2 Samuel 17:24–18:18

17:24 After David crosses the Jordan, he heads northeast to the fortified Israelite city of Mahanaim, where Ish-bosheth’s headquarters had been located (2:8).¹ Absalom too is on the move, but belatedly. Although he is at the head of “all the men of Israel”—his original supporters supplemented by those conscripted—he has lost the element of surprise and has also permitted David to choose the territory on which the armies would meet, which works very much to Absalom’s disadvantage (18:8).

17:25 Since Joab, commander of Israel’s army under David, has remained loyal to the king, Absalom appoints Amasa in his place. Amasa’s genealogy is set out in some detail. Apparently Nahash was the father of Abigal and Zeruiah, and after Nahash’s early death Jesse married his widow. In 1 Chronicles 2:16 it is carefully stated that Abigal/Abigail and Zeruiah were the sisters of Jesse’s sons, not that they were Jesse’s daughters. So Zeruiah was David’s stepsister, and Amasa is his nephew and a cousin of both Joab and Absalom. In any event the leading figures on both sides of the civil war are closely related.

17:26 Unusually “Israel” precedes “Absalom,” whose name is probably added to clarify that “Israel” here refers to his supporters. Gilead (2:9) is the area near Mahanaim in the tribal territory of Gad.

17:27 Although many in Judah have rebelled against David, this is counterbalanced by support from individuals elsewhere. The first is Shobi, an Ammonite and apparently the brother of Hanun (10:1), who has probably been installed by David as governor of the conquered territory. He travels 21 miles (34 km) from Rabbah.² The second source of aid is Machir, a former supporter of Mephibosheth (9:4–5) who comes from Lo-debar, 33 miles (53 km) to the northwest.³ The third set of supplies is brought by Barzillai the Gileadite, an elderly and wealthy individual of whom more is said in chapter 19. The site of Rogelim is uncertain, but it may be 22 miles (35 km) north of Mahanaim. All three men live sufficiently far from Mahanaim not to be subject to coercion by David at this point. Their gifts are voluntary, and their professions of allegiance provide David with moral encouragement as well as physical sustenance.

17:28–29 An extended catalog is provided of the various useful commodities these men bring to David, including bedding, household items, and food. “Cheese” is a plausible identification of the dairy item brought “from the herd.” They explain that they are acting from humanitarian concerns regarding David and his party: “The people are hungry and weary and thirsty in the wilderness.” So David’s army is well provisioned for the forthcoming battle.

18:2 David’s forces increase after he leaves Jerusalem. Joab was probably on active duty east of the Jordan when the rebellion broke out (possibly a factor in Absalom’s timing), and he and his men subsequently join David.

David groups his army into three divisions, a standard military practice (Judg. 7:16; 9:43; 1 Sam. 11:11) that permits simultaneous attack from the front and from the two wings. However, it would not go unnoticed by Joab that he is left commanding only a third of the army. On the other hand, Ittai is rewarded for his loyalty (2 Sam. 15:19–22). “Under the command of” is literally “under the hand of,” with “hand” as a key word in the chapter.

In this and following verses David is called “the king”—his status as overall commander. To encourage his troops, he announces, “I myself will also go out with you” to the battle, where emphasis is provided by the expressed “I,” the presence of “also,” and the intensified verb (lit., “will certainly go out”).

18:3 However, his men grasp the political realities of the situation better than David and stoutly resist his proposal. Their opponents would target David. Either of two disastrous scenarios—the army’s fleeing or half of the troops’ being slaughtered—is a better outcome than the loss of David, without whom their cause would collapse. To prevent David’s feeling sidelined—it may be that his age and physical weakness are unmentioned factors—he is urged to wait in Mahanaim, and if one division gets into difficulties, he can send it reinforcements.

18:4 David acquiesces to the proposal and stands “at the side [lit., “hand”] of the gate” to review the troops as they march to battle “by hundreds and by thousands” in organized battle array.

18:5 However, as the troops are leaving, David publicly instructs his commanders to “deal gently for my sake with the young man Absalom” (cf. comment on 14:21), now over thirty years old. An army going to suppress an insurrection would naturally target the rebel leader. David is tormented by his own guilt and speaks with a father’s love for his son, even though that son is seeking to kill him.

18:6 The narrator does not spend long describing the battle. David’s forces go “out into the field,” into the open country, to fight “against Israel,” as the troops of Absalom are termed. Even though the tribe of Ephraim was not allocated territory east of the Jordan, “the forest of Ephraim” must denote an area there, because the army returns to Mahanaim that same day (19:2–3). David has chosen to fight here because the terrain will hamper coordinated movement of the larger numbers at Absalom’s disposal.

18:7 Absalom’s forces are less well trained than David’s, and the difference is soon evident. Both the verb “were defeated” and the noun “the loss” are from the same root that indicates injury caused by being struck. The casualty figure of “twenty thousand men” probably refers to Absalom’s army alone, demonstrating the sweeping victory David’s forces have won.

18:8 Battle is engaged over a wide front in a series of skirmishes, and “the forest devoured more people that day than the sword.” The wooded terrain makes it difficult for the troops to know where they are going, and so they stumble into ambushes, and the thick undergrowth masks uneven ground so that Absalom’s men fall into concealed hollows. Contrary to Hushai’s prediction (17:11–12), larger numbers do not win the day.

18:9 Unlike the battle, the death of Absalom is described in great detail—indicating where the narrator’s interest lies. When separated from his own men, Absalom unexpectedly encounters a party of David’s forces. As Absalom is attempting to escape, his mule (cf. comment on 13:29) goes “under the thick branches of a great oak,” probably while he is looking around to spot his pursuers.

The forest claims its most important victim in Absalom. In “his head caught fast in the oak,” it has generally been supposed (after Josephus, Antiquities 7.239) that “his head” is used as synecdoche for “his hair” (14:26), which gets entangled in the tree, but the text is not clear on the point. More probably, his neck gets caught in a forked branch while his mule “went on” (Hb. ʻabar; 15:18), leaving him “suspended between heaven and earth.” He cannot extricate himself from his hapless situation; indeed, he may be unconscious.

18:10 A soldier from David’s army reports the matter to Joab. Since the verb “hanging” is used elsewhere of a corpse hung to shame a dead individual considered “cursed by God” (Deut. 21:22–23; Josh. 8:29; 10:26), the implication is that Absalom has been divinely rejected because he has rebelled against God’s chosen ruler.

18:11 Joab reprimands his subordinate because he did not immediately strike Absalom dead, as he would have done to any other opponent in battle. “I would have been glad to give you” (lit., “upon me to give to you”) expresses the obligation to reward him that Joab would have felt. Indeed, Joab is indirectly urging the man to return and do what Joab considers should have been done in the first place.

18:12 However, the soldier is nonplussed by Joab’s tirade. He has heard David’s public instructions to his commanders (v. 5), and out of loyalty to the king he declares that not even a reward a hundred times greater and paid in advance (“felt in my hand”) would induce him to reach out his “hand [cf. comment on 18:2] against the king’s son.”

18:13 Furthermore, the soldier alleges that he would have received no support if he had acted treacherously toward Absalom. If he had killed him, the king would certainly have heard about it (“nothing hidden”; cf. 14:18), but Joab would not have supported him. Joab’s ruthlessness is obviously well known to those who serve under him.

18:14 Joab curtly refuses to debate the ethics of the situation or his own possible conduct. Instead he takes “three javelins” (thus the LXX), but the Hebrew term implies no more than a “staff” (cf. 23:21). Since Joab has ready access to any weapon he desires and is a seasoned warrior who can dispatch a sitting target with one blow, this is obviously not his intention. He uses less-than-lethal weapons to pierce his helpless victim in his heart, which may be a general reference to his upper body since Absalom does not die immediately. Joab is out to muddy the waters as to whose hand inflicts the fatal blow on Absalom.

18:15 “Ten young men, Joab’s armor-bearers” then finish off Absalom. Again, by acting in concert, no individual among them can be held solely responsible for Absalom’s death.

Joab’s attitude toward Absalom changes over the years. Although he had been instrumental in Absalom’s return from exile (14:1–24), he distances himself from Absalom thereafter (14:29–33). His motivation at this juncture is not disclosed. Although he is disobeying David’s instructions, Joab probably believes he is acting in David’s best interests because his kingdom will never be secure if Absalom remains alive.

18:16 “Joab blew the trumpet” (cf. 2:28) to signal the troops to stop pursuing their opponents. “Restrained” suggests reluctance to disengage. But now that the chief objective of the encounter—the death of Absalom—has been achieved, further fighting would make subsequent reconciliation more difficult. Joab has certainly resumed the role of commander in chief, or perhaps the role has reverted to him once David agreed to remain in Mahanaim.

18:17 Absalom receives an ignominious burial when his corpse is tossed “into a great pit in the forest.” The troops also raise (“set up” as in v. 18) a “very great heap of stones” over him—not an elegant memorial but the treatment accorded a reprobate (Josh. 7:26) or an enemy of the Lord (Josh. 8:29).

“All Israel fled every one to his own home [lit., “tent,” a fossilized expression by this period]” on the west of the Jordan, also recognizing that with the death of Absalom the rebellion has collapsed. This storyline is continued at 2 Samuel 19:8b.

18:18 A final pathetic comment on Absalom records that he had earlier “set up” (same word as in v. 17) a stone pillar as a monument to himself “in the King’s Valley” near Jerusalem (Gen. 14:17), because he had no son to perpetuate his family line (cf. comment on 2 Sam. 14:27). In doing this, Absalom was copying the example of Saul (1 Sam. 15:12) and of many ancient Near Eastern monarchs who sought lasting fame for themselves by means of impressive architecture. But such practices are contrary to a biblical understanding of how an individual’s name would truly be made great. However, Absalom had always been a showman and “called the pillar after his own name”: “Absalom’s monument [lit., “hand”; cf. 1 Sam. 15:12].” There are thus two memorials to Absalom: one celebrating the image he craved, and the other a heap portraying how rebellion ruined his life.