2 samuel 20 commentary

2 SAMUEL 20 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Sheba Rebels Against David
1 Now a troublemaker named Sheba son of Bicri, a
Benjamite, happened to be there. He sounded the
trumpet and shouted,
"We have no share in David,
no part in Jesse's son!
Every man to his tent, O Israel!"
BARNES, "The son of Bichri ... - Rather, “a Bichrite,” formed like the names
“Ahohite,” “Hachmonite,” etc. 2Sa_23:8-9, and so called from Becher, the son of
Benjamin Gen_46:21; 1Ch_7:6-8 Saul was also of this family. It is evident that the
transfer of the royalty from their tribe to that of Judah still rankled in the hearts of
many Benjamites (2Sa_16:8 note).
CLARKE, "Sheba, the son of Bichri - As this man was a Benjamite, he
probably belonged to the family of Saul; and he seems to have had considerable
influence in Israel to raise such an insurrection: but we know nothing farther of him
than what is related in this place.
We have no part in David - We of Israel, we of the ten tribes, are under no
obligation to the house of David. Leave him, and let every man fall into the ranks
under his own leader.
GILL, "And there happened to be a man of Belial,.... A wicked man, as the
Targum, a lawless, yokeless man, that had cast off the yoke of the law, and was
without it, as Belial is by some interpreted; or one unprofitable and useless, yea,
noxious and pernicious: this man, though, with respect to second causes, may be said
to be there by chance, yet it was so ordered by the providence of God that he should
be present at this time for the further fulfilment of the threatening to David, that the
sword should not depart from his house:
whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite; one perhaps that
had been in the rebellion of Absalom, and had a grudge against David for the removal
of the kingdom out of that tribe:
1

and he blew a trumpet; which was done to draw off the Israelites from David, and
gather a party to himself:
and said, we have no part in David; so he interpreted what the men of Judah
said, because they claimed kindred to David, the rest of the Israelites had no interest
in him; thus they, who just before said they had ten parts in him, now had none at
all:
neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse; so he calls David by way of
contempt, as if he was no king, but a private person, and a descendant from a mean
family:
every man to his tent, O Israel; there to consider what to do, and whom to
choose to be their king, and let Judah take David for their king, and enjoy him alone,
since they had so slighted, and dealt so injuriously and roughly with the rest of the
tribes.
HENRY 1-2, "David, in the midst of his triumphs, has here the affliction to see his
kingdom disturbed and his family disgraced.
I. His subjects revolting from him at the instigation of a man of Belial, whom they
followed when they forsook the man after God's own heart. Observe, 1. That this
happened immediately upon the crushing of Absalom's rebellion. We must not think
it strange, while we are in this world, if the end of one trouble be the beginning of
another: deep sometimes calls unto deep. 2. That the people were now just returning
to their allegiance, when, of a sudden, they flew off from it. When a reconciliation is
newly made, it ought to be handled with great tenderness and caution, lest the peace
break again before it be settled. A broken bone, when it is set, must have time to
knot. 3. That the ring-leader of this rebellion was Sheba, a Benjamite by birth (2Sa_
20:1), who had his habitation in Mount Ephraim, 2Sa_20:21. Shimei and he were
both of Saul's tribe, and both retained the ancient grudge of that house. Against the
kingdom of the Messiah there is an hereditary enmity in the serpent's seed, and a
succession of attempts to overthrow it (Psa_2:1, Psa_2:2); but he that sits in heaven
laughs at them all. 4. That the occasion of it was that foolish quarrel, which we read
of in the close of the foregoing chapter, between the elders of Israel and the elders of
Judah, about bringing the king back. It was a point of honour that was disputed
between them, which had most interest in David. “We are more numerous,” say the
elders of Israel. “We are nearer akin to him,” say the elders of Judah. Now one would
think David very safe and happy when his subjects are striving which shall love him
best, and be most forward to show him respect; yet even that strife proves the
occasion of a rebellion. The men of Israel complained to David of the slight which the
men of Judah had put upon them. If he had now countenanced their complaint,
commended their zeal, and returned them thanks for it, he might have confirmed
them in his interest; but he seemed partial to his own tribe: Their words prevailed
above the words of the men of Israel; as some read the last words of the foregoing
chapter. David inclined to justify them, and, when the men of Israel perceived this,
they flew off with indignation. “If the king will suffer himself to be engrossed by the
men of Judah, let him and them make their best of one another, and we will set up
one for ourselves. We thought we had ten parts in David, but such an interest will not
be allowed us; the men of Judah tell us, in effect, we have no part in him, and
therefore we will have none, nor will we attend him any further in his return to
Jerusalem, nor own him for our king.” This was proclaimed by Sheba (2Sa_20:1),
2

who probably was a man of note, and had been active in Absalom's rebellion; the
disgusted Israelites took the hint, and went up from after David to follow Sheba
(2Sa_20:2), that is, the generality of them did so, only the men of Judah adhered to
him. Learn hence, (1.) That it is as impolitic for princes to be partial in their
attentions to their subjects as it is for parents to be so to their children; both should
carry it with an even hand. (2.) Those know not what they do that make light of the
affections of their inferiors, by not countenancing and accepting it. Their hatred may
be feared whose love is despised. (3.) The beginning of strife is as the letting forth of
water; it is therefore wisdom to leave it off before it be meddled with, Pro_17:14.
How great a matter doth a little of this fire kindle! (4.) The perverting of words is the
subverting of peace; and much mischief is made by forcing invidious constructions
upon what is said and written and drawing consequences that were never intended.
The men of Judah said, The king is near of kin to us. “By this,” say the men of Israel,
“you mean that we have no part in him;” whereas they meant no such thing. (5.)
People are very apt to run into extremes. We have ten parts in David, said they; and,
almost in the next breath, We have no part in him. Today Hosanna, tomorrow
Crucify.
JAMISON, "2Sa_20:1-9. Sheba makes a party in Israel.
Sheba ... a Benjamite — Though nothing is known of this man, he must have
been a person of considerable power and influence, before he could have raised so
sudden and extensive a sedition. He belonged to the tribe of Benjamin, where the
adherents of Saul’s dynasty were still numerous; and perceiving the strong disgust of
the other tribes with the part assumed by Judah in the restoration, his ill-designing
heart resolved to turn it to the overthrow of David’s authority in Israel.
every man to his tents — This proverbial expression may have had its
foundation in the fact, that many of the Israelite peasantry adhered to the custom of
the patriarchs who tilled land, and yet lived in tents, as Syrian peasants often do still.
This was the usual watchword of national insurrection, and from the actual temper of
the people, it was followed by effects beyond what he probably anticipated.
BENSON, "2 Samuel 20:1. There happened to be there, &c. — His presence was
casual in itself, though ordered by God’s providence. A man of Belial — A
wicked and lawless person, one who attempted to shake off the yoke of civil
authority. A Benjamite — And therefore grieved at the translation of the
kingdom from Saul and that tribe, to David and the tribe of Judah. We have no
part in David — The tribe of Judah have monopolized the king to themselves,
and will not allow us any share in him; let them therefore enjoy him alone, and
let us seek out a new king. The son of Jesse — An expression of contempt,
implying that he was no more to be owned as their king, but as a private person,
as the son of Jesse. To his tents — Let us all desist from that unthankful office, of
bringing the king back, and go each to our homes, that we may consider, and
then meet together to choose a new king.
COFFMAN, "THE REVOLT OF SHEBA; JOAB'S MURDER OF AMASA
In this chapter, we have the homecoming of King David, the happiness of which
was overshadowed by a new rebellion led by Sheba. We also see the results of
some of David's rash and unwise decisions.
3

THE HOMECOMING OF DAVID TO JERUSALEM
"Now there happened to be there a worthless fellow, whose name was Sheba, the
son of Bichri, a Benjaminite; and he blew the trumpet and said,
"We have no portion in David,
and we have no inheritance in the son of Jesse;
every man to his tents, O Israel"!
So all the men of Israel withdrew from David, and followed Sheba the son of
Bichri; but the men of Judah followed their king steadfastly from the Jordan to
Jerusalem."
"Sheba ... blew the trumpet" (2 Samuel 20:1). Here the trumpet was blown to
raise an army, but in 2 Samuel 20:22, below, Joab blew the trumpet to signal the
cessation of hostilities. "Different blasts on the trumpet were used to denote
different things."[1] Of course, that is the way it still is today, as for example in
the well-known "reveille" and "taps".
This new rebellion was the direct result of the bitter words exchanged in the
quarrel mentioned at the end of the preceding chapter. Josephus tells us that,
Sheba's actions occurred, "While these rulers (the men of Israel and those of
Judah) were disputing with one another."[2] "The fierce words of the men of
Judah led to evil results,"[3] giving us another example of the frequent danger of
winning an argument.
"We have no portion in David ... no inheritance in the son of Jesse" (2 Samuel
20:1). As Caird observed, "This war-cry raised by Sheba lasted longer than his
rebellion; because it was raised again successfully against Rehoboam (1 Kings
12:16)."[4]
"All the men of Israel withdrew from David, and followed Sheba" (2 Samuel
20:2). The literal text here is: "All the men of Israel went up from after David to
after Sheba."[5] "All the men of Israel," as used here, probably refers merely to
the representatives of the northern tribes who had brought their complaint to
David and engaged in that bitter controversy with the elders of Judah. Certainly,
Sheba soon found out that all Israel would not follow him.
"The men of Judah followed their king steadfastly from the Jordan to
4

Jerusalem" (2 Samuel 20:2). This was David's homecoming, but the happiness of
it was marred by a new rebellion, which, at that point, was an unpredictable
threat. "David arrived home with only his Judean escort and all the rest of Israel
apparently in open rebellion."[6]
COKE, "Ver. 1. We have no part in David, &c.— The propensity of the children
of Israel to rebellion is here very obvious to remark. There needs but a single
match to light the fire of discord. The ten tribes disputing with that of Judah,
their contest ran so high, that a wicked man, Sheba, a Benjamite, most probably
a relation of Saul, found it sufficient to occasion a revolt. Instead of the son of
Bichri, it might be rendered, one of the princes, or of the chiefs of the tribe of
Benjamin: and it has been thought that Sheba, after Amasa, was one of the
principal commanders in Absalom's army.
CONSTABLE, "The rebellion of Sheba 20:1-22
"The account of Sheba's rebellion against David serves as a counterpoise to the
story of Absalom's conspiracy (2 Samuel 15:1-12) in chapters 15-20, which
constitute the major part of the narrative that comprises chapters 13-20 (more
precisely, 2 Samuel 13:1 to 2 Samuel 20:22), the longest definable literary section
of the Court History of David (chs. 9-20 ...)." [Note: Youngblood, p. 1042.]
Not all the people of Israel followed David. Some lined up behind Sheba, a
discontented Benjamite who sought to split the kingdom as Jeroboam did 45
years later. He sounded his rebel call in Gilgal and then proceeded north
gathering supporters.
"It is no coincidence that independence is declared in practically identical terms
in the cry of 2 Samuel 20:1 b and 1 Kings 12:16. Sheba ben Bichri was before his
time-so a 'worthless fellow.' After Ahijah's intervention, the time had come."
[Note: Anthony F. Campbell, Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth-Century
Document (1 Samuel 1 -2 Kings 10), p. 83.]
This was another premature act, like the Israelites demand for a king before God
gave them David. The notation of David's dealings with his ten concubines (2
Samuel 20:3; cf. 2 Samuel 15:16; 2 Samuel 16:21-22) shows that the king
behaved in harmony with the spirit of the Mosaic Law. The Law prohibited a
woman who had had relations with two consecutive husbands from going back to
her first husband (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). The Law did not address David's case
specifically, but Deuteronomy 24 was what seems to have guided his decision.
"The presence of concubines suggests how much the monarchy has embraced the
royal ideology of the Near East, which is inimical to the old covenant tradition.
David takes a drastic step of confining the concubines and presumably having no
more to do with them. His action is most likely a concession and conciliatory
gesture to the north.... In making this move, David not only distances himself
from his own former practice but also offers a contrast to the conduct of
Absalom (2 Samuel 16:21-22)." [Note: Brueggemann, First and . . ., p. 330. ]
5

David's action may also indicate that his temporary exile drove him back to the
Lord and increased his desire to please Him. David had promoted Amasa by
making him commander of the army in Joab's place (2 Samuel 17:25), probably
because Joab had killed Absalom (2 Samuel 19:13). Unfortunately Amasa moved
too slowly (2 Samuel 20:5), so David put Abishai in charge (2 Samuel 20:6). The
writer probably referred to the soldiers as "Joab's men" (2 Samuel 20:7) because
they had formerly been under Joab's command.
Joab greeted Amasa in a customary way (2 Samuel 20:9). [Note: Keil and
Delitzsch, p. 454. See Edward A. Neiderhiser, "2 Samuel 20:8-10: A Note for a
Commentary," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 24:3 (September
1981):209-10, for further explanation of how Joab deceived Amasa.] He kissed
the man he was about to slay, as Judas did centuries later (Luke 22:47-48).
Solomon avenged Joab's murder of Amasa when he came to power (1 Kings
2:32-34). Perhaps David did not execute Joab because he felt gratefully indebted
to him for his great service, and Joab was an effective commander who advanced
David's interests. Some leaders still publicly decry the methods of people whom
they privately encourage.
Abel Beth-maacah lay about 90 miles north of Gilgal and four miles west of Dan.
Sheba had far fewer soldiers than Joab did (2 Samuel 20:11; 2 Samuel 20:14).
The saying, "They will surely ask advice at Abel [Beth-maacah]," (2 Samuel
20:18) means people regarded the residents of that town as wise. The city was a
mother in Israel (2 Samuel 20:19) in the sense that it exercised a beneficent
maternal influence over its neighboring villages. Similarly "daughters," when
used in reference to a town, represents the town's satellite villages (e.g., Judges
1:27; et al.). The epithet "mother in Israel" describes only Deborah elsewhere in
the Old Testament (Judges 5:7).
"Abel is characterized in the proverb as a city with a long reputation for wisdom
and faithfulness to the tradition of Israel. It is, therefore, a mother in the same
way Deborah was: a creator and hence a symbol of the unity that bound Israel
together under one God Yahweh. And it is the wise woman's implicit appeal to
this unity that stops Joab in his tracks." [Note: Claudia V. Camp, "The Wise
Women of 2 Samuel: A Role Model for Women in Early Israel," Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 43:1 (January 1981):28.]
"The inheritance of the Lord" (2 Samuel 20:19) refers to Israel (cf. 2 Samuel
21:3). Evidently Sheba, though a Benjamite, lived in the hill country of Ephraim
(2 Samuel 20:21). David's rule was again secure with the death of Sheba, another
man who rebelled against the Lord's anointed and died for it.
"Wise words override ruthless policy. At the end, not only the woman and the
city are saved; something of David's dignity and self-respect are also rescued
from Joab's mad, obedient intent." [Note: Brueggemann, First and . . ., p. 332.]
"In an earlier incident, another 'wise woman' had co-operated with Joab and
had undertaken the delicate task of bringing the king to a new viewpoint (2
6

Samuel 14:1-20)." [Note: Baldwin, pp. 280-81.]
Compare also Abigail's wise counsel to David (1 Samuel 25). This story teaches
much about wisdom and folly.
"First of all the woman saw the problem realistically; the danger must have been
clear enough to everyone in Abel, but there may have been some false hopes of
rescue or intervention. Secondly, she did something about it-she did not wait for
somebody else to act but took the initiative herself. Then she argued her case,
challenging the rightness of Joab's actions; and he was forced to agree with what
she said. So a compromise was reached; and finally she took steps to fulfil [sic]
the terms agreed. In other words, wisdom was a combination of intelligent
insight and bold action. The Old Testament rarely separates the intellectual from
the pragmatic: wisdom is not simply knowing but also doing." [Note: Payne, p.
257.]
The wise woman contrasts with foolish Joab who, nonetheless, showed wisdom
himself when he listened to and cooperated with the woman. Sometimes very
devoted people, such as Joab, can do much damage similarly in a church. Talk
solved a problem that war would only have complicated. Wisdom saved the
woman, her city, David's reputation, Joab's career, and many innocent lives. Her
wisdom in action bears four marks: seeing the problem, acting to correct it,
arguing her case persuasively, and fulfilling her responsibilities. God's glory
evidently motivated and guided her actions (2 Samuel 20:19). Sheba's folly is
clear in that he was easily offended, unable to muster support, and initiated a
fight he could not win.
ELLICOTT, "(1) Sheba, the son of Bichri.—The English follows the ancient
versions in taking Bichri as a proper name. Most recent commentators consider
it as a patronymic, the Bichrite, i.e., of the family of Becher, the second son of
Benjamin. He was, to this extent at least, of the same clan with Saul. He was
there, at Gilgal, with the representatives of the ten tribes, and took advantage of
the dispute just mentioned to renew the rebellion of Absalom.
Every man to his tents.—Comp. the cry of Jeroboam as he inaugurated his
rebellion (1 Kings 12:16). It was the signal of revolt.
lange, "2 Samuel 20:1. There was[FN1] there, namely, in Gilgal at the assembly
of the tribes; the word “there” indicates directly the place, indirectly the time of
the following history, so that the causal connection between it and the preceding
scene is obvious. On the person of Sheba, Luther remarks (probably correctly) in
his marginal notes: “he was one of the great rogues of the high nobility, who had
a large retinue among the people, and consideration or name, as Catiline at
Rome.”[FN2] He was a “wicked” man (Luther: heilloser [Eng. A. V. wrongly:
“son of Belial]), comp. 1 Samuel 25:17; 1 Samuel 25:25. A Benjaminite, probably
(to judge from his conduct) one of the rabid Sauline party, if he were not (as is
possible) of Saul’s own family—We have no part in David.—This is said in
contrast with 2 Samuel 19:42-43, and with a sharp emphasis on the “no” [“there
7

is not to us part in David”]. David is called the son of Jesse contemptuously in
contrast with Saul. “We have nothing in common with him, nothing to do with
him,” comp. Deuteronomy 10:9. From his blowing the trumpet it may be
surmised that he was a military commander, having control of a somewhat large
body of men.—Every man to his tents, that Isaiah, home, as in 2 Samuel 18:17; 2
Samuel 19:9. The expression is an echo from the tent-life of the people in the
wilderness.
PULPIT, "2 Samuel 20:1
There happened to be there a man of Belial. The fierce words of the men of
Judah led to evil results. It was a time when all wise and thoughtful persons
would have laboured for peace, and tried to soothe and appease the angry
passions fomented by the late war. Instead of this, the men of Judah irritated the
Israelites with insult and contumely, and the day, intended as one of rejoicing
and of the restoration of David to his throne by common consent, saw the
rebellion break forth afresh. Among those who had taken part in the discussion
with Judah was Sheba, a man of Belial, that is, a worthless fellow, but possibly
possessed of rank and influence; for, according to many commentators, ben-
Bichri does not mean the son of Bichri, but "a descendant of Becher," the second
son of Benjamin (Genesis 46:21), and possibly the representative of the
mishpachah descended from him. But it is remarkable that this son of Benjamin
disappears from the genealogies, and that no mishpachah of Bichrites is
mentioned either in Numbers 26:38 or in 1 Chronicles 8:1. In both places Ashbel,
who is enumerated as the third son in Genesis 46:21, takes the second place. We
must be content, therefore, to leave this matter in uncertainty; but evidently
Sheba had come with Shimei and Ziba to welcome David back, and, with the rest
of the thousand Benjamites, had rushed with loud cries of welcome across the
Jordan, and, but for this altercation, would have remained faithful. But tribal
jealousies were always ready to break forth, and were a permanent source of
weakness; and now, stung by some jibe at Benjamin, Sheba gave orders to a
trumpeter to give the signal for the breaking up of the meeting, and, as is
commonly the case in large and excited gatherings, the crowd obeyed the
unauthorized dictation of one man. His words are contemptuous enough. David
is no king, but a private person, and the son, not of a great chief, but of Jesse
merely, a yeoman of Bethlehem. Every man to his tents. "To his tent" meant "to
his home" (see 2 Samuel 18:17). But this withdrawal home signified the rejection
of David's government. Almost the same words are used in 1 Kings 12:16.
PINK, "There had been not a little to offset David’s grief over the revolt and
death of Absalom. As we have seen, his journey back to Jerusalem was marked
by several incidents which must have brought satisfaction and joy to the kings
heart. The radical change in the attitude of Shimei toward him, the discovery
that after all the heart of Mephibosheth beat true to him, the affectionate
homage of the aged Barzillai, and the welcome from the elders and men of
Judah, were all calculated to cheer and encourage the returning exile. Things
seemed to have taken a decided turn for the better, and the sun shone out of a
8

clear sky. Yes, but the clouds have a habit of returning even after a heavy rain.
And so it was here. A dark cloud suddenly appeared on David’s horizon which
must have caused him considerable uneasiness, presaging as it did the gathering
of another storm.
The leaders of the Ten Tribes had met David at Gilgal, and a dispute at once ensued
between them and the men of Judah. This was the fly in the ointment. A foolish
quarrel broke out between the two factions over the matter of bringing back the king.
"It was a point of honour which was being disputed between them, which had most
interest in David. ‘We are more numerous’ say the elders of Israel. ‘We are nearer
akin to him’ say the elders of Judah. Now one would think David very safe and happy
when his subjects are striving which should love him best, and be most forward to
show him respect; yet even that strife proved the occasion for a rebellion" (Matthew
Henry). No sooner was one of David’s trials over than another arises, as it were, out of
the ashes of the former.
Ah, my reader, we must not expect to journey far in this world without encountering
trouble in some form or other; no, not even when the providence of God appears to be
smiling upon us. It will not be long before we receive some rude reminder that "this is
not your rest." It was thus in the present experiences of our hero: in the very midst of
his triumphs he was forced to witness a disturbance among his leading subjects, which
soon threatened the overthrow of his kingdom. There is nothing stable down here, and
we only court certain disappointment if we build our hopes on anything earthly or
think to find satisfaction in the creature. Under the sun is but "vanity and vexation of
spirit." But how slow we are to really believe that melancholy truth; yet in the end we
find it is true.
We closed our last chapter with a quotation which called attention to the typical
significance of the incidents recorded in 2 Samuel 19; the opening verses of chapter
20 may be contemplated as bearing out the same line of thought. Christ’s visible
kingdom on earth is entered by profession, hence there are tares in it as well as wheat,
bad fish as well as good, foolish virgins as well as wise (Matthew 13 and 25). This
will be made unmistakably manifest in the Day to come, but even in this world God
sometimes so orders things that profession is tested and that which is false is exposed.
Such is the dispensational significance of the episode we are now to consider. The
Israelites had appeared to be loyal and devoted to David, yea, so much so that they
were hurt when the men of Judah had, without consulting them, taken the lead in
bringing back the king.
But how quickly the real state of their hearts was made apparent. What a little thing it
took to cause their affection for David not only to cool off but to evaporate
completely. No sooner did an enemy cry "to your tents, O Israel," than they promptly
responded, renouncing their professed allegiance. There was no reality to their
protestations of fealty, and when the choice was set before them they preferred a "man
of Belial" rather than the man after God’s own heart. How solemnly this reminds us of
the multitudes of Israel at a later date: first crying out "Hosanna to the Son of David,
Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Mart. 21:9) and a short time after,
when the issue was drawn, preferring Barabbas to Christ. And how often since then,
especially in times of trial and persecution, have thousands of those who made a loud
profession of Christianity preferred the world or their own carnal safety.
"And there happened to be there a man of Belial, whose name was Sheba, the son of
9

Birchri, a Benjamite: and he blew a trumpet, and said, We have no part in David,
neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse; every man to his tents, O Israel" (2
Sam. 20:1). Alas! how often it appears that in a happy concourse of those who come
together to greet and do homage to David there is "a son of Belial" ready to sound the
trumpet of contention. Satan knows full well that few things are better calculated to
further his own base designs than by causing divisions among the people of God. Sad
it is that we are not more upon our guard, for we are not ignorant of his devices. And
to be on our guard means to be constantly mortifying pride and jealousy. Those were
the evil roots from which this trouble issued, as is clear from the "that our advice
should nor first be had in bringing back our king" (19:43).
"And the words of the men of Judah were fiercer than the words of the men of Israel"
(19:43). This was only adding fuel to the fire. "A soft answer turneth away wrath, but
grievous words stir up anger" (Prov. 15:1). If the spirit of jealousy prevailed among
the leaders of Israel, pride was certainly at work in the hearts of the elders of Judah,
and when those two evils clashed, anger and strife quickly followed. It is solemn to
observe that God Himself took notice of and recorded in His Word the fierceness of
the words of the men of Judah—a plain intimation that He now registers against us
that language which is not pleasing unto Him. How we need to pray that God would
set a watch before our mouths, that the door of our lips may be kept from allowing
evil to pass out.
"And there happened to be there a man of Belial, whose name was Sheba, the son of
Birchri, a Benjamite; and he blew a trumpet, and said, We have no part in David,
neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse." Sheba belonged to the tribe of Saul,
which had bitterly begrudged the honor done to Judah, when the son of Jesse was
elected king. The Benjamites never really submitted to the divine ordination. The
deeper significance of this is not hard to perceive: there is a perpetual enmity in the
serpent’s seed against the antitypical David. How remarkably was this mysterious yet
prominent feature of Christ’s kingdom adumbrated in the continued opposition of the
house of Saul against David: first in Saul himself, then in Ishbosheth (2 Sam. 2:8, 9;
3:1, etc.), and now Sheba. But just as surely as David prevailed over all his enemies,
so shall Christ vanquish all His foes.
"And he blew a trumpet, and said, We have no part in David, neither have we
inheritance in the son of Jesse: every man to his tents, O Israel." See how ready is an
evil mind to place a false construction upon things, and how easily this can be
accomplished when determined so to do. The men of Judah had said "the king is near
of kin to us" (19:42), but this son of Belial now perverted their words and made them
to signify "We have no part in David" whereas they intended no such thing. Then let
us not be surprised when those who secretly hate us give an entirely false meaning to
what we have said or written. History abounds in incidents where the most innocent
statements have been grossly wrested to become the means of strife and bloodshed. It
was so with the Lord Jesus Himself: see John 2:19-21 and compare Matthew 27,
26:61, 62—sufficient then for the disciple to be as his Master. But let the Christian
diligently see to it that he does not let himself (or herself) be used as a tool of Satan in
this vile work.
"Every man to his tents, O Israel." This call put them to the proof testing their loyalty
and love to David. The sequel at once evidenced how fickle and false they were. "So
every man of Israel went up from after David, and followed Sheba the son of Birchri"
10

(v. 2). Hardly had they returned to their allegiance, than they forsook it. How utterly
unreliable human nature is, and how foolish are they who put their trust in man. What
creatures of extremes we be: now welcoming Moses as a deliverer, and next reviling
him because the deliverance came not as easily and quickly as was expected; how glad
to escape from the drudgery of Egypt, and a little later anxious to return thither. What
grace is needed to anchor such unstable and unreliable creatures.
"So every man of Israel went up from after David, and followed Sheba the son of
Birchri" (v. 2). Nothing is told us as to whether or not David himself had taken any
part in the debate between the elders of Israel and of Judah, or whether he had made
any attempt to pour oil on the troubled waters. If he did, it appears that he quite failed
to convince the former, for they now not only refused to attend him any further on his
return to Jerusalem, but refused to own him as their king at all. Nay more, they were
determined to set up a rival king of their own. Thus the very foundations of his
kingdom were again threatened. Scarcely had God delivered David from the revolt of
Absalom. than he was now faced with this insurrection from Sheba. And is it not thus
in the experience of David’s spiritual seed? No sooner do they succeed in subduing
one lust or sin, than another raises its ugly head against them.
"But the men of Judah clave unto their king, from Jordan even to Jerusalem" (v. 2). It
is blessed to find there were some who remained loyal to David, refusing to forsake
him even when the majority of his subjects turned away from him. Thus, though the
test exposed the false, it also revealed the true. So it ever is. And who were the ones
that remained steadfast to the king? Why, the men of his own tribe, those who were
related to him by blood. The typical significance of this is obvious. Though in the day
of testing there are multitudes who forsake the royal banner of the anti-typical David,
there is always a remnant which Satan himself cannot induce to apostatize, namely,
those who are Christ’s brethren spiritually. How beautifully was that here illustrated.
"And David came to his house at Jerusalem: and the king took the ten women his
concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and fed them,
hut went not in unto them. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in
widowhood" (v. 3). Here we see one of the gains resulting from the severe chastening
that David had undergone. As we have seen in earlier chapters, David had multiplied
wives and concubines unto himself contrary to the law of God, and they had proved a
grief and a shame to him (15:16; 16:21, 22). God often has to take severe measures
with us ere we are willing to forsake our idols. It is good to note that from this point
onwards we read nothing more of concubines in connection with David. But how
solemn to discover, later, that this evil example, which he had set before his family,
was followed by his son Solomon—to the drawing away of his heart from the Lord. O
that parents gave more heed to the divine threat that their sins shall surely be visited
upon their descendants.
"Then said the king to Amasa, Assemble me the men of Judah within three days, and
be thou here present" (v. 4). Though the men of Judah had not followed the evil
example of the Ten Tribes in their revolt against the king, yet it appears from this
verse that many of them were no longer in attendance upon David, having no doubt
returned unto their own homes. Considering the circumstances, it seems that they put
their own comfort and safety first, at a time when their master’s regime was seriously
threatened. "Though Forward enough to attend the king’s triumphs, they were
backward enough not to fight his battles. Most love a loyalty, as well as a religion,
11

that is cheap and easy. Many boast of their being akin to Christ that yet are very loath
to venture for Him" (Matthew Henry). On the other hand let it not be forgotten that it
is not without reason the Lord’s people are called "sheep"—one of the most timid of
all animals.
"Then said the king to Amasa, Assemble me the men of Judah within three days, and
be thou here present." This shows the uneasiness of David at Sheba’s rebellion and his
determination to take strong and prompt measures to quell it. Amasa, it may be
pointed out, had been the "captain of the host for Absalom against David (17:25), yet
he was near akin unto the king. He was the one whom David had intended should
replace Joab as the commander of his armies (19:13), and the rebellion of Sheba now
supplied the opportunity for the carrying out of this purpose. Having received a
previous notification of the king’s design may have been the main reason why Amasa,
though an Israelite, did not join forces with the insurrectionists. He saw an opportunity
to better his position and acquire greater military honor. But, as we shall see, in
accepting this new commission, he only signed his own death-warrant—so insecure
are the honors of this world.
It is very much to be doubted whether David’s choice was either a wise or a popular
one. Since Amasa had filled a prominent position under Absalom, it could scarcely be
expected that the man who Joab had successfully commanded would now relish being
placed on subjection to the man who so recently had been the enemy of their king. It is
this which, most probably, accounts for the delay, or rather Amasa’s lack of success in
carrying out the king’s orders, for we are told "So Amasa went to assemble the men of
Judah: but he tarried longer than the set time which he had appointed him" (v. 5). As
Scott says, "The men of Judah seemed to have been more eager in disputing about
their king, than to engage in battle under Amasa." This supplied a solemn warning for
Amasa, but in the pride of his heart he heeded it not.
"And David said to Abishai, Now shall Sheba the son of Birchri do us more harm than
did Absalom: take thou thy lord’s servants, and pursue after him, lest he get him
fenced cities, and escape us" (v. 6). It had already been clearly demonstrated that
Sheba was a man who possessed considerable influence over the men of Israel, and
therefore David had good reason to Fear that if he were allowed to mature his plans,
the most serious trouble would be sure to follow. His order to Amasa shows that he
was determined to frustrate the insurrectionists by nipping their plans while they were
still in the bud, by sending a powerful force against them. Chafing at the delay
occasioned by Amasa’s lack of success in promptly collecting an army, David now
gave orders to Abishai to take command of the regular troops, for he was determined
to degrade Joab.
"And there went out after him Joab’s men, and the Cherethites, and the Pelethites, and
all the mighty men: and they went out of Jerusalem, to pursue after Sheba the son of
Birchri" (v. 7). This, we take it, defines "thy lord’s servants" of the previous verse,
namely, the seasoned warriors which Joab had formerly commanded. Though he had
no intention of employing Joab himself on this occasion, David gladly availed himself
of his trained men Abishai was a proved and powerful officer, being in fact brother to
Joab. All seemed to be now set for the carrying out of David’s design, but once more
it was to be shown that though man proposes it is God who disposes. Even great men,
yea, kings themselves, are often thwarted in their plans, and discover they are
subordinate to the will of Him who is the King of kings. How thankful we should be
12

that this is so, that the Lord in His infinite wisdom ruleth over all.
"When they were at the great stone which is in Gibeon, Amasa went before them" (v.
8). It seems this was the appointed meeting-place for the concentrated forces of David.
Amasa now arrived on the scene at the head of the men which he had mustered, and
promptly placed himself in command of the army. But brief indeed was the moment
of his military glory, for no sooner did he reach the pinnacle of his ambition than he
was brutally dashed therefrom, to lay weltering in his own blood. "Vain are earthly
distinctions and preferments, which excite so much envy and enmity, without
affording any additional security to mans uncertain life: may we then be ambitious of
that honour which cometh from God only" (Thomas Scott).
2 So all the men of Israel deserted David to follow
Sheba son of Bicri. But the men of Judah stayed by
their king all the way from the Jordan to Jerusalem.
BARNES, "From Jordan ... - The men of Israel only escorted David from
Jordan to Gilgal, and there left him; but the men of Judah in a body went with him
all the way to Jerusalem.
GILL, "So every man of Israel went up from after David,.... Those that met
him on the road departed from him, and went no further with him:
and followed Sheba the son of Bichri; and made him their captain, who was the
author of their mutiny and sedition:
but the men of Judah clave unto their king, from Jordan to Jerusalem:
never left him, after they had conducted him over Jordan, until they had brought him
safely to Jerusalem.
JAMISON, "from Jordan even to Jerusalem — The quarrel had broken out
shortly after the crossing of the Jordan, between Judah and the other tribes, who
withdrew; so that Judah was left nearly alone to conduct the king to the metropolis.
BENSON, "2 Samuel 20:2. So every man of Israel went up from after David —
Instead of going home, the generality of those Israelites who were present
followed their seditious incendiary. But the men of Judah clave to their king —
None of them stirred from him, but conducted him from Jordan to Jerusalem.
Nor is it to be supposed that all the men of Israel forsook him; but only a very
great number of them.
13

ELLICOTT, "(2) Men of Judah clave.—David’s negotiations with Judah had
now resulted in an entire reversal of the position of the tribes towards him;
Judah, among whom the rebellion originated, and who had been tardy in
returning to their allegiance, were now fierce in their loyalty, while Israel, who
had only joined the already organised rebellion, and afterwards had first
proposed the return of David, had become alienated and rebellious.
LANGE, "2 Samuel 20:2. All Israel “went up” from David, namely, from the
plain of Gilgal to the hill-country of Ephraim. The whole representation of Israel
listens to Sheba’s rebellious signal, and follows him, which is to be explained only
by the anger against Judah, freshly excited by the quarrel over bringing the king
back. The men of Judah “clave to their king,” crowded close around him [rather,
faithfully adhered to him—Tr.] and escorted him “from the Jordan to
Jerusalem.” The expression: “from the Jordan” does not contradict the fact that
the assembly took place in Gilgal (as Thenius holds from this, that it took place
on the Jordan); it is not to be explained (with Keil against Thenius) by the
remark that the “Judahites” had already escorted the king over the Jordan, but
(Gilgal being near the Jordan) is to be taken as a general designation, such as we
often use in respect to rivers.
[So Targum, Gill, Philippson. It may also be rendered: “in a lifelong
widowhood,” i. e., as long as they lived; but the objection to this Isaiah, that it
repeats the statement of the preceding clause.—Tr.]
K&D, "2Sa_20:2
All the men of Israel responded to this call, and went up (to the mountains) away
from David and after Sheba; but the men of Judah adhered to their king from the
Jordan to Jerusalem. The construction of ‫ק‬ ַ‫ב‬ ָ with ‫ד‬ ַ‫ע‬ְ‫ו‬ ... ‫ן‬ ִ‫מ‬ is a pregnant one: they
adhered to and followed him. The expression “from Jordan” does not prove that
Sheba's rebellion broke out at the Jordan itself, and before David's arrival in Gilgal,
but may be accounted for from the fact that the men of Judah had already fetched the
king back across the Jordan.
So every man of Israel, etc.; literally, so all the men of Israel went up from after David
after Sheba. They had come down to Jordan to bring the king back in triumph, but,
on finding that the men of Judah had forestalled them, they had a quarrel, and as no
one endeavoured to allay it and mediate between them, it ended in open revolt, and
they transferred their allegiance to the worthless Sheba. Nothing could more clearly
prove the want of cohesion among the tribes, and how little Saul and David had done
to knit them together. We need not, therefore, seek for any deep reasons of state, or
for proofs of failure in David's government, to account for the rapid success of
Absalom's rebellion. Israel was a confused mass of discordant elements, kept in a
state of repulsion by the sturdy independence of the tribes and their jealousy one of
another. Even David's victories had failed to infuse into them any feeling of national
unity, nor did the long glory of Solomon's reign and the magnificence of the temple
14

succeed better. The kings were not as yet much more than the judges had been—
leaders in war, but with little authority in times of peace. What is so extraordinary is
that David had lost the allegiance of his own tribe; and it now, on returning to its
duty, spoiled by its violence the whole matter. The day must have been a great
disappointment to David. He was to have gone back conducted gloriously by all the
tribes of Israel; but he had fancied that Judah was holding back, and grieving over
Absalom. He had secret dealing therefore with it, in order that the day might not be
marred by its absence. It came, but only to do mischief; and David went home with
only its escort, and with all the rest in open rebellion.
3 When David returned to his palace in Jerusalem, he
took the ten concubines he had left to take care of the
palace and put them in a house under guard. He
provided for them, but did not lie with them. They
were kept in confinement till the day of their death,
living as widows.
CLARKE, "The ten women - He could not well divorce them; he could not
punish them, as they were not in the transgression; he could no more be familiar
with them, because they had been defiled by his son; and to have married them to
other men might have been dangerous to the state: therefore he shut them up and fed
them - made them quite comfortable, and they continued as widows to their death.
GILL, "And David came to his house at Jerusalem,.... His palace there, which
was in that part of the city called the fort of Zion, and city of David:
and the king took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to
keep the house; when he fled from Jerusalem because of Absalom, 2Sa_15:16,
and put them in ward; partly as a punishment for easily yielding to the lust of
Absalom, and partly that they might not be seen, which would bring to remembrance
his sin:
and fed them; he did not put them to death, nor put them away, but kept them thus
confined, and made a proper provision for them, not suffering them to marry any
other, and be maintained by them:
but went not in unto them: into their apartments to lie with them, having been
defiled by his son, 2Sa_16:22,
so they were shut up unto the day of their death; kept in the ward till they
15

died:
living in widowhood; neither used by the king as his concubines, as they had been
before, nor suffered to many any other; or "in the widowhood of life" (o), which is so
expressed, to distinguish it from widowhood made by death; this was such sort of
widowhood as obtained while their husband was living; so the Targum,"widows of
their husband alive,''
or remaining.
HENRY, "II. His concubines imprisoned for life, and he himself under a necessity of
putting them in confinement, because they had been defiled by Absalom, 2Sa_20:3.
David had multiplied wives, contrary to the law and they proved a grief and shame to
him. Those whom he had sinfully taken pleasure in he was now, 1. Obliged, in duty,
to put away, they being rendered unclean to him by the vile uncleanness his son had
committed with them. Those whom he had loved must now be loathed. 2. Obliged, in
prudence, to shut up in privacy, not to be seen abroad for shame, lest the sight of
them should give occasion to people to speak of what Absalom had done to them,
which ought not to be so much as named, 1Co_5:1. That that villany might be buried
in obscurity. 3. Obliged, in justice to shut up in prison, to punish them for their easy
submission to Absalom's lust, despairing perhaps of David's return, and giving him
up for gone. Let none expect to do ill and fare well.
JAMISON, "the king took the ten women his concubines — Jewish writers
say that the widowed queens of Hebrew monarchs were not allowed to marry again
but were obliged to pass the rest of their lives in strict seclusion. David treated his
concubines in the same manner after the outrage committed on them by Absalom.
They were not divorced, for they were guiltless; but they were no longer publicly
recognized as his wives; nor was their confinement to a sequestered life a very heavy
doom, in a region where women have never been accustomed to go much abroad.
K&D, "2Sa_20:3
As soon as David returned to his palace at Jerusalem, he brought the ten
concubines whom he had left behind, and with whom Absalom had lain, into a place
of safety, and took care of them, without going in unto them any more. The
masculine suffixes attached to ‫ם‬ֵ‫ג‬ ְ ִ‫,י‬ ‫ם‬ ֵ‫ל‬ ְⅴ ְ‫ל‬ ַ‫כ‬ְ‫,י‬ and ‫ם‬ ֶ‫יה‬ ֵ‫ל‬ ֲ‫א‬ are used, as they frequently are,
as being the more general and indefinite, instead of the feminine, which is the more
definite form. Thus were they shut up in lifelong widowhood until the day of their
death. ‫נוּת‬ ְ‫מ‬ ְ‫ל‬ፍ is an adverbial accusative, and ‫וּת‬ ַ‫ח‬ signifies “condition in life;” literally,
in widowhood of life.
BENSON, "2 Samuel 20:3. But went not in unto them — He looked upon them
as become impure to him, having been defiled by his son. They were shut up to
the day of their death, living in widowhood — Being royal wives, it was not
proper they should be married to any one else, and therefore David did not give
them a bill of divorce, but shut them up close, that no man might have converse
with them. And indeed it would not have been prudent to have let them be so
much as seen abroad, as that would have renewed the remembrance of
16

Absalom’s crime.
COFFMAN, "DAVID PUTS HIS TEN CONCUBINES IN JAIL FOR LIFE
"And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten
concubines whom he had left to care for the house, and put them in a house
under guard, and provided for them, but did not go in to them. So they were shut
up till the day of their death, living as if in widowhood."
This writer finds no way to justify this tragic treatment of ten faithful
concubines who had committed no crime, who were guilty of no unfaithfulness,
and who presumably had taken good care of things during David's absence. Not
the least of David's sins was his polygamous marriages, which were not only
wrong in his case but provided the royal example for the wholesale debauchery
of his son Solomon.
"David ... put them in a house under guard ... so they were shut up till the day of
their death" (2 Samuel 20:3). Oh yes, the text says that the king "provided for
them," but it was still the provision that any jailor gives his prisoners. We feel
disappointment at the tenderness with which many scholars have written about
this contemptible act of King David.
COKE, "2 Samuel 20:3. The king took the ten women his concubines, &c.— As
soon as David arrived at Jerusalem, one of his first cares was to remove those
concubines, or secondary wives, whom Absalom had so scandalously abused. He
ordered them, therefore, to be separated from the palace, and maintained in a
proper place of seclusion and retirement, where they ended their lives as widows.
The Jews say, that the widows of their kings could never marry again. David
treated them as widows, and allowed them not to appear again in public, that
there might be as little renewal as possible in the minds of men of the
opprobrious infamy of his son. Mahomet, who borrowed a variety of his laws
from the Jews, forbade his wives to marry again after his death. See Selden,
Uxor. Heb. lib. 1: cap. 10.
REFLECTIONS.—When men's spirits are exasperated in popular tumults, some
crafty and ambitious head fails not to improve the circumstances for his own
advancement.
1. Sheba the son of Bichri, a Benjamite, a man of Belial, thinking that he might
now step into the throne, widens the breach into rebellion. Since Judah seemed
to engross the king, he advises the men of Israel to renounce the ten parts they
claimed, and to have no part in David. The trumpet is blown, and Sheba now is
their leader. Note; (1.) We must not promise ourselves long peace here below.
Whilst the old enmity reigns in the heart of the sinner, new storms will arise. (2.)
Foolish quarrels have dangerous consequences. (3.) We are apt to be swinging to
17

extremes; and those who seemed the most zealous friends sometimes turn the
bitterest enemies.
2. David proceeds to Jerusalem, and his first care is to shut up his concubines,
whom Absalom had defiled, Note; Obscure retirement is the fittest place for
those who have made themselves publicly scandalous.
PETT, "Verse 3
On His Arrival In Jerusalem From Gilgal David Deals With The Problem Of
The Concubine Wives With Whom Absalom Had Sexual Relations (2 Samuel
20:3).
Meanwhile, while much of this was going on, David had moved on to Jerusalem,
and once there he had to decide what to do about the concubine wives with
whom Absalom had publicly had sexual relations. It was in fact a tricky problem
because technically the concubines were now Absalom’s former wives. Thus for
David to have had further relations with them would probably have been
thought of as having sex within the forbidden degrees (something which, of
course, Absalom had done - Leviticus 20:11), even though strictly speaking a
father lying with his son’s wife was not included in the list. It was certainly not
something which David felt like risking just because of a few concubines.
This event is included here because it was David’s final act of removing all trace
of Absalom’s rebellion from Jerusalem, for these concubines had unwittingly
become an important symbol of Absalom’s rule. They were, however, also
dynamite, for as the former king’s widows they could not be available for
remarriage. This was why, although they were well treated and looked after,
they had to be kept under careful guard. It was recognised that anyone who
married one of these concubine widows would be able, should they so wish, to
claim direct connection with the throne.
Analysis.
a And David came to his house at Jerusalem, and the king took the ten
women, his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in
ward (2 Samuel 20:3 a).
b And he provided them with sustenance, but did not go into them (2
Samuel 20:3 b).
a So they were shut up to the day of their death, living in widowhood (2
Samuel 20:3 c).
Not that in ‘a’ David ‘put them in ward’, and in the parallel he shut them up to
the day of their deaths. Centrally he provided them with ample sustenance.
18

2 Samuel 20:3 a
‘And David came to his house at Jerusalem, and the king took the ten women, his
concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward.’
When David arrived back in his palace in Jerusalem, which he had left in the
care of ten of his concubines, he put the ten in safe and sheltered
accommodation. Due to what his son had done he could no longer see them as
available to him because they had become his son’s wives, and therefore
untouchable by him. But he nevertheless treated them with due honour.
However, in view of their status they had also to be closely watched and guarded.
Marrying someone who had been so closely connected with both the king, and
then the rival king, could have given people ideas, and that could not be allowed
(compare 1 Kings 2:22).
2 Samuel 20:3 b
‘And he provided them with sustenance, but did not go into them.’
In that sheltered accommodation he provided them with ample food and drink,
and no doubt forms of entertainment, but abstained from having sexual relations
with them because they were now his son’s widows, something which was almost
certain to have put them in the eyes of many people within what would have been
seen as the forbidden degrees (it was forbidden for a son to have sexual relations
with his father’s wives, and probably the reverse therefore held true). It was not
a matter of being unkind to them, but of political necessity.
2 Samuel 20:3 c
‘So they were shut up to the day of their death, living in widowhood.’
Thus as royal widows they were provided with all the comforts under the king’s
protection, while at the same time being kept under close guard. This does not
necessarily signify that they were not allowed out, veiled and suitably guarded. It
only indicated that they had to be constantly watched. The necessity for this
arose because, as we have already seen, to have allowed anyone else to have
sexual relations with them could have endangered the throne and complicated
the succession.
We must not necessarily feel that they had been hard done by. They had simply
been unfortunate. And yet we must remember that they would have had every
luxury, would been provided with amusements, and would probably have had as
much freedom as most highbred women of the day. All that they had really lost
19

was a place in the official harem, and an occasional night with David, and even
that would not have been guaranteed, even if Absalom had not ‘defiled’ them.
Indeed many probably envied them greatly. Their great loss would be in the fact
that they could no longer have children.
They were shut up. We are not to conclude that all widows had to live in
seclusion, but only that those women who belonged to the royal harem, but had
been taken by another, were not allowed to return to it, but condemned to a sort
of imprisonment. Living in widowhood. This is explained by the Chaldee as
lasting only during David's life, its rendering being, "in widowhood while their
husband was alive."
4 Then the king said to Amasa, "Summon the men of
Judah to come to me within three days, and be here
yourself."
BARNES, "To Amasa ... - Evidently feeling his way toward fulfilling the promise
to Amasa (marginal reference).
CLARKE, "Then said the king to Amasa - Thus he invests him with the
command of the army, and sends him to collect the men of Judah, and to come back
to receive his orders in relation to Sheba, in three days. It appears that Amasa found
more difficulty in collecting his country-men than was at first supposed; and this
detaining him beyond the three days, David, fearing that Sheba’s rebellion would get
head, sent Abishai, who it appears was accompanied by Joab, to pursue after Sheba.
Amasa, it seems, got up with them at Gibeon, 2Sa_20:8, where he was
treacherously murdered by the execrable Joab.
GILL, "Then said the king to Amasa,.... Whom he had promised to make
general of his army, 2Sa_19:13; and by the following order declared him such:
assemble me the men of Judah within three days; which was done by the
sound of the trumpet, or by the proclamation of a herald; it seems that the men of
Judah, who attended David to Jerusalem, were gone to their respective cities and
places of abode, or there would have been no occasion for such a summons; though it
is strange they should, when the men of Israel appeared so inclinable to a new
20

rebellion:
and be thou here present; to take the command of them.
HENRY 4-5, "We have here Amasa's fall just as he began to rise. He was nephew
to David (2Sa_17:25), had been Absalom's general and commander-in-chief of his
rebellious army, but, that being routed, he came over into David's interest, upon a
promise that he should be general of his forces instead of Joab. Sheba's rebellion
gives David an occasion to fulfil his promise sooner than he could wish, but Joab's
envy and emulation rendered its fulfillment of ill consequence both to him and
David.
I. Amasa has a commission to raise forces for the suppressing of Sheba's rebellion,
and is ordered to raise them with all possible expedition, 2Sa_20:4. It seems, the
men of Judah, though forward to attend the king's triumphs, were backward enough
to fight his battles; else, when they were all in a body attending him to Jerusalem,
they might immediately have pursued Sheba, and have crushed that cockatrice in the
egg. But most love a loyalty, as well as a religion, that is cheap and easy. Many boast
of their being akin to Christ that yet are very loth to venture for him. Amasa is sent to
assemble the men of Judah within three days; but he finds them so backward and
unready that he cannot do it within the time appointed (2Sa_20:5), though the
promotion of Amasa, who had been their general under Absalom, was very obliging
to them, and a proof of the clemency of David's government.
JAMISON, "Then said the king to Amasa, Assemble me the men of
Judah within three days — Amasa is now installed in the command which David
had promised him. The revolt of the ten tribes, probably, hastened the public
declaration of this appointment, which he hoped would be popular with them, and
Amasa was ordered within three days to levy a force from Judah sufficient to put
down the insurrection. The appointment was a blunder, and the king soon perceived
his error. The specified time passed, but Amasa could not muster the men. Dreading
the loss of time, the king gave the commission to Abishai, and not to Joab - a new
affront, which, no doubt, wounded the pride of the stern and haughty old general.
But he hastened with his attached soldiers to go as second to his brother, determined
to take the first opportunity of wreaking his vengeance on his successful rival.
K&D, "2Sa_20:4
David then ordered Amasa to call the men of Judah to pursue Sheba the rebel, and
attack him within three days, and then to present himself to him again. This
commission was intended as the commencement of the fulfilment of the promise
which David had given to Amasa (2Sa_19:14). It was no doubt his intention to give
him the command over the army that marched against Sheba, and after the defeat of
the rebel to make him commander-in-chief. But this first step towards the fulfilment
of the promise was a very imprudent act, like the promise itself, since Joab, who had
been commander of the army for so many years, was grievously offended by it; and
moreover, being a well-tried general, he had incomparably more distinction in the
tribe of Judah than Amasa, who had taken part in Absalom's rebellion and even led
the rebel army, could possibly have.
BENSON, "2 Samuel 20:4-5. Assemble me the men of Judah — David here made
good his promise to Amasa, which was a great encouragement to others in the
21

tribe of Judah to adhere to him. And by this means also the seditious Israelites
might be the sooner brought to reason, when they saw their old general in the
field against them. He tarried longer than the set time — Finding some difficulty
in the business, either because the people, being wearied out by the late war,
were not forward to engage in another; or because the soldiers had more
affection to Joab than to their new general.
COFFMAN, "JOAB'S TREACHEROUS MURDER OF AMASA
"Then the king said to Amasa, "Call the men of Judah together to me within
three days, and be here yourself." So Amasa went to summon Judah; but he
delayed beyond the set time which had been appointed him. And David said to
Abishai, "Now Sheba the son of Bichri will do us more harm than Absalom; take
your lord's servants and pursue him, lest he get himself fortified cities, and cause
us trouble." And there went out after Abishai, Joab and the Cherethites and the
Pelethites, and all the mighty men; they went out from Jerusalem to pursue
Sheba the son of Bichri. When they were at the great stone which is in Gibeon,
Amasa came to meet them. Now Joab was wearing a soldier's garment, and over
it was a girdle with a sword in its sheath fastened upon his loins, and as he went
forward, it fell out. And Joab said to Amasa, "Is it well with you, my brother"?
And Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him. But Amasa
did not observe the sword which was in Joab's hand; so Joab struck him with it
in the body, and shed his bowels to the ground, without striking a second blow;
and he died."
"Then the king said to Amasa" (2 Samuel 20:4). "This man was a nephew of
David, the son of David's sister Abigail, and his father was an Ishmaelite (1
Chronicles 2:13-17).[7]
"Call the men of Judah together to me within three days, and be here yourself"
(2 Samuel 20:4). This assignment should have been easy enough for Amasa, as he
was specifically recognized as the leader of Absalom's army gathered from all
Israel. The situation required haste. The king recognized that Sheba should not
be given time to amass an army and to rally the people behind him.
There is no doubt that this action was David's preliminary move leading to the
formal appointment of Amasa as commander-in-chief in the place of Joab. "But
this first step toward the fulfillment of that promise to Amasa was a very
imprudent act, like the promise itself."[8]
"But he delayed beyond the set time appointed him" (2 Samuel 20:5). Why was
this delay? Willis suggested the following reasons: (1) he did not think it
necessary to hurry; (2) he did not know how to summon the troops quickly; or
(3) the men of Judah had lost confidence in him.[9] There is also the possibility
that he might have contemplated casting his lot with the new rebellion under
Sheba. Whatever the reason, David, still reluctant to place Joab in command,
22

summoned Abishai and sent him after Sheba.
"And David said to Abishai, Take your lord's servants and pursue him" (Sheba)
(2 Samuel 20:6). This, of course, was David's way of insulting Joab, whom he
would not forgive for the murder of Absalom. It is to Joab's credit that he, along
with the "mighty men" and David's personal bodyguard of the Cherethites and
the Pelethites, consented to follow after Abishai. David's instructions for Abishai
to take your lord's servants is a reference to David's personal bodyguard.[10]
"Sheba ... will do us more harm than Absalom" (2 Samuel 20:6). "David need
not have been worried. The tribes had had their fill of war, and the next time we
hear of Sheba he is unsuccessfully canvassing the country for support,
accompanied only by his own clan."[11]
"And they went out after Abishai" (2 Samuel 20:7). This means that Abishai was
the commander, but that situation did not prevail very long. Joab was the real
leader in whom all of the soldiers placed their trust and confidence.
"When they were ... in Gibeon ... Amasa came to meet them" (2 Samuel 20:8).
Joab, no doubt, had anticipated this meeting and had prepared for it.
"Joab was wearing a soldier's garment; over it was a girdle with a sword in its
sheath ... and as he went forward it fell out" (2 Samuel 20:8). "The sacred text
here as well as that of the Septuagint (LXX) is corrupt, and we can only
guess,"[12] as to exactly what happened here. Some believe that Joab murdered
Amasa with the sword that fell out of the sheath; but others suppose that he used
a second weapon concealed in the sleeve of his left hand. Cook favored the first
of these views,[13] and Tatum suggested this: "Joab tricked Amasa by letting
one sword fall from his belt; and then, pretending to greet Amasa as a brother;
and when he came close, he drew out a hidden sword and thrust it into his
abdomen."[14] To this writer, Tatum's explanation seems more likely to have
been the way it happened. It is hard to believe that Amasa would have seen Joab
pick up a naked sword off the ground (even if it had been with his left hand)
without any suspicion or caution on Amasa's part.
"And Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him (2 Samuel
20:9) ... But Amasa did not observe the sword which was in Joab's hand" (2
Samuel 20:10). Joab's right hand was on Amasa's beard, so the sword had to be
in his left hand, and the fact that Amasa did not see it indicates that Joab had
concealed it in his sleeve until the moment he used it.
"Without striking a second blow; and he (Amasa) died" (2 Samuel 20:10a). "The
experienced slayer of men knew the most effective stroke."[15]
23

LANGE, "2 Samuel 20:4. And the king said to Amasa, Call me, etc., namely, to
follow and attack the insurgent Sheba. In giving Amasa this commission, David’s
purpose is to fulfil to him his promise, 2 Samuel 19:14. And do thou present
thyself here, after three days, when the men of Judah shall have assembled, that
thou mayest lead them out to battle. Then David intended formally to appoint
him commander-in-chief, and assign him the more important duties. In various
respects David here acted unwisely: 1) in bestowing on the late insurgent leader,
Amasa an unbounded confidence, that was soon proved to be misplaced, 2
Samuel 20:5-6; 2 Samuel 2) in respect to Joab who, with all his rudeness and
cruelty, had remained faithful to David, and by his splendid victory over Amasa,
had saved the kingdom; 3) in respect to his faithful tribe of Judah, who must
have been offended by this preference shown for the leader of the revolution.
[On the other hand, the insurgent Judahites might be pleased by this honor done
their general (comp. 2 Samuel 19:14), and the men of Israel affected by seeing
their former general in David’s service (Patrick); Amasa had probably shown
himself an efficient commander, and Joab was not undeserving of punishment.—
Tr.).
PETT, "Verses 4-10
The Failure And Death Of Amasa (20:4-10a).
Amasa, David’s close relative and new commander-in-chief, was now called on
by David to gather together the men of Judah ‘within three days’ so as to deal
rapidly with the threat being caused by Sheba, so that they would be able to act
before he could become a real danger. Amasa was, however, clearly either
inefficient or careless for he failed to achieve David’s target, or to report back at
the proper time, possibly partly because men were reluctant to follow the general
who led them to defeat when fighting for Absalom, but also partly because he did
not treat his position seriously enough. There is no doubt that he unquestionably
and completely failed in his duty. The result was that David then turned to the
faithful Abishai, who had previously led one of David’s three units against Israel,
and was standing by him, and called on him to gather David’s troops and pursue
Sheba before he could establish himself. We must undoubtedly see his command
to Abishai as arising because Abishai was close at hand, and immediately
available, and therefore also as including his brother when he could be
contacted. It was thus a request that he go with his brother (when he could make
contact with him) so that they might both go and pursue Sheba. This is evident
from what follows.
Accordingly Abishai swiftly gathered together Joab’s men (presumably the
standing army always held at the ready), together with David’s bodyguard and
mighty men, and set off in pursuit of Sheba, and was at some point joined by
Joab. And when they reached the great stone at Gibeon they came across Amasa
who, seemingly unconcernedly, came to meet them. This put them under a huge
dilemma. Their mission was now extremely urgent and there was no time for
24

negotiating with or arguing with the official commander-in-chief who had
already proved so negligent and inefficient. Nor did they want to have to do
battle with any men who were with him. So Joab made a swift decision, and
presumably on the grounds of treason and failure to observe the king’s
commands, summarily executed him. He would no doubt argue afterwards that
it had been necessary because of the urgency of the situation. He had proved
himself unfit to command and had actually been subordinate in that he had not
reported back to David. Thus Joab and Abishai, entrusted with the king’s urgent
command, had had no alternative.
a Then the king said to Amasa, “Call me the men of Judah together within
three days, and be you present here.” So Amasa went to call the men of Judah
together, but he lingered longer than the set time which he had appointed him (2
Samuel 20:4-5).
b And David said to Abishai, “Now will Sheba the son of Bichri do us more
harm than Absalom did. You take your lord’s servants, and pursue after him,
lest he obtain for himself fortified cities, and tear out our eye” (2 Samuel 20:6).
c And there went out after him Joab’s men, and the Cherethites and the
Pelethites, and all the mighty men, and they went out of Jerusalem, to pursue
after Sheba the son of Bichri (2 Samuel 20:7).
b When they were at the great stone which is in Gibeon, Amasa came to
meet them. And Joab was girded with his war clothing which he had put on, and
on it was a girdle with a sword fastened on his loins in its sheath, and as he went
forth it fell out (2 Samuel 20:8).
a And Joab said to Amasa, “Is it well with you, my brother?” And Joab
took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him. But Amasa paid no
heed to the sword that was in Joab’s hand. So he smote him with it in the body,
and shed out his bowels to the ground, and struck him not again, and he died (2
Samuel 20:9-10).
Note that in ‘a’ Amasa carelessly ignored the injunction that had been urged on
him by David, and in the parallel he carelessly ignored the sword that was in
Joab’s hand. In ‘b’ David declares that Amasa’s lateness and carelessness might
well be responsible for great harm which Sheba might cause, and calls on
Abishai to prepare David’s servants to chase after Sheba, and in the parallel
Amasa arrives too late, and meanwhile Joab, Abishai’s brother, has prepared
himself for the chase. Centrally in ‘c’ Abishai leads out Joab’s men, and David’s
bodyguard and mighty men.
2 Samuel 20:4
‘Then the king said to Amasa, “Call me the men of Judah together within three
days, and be you present here.” ’
Having appointed Amasa as commander-in-chief of the armies of Israel/Judah
‘the king’ called on him to muster the men of Judah ‘within three days’ and to
personally report back to him. (Three days may in fact have indicated ‘a few
25

days’, as it so often does, but it was nevertheless specific. It did not justify delay).
The point was that promptness and speed were essential, for David recognised
that this was an emergency situation, and having been caught out by Absalom,
he did not intend also to be caught out by Sheba.
They were shut up. We are not to conclude that all widows had to live in
seclusion, but only that those women who belonged to the royal harem, but had
been taken by another, were not allowed to return to it, but condemned to a sort
of imprisonment. Living in widowhood. This is explained by the Chaldee as
lasting only during David's life, its rendering being, "in widowhood while their
husband was alive."
5 But when Amasa went to summon Judah, he took
longer than the time the king had set for him.
BARNES, "
BARNES, "He tarried - The cause of Amasa’s delay is not stated. It may have
been the unwillingness of the men of Judah to place themselves under his orders, or
it may have been caused by a wavering or hesitation in loyalty. This last is evidently
insinuated in 2Sa_20:11, and no doubt this was the pretext, whether grounded in fact
or not, by which Joab justified the murder of Amasa before David.
GILL, "So Amasa went to assemble the men of Judah,.... To gather, them
together out of their several tribes, and bring them to Jerusalem:
but he tarried longer than the set time which he had appointed him: than
the three days; whether this was owing to the remissness of Amasa, or the
unwillingness of the people to serve under him, who had been Absalom's general in
the late rebellion, or not having time sufficient allowed him, is not certain.
K&D, "2Sa_20:5-6
But when Amasa stayed out beyond the time fixed for the execution of the royal
commission (the Chethib ‫וייחר‬ is the Piel ‫ר‬ ֵ‫ח‬ַ‫י‬ְ‫י‬ַ‫,ו‬ whilst the Keri is either the Hiphil ‫ר‬ ֵ‫ּוח‬ ַ‫,ו‬
or the imperfect Kal of ‫ר‬ ַ‫ח‬ָ‫י‬ = ‫ר‬ ַ‫ח‬ፎ, cf. ‫ז‬ ֵ‫ּח‬ , 2Sa_20:9, and is quite unnecessary),
probably because the men of Judah distrusted him, and were not very ready to
respond to his summons, David said to Abishai, “Now will Sheba the son of Bichri be
more injurious (more dangerous) to us than Absalom. Take thou the servants
(soldiers) of thy lord and pursue after him, lest he reach fortified cities, and tear out
26

our eye,” i.e., do us a serious injury. This is the correct explanation given by Böttcher,
who refers to Deu_32:10 and Zec_2:12, where the apple of the eye is the figure used
to signify the most valuable possession; for the general explanation, “and withdraw
from our eye,” cannot be grammatically sustained.
ELLICOTT, "(5) He tarried longer.—No cause is assigned for this, and various
conjectures have been made. The simplest explanation may be drawn from the
fact that, in 2 Samuel 20:8, Amasa is met on his return at Gibeon. He had
therefore gone quite out of the bounds of Judah into Benjamin, and had
consumed more time in consequence of exceeding his instructions. The fact
suggests great doubt of his fitness for the place David had promised him. Joab
appears to insinuate (in 2 Samuel 20:11) that Amasa was not really loyal.
PETT, "2 Samuel 20:5
‘So Amasa went to call the men of Judah together, but he lingered longer than
the set time which he had appointed him.’
So Amasa set about mustering the army of Judah. But he did not do it with
sufficient urgency. Thus when the time limit arrived the forces were nowhere to
be seen, and nor was Amasa, who was supposed to have reported back. He was
seemingly not astute enough as a general to recognise, as David himself had, the
need for all speed before the rebellion could be established. It must therefore be
appreciated that his failure to report back by the time allotted was gross
dereliction of duty. It was indeed to treat the king with unforgivable casualness.
Amasa was thus gravely at fault and liable for severe punishment however we
look at it.
He tarried longer than the set time. But not longer than was to be expected. For
the appointment was so surprising that everybody must have been agape with
astonishment. They would naturally have expected that Amasa would he
punished. Instead of this, he is commissioned to gather the militia in David's
name. And men would hesitate about joining such a leader. Was he really loyal?
or would he embark them in a new rebellion? And what would Joab do? He was
not a man likely to bear such a slight tamely, and David ought to have foreseen
that he was sowing for himself a crop of discord and enmity.
6 David said to Abishai, "Now Sheba son of Bicri will
do us more harm than Absalom did. Take your
master's men and pursue him, or he will find fortified
cities and escape from us."
27

BARNES, "To Abishai - Probably, as the king was on bad terms with Joab, and
wished to deprive him of his post as Captain of the host, he gave his orders to
Abishai, and weakly connived at the execution of them by Joab, which was inevitable.
GILL, "And David said to Abishai,.... For it seems he would have nothing to say
to Joab, being displeased with him for slaying Absalom, and having removed him
from his posts; and therefore speaks to the next officer in his army, Abishai; though
Josephus (p) says, he addressed himself to Joab, contrary to the express words of the
text:
now shall Sheba the son of Bichri do us more harm than did Absalom;
gain a greater party, and give more trouble to subdue him, unless suppressed in time:
take thou thy lord's servants, and pursue after him; without waiting for
Amasa, and the troops he was assembling; delays in such a case as an insurrection
being dangerous, which ought to be nipped in the bud, and crushed as soon as
possible; in order to which, he bids him take his servants that were about him, his
bodyguards, and pursue Sheba:
lest he get him fenced cities; where he may secure himself, and hold out a siege a
long time, and give a great deal of trouble:
and escape us; for the present; or "escape our eyes", as the "Keri", or marginal
reading is; we shall lose sight of him, and not know which way he is gone, if he is not
pursued quickly.
HENRY 6-7, "II. Upon Amasa's delay, Abishai, the brother of Joab, is ordered to
take the guards and standing forces, and with them to pursue Sheba (2Sa_20:6, 2Sa_
20:7), for nothing could be of more dangerous consequence than to give him time.
David gives these orders to Abishai, because he resolves to mortify Joab, and degrade
him, not so much, I doubt, for the blood of Abner, which he had shed basely, as for
the blood of Absalom, which he had shed justly and honourably. “Now (says bishop
Hall) Joab smarteth for a loyal disobedience. How slippery are the stations of earthly
honours and subject to continual mutability! Happy are those who are in favour with
him in whom there is no shadow of change.” Joab, without orders, though in
disgrace, goes along with his brother, knowing he might be serviceable to the public,
or perhaps now meditating the removal of his rival.
BENSON, "2 Samuel 20:6-7. Then David said to Abishai — Not to Joab; lest by
this means he should recover his place, and Amasa be discontented, and David’s
fidelity in making good his promise to Amasa be questioned. Now shall Sheba do
us more harm than Absalom — If he have time to gather an army; the people
being highly incensed by the provocation which the men of Judah had given
them. Take thy lord’s servants — The guards that attended David, and the
standing forces which were always kept in readiness. There went out after him
Joab’s men — A body of men whom he particularly commanded, with whom
Joab also might go in some character, watching an opportunity to do what he
28

designed.
ELLICOTT, "(6) David said to Abishai.—David is determined to pass over Joab,
and, therefore, when Amasa fails in this crisis, requiring immediate action, he
summons Abishai, and puts him in command of such forces as were at hand in
Jerusalem, and gives him orders for the rapid pursuit of Sheba. The clause
“escape us” is difficult, and doubtful in the original, and the English follows the
Vulg. Others translate “pluck out our eye,” i.e., do us great harm; others as the
LXX., “over shadow our eye,” meaning either cause us anxiety, or hide where we
cannot find him.
LANGE, "2 Samuel 20:6. And David said to Abishai. Instead of “Abishai,”
Thenius (after Syr. and Josephus) would read “Joab,” since from the present
text we cannot account for the appearance of Joab in 2 Samuel 20:8, (he is
previously not mentioned—only his people mentioned in 2 Samuel 20:7); the
“men of Joab” would certainly not have marched out, unless Joab had had the
supreme command. He takes the original reading (after the Sept.) in 2 Samuel
20:7 to be: “and there marched out after him Abishai and the men of Joab,” and
thinks that from this, “Abishai” got into 2 Samuel 20:6 instead of “Joab,” while
in 2 Samuel 20:7 the word “Abishai” fell out from its likeness to the following
word (‫.)אנשי‬ Against which Böttcher rightly says that the Syriac and Josephus
here made an arbitrary change in the Hebrew, and put “Joab” instead of
Abishai, because they thought (from what follows) that the former ought to be
named here. “How,” asks Böttcher, “if Joab had originally stood in the text,
could Abishai have been accidentally or purposely written for it, since the two
names are very different, and Abishai is not mentioned till 2 Samuel 20:10?”
Rather in the Sept. (Cod. Vat.) the Abishai might have gotten from 2 Samuel
20:6 (beginning) into 2 Samuel 20:7 (beginning); indeed its insertion is evidently
due to the exception that was taken to the omission of his name in 2 Samuel 20:7
while in 2 Samuel 20:6 he is entrusted with the command. To get rid of the
difficulties, Böttcher proposes to read in 2 Samuel 20:6 : “And David said to
Joab: behold, the three days are past, shall we wait for Amasa? now will Sheba,
etc.,” (Sept. Vat. reading: “and David said to Amasa”). But this adoption of a
variation of the Sept. (which clearly came from a misunderstanding), and the
supposed omission of a whole line by the error of a transcriber is artificial and
untrustworthy. There remains nothing but to retain the masoretic text (which is
confirmed by all the Versions except the Syriac): “and David said to Abishai.”
Joab was still David’s official commander-in-chief, though the latter had
unwisely promised the command to Amasa; the sending of Amasa to collect the
troops was indeed occasioned by that promise; but Joab was not yet deprived of
the command. But David speaks to Abishai about Amasa’s delay and not to
Joab, because he wished to have nothing to do with the latter on account of his
crabbedness, and further knew that he would take Amasa’s appointment ill.
David expresses the apprehension: Now will Sheba … become more hurtful
(dangerous) than Absalom, the revolution will become more widespread and
powerful than before, unless we march immediately against Sheba. Take thou
thy Lord’s servants, the troops with the king in Jerusalem, the standing army
(the particular parts of which are mentioned in 2 Samuel 20:7), in distinction
29

from, the levy of the people, for which Amasa was sent. And pursue after him,
for, as Sheba had gotten a good start in these three days, everything depended on
quickly overtaking him. Lest he get him fenced cities,—this he fears has already
happened (as the form of the Hebrew verb[FN6] shows). And turn away our eye;
the verb (‫יל‬ ִ‫צּ‬ ִ‫)ה‬ means “to take away” ( Genesis 31:9; Genesis 31:16; Psalm
119:43; 1 Samuel 30:22; Hosea 2:11), “lest he take away our view,” deceive us
(Maurer); Vulg.; “and escape us” [so Eng. A. V.]; Gesen and De Wette: “that he
may not escape our eye by throwing himself with his followers into fortified
cities” (as actually happened, 2 Samuel 20:15). Maurer well compares the similar
expression: “to steal one’s heart (mind),” i. e., to deceive him, Genesis 31:20; 2
Samuel 15:6. Ewald translates: “lest he trouble our eye,” deriving the verb from
a stem[FN7] = “to be shaded” ( Nehemiah 13:19, comp. Ezekiel 31:3), that Isaiah,
lest he cause us care and vexation; so also Bunsen, and so already the Sept.;
“Lest he darken (shade) our eyes.” Certainly this translation gives too weak a
sense (Then.). But, with this derivation of the verb, the meaning might still be:
“that he darken not our sight,” hiding himself from us in fortified cities, so that
our sight of his hostile preparations is obscured, and we cannot clearly follow
and overcome him.—Böttcher, Thenius and Keil, referring to Deuteronomy
32:10; Zechariah 2:10, where the “apple of the eye” is the figure of valuable
possession, render: “and pluck out our eye,” i. e., severely injure us; but it is the
eye, not the apple of the eye, that is here spoken of, nor is there anything here
that is compared to the apple of the eye, since the “fortified cities” could not be
so meant.
‘And David said to Abishai, “Now will Sheba the son of Bichri do us more harm than
Absalom did. You take your lord’s servants, and pursue after him, lest he obtain for
himself fortified cities, and tear out our eye.” ’
Having waited in vain for Amasa’s appearance with the army of Judah David was now
extremely concerned. Consequently he turned to Abishai, who as we have seen from
past incidents was constantly in attendance on him (e.g. 2 Samuel 16:9; 2 Samuel
21:17; 1 Samuel 26:6-9), and expressing that concern, pointed out that this delay
could well prove disastrous for the kingdom. It could even result in Sheba doing more
harm to the kingdom than Absalom had done. It was therefore necessary that
something be done immediately in order to try to rectify the situation.
So he looked to the man who was immediately to hand, to Abishai, one of his chief
generals, to do it. We may reasonably assume that Joab was temporarily absent from
the court for some reason. However, while his command to Abishai was in the
singular it must necessarily be seen as including Joab, once he could be contacted, for
Joab was not in disgrace, and Abishai and Joab had always worked in collusion in
maintaining David’s armed strength (2 Samuel 10:9-10; 2 Samuel 18:2). Furthermore
Joab was seemingly still in command of the standing army now known as ‘Joab’s
men’. Abishai would thus recognise that he was being expected to carry out the king’s
command in the usual way, in conjunction with his brother when he could be
contacted, and that David was looking to him to act personally with all speed with the
30

forces that they had immediately available. The command was addressed to him
because it would appear that Joab was simply not at present immediately to hand, and
the task was urgent. The urgency of the situation demanded that Abishai take the
matter in hand.
And that task was simple. To pursue and destroy Sheba before he had time to
consolidate and establish fortified cities, thus putting himself in a position to tear out
the kingdom’s very eye. To tear out the eye (the literal translation) was to render the
opponent helpless, or at the least to make him severely handicapped.
David said to Abishai. David thus gives the command to the younger brother, and we
find in 2 Samuel 20:7 that even "Joab's men," his own special troop, were placed
under Abishai's command. There seems always to have been a firm friendship
between the brothers, and at first Joab acquiesces. The king was, in fact, in so grim a
humour that he probably felt that he had better keep with his men, who would protect
him, instead of remaining at Jerusalem, where he would be in David's power. When
Amasa joined them, Abishai would have to resign to him the command; and David
probably expected that, after a successful campaign, and with the aid of the men of
Judah, who were rebels like himself, Amasa would be able to crush Joab. But Joab did
not intend to wait for this; and immediately on meeting his rival he murders him, and
assumes the command. Thy lord's servants. These are the men enumerated in 2
Samuel 20:7, and formed David's usual military attendants. When war broke out, they
were reinforced by a levy of the people. And escape us. The meaning of the Hebrew is
uncertain. It may signify, "and withdraw himself from our eyes," which gives the
sense of the Authorized Version, and is supported by the Vulgate. The Septuagint
renders, "and overshadow our eyes," which might have the same meaning, but, as
others think, may signify, "and cause us anxiety." Many modern commentators render,
"and pluck out our eye;" that is, do us painful damage. Either this or the Authorized
Version gives a good sense, and, anyhow, rapid action was necessary, or Sheba's
revolt might become dangerous.
7 So Joab's men and the Kerethites and Pelethites and
all the mighty warriors went out under the command
of Abishai. They marched out from Jerusalem to
pursue Sheba son of Bicri.
31

GILL, "And there went out after him Joab's men,.... Who though he was
removed from his post as general, yet might still have the command of a regiment:
and the Cherethites, and the Pelethites; over whom Benaiah was, 2Sa_20:23;
these attended David in his flight, and had now returned with him, 2Sa_15:18,
and all the mighty men; the military men that were at Jerusalem as many as
could be spared:
and they went out of Jerusalem to pursue after Sheba the son of Bichri;
with Abishai at the head of them; Josephus (q) says there were six hundred, besides
the soldiers at Jerusalem that went on this pursuit.
K&D, "2Sa_20:7
Thus there went after him (Abishai) Joab's men (the corps commanded by Joab),
and the Crethi and Plethi (see at 2Sa_8:18), out of Jerusalem, to pursue Sheba.
ELLICOTT, "(7) Joab’s men.—The body of men who were usually under Joab’s
immediate command, and who would readily follow his brother, whom they had
been accustomed to see associated with him. On “the Che-rethites and the
Pelethites,” see Note on 2 Samuel 8:18. “The mighty men” (see 2 Samuel 23:8)
appear to have been an especial body of heroes, probably made up chiefly of
those who had been with David in his life as an outlaw.
LANGE, "2 Samuel 20:7. “After him,” that Isaiah, after Abishai. The men of
Joab=his immediate military followers, under his special control. Yet they were
not the less “David’s servants.” This view is favored by the expression: “Joab’s
people.” If the phrase were intended to indicate a body of men “that Joab in this
emergency had collected at his own costs, and with whom as volunteers he
himself as volunteer intended to go into this war” (Ewald), this fact would
necessarily have been mentioned in the narrative. The Cherethites and
Pelethites, the royal body-guard (see on 2 Samuel 8:18), whom “the necessity of
the case now brought out” (Ewald). The Gibborim [mighty men] are the six
hundred heroes, ( 2 Samuel 15:8) who with the body-guard accompanied David
when he fled from Absalom. These two bodies together with the “men of Joab”
formed the only troops now at the king’s disposal, whom he calls “the servants of
thy lord” ( 2 Samuel 20:6). As the case required the greatest haste ( 2 Samuel
20:6), he ordered Abishai to follow Sheba for the present with those troops (Ew.).
The words “out of Jerusalem” are added because of the local statement that
follows.
‘And there went out after him Joab’s men, and the Cherethites and the
Pelethites, and all the mighty men, and they went out of Jerusalem, to pursue
after Sheba the son of Bichri.’
32

So Abishai immediately left the king’s presence, summoned Joab’s men (the
standing army), the king’s elite troops and bodyguard (the Cherethites and
Pelethites), and David’s chief officers and mighty men, who would all be close by
and could be immediately called on, and left Jerusalem in order to pursue Bichri,
being joined at some stage by his brother whom he had no doubt urgently
summoned by messenger. Unlike Amasa they were both experienced
commanders and fully aware of the urgency of the situation.
The fact that it does not say ‘Joab and his men’ can be seen as confirming that
for some reason Joab was temporarily absent, possibly on affairs of state, for it is
quite unnecessary to assume that there had been a rift between him and David
however unhappy Joab was at losing his position as commander of ‘All Israel’.
David would undoubtedly have given him another comparably high position in
his court.
There went out after him—that is, under Abishai's command—Joab's men. The
men who formed his regular attendants, and to whose number belonged the ten
armour bearers who slew Absalom (2 Samuel 18:15). Joab retained their
command, and probably they would not have served under any other person. It
is evident from the enumeration in this verse that the "men of Judah," after
escorting David to Jerusalem, had all dispersed to their own homes.
8 While they were at the great rock in Gibeon, Amasa
came to meet them. Joab was wearing his military
tunic, and strapped over it at his waist was a belt with
a dagger in its sheath. As he stepped forward, it
dropped out of its sheath.
BARNES, "Amasa went before them - Rather, “advanced to meet them.”
Amasa was no doubt returning to Jerusalem, according to his orders 2Sa_20:4, and
was probably much surprised to meet the army in march. Joab’s resolution was
quickly taken.
And Joab’s garment ... - Render, “And Joab was girded with his military
garment, as his clothing, and upon it” - i. e., the military garment - (or “him”), “the
girdle of a sword fastened on his loins in its sheath, and as he went forth” (to meet
Amasa) “it fell” out of the sheath. What appears to have happened is that, by accident
or design, Joab’s sword fell out of the scabbard on the ground as he was going to
33

meet Amasa, and that he picked it up with his left hand so as to have his right hand
free for the customary salutation 2Sa_20:9. This awakened no suspicion in Amasa’s
mind. Compare the case of Ehud, Jdg_3:21.
CLARKE, "Joab’s garment - It appears that this was not a military garment;
and that Joab had no arms but a short sword, which he had concealed in his girdle;
and this sword, or knife, was so loose in its sheath that it could be easily drawn out. It
is thought farther, that Joab, in passing to Amasa, stumbled, (for so some of the
versions, and able critics, understand the words it fell out). and that the sword fell
down when he stumbled; that he took it up with his left hand as if he had no bad
intention; and then, taking Amasa by the beard with his right hand, pretending to
kiss him, he, with his sword in his left hand, ripped up his bowels. This seems to be
the meaning of this very obscure verse. It is worthy of remark that in the Eastern
country it is the beard, not the man, which is usually kissed.
GILL, "When they were at the great stone which is in Gibeon,.... Which,
according to Josephus (r), was forty furlongs, or five miles from Jerusalem: what this
great stone was, whether an obelisk, or what, is not certain; one of the greatest stones
we read of was that which Semiramis cut out of the mountains of Armenia, which
was an hundred thirty feet long, and twenty five broad and thick (s). This place was
appointed for the rendezvous of David's forces, and hither Amasa came with what he
had assembled together, and joined them, and took the command of them: for it
follows:
Amasa went before them; as the general of them:
and Joab's garment that he had put on was girded unto him; who went
along with his brother Abishai at the head of his own men, to which he was obliged
by virtue of his commission; or went of himself to serve the common cause, and
perhaps chiefly with a design to murder Amasa, whom he envied, because he was put
into his post as general, and therefore accoutred himself for it; he put on, not a coat
of mail, but a common garment which he girt about him, that it might be no
incumbrance to him or hinderance of him, in doing what he intended, but that he
might more expeditiously execute it:
and upon it a girdle with a sword fastened upon his loins in the sheath
thereof; the sword in the belt was not on his thigh, but on his loins, on the outside
of his clothes, and was put into a sheath too large, and placed in such a position, that
with the least motion, when he pleased, it would easily drop out of it, without
drawing it, and so give no suspicion of his design:
and as he went forth; to meet Amasa, just as he came to him:
it fell out; the sword fell out of the sheath to the ground.
HENRY 8-10, "III. Joab, near Gibeon, meets with Amasa, and barbarously
murders him, 2Sa_20:8-10. It should seem, the great stone in Gibeon was the place
appointed for the general rendezvous. There the rivals met; and Amasa, relying upon
34

2 samuel 20 commentary

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie 2 samuel 20 commentary

Ähnlich wie 2 samuel 20 commentary (20)

Mehr von GLENN PEASE

Mehr von GLENN PEASE (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

2 samuel 20 commentary