this woman and her case which deserve to be noticed: -

1. She was a widow, and therefore her condition of life was the better calculated to excite compassion.

2. She lived at some distance from Jerusalem, which rendered the case difficult to be readily inquired into; and consequently there was the less danger of detection.

3. She was advanced in years, as Josephus says, that her application might have the more weight.

4. She put on mourning, to heighten the idea of distress.

5. She framed a case similar to that in which David stood, in order to convince him of the reasonableness of sparing Absalom.

6. She did not make the similitude too plain and visible, lest the king should see her intention before she had obtained a grant of pardon. Thus her circumstances, her mournful tale, her widow’s needs, her aged person, and her impressive manner, all combined to make one united impression on the king’s heart. We need not wonder at her success. See Bishop Patrick.

GILL, "And Joab sent to Tekoah,.... Which Kimchi says was a city in the tribe of Asher, and others in the tribe of Benjamin, but it seems rather to be in the tribe, of Judah, 2Ch_11:5; according Jerom (s), it was twelve miles from Jerusalem, though in another place (t) he says it was but nine; of this place was Amos, and some think (u)

23

the woman after mentioned was his grandmother. It was proper to lay the scene of the affair to be proposed to the king at some distance, that it might not soon and easily be inquired into:

and fetched thence a wise woman; one much advanced in years, as Josephus says (w), whose years had taught her wisdom by experience; a woman of good sense, and of a good address, apt at expression and reply, and knew how to manage an affair committed to her; and among other things, perhaps, was famous for acting the part of a mourner at funerals, for which sometimes women were hired; however, she was one that was talked of for her wisdom and prudence, and Joab having heard of her, sent for her as one for his purpose. The Jews (x) say, that Tekoah was the first place in the land of Israel for oil, and because the inhabitants were much used to oil, wisdom was found among them:

and said unto her, I pray thee feign thyself to be a mourner; a woman of a sorrowful spirit, and in great distress, and show it by cries and tears:

and put on now mourning apparel; black clothes, such as mourners usually wore:

and anoint not thyself with oil; as used to be done in times of feasting and rejoicing, to make them look smooth, and gay, and cheerful, and of which there might be much use at Tekoah, if so famous for oil:

but be as a woman that had a long time mourned for the dead; her countenance pale and foul with weeping, her mourning clothes almost worn out, &c.

HENRY, "1. The person he employed is not named, but she is said to be a woman of Tekoah, one whom he knew to be fit for such an undertaking: and it was requisite that the scene should be laid at a distance, that David might not think it strange that he had not heard of the case before. It is said, She was a wise woman, one that had a quicker wit and a readier tongue than most of her neighbours, 2Sa_14:2. The truth of the story would be the less suspected when it came, as was supposed, from the person's own mouth.

2. The character she put on was that of a disconsolate widow, 2Sa_14:2. Joab knew such a one would have an easy access to the king, who was always ready to comfort the mourners, especially the mourning widows, having himself mentioned it among the titles of God's honour that he is a Judge of the widows, Psa_68:5. God's ear, no doubt, is more open to the cries of the afflicted, and his heart too, than that of the most merciful princes on earth can be.

JAMISON 2-21, "And Joab sent to Tekoah, and fetched thence a wise woman — The king was strongly attached to Absalom; and having now got over his sorrow for the violent death of Amnon, he was desirous of again enjoying the society of his favorite son, who had now been three long years absent. But a dread of public opinion and a regard to the public interests made him hesitate about recalling or pardoning his guilty son; and Joab, whose discerning mind perceived this struggle between parental affection and royal duty, devised a plan for relieving the scruples, and, at the same time, gratifying the wishes, of his master. Having procured a countrywoman of superior intelligence and address, he directed her to seek an audience of the king, and by soliciting his royal interposition in the settlement of a

24

domestic grievance, convinced him that the life of a murderer might in some cases be saved. Tekoah was about twelve miles south of Jerusalem, and six south of Beth-lehem; and the design of bringing a woman from such a distance was to prevent either the petitioner being known, or the truth of her story easily investigated. Her speech was in the form of a parable - the circumstances - the language - the manner -well suited to the occasion, represented a case as like David’s as it was policy to make it, so as not to be prematurely discovered. Having got the king pledged, she avowed it to be her design to satisfy the royal conscience, that in pardoning Absalom he was doing nothing more than he would have done in the case of a stranger, where there could be no imputation of partiality. The device succeeded; David traced its origin to Joab; and, secretly pleased at obtaining the judgment of that rough, but generally sound-thinking soldier, he commissioned him to repair to Geshur and bring home his exiled son.

PULPIT, "Tekoah. This town, famous as the birthplace of the Prophet Amos, lay upon the borders of the great wilderness southeast of Jerusalem. As it was only five miles to the south of Bethlehem, Joab's birthplace, he had probably often heard tales of this woman's intelligence; and, though he contrived the parable himself, yet it would need tact and adroitness on the woman's part to give the tale with tragic effect, and answer the king's questions with all the signs of genuine emotion. If her acting was bad, the king would see through the plot, and only by great skill would his heart be so moved as to three him to some such expression of feeling as would serve Joab's purpose.

BENSON, ". Joab sent to Tekoah — A city in the tribe of Judah, about twelve miles south of Jerusalem. And fetched thence a wise woman — One whom he knew to be fit for such an undertaking, having good sense and a ready utterance; and said, I pray thee feign thyself to be a mourner — Who put on no ornaments, nor used any ointment, but appeared in a sordid, neglected condition. She was to assume this habit to heighten the idea of her distress, that her circumstances as a widow, her mournful tale, her dress, and her person, might make one united impression on the king, and secure his attention. She tells the king that she had buried her husband; that she had two sons that were the support and comfort of her widowed state; that they quarrelled, and fought, and one of them unhappily killed the other; that for her part, she was desirous to protect the man-slayer, for, as Rebekah argued concerning her two sons, Why should she be deprived of them both in one day? But though she, who was nearest of kin to the slain, was willing to let fall the demands of an avenger of blood, yet the other relations insisted upon it that the surviving brother should be put to death, according to the law; not out of affection either to justice or to the memory of the slain brother, but that, by destroying the heir, (which they did not conceal to be the thing they aimed at,) the inheritance might be theirs. The whole design of her speech was to frame a case similar to that of David, in order to convince him how much more reasonable it was to preserve Absalom. But there was great art in not making the similitude too plain and visible, lest the king should perceive the intention of the woman’s petition before she obtained a grant of pardon for her son. — Bishop Patrick.

25

COKE, "2 Samuel 14:2. Joab sent to Tekoah, &c.— Tekoah was a city in the tribe of Judah, and lay about twelve miles south of Jerusalem. Joab's conduct in this affair was remarkably artful: he chose a widow, because her condition of life was more proper to move compassion; one who lived at a distance from Jerusalem, as her case might not be so readily inquired into; and a woman advanced in years, as Josephus asserts, that her application might have the more weight. She appeared in a habit of mourning, to heighten the idea of her distress, and that her circumstances, her mournful tale, her dress, and her person, might make one united impression on the king, and secure her his attention. The whole design of her speech was to frame a case similar to that of David, in order to convince him how much more reasonable it was to preserve Absalom. But there was great art in not making the similitude too plain and visible, lest the king should perceive the intention of the woman's petition, before she had obtained a grant of pardon for her son, and came to make the application to the king.

ELLICOTT, "(2) Tekoah.—A village on a high hill five miles south of Bethlehem, the home of the prophet Amos. It was also the native place of Ira, one of David’s thirty heroes (2 Samuel 23:26), and was near enough to Bethlehem, the home of Joab, for him to have had personal knowledge of this “wise woman.” There is no ground whatever for suspecting her of being a “witch,” or in any way disreputable.

The parable that follows was contrived by Joab, yet also required skill and address on the part of the woman. It is purposely made not too closely parallel to the case of Absalom, lest it should defeat its own object. In general it needs no comment.

WHEDON, "2. Tekoah — Twelve miles south of Jerusalem. Its ruins are still to be seen, and bear the name Tekua. “It lies on an elevated hill, not steep, but broad on the top, and covered with ruins to the extent of four or five acres. These consist chiefly in the foundations of houses built of squared stones, some of which are bevelled.… There are many cisterns excavated in the rocks, and not far off is a living spring, from which our Arabs brought us fine water.” — Robinson.

A wise woman — As her skilful appeals to David, and her language, so exquisite in beauty and pathos, abundantly show. Anoint not thyself — So as to appear shabbily, and not as one that has just put away mourning. Comp. 2 Samuel 12:20.

HAWKER "Verses 2-11

(2) And Joab sent to Tekoah, and fetched thence a wise woman, and said unto her, I pray thee, feign thyself to be a mourner, and put on now mourning apparel, and anoint not thyself with oil, but be as a woman that had a long time mourned for the dead: (3) And come to the king, and speak on this manner unto him. So Joab put the words in her mouth. (4) And when the woman of Tekoah spake to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, and did obeisance, and said, Help, O king. (5) And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she

26

answered, I am indeed a widow woman, and mine husband is dead. (6) And thy handmaid had two sons, and they two strove together in the field, and there was none to part them, but the one smote the other, and slew him. (7) And, behold, the whole family is risen against thine handmaid, and they said, Deliver him that smote his brother, that we may kill him, for the life of his brother whom he slew; and we will destroy the heir also: and so they shall quench my coal which is left, and shall not leave to my husband neither name nor remainder upon the earth. (8) And the king said unto the woman, Go to thine house, and I will give charge concerning thee. (9) And the woman of Tekoah said unto the king, My lord, O king, the iniquity be on me, and on my father's house: and the king and his throne be guiltless. (10) And the king said, Whosoever saith ought unto thee, bring him to me, and he shall not touch thee anymore. (11) Then said she, I pray thee, let the king remember the LORD thy God, that thou wouldest not suffer the revengers of blood to destroy anymore, lest they destroy my son. And he said, As the LORD liveth, there shall not one hair of thy son fall to the earth.

The Reader, to enter into the full beauties of this speech, will recollect how much it was the custom in the eastern world to discourse by story and parable. Nathan had adapted this plan to David in his own instance. See 2Sa 12. And here the woman of Tekoah so represents the outlines of Absalom's assassination of his brother Amnon, that the king for the moment overlooked his own family distresses on the same occasion, in the supposed history of this woman. But the Reader to enter into the principal beauty of this story, must be careful not to overlook the grand point in that law, which made provision that an Israelite should not have, upon any consideration, the right of his inheritance cut off, nor his name destroyed from among the people. This inheritance, no doubt, had an eye to the covenant of redemption; cause the same law that made provision for this inheritance; made provision also for its recovery by redemption in the next of kin, in case of loss. See Numbers 27:1-11 compared with Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Then turn to Ruth 4:1-7. Hence you see how sweetly the whole of this gracious provision, respecting the inheritance of Israel, pointed to the Lord Jesus, our Goel, our kinsman-Redeemer, who both stops the avenger of blood in becoming our city of refuge, and redeems our justly forfeited inheritance, as our relation, by his redemption. David therefore, no doubt, perfectly well understanding the grand point referred to, concerning the inheritance of which the woman of Tekoah complained she should be deprived, and the coal be quenched, whereby a name, or remainder, would not be left to her husband; entered with more earnestness into the burden of her petition, and with an eye to Christ sware to the woman by an oath, that her case should be as she wished. Reader! think then, how eternally secure must be our inheritance, when Jesus himself, our kinsman-Redeemer, hath purchased it, and how sure the name he hath preserved to his people. This is to be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name. Isaiah 42:2.

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:2-3

‘And Joab sent to Tekoa, and fetched from there a wise woman, and said to her,

27

“I pray you, feign yourself to be a mourner, and put on mourning apparel, I pray you, and do not anoint yourself with oil, but be as a woman who has for a long time mourned for the dead, and go in to the king, and speak on this manner to him.” So Joab put the words in her mouth.’

In the course of carrying out his plan Joab sent for a wise woman from Tekoa. It is noteworthy that while David would have sent for a prophet, Joab sent for a secular wise woman. He was not concerned for YHWH’s will but for his own. Such women were seen as wise women because they were old and experienced and had gained a reputation for behaving and speaking wisely (compare 2 Samuel 20:16). The fact that Solomon was noted for ‘wisdom’ might point to the fact that David encouraged such people, something of which Joab would be well aware. Her being seen as a ‘wise woman’ was probably by popular opinion rather than there being at this time a class of ‘wise men and women’. They would follow later.

He called on the woman to pretend to be a mourner, one who was in long term mourning for the death of a long dead husband. Thus she was to wear recognised mourning clothes, and was not to anoint herself with oil, as most Israelite women would do on approaching the king. The aim was in order to move David’s tender heart in her favour (Joab knew his man).

Then he gave her the gist of what he wanted her to say. The fact that Joab ‘put words into her mouth’ is stressed twice (see also 2 Samuel 14:19). The woman was not necessarily therefore coming forward with the truth. She was putting forward Joab’s case.

3 Then go to the king and speak these words to him." And Joab put the words in her mouth.

BARNES, "Come to the king - The king as a judge was accessible to all his subjects (2Sa_15:2; compare 1Ki_3:16).

GILL, "And come to the king,.... At his palace, in the above condition and circumstances:

and speak on this manner unto him; something to the following purpose he dictated to her:

so Joab put the words in her mouth; the substance of what she should say; the fable she was to deliver as her own case might be framed by Joab, and which she delivered word for word exactly as he put it, and the application of it; but as he knew

28

not what questions the king would ask her, so he could not dictate to her what to reply, unless he supposed this and the other, and so formed answers; but this he left to her prudence, and for the sake of which he chose a wise woman to manage this affair.

LANGE, "2 Samuel 14:2. Tekoah, now Tekua, about five [Eng.] miles south of Bethlehem, the native place of the prophet Amos. See Robins. II:406 [Am. ed. I:486 sq.; and see Dr. Hackett’s Art. in Am. ed. of Smith’s Bib. Dict.—Tr.]. As Bethlehem was Joab’s native place, it is not strange that he was acquainted with Tekoah. He knew this “wise woman” as one fitted by her readiness of speech, boldness, shrewdness, and adroitness, to act the part he wanted.[FN17] That it cost Joab so great pains to gain his end is evidence moreover against the supposition that David’s heart was already turned to Absalom.

4 When the woman from Tekoa went to the king, she fell with her face to the ground to pay him honor, and she said, "Help me, O king!"

BARNES, "Spake - Seems to be an accidental error for came, which is found in many manuscipts and versions.

Help - literally, save (see the margin). It is the same cry as Hosanna, i. e. save now Psa_118:25.

GILL, "And when the woman of Tekoah spake to the king,.... Or after she had spoken to him, being introduced by Joab, as is probable; when she had saluted him with God save the king, or May the king live, or some such like expressions:

she fell on her face to the ground, and did obeisance; to him as her king, in reverence of his majesty:

and said, help, O king; signifying that she was in great distress, and came to him for assistance and deliverance.

K&D, "2Sa_14:4

The woman did this. All the old translators have given as the rendering of הא�ה

This reading is .ו�בא the woman came (went) to the king,” as if they had read“ ו�אמר

actually found in some thirty Codd. of De Rossi, and is therefore regarded by Thenius and the majority of critics as the original one. But Böttcher has very justly urged, in

opposition to this, that ו�אמר cannot possibly be an accidental corruption of ותבא, and

that it is still less likely that such an alteration should have been intentionally made.

29

But this remark, which is correct enough in itself, cannot sustain the conjecture which Böttcher has founded upon it, namely that two whole lines have dropt out of the Hebrew text, containing the answer which the woman of Tekoah gave to Joab before she went to the king, since there is not one of the ancient versions which contains a single word more than the Masoretic text. Consequently we must regard

ו�אמר as the original reading, and interpret it as a hysteron-proteron, which arose

from the fact that the historian was about to relate at once what the woman said to the king, but thought it desirable to mention her falling down at the feet of the king before giving her actual words, “Help, O king,” which he introduces by repeating the

word ו�אמר.

PULPIT, "When the woman of Tekoah spake. All the versions and several manuscripts read, as the sense requires, "when the woman of Tekoah came." There is an interesting article in De Rossi, fixing with much probability the twelfth century as the date of this error. Though Absalom subsequently (2 Samuel 15:4) complained of the lax administration of justice in the realm, yet evidently this woman had the right of bringing her suit before the king; and we may be sure that Joab would take care that nothing unusual was done, lest it should awaken the king's suspicions. But possibly there was a want of method in judicial matters, and very much was left in the hands of the tribal officers, such as we find mentioned in Joshua 24:1.

LANGE, "2 Samuel 14:4. “And the woman came,”[FN18] etc.; for so we must read instead of the first “said” [Eng. A. V.: “spake”] of the Hebrew text. Böttcher supposes that here by similar ending (homœoteleuton) two lines have fallen out, in which is given the answer of the woman before she goes to the king; but there is no sign in any ancient version of such an omission.

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:4

‘And when the woman of Tekoa spoke to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, and did obeisance, and said, “Help, O king.” ’

We should note here that the wise woman appears to have had no difficulty in approaching the king with her request, which gives the lie to Absalom’s claim later on that David was not open to being approached by his people (2 Samuel 15:3-4). Such a right of approach to Israel’s leading figure had long been a principle of Yahwism (and in fact was practised by many other kings who, even when very cruel, paradoxically liked to be seen as the ‘father’ or ‘shepherd’ of their people). Consider for example Exodus 18:15-16; Judges 4:4-5; 1 Samuel 7:15-16.

When she approached she made the usual obeisance to the king, falling on her face before him. This was a requirement for all who approached the king. Joab had to act similarly (2 Samuel 14:22). (It would be the same for all who approached David when he was sitting in state, even though it is often not

30

mentioned. The exception may have been the royal family, although even they would have had to make some act of deference). Then she made to the king a plea for his assistance, crying, ‘Give me your help, O king’.

5 The king asked her, "What is troubling you?" She said, "I am indeed a widow; my husband is dead.

CLARKE, "I am indeed a widow woman - It is very possible that the principal facts mentioned here were real, and that Joab found out a person whose circumstances bore a near resemblance to that which he wished to represent.

GILL, "And the king said unto her, what aileth thee?.... Or what is thy case? What is the condition, and what the circumstances, that thou art in, which require help and assistance? intimating that he was ready to grant it on knowledge thereof; however, he was ready to hear what she had to say:

and she answered, I am indeed a widow woman; of a truth a widow, as the Targum; she was really one, a widow indeed, as in 1Ti_5:3; not one that was separated from her husband, he being alive, or divorced from him on any account; and therefore she adds:

and mine husband is dead; and has been a long time; this she said to move the pity and compassion of the king, who, as the supreme magistrate in God's stead, was a Father of the fatherless, and the judge of the widow.

HENRY 5-7, "3. It was a case of compassion which she had to represent to the king, and a case in which she could have no relief but from the chancery in the royal breast, the law (and consequently the judgment of all the inferior courts) being against her. She tells the king that she had buried her husband (2Sa_14:5), - that she had two sons that were the support and comfort of her widowed state, - that these two (as young men are apt to do) fell out and fought, and one of them unhappily killed the other (2Sa_14:6), - that, for her part, she was desirous to protect the manslayer (for, as Rebekah argued concerning her two sons, Why should she be deprived of them both in one day? Gen_27:45), but though she, who was nearest of kin to the slain, was willing to let fall the demands of an avenger of blood, yet the other relations insisted upon it that the surviving brother should be put to death according to law, not out of any affection either to justice or to the memory of the slain brother, but that, by destroying the heir (which they had the impudence to own was the thing they aimed at), the inheritance might be theirs: and thus they would cut off, (1.) Her comfort: “They shall quench my coal, deprive me of the only support

31

of my old age, and put a period to all my joy in this world, which is reduced to this one coal.” (2.) Her husband's memory: “His family will be quite extinct, and they will leave him neither name nor remainder,” 2Sa_14:7.

K&D 5-7, "2Sa_14:5-7

When the king asked her, “What aileth thee?” the woman described the pretended calamity which had befallen her, saying that she was a widow, and her two sons had quarrelled in the field; and as no one interposed, one of them had killed the other. The whole family had then risen up and demanded that the survivor should be given up, that they might carry out the avenging of blood upon him. Thus they sought to destroy the heir also, and extinguish the only spark that remained to her, so as to leave her husband neither name nor posterity upon the earth. The suffix attached to

with the object following (“he smote him, the other,” 2Sa_14:6), may be ,ו��ו

explained from the diffuseness of the style of ordinary conversation (see at 1Sa_

21:14). There is no reason whatever for changing the reading into י�ו, as the suffix ow,

though unusual with verbs הל, is not without parallel; not to mention the fact that the

plural י�ו is quite unsuitable. There is also quite as little reason for changing ונשמידה

into וישמידו, in accordance with the Syriac and Arabic, as Michaelis and Thenius

propose, on the ground that “the woman would have described her relatives as diabolically malicious men, if she had put into their mouths such words as these, 'We will destroy the heir also.' “ It was the woman's intention to describe the conduct of the relations and their pursuit of blood-revenge in the harshest terms possible, in order that she might obtain help from the king. She begins to speak in her own name

at the word ווכ (“and so they shall quench and”), where she resorts to a figure, for

the purpose of appealing to the heart of the king to defend her from the threatened destruction of her family, saying, “And so they shall quench the burning coal which is

left.” חלת� is used figuratively, like τ !ζώπυρον, the burning coal with which one

kindles a fresh fire, to denote the last remnant. שום so as not to set,” i.e., to“ :לבל�י

preserve or leave name and remnant (i.e., posterity) to my husband.

This account differed, no doubt, from the case of Absalom, inasmuch as in his case no murder had taken place in the heat of a quarrel, and no avenger of blood demanded his death; so that the only resemblance was in the fact that there existed an intention to punish a murderer. But it was necessary to disguise the affair in this manner, in order that David might not detect her purpose, but might pronounce a decision out of pity for the poor widow which could be applied to his own conduct towards Absalom.

LANGE, "2 Samuel 14:5. Here begins the lively, flowing narration of the feigned misfortune. Though Joab had “put the words into the woman’s mouth,” yet considerable readiness was required in order to bring them out so skilfully in her assumed character, and to make such an impression on the king as to lead him to the desired definite resolution. [Read: I am a widow. And my husband died, and I had two sons, etc.—Tr.]

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:5-7

32

‘And the king said to her, “What ails you?” And she answered, “Of a truth I am a widow, and my husband is dead. And your handmaid had two sons, and they two strove together in the field, and there was none to part them, but the one smote the other, and killed him. And, behold, the whole family is risen against your handmaid, and they say, ‘Deliver him who smote his brother, that we may kill him for the life of his brother whom he slew, and so destroy the heir also.’ Thus will they quench my coal which is left, and will leave to my husband neither name nor remainder upon the face of the earth.”

When the king asked her what her problem was she claimed that she was a widow with two sons, one of whom had accidentally killed the other in a fight. The result was that the whole family were demanding blood vengeance against the surviving son, reminding themselves at the same time that he was the heir to his father’s property. In other words their thoughts were more of taking over the dead man’s inheritance, than of really wanting justice. Justice and blood vengeance were simply the excuse. We can see how cleverly Joab’s words, put into the woman’s mouth, were designed to move the king’s sense of justice and fairplay.

And then the wise woman pointed out what this would mean for her. She would lose her one hope in life, the one thing that she lived for, the one desirable ‘burning coal’ that was left to her. His life would be snuffed out and quenched. And the further result would be that her husband’s name would not be preserved in Israel. Note that every new element that she introduced was describing what was seen in Israel as the most important things in life, indeed as every Israelite’s right; land inheritance, a son to support and care for his widowed mother, and the maintenance of a man’s name through his descendants. And they were all being threatened by greedy men who were making justice their excuse.

BI 5-20, "And she answered, I am indeed a widow woman.

The parable of the woman of Tekoa

The contrast between this parable and the one preceding it is very great. The parable of the ewe-lamb was spoken of by a prophet inspired by God. This one was spoken by a theatrical persons at the instigation of a man of the world, one who, though thoroughly unprincipled, could read human character and discern human motives through a very small crevice. The parable of Nathan was the introduction to a scorching reproof of David’s iniquity, the parable of the Tekoan is full of fulsome flattery. The prophet’s parable was uttered to induce repentance in David; this one had for its end only the promotion of Joab’s schemes of self-interest.

I. The argument of the parable.

1. That those who grant mercy abroad should first begin at home. The first reason which the woman urges why David should forgive his son is the willingness with which he would have forgiven hers. A king who is merciful to his subjects is inconsistent with himself if he is not forgiving towards the members of his own family.

2. That enmity ought to die before those who are at enmity die. “For we must

33

needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again” (2Sa_14:14). If Absalom were to die before a reconciliation had taken place, the father’s heart would be deeply grieved; and if he himself were to die before his son’s return to favour he would go down to his grave mourning the estrangement.

3. The Divine Father’s example in relation to His “banished ones.”

II. Its immediate and remote results. The immediate result was the recall of Absalom without outward reconciliation. “Let him turn to his own house, and let him not see my face” (2Sa_14:24). Evils arose from this half-measure. Joab was disappointed, and Absalom was irritated.

Lessons:

1. That the most worthless characters sometimes have the best pleaders. We find this the case occasionally in our law courts. Men with no character, but lacking nothing else, with money and influence in abundance, can have the benefit of the most skilful barristers to bring them out of the grip of the law.

2. That imaginary narratives of human life have most influence when they find a counterpart in our own experience. The power of a story may he very great even when it contains nothing in it that has any likeness to anything that has happened to ourselves.

3. That those who are conscious of having committed great sins are not fit to deal with other offenders. The sin of David included the crimes of both his sons, and the consciousness of this made him weak in purpose, and unsteady in his dealings with them.

4. To restore to favour unconditionally is a sin against the person forgiven. (A London Minister.)

6 I your servant had two sons. They got into a fight with each other in the field, and no one was there to separate them. One struck the other and killed him.

GILL, "And thy handmaid had two sons,.... Two are observed, that her case might suit with Amnon and Absalom:

and they two strove together in the field; they quarrelled, and fought in the field, where there were no witnesses of what they did to each other; whereby she would suggest that Ammon was killed in the field, of which there were no witnesses, and therefore Absalom ought not to die; whereas it was in Absalom's house, at his table, and where the rest of the king's sons were present, and witnesses of it:

and there was none to part them; which, had there been, might have prevented the sad disaster; this, as Abarbinel thinks, is pointed at David, who when Amnon

34

forced Tamar, did not correct him for it, nor seek to make peace between the brethren, and hence followed what had happened:

but the one smote the other, and slew him; as say the accusers of him that is living; for the fable supposes there was none with them; however, she suggests, as the above writer observes, that one gave the first blow, and so was the aggressor; and that he that was smitten rose up in his own defence, and in his passion slew him that smote him; which is observed to lessen the crime, and to intimate that Amnon was the aggressor, who first began the sin and quarrel, in ravishing Tamar, and so reproaching Absalom; and therefore his blood was upon his own head.

7 Now the whole clan has risen up against your servant; they say, 'Hand over the one who struck his brother down, so that we may put him to death for the life of his brother whom he killed; then we will get rid of the heir as well.' They would put out the only burning coal I have left, leaving my husband neither name nor descendant on the face of the earth."

BARNES, "The whole family ... - This indicates that all the king’s sons, and the whole court, were against Absalom, and that the knowledge of this was what hindered David from yielding to his affection and recalling him.

CLARKE, "The whole family is risen - They took on them the part of the avenger of blood; the nearest akin to the murdered person having a right to slay the murderer.

They shall quench my coal which is left - A man and his descendants or successors are often termed in Scripture a lamp or light. So, 2Sa_21:17, the men of David said, when they sware that he should no more go out with them to battle, That thou Quench not the Light of Israel. See also Psa_132:17. And to raise up a lamp to a person signifies his having a posterity to continue his name and family upon the earth: thus, quench my coal that is left means destroying all hope of posterity, and extinguishing the family from among the people. The heathens made use of the same

similitude. The few persons who survived the deluge of Deucalion are termed ζωπυραliving coals, because by them the vital flame of the human race was to be rekindled on the earth.

35

GILL, "And, behold, the whole family is risen against thine handmaid,.... Who had sheltered her son, that slew his brother, from the avenger of blood; and not only the next akin, the avenger of blood, but even all the kindred and relations of the deceased, those of her husband's family rose up as one man, demanding justice:

and they said, deliver him that smote his brother, that we may kill him for the life of his brother whom he slew; pretending great regard to the deceased, and a zeal for justice, when the main thing aimed at was to get the inheritance into their own hands, as appears by what follows:

and we will destroy the heir also; and hereby she would insinuate to the king, that the reason why the rest of the king's sons spake against Absalom to him, and stirred him up to punish him with death, was because he was heir to the crown, and they thought by removing him to make way for themselves:

and so they shall quench my coal that is left; she had but one son, as she represents her case, who was like a coal left among ashes, in the ruins of her family; the only one to support her, keep alive her family, and bear up and continue her husband's name; and, as the Targum,"they seek to kill the only one that is left;''

and so the family be extinct:

and shall not leave to my husband neither name nor remainder upon the earth; should he be delivered up to them and slain; but herein the fable or apologue differed greatly from the case it was intended to represent; for had Absalom been put to death, as the law required, David had sons enough to inherit his throne, and keep up his name.

PULPIT, "The whole family. This does not mean the kinsfolk, in whom such a disregard of the mother's feelings would have been cruel, but one of the great divisions of the tribe. In 2 Samuel 14:15 she rightly calls them "the people." We have thus a glimpse of the ordinary method of administering the criminal law, and find that each portion of a tribe exercised justice within its own district, being summoned to a general convention by its hereditary chief; and in this case the widow represents it as determined to punish the crime of fratricide with inflexible severity, and we may assume that such was the usual practice. The mother sets before David the other side of the matter—her own loneliness, the wiping out of the father's house, the utter ruin of her home if the last live coal on her hearth be extinguished. And in this way she moves his generous sympathies even to the point of overriding the legal rights of the mishpachah. In modern communities there is always some formal power of softening or entirely remitting penalties required by the letter of the law, and of taking into consideration matters of equity and even of feeling, Which the judge must put aside; and in monarchies this is always the high prerogative of the crown. And we will destroy the heir also. The Syriac has the third person, "And they will destroy even the heir, and quench my coal that is left." This is more natural, but there is greater pungency in the widow putting into the mouth of the heads of the clan, not words which they had actually spoken, but words which showed what would be the real effect of their determination. There is great force and beauty also in the

36

description of her son as the last live coal left to keep the family hearth burning. In another but allied sense David is called "the lamp of Israel".

BENSON, "2 Samuel 14:7. Deliver him, that we may kill him — Put him to death, as the law requires, Numbers 35:18-19. We will destroy the heir also — Take away his life, although he be the heir, or the only one remaining of the family. And so they shall quench my coal which is left — Deprive me of the little comfort of my life which remains, and ruin the only hope of my family. Shall leave to my husband neither name nor remainder — Shall utterly extinguish my husband’s memory. The reader will easily observe that there is a great difference between the supposed case of this widow and that of David, however plausible their likeness may appear. For her son, she pretended, was slain in a scuffle with his brother, and his death, therefore, was not a premeditated murder, as was the death of Amnon. It also happened in the field, where there were no witnesses, whether he was killed wilfully: whereas all the king’s sons saw Amnon designedly and barbarously murdered. And in the last particular the difference is as great as in either of the others. For David’s family was not in danger of being extinguished, if Absalom had been lost also; David having many children, and also many wives by whom he might have more.

COKE, "2 Samuel 14:7. So they shall quench my coal which is left— The expression is singularly beautiful and expressive. Heathen authors seem to have borrowed it from hence. Plato and Lucian call the few men who survived the deluge ζωπυρα, live coals, who were to re-kindle the vital flame, and continue the human race: and in Scripture a man and his successors are often called a lamp or light: see chap. 2 Samuel 21:17. Psalms 132:17 and Calmet and Le Clerc.

LANGE, "2 Samuel 14:7. The demand for the survivor. “And we will destroy the heir also.” Instead of this, Michaelis, Dathe and Thenius propose to read (after Syr. and Arab.): “and they will destroy,” etc.[FN20] But these authorities [the versions] are not sufficient to warrant this emendation. Thenius urges that if the woman had put these words also into the mouth of the kinsmen, she would have represented them as diabolically wicked; but it does not follow that it is really so bad, simply because she expresses her opinion of what they wish to do. These words [“we will destroy the heir”] are added to the preceding “we will kill him” (to indicate the purpose of the kinsmen) by reason of the second thought that characterizes the blood-revenge—namely, that, while they kill him for blood-vengeance, they wish at the same time to destroy the surviving heir. The woman’s purpose is not only to bring out the design of the kinsmen in their blood-avenging as harshly as possible, but also, with reference to David’s hostile feeling to Absalom, to emphasize the point that the latter is the heir to David’s throne, and to save him as such from his father’s anger. [Wellhausen: “The woman does not really intend to represent the unavoidable result [killing the heir] as the purpose [of the kinsmen], but is carried on by the connection of the discourse; not till she has uttered the word does she correct herself.” Yet the third person seems more natural here, especially as the whole thing is feigned, and the woman had carefully prepared her words beforehand.—Tr.] So that

37

they quench.—The power of the discourse lies in the fact that they are represented as already doing what their words show to be their purpose. “My coal,” the burning coal (ζώπυρου) with which fire is kindled. “In order not to set (permit, grant) to my husband name and remainder (posterity).”[FN21] [The law in the case is given in Numbers 35:18-19. Blood-revenge was no doubt an ancient pre-Mosaic custom. The whole family was against the fratricide. “This indicates that all the king’s sons and the whole court were against Absalom, and that the knowledge of this was what hindered David from yielding to his affection and recalling him” (Bib. Comm.).—Tr.]

8 The king said to the woman, "Go home, and I will issue an order in your behalf."

BARNES, "I will give charge ... - Indirectly granting her petition, and assenting that her son’s life should be spared.

CLARKE, "I will give charge concerning thee - This would not do, it was too distant; and she could not by it bring her business to a conclusion: so she proceeds: -

GILL, "And the king said to the woman, go to thine house,.... Go home and make thyself easy:

and I will give charge concerning thee; intimating that he would inquire into her case; and if it was as she had represented it, he would give orders that she should not be disturbed, or be obliged to deliver up her son, and that he should be safe from those that sought his life.

HENRY 8-11, " The king promised her his favour and a protection for her son. Observe how she improved the king's compassionate concessions. (1.) Upon the representation of her case he promised to consider of it and to give orders about it, 2Sa_14:8. This was encouraging, that he did not dismiss her petition with “Currat lex - Let the law take its course; blood calls for blood, and let it have what it calls for:” but he will take time to enquire whether the allegations of her petition be true. (2.) The woman was not content with this, but begged that he would immediately give judgment in her favour; and if the matter of fact were not as she represented it, and consequently a wrong judgment given upon it, let her bear the blame, and free the king and his throne from guilt, 2Sa_14:9. Yet her saying this would not acquit the king if he should pass sentence without taking due cognizance of the case. (3.) Being thus pressed, he made a further promise that she should not be injured nor insulted by her adversaries, but he would protect her from all molestation, 2Sa_14:10. Magistrates ought to be the patrons of oppressed widows. (4.) Yet this does

38

not content her, unless she can get her son's pardon, and protection for him too. Parents are not easy, unless their children be safe, safe for both worlds: “Let not the avenger of blood destroy my son (2Sa_14:11), for I am undone if I lose him; as good take my life as his. Therefore let the king remember the Lord thy God,” that is, [1.] “Let him confirm this merciful sentence with an oath, making mention of the Lord our God, by way of appeal to him, that the sentence may be indisputable and irreversible; and then I shall be easy.” See Heb_6:17, Heb_6:18. [2.] “Let him consider what good reason there is for this merciful sentence, and then he himself will be confirmed in it. Remember how gracious and merciful the Lord thy God is, how he bears long with sinners and does not deal with them according to their deserts, but is ready to forgive. Remember how the Lord thy God spared Cain, who slew his brother, and protected him from the avengers of blood, Gen_4:15. Remember how the Lord thy God forgave thee the blood of Uriah, and let the king, that has found mercy, show mercy.” Note, Nothing is more proper, nor more powerful, to engage us to every duty, especially to all acts of mercy and kindness, than to remember the Lord our God. (5.) This importunate widow, by pressing the matter thus closely, obtains at last a full pardon for her son, ratified with an oath as she desired: As the Lord liveth, there shall not one hair of thy son fall to the earth,that is, “I will undertake he shall come to no damage upon this account.” The Son of David has assured all that put themselves under his protection that, though they should be put to death for his sake, not a hair of their head shall perish (Luk_21:16-18), though they should lose for him, they shall not lose by him. Whether David did well this to undertake the protection of a murderer, whom the cities of refuge would not protect, I cannot say. But, as the matter of fact appeared to him, there was not only great reason for compassion to the mother, but room enough for a favourable judgment concerning the son: he had slain his brother, but he hated him not in time past; it was upon a sudden provocation, and, for aught that appeared, it might be done in his own defence. He pleaded not this himself, but the judge must be of counsel for the prisoner; and therefore, Let mercy at this time rejoice against judgment.

K&D, "2Sa_14:8-10

The plan succeeded. The king replied to the woman, “Go home, I will give charge concerning thee,” i.e., I will give the necessary commands that thy son may not be slain by the avenger of blood. This declaration on the part of the king was perfectly just. If the brothers had quarrelled, and one had killed the other in the heat of the quarrel, it was right that he should be defended from the avenger of blood, because it could not be assumed that there was any previous intention to murder. This declaration therefore could not be applied as yet to David's conduct towards Absalom. But the woman consequently proceeded to say (2Sa_14:9), “My lord, O king, let the guilt be upon me and upon my father's house, and let the king and his

throne be guiltless.” א,�, the throne, for the government or reign. The meaning of the

words is this: but if there should be anything wrong in the fact that this bloodshed is not punished, let the guilt fall upon me and my family. The king replied (2Sa_14:10), “Whosoever speaketh to thee, bring him to me; he shall not touch thee any more.”

אליך! does not stand for !עליך, “against thee;” but the meaning is, whoever speaks to

thee any more about this, i.e., demands thy son of thee again.

BENSON, "2 Samuel 14:8. The king said, Go to thy house, &c. — Notwithstanding the forementioned dissimilarity, the case was too like his own to

39

suffer David to be unmoved; he soon felt her distress, and told her she might return to her house, and leave the care of her business to him; he would give proper directions about it. But not having yet obtained what she wanted, in seeming solicitude for her son, she added, O king, the iniquity be on me, and the king and his throne be guiltless — She means, either, 1st, If she had pressed the king to any thing in itself unjust, or in any way had misinformed him, or misrepresented the state of the case, she wished all the guilt of that iniquity, or misrepresentation, might fall upon her own head, and upon her family. Or, 2d, If, through the king’s forgetfulness, or neglect of her just cause, her adversaries should prevail and destroy her son, her desire was, that God would not lay it to the king’s charge, but rather to her and hers, so that the king might be exempted thereby. By her words, thus taken, she insinuates that such an omission would bring guilt upon him; and yet most decently so expresses herself as not to seem to blame or threaten him with any punishment from God on that account. This sense seems best to agree with David’s answer, which shows that she desired some further assurances of the king’s care.

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:8

‘And the king said to the woman, “Go to your house, and I will give charge concerning you.”

The wise woman’s words had won David over to her side (as Joab had known they would) and so he informed her to be afraid no longer. He assured her that he himself would issue a royal decree that the son should not be harmed. The son would then be under royal protection and to harm him would then be a direct affront to the king. (It would be the equivalent of being in a City of Refuge). This decision was, in fact, to go against established precedent and the laws of the land, but possibly David had Cain in mind in making his decision, which was a case where YHWH Himself had set aside the recognised principle of blood vengeance (the setting aside of which was of course the point to be made later).

9 But the woman from Tekoa said to him, "My lord the king, let the blame rest on me and on my father's family, and let the king and his throne be without guilt."

BARNES, "2Sa_14:8-10

The plan succeeded. The king replied to the woman, “Go home, I will give charge

40

concerning thee,” i.e., I will give the necessary commands that thy son may not be slain by the avenger of blood. This declaration on the part of the king was perfectly just. If the brothers had quarrelled, and one had killed the other in the heat of the quarrel, it was right that he should be defended from the avenger of blood, because it could not be assumed that there was any previous intention to murder. This declaration therefore could not be applied as yet to David's conduct towards Absalom. But the woman consequently proceeded to say (2Sa_14:9), “My lord, O king, let the guilt be upon me and upon my father's house, and let the king and his

throne be guiltless.” א,�, the throne, for the government or reign. The meaning of the

words is this: but if there should be anything wrong in the fact that this bloodshed is not punished, let the guilt fall upon me and my family. The king replied (2Sa_14:10), “Whosoever speaketh to thee, bring him to me; he shall not touch thee any more.”

אליך! does not stand for !עליך, “against thee;” but the meaning is, whoever speaks to

thee any more about this, i.e., demands thy son of thee again.

CLARKE, "The iniquity be on me - She intimates that, if the king should suppose that the not bringing the offender to the assigned punishment might reflect on the administration of justice in the land, she was willing that all blame should attach to her and her family, and the king and his throne be guiltless.

GILL, "And the woman of Tekoah said unto the king, my lord and king,.... With much vehemence, and yet with great respect, fearing an inquisition into her case; which it would not bear, being a fable, and being very desirous of having sentence on it immediately pronounced:

the iniquity be on me and on my father's house; let the crime be imputed to me and my family, and punishment inflicted on us for it, if I have misrepresented the case, told lies, and deceived the king:

and the king and his throne be guiltless; let neither he nor his kingdom be charged with any sin, or suffer any damage on that account: or else the sense is, supposing that the king through much business should forget and neglect this affair; and her son should be put to death, through the violence and rage of the family; then she wishes that the fault and punishment of such neglect might not fall upon the king and his kingdom, but upon her and her family: in this form she put it, for the honour of the king, and because she would not be thought to wish ill to him and his kingdom; yet tacitly suggests, that should this be the case, he and his kingdom must expect to answer and suffer for it.

HENRY, "The woman was not content with this, but begged that he would immediately give judgment in her favour; and if the matter of fact were not as she represented it, and consequently a wrong judgment given upon it, let her bear the blame, and free the king and his throne from guilt, 2Sa_14:9. Yet her saying this would not acquit the king if he should pass sentence without taking due cognizance of the case.

PULPIT, "The iniquity be on me. The king had given a general promise to help the widow, but she wants to lead him on to a definite assurance that her son shall

41

be pardoned. Less than this would not help Absalom's case. Instead, therefore, of withdrawing, she represents herself as dissatisfied, and pleads for full forgiveness; and as this would be a violation of the letter of the Levitical Law, in order to remove David's supposed scruples, she takes upon herself the penalty.

COFFMAN, ""On me be the guilt" (2 Samuel 14:9). This request of the woman recognized the guilt that rested upon any person avoiding the just punishment of murderers, but here, she stated her willingness to assume that guilt upon herself in order that it might not rest upon David and upon his throne. "The woman was here pleading for full forgiveness for the living son who had murdered his brother, which, of course, would be a violation of Levitical law. Anything less than full forgiveness would not help her plea for Absalom."[6]

COKE, "2 Samuel 14:9-11. My lord, O king, the iniquity be on me, &c.— The king having told the woman that she might return to her house, and leave the care of her business to him, she adds, with great address, that if she had pressed his majesty to any thing in itself unjust, or any way misinformed him, or misrepresented the state of the case, she wished all the iniquity of that guilt, or misrepresentation, might fall upon her own head, and upon her family: My lord, O king, &c. The king then bade her, 2 Samuel 14:10 if any molested her further, to bring them before him, and he would take care to stop any further proceedings against her. She then begged, 2 Samuel 14:11 that, in making that promise to stay the avenger of blood from causing any further destruction in her family, he would remember the Lord his God; i.e. remember that he made that promise in the presence of God; drawing him thus distantly and insensibly into the obligation of an oath; and her address had its effect: as the Lord liveth, said he, there shall not one hair of thy son fall to the earth. Houbigant thinks that the woman in the ninth verse insinuates, that she is less concerned for her own son and her family, than for the son and the family of the king.

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:9

‘And the woman of Tekoa said to the king, “My lord, O king, the iniquity be on me, and on my father’s house, and the king and his throne be guiltless.” ’

The woman then nobly took on herself and her son all the guilt that might accrue from the decision, thereby acknowledging that she recognised that an ancient and sacred right was being set aside for her sake. This would impress the king with her clear intention of goodwill towards him, even if it was beyond her power to grant it. It would also remind the listener how serious the request was that she was making.

It is indicative of the authority that David felt that he now had, and even to some extent of his new royal arrogance, that he felt able to so override a longstanding principle of justice in such a case. It is apparent from this that he was becoming more and more despotic.

42

10 The king replied, "If anyone says anything to you, bring him to me, and he will not bother you again."

CLARKE, "Whosoever saith aught unto thee - Neither did this bring the matter to such a bearing that she could come to her conclusion, which was, to get the king pledged by a solemn promise that all proceedings relative to the case should be stopped.

GILL, "And the king said, whoever saith ought unto thee,.... Demanding her to deliver up her son to justice, and reproaching her for not doing it:

bring him to me; give him in charge to a proper officer to be brought before me, and I shall chastise him for it:

and he shall not touch thee any more; give her any further trouble, by words or deeds.

HENRY, "Being thus pressed, he made a further promise that she should not be injured nor insulted by her adversaries, but he would protect her from all molestation, 2Sa_14:10. Magistrates ought to be the patrons of oppressed widows.

11 She said, "Then let the king invoke the LORD his God to prevent the avenger of blood from adding to the destruction, so that my son will not be destroyed." "As surely as the LORD lives," he said, "not one hair of your son's head will fall to the ground."

CLARKE, "Let the king remember the Lord thy God - Consider that when

43

God is earnestly requested to show mercy, he does it in the promptest manner; he does not wait till the case is hopeless: the danger to which my son is exposed is imminent; if the king do not decide the business instantly, it may be too late.

And he said, As the Lord liveth - Thus he binds himself by a most solemn promise and oath; and this is what the woman wanted to extort.

GILL, "Then said she, I pray thee, let the king remember the Lord thy God,.... Who is a God gracious and merciful, and imitate him in showing mercy to the distressed; pitying their case, having compassion upon them, and relieving them, as she hoped he would commiserate her case, and provide for the safety of her son. Some think she desires not only to give his word, but his oath, for her son's safety: "remember the Lord thy God"; i.e. make mention of him, as men do when they swear by him; swear to me by the Lord thy God:

that thou wouldest not suffer the revengers of blood to destroy any more, lest they destroy my son, or, "from multiplying the avenger of blood" (o); that there might not rise one after another to destroy her son: her meaning is, that the king would swear to her, and give out a general prohibition, an universal edict, that no one should slay her son; otherwise if only the avenger of blood that was next of kin was forbidden, others would rise up one after another, so that he would never be in safety:

and he said, as the Lord liveth; if she desired an oath, he granted her request, and swore by the living God:

there shall not one hair of thy son fall to the earth; so far shall his life be from being touched, or taken away, that the least hurt shall not be done him, as this proverbial expression signifies.

HENRY, "Yet this does not content her, unless she can get her son's pardon, and protection for him too. Parents are not easy, unless their children be safe, safe for both worlds: “Let not the avenger of blood destroy my son (2Sa_14:11), for I am undone if I lose him; as good take my life as his. Therefore let the king remember the Lord thy God,” that is, [1.] “Let him confirm this merciful sentence with an oath, making mention of the Lord our God, by way of appeal to him, that the sentence may be indisputable and irreversible; and then I shall be easy.” See Heb_6:17, Heb_6:18. [2.] “Let him consider what good reason there is for this merciful sentence, and then he himself will be confirmed in it. Remember how gracious and merciful the Lord thy God is, how he bears long with sinners and does not deal with them according to their deserts, but is ready to forgive. Remember how the Lord thy God spared Cain, who slew his brother, and protected him from the avengers of blood, Gen_4:15. Remember how the Lord thy God forgave thee the blood of Uriah, and let the king, that has found mercy, show mercy.” Note, Nothing is more proper, nor more powerful, to engage us to every duty, especially to all acts of mercy and kindness, than to remember the Lord our God. (5.) This importunate widow, by pressing the matter thus closely, obtains at last a full pardon for her son, ratified with an oath as she desired: As the Lord liveth, there shall not one hair of thy son fall to the earth,that is, “I will undertake he shall come to no damage upon this account.” The Son of David has assured all that put themselves under his protection that, though they should be put to death for his sake, not a hair of their head shall perish (Luk_

44

21:16-18), though they should lose for him, they shall not lose by him. Whether David did well this to undertake the protection of a murderer, whom the cities of refuge would not protect, I cannot say. But, as the matter of fact appeared to him, there was not only great reason for compassion to the mother, but room enough for a favourable judgment concerning the son: he had slain his brother, but he hated him not in time past; it was upon a sudden provocation, and, for aught that appeared, it might be done in his own defence. He pleaded not this himself, but the judge must be of counsel for the prisoner; and therefore, Let mercy at this time rejoice against judgment.

K&D, "2Sa_14:11

The crafty woman was not yet satisfied with this, and sought by repeating her petition to induce the king to confirm his promise on oath, that she might bind him the more firmly. She therefore said still further: “I pray thee, let the king remember Jehovah thy God, that the avenger of blood may no more prepare destruction, and

that they may not destroy my son.” The Chethib הרית is probably a copyist's error

for הרבות, for which the Masoretes would write תהר, the construct state of ההר, - a

form of the inf. abs. which is not commonly used, and which may possibly have been

chosen because ההר had become altogether an adverb (vid., Ewald, §240, e.). The

context requires the inf. constr. הרבות: that the avenger of blood may not multiply

(make much) to destroy, i.e., may not add to the destruction; and יתהר is probably

only a verbal noun used instead of the infinitive. The king immediately promised on oath that her son should not suffer the least harm.

PULPIT, "I pray thee, let the king remember, etc. Thenius says that the woman plays well the part of a talkative gossip, but really she was using the skill for which Joab employed her in bringing the king to give her son a free pardon. Nothing short of this would serve Absalom, who already was so far forgiven as to be in no fear of actual punishment. It is remarkable that David does not hesitate finally to grant this without making further inquiry, though he must have known that a mother's pleas were not likely to be very impartial. Moreover, while in 2 Samuel 14:9 she had acknowledged that there might be a breach of the law in pardoning a murderer, she now appeals to the mercy of Jehovah, who had himself provided limits to the anger of the avenger of blood (see Numbers 35:1-34.). He had thus shown himself to be a God of equity, in whom mercy triumphed over the rigid enactments of law. The words which follow more exactly mean, "That the avenger of blood do not multiply destruction, and that they destroy not my son." Moved by this entreaty, the king grants her son full pardon, under the solemn guaranty of an oath.

COFFMAN, ""Pray let the king invoke the Lord your God" (2 Samuel 14:11). "The woman was not satisfied with David's mere promise, she requested that he reinforce it with an oath, which he did."[7] "The reason for the woman's demanding made up, before her application of the story to the case of Absalom."[8]

"That the avenger of blood slay no more" (2 Samuel 14:11). "The avenger of

45

blood was the nearest of kin to the murdered man; and his duties are outlined in Numbers 35 and Deuteronomy 19."[9] The forgiveness of such a murderer was a violation of God's commandment, a fact which the woman frankly admitted here in volunteering to accept the guilt upon herself.

BENSON, "2 Samuel 14:11. Let the king remember the Lord thy God — In whose presence thou hast made me this promise, to stay the avenger of blood from causing any further destruction in my family. She intended to draw him thus distantly and insensibly into the obligation of an oath: and her address had the desired effect; for the king, to convince her of the integrity of his intentions, immediately answered, As the Lord liveth, there shall not one hair of thy son fall to the ground.

LANGE, "2 Samuel 14:11. Third stage of the woman’s address. She wishes to bring the king to swear before God, and that not in the “character of a talkative woman” (Thenius), but rather to gain her end as surely as possible, and to bind the king by his own words to reconciliation with Absalom. “That the avenger of blood (cause) no more destruction” (De Wette); literally: “let the king remember the Lord thy God from the avenger’s increasing[FN22] to destroy;” that Isaiah, “so that the avenger shall not more destroy”—the phrase “let him interpose” being understood (Thenius). The woman brings the king to the point of assuring her son’s safety by an oath. [Patrick: “Others think she only prays him to remember how merciful and gracious God Isaiah, and had been to himself, even in pardoning the murder of Uriah”—not so well.—Tr.]

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:11

‘Then she said, “I pray you, let the king remember YHWH your God, that the avenger of blood destroy not any more, lest they destroy my son.” And he said, “As YHWH lives, there shall not one hair of your son fall to the earth.” ’

Following up on this the woman now drew attention to and emphasised the main point, and that was that David was setting aside the right of blood vengeance. And apparently wanting him to realise what a serious thing that was to her, she called on David to recognise that he had made his promise in the presence of YHWH his God. Let him remember this in any action he took in the future.

Aware that the woman still appeared to be in need of assurance, David gave her what she sought, his solemn oath before YHWH that not one hair of her son’s head would fall to the earth (there is no doubt a poignancy in this phrase in the writer’s mind in that Absalom’s death would later be caused by his hair, which was one of his main features).

46

12 Then the woman said, "Let your servant speak a word to my lord the king." "Speak," he replied.

BARNES, "Having at last obtained what she wanted, the king’s oath that her son should not die, she proceeds to the case of Absalom. The meaning of 2Sa_14:13 may be paraphrased thus: “If you have done right as regards my son, how is it that you harbor such a purpose of vengeance against Absalom as to keep him, one of God’s people, an outcast in a pagan country, far from the worship of the God of Israel? Upon your own showing you are guilty of a great fault in not allowing Absalom to return.”

The king doth speak ... - literally, “And from the king speaking this word (this sentence of absolution to my son) he is as one guilty; i. e. the sentence you have pronounced in favor of my son condemns your own conduct toward Absalom.”

GILL, "Then the woman said, let thine handmaid, I pray thee, speak oneword unto my Lord the king,.... Having gained her point, and gotten a decree from him confirmed by an oath, that her son though he had killed his brother should not die; she proceeds to accommodate the parable, and apply it to the case of Absalom, and improve it in his favour:

and he said, say on; gave her leave to say what she had further to observe to him; see Luk_7:40.

HENRY, "The case being thus adjudged in favour of her son, it is now time to apply it to the king's son, Absalom. The mask here begins to be thrown off, and another scene opened. The king is surprised, but not at all displeased, to find his humble petitioner, of a sudden, become his reprover, his privy-counsellor, an advocate for the prince his son, and the mouth of the people, undertaking to represent to him their sentiments. She begs his pardon, and his patience, for what she had further to say (2Sa_14:12), and has leave to say it, the king being very well pleased with her wit and humour.

K&D, "2Sa_14:12-14

When the woman had accomplished so much, she asked permission to speak one word more; and having obtained it, proceeded to the point she wanted to reach: “And wherefore thinkest thou such things against people of God? And because the king speaketh this word, he is as one inculpating himself, since the king does not let his

own rejected one return.” שם.�, “like one who has laden himself with guilt,” is the

predicate to the clause וגו These words of the woman were intentionally kept .ומ0ר

indefinite, rather hinting at what she wished to place before the king, than expressing it distinctly. This is more particularly applicable to the first clause, which needs the

words that follow to render it intelligible, as �זאת חשב�ה is ambiguous; so that Dathe

and Thenius are wrong in rendering it, “Why dost thou propose such things towards the people of God?” and understanding it as relating to the protection which the king

47

was willing to extend to her and to her son. חשב with על does not mean to think or

reflect “with regard to,” but “against” a person. Ewald is quite correct in referring the

word �זאת to what follows: such things, i.e., such thoughts as thou hast towards thy

son, whose blood-guiltiness thou wilt not forgive. אלהים without the article, is ,על־ם

intentionally indefinite, “against people of God,” i.e., against members of the congregation of God. “This word” refers to the decision which the king had

pronounced in favour of the widow. השיב .literally, in not letting him return ,לבל�י

In order to persuade the king to forgive, the crafty woman reminded him (2Sa_14:14) of the brevity of human life and of the mercy of God: “For we must die, and (are) as water spilt upon the ground, which is not (cannot be) gathered up, and God does not take a soul away, but thinks thoughts, that He may not thrust from Him one expelled.” Although these thoughts are intentionally expressed quite generally, their special allusion to the case in hand can easily be detected. We must all die, and when dead our life is irrevocably gone. Thou mightest soon experience this in the case of Absalom, if thou shouldst suffer him to continue in exile. God does not act thus; He does not deprive the sinner of life, but is merciful, and does not cast off for ever.

COFFMAN, ""Let your handmaid speak a word to my lord the king" (2 Samuel 14:12). David at this point had already decided the woman's case and confirmed his decision with an oath; and it was therefore incumbent upon her to get the king's permission to continue speaking to him. "Only at this point did she have David in just the right position to spring on him the personal application of her fictitious story."[10]

BENSON, "2 Samuel 14:12-13. Then the woman said — Having gained this point, she begs leave to say one word more, which being granted, she immediately proceeds to expostulate with the king upon his own conduct, and unkindness to the people of God, in not pardoning his own son, and bringing him back from exile. Wherefore then — If thou wouldest not permit the avengers of blood to molest me, or to destroy my son, who are but two persons; how unreasonable is it that thou shouldest proceed in thy endeavours to avenge Amnon’s blood upon Absalom, whose death would be grievous to the whole commonwealth of Israel, all whose eyes are upon him as the heir of the crown, and a wise, and valiant, and amiable person, unhappy only in this one act of killing Amnon, which was done upon a high provocation, and whereof thou thyself didst give the occasion by permitting Amnon to go unpunished? The king doth speak as one that is faulty — By thy word, and promise, and oath, given to me for my son, thou condemnest thyself for not allowing the same equity toward thy own son. It is true, Absalom’s case, as we have observed, was widely different from that which she had supposed. But David was too well affected to him to remark that difference, and was more desirous than she could be to apply that favourable judgment to his own son which he had given concerning hers.

COKE, "2 Samuel 14:12-17. Then the woman said, &c.— The woman, having so

48

far gained her point, begged leave to say one word further; and, having obtained permission, immediately proceeded, 2 Samuel 14:13 to expostulate with the king upon his own conduct, and his unkindness to the people of GOD, in not pardoning his own son, and bringing him back from exile. His mercy to her son made him self-condemned in relation to his own. She then added a very natural and seasonable reflection, 2 Samuel 14:14 that death was the common lot of all men, some by one means, some by another; that in that state we are like water spilled upon the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; that God, if he pleased, could strike the offender dead; but inasmuch as he did not, it was because he would leave room for mercy; that he had devised means in his own law to arrest the avenger of blood, and in his appointed time to recall the man-slayer from his exile in the city of refuge: Numbers 35:25. But here, apprehending that she might have gone too far, and made too free with majesty, in expostulating so plainly upon a point of such importance, she excused this presumption, 2 Samuel 14:15 from the force put upon her by her people, who had so severely threatened her, that in this extremity she plainly saw she had no resource or hope of relief, but in laying her son's case before the king; which she, 2 Samuel 14:16-17 confiding in his majesty's mercy, and assuring herself that he would hear her with his wonted clemency, at length adventured to do; hoping that it might be a means of saving both herself and her son from being destroyed out of the inheritance of God, insinuating that her own life was wrapped up in his. We may here observe, that the single design and address of this device are sufficient proofs, if there were no other, to evince the Jewish people to have been neither unpolite nor uninformed. The clause in the 13th verse, for the king doth speak this thing, &c. is thus rendered by Houbigant, for the king's purpose not to recall his exile is a kind of fault. The words in the 14th verse, neither doth God respect any person, may be rendered according to the ancient versions, but the Lord doth not take away the life.

HAWKER, "Verses 12-17

(12) Then the woman said, Let thine handmaid, I pray thee, speak one word unto my lord the king. And he said, Say on. (13) And the woman said, Wherefore then hast thou thought such a thing against the people of God? for the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished. (14) For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect any person: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him. (15) Now therefore that I am come to speak of this thing unto my lord the king, it is because the people have made me afraid: and thy handmaid said, I will now speak unto the king; it may be that the king will perform the request of his handmaid. (16) For the king will hear, to deliver his handmaid out of the hand of the man that would destroy me and my son together out of the inheritance of God. (17) Then thine handmaid said, The word of my lord the king shall now be comfortable: for as an angel of God, so is my lord the king to discern good and bad: therefore the LORD thy God will be with thee.

The wise woman of Tekoah having obtained her end, as suited to her own case as

49

it appeared to the king's view, now goes on to make application of it, as it suited the king's in the case of Absalom. And she touches upon that string which might vibrate most on the affectionate feelings of David; namely, that Absalom was not only banished, but, says she, it is thy son, thy banished one, Absalom. I think it hardly necessary to remark, what I should conceive, unobserved by me, the pious Reader would himself instantly suggest; that if David's heart felt for his banished son, what must be the heart of our God towards his poor banished ones, who by sin have committed murder on their own souls, and, but for his clemency in calling them home, must continue banished forever. O Israel (saith God) thou hast destroyed thyself, but in me is thine help. Hebrews 13:9.

13 The woman said, "Why then have you devised a thing like this against the people of God? When the king says this, does he not convict himself, for the king has not brought back his banished son?

CLARKE, "Wherefore then hast thou thought such a thing - The woman, having now got the king’s promise confirmed by all oath, that her son should not suffer for the murder of his brother, comes immediately to her conclusion: Is not the king to blame? Does he now act a consistent part? He is willing to pardon the meanest of his subjects the murder of a brother at the instance of a poor widow, and he is not willing to pardon his son Absalom, whose restoration to favor is the desire of the whole nation. Is that clemency to be refused to the king’s son, the hope of the nation and heir to the throne, which is shown to a private individual, whose death or life can only be of consequence to one family? Why, therefore, dost thou not bring back thy banished child?

GILL, "Wherefore then hast thou thought such a thing against the people of God?.... That they would be so wicked as to slay my son, or that they are the people of God that would slay Absalom; people so cruel could not be reckoned such, as the king's sons; so Abarbinel; who gives it as the sense of Ephodaeus, that by the people of God are meant Absalom, and his men; or Absalom only, one man being sometimes called people, Exo_21:8; and she expostulates with the king how he could entertain such a thought, as to seek to take away his life, when he had so fully expressed himself in her case on behalf of her son, who had slain his brother; or rather the meaning is, why he should think of doing such a thing as this, so contrary to the will of the people of Israel, the people of God, who would be greatly offended and grieved at it; so contrary to their wishes, which were to see him fetched back from an Heathenish court and country, where he was in danger of being corrupted, and to be restored to his father's favour and to his country, that he might be upon the

50

spot at his death, to succeed in the throne and kingdom; for the provocation that Absalom had to kill Amnon had greatly lessened the evil in the esteem of the people:

for the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty: he contradicts and condemns himself, in swearing that her son who had killed his brother should not die, nor an hair of his head be hurt, but should be in the utmost safety; and yet he sought to put his own son to death for a like crime, as the next clause explains it:

in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished; meaning Absalom, who was in a foreign country, an exile, 2Sa_13:34, and in danger of falling into idolatry; not daring to come home, lest his father should order him to be put to death; and which he might justly fear he would, should he return without leave, since he sought not by any means to fetch him back.

HENRY, "She supposes Absalom's case to be, in effect, the same with that which she had put as her son's; and therefore, if the king would protect her son, though he had slain his brother, much more ought he to protect his own, and to fetch home his banished, 2Sa_14:13. Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur - Change but the name, to you the tale belongs. She names not Absalom, nor needed she to name him. David longed so much after him, and had him so much in his thoughts, that he was soon aware whom she meant by his banished. And in those two words were two arguments which the king's tender spirit felt the force of: “He is banished, and has for three years undergone the disgrace and terror, and all the inconveniences, of banishment. Sufficient to such a one is this punishment. But he is thy banished, thy own son, a piece of thyself, thy dear son, whom thou lovest.” It is true, Absalom's case differed very much from that which she had put. Absalom did not slay his brother upon a hasty passion, but maliciously, and upon an old grudge; not in the field, where there were no witnesses, but at table, before all his guests. Absalom was not an only son, as hers was; David had many more, and one lately born, more likely to be his successor than Absalom, for he was called Jedidiah, because God loved him. But David was himself too well affected to the cause to be critical in his remarks upon the disparity of the cases, and was more desirous than she could be to bring that favourable judgment to his own son which he had given concerning hers. (2.) She reasons upon it with the king, to persuade him to recall Absalom out of banishment, give him his pardon, and take him into his favour again. [1.] She pleads the interest which the people of Israel had in him. “What is done against him is done against the people of God, who have their eye upon him as heir of the crown, at least have their eye upon the house of David in general, with which the covenant is made, and which therefore they cannot tamely see the diminution and decay of by the fall of so many of its branches in the flower of their age. Therefore the king speaks as one that is faulty,for he will provide that my husband's name and memory be not cut off, and yet takes no care though his own be in danger, which is of more value and importance than ten thousand of ours.”

JAMISON, “Wherefore then hast thou thought such a thing against the people of God, etc. — Her argument may be made clear in the following paraphrase: - You have granted me the pardon of a son who had slain his brother, and yet you will not grant to your subjects the restoration of Absalom, whose criminality is not greater than my son’s, since he killed his brother in similar circumstances of provocation. Absalom has reason to complain that he is treated by his own father more sternly and severely than the meanest subject in the realm; and the whole nation will have cause for saying that the king shows more attention to the

51

petition of a humble woman than to the wishes and desires of a whole kingdom. The death of my son is a private loss to my family, while the preservation of Absalom is the common interest of all Israel, who now look to him as your successor on the throne.

PULPIT, "Against the people of God. Very skilfully, and so as for the meaning only gradually to unfold itself to the king, she represents the people of Israel as the widowed mother, who has lost one son; and David as the stern clan folk who will deprive her of a second though guilty child. But now he is bound by the solemn oath he has taken to her to remit the penalty; for literally the words are, and by the king's speaking this word he is as one guilty, unless he fetch home again his banished one. She claims to have spoken in the name of all Israel, and very probably she really did express their feelings, as Absalom was very popular, and the people saw in Tamar's wrong a sufficient reason for, and vindication of, his crime.

COFFMAN, ""Why then have you planned such a thing against the people of God" (2 Samuel 14:13)? Cook's paraphrase of this verse is: "If you have done right as regards my son, how is it that you harbor such a purpose of vengeance against Absalom as to keep him, one of God's people, an outcast in a heathen country, far from the worship of the God of Israel? Upon your own showing, you are guilty of a great fault in not allowing Absalom to return."[11]

ELLICOTT, "(13) Against the people of God.—This phrase, according to constant usage, can only mean Israel. The woman finds that the time has come when she must show the king that he stands condemned for his conduct towards Absalom by his own decision. She does this cautiously, and her language is therefore somewhat obscure; she rather hints at than plainly expresses what she wants to say. Her first point is that the king is in some way wronging the people, and then that he does this in opposition to the spirit of the decision he has just given, by leaving Absalom (whom she does not name) in banishment.

The king doth speak . . .—A more literal translation would be, from the king’s speaking this word he is as one guilty.

LANGE, "2 Samuel 14:13. “Why dost thou contrive (think, proceed) thus against the people of God?” The “thus” refers to the following words: “that the king does not bring back his banished.” She goes on as if she now advanced to a second object of her coming; in reality, however, she now comes to the principal matter, though sure of success from what the king (led on by her skilful talk) had granted her. “Now she is to make the application to the king’s own case, and this is hard, because she cannot speak openly and boldly like a prophet, but only slightly, and, as it were, in passing, yet must make the allusion to Absalom intelligible” (Ewald). The woman intimates that David’s hostility towards Absalom is directed “against the people of God,” since the people would suffer in the suffering of the heir, who would some time become their king. Having thus

52

softly represented his conduct as blameworthy from the point of view of the people (among whom there was certainly a party for Absalom, as appears from the following history), she proceeds to entrap him in his own words (spoken in reference, to her feigned case) for Absalom’s advantage. And by the king’s speaking[FN23] this word (that Isaiah, 2 Samuel 14:11, the oath that her son’s blood-guilt should not be avenged) he is as one in fault (against God’s people as against Absalom), in that the king brings not back his banished.—He must show his son the mildness he has shown hers. And, as for Absalom there was only the question of punishment for a homicide, not of release from the demand of the avenger, the woman, having gained grace for her Song of Solomon, might the more surely expect it for Absalom. She calls Absalom his banished because the latter, though he had banished himself by flight, had not since received permission to return. Dathe [“why resolvest thou thus in a cause pertaining to God’s people?”] and Thenius [“why thinkest thou thus in relation to God’s people?” (thy subjects)] refer the question to David’s protection of the woman and her Song of Solomon, while, according to his own words, he appears as blame-worthy towards Absalom; but the meaning of the Heb. (על = against) and the connection do not permit this. [Bishop Patrick remarks that the woman’s reasoning here was weak, her son’s case being very different from Absalom’s, but the king, inferring that the people were well disposed towards Absalom, concluded to overlook the differences, without saying any thing to her of the defects of her argument. Probably the king was glad of an excuse to recall Absalom. Though an absolute monarch, he had to attend to the wishes of the people, who liked the young prince, and would be offended if he were kept in banishment. It seems less likely that there is a reference in the words “people of God” to Absalom’s deprivation of religious privileges (Bib. Comm.), though the phrase is intended to include Absalom.—Tr.]

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:13

‘And the woman said, “Why then have you devised such a thing against the people of God? For in speaking this word the king is as one who is guilty, in that the king does not fetch home again his banished one.” ’

The woman then carefully put her new point as though it was a kind of aside, brought to her mind by what David has done for her ‘son’ (it was in order to make this new point appear as secondary that she shortly returned to speaking again about her own supposed case. She wanted to keep up the deception). She asked why, if he could make such a decision about setting aside blood vengeance in the case of a son of hers, he did not do the same in the case of his own banished son Absalom? Did he not realise that by being so obstinate he was actually harming the people of God who longed for Absalom’s presence once again among them? So while the king was not to be held guilty for what he has done for her ‘son’, he was definitely to be seen as ‘like one who is guilty’ for not fetching home his ‘banished one’. (Note how she carefully avoided actually describing him as guilty. He was merely ‘like one who is guilty’. He was after all the king).

53

14 Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die. But God does not take away life; instead, he devises ways so that a banished person may not remain estranged from him.

BARNES, "His banished - The use of the word as applied to one of the people of God driven into a pagan land, is well illustrated by Deu_30:4-5; Jer_40:12; Mic_4:6; Zep_3:19.

Neither doth God respect any person - Some prefer the margin: “And God does not take away life, in the case of every sin that deserves death, e. g. David’s own case 2Sa_12:13, but devises devices that the wanderer may not be forever expelled from him, i. e., for the return of penitent sinners.”

CLARKE, "For we must needs die - Whatever is done must be done quickly; all must die; God has not exempted any person from this common lot. Though Amnon be dead, yet the death of Absalom cannot bring him to life, nor repair this loss. Besides, for his crime, he justly deserved to die; and thou, in this case didst not administer justice. Horrible as this fratricide is, it is a pardonable case: the crime of Amnon was the most flagitious; and the offense to Absalom, the ruin of his beloved sister, indescribably great. Seeing, then, that the thing is so, and that Amnon can be no more recalled to life than water spilt upon the ground can be gathered up again; and that God, whose vicegerent thou art, and whose example of clemency as well as justice thou art called to imitate, devises means that those who were banished from him by sin and transgression, may not be finally expelled from his mercy and his kingdom; restore thy son to favor, and pardon his crime, as thou hast promised to restore my son, and the Lord thy God will be with thee. This is the sum and sense of the woman’s argument.

The argument contained in this 14th verse is very elegant, and powerfully persuasive; but one clause of it has been variously understood, Neither doth God

respect any person; the Hebrew is, ולא!ישא!אלהים!נפש velo!yissa!Elohim!nephesh, “And

God doth not take away the soul.” The Septuagint has it, Και!ληψεται!I!Θεος!την!

ψυχην; And God will receive the soul. This intimates that, after human life is ended,

the soul has a state of separate existence with God. This was certainly the opinion of these translators, and was the opinion of the ancient Jews, at least three hundred years before the incarnation; about which time this translation was made. The Vulgate has, Nec volt Deus perire animam, “Nor does God will the destruction of the soul.” God is not the author of death; neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living; imitate him; pardon and recall thy son.

54

GILL, "For we must needs die,.... As all must, herself, the king, and his sons, and indeed all men; this is the common case and lot of men; particularly she insinuates that David must die, and that there must be a successor named, and perhaps a dispute would arise about one; which might be fatal, if Absalom was not recalled in his lifetime; and that Amnon must have died in a little time if he had not been killed by his brother; and Absalom, he must die also quickly, and therefore what signifies taking away his life? he may as well live a little longer; this, however plausible, was but bad reasoning in the case of a malefactor:

and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; which sinks into the earth, and cannot be got out of it again; so men, when they die, are buried in the earth, and cannot be gathered or restored to life again, until the resurrection of the dead; and since Amnon is dead, and he cannot be brought to life again, it is best to be easy, and not seek to take away the life of another; which is to bring him into the same irrecoverable state and condition:

neither doth God respect any person; the words in the original are, "God doth not take away the soul or life" (p); of every offender, but spares them notwithstanding the crimes they have committed; and therefore it became the king to be sparing and merciful to offenders, and particularly to his own son; and perhaps she any tacitly have respect to David himself who had been guilty both of murder and adultery, either of which deserved death; and yet God had not taken away his life, but in his great mercy had spared him; and therefore, since he had received mercy, he should show it: or "God hath not taken away his soul or life"; the life of Absalom; he had not cut him off himself by his immediate hand, nor suffered the king's sons to take away his life, nor any other to seize upon him, and bring him to justice, whom David might have employed; but had by his providence protected and preserved him; so that it seemed to be his will and pleasure that he should not be put to death:

yet doth he devise means that his banished be not expelled from him; from his word, worship, and ordinances, as Absalom was; and by protecting him by his providence, it looked as if it was his will, and he would find out ways and means for bringing him back to his country, his father's court, and the sanctuary of the Lord; even as, by the law concerning the cities of refuge for the manslayer, provision was made that at the death of the high priest the exiled person might return to his country.

HENRY, " She pleads man's mortality (2Sa_14:14): “We must needs die. Death is appointed for us; we cannot avoid the thing itself, nor defer it till another time. We are all under a fatal necessity of dying; and, when we are dead, we are past recall, as water spilt upon the ground; nay, even while we are alive, we are so, we have lost our immortality, past retrieve. Amnon must have died, some time, if Absalom had not killed him; and, if Absalom be now put to death for killing him, that will not bring him to life again.” This was poor reasoning, and would serve against the punishment of any murderer: but, it should seem, Amnon was a man little regarded by the people and his death little lamented, and it was generally thought hard that so dear a life as Absalom's should go for one so little valued as Amnon's. [3.] She pleads God's mercy and his clemency towards poor guilty sinners: “God does not take away the soul, or life, but devises means that his banished, his children that have offended him, and are obnoxious to his justice, as Absalom is to thine, be not for ever expelled from him,” 2Sa_14:14. Here are two great instances of the mercy of God to sinners,

55

properly urged as reasons for showing mercy: - First, The patience he exercises towards them. His law is broken, yet he does not immediately take away the life of those that break it, does not strike sinners dead, as justly he might, in the act of sin, but bears with them, and waits to be gracious. God's vengeance had suffered Absalom to live; why then should not David's justice suffer him? Secondly, The provision he has made for their restoration to his favour, that though by sin they have banished themselves from him, yet they might not be expelled, or cast off, for ever. Atonement might be made for sinners by sacrifice. Lepers, and others ceremonially unclean, were banished, but provision was made for their cleansing, that, though for a time excluded, they might not be finally expelled. The state of sinners is a state of banishment from God. Poor banished sinners are likely to be for ever expelled from God if some course be not taken to prevent it. It is against the mind of God that they should be so, for he is not willing that any should perish. Infinite wisdom has devised proper means to prevent it; so that it is the sinners' own fault if they be cast off. This instance of God's good-will toward us all should incline us to be merciful and compassionate one towards another, Mat_18:32, Mat_18:33.

PULPIT, "Neither doth God, etc. This translation is altogether wrong. What the woman says is, "God taketh not life [Hebrew, 'a soul'] away, but thinketh thoughts not to banish from him his banished one." Her argument is that death is the common lot, and that there is no way of bringing back the dead to life. But though death is thus a universal law, yet God does not kill. Death is not a penalty exacted as a punishment, but, on the contrary, he is merciful, and when a man has sinned, instead of putting him to death, he is ready to forgive and welcome back one rejected because of his wickedness. The application is plain. The king cannot restore Amnon to life, and neither must he kill the guilty Absalom, but must recall his banished son. The argument is full of poetry, and touching to the feelings, but is not very sound. For God requires repentance and change of heart; and there was no sign of contrition on Absalom's part. The power of the woman's appeal lay in what she says of God's nature. He is not intent on punishing, nor bent on carrying out the sentences of the Law in their stern literalness; but he is ready to forgive, and "deviseth devices" to bring home those now separate from him. There is also much that is worth pondering over in the distinction between death as a law of nature, and death as a penalty. The one is necessary, and often gentle and beneficial; but death as a penalty is stern and terrible.

COFFMAN, ""The last half of 2 Samuel 14:14 here is obscure";[12] and there is no certainty that the RSV in this place is correct. The KJV reads, "God doth not respect any person"; and the alternative reading in the margin is that, "God does not take away life" (in the case of every sin that deserves death). David himself was a conspicuous example of that very truth.

BENSON, "2 Samuel 14:14. For we must needs die — Some by one means, and some by another; death being the common lot of all men, Amnon must have died, if Absalom had not cut him off; and Absalom, if he do not die by the hand of justice, must die by the necessity of nature, and, if he be not recalled soon, may die in exile, which would undoubtedly be a great affliction both to thee, O king,

56

and to the people of God. And thou thyself must die, and therefore art obliged to take care of the life of thy successor Absalom, and to endeavour to preserve it instead of taking it away, or exposing it to danger. For when dead, we are like water spilled on the ground which cannot be gathered up again — Amnon’s life is irrecoverable, and, therefore, it is in vain to keep Absalom in banishment on account of it: and if Absalom be cut off also, his life too will be lost, both to thee and to thy people. For God doth not respect any person — So far as to exempt him from this common lot of dying: but kings and their sons, in this respect, share the same fate with others. This, however, it must be acknowledged, was very weak reasoning; for by the same way of arguing every crime might be suffered to go unpunished. It must be observed here, that the Hebrew לא ישא נפש, lo jissa nephesh, here rendered, doth not respect persons, is translated by Houbigant and many other learned men, according to the ancient versions, doth not take away the soul, or life. Thus understood, she argues from the sparing mercy of God, who does not immediately inflict the punishment of death when men have deserved it. And, probably, she meant this to be applied particularly to Absalom, whom God had not cut off, but suffered to live: and therefore she desires David to imitate God, and not to be inexorable to one to whom God had shown mercy. Yet doth he — Or, rather, BUT, he doth devise means that his banished be not expelled from him — She means, that God had provided many cities of refuge to which he that slew another unawares might flee; where, though he was banished from his habitation for a time, he was not quite expelled, but might return again after the death of the high-priest. From whence she argues, that kings being the images of God, nothing could more become them than clemency and mercy, in mitigating the punishment of offenders, though there should be a just cause of anger against them. But this case was still different from that of Absalom; for God was not so merciful as to provide for the safety of wilful murderers. But such specious arguments are good enough when men are willing to be persuaded.

ELLICOTT, "(14) We must needs die.—The woman now goes on to a further argument from the uncertainty of life. Whether she would suggest the possibility of Absalom’s dying in banishment (as some think), or of David’s death before he has been reconciled to his son (as others hold) does not matter. She craftily withdraws attention from the real point—the question of right and justice—and, assuming that the thing ought to be done, suggests that delay is unsafe since life is uncertain. Still another explanation of her argument may be given: “Amnon is dead, and it is useless to grieve longer for him; God does not respect persons, Absalom too must die, and you yourself must die; improve the time and the blessings yet left while there is opportunity.”

Neither doth God respect any person.—The Hebrew is difficult, but the English is certainly wrong. The literal translation is “And God doth not take away the soul, but thinketh thoughts that He may not banish the banished one;” and the meaning is that God in wrath remembers mercy, and does not press punishment to extremes.

57

WHEDON, "14. As water spilt upon the ground — “What could be better calculated to gain the attention of a poet like David than the beautiful images which she employs, and which are fully equal to any that he himself ever uttered; and if we, with our comparatively dull intellects, are impressed at once by the exquisite beauty and pathos of this expression, how keenly must it have been appreciated by him — the great master of solemn thought and poetical expression? We conceive that we behold him start upon his throne when these words fall upon his ear, and he feels at once that no common woman is before him.” — Kitto.

Neither doth God respect any person — Rather. God doth not take away life. The reference is to the life of one that has wandered from him: God is merciful, and does not take away his life.

Yet doth he devise means — God takes measures to bring back sinners who have departed from him.

LANGE, "2 Samuel 14:14. The reasons that should determine David to forgiveness: 1) for we must die, and are like water poured out on the ground that is not gathered again.—Thenius refers these words to Amnon’s death, with the meaning: “he had to die some time, and all you can do against the murderer will not bring him to life;” but the connection shows that the woman is referring not to Amnon, but to Absalom, as the “banished one,” her meaning being: “Absalom (like all men) may die in banishment, and, as the dead (like poured out water) do not return, it would then repent thee not to have recalled him; take him back before it is too late.” Possibly, however, the reference is to David himself, a warning that he may soon die, and must, therefore, not delay to be reconciled to Absalom. [The sense seems to be: “As life is fleeting and perishable, let not these enmities engage your mind, but put away unkindness and forgive your son.” According to any of these explanations, the woman’s argument is false, since it leaves the justice of the case out of view; but see the quotation from Philippson below at the end of this verse.—Tr.] 2) And God takes not away a soul, but thinks thoughts not to banish a banished one.—An argument from God’s procedure towards the sinner. He does not take away the soul [life] of one that is banished, condemned for sin, so as thus to banish him forever, but “thinks thoughts not to banish him;” such mercy show to thy banished son. These words must have brought to David’s recollection God’s mercy towards him banished from God’s presence as adulterer and murderer. [Philippson: “This is one of the noblest and profoundest declarations of the Scripture: God, who has determined us to death, nevertheless does not deprive us of life, of personality (נפש), but has the holy purpose to receive again the banished, the sinful.” This explanation makes the first half of the verse merely introductory to the thought in the second, merely a relative sentence containing an affirmation about God; this is not so probable as the view that makes the first half a separate argument. Patrick sees here a reference to the cities of refuge, for which, however, the language is too general. The argument (appeal to the divine mercy) is powerful, though false; the human judge cannot set aside the demands of justice, though God may pardon the sinner. The woman’s view of death is a general one, neither denying nor affirming a future state: her statement is simply that the dead do not return to earthly life. It is therefore inadmissible to press her simile, and represent it as

58

meaning that, as the spilt water passes in vapor to the clouds and returns as rain to the earth, so human life is to return in the raised body. This may be an allowable simile now, but it is not the teaching of this passage.—Tr.]

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:14

“For we must necessarily die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again, nor does God take away life, but devises means, so that he that is banished continue not as an outcast from him.”

She then pointed out that while we must all necessarily die, becoming like water spilled on the ground which is gone for ever, nevertheless God holds life as precious, and thus, rather than taking away people’s lives, devises means by which they may come once more into His presence, and no longer be banished outcasts (i.e. through offerings and sacrifices). The implication was that David should be God-like and devise means for bringing back his own banished outcast, Absalom, without seeking his life, because life is precious.

MACLAREN, “GOD'S BANISHED ONES

David’s good-for-nothing son Absalom had brought about the murder of one of his brothers, and had fled the country. His father weakly loved the brilliant blackguard, and would fain have had him back, but was restrained by a sense of kingly duty. Joab, the astute Commander-in-chief, a devoted friend of David, saw how the land lay, and formed a plan to give the king an excuse for doing what he wished to do. So he got hold of a person who is called ‘a wise woman’ from the country, dressed her as a mourner, and sent her with an ingeniously made-up story of how she was a widow with two sons, one of whom had killed the other, and of how the relatives insisted on their right of avenging blood, and demanded the surrender of the murderer; by which, as she pathetically said, ‘the coal’ that was left her would be ‘quenched.’ The king’s sympathy was quickly roused-as was natural in so impulsive and poetic a nature-and he pledged his word, and finally his oath, that the offender should be safe.

So the woman has him in a trap, having induced him to waive justice and to absolve the guilty by an arbitrary act. Then she turns upon him with an application to his own case, and bids him free himself from the guilt of double measures and inconsistency by doing with his banished son the same thing-viz. abrogating law and bringing back the offender. In our text she urges still higher considerations-viz. those of God’s way of treating criminals against His law, of whom she says that He spares their lives, and devises means-or, as the words might perhaps be rendered, ‘plans plannings’-by which He may bring them back. She would imply that human power and sovereignty are then noblest and likest God’s when they remit penalties and restore wanderers.

I do not further follow the story, which ends, as we all know, with Absalom’s ill-omened return. But the wise woman’s saying goes very deep, and, in its picturesque form, may help to bring out more vividly some truths-all-important ones-of which I wish to beg your very earnest consideration and acceptance.

I. Note, then, who are God’s banished ones.

59

The woman’s words are one of the few glimpses which we have of the condition of religious thought amongst the masses of Israel. Clearly she had laid to heart the teaching which declared the great, solemn, universal fact of sin and consequent separation from God. For the ‘banished ones’ of whom she speaks are no particular class of glaring criminals, but she includes within the designation the whole human race, or, at all events, the whole Israel to which she and David belonged. There may have been in her words-though that is very doubtful-a reference to the old story of Cain after the murder of his brother. For that narrative symbolises the consequences of all evil-doing and evil-loving, in that he was cast out from the presence of God, and went away into a ‘land of wandering,’ there to hide from the face of the Father. On the one hand, it was banishment; on the other hand, it was flight. So had Absalom’s departure been, and so is ours.

Strip away the metaphor, dear brethren, and it just comes to this thought, which I seek to lay upon the hearts of all my hearers now-you cannot be blessedly and peacefully near God, unless you are far away from sin. If you take two polished plates of metal, and lay them together, they will adhere. If you put half a dozen tiny grains of sand or dust between them, they will fall apart. So our sins have come between us and our God. They have not separated God from us, blessed be His name! for His love, and His care, and His desire to bless, His thought, and His knowledge, and His tenderness, all come to every soul of man. But they have rent us apart from Him, in so far as they make us unwilling to be near Him, incapable of receiving the truest nearness and blessedness of His presence, and sometimes desirous to hustle Him out of our thoughts, and, if we could, out of our world, rather than to expatiate in the calm sunlight of His presence.

That banishment is self-inflicted. God spurns away no man, but men spurn Him, and flee from Him. Many of us know what it is to pass whole days, and weeks, and years, as practical Atheists. God is not in all our thoughts.

And more than that, the miserable disgrace and solitude of a soul that is godless in the world is what many of us like. The Prodigal Son scraped all his goods together, and thought himself freed from a very unwelcome bondage, and a fine independent youth, when he went away into ‘the far country.’ It was not quite so pleasant when provisions and clothing fell short, and the swine’s trough was the only table that was spread before him. But yet there are many of us, I fear, who are perfectly comfortable away from God, in so far as we can get away from Him, and who never are aware of the degradation that lies in a soul’s having lowered itself to this, that it had rather not have God inconveniently near.

Away down in the luxurious islands of the Southern Sea you will find degraded Englishmen who have chosen rather to cast in their lot with savages than to have to strain and work and grow. These poor beach-combers of the Pacific, not happy in their degradation, but wallowing in it, are no exaggerated pictures of the condition, in reality, of thousands of us who dwell far from God, and far therefore from righteousness and peace.

II. Notice God’s yearning over His banished ones.

The woman in our story hints at, or suggests, a parallel which, though inadequate, is deeply true. David was Absalom’s father and Absalom’s king; and the two relationships fought against each other in his heart. The king had to think of law and justice; the father cried out for his son. The young man’s offence had neither altered his relationship nor affected the father’s heart.

All that is true, far more deeply, blessedly true, in regard to our relation, the wandering exiles’ relation, to God. For, whilst I believe that the highest form of

60

sonship is only realised in the hearts of men who have been made partakers of a new life through Jesus Christ, I believe, just as firmly and earnestly, that every man and woman on the face of the earth, by virtue of physical life derived from God, by virtue of a spiritual being, which, in a very real and deep sense, still bears the image of God, and by reason of His continued love and care over them, is a child of His. The banished son is still a son, and is ‘His banished one.’ If there is love-wonderful as the thought is, and heart-melting as it ought to be-there must be loss when the child goes away. Human love would not have the same name as God’s unless there were some analogy between the two. And though we walk in dark places, and had better acknowledge that the less we speak upon such profound subjects the less likely we are to err, yet it seems to me that the whole preciousness of the revelation of God in Scripture is imperilled unless we frankly recognise this-that His love is like ours, delights in being returned like ours, and is like ours in that it rejoices in presence and knows a sense of loss in absence. If you think that that is too bold a thing to say, remember who it was that taught us that the father fell on the neck of the returning prodigal, and kissed him; and that the rapture of his joy was the token and measure of the reality of his regret, and that it was the father to whom the prodigal son was ‘lost.’ Deep as is the mystery, let nothing, dear brethren, rob us of the plain fact that God’s love moves all around the worst, the unworthiest, the most rebellious in the far-off land, and ‘desires not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his iniquity and live.’

And it is you, you, whom He wants back; you whom He would fain rescue from your aversion to good and your carelessness of Him. It is you whom He seeks, according to the great saying of the Master, ‘the Father seeketh’ for worshippers in spirit and in truth.

III. Note the formidable obstacles to the restoration of the banished.

The words ‘banished’ and ‘expelled’ in our text are in the original the same; and the force of the whole would be better expressed if the same English word was employed as the equivalent of both. We should then see more clearly than the variation of rendering in our text enables us to see, that the being ‘expelled’ is no further stage which God devises means to prevent, but that what is meant is that He provides methods by which the banished should not be banished-that is, should be restored to Himself.

Now, note that the language of this ‘wise woman,’ unconsciously to herself, confesses that the parallel that she was trying to draw did not go on all fours; for what she was asking the king to do was simply, by an arbitrary act, to sweep aside law and to remit penalty. She instinctively feels that that is not what can be done by God, and so she says that He ‘devises means’ by which He can restore His banished.

That is to say, forgiveness and the obliteration of the consequences of a man’s sin, and his restoration to the blessed nearness to God, which is life, are by no means such easy and simple matters as people sometimes suppose them to be. The whole drift of popular thinking to-day goes in the direction of a very superficial and easy gospel, which merely says, ‘Oh, of course, of course God forgives! Is not God Love? Is not God our Father? What more do you want than that?’ Ah! you want a great deal more than that, my friends. Let me press upon you two or three plain considerations. There are formidable obstacles in the way of divine forgiveness.

If there are to be any pardon and restoration at all, they must be such as will leave untouched the sovereign majesty of God’s law, and, untampered with, the eternal gulf between good and evil. That easygoing gospel which says, ‘God will pardon, of course!’ sounds very charitable and very catholic, but at bottom it is very cruel. For it shakes the very foundations on which the government of God must repose. God’s law

61

is the manifestation of God’s character; and that is no flexible thing which can be bent about at the bidding of a weak good-nature. I believe that men are right in holding that certainly God must pardon, but I believe that they are fatally wrong in not recognising this-that the only kind of forgiveness which is possible for Him to bestow is one in which there shall be no tampering with the tremendous sanctions of His awful law; and no tendency to teach that it matters little whether a man is good or bad. The pardon, which many of us seem to think is quite sufficient, is a pardon that is nothing more noble than good-natured winking at transgression. And oh! if this be all that men have to lean on, they are leaning on a broken reed. The motto on the blue cover of the Edinburgh Review, for over a hundred years now, is true: ‘The judge is condemned when the guilty is acquitted.’ David struck a fatal blow at the prestige of his own rule, when he weakly let his son off from penalty. And, if it were possible to imagine such a thing, God Himself would strike as fatal a blow at the justice and judgment which are the foundations of His throne, if His forgiveness was such as to be capable of being confounded with love which was too weakly indulgent to be righteous.

Further, if there are to be forgiveness and restoration at all, they must be such as will turn away the heart of the pardoned man from his evil. The very story before us shows that it is not every kind of pardon which makes a man better. The scapegrace Absalom came back unsoftened, without one touch of gratitude to his father in his base heart, without the least gleam of a better nature dawning upon him, and went flaunting about the court until his viciousness culminated in his unnatural rebellion. That is to say, there is a forgiveness which nourishes the seeds of the crimes that it pardons. We have only to look into our own hearts, and we have only to look at the sort of people round us, to be very sure that, unless the forgiveness that is granted us from the heavens has in it an element which will avert our wills and desires from evil, the pardon will be very soon needed again, for the evil will very soon be done again.

If there are to be forgiveness and restoration at all, they must come in such a fashion as that there shall be no doubt whatsoever of their reality and power. The vague kind of trust in a doubtful mercy, about which I have been speaking, may do all very well for people that have never probed the depths of their own hearts. Superficial notions of our sin, which so many of us have, are contented with superficial remedies for it. But let a man get a glimpse of his own real self, and I think that he will wish for something a great deal more solid to grip hold of, than nebulous talk of the kind that I have been describing. If once we feel ourselves to be struggling in the black flood of that awful river, we shall want a firmer hold upon the bank than is given to us by some rootless tree or other. We must clutch something that will stand a pull, if we are to be drawn from the muddy waters.

People say to us, ‘Oh, God will forgive, of course!’ Does this world look like a place where forgiveness is such an easy thing? Is there anything more certain than that consequences are inevitable when deeds have been done, and ‘that whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap’ and whatsoever he brews that shall he also drink? And is it into a grim, stern world of retribution like this that people will come, with their smiling, sunny gospel of a matter-of-course forgiveness, upon very easy terms of a slight penitence?

Brethren, God has to ‘devise means,’ which is a strong way of saying, in analogy to the limitations of humanity, that He cannot, by an arbitrary act of His will, pardon a sinful man. His eternal nature forbids it. His established law forbids it. The fabric of His universe forbids it. The good of men forbids it. The problem is insoluble by human thought. The love of God is like some great river that pours its waters down its channel, and is stayed by a black dam across its course, along which it feels for any

62

cranny through which it may pour itself. We could never save ourselves, but

‘He that might the vengeance best have took,

Found out the remedy.’

IV. And so the last word that I have to say is to note the triumphant, divine solution of these difficulties.

The work of Jesus Christ, and the work of Jesus Christ alone, meets all the requirements. It vindicates the majesty of law, it deepens the gulf between righteousness and sin. Where is there such a demonstration of the awful truth that ‘the wages of sin is death’ as on that Cross on which the Son of God died for us and for all ‘His banished ones’? Where is there such a demonstration of the fixedness of the divine law as in that death to which the Son of God submitted Himself for us all? Where do we learn the hideousness of sin, the endless antagonism between God and it, and the fatal consequences of it, as we learn them in the sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour? Where do we find the misery and desolation of banishment from God so tragically uttered as in that cry which rent the darkness of eclipse,’ My God! My God! why hast Thou forsaken Me?’

That work of Christ’s is the only way by which it is made absolutely certain that sins forgiven shall be sins abhorred; and that a man once restored shall cleave to his Restorer as to his Life. That work is the only way by which a man can be absolutely certain that there is forgiveness, in spite of all the accusations of his own conscience; in spite of all the inexorable working out of penalties in the system of the world which seems to contradict the fond belief; in spite of all that a foreboding gaze tells, or ought to tell, of a judgment that is to follow.

Brethren, God has devised a means. None else could have done so. I beseech you, realise these facts that I have been trying to bring before you, and the considerations that I have based upon them, so far as they commend themselves to your hearts and consciences; and do not be content with acquiescing in them, but act upon them. We are all exiles from God, unless we have been ‘brought nigh by the blood of Christ.’ In Him, and in Him alone, can God restore His banished ones. In Him, and in Him alone, can we find a pardon which cleanses the heart, and ensures the removal of the sin which it forgives. In Him, and in Him alone, can we find, not a peradventure, not a subjective certainty, but an external fact which proclaims that verily there is forgiveness for us all. I pray you, dear friends, do not be content with that half-truth, which is ever the most dangerous lie, of divine pardon apart from Jesus Christ. Lay your sins upon His head, and your hand in the hand of the Elder Brother, who has come to the far-off land to seek us, and He will lead you back to the Father’s house and the Father’s heart, and you will be ‘no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God.’

SBC, “I. God’s heaviest punishment is separation from Himself. There are degrees of separation—degrees in intensity and degrees in duration. There are two great divisions: the banished and the expelled. The banished wish to come back, the expelled do not; the banished have lost peace, the expelled have forfeited life.

II. Banishment is judicial, but it is not final. It is bitter, but it is curative. It is severe, but it is love. The banished must beware lest they go off further and further to remoter lands, lengthening and deepening their own punishment, till they get out of reach, beyond sound of recall and the circle of attraction, and then their banishment may become punishment.

III. God is always devising how His banished may be restored. His Son died that

63

there might be a welcome to all the banished ones, and that expulsion might be a word unknown in heaven’s vocabulary.

J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 10th series, p. 97.

15 "And now I have come to say this to my lord the king because the people have made me afraid. Your servant thought, 'I will speak to the king; perhaps he will do what his servant asks.

BARNES, "The people have made me afraid - She pretends still that her suit was a real one, and that she was in fear of the people (“the whole family,” 2Sa_14:7) setting upon her and her son.

GILL, "Now therefore that I am come to speak of this thing unto my lord the king,.... Of the case of Absalom, under a feigned one of hers:

it is because the people have made me afraid; having heard of their whisperings, murmurings, and uneasiness among them, because Absalom was not sent for home, fearing there would be an insurrection in the nation, or an invasion of it by Absalom at the request of his friends; in which he might be supported by the king of Geshur; or however that disputes would arise about the succession, at the death of David; on these accounts she determined to speak to the king, and him them to him in the manner she had done; though some understand this of the discouragement the people laid her under, telling her the king would not hear her; nevertheless she was resolved to make trial:

and thy handmaid said, I will now speak unto the king; it may be the king will perform the request of his handmaid; not only with respect to her own son, as feigned; but with respect to Absalom, the grand thing in view.

HENRY, " She concludes her address with high compliments to the king, and strong expressions of her assurance that he would do what was just and kind both in the one case and in the other (2Sa_14:15-17); for, as if the case had been real, still she pleads for herself and her son, yet meaning Absalom. (1.) She would not have troubled the king thus but that the people made her afraid. Understanding it of her own case, all her neighbours made her apprehensive of the ruin she and her son were upon the brink of, from the avengers of blood, the terror of which made her thus bold in her application to the king himself. Understanding it of Absalom's case, she gives the king to understand, what he did not know before, that the nation was disgusted at his severity towards Absalom to such a degree that she was really afraid it would occasion a general mutiny or insurrection, for the preventing of which great mischief she ventured to speak to the king himself. The fright she was in must excuse her

64

rudeness. (2.) She applied to him with a great confidence in his wisdom and clemency: “I said, I will speak to the king myself, and ask nobody to speak for me; for the king will hear reason, even from so mean a creature as I am, will hear the cries of the oppressed, and will not suffer the poorest of his subjects to be destroyed out of the inheritance of God,” that is, “driven out of the land of Israel, to seek for shelter among the uncircumcised, as Absalom is, whose case is so much the worse, that, being shut out of the inheritance of God, he wants God's law and ordinances, which might help to bring him to repentance, and is in danger of being infected with the idolatry of the heathen among whom he sojourns, and of bringing home the infection.” To engage the king to grant her request, she expressed a confident hope that his answer would be comfortable, and such as angels bring (as bishop Patrick explains it), who are messengers of divine mercy. What this woman says by way of compliment the prophet says by way of promise (Zec_12:8), that, when the weak shall be as David, the house of David shall be as the angel of the Lord. “And, in order to this, the Lord thy God will be with thee, to assist thee in this and every judgment thou givest.” Great expectations are great engagements, especially to persons of honour, to do their utmost not to disappoint those that depend upon them.

K&D, “2Sa_14:15

After these allusions to David's treatment of Absalom, the woman returned again to her own affairs, to make the king believe that nothing but her own distress had led her to speak thus: “And now that I have come to speak this word to the king my lord, was (took place) because the people have put me in fear (sc., by their demand that I should give up my son to the avenger of blood); thy handmaid said (i.e., thought), I will indeed go to the king, perhaps the king will do his handmaid's word,” i.e., grant her request.

PULPIT, "2 Samuel 14:15-17

Now therefore that I am come, etc. The woman now professes to return to her old story as the reason for her importunity, but she repeats it in so eager and indirect a manner as to indicate that it had another meaning. Instead, too, of thanking the king for fully granting her petition, she still flatters and coaxes as one whose purpose was as yet ungained. The king's word is, for rest: it puts an end to vexation, and, by deciding matters, sets the disputants at peace. He is as an angel of God, as God's messenger, whose words have Divine authority; and his office is, not to discern, but "to hear the good and the evil," unmoved, as the Vulgate renders it, by blessing and cursing. His mission is too high for him to be influenced either by good words or by evil, but having patiently heard both sides, and calmly thought over the reasons for and against, he will decide righteously. Finally, she ends with the prayer, And may Jehovah thy God be with thee! By such words she hoped to propitiate the king, who now could not fail to see that the errand of the woman was personal to himself.

BENSON, "2 Samuel 14:15. Now, therefore, that I am come, &c. — “But here, apprehending she might have gone too far, and made too free with majesty, in expostulating so plainly upon a point of such importance, she excused this presumption, from the force put upon her by her people; who had so severely threatened her, that, in this extremity, she plainly saw she had no resource, or

65

hope of relief, but in laying her son’s case before the king: which she, confiding in his mercy, had, at length, adventured to do.” — Delaney.

ELLICOTT, "(15) Because the people have made me afraid.—The woman here seeks to excuse her boldness in addressing the king by the pressure brought to bear upon her from without; but whether she means this in regard to what she has said of Absalom, or of her own. affairs, is very doubtful. In the former case the people would mean the nation generally; in the latter, her own family connections. Certainly in the next verse she returns to her own affairs to keep up the pretence of reality; but here there seems to be an intentional and studied ambiguity.

LANGE, "2 Samuel 14:15. The wise woman skilfully turns David’s thoughts again to her own affair, in order to remove the suspicion that she came merely to plead for Absalom; she is content to have lodged a sharp thorn in David’s heart. And now that I am come.—A natural mode of return to her first subject. Her design is to append a further explanation of her boldness in troubling the king with such a personal affair. The occasion of her coming Isaiah, she says, that the people [her kinsfolk] frightened her by demanding her Song of Solomon, so that she had to appeal to the king. This, therefore, is not a mere repetition of what she has already said (Thenius).

K&D, “2Sa_14:15

After these allusions to David's treatment of Absalom, the woman returned again to her own affairs, to make the king believe that nothing but her own distress had led her to speak thus: “And now that I have come to speak this word to the king my lord, was (took place) because the people have put me in fear (sc., by their demand that I should give up my son to the avenger of blood); thy handmaid said (i.e., thought), I will indeed go to the king, perhaps the king will do his handmaid's word,” i.e., grant her request.

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:15-16

“Now, therefore, seeing that I am come to speak this word to my lord the king, it is because the people have made me afraid, and your handmaid said, ‘I will now speak to the king, it may be that the king will perform the request of his servant. For the king will hear, to deliver his servant out of the hand of the man that would destroy me and my son together out of the inheritance of God.’ ”

Recognising that her request might appear somewhat forward she then hastily pointed out that the reason that she had made the request was because when people had heard that she was approaching the king they had put pressure on her to bring up Absalom’s case, so much so that they had ‘made her afraid’. And that was why, confident that the king would hear her concerning her son, as he now graciously had, she had assured the people that perhaps he might also be willing to hear their request on Absalom’s behalf. The impression that she intended give was that she was very grateful indeed for what David had done for her, but that Absalom had won the hearts of the people as the king’s handsome

66

son, and that it was due to their longing for his return that she had added this further request, a request which she hoped he would also hear.

16 Perhaps the king will agree to deliver his servant from the hand of the man who is trying to cut off both me and my son from the inheritance God gave us.'

GILL, "For the king will hear,.... She was fully persuaded of it, as now he had heard her:

to deliver his handmaid out of the hand of the man that would destroy me and my son together out of the inheritance of God; he had given his word and his oath that he would deliver her son from the avenger of blood, that neither he nor any other should destroy him; which would have been the destruction of her and her whole family out of the land of Israel, the land which God had chosen for his inheritance, and had given to the of Israel to be theirs; and since the king had heard her, and granted her this favour, she doubted not but that he would deliver his own son from death, and restore him to the inheritance of the land, where he might worship the Lord God of his fathers, of which he was now deprived.

K&D, “2Sa_14:16

“Yea, the king will hear, to save his handmaid out of the hand of the man that

would destroy me and my son from the inheritance of God.” אשר must be supplied

before להשמיד: who is to destroy, i.e., who is seeking to destroy (vid., Gesenius, §132,

3). “The inheritance of God” was the nation of Israel (as in 1Sa_26:19; cf. Deu_32:9).

BENSON, "2 Samuel 14:16. For the king will hear — Clemency and kindness are the properties of a good king, and such a king, she insinuates, she knew David to be, who, she was persuaded, would grant her audience and acceptance. To deliver his handmaid, &c. — By granting her request concerning her son, in whose life, she intimates, her own was bound up, so that she could not outlive his death; supposing that David’s case might be similar, and therefore that this might touch him in a tender part, though it was not proper to say so expressly; and thereby suggesting, that the safety and comfort of the people of Israel depended on Absalom’s restoration. Out of the inheritance of God — That is, out of that land which God gave to his people, to be their inheritance, and in which alone he hath fixed the place of his presence and worship. Thus she artfully reminds the king how dangerous it was to let Absalom (unto whom she had

67

ventured to apply her case) continue among idolaters, in a state of separation from God, his house, and people.

17 "And now your servant says, 'May the word of my lord the king bring me rest, for my lord the king is like an angel of God in discerning good and evil. May the LORD your God be with you.' "

BARNES, "As an angel of God - Rather, as “the” Angel of God; and therefore whatever David decided would be right.

GILL, "Then thine handmaid said, the word of my lord the king shall now be comfortable,.... Or, "for rest" (q); what will give ease and satisfaction not only to her, but to all the people of Israel, when they shall hear of the king's intention and resolution to bring back Absalom:

for as an angel of God, so is my lord the king; as they are very wise, knowing, and understanding creatures, so was David:

to discern good and bad; to hear both the one and the other, and to discern the difference between them, and choose and pursue what is right, as in all other things, so in the present case:

therefore the Lord thy God shall be with thee; as to counsel and advise, so to assist in performance, and to prosper and succeed; the Targum is,"the Word of the Lord thy God shall be for thine help.''

K&D, “2Sa_14:17

“Then thine handmaid thought, may the word of my lord the king be for rest (i.e., tend to give me rest); for as the angel of God (the angel of the covenant, the mediator of the blessings of divine grace to the covenant-nation), so is my lord the king to hear good and evil (i.e., listening to every just complaint on the part of his subjects, and granting help to the oppressed), and Jehovah thy God be with thee!”

COFFMAN, ""The king is like the angel of God to discern good and evil" (2 Samuel 14:17). David deserved this compliment, as proved a moment later when he discerned the hand of Joab in this woman's appeal. "David's ability as a judge were God-given and God-like; Absalom's complaint (at a later time in 2 Samuel 15:4) was not leveled at David's ability but at his lack of time."[13]

68

BENSON, "2 Samuel 14:17. The word of my lord the king shall now be comfortable — Upon reflection, she grew confident that the king’s answer would be according to her heart’s desire. For as an angel of God is my lord the king — In wisdom, justice, and goodness. To discern good and bad — To distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable petitions, and to know what is good and what evil, and understand every matter that comes before him. Therefore the Lord thy God will be with thee — To direct thee to judge aright, and show mercy: or, because thou art so wise and gracious to those who in strict justice deserve punishment. God will own and stand by thee in this thy act of grace: or, God will prosper thee in thy enterprises.

LANGE, "2 Samuel 14:17. Further, she says, the king’s word was to be to her for rest—that Isaiah, for herself. “The king hears (judges) as” the angel of God—the angel that God sends to impart His manifestations of grace to His people, the covenant-angel, the mediator of grace for the peculiar people [the people that is God’s private property]. [Rather the woman here praises the king’s wisdom as being like that of one of the higher intelligences (so Achish speaks of David in 1 Samuel 29:9), a proof that the Israelites were then familiar with the idea of angels. Her praise is here skilfully introduced to mollify him; she does not mention Absalom’s name, but leaves the king to reflect on what such a high character requires of him.—Tr.] To hear the good and the evil.—This affirms two things: 1) in every case brought before him the king will impartially and justly hear both sides, the good and the bad, Vulg.: “unmoved by benediction or malediction2) He helps the oppressed. And the Lord thy God be with thee! (not “therefore be” (De Wette)); with this blessing she concludes, touching the king’s heart in its innermost relation to his God and Lord. [Patrick: “There is a great deal of artifice in all this. For to presume upon the kindness of another, and to expect gracious answers from their noble qualities, is very moving; men being very loath to defeat those who think so highly of them, according to that saying of Aristotle (Rhet. 2, 4, 19): ‘We love those that admire us.’ ”—Tr.]

18 Then the king said to the woman, "Do not keep from me the answer to what I am going to ask you." "Let my lord the king speak," the woman said.

GILL, "Then the king answered and said unto the woman,.... Understanding plainly what she meant by all this, that the case she brought was a feigned one, and that the intention of it was to let him know the sense of the people with respect to Absalom, and the recall of him:

69

hide not from me, I pray thee, the thing that I shall ask thee; he suspected that this was not a scheme of her own, but some considerable person had formed it, and made use of her to execute it, which was what he desired to know:

and the woman said, let my lord the king now speak; ask what question he pleases, I am ready to answer.

HENRY, " The hand of Joab is suspected by the king, and acknowledged by the woman, to be in all this, 2Sa_14:18-20. (1.) The king soon suspected it. For he could not think that such a woman as this would appeal to him, in a matter of such moment, of her own accord; and he knew none so likely to set her on as Joab, who was a politic man and a friend of Absalom. (2.) The woman very honestly owned it: “Thy servant Joab bade me. If it be well done, let him have the thanks; if ill, let him bear the blame.” Though she found it very agreeable to the king, yet she would not take the praise of it to herself, but speaks the truth as it was, and gives us an example to do likewise, and never to tell a lie for the concealing of a well-managed scheme. Dare to be true; nothing can need a lie.

K&D, “2Sa_14:18-19

These words of the woman were so well considered and so crafty, that the king could not fail to see both what she really meant, and also that she had not come with her petition of her own accord. He therefore told her to answer the question without disguise: whether the hand of Joab was with her in all this. She replied, “Truly there

is not (אם) anything to the right hand or to the left of all that my lord the king saith,”

i.e., the king always hits the right point in everything that he said. “Yea, thy servant Joab, he hath commanded me, and he hath put all these words into thy servant's

mouth.” אש is not a copyist's error, but a softer form of יש, as in Mic_6:10 (vid.,

Ewald, §53c, and Olshausen, Gramm. p. 425).

BENSON, "2 Samuel 14:18-19. The king said, Hide not from me, &c. — Observing the uncommon art and dexterity of her address in the management of this affair, the king immediately began to suspect it was a thing concerted between her and Joab, and asked, Is not the hand of Joab with thee in all this? — Hast thou not said and done all this by his direction? The woman said, None can turn, &c. — That is, it is even so: thou hast discovered the truth: and I will not seek by any turnings or windings, this way, or the other, to dissemble the matter, but will plainly confess it. He put these words into the mouth of thy handmaid — As to the sense and substance of them, but not as to all the expressions, for these were evidently varied as the king’s answer gave occasion.

HAWKER, "Verses 18-20

(18) Then the king answered and said unto the woman, Hide not from me, I pray thee, the thing that I shall ask thee. And the woman said, Let my lord the king now speak. (19) And the king said, Is not the hand of Joab with thee in all this? And the woman answered and said, As thy soul liveth, my lord the king, none can turn to the right hand or to the left from ought that my lord the king hath

70

spoken: for thy servant Joab, he bade me, and he put all these words in the mouth of thine handmaid: (20) To fetch about this form of speech hath thy servant Joab done this thing: and my lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are in the earth.

If David could discern under all coverings, and all disguise, think how open must be all the thoughts and imaginations of our hearts to his view, with whom we have to do! Hosea 4:12-13.

LANGE, "2 Samuel 14:18 sq. From the cleverly put discourse of the woman the king perceives that there is something else in hand than her private affair; and surmising at the same time that she is only the instrument of another, he thinks of Joab from the confidential relation in which the latter stood to Absalom. “Is the hand of Joab with thee in all this?” The woman frankly answers in the affirmative [in the form of a compliment to the king’s sagacity]: There is nothing on the right or the left of[FN25] what the king says, he always says the right; “you always hit the nail on the head” (Thenius). Joab, she says, arranged this to turn the face (form) of the thing [not “fetch about this form of speech,” as in Eng. A. V.—Tr.] These words do not refer to the clothing of the request for Absalom in this story about her sons, as if she meant: “that I should turn the thing so” (Luther), or “to disguise the thing in a skilful way” (Keil), or “to set before thee a figurative discourse” (Vatablus), or “that I should transfer to myself and my sons what pertains to the king and his sons” (Clericus), but the thing is Absalom’s relation to his father. In order to change this relation in its present unhappy form, that Isaiah, to bring about a reconciliation, has Joab done this, sent me to thee with the words I have spoken. The woman concludes (looking back to her comparison of David to the “angel of God” in 2 Samuel 14:17) with the words: My lord (the king) is wise according to the wisdom of the angel of God—anxious by this appeal to the king’s wisdom to secure a favorable decision for Absalom. [Here again render: “an angel of God,” as in 2 Samuel 14:17. “To know all things that are in the earth,” better, perhaps: “in the land,” all the affairs of the land of Israel. The mingling of flattery and boldness in the woman’s discourse is skilful and striking.—Tr.]

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:18

‘Then the king answered and said to the woman, “Do not hide from me, I pray you, anything that I shall ask you.” And the woman said, “Let my lord the king now speak.” ’

The cleverness of the woman’s approach is evident. By her story she had persuaded the king to abrogate the principle of blood vengeance in the case of her dead husband’s son and heir, and she wanted him to think that her approaching the king had meanwhile been taken advantage of by his concerned people in order to persuade him to abrogate the principle of blood vengeance in the case of Absalom. That, of course, being only a secondary reason for her visit. But she was thereby ‘pulling his strings’ and making him feel guilty for behaving unjustly towards Absalom, in that he could show mercy towards the son and heir

71

of another, but not to his own son and heir

David, however, was a very shrewd man, and he was beginning to recognise behind her approach the hand of another who had also seemingly been trying to persuade him to bring Absalom back. So he challenged her not to hide from him anything that he should ask of her, to which she basically agreed.

19 The king asked, "Isn't the hand of Joab with you in all this?" The woman answered, "As surely as you live, my lord the king, no one can turn to the right or to the left from anything my lord the king says. Yes, it was your servant Joab who instructed me to do this and who put all these words into the mouth of your servant.

GILL, "And the king said, is not the hand of Joab with thee in all this?.... That is, is not this done by the advice, assistance, and direction of Joab? did not he form this scheme for thee, and direct thee to this method, and put thee upon prosecuting it?

and the woman answered and said, as thy soul liveth, my lord the king; what I am about to say is as sure as thou art alive; though this may be only a wish that he might long live and be happy; nothing is more desirable than thy valuable life:

none can turn to the right hand or the left from ought that my lord the king hath spoken; he has hit upon the truth of the matter; there is no dissimulation or prevarication to be used; the thing cannot be denied; for thy servant Joab he bade me, and put all these words in the mouth of thine handmaid: he sent for me, and laid his commands on me, and directed me what to say to the king, and how to conduct this affair.

PULPIT, "Is the hand of Joab with thee in all this? The "not," inserted by the Authorized Version, must be omitted, as it alters the meaning. The king really was uncertain, and asked dubiously, whereas the Authorized Version admits only of an. affirmative answer. David had seen the general drift of the woman's meaning, but she had involved it in too much obscurity for him to do more than suspect that she was the mouthpiece of Joab, who was standing by, and whose face may have given signs of a more than ordinary interest in the woman's narrative. She now frankly acknowledges the truth, but skilfully interweaves

72

much flattery in her answer. And her words are far more expressive than what is given in our versions. Literally they are, By thy life, O my lord the king, there is nothing on the right or on the left of all that my lord the king has spoken. His words had gone straight to the mark, without the slightest deviation on either side.

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:19-20

‘And the king said, “Is the hand of Joab with you in all this?” And the woman answered and said, “As your soul lives, my lord the king, none can turn to the right hand or to the left from anything that my lord the king has spoken, for your servant Joab, he bade me, and he put all these words in the mouth of your handmaid. To change the face of the matter has your servant Joab done this thing, and my lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to know all things that are in the earth.”

He then challenged her as to whether it was Joab who was behind her words. The woman was taken totally by surprise, for she had thought that she had duped David into accepting her account as true, and that all was going well. We may see it as very probable, therefore, that she suffered some trepidation, for to lie to the king was a serious offence. Thus she recognised that her best plan was to confess all, pinning the blame squarely on Joab. Perhaps by that means, she hoped, he would spare her life.

So she expressed her deep admiration at the way that the king knew everything that was going on, discerning even which way people turned, whether to left or right, and admitted that it was indeed ‘his servant Joab’ who had ordered her to approach the king and what was more had ‘put the very words into her mouth’ (it was thus his fault not hers). Then she went on to point out that Joab’s aim had been to ‘change the face of the matter’ (in other words alter the king’s mind), but that the king was ‘wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God’, and clearly knew everything that was on earth. Even David was not immune to this kind of excessive flattery, the kind of flattery so often offered to kings in those days.

20 Your servant Joab did this to change the present situation. My lord has wisdom like that of an angel of God-he knows everything that happens in the land."

73

CLARKE, "According to the wisdom of an angel of God - This is quite in the style of Asiatic flattery. A European is often addressed, “Saheb can do every thing; we can do nothing; none can prevent the execution of Saheb’s commands; Saheb is God.” See Ward.

GILL, "To fetch about this form of speech hath thy servant Joab done this thing,.... Feigned a story in such form and manner as had been delivered to the king, that it might be accommodated and applied to the case of Absalom, and to transfer it in a figure to the king, to use the apostle's phrase, 1Co_4:8,

and my lord is wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God; as not only to understand the design of this fable or parable, but of such sagacity and penetration as to find out the author of it; and even

to know all things that are in the earth; either in the whole world, or rather in the land of Israel; and it is to be understood not of all actions natural and moral done by men in it, which would be to ascribe omniscience to him; but of all political things, all things respecting civil government; that he had such a spirit of discerning of men and things, that nothing could be said or done, or scheme formed, but he got intelligence of it, and insight into it; and which was carrying the compliment to a great height.

K&D, “2Sa_14:20

“To turn the appearance of the king (i.e., to disguise the affair in the finest way) Joab hath done this; my lord (i.e., the king), however, is wise, like the wisdom of the angel of God, to know all that is (happens) upon earth.” She hoped by these flattering words to gain the king completely over.

PULPIT, "To fetch about this form of speech; correctly, as in the Revised Version, to change the face of the matter hath thy servant Joab, etc. The matter was that referred to in 2 Samuel 14:15, which the king now understands to refer to Absalom. For in the earth, translate in the land. The Hebrew has no means of distinguishing the wider and narrower significations of the word; but while the king would be flattered by the supposition that he knew all that happened in his dominions, the assertion that he knew all that was done in all the world was too broad and general to be agreeable. The Authorized Version has been misled by the thought of what an angel might know; but while it was a compliment to ascribe to the king an angel's intelligence in his own sphere, it would have been bad taste and unmeaning to ascribe to him omniscience. Nay, it is an assumption without proof that even an angel knows "all things that are in the earth."

21 The king said to Joab, "Very well, I will do it. Go, bring back the young man Absalom."

74

CLARKE, "And the king said unto Joab - It appears that Joab was present at the time when the woman was in conference with the king, and no doubt others of David’s courtiers or officers were there also.

GILL, "And the king said unto Joab,.... Who was present, or but at a little distance, waiting the issue of this affair:

behold now I have done this thing; have agreed to recall Absalom, at the suit of this woman, which thou hast put her upon; or, according to the textual reading, "thou hast done this thing" (r); contrived this scheme, to let me know the mind of the people with respect to Absalom, or to represent to me the propriety of sending for him home:

go, therefore, bring the young man Absalom again; I give my consent to it, and you may send for him, or fetch him as soon as you please; it is thought he calls him a young man, to extenuate his crime, that it was done in youthful heat and passion, and therefore he should pass it over.

HENRY, "Observe here, I. Orders given for the bringing back of Absalom. The errand on which the woman came to David was so agreeable, and her management of it so very ingenious and surprising, that he was brought into a peculiarly kind humour: Go (says he to Joab), bring the young man Absalom again, 2Sa_14:21. He was himself inclined to favour him, yet, for the honour of his justice, he would not do it but upon intercession made for him, which may illustrate the methods of divine grace. It is true God has thought of compassion towards poor sinners, not willing that any should perish, yet he is reconciled to them through a Mediator, who intercedes with him on their behalf, and to whom he has given these orders, Go, bring them again. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, and he came to this land of our banishment to bring us to God. Joab, having received these orders,

COFFMAN, ""And the king said to Joab ... I grant this" (2 Samuel 14:21). It appears from this that Joab was present for this interview, and that the king at once transferred his attention from the woman to Joab, as Joab was the actual petitioner.

"I grant this" (2 Samuel 14:21). In this act, "David acted in the character of an Oriental despot rather than a constitutional king of Israel. His feelings as a father triumphed over his duty as a king, who, as the supreme magistrate over Israel, was bound to execute impartial justice on every murderer, according to the express commandment of God in Genesis 9:6; Numbers 35:30-31, and which David had utterly no power to dispense with (Deuteronomy 18:18; Joshua 1:8; and 1 Samuel 10:25).[15] There is no doubt whatever that David's consenting to bring Absalom back from exile was as stupid as it was sinful and contrary to

75

God's law. He paid in full the bitter price of this sinful indulgence of his affection for Absalom.

BENSON, "2 Samuel 14:21-22. The king said unto Joab — Joab seems to have stood in some part of the room all the while the woman was addressing the king; who, therefore, now turned himself from her to him as the principal agent in the business, and said, Behold, now I have done this thing — That is, the thing which thou hast contrived thus to ask. Joab fell to the ground on his face — With the politeness of a courier he returned thanks to the king, in the most fervent manner, as for the greatest obligation conferred upon himself; though, in fact, he had contrived it all to oblige the king, and give him pleasure. “A refinement of flattery and address,” says Delaney, “not easily equalled! The Jews,” he adds, “are generally considered as an illiterate, barbarous people: and the charge is so far just, that they despised the learning of other nations; but this by no means infers them either ignorant or barbarous. The single design and address of this device (the above similitude) are sufficient proofs, were there no other, to evince this people to have neither been unpolite nor uninformed.”

In that the king hath fulfilled the request of his servant — But was not David faulty in granting this request? Did he not, in so doing, act in direct opposition to the laws of God, which strictly command the supreme magistrate to execute justice upon all wilful murderers, without any reservation or exception? Genesis 9:6; Numbers 35:30. Surely David had no power to dispense with God’s laws, or to spare any whom God commanded him to destroy: for the laws of God bound the kings and rulers, as well as the people of Israel, as is most evident from Deuteronomy 17:18-19; and Joshua 1:8, and many other places. And, indeed, we may see David’s sin herein in the glass of those tremendous judgments of God which befell him by means of his indulgence to Absalom. For although God’s providential dispensations be in themselves no rule whereby to judge of the good or evil actions of men; yet where they accord with God’s word, and accomplish his threatenings, as in this case they did, they are to be considered as tokens of God’s displeasure. And how justly did God make this man, whom David had so sinfully spared, to become a scourge to him!

CONSTABLE, "Absalom's return to Jerusalem 14:21-33

Joab's masquerade proved effective. David agreed to allow Absalom to return toJerusalem (v. 21). However even though he did not execute him, neither did Davidrestore Absalom to fellowship with himself (v. 24). His forgiveness was official but not personal. This led to more trouble. Thankfully God both forgives us and restores us to fellowship with Himself.

Verses 25-27 give information about Absalom that helps us understand why he was able to win the hearts of the people. He was not only handsome but also a family man."A strong growth of hair was a sign of great manly power . . ."235"What Absalom proudly considers his finest attribute will prove to be thevehicle of his ultimate downfall (cf. 18:9-15)."236Two hundred shekels (v. 26) equal five pounds in weight. Absalom was attractive

76

physically but not correspondingly attractive to God spiritually because he put his ownambitions before God's plans. In these respects he was similar to Saul.Absalom then lived in Jerusalem for two years, about 982-980 B.C. (v. 28; cf. 13:38).During these years he resented David's treatment of him. He regarded himself as aprisoner in Jerusalem. He was willing to suffer death for his murder of Amnon or toreceive a true pardon, but the present compromise was unbearable (v. 32). WhenAbsalom pressed for a personal reconciliation with his father, David finally conceded (v.33), which David should have done at least two years earlier.

I believe David handled Absalom as he did partly because David's conscience bothered him; he himself had sinned greatly. This seems clear from 14:1-20. David's approach offended Absalom and contributed to his desire to seize the throne from his father.234George G. Nicol, "The Wisdom of Joab and the Wise Woman of Tekoa," Studia Theologica 36 (1982):101. J. Hoftijzer, "David and the Tekoite Woman," Vetus

Testamentum 20:4 (October 1970):419-44, noted the parallels between this incident and Abigail's appeal to David in 1 Samuel 25:24.235Keil and Delitzsch, p. 411.236Youngblood, p. 985. How often this proves to be true!56 Dr. Constable's Notes on 2 Samuel 2007 Edition

The entire chapter is the story of a father and king caught between his responsibilities to be both just and merciful. Every parent and leader has found himself or herself in David's position. God Himself had to find a solution to this dual responsibility. The chapter deals with how to discipline. David's solution was to compromise. He tried to punish Absalom by keeping him in exile but not executing him. Then he allowed him to return to Jerusalem but not to have fellowship with himself. Both of these compromises failed and only made the relationship worse. God's solution is to be merciful, to forgive and welcome back warmly and quickly (cf. 12:13; Matt. 6:12, 14-15; Luke 1511-24). Perhaps David was reluctant to pardon Absalom because his son did not repent. At least the text says nothing about his doing so. Nevertheless David's lack of true forgiveness bred a bitter attitude in Absalom that resulted in his organizing a coup to overthrow his father (ch. 15). The law demands justice, but "mercy triumphs over justice" (James 2:13). A police officer who pulls you over for speeding can give you justice (a citation) or mercy (a warning). A murderer on death row can receive justice (execution) or mercy (a governor's pardon). The offender's attitude plays a part in the decision in every case, but ultimately the choice belongs to the person in power. A godly person will plan ways so the estranged may come back into fellowship (v. 14).

HAWKER, "Verses 21-23(21) ¶ And the king said unto Joab, Behold now, I have done this thing: go therefore, bring the young man Absalom again. (22) And Joab fell to the ground on his face, and bowed himself, and thanked the king: and Joab said, Today thy servant knoweth that I have found grace in thy sight, my lord, O king, in that the king hath fulfilled the request of his servant. (23) So Joab arose and went to Geshur, and brought Absalom to Jerusalem.

Recollect, Reader, that before Joab sent the woman of Tekoah in favour of Absalom, it is said that the king's heart was toward him. The everlasting love of God to poor sinners is in himself and from himself; the springs of grace have no other source, but

77

God's own infinite love and mercy. The Lord Jesus hath indeed purchased our redemption with his blood: but not the love of God, which gave rise to, and manifested itself in that redemption. I would beg the Reader to read a blessed scripture of our dear Lord's upon this point, that never can be read too often, nor too warmly cherished in remembrance, in the heart. The passage I mean is, that wherein Jesus prays for all the fruits of his Father's love for his people; but not for the Father's love itself. I say not unto you (said Jesus) that I will pray the Father for you; for the Father himself loveth you. And indeed it was this love of God which gave birth to the coming of the Saviour. See John 16:26-27; Joh_3:16. And was it not this love originally; nay, is it not the same love now, which leads our gracious God and Father to call us to him in and by the Lord Jesus, our Almighty Intercessor for us at the right hand of power? Oh! glorious united source of all our joys! The sovereign, free grace of the Father; and the everlasting righteousness and advocacy of the Son; whereby the council of peace between the Persons of the Godhead is fulfilled, and grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 5:21.

LANGE, "2 Samuel 14:21-23. Joab’s request fulfilled by permitting Absalom to return to Jerusalem. Behold, I have done this thing (according to thy word).—The margin has (through misapprehension): “thou hast done;” but the text is to be retained. The Perfect is used because the thing is an accomplished fact = I have fulfilled thy request. Go and bring Absalom back.—These words refer merely to the execution of what had been already determined and accomplished.

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:21

‘And the king said to Joab, “Behold now, I have done this thing. Go therefore, bring the young man Absalom back.” ’The writer then loses interest in the woman and proceeds to what resulted from her intervention. It appears from what follows that David felt bound by the decision that he had made on oath, even though it had been obtained by false pretences, and therefore felt that he must act on it, for he now recognised that what he had promised the woman applied to Absalom, and him alone. The result was that ‘the king’ called Joab into his presence and informed him somewhat abruptly that he could go and bring Absalom back. He was clearly acknowledging by this that he felt that he had committed himself by his promise and oath to the woman and must therefore honour what he had promised, even though it was against his inclination. This is brought out by the fact that later he would not acknowledge Absalom or allow him into his presence. It indicated that he was not at all pleased about having been manipulated in this way.

It is this fact that he felt reluctantly bound by the decision that he had reached, even though he had been duped into it, that explains why he acted so against his inclinations in allowing Absalom back, and then would not acknowledge him when he did arrive. Joab had, in fact, served him a very bad turn, something which would rebound on him in the future. Note that he described his decision so obtained as ‘this thing’. So his instruction to Joab that because he (David) had ‘done this thing’ he (Joab) could go and bring Absalom back, must be seen as very reluctantly given. He was learning that kings should be very careful before they made oaths about something which set aside the Law, even when it appeared relatively unimportant. For

78

a king was bound by his sworn word.

(We today would not feel bound by a promise obtained under false pretences, but things were seen differently in those days (compare Joshua 9:3-27). Once a promise was made by a king on oath it was seen as totally binding, and it would appear that David recognised that his oath related to what the woman had really wanted, which was to bring back Absalom and not execute on him blood vengeance, and that in fact that was the only thing that she had wanted This interpretation is the only real explanation of his behaviour in calling Absalom back but not acknowledging him. While it is true that Absalom had not slain his brother by accident, nevertheless he had seen himself as carrying out the just sentence of the Law on someone who had committed incest. Thus it was open to him to argue that as the king’s son with responsibilities for ensuring the carrying out the Law (2 Samuel 8:18), and as the grandson of the king of Geshur whose granddaughter had been humiliated, he was only doing his duty. Of course, what David mainly had against him was that he had slain his own firstborn in this way. Had it been anyone else he would have approved of Absalom’s action).

22 Joab fell with his face to the ground to pay him honor, and he blessed the king. Joab said, "Today your servant knows that he has found favor in your eyes, my lord the king, because the king has granted his servant's request."

GILL, "And Joab fell to the ground on his face, and bowed himself,.... Or bowed so low as to the ground, in reverence of the king:

and thanked the king; for giving him leave to fetch Absalom home, as if it was a favour done to himself: or "blessed" (s) him; wished all happiness and prosperity might attend him, in consequence of this grant, which he knew would be acceptable to the people:

and Joab said, today thy servant knoweth that I have found grace in thy sight, my lord, O king, in that the king hath fulfilled the request of his servant; he might presume upon this, that as the king had given orders at his request to recall Absalom, who had murdered his brother, which was tacitly giving him a pardon; so he would forgive him the murder of Abner, 2Sa_3:30, and think no more of it; since he perceived now, which he had not so clearly perceived before from that time, that he found grace in his sight, or shared in his favour and good will, as now he saw he did.

79

HENRY, "Returns thanks to the king for doing him the honour to employ him in an affair so universally grateful, 2Sa_14:22. Joab took it as a kindness to himself, and (some think) as an indication that he would never call him to an account for the murder he had been guilty of. But, if he meant so, he was mistaken, as we shall find, 1Ki_2:5, 1Ki_2:6.

K&D, “2Sa_14:22

Joab thanked the king for this, and blessed him: “To-day thy servant knoweth that I have found grace in thy sight, my lord, O king, in that the king hath fulfilled the request of his servant.” It is pretty evident from this, that Joab had frequently applied to David for Absalom's return, without any attention being paid to his application. David therefore suspected that Joab had instructed the woman of

Tekoah. The Chethib עב0ו is not to be exchanged for the Keri .עב0ך!

PULPIT, "In that the king hath fulfilled the request of his servant. Keil concludes from this that Joab had often interceded for Absalom's pardon, and that this had made the king suspect him of being the prime mover in the affair. But this is to force the meaning, Joab now stood confessed as the person who had brought the woman before the king, and had employed her to gain a hearing. Had he been allowed to plead freely, her intervention would not have been necessary. We have seen, too, that the king's suspicions have been made in the Authorized Version much stronger than they really were. Many commentators also assume that Joab had a friendship for Absalom, but there are few traces of it in his conduct, and more probably Joab was chiefly influenced by politic motives. It was injurious to the well being of the nation that there should be discord and enmity between the king and his eldest son, and that the latter should be living in exile. The K'ri, thy servant, placed in the margin, is to be decidedly rejected, with all other attempts of the Massorites to remove little roughnesses of grammar.

PETT, "Joab Brings Absalom Back To Jerusalem, But, To Absalom’s Chagrin, Not Initially Into The King’s Favour (2 Samuel 14:22-33).

As a result of the scheming of Joab, and the folly of David in his dealings with the wise woman of Tekoa, Absalom was allowed to return to Jerusalem, inviolate. But he was unforgiven, and thus he was not restored to his former status as the acknowledged son of the king. This augured well for no one, for Absalom had the pride that came from descent from two royal families, and he found his position intolerable, and he had probably returned with the expectation of being reinstated as the heir apparent. It is in fact probably from this time that we are to date the growth of his hatred of his father, the hatred which resulted in his rebellion, and which was possibly stoked up even further by the fact that he may well now have been living in the same house as the shadow of what remained of his sister, Tamar, the royal princess of Geshur.

80

Both he and his sister had genuine cause to be aggrieved. Had David dealt rightly with Amnon none of this, apart from the rape, would have happened, and Amnon’s execution might well have assisted Tamar in coping with her problem, dealing with her shame and putting her on the road to recovery. Much therefore lay at David’s door.

Finally Absalom could stand the situation no longer. It was not for this that he had returned from Geshur. His expectancy had been that he would be restored to his former position and be seen as in line for the throne. He would feel that David should not have summoned him back otherwise. And now he was rather being treated as a leper. So when Joab would not respond to his appeals for help he took drastic action, the kind of action that should have acted as a warning for the future, which eventually resulted in a reconciliation with the king, . But it is probable that he now suspected that the throne would not be his on David’s death,

Analysis.

a And Joab fell to the ground on his face, and did obeisance, and blessed the king, and Joab said, “Today your servant knows that I have found favour in your sight, my lord, O king, in that the king has performed the request of his servant” (2 Samuel 14:22).

b So Joab arose and went to Geshur, and brought Absalom to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 14:23).

c And the king said, “Let him turn to his own house, but let him not see my face.” So Absalom turned to his own house, and saw not the king’s face (2 Samuel 14:24).

d Now in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty, from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him (2 Samuel 14:25).

e And when he cut the hair of his head (now it was at every year’s end that he cut it, because it was heavy on him, therefore he cut it), he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels, after the king’s weight (2 Samuel 14:26).

d And to Absalom there were born three sons, and one daughter, whose name was Tamar. She was a woman of a fair countenance (2 Samuel 14:27).

c And Absalom dwelt two full years in Jerusalem, and he did not see the king’s face (2 Samuel 14:28).

b Then Absalom sent for Joab, to send him to the king, but he would not come to him, and he sent again a second time, but he would not come. Therefore he said to his servants, “See, Joab’s field is near mine, and he has barley there. Go and set it on fire.” And Absalom’s servants set the field on fire. Then Joab arose, and came to Absalom to his house, and said to him, “Why have your servants set my field on fire?” And Absalom answered Joab, “Behold, I sent to you, saying, ‘Come here’, that I may send you to the king, to say, ‘Why am I

81

come from Geshur? It were better for me to be there still. Now therefore let me see the king’s face, and if there be iniquity in me, let him kill me’ ” (2 Samuel 14:29-32).

a So Joab came to the king, and told him, and when he had called for Absalom, he came to the king, and bowed himself on his face to the ground before the king, and the king kissed Absalom (2 Samuel 14:33).

Note that in ‘a’ Joab fell to the ground and did obeisance, and was grateful for a benefit received from the king, and in the parallel Absalom bows himself on his face to the ground and receives the king’s favour. In ‘b’ Joab brings Absalom home from Geshur, and in the parallel Absalom wants to know from Joab what the point was of bringing him home from Geshur if he could not see the king’s face. In ‘c’ Absalom returned but was not allowed to see the king’s face, and in the parallel he dwelt in Jerusalem for two years but did not see the king’s face. In ‘d’ Absalom was without blemish in his appearance, and in the parallel he was fruitful and his daughter was fair to look upon. Central in ‘e’ was the length and weight of his hair, a sign of extreme manliness and comeliness, both attributes desirable in a king.

2 Samuel 14:22

‘And Joab fell to the ground on his face, and did obeisance, and blessed the king, and Joab said, “Today your servant knows that I have found favour in your sight, my lord, O king, in that the king has performed the request of his servant.” ’

When Joab learned that David was fulfilling his oath to the wise woman as though he had made it to Joab himself (he also may have been feeling apprehensive of what repercussions might be forthcoming), he came into David’s presence and fell on his face to the ground and did obeisance, expressing his gratitude in great humility because he had ‘found favour in David’s sight’ sufficient for him to grant his request. He was probably also secretly relieved.

23 Then Joab went to Geshur and brought Absalom back to Jerusalem.

GILL, "So Joab arose and went to Geshur,.... Where Absalom was with his grandfather, the king of the place; see 2Sa_13:37,

and brought Absalom to Jerusalem; from thence, which, according to Bunting (t), was the distance of eighty eight miles from it.

82

HENRY 23-24, "Delays not to execute David's orders; he brought Absalom to Jerusalem, 2Sa_14:23. I see not how David can be justified in suspending the execution of the ancient law (Gen_9:6), Whoso sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, in which a righteous magistrate ought not to acknowledge even his brethren, or know his own children. God's laws were never designed to be like cobwebs, which catch the little flies, but suffer the great ones to break through. God justly made Absalom, whom his foolish pity spared, a scourge to him. But, though he allowed him to return to his own house, he forbade him the court, and would not see him himself, 2Sa_14:24. He put him under this interdict, (1.) For his own honour, that he might not seem to countenance so great a criminal, nor to forgive him too easily. (2.) For Absalom's greater humiliation. Perhaps he had heard something of his conduct when Joab went to fetch him, which gave him too much reason to think that he was not truly penitent; he therefore put him under this mark of his displeasure, that he might be awakened to a sight of his sin and to sorrow for it, and might make his peace with God, upon the first notice of which, no doubt, David would be forward to receive him again into his favour.

BENSON, "2 Samuel 14:23. So Joab went, and brought Absalom to Jerusalem — “Well pleased, we may be assured, to be at once the messenger of his prince’s mercy to the heir apparent of his crown, and the instrument of their reconciliation: which could not fail to secure him a present fund of favour with the father, and an equal fund in reversion with the son.” — Delaney. St. Ambrose mentions this as an instance of the wonderful affection which parents have to their children, though degenerate and wicked; by which we may raise our thoughts to form some, although a very inadequate idea, of the inconceivable love of our heavenly Father toward the human race, his offspring, though fallen and depraved.

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:23

‘So Joab arose and went to Geshur, and brought Absalom to Jerusalem.’

Then following up on David’s permission he arose and went to Geshur and brought Absalom home to Jerusalem, presumably with great pomp. No doubt both Joab and Absalom were expecting Absalom’s full reinstatement. They would have felt that otherwise David should not have agreed to his coming. What both probably did not recognise was that David was only doing it because he felt himself bound by his oath made in the name of YHWH to the woman of Tekoa (4:11), whose ‘son’ had turned out to be Absalom, an oath that had been tricked out of him.

24 But the king said, "He must go to his own house; he

83

must not see my face." So Absalom went to his own house and did not see the face of the king.

BARNES, "Let him not see my face - We are not told why David adopted this half-measure. Possibly Bath-sheba’s influence may have been exerted to keep Absalom in disgrace for the sake of Solomon.

CLARKE, "Let him not see my face - He would not at once restore him to favor, though he had now remitted his crime; so that he should not die for it. It was highly proper to show this detestation of the crime, and respect for justice.

GILL, "And the king said,.... Very probably to Joab, when he informed him of Absalom's being come to Jerusalem:

let him turn to his own house; depart from the king's palace, where Joab had brought him, and go to his own house, which was in Jerusalem; for here he had one before he fled to Geshur; see 2Sa_13:20,

and let him not see my face; which he ordered, partly to show his detestation of the crime he had been guilty of, and some remaining resentment in his mind at him on account of it; and partly for his credit among some of the people at least, who might think it was a crime so great as not to go unpunished, though others were of a different mind; and also for the greater humiliation of Absalom, who, the king might think, had not been sufficiently humbled for his sin, or had not truly repented of it:

so Absalom returned to his own house, and saw not the king's face; in obedience to his father's orders.

HENRY, "He put him under this interdict, (1.) For his own honour, that he might not seem to countenance so great a criminal, nor to forgive him too easily. (2.) For Absalom's greater humiliation. Perhaps he had heard something of his conduct when Joab went to fetch him, which gave him too much reason to think that he was not truly penitent; he therefore put him under this mark of his displeasure, that he might be awakened to a sight of his sin and to sorrow for it, and might make his peace with God, upon the first notice of which, no doubt, David would be forward to receive him again into his favour.

K&D, “2Sa_14:24

But David could not forgive Absalom altogether. He said to Joab, “Let him turn to his own house, and my face he shall not see.” This half forgiveness was an imprudent measure, and bore very bitter fruit. The further account of Absalom is introduced in 2Sa_14:25-27 with a description of his personal appearance and family affairs.

84

PULPIT, "Let him turn to his own house, etc. This half forgiveness was unwise, and led to unhappy results. It seems even as if Absalom was a prisoner in his house, as he could not leave it to visit Joab. Still, we must not assume that even kind treatment would have made Absalom a dutiful son, or weaned him from his ambitions purposes. The long plotted revenge, carried out so determinately, gives us a low idea of his character, and probably during these two years of waiting, he had brooded over David's criminal leniency, and regarded it as a justification for his own foul deed. And now, when allowed to come home, but still treated unkindly, thoughts condemnatory of his father's conduct were cherished by him. It seems, too, as if a protracted punishment is always dangerous to the moral character of the criminal. And must we not add another reason? Absalom, we may feel sure, saw with indignation the growing influence of Bathsheba over the king. A granddaughter of Ahithophel, she was sure to be an adept in those intrigues in which the women of a harem pass their time; and even if, upon the whole, we form a favourable judgment upon her character, yet undoubtedly she was a very able woman, and could have no affection for Absalom.

BENSON, "2 Samuel 14:24. The king said, Let him turn to his own house — Although the king so far forgave Absalom as to recall him from exile, yet he forbade him to see his face. For his affection to him did not so blind his eyes but he still saw it would not be for his honour to let him come into his presence, lest while he showed some mercy to him, he should seem to approve of his sin. Likewise, he hoped that by this means Absalom might be brought to a more thorough consideration of the heinousness of his crime, and to repentance for it. Indeed, such a discountenance and rebuke as this was necessary, not only to signify the king’s abhorrence of his late cruel revenge upon his brother, but “to mortify his pride and repress his popularity; which it seems now began to blaze out upon the news of his reconciliation to his father. And this may be the reason why the sacred historian subjoins to this account of the king’s discountenance a particular description of Absalom’s beauty, which is a natural and common foundation of popularity; and then adds an account of his having three sons, and one fair daughter, (whom he named after his unhappy sister, Tamar,) which was also another fountain of pride, popularity, and presumption.” — Delaney. He saw not the king’s face — Which was some humiliation to him; for hereby he saw he had not a full pardon, not being entirely restored to the king’s favour. The people also might see by this, in part, how detestable his crime was in the king’s account, and that he would not easily pass by the like in any other person, since he could not endure the sight of a son whose hands were defiled with the blood of his brother.

COKE, "2 Samuel 14:24. Let him turn to his own house, &c.— This discountenance and rebuke, which Absalom received from his father, was certainly little enough to signify the king's abhorrence of his late cruel revenge upon his brother; yet not more than was necessary to mortify his pride and repress his popularity, which now in all probability began to blaze out upon the news of this reconciliation to his father: and this appears to be the reason why the sacred historian immediately subjoins to this account of the king's discountenance, a particular description of Absalom's beauty, 2 Samuel 14:25-26

85

which is a frequent foundation of popularity; and then acquaints us with his having three sons and one fair daughter, 2 Samuel 14:27 whom he named after his unhappy sister, Tamar, which was probably another fountain of pride, popularity, and presumption.

HAWKER, "Verses 24-27

(24) And the king said, Let him turn to his own house, and let him not see my face. So Absalom returned to his own house, and saw not the king's face. (25) But in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty: from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him. (26) And when he polled his head, (for it was at every year's end that he polled it: because the hair was heavy on him, therefore he polled it:) he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels after the king's weight. (27) And unto Absalom there were born three sons, and one daughter, whose name was Tamar: she was a woman of a fair countenance.

Amidst all the beauty of Absalom's person, we hear nothing of the graces of his mind! Alas! what are all outward attractions but vanity. The Lord seeth not as man seeth. Concerning Absalom's family, the record of his children is but of short note, for they were soon cut off, as appears, 2 Samuel 18:18.

LANGE, "2 Samuel 14:24. Absalom’s pardon, however, was not a full one; it consisted only in the permission to return to Jerusalem. He remained banished from the royal court. My face shall he not see, says David. This was no real pardon. David’s anger still continued. It is a natural surmise that this was because Absalom showed no repentance and did not ask for forgiveness; there is not the slightest hint of his doing so. Let him turn to his own house.—These words suggest that Absalom was not merely banished from court, but also confined to his own house. Otherwise (as Thenius points out) he would not have been obliged to send for Joab ( 2 Samuel 14:28 comp. with 2 Samuel 14:31.) [David’s banishing Absalom from court was just and wise, since his crime deserved punishment, and it was right that the people should know the king’s abhorrence of the crime (Patrick). Perhaps this half-forgiveness was an impolitic measure (Keil), since it may have merely vexed and embittered Absalom. It is not necessary to suppose that the king was angry with him; his conduct may have been determined by his regard for law and justice while his heart desired complete reconciliation. Bib. Comm. suggests that Bathsheba’s influence may have been exerted to keep Absalom in disgrace for the sake of Solomon.—Tr.]

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:24

‘And the king said, “Let him turn to his own house, but let him not see my face.” So Absalom turned to his own house, and saw not the king’s face.’

The king was therefore obdurate. Absalom must turn for shelter to his own house. He was not to be allowed to see the king’s face. It may well be that David’s

86

guilt feelings for not having done more than he had, had caused him to harden his own heart. He would have known that he should have done more about what Amnon had done, and his contacts with the king of Geshur would undoubtedly have emphasised the fact. But what he could not forget or forgive was that Absalom had raised his hand against a royal personage in the person of Amnon, without his permission. He had deeply offended the king. It is quite clear that David did not really want Absalom back in Jerusalem. Joab had thus served him a bad turn.

25 In all Israel there was not a man so highly praised for his handsome appearance as Absalom. From the top of his head to the sole of his foot there was no blemish in him.

CLARKE, "None to be so much praised as Absalom - It was probably his personal beauty that caused the people to interest themselves so much in his behalf; for the great mass of the public is ever caught and led by outward appearances.

There was no blemish in him - He was perfect and regular in all his features, and in all his proportions.

GILL, "But in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty,.... Which is observed to account in some measure for the interest he had in the affections of the people, both now and hereafter:

from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him; not any spot, freckle, wart, scurf, or scab; nothing deficient or superfluous in him; no disproportion of parts, nor any disagreeable feature; but an entire symmetry, and perfect comeliness, which made him very respectable. The Talmudists (u) make him to be of a gigantic stature.

HENRY 25-27, "II. Occasion taken hence to give an account of Absalom. Nothing is said of his wisdom and piety. Though he was the son of such a devout father, we read nothing of his devotion. Parents cannot give grace to their children, though they give them ever so good an education. All that is here said of him is, 1. That he was a very handsome man; there was not his equal in all Israel for beauty, (2Sa_14:25), a poor commendation for a man that had nothing else in him valuable. Handsome are those that handsome do. Many a polluted deformed soul dwells in a fair and comely body; witness Absalom's, that was polluted with blood, and deformed with unnatural disaffection to his father and prince. In his body there was no blemish, but in his

87

mind nothing but wounds and bruises. Perhaps his comeliness was one reason why his father was so fond of him and protected him from justice. Those have reason to fear affliction in their children who are better pleased with their beauty than with their virtue. 2. That he had a very fine head of hair. Whether it was the length, or colour, or extraordinary softness of it, something there was which made it very valuable and very much an ornament to him, 2Sa_14:26. This notice is taken of his hair, not as the hair of a Nazarite (he was far from that strictness), but as the hair of a beau. He let it grow till it was a burden to him, and was heavy on him, nor would he cut it as long as ever he could bear it; as pride feels no cold, so it feels no heat, and that which feeds and gratifies it is not complained of, though very uneasy. When he did poll it at certain times, for ostentation he had it weighed, that it might be seen how much it excelled other men's, and it weighed 200 shekels, which some reckon to be three pounds and two ounces of our weight; and with the oil and powder, especially if powdered (as Josephus says the fashion then was) with gold-dust, bishop Patrick thinks it is not at all incredible that it should weigh so much. This fine hair proved his halter, 2Sa_18:9. 3. That his family began to be built up. It is probable that it was a good while before he had a child; and then it was that, despairing of having one, he set up that pillar which is mentioned 2Sa_18:18, to bear up his name; but afterwards he had three sons and one daughter, 2Sa_14:27. Or perhaps these sons, while he was hatching his rebellion, were all cut off by the righteous hand of God, and thereupon he set up that monument.

JAMISON, "But in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty — This extraordinary popularity arose not only from his high spirit and courtly manners, but from his uncommonly handsome appearance. One distinguishing feature, seemingly an object of great admiration, was a profusion of beautiful hair. Its extraordinary luxuriance compelled him to cut it “at every year’s end;” lit., “at times,” “from time to time,” when it was found to weigh two hundred shekels - equal to one hundred twelve ounces troy; but as “the weight was after the king’s shekel,” which was less than the common shekel, the rate has been reduced as low as three pounds, two ounces [Bochart], and even less by others.

K&D, “2Sa_14:25

There was no man in all Israel so handsome as Absalom. מאד to much“ ,להNל

praising,” i.e., so that he was greatly praised. from the sole of the foot even to the

crown of his head, there was no fault (מום, bodily blemish) in him.

LANGE, "2 Samuel 14:25 sqq. Absalom’s beauty.—He was the handsomest man in Israel. Literally: “and as Absalom there was not a handsome man in all Israel to praise much.” There was no spot, no bodily blemish in him. From year to year[FN26] he polled or cut his hair. The weight of the polled hair here given, 200 shekels, is certainly too great, being about six pounds, if the royal shekel = the sacred shekel; and if it be taken as = one half the sacred shekel, the weight is still too great. There is no doubt an error of text here. Perhaps we should read20 instead of200 (כ may have passed into ר); “for20 shekels (= 9 or10 ounces) would suppose a very heavy, but not incredibly heavy, head of hair” (Thenius). [Others read four shekels—(ד instead of ר). But as all the ancient versions (except the anonymous vers. quoted in Montfaucon’s Hex. as giving “one hundred”) agree with the Hebrew, any such change of letters must have been made early, when

88

probably not the present square characters, but the old Phenician were in use; so that we must go to them to discover possible changes of this sort.—There is doubt as to what particular weight is meant by the “king’s shekel.” It cannot be the Babylonian shekel, says Thenius, for this would point to a postexilian origin for this passage, which is impossible. The king, says Wellhausen, is the Persian Great King, and this verse betrays a postexilian origin. Nothing more definite can be said than that the king’s shekel is probably a different weight from the sacred shekel, and probably less than that. Kitto mentions reading of a lady’s hair that weighed more than four pounds, and, if the two hundred shekels is not more than this, it is a possible weight. It is evidently intended to represent the hair as extraordinarily heavy and strong, in order to explain 2 Samuel 18:9. The ancients were accustomed to bestow much care on the hair, see Jos. Ant8, 7, 3, and Bp. Patrick in loco.—Tr.].

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:25

‘Now in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty, from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him.’

But to a king’s son, who was also famed for his looks and for his virility (as revealed by his hair) this situation was unbearable. For while David wanted nothing to do with him Absalom was the idol of all Israel. None was so much praised for his handsome face, and for his overall beauty in that there was no blemish on him anywhere.

BI, “But in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty.

Absalom a contradiction

The ancients, and in particular the Orientals, were very fond of remarking upon a man’s height. Their notion was that the greater the stature the more fit the man was for the society of the gods. The Old Testament is to a large extent a book which takes notice of outward features, and praises physical excellence, and estimates at high price all material blessings. But what an irony there is in such a case as Absalom’s! Given, a grand physique and a little soul, and say if any irony can be more ghastly and humiliating. Such contradictions we are to ourselves sometimes, and to one another. Our circumstances may be the best part of us: the house may be greater than the tenant; the furniture may be more worthy than its owner. What, then, is to be done? A blot like this ought not to be tolerated. Wherein a man is conscious that he represents this irony, he should look about him, and say that to-day shall end the intolerable disharmony, and at least seek to introduce a reconciliation as between the outward and the inward, so that the soul may prosper and be in health as the body, or the body may prosper and be in health as the soul, according to the special circumstances of each individual case. (J. Parker, D. D.)

89

26 Whenever he cut the hair of his head-he used to cut his hair from time to time when it became too heavy for him-he would weigh it, and its weight was two hundred shekels [2] by the royal standard.

BARNES, "Two hundred shekels ... - The exact weight cannot be determined. If these “shekels after the king’s weight” were the same as “shekels of the sanctuary,” the weight would be about 6 lbs., which is incredible; “twenty” shekels is more probable.

CLARKE, "When he polled his head - Not at any particular period, but when the hair became too heavy for him. On this account of the extraordinary weight of Absalom’s hair, see the observations at the end of this chapter, 2Sa_14:30 (note).

GILL, "And when he polled his head,.... Or cut off the hair of it; for that was one thing, a good head of hair which he had, that made him look very comely and beautiful:

for it was at every year's end that he polled it; or cut it off once a year; but the Jews say (w) he was a perpetual Nazarite:

because the hair was heavy upon him, and therefore he polled it; it grew so very thick and long in one year's time, that he was obliged to cut it; and what might add to the weight of it, its being oiled and powdered; and, as some say, with the dust of gold, to make it look yellow and glistering:

he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels, after the king's weight; and a shekel being the weight of half an ounce of avoirdupois weight, as Bishop Cumberland (x) has shown from various writers, the weight of his hair must be an hundred ounces; which was a very great weight indeed on his head. Some think that the price it was sold at, and not the weight of it, is meant; which they suppose was sold to women for ornament about their temples, and the money given either to the poor, or for the use of the sanctuary; and reckoning a shekel at two shillings and sixpence, as some do, the value of it came to twenty five pounds of our money; but the above mentioned writer (y) reduces it to about two shillings and four pence farthing; which makes the value somewhat less; but inasmuch as it is not so probable that a person of such rank should sell his hair, nor does it appear that any, such use was made of hair in those times as suggested; and this being said to be according to the king's weight or stone, by which all weights were to be regulated, it is best to understand this of the weight, and not of the price of his hair; which, according to Josephus (z), was five pounds; but, according to the above account, it must be six pounds and a quarter. The Jews say (a) this weight was according to what the

90

inhabitants of Tiberias and Zippore used, but do not tell us what it was.

HENRY, " That his family began to be built up. It is probable that it was a good while before he had a child; and then it was that, despairing of having one, he set up that pillar which is mentioned 2Sa_18:18, to bear up his name; but afterwards he had three sons and one daughter, 2Sa_14:27. Or perhaps these sons, while he was hatching his rebellion, were all cut off by the righteous hand of God, and thereupon he set up that monument.

K&D, “2Sa_14:26

“When he polled his head, and it took place from year to year that he polled it; for it became heavy upon him (too heavy for him), and so he polled it: they weighed the hair of his head, two hundred shekels by the king's weight.” A strong growth of hair was a sign of great manly power, and so far a proof of Absalom's beauty. The statement as to the weight of the hair cut off, viz., two hundred shekels, is in any case a round number, and much too high, although we do not know what the difference between the royal and the sacred shekel really was. According to the sacred reckoning, two hundred shekels would be about six pounds; so that if we were to assume that the royal shekel was about half the other, the number would be still much too high. It is evident, therefore, that there is an error in the text, such as we frequently meet with in the case of numbers, though we have no means of rectifying it, as all the ancient versions contain the same number.

PULPIT, "Two hundred shekels after the king's weight. Unless the royal shekel was smaller than the shekel of the sanctuary, the weight of Absalom's hair would be six pounds. But we cannot believe that the king's shekel was not full weight; for to imagine this is to suppose that the king had tampered with the coinage; for the shekel was a coin as well as a weight, being originally a fixed quantity of silver. As a matter of fact, David had amassed too much silver to have need of resorting to what is the expedient of feeble and impoverished princes. Nor can we grant an error in the number; for the versions all agree with the Hebrew, so that any mistake must, at all events, be of great antiquity. Josephus says that Solomon's body guard wore long hair powdered with gold dust, and undoubtedly Absalom's hair was something extraordinary (2 Samuel 18:9). But six pounds is so enormous a weight that it is just possible that some ancient copyist has enlarged the number, to make it accord with a legend current among the people, in which this feature of Absalom's beauty had been exaggerated.

COFFMAN, "This little paragraph was apparently included here as preparatory to the account of Absalom's death when that tremendous head of hair provided the opportunity for Joab to kill him!

As for the weight of that hair, scholars give different figures. Payne gave it as "Three and one half or four pounds";[16] Cook estimated it as, "About 6 pounds."[17] He also suggested that the figure of two hundred shekels should probably be read as "twenty shekels." Caird gave the weight as "About three and one-half pounds";[18] and Josephus gave it as "five pounds."[19] From all

91

this, it is perfectly evident that the scholars do not know what it weighed; and we can think of no better comment than that of R. P. Smith who said, "Undoubtedly Absalom's hair was something extraordinary"![20] The reason for all the uncertainty arises from the lack of knowledge concerning the shekels mentioned here. Another possible explanation by Keil alleges that, "There is an error in the text."[21] We also found a suggestion that shekels were also used as units of monetary value, and that the 200 shekels might have indicated the price rather than the weight of Absalom's hair.

BENSON, "2 Samuel 14:26. When he polled his head, &c. — In those days hair was accounted a great ornament, and the longer it was, the more it was esteemed. And therefore it is no wonder that Absalom, who was proud, and courted popularity, should let his grow to a great length, as this rendered him still more beautiful in the people’s eyes. It was at every year’s end that he polled it — The Hebrew here, מקצ ימים לימים, mekets jamim lajamim, does not properly signify, at every year’s end, but rather, at the return of a certain season. Houbigant renders the passage, For there were certain seasons when he polled it, that he might deliver himself from the weight; and when he polled it, the weight was two hundred shekels. This weight of hair, if computed by the Jewish shekel, according to Bochart, amounts to three pounds two ounces of our weight, which certainly is prodigious, considering that only a part of it was cut off, on account of its being grown too long. Some, however, understand the expression, not of the weight, but of the price of his hair. But the remark of Bishop Patrick here seems worthy of notice: That, “when the books of Samuel were revised, after the Babylonish captivity, such weights were mentioned as were then known to them; and therefore, when the historian speaks of this weight of Absalom’s hair, he adds, by way of explanation, that it was after the king’s weight — That is, after the weight of the king of Babylon, whose shekel was only one-third of that of the Jews; and thus this large quantity of hair, which has given so much occasion to the enemies of revelation to ridicule the sacred text, is reduced so as not to seem at all enormous. Besides, we should recollect that the hair, being in those days reckoned a great ornament, was perfumed with large quantities of fragrant oils, and powdered with gold-dust, which would make it more heavy than we could otherwise imagine; and further we should remark, that it is very evident from the peculiar manner in which it is mentioned in the sacred text, that there must have been something extremely singular, even at that time, in this large quantity of Absalom’s hair.” — See Dr. Dodd, and Saurin’s 5th Dissert.

COKE, "2 Samuel 14:26. And when he polled his head, &c.— Houbigant remarks, that it is a mistake to suppose that Absalom polled his head every year: the Hebrew, ימים מקצ mikkets yamim, which we render at every year's end, signifies only at the return of a certain season, and he renders the passage, for there were certain seasons when he polled it, that he might deliver himself from the weight; and when he polled it, the weight was two hundred shekels. This seemingly prodigious weight of hair, according to Bochart, if computed by the Jewish shekel, amounted to three pounds and two ounces of our weight.

92

But Bishop Patrick remarks, that when the books of Samuel were revised after the Babylonish captivity, such weights were mentioned as were then known to them; and therefore, when the historian speaks of this weight of Absalom's hair, he adds, by way of explanation, that it was after the king's weight; i.e. after the weight of the king of Babylon, whose shekel was only one-third of that of the Jews; and therefore this large quantity of hair, which has given so much occasion to the enemies of revelation to ridicule the sacred text, is reduced so as not to seem at all enormous. Besides, we should recollect, that the hair, being in those days reckoned a great ornament, was perfumed with large quantities of fragrant oils, which would make it more heavy than otherwise it would have been: and further we should remark, that it is very evident from the peculiar manner in which it is mentioned in the sacred text, that there must have been something extremely singular, even at that time, in this large quantity of Absalom's hair. Those, however, who are desirous to enter further on the subject, which has been very thoroughly examined, may find full satisfaction in Michaelis's Comment. Gotting. tom. 2: or in Stackhouse on the place.

WHEDON, "26. Polled his head — Cut or clipped off the superabundant growth of the hair.

At every year’s end — Literally, from the end of days to days; that is, from time to time.

Two hundred shekels after the king’s weight — The king’s shekel is supposed to have been less than the common shekel, and Bochart makes the weight of two hundred shekels equal to three pounds and two ounces avoirdupois. Others think there is an error in the text caused by the former use of letters for numbers, and the transcriber’s mistaking one for another. Thus, ד ר ,4= ל ,200= =30; and one of these might easily have been mistaken for another. It is impossible positively to solve the difficulty, but in any case it is clear that the weight of Absalom’s hair was surprisingly great, and this was regarded as adding to his beauty. “The hair of men will grow as thick as that of women, and perhaps thicker; and if we may judge from the cues of the Chinese, which sometimes reach to the ground, it will grow as long; and such hair, if of proportionate bulk, must, one would think, weigh at least three or four pounds. Indeed, we have read the well known case of a lady whose hair reached the ground, and weighed upon her head (and therefore without including the weight of the parts nearest the scalp) upwards of four pounds.” — Kitto.

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:26

‘And when he cut the hair of his head (now it was at every year’s end that he cut it, because it was heavy on him, therefore he cut it), he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels, after the king’s weight.’

And his hair (which would eventually be the death of him) was a sight to behold. It grew so luxuriously that he had to have it cut once a year because it became too heavy for him (compare Ezekiel 5:1). And when he had cut it, it was found (by him) to weigh ‘200 shekels after the king’s weight’. We are not sure what a

93

shekel weighed although it has been suggested that it may have been up to 13 grams, which would give 2:6 kilograms or 6 pounds. But the royal shekel may have been less. The weight would, of course, have included the extra weight caused by oils added to the hair over the year. This act of weighing the hair may have been connected with the practise of the giving of gold or silver to the poor based on the weight of the hair, a custom certainly practised later by the Arabs, and possibly familiar among the Geshurites. Such giving would have been typical of Absalom in his bid to find favour.

(Note that the weight given is as assessed by him. It is always possible that he and his servants actually overstated the real weight of his hair so as to make a more powerful impression on all who learned of it).

It would appear to have been normal for Israelite men to have shoulder length hair, and some fierce warriors appear to have let their hair hang loose (although not untidily) when they went into battle (see for example Judges 5:2 Hebrew text; Deuteronomy 32:42 Hebrew text). So the idea behind the mention of Absalom’s hair may have been with the purpose of indicating his manliness and soldier-like qualities, combined with his generosity. In other words he was overall to be seen as a splendid kind of man.

27 Three sons and a daughter were born to Absalom. The daughter's name was Tamar, and she became a beautiful woman.

BARNES, "Three sons - These probably died in infancy (see the marginal reference). From Tamar must have been born Maachah, the mother of Abijah, and the favorite wife of Rehoboam 1Ki_15:2; 2Ch_11:20-22.

CLARKE, "Unto Absalom there were born - These children did not survive him; see 2Sa_18:18.

Tamar - The Septuagint adds, And she became the wife of Roboam, the son of Solomon, and bare to him Abia; see Mat_1:7. Josephus says the same. This addition is not found in the other versions. 2 Samuel 14:27 “Absalom had a daughter, whose name was Tamar.”

GILL, "And unto Absalom there were born three sons,.... Who very probably

94

died young; and the rather it may be thought so, since their names are not given, and more especially since it is said that Absalom had no sons, and therefore erected a pillar to keep up the remembrance of his name; unless it can be thought that that was set up before he had any sons, which is not so likely; see 2Sa_18:18,

and one daughter, whose name was Tamar; and whom he named after his sister Tamar, who was ravished by Amnon; the Septuagint version in some copies adds,"and she became the wife of Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, and bore to him Abia;''and so says Josephus (b); see 1Ki_15:22,

she was a woman of a fair countenance; as was her aunt, after whom she was named, 2Sa_13:1; by this it appears that she lived to a woman's estate, though the sons of Absalom died young.

HENRY, "That his family began to be built up. It is probable that it was a good while before he had a child; and then it was that, despairing of having one, he set up that pillar which is mentioned 2Sa_18:18, to bear up his name; but afterwards he had three sons and one daughter, 2Sa_14:27. Or perhaps these sons, while he was hatching his rebellion, were all cut off by the righteous hand of God, and thereupon he set up that monument.

K&D, “2Sa_14:27

Unto Absalom there were born three sons, and one daughter named Tamar, who was beautiful in figure. Contrary to general usage, the names of the sons are not given, in all probability for no other reason than because they died in infancy. Consequently, as Absalom had no sons, he afterwards erected a pillar to preserve his name (2Sa_18:18). The daughter's name is probably given as a proof of Absalom's great affection for his sister Tamar, whom Amnon had violated.

(Note: The lxx have this additional clause, καP!γίνεται!γυνS!TοβαVµ!υXY!Σαλωµ[ν!

καP!τίκτει!α\τY!τ ν!]βιά (and she became the wife of Rehoboam the son of

Solomon, and bore him a son named Abia). Although this is quite at variance with 1Ki_15:2, where it is stated that the wife of Rehoboam and mother of Abia (Abijam) was named Maacah, the clause had been adopted by Thenius, who regards it as original, though for reasons which Böttcher has shown to be worthless.)

PULPIT, "Three sons. Their names are not given, because they died early (see 2 Samuel 18:18). Of his daughter Tamar, named after her aunt, and, like her, possessed of great beauty, the Septuagint adds that she became the wife of Rehoboam, and mother of Abijah. In 1 Kings 15:2 we are told that Abijah's mother was "Maachah the daughter of Abishalom;" and in 2 Chronicles 13:2 that her name was "Michaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah." We thus gather that Tamar married Uriel, and that it was the granddaughter of Absalom who became Rehoboam's queen. It is strictly in accordance with Hebrew custom to call Absalom's granddaughter his daughter, and, as Uriel was a man of no political importance, he is passed over, as the narrator's object was to show that Abijah's mother was sprung from the handsome and notorious son of David (see also 2 Chronicles 11:20, 2 Chronicles 11:21).

95

COFFMAN, ""There were born to Absalom three sons and one daughter" (2 Samuel 14:27). Absalom later set up a pillar and stated that he had no sons (2 Samuel 18:18). This does not contradict what is written here, because, as Keil said, "All of Absalom's sons died in infancy, so their names are not given here."[22]

"And one daughter whose name was Tamar" (2 Samuel 14:27). This might have been mentioned here as proof of Absalom's love for his sister Tamar who had been violated by Amnon. The Septuagint (LXX) states that this Tamar became the wife of Solomon's son King Rehoboam; but "Maachah is mentioned as the favorite wife of Rehoboam and the mother of Abijah in 1Kings 15:2,2 Chronicles 11:20-22. Cook solved the problem by understanding Tamar's daughter as Rehoboam's wife[23] and another solution supposes that Tamar was also called Maachah. The problem, to us, appears to have little importance.

ELLICOTT, "(27) Three sons.—Their names are not given, from which it might be supposed that they died in infancy, and this is made sure by 2 Samuel 18:18, where Absalom is reported as saying, “I have no son to keep my name in remembrance.”

One daughter.—This daughter bore the name of Absalom’s sister, Tamar, and shared her beauty. The LXX. here inserts the statement that she “became the wife of Roboam, the son of Solomon, and bore him a son, Abia.” But this is evidently a confused gloss, founded upon 1 Kings 15:2; 2 Chronicles 11:20-22. We are there told that Rehoboam’s favourite wife was Maachah, the daughter of Absalom, and mother of Abijah; but this must mean that Maachah was his granddaughter through Tamar, since in 2 Chronicles 13:2 Abijah is called the son of Michaiah, the daughter of Uriel. Tamar then married Uriel, and her daughter became the mother of a line of kings.

LANGE, "2 Samuel 14:27. Absalom’s children. Only one is mentioned by name, a daughter Tamar, probably called after Absalom’s unfortunate sister. The sons (contrary to custom) are not named, probably because they died young. This would explain Absalom’s erecting a monument ( 2 Samuel 18:18) to perpetuate his name. Concerning Tamar the Sept. adds: “and she becomes the wife of Roboam the son of Solomon and bears him Abia.” Now 1 Kings 15:2 certainly describes the wife of Rehoboam and mother of Abijah as a daughter of Absalom, but calls her Maacah. The Sept. has here (as elsewhere) evidently introduced an explanation from that passage, confounding, however, Tamar with another later-born daughter of Absalom, who was Rehoboam’s wife. Thenius remarks: “Rehoboam’s wife is certainly a granddaughter of Absalom (daughter of his daughter Tamar) named after her great-grandmother Maacah (iii3);” where “perhaps” ought to stand instead of “certainly.”

96

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:27

‘And to Absalom there were born three sons, and one daughter, whose name was Tamar. She was a woman of a fair countenance.’

Furthermore not only did he have luxurious hair but Absalom was also fruitful, and had three sons, three being seen as signifying completeness. Sadly it would appear that the sons died young, which is probably why their names are not given, and that would explain why he later raised a pillar because he had no sons to carry on his name (2 Samuel 18:18). Such infant deaths were by no means uncommon, and would not have been seen as diminishing his reputation for fruitfulness. Furthermore his daughter Tamar did survive and her beauty was seen as a credit to him, so that he received added praise through his daughter. Overall then he is depicted as a magnificent kind of person. However, such a description in Samuel regularly acts as a warning of someone outwardly suitable, but who may in the end turn out not to be suitable. Compare the descriptions of the magnificence of both Saul and Eliab (1 Samuel 9:2; 1 Samuel 16:6-7) neither of whom proved suitable in the end. For while man looks at the outward appearance, YHWH looks at the heart.

It would appear that Absalom named his daughter Tamar after his sister. However, in 2 Chronicles 11:21 a daughter of ‘Absalom’ is apparently called Maacah. (On the other hand 1 Kings 15:2 says that Maacah was the daughter of Abi-shalom). It may therefore be that there were two Absaloms, one of whom was better known as Abi-shalom. Alternatively Maacah (the name also of Absalom’s mother) may have been a second name given to Tamar on her marriage, (or at birth), linking her with the royal house of Geshur and with her royal grandmother. Giving a new name on marriage was a common practise in the Ancient Near East (compare Genesis 26:34 with Genesis 36:2), and having two names was not uncommon. A third alternative is that Maacah was a daughter born to Absalom in Geshur, who remained there with her grandparents and is thus not mentioned in this narrative.

28 Absalom lived two years in Jerusalem without seeing the king's face.

GILL, "So Absalom dwelt two full years in Jerusalem,.... After his return from Geshur:

and saw not the king's face; all that time; which was owing either to the king's resentment of the fact committed by him, or to state policy.

97

HENRY, "Three years Absalom had been an exile from his father-in-law, and now two years a prisoner at large in his own house, and, in both, better dealt with than he deserved; yet his spirit was still unhumbled, his pride unmortified, and, instead of being thankful that his life is spared, he thinks himself sorely wronged that he is not restored to all his places at court. Had he truly repented of his sin, his distance from the gaieties of the court, and his solitude and retirement in his own house, especially being in Jerusalem the holy city, would have been very agreeable to him. If a murderer must live, yet let him be for ever a recluse. But Absalom could not bear this just and gentle mortification. He longed to see the king's face, pretending it was because he loved him, but really because he wanted an opportunity to supplant him. He cannot do his father a mischief till he is reconciled to him; this therefore is the first branch of his plot; this snake cannot sting again till he be warmed in his father's bosom. He gained this point, not by pretended submissions and promises of reformation, but (would you think it?) by insults and injuries.

JAMISON, "So Absalom dwelt two full years in Jerusalem, and saw not the king’s face — Whatever error David committed in authorizing the recall of Absalom, he displayed great prudence and command over his feelings afterwards -for his son was not admitted into his father’s presence but was confined to his own house and the society of his own family. This slight severity was designed to bring him to sincere repentance, on perceiving that his father had not fully pardoned him, as well as to convince the people of David’s abhorrence of his crime. Not being allowed to appear at court, or to adopt any state, the courtiers kept aloof; even his cousin did not deem it prudent to go into his society. For two full years his liberty was more restricted, and his life more apart from his countrymen while living in Jerusalem, than in Geshur; and he might have continued in this disgrace longer, had he not, by a violent expedient, determined (2Sa_14:30) to force his case on the attention of Joab, through whose kind and powerful influence a full reconciliation was effected between him and his father.

K&D, “2Sa_14:28-30

After Absalom had sat for two whole years in his house at Jerusalem without seeing the king's face, he sent to Joab that he might obtain for him the king's full forgiveness. But as Joab would not come to him, even after he had sent for him twice, Absalom commanded his servants to set fire to one of Joab's fields which adjoined his own and was then full of barley, for the purpose of compelling him to come, as he foresaw that Joab would not take this destruction of his property quietly, but would

come to him to complain. ידי literally “at my hand,” i.e., by the side of my field or ,אל

property. The Chethib והוציתה! (“come, I will set it on fire”) is a Hiphil formation,

according to verbs ופ, for which the Keri has !יתוה the ordinary Hiphil ,וה form of יצת in

the second person plural, “go and set it one fire.”

COFFMAN, "The two-year confinement in his own house had been very effective, because even Joab was afraid to call on Absalom, but it galled the impatient Absalom. As long as he was prohibited from seeing the king's face, people would shun him, avoid him, and refuse to have anything to do with him. Absalom decided that he would rather die than to continue to live in that circumstance. He very properly concluded that the king would not have the guts to do his duty and execute him, as God had commanded. And, sure enough, the king restored him to his full position of trust and honor, as indicated by the

98

king's kissing him. This was a shameful act on David's part!

As Matthew Henry noted:

"Three years in Geshur and two years in Jerusalem Absalom had been an exile from the presence of the king; yet his spirit was not humbled, his pride was not diminished. He was not grateful that his life had been spared, but only angry and frustrated that his honored place at court had not been restored. He pretended to love his father the king and to desire the privilege of again coming into his presence; but his pretensions were a base lie. He only wanted his honors restored in order to promote his campaign to replace his father as king of Israel."[24]

"If there is guilt in me, let him kill me" (2 Samuel 14:32). How could Absalom have believed that there was no guilt in himself? His cold-blooded premeditated murder of Amnon cried out to God for punishment, but Absalom admitted no crime, accepted no feeling of shame or guilt for himself and had the audacious arrogance to present himself to David as one worthy of his full confidence and trust. From the human aspect of it, David was a fool to have trusted him.

HAWKER, "Verses 28-33

(28) ¶ So Absalom dwelt two full years in Jerusalem, and saw not the king's face. (29) Therefore Absalom sent for Joab, to have sent him to the king; but he would not come to him: and when he sent again the second time, he would not come. (30) Therefore he said unto his servants, See, Joab's field is near mine, and he hath barley there; go and set it on fire. And Absalom's servants set the field on fire. (31) Then Joab arose, and came to Absalom unto his house, and said unto him, Wherefore have thy servants set my field on fire? (32) And Absalom answered Joab, Behold, I sent unto thee, saying, Come hither, that I may send thee to the king, to say, Wherefore am I come from Geshur? it had been good for me to have been there still: now therefore let me see the king's face; and if there be any iniquity in me, let him kill me. (33) So Joab came to the king, and told him: and when he had called for Absalom, he came to the king, and bowed himself on his face to the ground before the king: and the king kissed Absalom.

I did not notice, in its proper place, what was said of the king's refusing to see Absalom when Joab first brought him from Geshur; knowing that the same train of thoughts would meet us here. I pass over the mere history of the subject to remark what is much more interesting for us to regard, and which, as an improvement, seems to be suggested in the earnestness Absalom had to see the king's face; namely, how earnest ought we to be, to be brought to court, to see our father's face in the person of our adorable Redeemer! What are all the ordinances of worship in the house of prayer, except Jesus be seen in them. Oh! blessed Jesus! I would say to thee in the language of thy church of old, Let me see thy countenance, let me hear thy voice; for sweet is thy voice, and thy countenance is comely. Song of Solomon 2:14.

99

LANGE, "2 Samuel 14:28 sqq. As Absalom was not permitted for two years to enter the king’s presence, and Joab declined to visit him though twice sent for (evidently because he did not wish to have any thing more to do with the matter since the king’s displeasure continued), it is clear that 2 Samuel 14:1 cannot be rendered: “the king’s heart was toward him.” [David’s conduct may be explained by supposing that, while his heart was with Absalom, his regard for justice led him to punish his crime by keeping him at a distance.—Tr.].

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:28

‘And Absalom dwelt two full years in Jerusalem, and he did not see the king’s face.’

With all his beauty and ability Absalom was not acceptable to the king. The contrast is deliberate. Men saw his outward appearance, David saw his heart. Thus Absalom lived two full years in Jerusalem and never saw the king’s face. In other words for two years he was excluded from court, and from meeting the king. Such treatment began to gnaw at his heart, for in his view he was the heir-presumptive, and he knew himself to be a king’s son through both of his parents, and had learned to be treated as such. Better then to be in Geshur and be treated royally with honour, than to be spurned in Jerusalem, with seemingly no entry to the court and no hope of the succession. He became more and more bitter as the months went by.

K&D, "2Sa_14:28-30

After Absalom had sat for two whole years in his house at Jerusalem without seeing the king's face, he sent to Joab that he might obtain for him the king's full forgiveness. But as Joab would not come to him, even after he had sent for him twice, Absalom commanded his servants to set fire to one of Joab's fields which adjoined his own and was then full of barley, for the purpose of compelling him to come, as he foresaw that Joab would not take this destruction of his property quietly, but would

come to him to complain. ידי literally “at my hand,” i.e., by the side of my field or ,אל

property. The Chethib והוציתה! (“come, I will set it on fire”) is a Hiphil formation,

according to verbs ופ, for which the Keri has !יתוה the ordinary Hiphil ,וה form of יצת in

the second person plural, “go and set it one fire.”

29 Then Absalom sent for Joab in order to send him to the king, but Joab refused to come to him. So he sent a second time, but he refused to come.

100

GILL, "Therefore Absalom sent for Joab, to have sent him to the king,.... To introduce him into his presence, being uneasy to be thus confined at his own house, and not suffered to come to court:

but he would not come to him; knowing the king's mind, and being unwilling to disoblige him by a troublesome solicitation:

and when he sent again the second time, he would not come; knowing his business with him; and perhaps between the first time of his sending and this he had sounded the king about it, and found it was not agreeable to him to admit him to access to him as yet.

HENRY 29-31, " By his insolent carriage towards Joab, he brought him to mediate for him. Once and again he sent to Joab to come and speak with him, for he durst not go to him; but Joab would not come (2Sa_14:29), probably because Absalom had not owned the kindness he had done him in bringing him to Jerusalem so gratefully as he thought he should have done; proud men take every service done them for a debt. One would think that a person in Absalom's circumstances should have sent to Joab a kindly message, and offered him a large gratuity: courtiers expect noble presents. But, instead of this, he bids his servants set Joab's corn-fields on fire (2Sa_14:30), as spiteful a thing as he could do. Samson could not think of a greater injury to do the Philistines than this. Strange that Absalom should think, by doing Joab a mischief, to prevail with him to do him a kindness, or to recommend himself to the favour of his prince or people by showing himself so very malicious and ill-natured, and such an enemy to the public good, for the fire might spread to the corn of others. Yet by this means he brings Joab to him, 2Sa_14:31. Thus God, by afflictions, brings those to him that kept at a distance from him. Absalom was obliged by the law to make restitution (Exo_22:6), yet we do not find either that he offered it or that Joab demanded it. Joab (it might be) thought he could not justify his refusal to go and speak with him; and therefore Absalom thought he could justify his taking this way to fetch him. And now Joab (perhaps frightened at the surprising boldness and fury of Absalom, and apprehensive that he had made an interest in the people strong enough to bear him out in doing the most daring things, else he would never have done this) not only puts up with this injury, but goes on his errand to the king. See what some men can do by threats, and carrying things with a high hand. 2. By his insolent message (for I can call it no better) to the king, he recovered his place at court, to see the king's face, that is, to become a privy counsellor, Est_1:14.

BENSON, "2 Samuel 14:29. Absalom sent for Joab — This vain young man, whose only excellence seems to have been his singular beauty, weary with being so long detained in that confinement and obscurity, so mortifying to his pride, and so unfriendly to his popularity, sent a messenger to Joab, to desire to speak with him, in order to prevail upon him to solicit, by his intercession with the king, to be admitted to his presence. But he would not come to him — “The reader little versed in courts is apt to be surprised to see Joab so zealous to get Absalom recalled from exile, and afterward so cold and indifferent to have him re-established in his father’s favour. The truth is, when Joab had greatly gratified the king and gained credit with him, by bringing back Absalom to

101

Jerusalem, he had little reason, as a minister, to be solicitous to bring him near the king’s person, and restore him to full favour; because, in that case, he might naturally apprehend that Absalom’s interest with his father might impair his own.”

COKE, "2 Samuel 14:29. Absalom sent for Joab— The reader who is little versed in courts will naturally be surprised to see Joab so zealous to get Absalom recalled from exile, and to observe him afterwards so cold and indifferent about having him re-established in his father's favour. The truth is, when Joab had greatly gratified the king, and gained credit with him, by bringing back Absalom to Jerusalem, he had little reason, as a minister, to be solicitous to bring him about the king's person, and restore him to full favour; because in that case he might naturally apprehend, that Absalom's interest with his father might impair his own. This the young man's ambition could but ill endure, and therefore he took this extraordinary step to be set right with his father; a step, indeed, which shewed him determined to go any lengths, rather than fall short of his ambitious aims. He that could set his friend's field on fire barely to be admitted to court, would little scruple to set his country in a flame (if I may be allowed the expression) to be raised to a crown: although, possibly, this injury to Joab might have been an artifice to prevent the king's suspicion of their combination, and Joab's too great attachment to the interest of his son.

REFLECTIONS.—Joab is prevailed upon to intercede with David, and he at last consents to receive him. Absalom is introduced; the king, with paternal tenderness, seals by a kiss his reconciliation; and, believing his son's professions real, reinstates him in all his former honours. Note; (1.) A parent's fondness often makes him blind to his children's ill designs: he fain would hope the best, even against hope. (2.) How much more tender is the reception which the returning prodigal meets with from his heavenly Father, when by the Spirit his pardon is sealed!

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:29

‘Then Absalom sent for Joab, to send him to the king, but he would not come to him, and he sent again a second time, but he would not come.’

In the end he felt that enough was enough and he called for Joab with a view to asking him to intercede for him to the king. But to his chagrin he discovered that now even Joab would not come to him. Joab, following his usual tactic, had recognised that Absalom was not in full favour, and was therefore someone to be avoided. This would have annoyed Absalom even further. He was not used to being treated in this way.

BI 31-32, "Absalom sent for Joab . . . but he would not come to him.

The barley-field on fire

102

Absalom had fled from Jerusalem under fear of David’s anger; he was after a time permitted to return, but he was not admitted into the presence of the king. Earnestly desiring to be restored to his former posts of honour and favour, he besought Joab to come to him, intending to request him to act as mediator. Joab, having lost much of his liking for the young prince, refused to come; and, though he was sent for repeatedly, he declined to attend at his desire. Absalom therefore thought of a most wicked, but most effective plan of bringing Joab into his company. He bade his servants set Joab’s field of barley on fire. This brought Joab down in high wrath to ask the question, “Wherefore have thy servants set my field on fire?” This was all that, Absalom wanted; he wished an interview, and he was not scrupuluous as to the method by which he obtained it. The burning of the barley-field brought Joab into his presence, and Absalom’s ends were accomplished. Omitting the sin of the deed, we have here a picture of what is often done by our gracious God with the wisest and best design. Often he sendeth for us, not for his profit, but for ours; he would have us come near to him and receive a blessing at his hands, but we are foolish, and cold-hearted and wicked, and we will not come. He, knowing that we will not come by any other means, sendeth a serious trial—he sets our barley-field on fire, which he has a right to do, seeing our barley-fields are far more his than they are ours. In Absalom’s case it was wrong; in God’s case he has a right to do as he wills with his own. He takes away from us our most choice delight, upon which we have set out heart, and then we enquire at, his hands, “Wherefore contendest thou with me?”

I. The text with reference to believers in christ. We cannot expect to avoid tribulation. If other men’s barley-fields are not burned, ours will be. If the Father uses the rod nowhere else, he will surely make his true children smart. Your Saviour hath left, you a double legacy, “In the world ye shall have tribulation, but in Me ye shall have peace.” Gold must be tried in the fire: and truly the Lord hath a fire in Zion and his furnace in Jerusalem.

1. You have first, this sweet reflection, that there is no curse in your cross.

2. That your troubles are all apportioned to you by Divine wisdom and love. As for their number, if He appoint them ten they never can be eleven. As for their weight, he who weigheth the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance, takes care to measure your troubles, and you shall not have a grain more than His infinite wisdom sees fit.

3. That under your cross you have many special comforts. There are cordials which God giveth to sick saints which He never putteth to the lips of those who are in health. Dark caverns keep not back the miners, if they know that diamonds are to be found there: you need net fear suffering when you remember what riches it yields to your soul. There is no hearing the nightingale without night, and there are some promises which only sing to us in trouble. It is in the cellar of affliction that the good old wine of the kingdom is stored. You shall never see Christ’s face so well as when all others turn their backs upon you.” When you have come into such confusion that human wisdom is at a nonplus, then shall you see God’s wisdom manifest and clear.

4. That your trials work your lasting good by bringing you nearer and nearer to your God.

(1) Our heavenly Father often sends for us and we will not come. He sends for us to exercise a more simple faith in Him.

(2) At another time He calls us to closer communion with Himself. We have been sitting on the doorstep of God’s house, and He bids us advance into the banquetting hall and sup with Him, but we decline the honour. He has

103

admitted us into the inner chambers, but there are secret rooms not yet, opened to us; He invites Us to enter them, but we hold back. Jesus longs to have near communion with His people.

(3) Frequently the call is to more fervent prayer.

(4) Often, too, He calls us to a higher state of piety.

II. A few words to the sinner.

I. God also has sent for you, O unconverted man, God has often sent, for you. Early in your childhood your mother’s prayers sought to woo you to a Saviour’s love, and your godly father’s first instructions were as so many meshes of the net in which it was desired that you should be taken; but you have broken through all these and lived to sin away early impressions and youthful promises.

2. If God is sending these, are you listening to them? (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Burning the barley field

Now, just as the shrewd young prince dealt with Joab in order to bring him unto him, so God employs a regimen of discipline very often in order to bring wayward hearts to Himself. Many a reader may have had his barley-field set on fire; there are some even now whose fields are wrapped in flames or are covered with the ashes of extinguished hopes. With backsliders this method is often God’s last resorts. He sees that the wayward wanderers care more for their earthly possessions than they do for His honour or His service. So He touches them in the tenderest spot, and sweeps away the objects they love too well. They have become idolaters, and He sternly dashes their idols to atoms.

Compulsory measures

For two whole years Joab paid no attention to the returned son of David, but the moment his barley-field was set on fire he paid Absalom a visit of inquiry. It was crafty on the part of Absalom. Perhaps he looked upon it as a last resort and thought the end would lustily the means. But there is a spiritual use of this incident which is well worth considering. Is it not so that when we will not go to God lovingly, voluntarily, He sets our barley-fields on fire, saying, Now they will pray? We desert His Church, we abandon His book, we release ourselves from all religious responsibilities; God calls, and we will not hear; then He sets all the harvest in a blaze, and we become religious instantaneously. We are richer if we have lost a barley-field, and found the God of the harvest. He will make up the barley-field to us, if so be we accept the providence aright, and say, “This is God’s thought concerning us.” (J. Parker, D. D.)

30 Then he said to his servants, "Look, Joab's field is next to mine, and he has barley there. Go and set it on fire." So Absalom's servants set the field on fire.

104

CLARKE, "Go and set it on fire - This was strange conduct, but it had the desired effect. He had not used his influence to get Absalom to court; now he uses it, and succeeds.

Additional observations on 2Sa_14:26 : -

“And at every year’s end, he (Absalom) polled his head; and he weighed the hair at two hundred shekels.”

The very learned Bochart has written a dissertation on this subject (vide Bocharti Opera, vol. iii., col. 883, edit. Lugd. 1692) in a letter to his friend M. Faukell. I shall give the substance in what follows.

There is nothing more likely than that corruptions in the Scripture numerals have taken place. Budaeus de Asse (lib. ii., p. 49 and 51, also lib. iii., p. 67 etc). complains loudly of this.

This might easily have happened, as in former times the numbers in the sacred

writings appear to have been expressed by single letters. The letter ר resh stands for

two hundred, and might in this place be easily mistaken for ד daleth which signifies

four; but this may be thought to be too little, as it would not amount to more than a quarter of a pound; yet, if the two hundred shekels be taken in the amount will be

utterly incredible; for Josephus says, (Antiq. lib. vii., cap. 8), Σικλους!διακοσιους,!οgτοι!

δε!εισι!πεντε!µναι, i.e., “Two hundred shekels make five minae,” and in lib. xiv., cap.

12. he says, h!δε!µνα!παρ’ iµιν!ισχει!λιτρας!β’ και!ηµισυ; “And a mina with us (i.e., the

Jews) weighs two pounds and a half.” This calculation makes Absalom’s hair weigh twelve pounds and a half! Credat Judaeus Apella!

Indeed, the same person tells us that the hair of Absalom was so thick, etc., jς!

µολις!αυτην!iµεραις!αποκειρειν!οκτω, “that eight days were scarcely sufficient to cut it

off in!” This is rabbinism, with a witness.

Epiphanius, in his treatise De Ponderibus et Mensuris, casts much more light on

this place, where he says, Σικλος!I!λεγεται!και!κοδραντης!τεταρτον!µεν!εστι!της!ουγκιας,!

iµισυ!δε!του!στατηρος,!δυο!δραχµας!εχων; “A shekel, (i.e., a common or king’s shekel,

equal to half a shekel of the sanctuary), which is called also a quarter, is the fourth part of an ounce, or half a stater; which is about two drachms.” This computation seems very just, as the half-shekel, (i.e., of the sanctuary), Exo_30:13, which the Lord commanded the children of Israel to give as an offering for their souls, is expressly

called in Mat_17:24, το!διδραχµον, “two drachms:” and our Lord wrought a miracle to

pay this, which the Romans then exacted by way of tribute: and Peter took out of the fish’s mouth a stater, which contained exactly four drachms or one shekel, (of the sanctuary), the tribute money for our Lord and himself.

The king’s shekel was about the fourth part of an ounce, according to what

Epiphanius says above; and Hesychius says the same: ∆υναται!δε!I!σικλος!δυο!δραχµας!

Αττικας; “A shekel is equal to, or worth, two Attic drachms.” The whole amount,

therefore, of the two hundred shekels is about fifty ounces, which make four pounds

105

two ounces, Troy weight, or three pounds two ounces, Avoirdupois. This need not, says my learned author, be accounted incredible, especially as abundance of oil and ointments were used by the ancients in dressing their heads; as is evident, not only from many places in the Greek and Roman writers, but also from several places in the sacred writings. See Psa_23:5; Ecc_9:8; Mat_6:17.

Josephus also informs us that the Jews not only used ointments, but that they put gold dust in their hair, that it might flame in the sun; and this they might do in considerable quantities, as gold was so plentiful among them. I must own I have known an instance that makes much for Bochart’s argument: an officer, who had upwards of two pounds of powder and ointments put on his head daily, whose hair did not weigh a fourth part of that weight. And Absalom, being exceedingly vain, might be supposed to make a very extensive use of these things. There are some,

however, who endeavor to solve the difficulty by understanding שקל shakal to mean

rather the value than the weight.

Bochart concludes this elaborate dissertation, in which he appears to have ransacked all the Hebrew, Greek, and Roman authors for proofs of his opinion, by exhorting his friend in these words of Horace: -

- Si quid novisti rectius istis,Candidus imperti; si non, his utere mecum.

To me the above is quite unsatisfactory; and, with due deference to so great a character, I think I have found out something better.

I believe the text is not here in its original form; and that a mistake has crept into

the numeral letters. I imagine that ל lamed, Thirty, was first written; which, in

process of time, became changed for ר resh, Two Hundred, which might easily have

happened from the similarity of the letters. But if this be supposed to be too little, (which I think it is not), being only seven ounces and a half in the course of a year; let

it be observed that the sacred text does not limit it to that quantity of time, for !מקץ

mikkets!yamim!laiyamim ימים!לימים signifies literally, “From the end of days to days;”

which Jonathan properly renders, מזמן!עדן!לעדן mizzeman!iddan!leiddan, “at proper or

convenient times,” viz., when it grew too long or weighty, which it might be several times in the year. Besides, this was not all his hair; for his head was not shaved but polled, i.e., the redundancy cut off.

But how was it probable that these two numerals should be interchanged? Thus; if

the upper stroke of the ל lamed were but a little impaired, as it frequently is both in

MSS. and printed books, it might be very easily taken for ר resh, and the remains of

the upper part of the lamed might be mistaken for the stroke over the ר, which makes

it the character of two hundred.

But how could מאתים mathayim, two hundred, in the text, be put in the place of

sheloshim, thirty? Very easily, when the numbers became expressed by words שלשים

at length instead of numeral letters.

The common reading of the text appears to me irreconcilable with truth; and I humbly hope that what I have offered above solves every difficulty, and fully accounts for all that the sacred historian speaks of this vain-comely lad.

106

GILL, "Therefore he said unto his servants,.... That did his business for him in the field, in keeping his flocks, and tilling his ground:

see Joab's field is near mine: for great personages in those days attended to husbandry:

and he hath barley there, go and set it on fire; it being ripe, and so capable of being fired, and therefore must be some time in March or April, when barley harvest began; he served Joab as Samson did the Philistines, Jdg_15:4; which shows him to be a bold, and revengeful, and ungrateful man, to use his friend, and the general of the king's army, after this manner:

and Absalom's servants set the field on fire; as their master had bid them, and which is no wonder; for as they murdered Ammon at his command, they would not stop at burning Joab's field, when he bid them do it; see 2Sa_13:28.

BENSON, "2 Samuel 14:30. Go and set it on fire — Absalom’s ambition could but ill endure Joab’s coldness and delay, and therefore he ordered this extraordinary step to be taken that he might be set right with his father, a step which showed him determined to go any lengths, rather than fall short of his ambitious aims. For he that could order his friend’s field, and that friend so great a man as Joab, and his near kinsman, to be set on fire, barely that he might be admitted to court, would little scruple to set his country in a flame (if the expression may be allowed) to be raised to a crown. See Delaney. Absalom’s servants set the field on fire — For he had still those about him who were ready to execute any command, though ever so unjust, as his servants did when he bade them kill Amnon.

LANGE, "2 Samuel 14:30. Joab’s “piece, parcel,” that Isaiah, field (as we also use the word). Sept. has: “the portion in the field of Joab,” but there is no reason to change the Heb. text accordingly.—The Heb. text reads: “I will set it on fire;” but all the versions adopt the marginal reading: “set it on fire.”[FN27] The phrase “at my hand” = “alongside of my ground, beside me.” This confirms the view that Absalom occupied himself with tilling the soil even in Jerusalem. That Absalom fired Joab’s barley because he knew it would bring Joab to him (Keil) is not probable. It was rather an act of angry revenge in keeping with Absalom’s haughty and passionate nature. In 2 Samuel 14:30 Sept. and Vulg. add: “and the servants of Joab came to him with garments rent, and said: Absalom’s servants have set the field on fire.” It is possible that these words belonged to the original text, and fell away by similar ending, two consecutive sentences ending with the word “fire” (Then.). But the narrative is perfectly clear without this addition.

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:30

‘Therefore he said to his servants, “See, Joab’s field is near mine, and he has barley there. Go and set it on fire.” And Absalom’s servants set the field on fire.’

107

However, ensuring that Joab came to see him was not too difficult. He did it by means of the strategy of getting his servants to set Joab’s fields on fire. It is possible that he tried to make it look accidental, for setting fire to someone else’s barley deliberately would have been seen as a serious offence. But Joab would probably not have been in any doubt about the situation. It was the kind of thing that he would have done himself.

But the writer’s purpose in giving this detail was in order to bring out that while Absalom was an outwardly splendid man, underneath he had a ruthless streak. It is already a warning of what is to follow. It demonstrated that if Absalom did not get his own way he was prepared to use violence in order to obtain it. To set alight a person’s barley was a major crime in which few would have indulged (compare the consequences to Samson’s family in Judges 15:4-6).

31 Then Joab did go to Absalom's house and he said to him, "Why have your servants set my field on fire?"

GILL, "Then Joab arose, and came to Absalom unto his house,.... Provoked at what he had done, and to know the reason of it; and which was answering Absalom's end:

and said unto him, wherefore have thy servants set my field on fire? which was not only injurious to his property, but a malicious action.

K&D, "2Sa_14:31-33

When Joab came to Absalom's house in consequence of this, and complained of it, Absalom said to him, “See, I have sent to thee, to say to thee, Come hither, and I will send thee to the king, to say to him, Wherefore have I come from Geshur? it were better for me that I were there still: and now I will see the king's face; and if there is any iniquity in me, let him put me to death.” This half forgiving was really worse than no forgiveness at all. Absalom might indeed very properly desire to be punished according to the law, if the king could not or might not forgive him; although the manner in which he sought to obtain forgiveness by force manifested an evident spirit of defiance, by which, with the well-known mildness of David's temper, he hoped to attain his object, and in fact did attain it. For (2Sa_14:33) when Joab went to the king, and announced this to him, the king sent for Absalom, and kissed him, as a sign of his restoration to favour. Nothing was said by Absalom about forgiveness; for his falling down before the king when he came into his presence, was nothing more than the ordinary manifestation of reverence with which a subject in the East approaches his king.

108

PULPIT, "Then Joab arose. This high-handed proceeding forced Joab to pay the wished for visit. But, while we cannot acquit Absalom of petulance, we must not regard his act as one of angry revenge; had it been so, Joab would have openly resented it, and he was quite capable of making even the heir apparent feel his anger. It was probably intended as a rough practical joke, which taught Joab better manners, and which he must laugh at, though with inward displeasure.

32 Absalom said to Joab, "Look, I sent word to you and said, 'Come here so I can send you to the king to ask, "Why have I come from Geshur? It would be better for me if I were still there!" ' Now then, I want to see the king's face, and if I am guilty of anything, let him put me to death."

GILL, "And Absalom answered Joab,.... Neither denying the fact, nor being ashamed of it, nor asking pardon for it; but endeavouring to vindicate it, by giving a reason as he thought sufficient for it:

behold, I sent unto thee, saying, come hither, that I may send thee to the king; which was assuming great authority over a person in such an high office as Joab was; had he been king, he could not have used more, to send for him, and command his attendance, and send him on what errand he thought fit, as here:

to say, wherefore am I come from Geshur? why did the king send for me? why did not he let me alone where I was? to what purpose am I brought hither, since I am not admitted to court?

it had been good for me to have been there still; and better, where he lived in a king's court, and had honour and respect shown him, suitable to his rank; and where he had his liberty, and could go where he pleased; and where this mark of his father's displeasure, not suffering him to see his face, would not be so manifest as here, and so less disgraceful to him:

now therefore let me see the king's face; that is, speak to the king, and intercede for me, that I may see his face; which he was so importunate for, not from affection to the king; but that being at court, he might be able to ingratiate himself among the courtiers and others, and carry the point which his ambition prompted him to, supplant the king, and seize the crown:

and if there be any iniquity in me, let him kill me; signifying he chose to die, rather than to live such a life he did: but of being put to death he was not much afraid; presuming partly upon his innocence, thinking that the killing of his brother

109

was no crime, because he was the aggressor, had ravished his sister, and for it ought to die; and since justice was delayed, and not done him, he had committed no iniquity in putting him to death; and partly on his father's affection to him, which he was sensible of; at least he had reason to believe he would not now put him to death; for had he designed that, he would have ordered it before now, since he had had him so long in his hands.

HENRY, "His message was haughty and imperious, and very unbecoming either a son or a subject, 2Sa_14:32. He undervalued the favour that had been shown him in recalling him from banishment, and restoring him to his own house, and that in Jerusalem: Wherefore have I come from Geshur? He denies his own crimes, though most notorious, and will not own that there was any iniquity in him, insinuating that therefore he had been wronged in the rebuke he had been under. He defies the king's justice: “Let him kill me, if he can find in his heart,” knowing he loved him too well to do it.

PULPIT, "If there be (any) iniquity in me, let him kill me. The word "any," wrongly inserted in the Authorized Version, as omitted in the Revised Version. It would have been monstrous for Absalom to profess innocence, with the murder of Amnon fresh in his memory; but the phrase, "if there be iniquity in me," means, "if my offence is still unpardoned." If year after year he was to be treated as a criminal, then he would rather be put to death at once. And Absalom's plea succeeds. Joab, who had been unwilling to visit the prisoner, now consents to act as mediator, reports to David his son's vexation at such long continued coldness, and obtains full pardon.

BENSON, "2 Samuel 14:32. If there be iniquity in me — He could not but know that there was iniquity in him, heinous iniquity: but he pretends if the king would not pardon it, and admit him into his presence, he had rather die. Let him kill me — For it is better for me to die than be deprived of the sight and favour of my dear father. Thus he insinuates himself into his father’s affections, by pretending such respect and love to him. See how easily even wise parents may be imposed upon by their children, when they are blindly fond of them!

ELLICOTT, "(32) If there be any iniquity.—Absalom makes no acknowledgment of having done wrong, but simply says that this state of half-reconciliation is intolerable. He must either be punished or fully pardoned. Joab’s intercession accomplishes its purpose; the king receives Absalom, and kisses him in token of complete reconciliation. In this David showed great weakness, for which he afterwards suffered severely.

WHEDON, "32. If there be… iniquity in me, let him kill me — Absalom pretends to be very innocent, but had justice been meted out to him he could not have stood for a day. But he knew his father’s tender and sensitive nature; he knew his weakness, too, and was doubtless well satisfied that a bold and defiant challenge would soon lead David to make a reconciliation.

110

LANGE, "2 Samuel 14:32. The message sent by Absalom through Joab to his father contains1) a reproach: why am I come from Geshur? (= why didst thou send for me) if I am not permitted to appear before thee? 2) A repudiation of the indulgence shown him in the permission granted him to return home: it were better for me that I were still there; 3) a self-willed demand: and now I will see the king’s face, and4) a defiant challenge: if there be iniquity in me, let him kill me.—These words mean neither: “if the king can and may not forgive me,” (Thenius), nor: “if he remember my iniquity” (Vulg.). Absalom rather defiantly challenges his father to proceed with strict justice, if he has done wrong; this, however, (from the tone of his speech) he does not allow, but relies on the rights he thinks he has against his father, who had been too indulgent to Amnon, having also the support of a considerable party, who would the more approve his act of bloody vengeance, because David had let Amnon go unpunished. Absalom gives no sign of repentance; there is rather a savage defiance in his words, and, instead of confessing his guilt, he challenges his father to kill him, if he is guilty, that Isaiah, he denies his guilt. David has already shown weakness in permitting Absalom to return without penitent confession; and by this halfway-procedure (letting him return, yet banishing him from his presence two years) had given occasion to the defiance and bitterness that appears in these words. He is now guilty of a still greater weakness in receiving Absalom into favor when he shows the very opposite of penitence.

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:32

‘And Absalom answered Joab, “Behold, I sent to you, saying, ‘Come here’, that I may send you to the king, to say, ‘Why am I come from Geshur? It were better for me to be there still. Now therefore let me see the king’s face, and if there be iniquity in me, let him kill me.’ ”

Absalom admitted nothing, but simply pointed out that he had already called on Joab to visit him so that he could send him to the king to ask him, if he did not intend to allow him to see his face, what the point had been of bringing him from Geshur. In such circumstances he would have been far better off in Geshur where he was treated with all honour. Let Joab therefore tell the king that he was prepared to stand trial and take whatever sentence was passed, but that he could no longer stand being ostracised.

“If there be iniquity in me, let him kill me.” His words suggest that if he was arraigned he considered that he had a good defence. After all Amnon had committed incest with his sister, a princess of Geshur, and thus in accordance with the Law (and certainly by the laws of Geshur), had been doomed to die. He could have argued therefore that he had merely been carrying out the necessary sentence, acting as the king’s son and representative, as well as acting on behalf of the royal court of Geshur, to avenge their wrong. It was a case to which David would have little answer, for he should have dealt with Amnon himself. David did, of course, see it differently, but he would probably not want it to be argued

111

out openly in court, even in one presided over by himself.

33 So Joab went to the king and told him this. Then the king summoned Absalom, and he came in and bowed down with his face to the ground before the king. And the king kissed Absalom.

BARNES, "Kissed - This was the pledge of reconciliation. (See the marginal references and Gen_45:15.)

GILL, "So Joab came to the king, and told him,.... What Absalom had said to him:

and when he had called for Absalom; sent messengers to his house to order him to come to him:

he came to the king, and bowed himself on his face to the ground before the king; made a very reverend bow to him, according to the custom of those times, throwing himself at his feet in great submission to him:

and the king kissed Absalom; in token of his reconciliation to him; which laid the foundation of his after troubles from him, related in the following chapters.

HENRY, "Yet with this message he carried his point, 2Sa_14:33. David's strong affection for him construed all this to be the language of a great respect to his father, and an earnest desire of his favour, when alas! it was far otherwise. See how easily wise and good men may be imposed upon by their own children that design ill, especially when they are blindly fond of them. Absalom, by the posture of his body, testified his submission to his father: He bowed himself on his face to the ground;and David, with a kiss, sealed his pardon. Did the bowels of a father prevail to reconcile him to an impenitent son, and shall penitent sinners question the compassion of him who is the Father of mercy? If Ephraim bemoan himself, God soon bemoans him, with all the kind expressions of a fatherly tenderness: He is a dear son, a pleasant child, Jer_31:20.

PULPIT, "The king kissed Absalom. The father's kiss was, as in the case of the prodigal son (Luke 15:20), the sign of perfect reconciliation, and of the restoration of Absalom to his place as a son, with all its privileges. But God's

112

pardon was immediate (2 Samuel 12:13), while David's was unwilling, and wrung from him. The kiss, we may feel quite sure, was preceded by a conversation between David and his son, the record of which is omitted simply for the sake of brevity. Evidently it satisfied the king, and ended in the kiss which gave the son all he desired. But whatever may have been his professions, Absalom's subsequent conduct is proof that he still regarded Amnon's death as a just retribution for his conduct to Tamar, and secretly cherished a sullen anger against his father for not having punished the wrong doer himself. It was the contrast between his own five years of punishment and the mere verbal reproof which was all that Amnon had to suffer for his shameless conduct, which rankled in Absalom's mind, and gave him an excuse for finally plotting his father's ruin.

COFFMAN, ""And the king kissed Absalom" (2 Samuel 14:33). "It must have been a kiss of treachery on the part of Absalom. He never intended to keep the peace with his father."[25] This in another important particular in which David stands in the O.T. as a type of that Holy One, Jesus Christ himself, who was also betrayed by a kiss.

BENSON, "2 Samuel 14:33. So Joab came to the king — Absalom’s impetuosity prevailed: these passionate expressions that he was weary of life, while he continued to be debarred his father’s presence; nay, that he desired to die so he might but see him, moved Joab to intercede with the king for him, and he was admitted into the royal presence, where he did obeisance, humbling himself before the king with his face to the ground. And the king kissed Absalom — In token of reconciliation. Josephus says, the king raised him up from the ground, and promised him an oblivion of what was past; which was a great weakness in David; for the impenitent become only more wicked by the pardon of their offences; as we find Absalom did, who, being thus received into the king’s favour, soon found means to ingratiate himself with the people, and raise a rebellion against his own father who had thus graciously pardoned him. But we may here properly ask, with Henry, “Did the bowels of a father prevail to reconcile him to an impenitent son, and shall penitent sinners question the compassion of Him who is the Father of mercy? If Ephraim bemoan himself, God soon bemoans him, with all the expressions of fatherly tenderness: He is a dear son, a pleasant child,” Jeremiah 31:20.

PETT, "2 Samuel 14:33 ‘So Joab came to the king, and told him, and when he had called for Absalom, he came to the king, and bowed himself on his face to the ground before the king, and the king kissed Absalom.’

So when Joab came to David and informed him of the words of Absalom, David’s resistance seems to have crumbled, and he called for Absalom to come to him. And when Absalom came to him and bowed himself on his face to the ground before him, David received him with a royal kiss of reconciliation and forgiveness. It appeared that all was set fair for the future for both parties.

113

HAWKER, "Verse 33

REFLECTIONS

BLESSED Jesus! Let me find grace from thee, dearest Lord, in the perusal of this chapter, to consider how very like to Absalom my heart is, when by sin and shame I have been running away from thee. But how superior, dearest Lord, art thou to the tenderness of the tenderest parents, in calling home thy banished ones to thy presence; for thou seekest them out, and instead of allowing them to return, thou bringest them home, and bringest them in, and takest them to the bosom of thy love and mercy. Oh! dearest Lord! how often hath sin and Satan made me their captive; and how often hast thou recovered me from their snares. Keep me, blessed Jesus, near thyself, and suffer me to wander no more. Let Jesus kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, for thy love is better than wine.

In the mistaken tenderness of David to his unworthy son, Lord, lead me to see, and as strongly to feel, the evil tendency of nature's affection, when those affections are striving against God. Oh! bring down every proud thought and disobedient lust, which would tend to dishonor my God. Let me have strength from thee to pluck out an eye, to cut off a right hand, and do all holy violence to the improper demands of nature, when my God and Saviour makes it the mark of my duty towards him. I would be found, dearest Lord, wholly thine; and like Levi, not acknowledge my brethren, nor know my own children, which have not observed thy word, nor kept thy covenant. I would bend the knee, and bow myself with my face to the ground, in token that thou art my rightful Sovereign, and that I am thy servant; thou hast loosed my bonds. Therefore shall every good man sing of thy praise without ceasing, O my God, I will give thanks unto thee forever.

BI, "And the soul of King David longed to go forth unto Absalom.

A father’s tender solicitude for his son

“I well remember,” says a present-day writer, “the effect produced on my mind on being told by a servant, soon after I had recovered from a dangerous illness, that during the crisis of the malady my father was seen to shed tears. Though far from being a stern parent, he was not an emotional man; and the statement was a revelation to me, at least in degree. It is now more than half a century ago, but it will never be forgotten.”.

114