2 Samuel 19
Bob Utley · Citado em PreceptAustin
2 Samuel 19
Utley explains that "The "house of Joseph" is just another way to refer to the northern tribes (cf. Josh. 18:5; Jdg 1:22,23,35; 1Ki 11:28). Usually this phrase refers to the tribe from Joseph ‒ Ephraim and Manasseh, but not here. 2 Samuel 19:21 But Abishai the son of Zeruiah said, "Should not Shimei be put to death for this, because he cursed the LORD'S anointed?" Should not: Ex 22:28 1Ki 21:10,11 cursed: 2Sa 16:5,7,13 1Sa 24:6 26:9 2 Samuel 19 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries ABISHAI'S UNWILLINGNESS TO FORGIVE But Abishai the son of Zeruiah said, "Should not Shimei be put to death for this, because he cursed the LORD'S anointed?" - In theory Abishai may have been correct. But David is a man after God's own heart, as just as God did not (and does not daily) put us to death for "high treason" against Him, so too David would not receive such harsh, unforgiving words from Abishai. Clearly Abishai and his brother Joab were men with a revengeful spirit (killing Abner and then Absalom and then Amasa!) Josephus wrote (Chapter 11.2) - While he (SHIMEI) was thus entreating the King, and moving him to compassion, Abishai, Joab’s brother, said, “And shall not this man die for this, that he hath cursed that King whom God hath appointed to reign over us?” But David turned himself to him, and said, “Will you never leave off, ye sons of Zeruiah? Do not you, I pray, raise new troubles and seditions among us, now the former are over. For I would not have you ignorant, that I this day begin my reign: and therefore swear to remit to all offenders their punishments, and not to animadvert on any one that has sinned. Be thou therefore, said he, O Shimei, of good courage; and do not at all fear being put to death.” So he worshipped him, and went on before him. 2 Samuel 19:22 David then said, "What have I to do with you, O sons of Zeruiah, that you should this day be an adversary to me? Should any man be put to death in Israel today? For do I not know that I am king over Israel today?" What have: 2Sa 3:39 16:10 1Sa 26:8 Mt 8:29 shall any man: 1Sa 11:13 Isa 16:5 Lu 9:54-56 2 Samuel 19 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries DAVID'S MAGNANIMOUS SPIRIT David then said, "What have I to do with you, O sons of Zeruiah (refers to Joab and Abishai), that you should this day be an adversary (satan; Lxx - epiboulos - plotting against, treacherous) to me? - I like the God's Word paraphrase "Are you sure we're from the same family, sons of Zeruiah? You are my enemies today." Note the Hebrew word for adversary is satan! Should any man be put to death in Israel today? For do I not know that I am king over Israel today - The NLT paraphrases it "This is not a day for execution but for celebration! I am once again the king of Israel!" David had already granted Amasa his rival general amnesty.
2 Samuel 19
Utley - Crossing over Jordan with David and going to the sacred site Gilgal (2Sa 19:15) was a kind of re-coronation and affirmation of David's kingship (cf. 2Sa 19:36-39,40). 2 Samuel 19:41 And behold, all the men of Israel came to the king and said to the king, "Why had our brothers the men of Judah stolen you away, and brought the king and his household and all David's men with him over the Jordan?" Why have: Jdg 8:1 12:1 Joh 7:5,6 stolen: 2Sa 19:3 Ge 31:26,27 2 Samuel 19 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries JUDAH AND ISRAEL AT ODDS To be at odds with someone else means they are disagreeing or arguing with one another. It describes a state of disagreement. Don't be confused here by use of the name Israel ("men of Israel") which describes the 10 northern tribes (see "we have 10 parts" in 2Sa 19:43), not the entire nation. Later (circa 931 BC) when there is a complete division of the nation, the northern 10 tribes are usually referred to as "Israel" (aka the "Northern Kingdom of Israel") and the two southern tribes as "Judah," (which is actually composed of Judah and Benjamin). And behold, all the men of Israel came to the king and said to the king, "Why had our brothers the men of Judah stolen you away, and brought the king and his household and all David's men with him over the Jordan - What is this complaint about? The men of Israel complain that the men of Judah were allowed most of the honor to bring David back across the Jordan. But this was really only a ceremonial return and so their argument seems petty. The northern tribes protested that Judah had not waited for them before bringing David across the Jordan, as if to imply that they were hesitant to receive David. Guzik feels that "This argument was ultimately about who was more loyal to King David, and who had the greater right to honor him." This argument was ultimately about who was more loyal to King David, and who had the greater right to honor him. Ryrie - The northern tribes protested that Judah had not waited for them before bringing David W across the Jordan, as if to imply that they were hesitant to receive David. Utley - This clearly shows the continuing jealousy and rivalry between the tribes of Israel, particularly Judah vs. the northern ten tribes (v. 43). Because of 2Sa 19:9-10 and 2Sa 19:40 (i.e., "half the people of Israel"), it seems not everyone was supportive of David's return. Walton on basis of intertribal argument. The presence of favoritism and discrimination is bound to end up being reflected in policies and privileges. At the heart of this dispute is whether the monarchy is built around the person and family of David (a position the elders of Judah take, referring to their kin ties) or whether the kingship is an institution deserving loyalty no matter who reigns (Israel’s position). This argument foreshadows Sheba’s revolt and the eventual secession of the northern tribes under Jeroboam’s leadership. The dispute also is reminiscent of the arguments between tribes so common in the Judges period. Both examples indicate that the idea of centralized government under a monarchy has not yet taken firm root among the Israelites. It is easy to think of Israel as having a natural unity reflected in the united monarchy, while the divided monarchy is considered an aberration. In fact, however, until the postexilic period it was tribal loyalties more than unified national loyalties that tended to govern political decisions. (See page 349 IVP Bible Background Commentary) Josephus (Chapter 11.5) - Now the principal men of the country came to Gilgal to him, with a great multitude; and complained of the tribe of Judah; that they had come to him in a private manner: whereas they ought all conjointly, and with one and the same intention, to have given him the meeting. But the rulers of the tribe of Judah desired them not to be displeased, if they had been prevented by them: for, said they, “We are David’s kinsmen: and on that account we the rather took care of him, and loved him, and so came first to him. Yet had they not, by their early coming, received any gifts from him; which might give them who came last any uneasiness.” When the rulers of the tribe of Judah had said this, the rulers of the other tribes were not quiet; but said farther, “O brethren, we cannot but wonder at you, when you call the King your kinsman alone: whereas he that hath received from God the power over all of us in common, ought to be esteemed a kinsman to us all. For which reason the whole people have eleven23 parts in him, and you but one part. (23) We are also elder than you; wherefore you have not done justly in coming to the King in this private and concealed manner.” 2 Samuel 19:42 Then all the men of Judah answered the men of Israel, "Because the king is a close relative to us. Why then are you angry about this matter? Have we eaten at all at the king's expense, or has anything been taken for us?" Because: 2Sa 19:12 5:1 1Ch 2:3-17 2 Samuel 19 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries JUDAH RESPONDS TO MEN OF ISRAEL'S COMPLAINT Then all the men of Judah answered the men of Israel, "Because the king is a close relative to us - Men of Judah explain that David is their relative as being from the tribe of Judah. Why then are you angry about this matter? Have we eaten at all at the king's expense, or has anything been taken for us? - The men of Judah defended their actions by saying they did this for David at no cost to David. Walton on eating the king’s provisions. Those who eat from the king’s table or storehouse are his dependents and must therefore demonstrate their loyalty based on this payment (evidenced in the listing of provisions provided to nobles and members of the bureaucracy in Mari and Babylonian administrative texts). This is the basis of Mephibosheth’s crime, since he is one who had accepted David’s provisioning (2 Sam 9:6-7). The leaders of Judah disclaim any such ties, insisting that their welcome of David is based on his ability to rule, not bribes or favors granted to them. (See page 349 IVP Bible Background Commentary) F B
2 Samuel 19
Utley - The men of Israel claimed their right as descendants of Israel/Jacob. The LXX adds "we are the first-born rather than you" (cf. 1Ch 5:2). Some of the men of Judah had apparently supported Absalom, like most of the other tribes. Why then did you treat us with contempt (qalal)? Was it not our advice first to bring back our king?" The men of Israel take this as an insult and evidence that they were being treating with contempt. They claim they were the first to speak of bringing David back to his throne. Yet the words of the men of Judah were harsher than the words of the men of Israel. NIV = "But the men of Judah responded even more harshly than the men of Israel." This depicts a volleying back and forth of harsh words reflecting their stubborn resistance to one another. Unfortunately word battles can lead to literal battles! And in this case the factious words between Israel and Judah gave rise to Sheba's rebellion. This harsh response and intertribal rivalry indicated there was national "trouble brewing" for two reasons (1) the north-south hostility would in the short term fuel Sheba's revolt (2Sa 20:1-26) and (2) in the long term would contribute to the division of the united kingdom into 10 tribes north and 2 south. Warren Wiersbe gives a good summation of this sad scene - A crisis will bring out the best in some people and the worst in others. The representatives of the tribes were gathered at Gilgal to escort their king back to Jerusalem, and instead of rejoicing at the victory God had given His people, the tribes were fighting among themselves. The "men of Israel" were the ten northern tribes, and they were angry at the southern tribe of Judah, which had also absorbed the tribe of Simeon. Israel was angry because Judah had not waited for them to arrive on the scene to help take David home. Judah had "kidnapped" the king and had ignored and insulted the other ten tribes. Judah replied that David was from their tribe, so they had the greater responsibility to care for him. Israel argued that they had ten shares in David but Judah had only two, as though the king were some kind of security on the stock market. Apparently nobody urged the tribes to call on Jehovah for His help and to remember that Gilgal was the place where Israel had made a new beginning in Joshua's day (Josh. 3-5).The conflict between Judah and Israel had deep roots, just like the political conflicts that divide many nations today. When King Saul assembled his first army, it was divided between Israel and Judah (1Sa 11:8), and this division continued throughout his reign (1Sa 15:4; 17:52; 18:16). After the death of Saul, the ten tribes of Israel followed Saul's son Ish-Bosheth, while Judah followed David (2Sa 2:10-11). Judah, of course, was obeying the will of God, for the Lord had named David as the nation's next king. This tribal rivalry existed even in David's day. "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation," said Jesus, "and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand" (Mt. 12:25kjv). When Rehoboam became king after the death of Solomon his father, the rift widened and the kingdom divided into Judah (south) and Israel (north). (Bible Exposition Commentary - Old Testament) TSK - Whatever value or respect the men of Israel at this time professed for their king, they would not have quarrelled so fiercely about their own credit and interest in recalling him, if they had been truly sorry for their former rebellion. Contempt (despise) 07043) qalal means first of all to be slight, to be trivial, to be trifling, to be swift. There are a number of nuances of this verb but most reflect somehow upon the main idea of slightness or lightness and thus the first use of galal in Ge 8:8, 11 refer to the flood waters being abated (receding, becoming "slight" if you will). In Ge 8:21 in the third use of galal God promises to "never again curse the ground on account of man." Over 1/2 of the uses of galal are rendered as some variation of to curse. One of the more famous uses is in Ge 12:3 where Jehovah promises "I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses (qalal) you I will curse (arar - 0779)." Sarah "despised (considered slight so to speak)" Hagar when the latter became pregnant with Abram's child Ishmael (Ge 16:4, 5). Moses would receive help judging the people so it would "be easier for" him (Ex 18:22).