See ch. 9. As David began his flight he was met by Ziba with a welcome present. Ziba knew that this was a time when he could ingratiate himself with David at slight expense.

The story told by Ziba is possible, but so improbable that it is difficult to see how David could have given it credence. Mephibosheth was a cripple and had little to gain from Absalom’s revolt. Even if that revolt had proved successful, it would not have given the throne to the seed of Saul, for Absalom wanted the throne for himself. Ziba had probably invented the tale in order to secure certain concessions from David.

Ziba’s tale apparently was a base slander on his master, but David believed it and gave to Ziba the reward he sought. It was wholly unjust for the king to give away the property of Mephibosheth without hearing his side of the story, but in the stress and worry of the flight he thought only of the help Ziba offered.

 A village on the road from Jerusalem to the Jordan (see on ch. 3:16), now Râs eṭ-Ṭmîm, directly east of Mt. Scopus.

Shimei was a Benjamite. Many members of this tribe, though held under restraint when David was strong, were ever ready to turn against him when the opportunity offered. Shimei had not previously given any indication that he was disloyal to David. But as soon as adversity struck he showed his true colors. Where previously he had honored David, now he reviled and cursed him. Such a spirit is inspired by Satan, who delights to bring misery upon those who are already suffering misfortune.

 The road may have followed a narrow ravine, with Shimei on one side and David and his men on the other (see v. 9, where Abishai requested permission to “go over”). Shimei thus kept along with the fugitives, close enough to annoy them with stones, yet out of reach.

Literally, “get out,” or, “go out.” Shimei took delight in David’s misery, and in his hatred cursed the king and told him to get out of the country.

 When David desired to build the Temple the Lord told him that he would not be permitted to do so because he had “shed blood abundantly” and had “made great wars” (1 Chron. 22:8). It is true that David had engaged in wars, but they were wars against the enemies of God’s people, and for the object of establishing Israel as a strong nation in the east. The wars of David did not at all prove him to be personally a ruthless or “bloody man.” As used by Shimei, these passionate words were a baseless slander (PP 736).

 Belial means “worthlessness” or “wickedness”; a man of Belial signifies a worthless scoundrel (see on Judges 19:22). A wicked woman is called in Hebrew a daughter of Belial (1 Sam. 1:16). The word is personified in 2 Cor. 6:15. Shimei was a man of evil temper, and in these vilifications of David, was simply revealing his own evil traits.

These words explain the real reason for Shimei’s hatred and virulence. He was bitter because the crown of Israel had been taken from the house of Saul and given to the house of David. But it was the Lord, not David, who rejected Saul. Shimei’s accusations were thus actually hurled against God.

 It is true that the Lord had permitted the chain of events to take place whereby David’s kingdom was apparently falling into the hands of Absalom, but the reason was far different from that set forth by Shimei. David’s own conscience told him exactly what was responsible for his sudden reverse of fortunes. The Lord had warned the king that because of his sin against Bath-sheba and Uriah, judgments would come (ch. 12:10-12). David knew that he merited this punishment and wondered only at the kindness and mercy of God that it should have been so long delayed. But knowing both the mercy and goodness of God as well as His justice, David did not despair, but looked forward to the time when God would again intervene and restore the kingdom to him.

 See 2 Sam. 9:8; 1 Sam. 24:14. To Abishai the man who was cursing David was a creature most contemptible. He was taking a cruel advantage of David’s misfortune and ought not to be permitted to live. David still was king and need not have suffered these insults to be hurled at him.

David believed that all his sufferings were from the hand of God, and that even these reproaches from Shimei were being allowed by the Lord. He made no attempt to clear himself from Shimei’s charge, but was concerned only with the fact that he himself had done wrong. Since the present experience came, as he thought, by divine appointment, he felt that if he now attempted to interfere with Shimei’s cursing, he would be opposing the will of the Lord.

If Shimei was now cursing David because the Lord had told him to do so, who then should take him to task and ask him the reason for his course? Thus David reasoned.

David here openly accuses Absalom of seeking not only the throne but also the life of the king. That Absalom, his own flesh and blood, should thus turn against his father and seek to take his life was a matter difficult indeed to understand; but not so with the conduct of Shimei. He was of the family of Saul and could be expected to harbor a grudge against the man who had taken the crown from Saul’s house.

Few men would have had the grace to display an attitude such as David exhibited in this trying hour. It would have been much easier to tell Shimei that he had gone far enough and to order him to desist. But as far as David was concerned he was willing to accept what he believed God had decreed. He had sinned grievously and by his sin had given an opportunity to many to excuse their shortcomings. But after his repentance and deep contrition he made no effort to excuse himself or to justify the course he had taken. When rebuked by the Lord, he humbly accepted his rebuke. When judgments came upon him, he made no effort to turn them aside. He showed himself humble, generous to others, and submissive to the will of the Lord. His willingness to accept fully this trial revealed his uprightness of character and his nobility of soul.

David knew that the Lord was a God of great pity and mercy. Though suffering this abuse from one of his subjects, he took comfort in the thought that God saw and understood it all. Perhaps because of this very trial the Lord would in mercy send some special reward and blessing to take its place.

As David and his men were going along the road, Shimei went along on the hillside opposite them. This suggests that Shimei was on one side of a ravine and David on the other.

 This sentence seems to require the mention of a place at which David and his company halted. Some of the manuscripts of the Lucian edition of the LXX add, “beside the Jordan.” Josephus agrees with this reading (Antiquities vii. 9. 4). It was probably the place previously agreed upon with Hushai at which David had arranged to tarry till he had received news from him (ch. 15:28).

David’s flight from Jerusalem gave Absalom free access to the city. Things seemed to be going better for him than he had expected. His first plans probably were to make his headquarters at Hebron until the situation clarified itself. But when David evacuated Jerusalem, there was nothing to prevent his immediate occupation of the city.

 See on chs. 15:31; 16:22.

Hushai was known to be a great friend of David, and his appearance at the court of Absalom was totally unexpected. Why he too should have forsaken his friend and master appeared strange indeed. Absalom had looked for David to retain his hold on many of the people, and certainly on such a stalwart follower of his as Hushai. To have Hushai also forsake David seemed too good a fortune to be true. Absalom was both surprised and flattered, and no doubt felt more certain than ever of the success of his cause.

The words of Hushai imply that he had a higher loyalty than simply to one individual; his first loyalty was to God and his next to the people of Israel. If God had chosen Absalom to be king, then he would wish to be in his service. The double meaning in Hushai’s words, and the “if” implied in “whom the Lord, and this people, ... choose,” was lost on Absalom, who was so sure that he was the chosen one.

Hushai did not wish to be regarded as fickle or disloyal. He had been a close friend of David’s, but Hushai now made it appear that in serving Absalom, the son of David, he was still giving service to the house of David. Again the words appealed to Absalom and he accepted Hushai apparently without further question or suspicion.

 See on 1 Kings 2:17. Ahithophel was aware of the fact that the success of Absalom’s rebellion was by no means certain. He knew that after the first burst of enthusiasm a reaction would come. David’s position was far from hopeless. He had with him able generals and an experienced army. Many of the people had not yet forgotten him. If the situation went against Absalom and David should succeed in getting back his kingdom, the king might be in a mood to forgive Absalom. But there would be no conciliatory spirit toward Absalom’s chief supporters. In such a case Ahithophel would be regarded as the most guilty and thus the most worthy of severe punishment. Such a situation this wily counselor was determined to prevent at all costs. His first concern, therefore, was to draw Absalom into a position that would make the breach with his father absolute and irreconcilable. His counsel was given with satanic cunning.

Ahithophel contended that since the step being advised would prove to the people that Absalom was not going back on his rebellion, the men who were with him would give themselves completely to his cause.

 The tent was pitched on the roof of the palace where David had committed his secret sin with Bath-sheba. Nathan had predicted the public nature of the punishment of David’s secret crime (ch. 12:11, 12), and the fulfillment was in accord with his words. Because a prophet of God had made this prediction it must not be thought that God was the one responsible for this terrible crime. God’s forecasts are not necessarily His decrees. Because of David’s sin God did not exercise His power to prevent the evil consequences. In Bible figure, however, God is often described as doing that which He does not prevent (see ch. 12:11, 12; PP 739). As David had defiled the wife of another, so his bed was defiled. As he had done unto others, so others were permitted to do unto him. It may be that Ahithophel, as the grandfather of Bath-sheba, had in mind a desire to force the banished king to drink the same bitter cup he had forced others to drink.

 Ahithophel had been the counselor of David before he became the counselor of Absalom (ch. 15:12). He had been held in high esteem for his wisdom. But as he cast conscience aside, he began to resort to any device to achieve his ends. As the counselor of Absalom he was shrewd and wily, thinking only of the results to be achieved and willing to employ whatever measure he felt necessary.