“And all the people were at strife throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, The king saved us out of the hand of our enemies, and he delivered us out of the hand of the Philistines; and now he is fled out of the land for Absalom. And Absalom, whom we anointed over us, is dead in battle. Now therefore why speak ye not a word of bringing the king back? And king David sent to Zadok and to Abiathar the priests, saying, Speak unto the elders of Judah, saying, Why are ye the last to bring the king back to his house? seeing the speech of all Israel is come to the king, even to his house. Ye are my brethren, ye are my bones and my flesh: wherefore then are ye the last to bring back the king? And say ye to Amasa, Art thou not of my bone, and of my flesh? God do so to me, and more also, if thou be not captain of the host before me continually in the room of Joab. And he bowed the heart of all the men of Judah, even as the heart of one man; so that they sent this word unto the king, Return thou, and all thy servants. So the king returned, and came to Jordan. And Judah came to Gilgal, to go to meet the king, to conduct the king over Jordan” (2 Samuel 19:9-15).
Introduction
The pathway was open for David to return to Jerusalem in victory, but it appears that he declined to do so until all the people desired it. Maybe he wanted to be sure that they would acknowledge him as the true king of Israel.
Strife
Opinion was divided over David, for on the one hand everyone knew that he was a mighty and courageous warrior, but on the other they could not come to terms with the fact that he fled from the revolt that was instigated by Absalom. They appear to have been divided into three camps; the supporters of Absalom, those faithful to David, and the indifferent. As we know, most of the people had rejected David in favour of Absalom, so they were not delighted to learn of his victory and neither were they eager to welcome him back. There were others who were loyal to David. Therefore the divided opinion would be the cause of further strife in the future unless it was solved. We see then that the civil unrest did not end with the death of Absalom. It seems as though that those who were against David had the upper hand in the conflict between the tribes. His opposition were those in authority, but thankfully the few who were faithful to David criticised them for refusing even to mention the idea of asking him to reclaim the throne. They had no other reason for continuing to reject him than that they wanted to govern the nation themselves or find another king.
Slowness
News of the strife amongst the people over his return reached David, and rightfully so, he was not too pleased. He especially picks out the elders for criticism since they were from his own tribe, Judah, and so the closest people to him. He could not understand why they showed no desire to bring him back; in fact they were the last to request him to do so. Some in the other tribes had sent messages of support to the king and longed to see him back on the throne, so Judah’s slowness is all the more surprising. David’s words of rebuke, relayed by Zadok and Abiathar, hit the mark and stirred Judah up to support his return. Eventually all agreed to receive him back as king. They escorted him and his men from the Jordan to Jerusalem.
Spurned
Next David appoints Amasa as the captain of his army in place of Joab. Though the spurning of Joab would cause other problems for David, he probably did it as a punishment for killing Absalom. Added to this is the fact that Absalom had promoted Amasa to this honoured position, so it is highly likely that David was allowing him to continue in office to win over those who were still opposing him. “David was fully alive to the importance, for extinguishing the rebellion, of withdrawing from that cause the only leader who could keep it alive; and he, therefore, secretly intimated his intention to raise Amasa to the command of the army in the place of Joab, whose overbearing haughtiness had become intolerable” (Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary). We wonder if Amasa played a part in winning over the opposition for David.
In a very real sense David was both hypocritical and inconsistent in this matter. Had he not used Joab when he sought for the death of Uriah? Yes, Joab did slay Absalom, but only because he was disloyal and evil, both of which Uriah was not. Therefore David acts out of sheer revenge rather than wisdom. Electing Amasa to lead his army was not only an insult to Joab but to the rest of his army too, for had not he been the leader of the enemy a few short hours ago? So David was ordering them to submit to a traitor who would have quickly murdered him given half a chance, (though we have to wonder what Amasa was doing in the battle since he is not mentioned in the account of the battle). Amasa had actually done nothing worthy of the position he received, for was not the fact that he was on the losing side in the conflict proven that he could not lead an army? Once again we can only question the king’s wisdom. He must have realised that his decision would cause much discouragement and alarm amongst his men when they saw how he undermined Joab. We know that Joab did not accept the appointment of Amasa, for soon he would remove him from the scene (2 Samuel 20:10).
Conclusion
David was still using fleshly means to get things done rather than simply trusting in the Lord. He lacks wisdom in almost everything he does and says. All this is the continual consequence of his sin with Bathsheba.
© 2/8/2010