II Samuel 19:40-21:6

You've picked a dense section of Samuel, a real turning point after the upheaval of Absalom's rebellion. What's fascinating here is how the narrative pivots from the raw, emotional aftermath of war to the complex political maneuvering and lingering justice issues that define David's later reign. It’s not just about who won the battle, but who David is now, and how that impacts everything.

Context

This passage comes at a critical juncture in the Books of Samuel, specifically marking the immediate aftermath of Absalom's rebellion. Historically, this is the period when David, having been driven from Jerusalem and then victorious, must reassert his authority and navigate the fractured loyalties within Israel. The rebellion itself was a seismic event, exposing deep-seated discontent and challenging David's legitimacy. The text we're looking at, II Samuel 19:40-21:6, isn't just a historical account; it's a carefully crafted narrative designed to explore themes of kingship, justice, and the covenant relationship between God, David, and Israel.

The literary context is also crucial. The preceding chapters detail the tragic events of the rebellion, culminating in Absalom's death, which deeply wounds David. This section, therefore, deals with the king's return and the subsequent consolidation of his power. It's a narrative that grapples with the consequences of past actions—both David's and Saul's—and lays the groundwork for future events. The inclusion of the famine and the Gibeonite incident, for example, directly links the present political instability to past transgressions, demonstrating a theological understanding of history where divine justice intervenes even generations later. This is a hallmark of biblical historiography, where events are not random but are interpreted through the lens of covenant and divine retribution or reward. Understanding this backdrop—the psychological toll on David, the political fragility of his kingdom, and the overarching theological framework—is essential for appreciating the nuances of these verses.

Text Snapshot

Here's a look at some of the key moments within this passage, capturing the transition from personal grief to political reconciliation and the re-establishment of order:

“My son Absalom! O my son, my son Absalom! If only I had died instead of you! O Absalom, my son, my son!” (II Samuel 19:41)

Joab came to the king in his quarters and said, “Today you have humiliated all your followers, who this day saved your life, and the lives of your sons and daughters, and the lives of your wives and concubines, by showing love for those who hate you and hate for those who love you. For you have made clear today that the officers and servicemen mean nothing to you. I am sure that if Absalom were alive today and the rest of us dead, you would have preferred it. Now arise, come out and placate your followers! For I swear by GOD that if you do not come out, not a single man will remain with you overnight; and that would be a greater disaster for you than any disaster that has befallen you from your youth until now.” (II Samuel 19:5-7)

Shimei son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurim, hurried down with Judah’s contingent to meet King David, accompanied by a thousand Benjaminites. And Ziba, the servant of the House of Saul, together with his fifteen sons and twenty slaves, rushed down to the Jordan ahead of the king while the crossing was being made, to escort the king’s family over, and to do whatever he wished. Shimei son of Gera flung himself before the king as he was about to cross the Jordan. He said to the king, “Let not my lord hold me guilty, and do not remember the wrong your servant committed on the day my lord the king left Jerusalem; let Your Majesty give it no thought. For your servant knows that he has sinned; so here I have come down today, the first of all the House of Joseph, to meet my lord the king.” Thereupon Abishai son of Zeruiah spoke up, “Shouldn’t Shimei be put to death for that—insulting GOD’s anointed?” But David said, “What has this to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah, that you should cross me today? Should even a single Israelite be put to death today? Don’t I know that today I am again king over Israel?” Then the king said to Shimei, “You shall not die”; and the king gave him his oath. (II Samuel 19:17-23)

Then Israel’s entire contingent came to the king—and said to the king, “Why did our kindred, Judah’s contingent, steal you away and escort the king and his family across the Jordan, along with all David’s men?” Judah’s side replied to Israel’s side, “Because the king is our relative! Why should this upset you? Have we consumed anything that belongs to the king? Has he given us any gifts?” But Israel’s side answered Judah’s side, “We have ten shares in the king, and in David, too, we have more than you. Why then have you slighted us? Were we not the first to propose that our king be brought back?” However, Judah’s side prevailed over Israel’s side. A scoundrel named Sheba son of Bichri, a Benjaminite, happened to be there. He sounded the horn and proclaimed: “We have no portion in David, No share in Jesse’s son! Back to your homes, O Israel!” (II Samuel 19:41-43)

David said to Amasa, “Call up Judah’s force to my standard, and report here three days from now.” Amasa went to call up Judah, but he took longer than the time set for him. And David said to Abishai, “Now Sheba son of Bichri will cause us more trouble than Absalom. So take your lord’s servants and pursue him, before he finds fortified towns and eludes us.” (II Samuel 20:4-5)

Joab said to Amasa, “How are you, brother?” and with his right hand Joab took hold of Amasa’s beard as if to kiss him. Amasa was not on his guard against the sword in Joab’s [left] hand, and [Joab] drove it into his belly so that his entrails poured out on the ground and he died; he did not need to strike him a second time. (II Samuel 20:9-10)

David inquired of GOD, and GOD replied, “It is because of the bloodguilt of Saul and [his] house, for he put some Gibeonites to death.” (II Samuel 21:1)

Close Reading

This section, spanning David's return from exile to the initial aftermath of Absalom's rebellion and the unsettling prelude to a famine, is a masterclass in biblical narrative technique. It weaves together personal tragedy, political maneuvering, and divine justice in a way that challenges simplistic interpretations.

Insight 1: The Paradox of David's Grief and Governance

The passage opens with David's overwhelming, almost debilitating grief over Absalom, a stark contrast to the kingly demeanor expected of him. This personal anguish is immediately juxtaposed with the political realities he faces.

“My son Absalom! O my son, my son Absalom! If only I had died instead of you! O Absalom, my son, my son!” (II Samuel 19:41)

This raw outpouring of emotion, repeated and amplified, suggests a father's love that transcends political expediency. However, it’s Joab who articulates the immediate consequence of this private sorrow on his public role:

“Today you have humiliated all your followers, who this day saved your life, and the lives of your sons and daughters, and the lives of your wives and concubines, by showing love for those who hate you and hate for those who love you. For you have made clear today that the officers and servicemen mean nothing to you. I am sure that if Absalom were alive today and the rest of us dead, you would have preferred it.” (II Samuel 19:5-7)

Joab’s forceful rebuke highlights a critical tension: David’s personal feelings are directly undermining his capacity to govern. His grief, while perhaps understandable on a human level, is presented as detrimental to the very people who secured his victory. This isn't just about a king being sad; it's about how the king's emotional state impacts the stability and loyalty of his kingdom. The narrative doesn't condemn David's grief outright, but it immediately frames it within the context of his responsibility. The subsequent verses show David being compelled to act, to "arise and placate your followers," demonstrating that even the most profound personal sorrow must eventually yield to the demands of leadership. The effect is to portray David not as a flawless hero, but as a complex figure torn between his heart and his crown, a humanity that makes his reign all the more compelling and, at times, troubling.

Insight 2: The Fragility of Reconciliation and the Lingering Power of Division

The return of David is not met with universal acclaim, but with significant tribal and political friction, revealing the deep fissures left by the rebellion. The passage vividly illustrates the tension between the need for national unity and the persistent realities of factionalism.

“Now the Israelites had fled to their homes. All the people throughout the tribes of Israel were arguing: Some said, ‘The king saved us from the hands of our enemies, and he delivered us from the hands of the Philistines; and just now he had to flee the country because of Absalom. But Absalom, whom we anointed over us, has died in battle; why then do you sit idle instead of escorting the king back?’” (II Samuel 19:41)

This internal debate among the Israelites underscores a vital point: David's return is not a simple homecoming but a negotiated reintegration. The Judahites, David's own tribe, take the initiative in bringing him back, which sparks resentment from the other Israelite tribes:

“Then Israel’s entire contingent came to the king—and said to the king, ‘Why did our kindred, Judah’s contingent, steal you away and escort the king and his family across the Jordan, along with all David’s men?’ Judah’s side replied to Israel’s side, ‘Because the king is our relative! Why should this upset you? Have we consumed anything that belongs to the king? Has he given us any gifts?’ But Israel’s side answered Judah’s side, ‘We have ten shares in the king, and in David, too, we have more than you. Why then have you slighted us? Were we not the first to propose that our king be brought back?’” (II Samuel 19:41-43)

The argument over who has "ten shares in the king" and who was "the first to propose that our king be brought back" is not merely a dispute over protocol; it's a contest for influence and a statement of tribal identity. The narrative clearly shows Judah prevailing, but this victory is immediately overshadowed by the emergence of Sheba son of Bichri, who capitalizes on this discontent to sow further rebellion:

“A scoundrel named Sheba son of Bichri, a Benjaminite, happened to be there. He sounded the horn and proclaimed: ‘We have no portion in David, No share in Jesse’s son! Back to your homes, O Israel!’” (II Samuel 19:43)

This highlights how quickly simmering resentments can escalate into open defiance. David's attempt to consolidate power by appointing Amasa, Joab’s rival, further complicates the political landscape, as seen in the swift and brutal elimination of Amasa by Joab, a chilling demonstration of the underlying power struggles:

Joab said to Amasa, “How are you, brother?” and with his right hand Joab took hold of Amasa’s beard as if to kiss him. Amasa was not on his guard against the sword in Joab’s [left] hand, and [Joab] drove it into his belly so that his entrails poured out on the ground and he died; he did not need to strike him a second time. (II Samuel 20:9-10)

This act of violence, occurring on the king's watch and in pursuit of a rebel, reveals that while David has returned to Jerusalem, the peace is fragile and his authority is maintained through a volatile mix of politics and brute force. The narrative is a stark reminder that reconciliation is a process, not an event, and that underlying divisions can easily erupt into new conflicts.

Insight 3: The Intertwined Nature of Sin, Justice, and Divine Will

The latter part of the passage introduces a famine and its divinely ordained cause: the bloodguilt of Saul. This shifts the focus from David's immediate political challenges to a deeper theological reckoning, illustrating how past sins have present consequences, and how justice, when enacted, can be a complex and even painful process.

David inquired of GOD, and GOD replied, “It is because of the bloodguilt of Saul and [his] house, for he put some Gibeonites to death.” (II Samuel 21:1)

This divine revelation frames the famine not as a random natural disaster but as a direct consequence of Saul's violation of an ancient treaty with the Gibeonites, a non-Israelite remnant. The Gibeonites, seeking redress, demand a severe form of justice:

“The man who massacred us and planned to exterminate us, so that we should not survive in all the territory of Israel—let seven of his male issue be handed over to us, and we will impale them before GOD in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of GOD.” (II Samuel 21:5-6)

The king's response is noteworthy:

The king replied, “I will do so.” (II Samuel 21:6)

David agrees to hand over seven of Saul's descendants, emphasizing that this is a matter of fulfilling an oath and appeasing divine justice. The text carefully distinguishes between those who will be sacrificed and those who are protected:

The king spared Mephibosheth son of Jonathan son of Saul, because of the oath before GOD between the two, between David and Jonathan son of Saul. Instead, the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons that Rizpah daughter of Aiah bore to Saul, and the five sons that Merab daughter of Saul bore to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite, and he handed them over to the Gibeonites. They impaled them on the mountain before GOD; all seven of them perished at the same time. (II Samuel 21:7-9)

This act of justice, though brutal, is presented as necessary for the land to be blessed. The prolonged vigil of Rizpah, Saul's concubine, over the bodies of her sons and grandsons, adds a poignant human element to this stark act of retribution. Her grief and steadfastness in protecting the executed from scavengers—a profound act of mourning and a plea for proper burial—moves David. This leads to the final act of atonement: the retrieval and proper burial of Saul and Jonathan's bones, a symbolic cleansing and restoration of honor. The narrative thus demonstrates a complex understanding of justice, where personal sin—Saul's actions—leads to national suffering, and a communal act of atonement, sanctioned by God, is required for healing. It’s a powerful illustration of how the covenantal relationship entails collective responsibility and the enduring impact of past actions on the present.

Two Angles

The interpretation of David's actions, particularly his seemingly lenient treatment of Shimei and his handling of the Gibeonite crisis, has been a subject of much debate among commentators. Let's look at how two distinct approaches, represented by the Abarbanel and the Steinsaltz, engage with these complex events.

Angle 1: The Abarbanel - Pragmatic Statecraft and Covenantal Fulfillment

Don Isaac Abarbanel, a prominent medieval Jewish philosopher and commentator, often approaches biblical texts with a keen eye for the political and practical realities of leadership. In his commentary on II Samuel 19:40, where David blesses Barzillai before crossing the Jordan, Abarbanel emphasizes the king's strategic wisdom and his adherence to covenantal obligations.

Abarbanel sees David's actions not merely as expressions of personal sentiment but as calculated moves to consolidate his reign and maintain national stability. Regarding the parting with Barzillai, who had provided crucial support during David's flight, Abarbanel understands David's kiss and blessing as a public acknowledgment of loyalty and a reinforcement of the king's gratitude. This is essential for demonstrating to all the tribes that those who stood by him will be honored. Furthermore, Abarbanel would likely interpret David's oath to Shimei (19:23) not as a sign of weakness, but as a deliberate act of statesmanship aimed at preventing further immediate unrest. By promising not to kill Shimei, David neutralizes a potential provocateur within Benjamin, a tribe that had sided with Absalom and would later be swayed by Sheba. For Abarbanel, David's primary concern is the restoration of his kingdom, and this requires prioritizing order and unity, even if it means temporarily overlooking past transgressions by individuals.

When it comes to the famine and the Gibeonites, Abarbanel would likely frame David's actions as a necessary fulfillment of divine will and covenantal justice. The divine oracle clearly states the cause of the famine, and David, as the divinely appointed king, is obligated to rectify the situation. Abarbanel would argue that David's agreement to hand over Saul's descendants is a testament to his understanding of the gravity of Saul's sin and the need for atonement. He would point to the specific wording, "impale them before God," as indicating a ritualistic act of cleansing for the land itself. The sparing of Mephibosheth, Abarbanel would explain, is not a contradiction but a demonstration of David's commitment to his oath to Jonathan, showcasing his ability to balance different obligations. For Abarbanel, David is navigating a complex web of political necessity and divine commandment, making difficult decisions to secure the well-being of his people and uphold the covenant. The emphasis is on David's ability to govern effectively by adhering to both human reason and divine law, even when they lead to seemingly harsh outcomes.

Angle 2: Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz - The Weight of Leadership and the Nuances of Mercy

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, a prolific modern commentator, often delves into the psychological and ethical dimensions of biblical figures, emphasizing their humanity and the profound challenges they face. His approach to this passage would likely focus on the emotional and moral complexities of David's leadership.

Steinsaltz views David's initial grief over Absalom (19:41) with empathy, recognizing the deep paternal bond. However, he would immediately pivot to Joab's intervention as a crucial lesson in the burden of leadership. Joab’s bluntness, from Steinsaltz's perspective, forces David to confront the disconnect between his personal feelings and his public responsibilities. David's weeping, while a genuine expression of sorrow, could paralyze his kingdom. Therefore, Steinsaltz would see David's subsequent actions, like rising and sitting in the gateway, as a conscious effort to compartmentalize his grief and re-engage with his role as king. The king's decision to spare Shimei, in Steinsaltz's view, would be presented as a profound act of restraint and political wisdom, but also as a moral struggle. David understands the insult and the potential threat Shimei represents, as voiced by Abishai. Yet, David declares, "Don't I know that today I am again king over Israel?" This statement, for Steinsaltz, signifies a king who has regained his authority and, with it, the capacity for mercy. It's not about forgetting the insult, but about choosing to rise above petty vengeance for the sake of national reconciliation. David is making a statement: his kingship is now secure enough to absorb such affronts.

Regarding the famine and the Gibeonites, Steinsaltz would likely focus on the ethical quandaries. He would highlight David's direct inquiry of God as a testament to his reliance on divine guidance, even in matters of justice. However, the demand for the lives of Saul's descendants would be presented as a deeply troubling aspect of the narrative. Steinsaltz might explore the concept of inherited guilt and collective responsibility, but would also emphasize the moral weight of David's decision. The king's sparing of Mephibosheth, based on the oath to Jonathan, would be seen as a crucial ethical anchor, demonstrating that even in the face of divine command for retribution, personal commitments and oaths hold significant weight. Steinsaltz would likely draw attention to Rizpah's vigil as a powerful example of maternal devotion and a silent protest that ultimately prompts a deeper act of atonement. The narrative, through Steinsaltz's lens, becomes a study in the human capacity for both deep emotion and difficult ethical choices, where leadership demands a delicate balance between compassion, justice, and the often-uncomfortable demands of divine will.

Practice Implication

The narrative of David’s return and the subsequent events, particularly the conflict between Judah and Israel and the emergence of Sheba son of Bichri, offers a potent lesson for anyone in a leadership position, whether in a family, a community, or a professional setting. It’s about the dangers of perceived favoritism and the critical need for inclusive communication.

Consider a scenario in a workplace where a major organizational change has just occurred, perhaps a restructuring or a merger. The leadership team, having navigated the immediate crisis and settled into the new structure, needs to rebuild team cohesion and morale. The passage from II Samuel offers a cautionary tale. If the leadership team, consciously or unconsciously, shows preferential treatment to one department or group over others during the reintegration process, it can sow seeds of resentment and division. For example, if the "Judahites" (the department that was perhaps more aligned with the new structure or had a closer relationship with key decision-makers) are seen to be the primary recipients of new opportunities, resources, or public praise during the transition, the "Israelites" (other departments or groups) might feel marginalized and overlooked.

This mirrors the argument in II Samuel 19:41-43, where the Judahites are seen as having "stolen" the king away, leading to the Israelite complaint of being slighted and having "ten shares in the king" that were being ignored. The implication for leadership is clear: it's not enough to simply bring everyone back under the same roof. The process of reunification requires active, intentional effort to ensure that all parties feel valued, heard, and equally integrated into the new reality. This means leadership must:

1. Communicate Inclusively: When addressing the team about the new structure and future direction, leadership should avoid language that implicitly favors one group over another. Instead of saying, "We're excited to see the Judah team lead the way in this new phase," a more inclusive approach would be, "We are thrilled to see all teams contribute to our collective success in this new phase, leveraging the unique strengths of each department."
2. Distribute Opportunities and Recognition Fairly: Just as Judah's side defended their actions by asking, "Have we consumed anything that belongs to the king? Has he given us any gifts?" (implying they hadn't inappropriately benefited), leadership must ensure that recognition and opportunities are distributed equitably. This doesn't mean a forced, artificial equality, but a transparent process where merit and contribution are recognized across the board, preventing the perception that certain groups are inherently favored.
3. Proactively Address Grievances: The emergence of Sheba son of Bichri highlights how unresolved grievances can be exploited. If a group feels alienated, it's crucial for leadership to create channels for them to voice their concerns and to address those concerns with genuine intent. Ignoring simmering discontent is far more dangerous than actively listening and problem-solving.

In essence, David’s experience teaches that true leadership after a period of division involves more than just re-establishing authority; it demands a conscious and sustained effort to foster a sense of shared purpose and belonging among all members of the community, preventing the seeds of future rebellion from taking root.

Chevruta Mini

To really dig into the ethical tightrope David walks here, let's consider two challenging trade-offs that emerge from these passages:

Trade-off 1: Immediate Stability vs. Long-Term Justice

David’s decision to spare Shimei, despite his public cursing and insult to God’s anointed, is a prime example of this tension. On one hand, Shimei, a Benjaminite, represents a significant faction that had been against David. Executing him immediately could ignite further tribal conflict, potentially leading to another rebellion or civil war, especially given the still-fragile state of David's rule. This prioritizes immediate national stability. On the other hand, Shimei’s actions were a severe transgression, an affront to God’s chosen king, and David’s own people, like Abishai, are appalled by the leniency. Allowing him to live unchecked could be seen as undermining the very concept of divine justice and the sanctity of kingship, setting a precedent that such insults can go unpunished.

This raises the question: When is it more important for a leader to ensure immediate peace and unity, even if it means overlooking a past injustice, versus upholding a principle of justice, even if it risks further conflict and instability?

Trade-off 2: Personal Oaths vs. Divine Mandates

The Gibeonite incident presents a stark choice between David’s personal oath to Jonathan (sparing Mephibosheth) and a clear divine directive to atone for past sins through retribution. God explicitly states the famine is due to Saul’s bloodguilt, and the Gibeonites demand seven of Saul’s male descendants. David agrees, but then spares Mephibosheth because of his oath to Jonathan. He then selects other male descendants, including Saul's grandsons through his daughters, to be handed over. This highlights a complex negotiation between human commitments and divine will. Is it permissible to circumvent a divine mandate, even if it's to uphold a deeply personal and righteous oath? Or does the divine command override all human agreements, however sacred?

This leads to the question: How does a leader navigate a situation where fulfilling a solemn, personal oath appears to contradict a direct divine command or a clear imperative for communal atonement and healing?