2 Samuel 19:41–20:26

19:41 Renewed friction between north and south mars David’s restoration. “All the men of Israel” who have arrived at Gilgal (v. 40) express their dissatisfaction that Judah has precluded them from their rightful place in escorting the king over the Jordan. Raising such a seemingly trivial matter is indicative of deeper tension. Moreover, though the question is asked of “the king,” whose authority they still acknowledge, David does not answer, and by his silence lets the situation slip out of his control.

19:42 The men of Judah respond, justifying their conduct “because the king is our close relative.” That, of course, is part of the problem: power has slipped from the north, which suspects David of showing partiality toward Judah—a suggestion the men of Judah are quick to rebut. Perhaps “Or has he given us any gift?” incorporates a veiled dig at Saul (cf. 1 Sam. 22:7). Even so, David’s overture to Judah (2 Sam. 19:11–15) has obviously done nothing to ease the situation with the other tribes.

19:43 The men of Israel retort to Judah’s emphasis on kinship by pointing to their relative size. “We have ten shares in the king” over against the tribes of Judah and Simeon in the south. “In David also we have more than you” applies the general statement of the first clause to David’s kingship in particular. They are aggrieved that their status has not been acknowledged, and their disgruntlement is compounded because the north had been the first to take steps to restore “our king”—David’s position is not being called into question.

The men of Judah win the war of words with “fiercer” (probably “even more unrestrained”) speech, so that far from tensions being eased, they escalate. All the while David does not speak or act. This does not bode well for the future.

20:2 David’s vulnerability as ruler of the whole land is demonstrated by the mass defection of northern soldiers “from David” (lit., “from after David”) to follow Sheba (lit., “after Sheba”). However, by no means do all who follow Sheba’s lead actively oppose David. David is still “followed . . . steadfastly” (lit., “clung to”) by men from his own tribe, thus reversing Israel’s initial acceptance of David and Judah’s slowness to respond. Sheba’s revolt occurs before David has even arrived back in Jerusalem.

20:3 Whereas Sheba disrupts David’s political arrangements, Absalom’s conduct had permanently impacted his domestic arrangements regarding the concubines left to care for the royal palace (15:16). With belated scruples over sexual ethics, David realizes that the law forbids treating these women as his wives again (Lev. 18:15), but he does make provision for them regarding shelter, food, and clothing. Being “in a house under guard” is probably little different from being in the royal harem—except David does not have sexual relations with them. They are “living as if in widowhood” (lit., “widowhood of lifetime”), joining Tamar as part of the human wreckage and misery that is the fallout from sin.

20:4–5 Somewhat later, after his escort of troops from Judah has dispersed, David turns to deal with the situation caused by Sheba. He orders Amasa, his newly appointed army commander (19:13), to muster the levy from Judah within three days—possibly too short a time, but speed is of the essence—and to be present himself (“yourself” is emphatic). War weariness among the Judahites perhaps hinders Amasa from mobilizing the militia within the set time.

20:6 When Amasa fails to arrive on time, David bypasses Joab and summons his brother Abishai to tackle the situation. David probably overestimates the strength of support for Sheba, but he does appreciate its significant difference from Absalom’s rebellion. That had been a threat to David personally, but not to the realm as a whole, whereas Sheba aims to fragment the kingdom.

Abishai is instructed to “take your lord’s servants,” a reference to the standing army under David’s control (not Joab’s, but cf. comment on 20:7), and prevent Sheba from making a base in “fortified cities,” where he would be more difficult to deal with. “Escape from us” (lit., “remove/pull out our eye”) is a Hebrew idiom implying either “vanish from sight” or “cause irretrievable injury,” with the latter being more plausible here.

20:7 Nothing has been said about Joab in all of this, but it is “Joab’s men” who go with Abishai—an indication of where their loyalties lie—along with the palace bodyguard of the Cherethites and the Pelethites (cf. comment on 8:18). Joab’s subsequent presence shows that he goes as well. “All the mighty men” (cf. 23:8) are the other members of the standing army, such as Ittai and his troop. While this leaves David vulnerable in Jerusalem, he obviously thinks the threat warrants such a response.

20:8 “At the great stone that is in Gibeon,” only 6 miles (9.7 km) north of Jerusalem, Amasa belatedly catches up with those who left earlier. This immediately raises the question of who should command the joint forces: Amasa or Abishai? Or Joab?

Joab’s clothing is described because of its significance in the murder of Amasa. He is dressed in standard military gear, “wearing a soldier’s garment” (lit., “his robe [an item worn in performance of a specific role], his garment”). From a belt around his waist is suspended on his left thigh “a sword in its sheath,” like a large dagger, about 18 inches (46 cm) long. As Joab approaches Amasa, he contrives to let his sword fall out of its scabbard, either to lie hidden in the folds of his garment or to land on the ground.

20:9 Joab puts on a show of friendship in greeting his cousin, taking “Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him” (cf. 15:5). By using his right hand in this conventional gesture of greeting, Joab would, of course, be unable to use it to draw his sword.

20:10 Joab is, however, acting treacherously, and Amasa does not spot “the sword that was in Joab’s hand,” that is, his left hand. Either Joab has picked it up from the ground without arousing Amasa’s suspicions or the sword is in the folds of his robe and Amasa does not see it at all. After the manner of Ehud (Judg. 3:21), Joab then strikes with his left hand and plunges his dagger into Amasa’s “stomach” (the final appearance of khomesh; cf. comments on 2:23; 3:27) with such a single violent blow that Amasa’s intestines pour out (using the same term translated “cast” in 20:15) onto the ground, “and he died.”

It is probably a comment on the callous nature of this act that the narrator simply continues, “Then Joab and Abishai his brother pursued Sheba the son of Bichri,” as if nothing untoward had happened. This is the treatment to be meted out to one who has been a general of an opposing army.

20:11 However, one of Joab’s personal attendants stays with Amasa’s body and utters the challenge: “Whoever favors Joab, and whoever is for David, let him follow Joab.” Mentioning Joab first makes clear to his troops that their commander has resumed his accustomed role. Moreover, by linking loyalty to David with loyalty to Joab, this shrewd manifesto persuades the troops—especially those who have come with Amasa—to accept the change of leadership.

20:12–13 As Amasa’s blood-drenched corpse lies in the path of the army, those who come on it stop. So Joab’s attendant drags it into a field and covers it with a garment. Then the whole army joins Joab “to pursue Sheba the son of Bichri.” On this third occurrence of this expression (see also vv. 7, 10), Joab takes the lead, and Abishai is content to accept this state of affairs.

20:14 Meanwhile, Sheba “passed through” (Hb. ʻabar) the land to Abel of Beth-maacah in the far north, about 25 miles (40 km) north of the Sea of Galilee,¹ but his attempts to garner support for his cause meet with little success because he is accompanied only by “all the Bichrites,” members of his own clan (v. 1), as they seek security in a fortified city.

20:15 So Joab and his troops besiege Sheba in Abel. “They cast up a mound” of ground and stones against the city wall to permit access over its top, and possibly spend several weeks “battering the wall to throw it down.”

20:16 While the siege is progressing toward its devastating outcome, “a wise woman” (cf. 14:2), one with a reputation for handling difficult situations, intervenes. She attracts the attention of the troops and calls for Joab to approach the wall so that she may speak with him.

20:17–18 After the woman establishes Joab’s identity, she courteously urges him to listen “to the words of your servant.” She then reminds him of an old proverbial maxim “they used to say” (an intensified form, “they certainly used to say”). The saying is to the effect that if a controversy arose, then seeking advice at Abel would certainly resolve the dispute.

20:19 The advice the woman gives was perhaps expressed in three poetic lines, which would account for its element of obscurity. She speaks on behalf of her city and also in the person of the city, characterizing it as ever ready to promote and practice peace and faithful dealing in Israel. On the other hand, Joab is out to “to destroy [lit., “put to death”] a city that is a mother in Israel.” This allegation of virtual matricide is designed to shock the battle-hardened Joab into realizing the horrors he is bent on perpetrating. “Why will you swallow up the heritage of the Lord?” “Swallow up” is a metaphor for causing to disappear without a trace (cf. 17:16), and to do so to part of “the heritage of the Lord” (1 Sam. 26:19) is tantamount to sacrilege since it would deprive the Lord of part of what is rightfully his.

20:20 “Far be it from me” is a strong form of denial (1 Sam. 2:30; 12:23; 20:9), rendered even more emphatic by repetition. Joab (of all people!) utterly repudiates the idea that his mission is to “swallow up” (2 Sam. 20:19) or “destroy” (“to exterminate,” a different term from v. 19, rendered “battering” in v. 15).

20:21 Joab pinpoints the precise issue at stake: a single individual, Sheba, who has “lifted up his hand against King David,” an expression that, as in 18:28, denotes rebellion against royal authority. Mention of Sheba’s origins suggests that the inhabitants of Abel might be unaware of such distant events. If the inhabitants of the city surrendered him, Joab would withdraw. While Joab is ruthless in his personal affairs, on occasion he does act in a more conciliatory fashion regarding the affairs of state (2 Sam. 2:27–28; 18:16).

The woman undertakes to meet Joab’s demands: “Behold, his head shall be thrown to you over the wall,” or perhaps “through [an opening in] the wall,” such as those used by archers.

20:22 The prospects of a siege are so dire, and the support for Sheba so limited, that the woman’s proposal is immediately adopted. True to the commitment he gave, Joab “blew the trumpet” (an inclusio with v. 1) to signal the troops to withdraw, “and they dispersed from the city, every man to his home” (again the same as in v. 1), either back to Judah or to David in Jerusalem.

Also, “Joab returned to Jerusalem to the king”—mission accomplished; civil war averted; David’s throne secured; the rebel dead. And, one might add, Joab back at the center of the life of the nation, in an unassailable position as commander in chief—with David powerless to take any action regarding Amasa’s death.

20:23 This summary of David’s key personnel later in his reign is similar to the earlier one found at 8:16–18 and shows that, despite the tensions in the kingdom, the structures of government are in place. One noticeable difference is that, in light of intervening events, this report is not preceded by a fulsome tribute to David’s competence as a ruler of the land (cf. 8:15).

It comes as no surprise that “Joab was in command of all the army of Israel.” David has no option but to accept that Joab has reinstated himself. However, David will not forget what he has done (1 Kings 2:5, 31–32). “Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was in command of the Cherethites and the Pelethites.” He is the second-most important military figure, in command of the king’s personal bodyguard (cf. 2 Sam. 8:18).

20:24 In a significant addition to the earlier list, it is noted that “Adoram was in charge of the forced labor.” Adoram is a variant form of Adoniram (1 Kings 4:6; 5:14), who apparently serves from the closing years of David’s reign through that of Solomon. To carry out public projects, rulers throughout the ancient world would use forced labor, either slaves or subject peoples (e.g., Josh. 9:27; 16:10; 17:13). This could also be extended to freemen as a form of taxation in kind, whereby a district or clan would provide a stipulated number of men who would maintain themselves and receive no remuneration. Although this practice will be extended to native Israelites by Solomon (1 Kings 5:13), there is no evidence that David does so. As earlier (2 Sam. 8:16), Jehoshaphat remains the “recorder.”

20:25 “Sheva was secretary.” Earlier this post was held by Seraiah (8:17). Either he has died in the interval or, more probably, this is a variant form of a foreign name. “Zadok and Abiathar were priests,” with no mention of Ahimelech (cf. comment on 8:17).

20:26 “Ira the Jairite was also David’s priest” may seem to suggest that he is so in addition to Zadok and Abiathar. It is preferable to follow the Hebrew word order, “And also Ira the Jairite was David’s priest,” which introduces a final, separate item. In the earlier list (8:18) David’s sons were recorded as performing this role, but the intervening family upheavals have made it more prudent for the task to be assigned to an outsider. Jairite may mean a descendant of Jair (a son of Manasseh; Num. 32:41) or, less probably, someone from a place called Jair.