And there happened to be there a man of Belial, whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjaminite; and he blew a trumpet, and said, We have no portion in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse every man to his tents, Israel.
Absalom's revolt has failed, and Israel has just brought David back to Jerusalem. At once Judah and the other tribes quarrel over who loved the king most. Into that argument steps a worthless man with a trumpet. One sentence from him undoes the whole reconciliation.
The revolt did not begin with Sheba. In the previous chapter the tribes argued over who had the better claim on the king. Commentators trace the split back to that argument.
All these exchanges are of the flesh. Ambition to play a part in the things of God is not the fruit of the Spirit. Neither is jealousy over what our brothers do, or wounded self-love, or being taken up with ourselves. None of it springs from divine affections. Despite their superior position Judah was no better than the ten tribes. "The words of the men of Judah were fiercer than the words of the men of Israel." Those who are right act without love, and division is the inevitable result. That division comes in 2 Samuel 20:1-2. Satan is behind it, and he uses Sheba, the son of Bichri, for the work. Israel had just said, "We have ten shares in the king." Now Israel cries, "We have no portion in David, and we have no inheritance in the son of Jesse."
after
Older translations call Sheba "a man of Belial" where the ESV says "a worthless man." Belial is not a name.
The Hebrew word means "worthless, lawless." It is not a proper name. Instead, it pictures evil itself, so we read of a "son of Belial," a "daughter of Belial," and so on. In the New Testament it stands in contrast to Christ, as if it meant Satan, 2 Corinthians 6:15.
He was not even from the ten tribes he called out to. His motive was personal.
Satan is always ready to take advantage of such occasions among God's people, and he had a man there of worthless, ambitious character. Sheba, the son of Bichri, was a Benjamite, not from any of the other ten tribes. But he saw his chance to exalt himself.
A trumpet in Israel could summon men to battle. Here it did the opposite, and the same signal appears elsewhere in the same books.
And again, 2 Samuel 20:22: and then "they withdrew from the city, every man to his home." In these three cases, as in that of Sheba, 2 Samuel 20:1 — when every man of Israel withdrew from David and followed Sheba — it was the signal of retreat.
Israel chose its new leader by the sound of his voice.
The Israelites were already furious with Judah. So Sheba's loud voice and confident tone swayed all Israel to follow him. No one gave a thought to the character of their leader. What a lesson for the people of God! Friction and quarreling can lead to men accepting the leadership of a wicked and worthless man! This is how sects form. Where indeed were the peacemakers who are called "sons of God"? The men of Judah remained loyal to David, but still, they had also shown too much of a sectarian spirit in their treatment of Israel. So Judah needed to judge themselves, just as Israel did.
Sheba's revolt died in this same chapter. But his words outlived him. They came back almost word for word when the kingdom broke apart under Solomon's son.
David, the anointed of God, held Judah and Israel together in practical oneness. They were joint partakers of the blessings secured in Him for the nation. But even in David's own days the divisive spirit showed itself in "a man of Belial." The seed was sown that day. The evil work came to a stop there and then, yet it still bore bad fruit long after. In Rehoboam's reign the people answered the king, "What portion do we have in David? We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse. To your tents, O Israel! Look now to your own house, David." So Israel departed, and Judah and Israel broke apart. In contrast, the true joint-heirs say, All our portion is in Christ Jesus, and so is our inheritance for ever.
The woman of Abel ended the war by dealing with one man, and that method is deliberately distinguished from a general round of apologies.
Joab accuses Sheba of having "lifted up his hand against the king, against David." That gets to the heart of the matter. Sheba had attacked the king himself. The woman of Abel sees that only one thing can restore peace: the guilty man must be judged. "His head shall be thrown to you over the wall." People often say that peace comes when everyone admits his wrongs and humbles himself. That does not remove the evil. The one who had lifted up his hand against David must be cut off.
- Seed — An argument over who loved the king most was the soil. Being in the right without love produced the division.
- Sower — "Man of Belial" means worthless and lawless. An ambitious Benjamite saw his chance and took it.
- Shout — His claim rejected the king himself: no portion in David, no inheritance in the son of Jesse.
- Spread — A whole nation followed a loud, confident voice. Nobody checked the character of the man they followed.
- Season — The revolt died in a single chapter. But the words came back later and split the kingdom for good. The believer's answer is that all our portion is in Christ Jesus.
Then all the men of Israel went up from after David, following Sheba the son of Bichri. But the men of Judah clave to their king, from the Jordan even to Jerusalem.
David has just crossed back over the Jordan. A quarrel over who had the greater claim on the king was still burning. One man with a trumpet was enough to turn it into a national split. How could a people so newly reunited break apart so fast?
The desertion in this verse did not begin with Sheba. It began with an argument between Judah and Israel. One writer judges both sides by the same standard.
All these exchanges are of the flesh. Ambition to play a part in the things of God, jealousy as we watch what our brothers are doing, wounded self-love, being wrapped up in ourselves — none of this is the fruit of the Spirit or of divine affections. Despite their superior position Judah was no better than the ten tribes. "The words of the men of Judah were harsher than the words of the men of Israel" (2 Sam. 19:43). Those who are right act without love, and division is the inevitable result.
Sheba was not even from the ten tribes he led away. He was from Benjamin.
Satan is always ready to take advantage of such occasions among God's people, and he had a man there of worthless, ambitious character. Sheba, the son of Bichri, was actually a Benjamite, not from any of the other ten tribes, but he saw an opportunity to exalt himself. Blowing a trumpet, he made the bold declaration, "We have no part in David, nor do we have inheritance in the son of Jesse; every man to his tents, O Israel!"
Why did every man of Israel follow him? Not because they had examined him. Because they were already angry.
Since the Israelites were already incensed against Judah, Sheba's loud voice and confident tone swayed all Israel to follow him without any consideration of the character of their leader. What a lesson for the people of God! Friction and quarreling can lead to men's accepting the leadership of a wicked and worthless man! Sects are easily formed in this way. Where indeed were the peacemakers who are called "the sons of God" (Matt. 5:9)?
Judah's staying is the bright half of the verse, and named men stood with the king in it.
Later, when David had returned to Jerusalem, there was a "man of Belial" who aspired to the throne and attempted a new conspiracy (2 Sam. 20:1). At this time "all the men of Israel went up from after David, following Sheba the son of Bichri. But the men of Judah stayed close to their king" (v. 2). Zadok, again, is found among the faithful and trusted men of David (v. 25).
Yet loyalty to David did not make Judah's earlier words right. The same writer who praises their steadfastness adds that the side which kept the king still had work to do on itself.
The men of Judah remained loyal to David, but still, they had also shown too much of a sectarian spirit in their treatment of Israel. Self-judgement on their part therefore was just as important as it was on the part of Israel. But the rift between the tribes had taken place, and it must be faced.
What held Judah in place was not their own record.
It is humiliating for Judah to have failed in this struggle, but one thing remains to them: David's grace had come to them first. He was the one who had turned their hearts as one man, by reawakening the sense of their close unity with himself. All the credit belongs to David. By grace "the men of Judah followed their king steadfastly from the Jordan to Jerusalem" (v. 2). Judah finds blessing despite their fault, because they stayed where David was.
Sheba's revolt died inside the chapter. His slogan did not. The same words came back generations later and stayed.
Judah and Israel were held together in practical oneness under David, the anointed of God. They were joint partakers of the blessings secured in Him for the nation. But even in David's days the divisive spirit showed itself in "a man of Belial"... The seed was sown that day. The evil work was stopped there and then, but it still bore its bad fruit long after. In Rehoboam's reign we read that the people answered the king, "What portion do we have in David? We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse. To your tents, O Israel!" (1 Kings 12:16). So Israel departed, and the break between Judah and Israel was made. In contrast, the true joint-heirs say: All our portion is in Christ Jesus, and so is our inheritance for ever — let us stay in Him!
The chapter ends better than it begins. One writer reads the whole episode as gain for David, not loss.
Another traitor appears in Sheba. Joab's quick zeal and courage put him down again, and the kingdom was in order once more. The last part of this chapter shows us that the enemy's efforts only bring greater honour to king David, now back in Jerusalem and on the throne.
- Cause. The split began with a quarrel over status. Jealousy and wounded self-love emptied David's side.
- Spark. One ambitious man with a trumpet shouted at people who were already angry. Anger recruited them, not argument.
- Split. Israel walked off after a leader they never examined. That is how sects begin.
- Standard. Judah kept the king yet still needed self-judgment. They stayed by David's grace, not by merit.
- Cure. The rebels claimed no portion in David. Those who hold Christ as their whole portion have nothing left to divide over.
And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women, concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in a house of confinement and maintained them, but did not go in to them. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood.
David returned to Jerusalem as king, and his first act was to settle his own house. The ten women Absalom had violated are fed and housed for life, yet never taken back — why does a forgiven man still carry such a scar?
David could have cleared his house by sending the women away. He does not, and one writer explains why.
David has taken his place again among the remnant of his people. He purifies his house of the corruption that had come into it. He does not drive out his defiled wives to rebuild the house on a new footing. He himself was responsible for all this ruin. Evil, vessels to dishonour, and defilement are there. David bears the pain and humiliation of this. He purifies himself from these things, to be a vessel to honour for the Lord. He in no way links himself with the evil which he himself had provoked. On the contrary, his separation is public.
The verse holds two things together. David never went in to these women again, yet he still fed and housed them for life. What Absalom did explains the first.
On arriving at Jerusalem, David's first act was to put his concubines in seclusion. Absalom had violated them, so David knew it would be wrong to have sexual relations with them again. He did support them, however, but they lived in virtual widowhood.
These women were in David's house because David took many wives. The law had told Israel's king not to. One writer traces the troubles of David's later years back to that choice, and to the Scripture David owned but did not read.
Had he inquired of the Lord before doing so, what would the Lord have replied? Read my Word! Dependence on God and dependence on His Word are one and the same thing. David had the books of the law in hand, and he only needed to meditate on them to see his path. Does not Deuteronomy 17:17 say of the king, "He shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away"? By man's thinking he might have had all sorts of good reasons for doing as he did — to secure a royal line, and so on. But this was not according to God. To be convinced of this we need only trace the descendants of his wives. Suppose David had had only godly Abigail as his companion. Would he then have seen an Amnon bring shame and dishonour on his house, an Absalom rebel against his own father, or an Adonijah try to seize the kingdom?
David had been forgiven. Yet these women stayed shut up until the day they died. Forgiveness and God's government of a life on earth are not the same thing. One writer marks where God's earthly dealings stop.
Full and everlasting forgiveness does not exempt those who receive it from God's dealings with them in government. David had to experience that, even to the end of his life. The child born to him by Uriah's wife had to die. (Bathsheba was still regarded in that light.) The sword would never depart from his house. Amnon, Absalom and Adonijah were examples of that. Governmental dealing, however, ends with this life. God's favour to us, based on the sacrifice of Christ, lasts for ever.
David could not undo what had happened under his roof. We cannot mend the ruin around us either. One thing is still left to do, and one writer names it.
These things apply to us also, dear reader. We live in the time of ruin announced in the Second Epistle to Timothy. We can neither rebuild God's house nor break the vessels to dishonour. But we can separate ourselves from iniquity, and so bear the seal of the "firm foundation of God" (2 Tim. 2:19-21).
- Root. David took many wives, though Deuteronomy 17:17 told Israel's king not to. He had God's Word in hand and did not use it.
- Reaping. Forgiveness was real, but it did not cancel God's government of David's life on earth. The sword stayed in his house to the end.
- Responsibility. David does not expel the women or blame them; he owns the ruin he provoked and carries its shame himself.
- Separation. He cannot rebuild his house, so he does the one thing left. He breaks with the defilement in the open, to be a vessel to honour.
- Provision. He feeds and shelters them for life, though he never takes them back. Care goes on where restoration cannot. God's reckoning in this life ends with it; His favour in Christ lasts for ever.
And the king said to Amasa, Call me the men of Judah together within three days, and do thou attend here.
David has just survived a rebellion that nearly cost him his throne. Now a second revolt breaks out under Sheba, and his first move is to hand the army to Amasa with a three-day deadline. The choice raises two questions. Was Amasa the right man? And was David acting on faith, or on panic?
Amasa was no stranger to David, and no stranger to opposing him either. A Bible dictionary sums up his record:
Son of Ithra, or Jether, by David's sister Abigail, whom Absalom in his revolt made captain of his army. David forgave him and promised him the command of the army, but Joab killed him by treachery. David left it to his son Solomon to avenge this act.
So the man now told to gather Judah had led the army of David's own son against him.
The promotion was also a piece of persuasion. One writer weighs both the risk in it and the reasoning behind it:
David uses one more means of persuasion. He declares that Amasa will be made commander of his army in place of Joab. This was a bold step on David's part. Amasa had sided with Absalom in his plot, and it was a fair question whether he could be trusted to command David's army. But David wanted to show a peace-making spirit toward the men who had joined Absalom. He also judged that Joab had proved himself too hard a man to represent the king well as commander of his army.
The order is specific: gather Judah, be back within three days. Amasa does not make it. The same writer notes what the new commander lacked:
As David had hinted he would, he passed over Joab in gathering his army. He gave Amasa — the man Absalom had appointed to lead his rebels — orders to gather the men of Judah within three days (v.4). But Amasa had no experience like Joab's, and he took longer than his orders allowed.
Commentators differ on how much blame Amasa deserves. Another writer puts as much weight on the king's impatience. He also asks a question the record never shows David asking:
David has decided to dismiss Joab, and he tries to keep the promise he made to his nephew Amasa by making him head of the army. He charges him with gathering the men of Judah to pursue Sheba. Amasa is slow to carry out his mission. Perhaps David was impatient, for Amasa was not a traitor. He had already reached Gibeon, not far from Jerusalem, when the company led by Abishai and the mighty men left the capital. The fact is that through fear of the harm Sheba might do, David falls into Joab's hands once again, and Abishai is the means of it. Could David not have inquired of the Lord at this fresh start of his reign? God had once before turned Israel's heart back; could He not do so a second time?
One commentator follows the chain. The missed deadline hands command straight back to the man David had just replaced:
The king calls Amasa to gather the tribe of Judah and chase Sheba. But Amasa is slow, and everything here depends on speed. So David gives Abishai the task of pursuing Sheba at the head of his standing guard. The special troop that Joab had lost goes with the rest, and Joab leads them. Here was fresh material for conflict. The murder of Amasa restores Joab to his old place at the head of the troops, and his success in capturing Sheba keeps him there.
Behind this verse stands Joab, unmentioned but not absent. He had been useful to David for years, and that usefulness is exactly the problem:
He knows the weak side of David's nature well... His is the misery of a soul at its best away from God, and so he must lead others away from Him too, even without meaning to. David's is the misery of having a counselor like this. Joab has made himself useful to the king in his own way, and, though conscience objects, he has to be accepted. Joab is to David like an unjudged sin. David has no power against it, and it is always at hand to strengthen the worse nature and defeat the better. Let us pray hard and seek that we have no Joabs.
- Commission. David forgives Amasa, who once led Absalom's rebel army, and hands him the royal one — pardon for a former enemy.
- Clock. The order sets a deadline of three days. Amasa lacks Joab's experience and takes longer than his orders allow.
- Counsel. One commentator presses the question David never asked. Could he not have inquired of the Lord at this fresh start of his reign? God had turned Israel's heart back to him once already.
- Consequence. Everything depended on speed, so the delay cost Amasa his post. David sent Abishai instead, Joab rode out with the troops, and Amasa's murder put Joab back in command.
- Caution. Joab was useful to David the way an unjudged sin is useful — always at hand, always strengthening the worse nature. The prayer drawn from it: that we have no Joabs.
So Amasa went to call together [the men of] Judah; but he delayed longer than the set time which he had appointed him.
David had just handed Joab's command to Amasa. At that moment a rebel named Sheba was pulling Israel away from the king. David gave Amasa three days to raise Judah and crush the revolt. Amasa missed the deadline, and the rest of the chapter turns on those lost hours.
The order went around Joab, the veteran commander David had just demoted. One writer sets the scene and names the likely reason Amasa could not deliver:
As David had said he would, he passed over Joab when gathering his army. He gave Amasa orders to raise the men of Judah within three days. Amasa was the man once appointed leader of Absalom's rebels. But he had no experience such as Joab had, and he delayed longer than he was told.
Amasa's appointment had been David's way of drawing the rebels back. It was also a gamble:
This was a bold step on David's part. Amasa had sided with Absalom in his conspiracy, so it was a serious question whether David could trust him as commander of his army. But David wanted to show a conciliatory spirit toward those who had joined Absalom.
Commentators differ on how to read the delay. One reads it as plain failure on Amasa's part:
Amasa was now the leader of David's armies, so David called him to put down the revolt. But he proved a failure and could not mobilize the army.
Another writer defends Amasa and turns the question back on David:
David has decided to dismiss Joab, and he tries to keep the promise he made to his nephew Amasa by making him head of the army. He gives him the task of gathering the men of Judah to pursue Sheba, the son of Bichri. Amasa is slow to carry out his mission. Perhaps David was impatient. Amasa was no traitor, and he had already reached Gibeon, not far from Jerusalem, when Abishai and the mighty men marched out of the capital. The truth is that David, afraid of the harm Sheba might do, falls into Joab's hands again through Abishai. Could not David have asked the Lord what to do at this fresh start of his reign? God had turned Israel's heart once before; could He not do it a second time?
The delay did not come out of nowhere. One writer traces both Sheba's revolt and Amasa's murder to a fault in David himself:
In all this David shows little of the dignity of faith. Perhaps for that reason he is allowed to suffer at least enough to convince him of his folly. Sheba's rebellion and the murder of Amasa both seem to spring out of David's unbelieving "haste" on this occasion. And Amasa himself seems little qualified for the position he was raised to.
Amasa's lost hours cost him his post. The gap he left fell to the man he had replaced:
The king calls Amasa to gather the tribe of Judah and pursue Sheba. But he is slow, and here everything depends on speed. So David gives Abishai the commission to chase Sheba down at the head of his standing guard. The special troop of the dismissed Joab goes with the rest, and Joab leads them. Here was fresh material for discord at once. The murder of Amasa restores Joab to his old place at the head of the troops, and his success in capturing Sheba keeps him there.
Joab had killed before. One writer names what drove him:
Joab is ambitious and has no scruples. Every act that advances his personal interests is legitimate to him. He becomes a murderer for the third time to regain his position.
One writer explains why putting off a command is so serious:
True obedience will also be prompt. Postponed obedience is often disobedience in one of its worst forms, and it certainly shows both insubordination and self-will. As soon as a command is given, the obligation is binding. Every moment of delay — unless the one who gave the command permits it — asserts and prolongs opposition to that authority... The obligation to obey is immediate. But there is more: the habit of neglecting to obey may soon be formed, and the next step may soon be an unwillingness to obey.
- Command. David gave Amasa three days to raise Judah against Sheba. The order passed over Joab, the commander he had just removed.
- Delay. Amasa ran past the time. Commentators differ on why. Some point to his inexperience and his failure to raise the men. Others say David was too impatient to wait for a man already on the road.
- Cause. The weakness went back further than the deadline. David gave the post away to win back a faction. It came from his haste, not from faith that God could turn Israel's heart again.
- Cost. Everything depended on speed. The lost hours passed the commission to Abishai, brought Joab back into the field, and ended in Amasa's murder.
- Lesson. The duty to obey starts the moment the command is given. Delay hardens into unwillingness to obey at all.
And David said to Abishai, Now shall Sheba the son of Bichri do us more harm than did Absalom. Take thou thy lord's servants, and pursue after him, lest he get him fortified cities and escape our sight.
David is only just back on his throne after Absalom's revolt when a man named Sheba blows a trumpet and pulls Israel away from him. David judges this one obscure man a worse danger than his own son's whole rebellion — so why should a small revolt frighten a king more than a large one?
Sheba's trumpet call denied Israel any share in David at all. That cry outlived the man who first shouted it.
Judah and Israel were held together in practical oneness under David, the anointed of God, as fellow sharers in the blessings secured in Him for the nation; but even in His days the divisive spirit showed itself in "a worthless man." He blew a 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!" (2 Sam. 20:1). The seed was sown that day. The evil work was stopped at the time, but it still bore its bad fruit long after. In Rehoboam's reign the people answered the king, "What portion do we have in David?"
Sheba did not create the discontent he used. The previous chapter ends with Judah and Israel arguing over who loved the king most, and one writer reads that argument as the real opening for the revolt.
All these exchanges are of the flesh. Wanting a role in the things of God, jealousy as we watch what our brothers do, wounded self-love, being taken up with ourselves — this is certainly not the fruit of the Spirit… Those who are right act without love, and division is the sure result. This division appears in 2 Samuel 20:1-2. Satan stirs it up, using Sheba the son of Bichri for the work. Israel had just said, "I have ten parts in the king." Now Israel cries, "We have no portion in David."
The tribes that ran after Sheba knew nothing about him except that he was loud and sure of himself.
The Israelites were already angry with Judah. So Sheba's loud voice and confident tone swayed all Israel to follow him, with no thought at all about the character of their leader. What a lesson for the people of God! Friction and quarreling can lead men to accept the leadership of a wicked and worthless man! Sects form easily this way.
David's first order went to Amasa. Amasa was slow, so David turned to Abishai — and that change of hand had consequences no one intended.
The king calls Amasa to gather the tribe of Judah and chase Sheba. But Amasa is slow, and everything depends on speed. So David gives Abishai the commission to pursue Sheba at the head of his standing guard. The special troop of Joab, who has lost his command, goes with the rest, and Joab leads them. Here at once was material for discord again, and the murder of Amasa restores Joab to his old place at the head of the troops.
One writer doubts that Amasa was really the problem. He suspects David's own fear was at work, and asks what David might have done instead.
Perhaps David was impatient. Amasa was not a traitor, and he had already reached Gibeon, a town not far from Jerusalem, when Abishai and the mighty men marched out of the capital (v. 8). The fact is that through fear of the evil Sheba might do, David once again falls into Joab's hands through Abishai. Could not David have asked the Lord for guidance at this fresh start of his reign? God had once before inclined Israel's heart; could He not do so a second time?
David feared Sheba would escape into walled cities. In the end one woman inside such a city saw where the trouble really lay.
This war between brothers comes to an end through the death of Sheba, the real culprit… Joab accuses Sheba of having "lifted up his hand against the king, against David" (v. 21). This got to the heart of the matter, for Sheba's attack was aimed at the king. The woman of the city of Abel realizes that the only way to restore peace is by judging the guilty one… It is not, as people often say, a matter of everyone admitting his wrongs and humbling himself. That does not remove the evil. The one who had lifted up his hand against David must be cut off.
- Cause — the revolt grew out of a quarrel between Judah and Israel. It was all of the flesh: being right was no protection against acting without love.
- Cry — Sheba's cry denied Israel any portion in David. That seed came up again in Rehoboam's reign and split the kingdom for good.
- Crowd — Israel followed a loud, confident voice without weighing the man's character. Sects form this way.
- Command — everything depended on speed. David passed the order from the slow Amasa to Abishai, and that change handed Joab back the army.
- Cure — One wise woman ended the war by cutting off the man who had lifted his hand against the king. General regret would not have removed the evil.
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.
David has barely returned to his throne when a fresh revolt breaks out. The force that marches out of Jerusalem is not quite the force he ordered, and that raises the question behind the rest of the chapter: who really commands David's army?
One writer traces the chain of events that produced this mixed column of troops, and what it cost.
The king has not even reached Jerusalem before a shadow appears. A little more than a generation later, that shadow would be the beginning of the end for Israel's independence. The king calls Amasa to gather the tribe of Judah in pursuit of Sheba; but he is slow, where everything depends on speed. David therefore entrusts Abishai with the commission to pursue Sheba at the head of his standing guard. Joab has been stripped of his post, yet his own special troop goes with the rest — and Joab is at their head. Here at once was material for fresh discord. The murder of Amasa restores Joab to his old place at the head of the troops, and his success in capturing Sheba keeps him there. Joab is shrewd and brave, and just as unscrupulous. His figure dominates this whole last part of David's reign.
One writer weighs Amasa's delay against David's alarm, and asks what David failed to do.
Amasa is slow to carry out his mission. Perhaps David was impatient. Amasa was not a traitor, and he had already reached Gibeon, not far from Jerusalem, when the company led by Abishai and the mighty men marched out of the capital (v. 8). The fact is that through fear of the evil that Sheba might do, David once again falls into Joab's hands through Abishai. Could not David have inquired of the Lord at this renewing of his reign? God had once before inclined Israel's heart; could He not do so a second time?
David gave the command to Abishai. The men who marched were Joab's.
But verse 7 tells us it was Joab's men, with the Cherethites and the Pelethites (David's bodyguard) who went with him. Joab himself was not going to be left out, whatever David's orders were. They started on their way to pursue Sheba.
One reference work explains who these guards were and where they stood when David's throne was last in danger.
Bodyguard of David and officers sent to do service... They were faithful to David at the revolt of Absalom. 2 Sam. 8:18; 2 Sam. 15:18; 2 Sam. 20:7, 23; 1 Kings 1:38, 44; 1 Chr. 18:17.
The Pelethites are harder to pin down. One dictionary links their name to speed, but admits the meaning is not settled:
These men formed part of David's guard, and they are always grouped with the Cherethites. It is uncertain where they came from or what the name means. Gesenius calls them "public couriers," no doubt because peleth means "swiftness." The Septuagint and the Vulgate, the early Greek and Latin translations, leave the name untranslated. Some trace the word to the Philistines.
These men stood closest to the king. One writer turns that into a picture for today.
Among the warriors of David were also those "Cherethites and Pelethites." They served as a special bodyguard for the king. Doesn't this remind us that even today, perhaps more than ever, we need men of God who take special care to "guard" the holy person of our Lord? They make sure that all the basic truths about His person are held fast and defended. These truths include His eternal sonship, His virgin birth, His sinless humanity, His divine person, His atoning death, His resurrection and ascension, and His second coming.
Within a few verses this march costs Amasa his life, and Joab has his command back. One writer weighs what that service was really worth:
From a practical viewpoint Joab had done well for David's kingdom, but it was the prosperity of the kingdom for which he was zealous, not for the honour of God. David had refused to have Saul killed by his men, but Joab had not hesitated to kill Abner, Absalom and Amasa.
- Delay — Amasa was slow where everything depended on speed. His delay opened the door to all that followed.
- Fear — David acted from dread of what Sheba might do, instead of asking the Lord. So he fell back into Joab's hands.
- Intrusion — David appointed Abishai, yet Joab's men marched, and Joab marched at their head. He would not be left out.
- Guard — the Cherethites and Pelethites stayed loyal through Absalom's revolt. Guarding the king's person is still work worth doing.
- Motive — Joab served the kingdom's success well and God's honour not at all. Results are not the measure of a servant.
When they were at the great stone which is in Gibeon, Amasa came before them. And Joab was girded with his coat, his dress, and upon it was the girdle of the sword which was fastened on his loins in its sheath; and as he went forth it fell out.
Verse 8 reads like a plain list of details: a meeting place, a man's clothing, a belt, a sword that slips from its sheath. Every detail matters, because the next two verses turn the scene into a murder. The question is whether the falling sword was an accident or a rehearsal.
David feared what Sheba son of Bichri might do. He sent Abishai to hunt him down. But Amasa, David's new commander, had the job first, and he was slow. One commentator defends Amasa and turns the question back on David:
David has decided to dismiss Joab. He tries to keep the promise he made to his nephew Amasa by making him head of the army. He orders him to gather the men of Judah and pursue the son of Bichri. Amasa is slow to carry out his mission. Perhaps David was impatient, for Amasa was not a traitor. He had already come to Gibeon, not far from Jerusalem, when the company led by Abishai and the mighty men left the capital. The fact is that David feared the harm Sheba might do, and so he falls into Joab's hands once again, this time through Abishai.
The place where they met has its own history with Joab:
Near "the great stone" in Gibeon, Joab killed Amasa by treachery. Later, as retribution, he fled to that same city and took hold of the horns of the altar for protection. But that is where he was put to death.
David's orders named Abishai. Verse 7 shows who actually marched:
But verse 7 tells us it was Joab's men, with the Cherethites and the Pelethites (David's bodyguard) who went with him. Joab himself was not going to be left out, whatever David's orders were.
Joab's reason was personal. He kept a long list of grudges:
Joab, as we shall see, never forgives anything. It may be a stain on his family, or someone taking his position, or the danger of competition for the place of supreme command.
The verse lingers on what Joab was wearing. Amasa had every reason to be on guard, and was not:
Amasa suspected nothing. He ought to have remembered Joab's murder of Abner. He should have known that Joab would bitterly resent his promotion above him to the rank of commander of David's armies. Joab was dressed in battle armour and had a sword in his left hand. Amasa did not even notice it, all the more so because Joab spoke to him in friendly terms: "Is it well with you, my brother?" Then he came close to kiss him. But "the kisses of an enemy are deceitful", and Joab plunged his sword into Amasa's chest.
The dropped sword handed Joab something most planned murders lack: a cover story.
Joab picked up the sword, but Amasa did not see it in his hand. Then he struck Amasa on purpose, so that he died. He might have talked his way out of the accusation of murder by saying that Amasa fell onto the sword and it was an accident. But 1 Kings 2:32 records the reckoning that came on unscrupulous Joab for the innocent blood he had shed.
Ambition explains everything Joab does:
Joab is an ambitious man. He seeks to advance in the world and to win the first place in the kingdom… He can tell right from wrong. But he only opposes what is wrong when it crosses his own plans. And when something right runs against his interests, he crushes it. Nothing stops him. He has no scruples in satisfying his ambition. Someone has said of him: "We find Joab wherever there is evil to do or much to gain."
Joab may have told himself he was serving his king. One commentator answers that:
Perhaps this bloody man thought he was serving his king all the while he was serving his own self-interests. Impossible! What a man does in his own interest, he does against God. In a time of peace, the blood of war had stained Joab's "belt and shoes" — his service and his walk. This was a defilement. War must overtake him in turn. He must learn that there could be no peace for him. Peace is kept for those who make peace.
- Place. Joab killed Amasa at the great stone in Gibeon. Gibeon is also where Joab himself later died. The crime scene became the place of sentence.
- Motive. Joab came uninvited. The mission was Abishai's, but Amasa held the command Joab wanted back.
- Method. The armour, belt and loose sword are not scenery. They are the cover for a greeting, a kiss and a fatal blow.
- Cover. A sword that "fell out" leaves room to plead accident — ambition plans its alibi along with its crime.
- Reckoning. Blood on the belt and shoes marked Joab's service and his walk. Peace is for those who make peace, so war overtook him in the end.
And Joab said to Amasa, Art thou well, my brother? And Joab took Amasa by the beard with the right hand to kiss him.
Joab greets Amasa as a brother and leans in to kiss him. Amasa had taken Joab's command, yet he suspects nothing. How did a sign of affection become the cover for murder, and what does it show about the man who used it?
Amasa had every reason to be on his guard: Joab had already murdered a rival commander, Abner. The verse says Joab's right hand took Amasa by the beard. One writer explains what the other hand held.
Amasa suspected nothing. Yet he should have remembered Joab's murder of Abner (2 Samuel 3:26-27). He should also have known that Joab would deeply resent his promotion above him to commander of David's armies. Joab wore battle armour and held a sword in his left hand. Amasa did not even notice it, since Joab spoke to him as a friend: "Is it well with you, my brother?" Then Joab came close to kiss him. But "the kisses of an enemy are deceitful" (Prov. 27:6), and Joab plunged his sword into Amasa's chest at the same time, making sure he killed him with one stroke.
(Proverbs 27:6 reads in the ESV: "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.")
Amasa and Joab were cousins, so the word "brother" was not empty flattery. One writer sets out what Joab never forgave.
Amasa replaces Joab at the head of the army of David's rebellious son. He was a cousin to Joab — a cousin through his mother, but also through his mother's dishonour. Joab never forgives anything — a stain on his family, the taking of his position, or the threat of a rival for the supreme command.
Another writer draws out the contrast in that proverb.
A friend's wounds, on the contrary, are faithful, for in them God's will is done, even though it is misunderstood and resented for a while. An enemy betrays himself by the very profuseness of his kisses.
One writer turns the scene into a warning about our own love. He sets Joab beside Judas, who also used a kiss.
It is easy to pretend love, and to hide malice by professing to act in love. Joab can kiss the man he is about to murder (2 Sam. 20:9-10), and Judas can kiss His Master to betray Him... Unfeigned love is an unselfish love that thinks of the good of others.
On paper Joab had served David's kingdom well. One writer asks what he was really zealous for.
From a practical viewpoint Joab had done well for David's kingdom, but it was the prosperity of the kingdom he was zealous for, not the honour of God. David had refused to have Saul killed by his men, but Joab had not hesitated to kill Abner, Absalom and Amasa.
Years of loyal service had concealed what this one moment revealed.
Sooner or later the flesh, however clever it may be, must uncover itself and show its true character. For a long time Joab could keep company with David, the Lord's Anointed, and hide the motives that drove and controlled his heart. But an occasion always arises when the natural heart shows itself hostile and rebellious.
David let the murder pass. One source traces that weakness back to David's own past sin.
This roused Joab's jealousy, and he craftily killed Amasa and took back his place at the head of the army. 2 Sam. 20:4-10. David had said before this, "These men, the sons of Zeruiah, are too hard for me." But his own sin in the matter of Uriah left him weak in the face of Joab's murder of Amasa.
- Motive. Joab had lost his command to Amasa. By one account he forgave nothing: not a stain on his family, not a rival, not the loss of the top post.
- Mask. The greeting and the kiss were the weapon's cover; the very lavishness of an enemy's kisses is what gives him away.
- Moment. Long service beside the king hid Joab's true motives. But the flesh must uncover itself in the end, and one occasion exposed the whole man.
- Measure. Joab served the kingdom's success, not God's honour. Good results are no proof of a right heart.
- Mirror. The scene tests our own love. Love that is not pretended is unselfish and seeks another's good — the opposite of a kiss with a sword behind it.
And Amasa had taken no notice of the sword that was in Joab's hand so he smote him with it in the belly and shed out his bowels to the ground, and struck him not again; and he died. And Joab and Abishai his brother pursued after Sheba the son of Bichri.
On the road at Gibeon, Joab greets Amasa as a brother and kills him with one thrust. Why did the head of David's army murder a fellow commander, why did David do nothing, and what does God make of a servant whose loyalty is self-interest?
Amasa had every reason to be on guard, and he was not.
Amasa suspected nothing. Yet he should have remembered Joab's murder of Abner, and he should have known that Joab would resent Amasa's promotion above him to commander of David's armies. Joab was dressed in battle armor and held a sword in his left hand. Amasa did not even notice it, especially since Joab spoke to him in friendly terms, "Are you in health, my brother?" and came close to kiss him. But "the kisses of an enemy are deceitful" (Prov. 27:6), and Joab plunged his sword into Amasa at the same time, making sure he killed him with one stroke.
Joab's sword fell from its sheath, and he picked it up. That detail could have given him an excuse.
Joab wore a sword at his waist in its sheath, and the sword fell out. He picked it up, but Amasa did not see the sword in his hand. Then he struck Amasa on purpose, so that he died. He could have lied his way out of the charge of murder. He could have said that Amasa fell on the sword by accident. But 1 Kings 2:32 gives the reckoning with unscrupulous Joab for the innocent blood he had shed.
One writer sets Joab's kiss beside another famous one.
It is easy to feign love, and hide malice by professing to act in love. Joab can kiss the man he is about to murder, and Judas can kiss his Master to betray Him. The flesh can act like Israel long ago. Scripture says of them, "With their mouth they show much love, but their heart goes after their covetousness" (Ezek. 33:31). Unfeigned love is an unselfish love that thinks of the good of others.
Amasa now held Joab's command, and Joab wanted it back.
Joab is ambitious and has no scruples. For him, every act that advances his personal interests is legitimate. To regain his position, he becomes a murderer for the third time.
Joab had killed like this before and paid no price. David did nothing this time either.
He treacherously killed Abner in cold blood, claiming that Abner had killed his brother Asahel; but Asahel had died in battle. He was also the unscrupulous instrument of David's sin in the killing of Uriah. Amasa was made captain of the army in Joab's place. This roused the jealousy of Joab, and he killed Amasa by a trick and resumed his place at the head of the army. David had said before this, "These men, the sons of Zeruiah, are too hard for me." But his own sin over Uriah left him weak when Joab murdered Amasa.
Joab's crime worked. The revolt collapsed and the kingdom held together.
Amasa proved inefficient in his first commission. Then Joab murdered Amasa in cold blood. Without David's instruction, Joab took up Amasa's commission and carried it out fast and well. That freed David from the threat of a broken kingdom. In practical terms Joab had done well for David's kingdom. But he was zealous for the prosperity of the kingdom, not for the honour of God.
Joab won his position back. One writer weighs what that success was worth before God.
Perhaps this bloody man thought he was serving his king all the while he was serving his own self-interests. Impossible! What a man does in his self-interest, he is doing against God. In time of peace Joab's "belt and shoes," his service and his walk, had been stained with the blood of war. This was a defilement. War must overtake him in turn. He must learn that there could be no peace for him, since peace belongs to those who make peace (James 3:18).
- Peace spoken. Joab greeted Amasa as a brother and reached for his beard as if to kiss him. The warmest words in the chapter covered the coldest act.
- Peace broken. One stroke was enough. Joab wore armour and held a ready sword. The falling sword gave him an excuse he never even had to use.
- Peace purchased. Joab murdered his way back to the command he had lost, and the kingdom did benefit. But he was zealous for the kingdom, not for the honour of God.
- Peace unpunished — for a while. David, weakened by his own sin over Uriah, could not touch him; delay is not acquittal.
- Peace denied. He shed the blood of war in a time of peace, and peace belongs to peacemakers. His belt and his shoes — his service and his walk — carried that defilement.
And one of Joab's young men stood by [Amasa] and said, He that favours Joab, and he that is for David, let him follow Joab.
Amasa's body lies in the middle of the highway. Over it, one of Joab's men shouts a slogan that ties two names together: favour Joab, and you are for David. Whom was the army following, and at what price?
DISCUSS: depth score 611 — no quote on the page comments on the wording of verse 11 itself (the "young man" who stands over the body, or why Joab's name is placed before the king's in the cry), and a reader with no background is never told who Amasa and Sheba were or why Joab had lost his command. Consider retrieving one short quote that explains the verse's own words and fold the background into the lead-ins, keeping total under 900 words.
Joab had just struck down Amasa, the man David had appointed over the army. The cry over the body asks the troops to treat loyalty to Joab as loyalty to the king. Joab had always found that confusion useful.
Joab never does anything that does not serve his self-interest. He does show a certain attachment to his master. But if he embraces David's cause, his motive is not affection. He thinks David's side is more likely to advance his ambitions. These ambitions did not go so far as to covet the kingdom. Joab was shrewd enough to know he could never reach the throne. His ambition went no further than the place of commander-in-chief, to be minister of war and the king's counsellor. If any obstacle to his plans arose he was quick to overcome it, and if need be even commit a crime.
The slogan was not enough on its own. The army stopped. Something had to change before the men would move again.
Joab and Abishai kept up their pursuit of Sheba. They left Amasa lying in a pool of blood. One of Joab's men stayed behind to urge the troops to catch up with Joab. But the sight of Amasa's body shocked the people, and they stood still. So the man removed the body from the highway and covered it with a garment. With the gruesome evidence covered up, the men continued on their way to follow Joab. Joab had taken the place of commander, and Abishai seems to have handed it over without protest.
The killing was no accident of war. What did Joab gain by it?
Joab is ambitious and has no scruples. For him, any act that advances his personal interests is legitimate. To win back his position, he becomes a murderer for the third time.
"Whoever is for David" sounds like the highest claim a soldier could make. One writer weighs that claim against what Joab was actually serving.
Perhaps this bloody man thought he was serving his king, when all the while he was serving his own interests. Impossible! What a man does in his self-interest, he is doing against God. In time of peace Joab's "belt and sandals," his service and his walk, carried the stains of the blood of war. This was a defilement.
The pursuit that began at Amasa's body succeeded. Sheba's revolt collapsed and the kingdom held together. That success is what makes the case worth weighing.
From a practical viewpoint, Joab had done well for David's kingdom. But he was zealous for the prosperity of the kingdom, not for the honour of God. David had refused to have Saul killed by his men, but Joab had not hesitated to kill Abner, Absalom and Amasa.
The verse puts a choice to ordinary soldiers, in a moment of alarm, with a body at their feet. What weight does that choice carry?
The responsibility of the leader removes none of the responsibility from the follower. If a follower is misled, he is guilty of letting himself be misled. He has compromised not only himself, but the whole cause he stands for. He is guilty because there is only one infallible Leader for His people, and His voice must be heard everywhere, through all the noise of the battlefield. Every lesser leader has one responsibility: to make men listen to that Voice. Each of them has to say, "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1).
- Cry. The call over Amasa's body ties one commander's name to the king's. Favour Joab, the soldier says, and you are for David.
- Cover. The troops halted at the sight of the blood. They moved again only after a man pulled the body aside and covered it. The slogan worked once the evidence was out of sight.
- Motive. Joab did back David's side. But he backed it as the side most likely to advance his own ambitions, and he removed any obstacle to those plans, even by crime.
- Verdict. A man may believe he is serving his king while he serves himself. What a man does in self-interest, he does against God. Joab's service and walk carried the blood of war into peacetime.
- Choice. Results are no proof of motive. Joab's zeal was for the kingdom's prosperity, not God's honour. And every follower answers for whom he follows, because God's people have only one Leader who cannot fail.
Now Amasa wallowed in blood in the midst of the highway. And when the man saw that all the people stood still, he removed Amasa out of the highway into the field, and cast a cloth upon him, when he saw that every one that came by stood still.
Amasa, David's new army commander, lies in the road in his own blood, and every soldier marching against Sheba's revolt stops at the sight. Why did David's own commander die at the hands of his own side, and why did a cloak over the body let the march go on?
Joab killed Amasa with a greeting, not in battle. One writer shows how simple it was, and how much Amasa should have seen coming:
Amasa suspected nothing. He ought to have remembered Joab's murder of Abner (2 Samuel 3:26-27). He should have known full well that Joab would resent Amasa's promotion above him to the rank of commander of David's armies. Joab wore battle armour. He had a sword in his left hand, but Amasa did not even notice it. Joab spoke to him as a friend — "Is it well with you, my brother?" — and came close to kiss him. But "profuse are the kisses of an enemy" (Prov. 27:6), and Joab plunged his sword into Amasa's chest at the same time, making sure he killed him with one stroke.
(The writer's older translation reads: "the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.")
Joab killed for rank. Amasa's promotion had cost him his command, and one writer counts what he paid to get it back:
Joab is ambitious and has no scruples. For him, any act that advances his own interests is right. So he becomes a murderer for the third time, to regain his position.
Joab's service to David was real. One thing was missing from it:
Zeal, ability, hard work, devotion to David's interests and quick understanding marked him in full measure. But he never learned anything of David's grace. He led many a brilliant campaign and often marched from victory to victory. Yet whoever stood in the way of what he thought David's honour needed had to go under at all costs. He was a stranger to victories over self, so he set himself against David's victories through forgiveness, reconciliation and grace. He killed Abner after Abner made peace with David, and he killed Amasa, whom David had called into his service.
The soldiers were chasing a rebel. The sight of their own commander in a pool of blood stopped them where they stood:
Joab and Abishai went on chasing Sheba. They left Amasa lying in a pool of blood. One of Joab's men stayed behind to urge those following to catch up with Joab. But the sight of Amasa's body shocked the people, and they stood still. So the man moved the body off the highway and covered it with a garment. With the gruesome evidence covered up, the men went on their way to follow Joab. Joab had taken the place of commander, and Abishai seems to have been happy to let him have it.
The garment cleared the road. It did not clear Joab, who had an excuse ready:
He might have talked his way out of the charge of murdering Amasa. He could have said that Amasa fell onto the sword and that it was an accident. But 1 Kings 2:32 gives the reckoning with unscrupulous Joab for the innocent blood he had shed. Jealousy had led Joab to murder Amasa.
Joab killed in the open and went unpunished. One writer traces that back to David himself:
David's own sins in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba had weakened his hands. There is truth in the saying, "a maimed hand cannot wield a heavy sword." Besides, had he not used Joab as his tool for the murder of Uriah? When he lay dying, he charged Solomon to deal with Joab and others whom he had spared; but the whole story is humiliating all the same (1 Kings 2:1-9).
Amasa's blood on the highway belongs to a longer sentence. The prophet Nathan announced it after David's sin:
David's soul is restored, his conscience is purified, his heart is humbled. Even so, the ways of God's government toward him must run their course. Nathan had foretold: "The sword shall never depart from your house… I will raise up evil against you out of your own house… I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun." All of it must come true without fail. David will go through this necessary discipline with a broken heart.
- Sin weakens. David's own guilt over Uriah left him unable to judge Joab — "a maimed hand cannot wield a heavy sword."
- Weakness emboldens. Joab, ambitious and without scruples, killed a third time to take back the command he had lost.
- Zeal without grace kills. Joab gave David real devotion, yet anyone standing in the way of what he wanted "had to go under at all costs."
- Blood stops the march. The chase after the rebel halted the moment the army saw its own commander in the road. It went on only after one man dragged the body aside.
- A cloak hides nothing from God. The garment covered the evidence and the men moved on, but Solomon later settled the account for innocent blood.
When he was removed out of the highway, all the people went on after Joab, to pursue after Sheba the son of Bichri,
Amasa lies dead in the middle of the road, and the army marching north halts at the sight of him. A soldier pulls the body aside and covers it, and the men march on behind Joab — the man who killed their commander.
Amasa did not die in battle. David had made him commander in Joab's place, and Joab caught him on the road at Gibeon, a town just north of Jerusalem.
Amasa suspected nothing. Yet he ought to have remembered Joab's murder of Abner. He should have known that Joab would bitterly resent Amasa's promotion above him to commander of David's armies. Joab wore battle armour and held a sword in his left hand. Amasa did not even notice it, mainly because Joab spoke to him as a friend. Joab asked if he was well, called him brother, and came close to kiss him.
The soldiers were not passing a battlefield casualty. They were passing their own commander, murdered by the man who now led them. The sight stopped them.
Joab and Abishai kept up their pursuit of Sheba. They left Amasa lying in a pool of blood. One of Joab's men stayed behind to urge those following to catch up with Joab. But when the people saw Amasa's body they were shocked and stood still. So the man removed the body from the highway and covered it with a garment. With the gruesome evidence covered up, the men went on their way to follow Joab. Joab had taken the place of commander, which Abishai plainly gave up to him willingly.
David feared what Sheba the son of Bichri might do, so the pursuit was urgent. Joab used that urgency. The verse records the result: the people now follow Joab.
Joab is ambitious and has no scruples. For him, every act that advances his own interests is legitimate. To regain his position, he becomes a murderer for the third time.
Joab served David's cause with energy and skill. One thing was missing.
Zeal, ability, diligence, devotion to David's interests and quick understanding marked him richly. But he never learned anything of David's grace. He led many a brilliant campaign and often marched from victory to victory. Yet anyone who stood in the way of what he thought David's honour required had to be brought down, whatever the cost. The greater conquests he did not understand… He was a stranger to moral victories over self. So he sadly set himself against David's victories through forgiveness, reconciliation and grace.
David had deliberately passed Joab over and sent Abishai. Joab went anyway — and by the end of the verse the whole force is his. One writer asks why David never took the matter to the Lord.
Through fear of the evil that Sheba might do, David once again falls into Joab's hands through Abishai. Could David not have enquired of the Lord at this renewing of his reign? God had once before inclined Israel's heart; could He not do so a second time?
Why did David never punish the crime? The answer lies further back in his own story. Uriah was the husband David had killed to hide his sin with Bathsheba — and Joab had been the one who arranged it.
David's own sins in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba had weakened his hands. It has been truly said that "a maimed hand cannot wield a heavy sword." Besides, had he not used Joab as his tool for the murder of Uriah?
A garment hid the body and the march went on. The account was not closed, though. It came due in the next reign, under Solomon.
Solomon's kingdom could not be established until the innocent blood of Abner and Amasa was avenged on Joab. Joab had shed that blood without David's knowledge. Joab had stood by David until he went over to Adonijah. That desertion showed his real motive: not love for David, but his own advantage. His motives in killing Abner and Amasa were selfish too. Joab's execution pictures how the thousand-year kingdom of the Lord Jesus will be established in righteousness, which brings peace.
- Motive. Joab killed Amasa to take back the command he had lost. Every act that served his own interests counted as legitimate to him.
- The kiss. A brother's greeting and a kiss covered the sword; Amasa never saw it coming.
- The garment. A soldier pulled the body off the road and covered it, and the army marched on behind the murderer.
- The silence. David let the crime pass. His own sin over Uriah — carried out through Joab — had left him unable to wield the sword of justice.
- The throne. What men covered, the throne uncovered. Solomon avenged the innocent blood, and his kingdom, established in righteousness, pictures the coming kingdom of the Lord Jesus.
who went through all the tribes of Israel to Abel, and to Beth-Maacah, and all the Berim; and they gathered together, and went also after him.
Sheba's rebellion starts as a quarrel over who has the greater claim on David. It ends with one man shut inside the walls of a city at the far northern edge of the land. The route runs through every tribe, and it raises two questions: why did so many follow him, and what happens to the city that takes him in?
The march through the tribes did not start with Sheba. It started with an argument between Judah and Israel over their claim on David. One commentator traces the line from that quarrel straight into the revolt:
All this arguing came from the flesh. Wanting a role in the things of God, jealousy at what our brothers are doing, hurt pride, being wrapped up in ourselves — none of this is the fruit of the Spirit… People can be in the right and still act without love, and division always follows. That is the division we see in 2 Samuel 20:1-2. Satan is behind it, and he uses Sheba, the son of Bichri, to do the work. Israel had just said, "I have ten parts in the king." Now Israel cries: "We have no portion in David."
Sheba himself was a worthless man. So why did a whole nation walk behind him? Their mood explains it:
The Israelites were already furious with Judah. So Sheba's loud voice and confident tone won all Israel over to follow him, and no one stopped to ask what kind of man their leader was. What a lesson for the people of God! Friction and quarrelling can lead men to accept the leadership of a wicked and worthless man! Parties form easily this way… The men of Judah stayed loyal to David, but they too had treated Israel with a party spirit. So they needed to judge themselves just as much as Israel did.
Passing through all the tribes sounds like a recruiting tour. Read against what follows, it looks more like a retreat:
It seems Sheba had not been able to raise any army at all. He had travelled as far north as he could in Israel, and took refuge in the city of Abel in Beth-Maachah. We are not even told how many followers were with him. Yet Joab and his men had no trouble finding where he was. The city had barred its gates, and that showed Joab the city was protecting Sheba.
Abel of Beth-maacah was no small village on the border. It was a city of standing, known for the wisdom of its leaders:
An important city in the far north of Palestine… In 2 Sam. 20:15 it is called "Abel of Beth-maachah," and its rulers were famous for their wisdom, 2 Sam. 20:18. Sheba took shelter here from Joab, but the people of the city put him to death. Later Benhadad captured it along with other cities, 1 Kings 15:20, and after him Tiglath-pileser, 2 Kings 15:29, who carried its people away as captives to Assyria.
The barred gate put the town on Sheba's side. One writer sets Abel beside two earlier cases. In both, a whole community carried one man's guilt:
When Achan sinned, Scripture says, "Israel has sinned" (Joshua 7:1, 11). When the terrible sin at Gibeah took place (Judges 20, 21), the whole tribe of Benjamin bore the blame, because they refused to hand over the guilty men. The opposite happens in the case of Sheba the son of Bichri at Abel (2 Sam. 20:14-22). Can we not see God's wisdom in holding those who go along with evil as responsible as those who do it? Otherwise, what guarantee would there be that evil would ever be judged?
Abel did not protect Sheba to the end. The way the siege stopped is the point:
This war between brothers ends with the death of Sheba, the one truly to blame… Joab accuses Sheba of having "lifted up his hand against the king, against David" (v. 21). That went to the heart of the matter, because Sheba had aimed his attack at the king… People often say the answer is for everyone to admit their wrongs and humble themselves. But that does not remove the evil. The man who had lifted up his hand against David had to be cut off.
- Quarrel. The revolt grew out of jealousy and hurt pride between Judah and Israel. You can be in the right and still act without love — and that ends in division.
- Crowd. People already angry accepted a leader without asking what kind of man he was — that is how parties form.
- Flight. Sheba raised no army. He ran to the far northern edge of the land, and the barred gate told Joab who was inside.
- Shelter. A city that hides a guilty man takes on his guilt. Israel with Achan and Benjamin at Gibeah show it; Abel shows the opposite.
- Removal. Peace returned not by mutual apologies but by dealing with the one man who had lifted his hand against the king.
And they came and besieged him in Abel-Beth-Maacah, and they cast up a bank against the city, and it was raised in the trench; and all the people that were with Joab sapped the wall, to throw it down.
The hunt for Sheba ends at a walled town in the far north of Israel. Joab's army piles earth against the wall and starts to break it down. The siege raises the question the next few verses answer: who is at fault — the one rebel inside, or the city that shut its gate around him?
Sheba was not the leader of a movement. One writer points to who was really at work behind him:
Satan is always ready to take advantage of such occasions among God's people. He had a man there of worthless, ambitious character. Sheba, the son of Bichri, was in fact a Benjamite, not from any of the other ten tribes. But he saw his chance to exalt himself. He blew a trumpet and boldly declared, "We have no portion in David, and we have no inheritance in the son of Jesse; every man to his tents, O Israel!"
The quarrel that gave him his opening was about status, not truth. One writer weighs both sides:
All these exchanges are of the flesh. Ambition to play a role in the things of God, jealousy as we watch our brothers' activities, wounded self-love, preoccupation with ourselves — none of this is the fruit of the Spirit or of divine affections. Despite their superior position Judah was no better than the ten tribes. "The words of the men of Judah were harsher than the words of the men of Israel." Those who are right act without love, and division is the inevitable result.
By the time Joab arrives, Sheba has run out of road. The city's response tells Joab everything:
It seems Sheba had been unable to organise any army at all. He had travelled as far north as he could in Israel, taking refuge in the city of Abel in Beth-Maachah. But Joab and his men had no difficulty in finding where he was. The city had barred its gates, an indication to Joab that it was protecting Sheba. Under the protection of a siege mound Joab and his men attacked the city wall, intending to break through it.
The town Sheba chose had a history of its own:
This was an important city in the far north of Palestine, in the territory of Naphtali or Manasseh. In 2 Sam. 20:15 it is called "Abel of Beth-maachah," and its rulers were famous for their wisdom (2 Sam. 20:18). It was here that Sheba took shelter from Joab, but was put to death by the inhabitants.
Why should a whole city face ruin for one man? One writer sets Abel beside two earlier cases where a whole people carried one man's guilt:
When Achan had committed his trespass, Scripture says, "Israel has sinned" (Joshua 7:1, 11). And when the terrible sin of Gibeah happened (Judges 20, 21), the whole tribe of Benjamin was held responsible, because they refused to give up the offenders. The opposite is seen in the case of Sheba the son of Bichri at Abel (2 Sam. 20:14-22). And can we not see the wisdom of God in holding those who associate with evil as responsible as the ones who do it? What guarantee would there be that evil would ever be judged?
The man directing this siege is no hero. One writer weighs his record:
From a practical point of view Joab had done well for David's kingdom. But he was zealous for the prosperity of the kingdom, not for the honour of God. David had refused to have Saul killed by his men, but Joab had not hesitated to kill Abner, Absalom and Amasa.
The battering stops when someone names the one man the trouble belongs to:
There before the city of Abel a woman's wisdom brings an end to the shedding of blood. This war between brothers comes to an end through the death of Sheba, the real culprit... It is not, as people often say, a matter of everyone admitting his wrongs and humbling himself. That does not remove the evil. The one who had lifted up his hand against David must be cut off.
The same writer turns that straight onto disputes among Christians today:
Should this not always happen in conflicts between brothers about doctrine? Some judge a heretic; others accept him. Peace can only be restored by cutting off the wicked person.
- Spark. A quarrel over status between Judah and Israel was all of the flesh. One ambitious Benjamite turned that jealousy into a national split.
- Shelter. Sheba could raise no army; he could only run north and hide, and a barred gate told Joab the city had chosen to cover him.
- Shared guilt. God held all Israel guilty for Achan, and all Benjamin for Gibeah. Those who shield an offender are as responsible as he is.
- Siege. The mound and the battered wall show what unjudged evil costs a whole community. One man's sin put a whole city under threat of ruin.
- Solution. Peace came back not through apologies all round, but by dealing with the man who had raised his hand against the king. The same principle settles conflicts among Christians.
And a wise woman cried out of the city, Hear, hear say, I pray you, unto Joab, Come near hither, that I may speak with thee.
Sheba's revolt against David had failed, and he hid in the northern city of Abel while Joab's army attacked its wall. With the wall about to fall, one unnamed woman called out and asked the general to come and talk.
Sheba arrived with no army, and the city still barred its gates for him.
It seems Sheba had not been able to organize any army at all. He had travelled as far north as he could in Israel, and took refuge in the city of Abel in Beth-Maachah. Joab and his men had no difficulty in finding where he was. The city had barred its gates, and this was evidence to Joab that it was protecting Sheba. Under the protection of a siege mound Joab and his men attacked the city wall, intending to break through it.
Abel was no random hideout. Its leaders were known for their wisdom.
An important city in the far north of Palestine... 2 Samuel 20:15 calls it "Abel of Beth-Maachah," and its rulers were known far and wide for their wisdom (2 Samuel 20:18). Sheba took shelter here from Joab, but the people of the city put him to death.
Joab came near, and she told him what kind of city he was attacking.
However, there was one wise woman in the city who called out and asked to speak with Joab. He was willing to listen. She tells him that in earlier days the city of Abel had a reputation for settling disputes. She points out that there are still considerate people in the city, including herself, one who was peaceable and faithful in Israel. Now she says Joab is seeking to destroy a city and a mother in Israel. Why should he bring the inheritance of the Lord down to ruins?
The man she talked down was no neutral soldier. His record explains the danger the city was in.
Joab is ambitious and has no scruples. For him, any act that advances his personal interests is legitimate. So he becomes a murderer for the third time, to regain his position.
Joab's answer brought the war down to one man. She carried that choice straight back to her neighbours.
Joab replies that he has no such intention. The city is sheltering one man, Sheba. He has raised a revolt against David, and if they hand him over to Joab, he will spare the city. So the woman put the choice to the citizens: either have the whole city destroyed so that Sheba dies with it, or give up Sheba alone to death and save the city.
Her way out was more than a clever escape from a crisis. It dealt with the man who was actually at fault.
There before the city of Abel a woman's wisdom brings an end to the shedding of blood. This war between brothers comes to an end through the death of Sheba, the real culprit... The woman of Abel sees that the only way to restore peace is to judge the guilty one: "his head shall be thrown to you over the wall" (v. 21). It is not, as people often say, a matter of everyone admitting his wrongs and humbling himself. That does not remove the evil. Instead, the one who had lifted up his hand against David must be cut off.
Two earlier cases in Israel had gone the other way. Shielding an offender spreads the guilt to those who shield him.
When Achan committed his trespass, the word was, "Israel has sinned" (Joshua 7:1, 11). When the terrible sin of Gibeah took place (Judges 20, 21), the whole tribe of Benjamin bore the responsibility. They had refused to give up the offenders. The opposite happened at Abel, in the case of Sheba the son of Bichri (2 Samuel 20:14-22). And can we not see the wisdom of God in holding associates with evil as responsible as the doers of it? What guarantee would there be that evil would ever be judged?
Rossier draws the same lesson forward into disagreements among believers:
Is this not what should always take place in conflicts among believers over doctrine? Some judge a heretic, others accept him. Peace cannot return except by cutting off the wicked person.
- One voice. A barred gate could not stop Joab. One unnamed woman did, by asking for a hearing.
- One reputation. Abel was known far and wide for wisdom, and in its worst hour that wisdom still found a voice.
- One question. She made Joab face what he was about to level: a city, a mother in Israel, the inheritance of the Lord.
- One man. Peace came not by shared apologies but by naming and removing the one who had lifted his hand against the king.
- One warning. Achan and Gibeah show what happens when a people shields an offender. Abel did the opposite, and saved itself.
And he came near to her; and the woman said, Art thou Joab? And he said, I [am he]. And she said to him, Listen to the words of thy handmaid. And he said, I am listening.
Joab's army has trapped the rebel Sheba in the city of Abel of Beth-maachah, and his men are already battering the wall. A woman calls up to the commander, asks his name, and asks him to listen — and that short exchange ends the revolt and saves the city.
The verse is a conversation, not a battle. One writer sums up what the woman asked for and what she said once Joab came near:
However, there was one wise woman in the city who called out and asked to speak with Joab. He was willing to listen. She then tells him that long ago the city of Abel had a reputation for settling disputes. She points out that thoughtful people still live there. She is one of them, peaceable and faithful in Israel. Now she says Joab is seeking to destroy a city and a mother in Israel. Why should he bring the inheritance of the Lord down to ruins?
The city she spoke for was important, and its rulers had a name for wisdom:
An important city in the far north of Palestine, in the territory of Naphtali or Manasseh. Scripture mentions it together with Ijon and Dan. 2 Samuel 20:15 calls it 'Abel of Beth-maachah'. Its rulers had a proverbial reputation for wisdom, 2 Samuel 20:18. Sheba took shelter here from Joab, but the people of the city put him to death.
The man who answered, "I am," was no gentle listener. One writer sums up the record he had already built:
Joab is ambitious and has no scruples. For him, any act that advances his own interests is legitimate. To regain his position, he becomes a murderer for the third time.
Yet this is the man who halts the attack and answers, "I am listening."
The conversation exposed one guilty man, not a guilty city. One writer traces how naming him ended the bloodshed:
There before the city of Abel a woman's wisdom brings an end to the shedding of blood. This war between brothers comes to an end through the death of Sheba, the real culprit. Joab himself speaks a word of wisdom here. He accuses Sheba of having "lifted up his hand against King David" (v. 21). This was in fact getting to the heart of the matter, for Sheba's attack was directed against the king. The woman of Abel sees that only judging the guilty one will restore peace. She answers, "Behold, his head shall be thrown to you over the wall" (v. 21). It is not, as people often say, a matter of everyone admitting his wrongs and humbling himself. That does not remove the evil. The man who had lifted up his hand against David must be cut off.
Having heard Joab's terms, she turned and put the same plain choice to the people inside:
Joab replies that he has no such intention. One man, Sheba, is hiding in the city. Sheba has raised a revolt against David. If the city hands him over to Joab, Joab will spare the city. The woman is sure of the outcome. She tells Joab they will throw Sheba's head over the wall. Then she put a plain choice to the citizens: either the city is destroyed with Sheba inside it, or they give up Sheba alone to death and save the city. Of course it would have been only folly to protect the rebel, so they cut off his head and threw it over the wall to Joab.
Another writer draws a wider rule from the story. He sets Abel beside two places that failed the same test:
When Achan sinned, Scripture said, "Israel has sinned" (Joshua 7:1, 11). When the awful sin of Gibeah took place (Judges 20, 21), the whole tribe of Benjamin bore the blame, because they refused to give up the offenders. The reverse is seen in the case of Sheba the son of Bichri at Abel (2 Samuel 20:14-22). And can we not see the wisdom of God in holding those who associate with evil as responsible as the ones who do it? What guarantee would there be that evil would ever be judged?
- Ask. She had no weapon but a question — she called for the commander, asked him to listen, and got the siege paused.
- Listen. Joab, a man who had murdered three times for position, still said he was listening. A hearing costs nothing and can save everything.
- Name. Talking revealed the truth: not a rebel city, but one man who had lifted his hand against the king.
- Act. Peace did not come by everyone apologising; it came by dealing with the guilty one, and the city acted at once.
- Spare. One head came over the wall and the whole city lived. Judge the guilty one, and the many go free.
And she spoke saying, They were wont to speak in old time saying, Just inquire in Abel; and so they ended.
Joab's army is attacking the wall of Abel, and a woman inside calls him out to talk. Instead of begging for mercy, she reminds him of an old saying: when people wanted a dispute settled, they asked at Abel.
She does not start by defending Sheba. She starts with the city itself and what it has long been known for.
However, there was one wise woman in the city who called out to ask for a meeting with Joab. He was willing to listen. She then tells him that in the past the city of Abel had a reputation for settling disputes. She also showed that there were still considerate people in the city, including herself, a woman who was peaceable and faithful in Israel. Now she says Joab is seeking to destroy a city and a mother in Israel. Why should he bring the inheritance of the Lord down to ruins?
That reputation was not something she made up on the spot. Abel was a real town in the far north of the land.
Abel was an important city in the far north of Palestine, in the territory of Naphtali or Manasseh. In 2 Samuel 20:15 it is called 'Abel of Beth-maachah', and its rulers were known everywhere for their wisdom, 2 Samuel 20:18.
Her appeal works. Joab answers her, and the fighting ends with words instead of more killing.
There before the city of Abel a woman's wisdom brings an end to the shedding of blood. This fratricidal war comes to an end through the death of Sheba, the real culprit. Joab himself speaks a word of wisdom here. He accuses Sheba of having "lifted up his hand against the king, against David" (v. 21). This was in fact getting to the heart of the matter, for Sheba's attack was directed against the king.
Asking counsel at Abel did not mean softening the issue. The woman's advice went straight to the one man whose presence had put the town under siege.
The woman of Abel realizes that the only way of restoring peace is by judging the guilty one: "Behold, his head shall be thrown to you over the wall" (v. 21). It is not, as people often say, a matter of everyone admitting his wrongs and humbling himself. That does not remove the evil. The one who had lifted up his hand against David must be cut off.
Rossier presses the same principle into church life:
Is not this what should always take place in conflicts between believers about doctrine? Some judge a heretic, others accept him. Peace can only be restored by cutting off the wicked person.
The woman then went back to her own people inside the walls.
She put the choice to the citizens: either lose the whole city so that Sheba is killed, or give up Sheba alone to death and save the city. Of course it would have been only folly to protect the rebel, so they cut off his head and threw it over the wall to Joab.
Ridout sets Abel beside two earlier cases that went the other way.
When Achan had committed his trespass, the word was, "Israel has sinned" (Joshua 7:1, 11). When the terrible sin of Gibeah took place (Judges 20, 21), the whole tribe of Benjamin was held responsible, because they refused to give up the offenders. The reverse is seen in the case of Sheba the son of Bichri at Abel (2 Sam. 20:14-22). And can we not see the wisdom of God in holding those who join with evil as responsible as those who do it? What guarantee would there be that evil would ever be judged?
The wisdom in this chapter belongs to the woman, not to the general outside the wall. Joab had already killed Amasa on the road to get his command back.
Joab, who is ambitious and has no scruples, for whom every act advancing his personal interests is legitimate, becomes a murderer for the third time in order to regain his position.
With Sheba's death the long unrest is over and the reign is settled again.
2 Samuel 20 ends this part of David's history, and his history in general. He is back on his throne. He has overcome the efforts of his enemies and the rebellion of his own people. The order of his court and officers is restored in peace.
- Ask — Abel was the town people came to for counsel. Its rulers were known for their wisdom.
- Speak — the woman calls Joab out to talk, and he listens. Her wisdom stops the bloodshed.
- Name — her counsel does not blur the issue. Sheba lifted his hand against the king, and peace comes by dealing with him.
- Release — the town had a choice: keep the rebel and be destroyed, or hand him over and live. Commentators point out that those who shelter evil are held as responsible as those who do it.
- Rest — Sheba dies, David keeps his throne, and the order of his court is restored in peace.
I am peaceable [and] faithful in Israel thou seekest to destroy a city and a mother in Israel. Why wilt thou swallow up the inheritance of Jehovah?
Joab's army is set to destroy the city of Abel because one rebel, Sheba, is hiding inside. A wise woman of the city calls out to him, and this verse is her case for sparing it.
The woman does not beg. She argues from what her city is and whose it is.
However, there was one wise woman in the city who called out and asked to speak with Joab. He was glad to listen. She then tells him that in the past the city of Abel had a reputation for settling disputes. She also pointed out that there were still considerate people in the city, including herself. She was one who was peaceable and faithful in Israel. Now she says Joab is seeking to destroy a city and a mother in Israel. Why should he bring the inheritance of the Lord down to ruins?
The city's name for sound judgment was not her invention.
A city of importance in the far north of Palestine... In 2 Sam. 20:15 it is called 'Abel of Beth-maachah,' and people spoke of the wisdom of its rulers as a proverb, 2 Sam. 20:18. Sheba took shelter here from Joab, but the people of the city put him to death.
The title she gives her city carries weight. A hard soldier stopped and listened, and such care shows up among God's people still.
Joab listened at once to the wise woman who appealed to him as 'a mother in Israel.' By nature a mother has great influence over her children, whether for good or evil... There are also 'mothers' in the church. They have the Lord's interests at heart in the welfare of the saints. Paul called the mother of Rufus his own mother too. Rom. 16:13.
Her appeal lands on someone with no history of restraint.
Joab is ambitious and has no scruples. For him, any act that advances his own interests is right. To get his position back, he becomes a murderer for the third time.
Joab answers that he wants one man, not the city. The woman takes the terms, and the war ends without a battle.
Joab replies that he has no such intention. The city is harboring one man, Sheba, and he has raised a rebellion against David. If the city hands him over to Joab, then Joab will spare the city... So she put the choice to the citizens: either Joab destroys the city to kill Sheba, or they give up Sheba alone to death and save the city. Of course it would have been only folly to protect the rebel.
Both Joab and the woman name the real issue: the offence was against the king.
A woman's wisdom brings an end to the shedding of blood. This civil war comes to an end through the death of Sheba, the real culprit. Joab himself speaks a word of wisdom here. He accuses Sheba of having "lifted up his hand against the king, against David." This got to the heart of the matter. Sheba aimed his attack at the king. The woman of Abel realizes that the only way of restoring peace is by judging the guilty one... People often say that the answer is for everyone to admit his wrongs and humble himself. But that does not remove the evil. The one who had lifted up his hand against David must be cut off.
Abel did not shield the guilty man. Others in Israel's history did, and the whole group paid for it.
When Achan had committed his trespass, it was said, "Israel has sinned" (Joshua 7:1, 11). When Gibeah committed its awful sin (Judges 20, 21), the whole tribe of Benjamin was held responsible, because they refused to give up the offenders. The opposite happened in the case of Sheba the son of Bichri at Abel (2 Sam. 20:14-22). And can we not see the wisdom of God in holding those who associate with evil as responsible as the ones who do it? What guarantee would there be that evil would ever be judged? The whole company of Christians would be defiled by the presence of unjudged sin, because of the false tenderness or indifference of some.
Writers apply the same rule to disputes among believers today:
Should this not always happen in conflicts between believers about doctrine? Some judge a heretic, others accept him, and peace cannot come back except by cutting off the wicked person.
- Reputation. Abel had a long name for wise counsel. The woman makes that standing her first argument for sparing it.
- Motherhood. The title "a mother in Israel" carries real weight. It stopped a ruthless commander, and the church has such mothers too.
- Inheritance. Her deciding question is not about her own survival but about ruining what belongs to the Lord.
- One man. Shielding the rebel would have cost the whole city, so the citizens gave up Sheba alone.
- Peace. Rest did not return because everyone apologised. It came when the one who had lifted his hand against the king was cut off — the pattern writers apply to believers' conflicts still.
And Joab answered and said, Far be it, far be it from me, that I should swallow up or destroy.
Joab's army stands at the wall of Abel of Beth-maachah, hunting one rebel. A woman calls down from the wall, and Joab answers with a double denial: he has no wish to swallow up or destroy. So what does this general want, and what will save the city?
One voice from inside the city stopped the attack. She reminded Joab what Abel was, and what he was about to ruin.
There was one wise woman in the city who called out asking for an interview with Joab. He was willing to listen. She tells him that Abel once had a reputation for settling disputes. She points out that there are still thoughtful people in the city, including herself, for she is peaceable and faithful in Israel. Now, she says, Joab is trying to destroy a city and a mother in Israel. Why should he bring the inheritance of the Lord down to ruins?
Joab's denial is not empty talk. It comes with terms, and the woman takes them straight to her townspeople as a choice with only two outcomes.
Joab replies that he has no such intention. But one man, Sheba, is being sheltered in the city. Since he has raised a revolt against David, the city will be spared if it hands him over to Joab. The woman is quite sure of the outcome, and tells Joab that Sheba's head will be thrown over the wall. So she put the choice to the citizens: let the whole city be destroyed to get Sheba killed, or give up Sheba alone to death and save the city. Of course it would have been sheer folly to protect the rebel, so they cut off his head and threw it over the wall to Joab.
Joab does not accuse the city of anything. He names one offence by one man, and the woman sees what will stop the bloodshed.
There before the city of Abel a woman's wisdom brings an end to the shedding of blood. This war between brothers comes to an end through the death of Sheba, the real culprit. Joab himself speaks a word of wisdom here. He accuses Sheba of having "lifted up his hand against the king, against David" (v. 21). This was in fact getting to the heart of the matter, for Sheba had aimed his attack at the king. The woman of Abel sees that only judging the guilty one can bring peace back: "Behold, his head shall be thrown to you over the wall" (v. 21). People often say the answer is for everyone to admit his wrongs and humble himself. But that does not remove the evil. The one who had lifted up his hand against David must be cut off.
The same test applies to believers today.
Is not this what should always happen in conflicts among believers about doctrine? Some judge a heretic, others accept him, and peace cannot be restored except by cutting off the wicked person.
Abel had not rebelled. It was only sheltering the rebel. Two older cases in Israel show how God treats that.
When Achan sinned, the verdict was, "Israel has sinned" (Joshua 7:1, 11). When the terrible sin of Gibeah took place (Judges 20, 21), the whole tribe of Benjamin was held responsible, because they refused to give up the offenders. We see the reverse in the case of Sheba the son of Bichri at Abel (2 Sam. 20:14-22). And can we not see the wisdom of God in holding those who associate with evil as responsible as those who do it? What guarantee would there be that evil would ever be judged? The whole company of Christians would be defiled by the presence of unjudged sin, because of the false tenderness or indifference of some.
The words are right. The speaker is not. Commentators are blunt about what drove Joab.
From a practical viewpoint Joab had done well for David's kingdom, but it was the prosperity of the kingdom that he was zealous for, not the honour of God. David had refused to have Saul killed by his men, but Joab had not hesitated to kill Abner, Absalom and Amasa.
- One man. Joab's siege was never aimed at Abel. It was aimed at one rebel, and his denial is really an offer of terms.
- One offence. The charge is that Sheba lifted his hand against the king. That is the heart of the matter, and it is the only thing standing between the city and peace.
- One choice. Shelter him and lose everything, or give him up and be spared. Protecting the rebel would have been sheer folly.
- One principle. God holds those who shelter evil as guilty as those who do it. Otherwise unjudged sin defiles the whole company.
- One warning. Right words can come from a wrong man. Joab named the rebel rightly, yet he was a murderer. He was zealous for the kingdom's success, not for God's honour.
The matter is not so; but a man of mount Ephraim, Sheba the son of Bichri by name, has lifted up his hand against the king, against David give up him only, and I will depart from the city. And the woman said to Joab, Behold, his head shall be thrown to thee over the wall.
Joab's army has piled a siege mound against the wall of Abel of Beth-maacah, and a woman inside calls out to ask why he would destroy a whole town. His reply names one man behind the trouble, and her answer turns the siege into a question every community faces — shelter him, or judge him?
Joab names a person, not a city. One commentator draws out what that means for peace.
Joab himself speaks a word of wisdom here. He accuses Sheba of having "lifted up his hand against King David" (v. 21). This got to the heart of the matter, because Sheba had aimed his attack at the king. The woman of Abel sees that only judging the guilty one will restore peace: "his head shall be thrown to you over the wall" (v. 21). It is not, as people often say, a matter of everyone admitting his wrongs and humbling himself. That does not remove the evil. The man who had lifted up his hand against David must be cut off.
Abel was sheltering one man, and the army outside wanted only him. One commentator sets the city beside two earlier cases in Israel's history.
When Achan sinned, God's verdict was, "Israel has sinned" (Joshua 7:1, 11). And when Gibeah committed its terrible sin (Judges 20, 21), God held the whole tribe of Benjamin responsible, because they refused to give up the offenders. Abel did the reverse in the case of Sheba the son of Bichri (2 Sam. 20:14-22). Can we not see the wisdom of God in holding those who associate with evil as responsible as those who do it? Otherwise, what guarantee would there be that evil would ever be judged? Unjudged sin would defile the whole company of Christians, through the false tenderness or indifference of some.
Joab's first words in the verse are a denial. He is answering a charge the woman has just made against him.
The woman tells him that in earlier times the city of Abel had a reputation for settling disputes. Now, she says, Joab is seeking to destroy a city and a mother in Israel. Why should he bring the inheritance of the Lord down to ruins? Joab replies that he has no such intention. One man, Sheba, is sheltered in the city, and he has raised a rebellion against David. If the city hands him over, Joab will spare it. The woman is quite confident of the outcome, and tells Joab that Sheba's head will be thrown over the wall. So she told the citizens their choice: lose the city so that Sheba dies with it, or give up Sheba alone to death and save the city. Of course it would have been only folly to protect the rebel, so they cut off his head and threw it over the wall to Joab.
Joab ended the revolt without a battle. The same writer then measures the man who did it.
So Joab put down Sheba's revolt without any fighting, and he and his men returned to David at Jerusalem. What was David to do? He had demoted Joab by raising Amasa to take his place. Amasa proved inefficient in his first commission. Then Joab murdered Amasa in cold blood. Without David's instruction he took up Amasa's commission and carried it out quickly, saving David from the threat of a broken kingdom. From a practical viewpoint Joab had done well for David's kingdom. But he was zealous for the prosperity of the kingdom, not for the honour of God. David had refused to have Saul killed by his men, but Joab had not hesitated to kill Abner, Absalom and Amasa.
Rossier does not leave this in ancient history. He asks what happens when Christians fall out over what is taught.
Is not this what should always take place in conflicts between brothers about doctrine? Some judge a heretic, others accept him, and peace cannot be re-established except by cutting off the wicked person.
- One man. The whole rebellion rested on Sheba alone. Joab named him, and that charge went straight to the heart of the matter.
- One city. Abel was in danger only because it sheltered him. God holds those who shelter evil as responsible as those who do it.
- One choice. The woman set a simple alternative before her neighbours: lose the city to save the rebel, or give up the rebel and save the city.
- One head. Peace did not come by everyone admitting their faults. It came when the guilty man was cut off, and not one townsman died.
- One caution. The victory was real, but Joab was zealous for the kingdom's success, not for God's honour. A good outcome does not make the man who wins it a model.
Then the woman went to all the people in her wisdom. And they cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri, and cast it to Joab. And he blew a trumpet, and they dispersed from the city, every man to his tent. And Joab returned to Jerusalem to the king.
The siege of Abel ends without a single blow at the city: one woman talks to her neighbours, and Joab sounds the retreat. Why did her wisdom work where an army could not, and what does her city's choice teach anyone facing trouble stirred up by one person?
An army stood outside Abel's wall. What ended the fighting was not force but a clear view of where the guilt lay.
There before the city of Abel a woman's wisdom brings an end to the shedding of blood. This war between brothers comes to an end through the death of Sheba, the real culprit. Joab himself speaks a word of wisdom here. He accuses Sheba of having lifted up his hand against the king, against David. This was in fact getting to the heart of the matter, for Sheba's attack was directed against the king. The woman of Abel realises that the only way of restoring peace is by judging the guilty one. It is not, as is often said, a matter of everyone admitting his wrongs and humbling himself. That does not remove the evil. Rather, the one who had lifted up his hand against David must be cut off.
The verse says she went to all the people "in her wisdom." That wisdom was to give her neighbours one plain choice.
Joab replies that he has no such intention. But one man, Sheba, is sheltered in the city, and he has raised a revolt against David. If the city hands him over to Joab, then Joab will spare it. The woman is quite confident of the outcome, and tells Joab that Sheba's head will be thrown over the wall. So she told the citizens their choice. They could let the city be destroyed so that Sheba was killed, or give up Sheba alone to death and save the city. Of course it would have been only folly to protect the rebel, so they cut off his head and threw it over the wall to Joab.
Abel's danger was never its own crime. It was sheltering someone else's. One writer sets this beside two older stories: Achan's sin, and the sin of Gibeah. In both, a whole community carried the guilt.
When Achan committed his trespass, the word was, "Israel has sinned" (Joshua 7:1, 11). When Gibeah committed its terrible sin (Judges 20, 21), God held the whole tribe of Benjamin responsible, because they refused to give up the offenders. The reverse is seen in the case of Sheba the son of Bichri at Abel (2 Sam. 20:14-22). And can we not see the wisdom of God in holding those who associate with evil as responsible as the ones who do it? What guarantee would there be that evil would ever be judged? The presence of unjudged sin would defile the whole company of Christians, through the false tenderness or indifference of some.
The same writer applies this to disputes among Christians about doctrine.
Is not this what should always take place in conflicts between brothers about doctrine? Some judge a heretic, others accept him. Peace cannot be restored except by cutting off the wicked person.
Joab's trumpet is not a call to arms. One writer traces the same blast through other turning points in these books.
And again, 2 Samuel 20:22: and then "they dispersed from the city, every man to his home." In these three cases, as in that of Sheba in 2 Samuel 20:1, it was the signal of retreat. There too every man of Israel withdrew from David and followed Sheba.
The verse ends with Joab back at Jerusalem, restored to the command David had taken from him. One writer does not treat that as a happy ending.
So Joab put down Sheba's revolt without any warfare. He and his men returned to David at Jerusalem. What was David to do? He had demoted Joab by raising Amasa to take his position. Amasa proved ineffective in his first commission. Then Joab murdered Amasa in cold blood. Without David's instruction, he took up Amasa's commission and carried it out fast and well. So he freed David from the threat of a broken kingdom. From a practical viewpoint Joab had done well for David's kingdom. But he was zealous for the kingdom's prosperity, not for the honour of God.
- One man — the whole war traced back to one rebel who had raised his hand against the king. The city's trouble was not its own.
- One choice — she put it plainly to her neighbours: lose the city, or give up the one man. Protecting him would have been folly.
- One principle — shelter evil and you share it. Israel carried Achan's guilt and Benjamin carried Gibeah's; Abel escaped only by acting.
- One remedy — peace does not come from everyone half-apologising. It comes when the guilty one is judged.
- One warning — Joab got the result and got his job back, but his zeal was for the kingdom's success, not for God's honour. Right outcomes can still come from wrong hearts.