C. The Decline of David (chs. 11-20)

Key terms in the story of David’s downfall are send (šlḥ), lie (škb), and take (lqḥ). David sent Joab to fight the Ammonites (11:1; cf. 2Sam 10) while he stayed behind. Then he arose from his bed (mškb=“place where one lies”), espied a beautiful woman, and sent someone to inquire about her. Told that she was married (her husband was mentioned last!), David sent messengers to get (lqḥ=“take”; cf. 1Sa 8:11, 13-17) Bathsheba. He then slept (škb with her, presumably on the same bed mškb) already mentioned. Though they had intercourse right after Bathsheba’s menstrual period, when she was supposedly infertile, she sent word that she was pregnant (11:2-5; Sternberg, 198).

So David sent for the husband, whom Joab sent to the king. David asked Uriah (š'l: he would have done better to inquire of the Lord) about the war, then abruptly urged him to go home. But Uriah was as honorable as David had been dishonorable; he slept (škb) with David’s servants in the palace and later explained that he could not bring himself to lie with his wife while his comrades fought. Promising to send Uriah back on the morrow, David induced him with drink to go home, but Uriah again went out to sleep with the servants (2Sam 11:6-13). He had more integrity while drunk than David did while sober!

Having failed, David sent Uriah with his own death warrant back to Joab. That Uriah’s death would endanger other Israelite soldiers compounded this outrage. Joab finally sent word back, having instructed the messenger to neutralize any negative reaction by specifically mentioning Uriah’s death. Initially angry, David responded that tragedy is inevitable in war and that Joab should not be overly concerned (=“Let not this matter be evil in your eyes”). Now David was free to send for Bathsheba permanently. However, what David did not want to be evil in Joab’s eyes most emphatically “was evil in Yahweh’s eyes” (11:14-27).

Thus Yahweh sent Nathan to tell David a story about a rich man who had abundant livestock and a poor man who had purchased (difficult for a poor man) a single ewe. This animal was like a daughter (bat̠) to the man (a pun on Bathsheba’s name?). But this did not deter the rich man from “taking” the ewe to entertain a guest, leaving his own herds untouched. David became irate and demanded justice on hearing this, which led Nathan to accuse: “You are the man!” (12:7).

A devastating judgment oracle followed. In spite of all that Yahweh had done for David, including putting Saul’s wives into his arms (=“into his bosom” [ḥq], v.8; cf. v.3 [ḥq]), the king had done evil in Yahweh’s eyes (12:9; cf. 11:25, 27) by taking Uriah’s wife and using Ammonites, against whom David should have been fighting, to destroy him. Hence, violence would “forever” afflict David’s “house” (cf. ch. 7). Worse, Yahweh would take David’s wives, give them to someone close, and allow him to lie with them in full view (12:7-12). The only consolation was that David would retain his kingdom (cf. 7:14-15).

David’s immediate confession elicited God’s forgiveness, but Bathsheba’s child was condemned. David pleaded for the boy’s life in the hope of changing God’s mind. He fasted, secluded himself, and lay (škb) on the ground, but gave up when the child died. After comforting Bathsheba, he lay with her again. This eventuated in another child, whom David named Solomon (cf. 2Sam 5:14). But Yahweh loved the child and sent Nathan to name him Jedidiah (12:13-25).

This episode concluded when Joab urged David to join him and claim victory over the Ammonites, which David did (2Sam 12:26-31). Had David tended to business all along (cf. 11:1), judgment might have been averted.

The predicted troubles soon afflicted David’s house (2Sam 12:10-11). His son Amnon, whose love for his half-sister Tamar went unrequited, heeded a cousin’s advice and got the woman alone. Despite her protests, he raped (škb: “laid her”—the phrase is as vulgar and harsh in Hebrew as it is in English) and then cavalierly discarded her (Trible, 37-63). Absalom, Tamar’s full brother, counseled her to forget the matter, though he himself despised Amnon. David was angry but did nothing, just as Eli and Samuel failed to discipline their sons (cf. 1Sa 2:22-25, 29; 3:13; 8:1-5). David’s passivity allowed Absalom to plot against and murder Amnon two years later (after getting him drunk, as David had done to Uriah!). David’s initial fury turned to hysteria (he lay [škb] on the ground) when he was misinformed that all his sons had been murdered. Though he quickly learned the truth, he still wept bitterly. Indeed, he was so consumed with grief over Amnon, who had behaved so despicably, that he neglected Absalom until it was too late (ch. 13).

David eventually softened toward Absalom (2Sam 13:39) but still did nothing (14:1). Indeed, Absalom would have remained exiled had not Joab hired a wise woman (v.2; cf. 13:3) to fool the monarch. She said that one of her sons had killed his brother because no one separated them, a point that hardly could have been lost on David. She begged the king to prevent the family from seeking vengeance. David was willing, but when the woman got more specific he guessed that Joab had set him up. Nevertheless, he let Joab retrieve Absalom, but he himself would not receive him (vv.3-24).

Several clues suggest that the worst was yet to come. Absalom’s extraordinary looks remind us that earlier handsome men came to power (1Sa 9:2; 10:23; 16:12). Also, Absalom’s sole daughter, Tamar, was the only one of his children named, which was unusual in itself. But the name would be a constant reminder of the rape. Finally, Absalom’s restiveness led him to destroy Joab’s property to attract attention after the commander had twice refused to see him. To see his father, Absalom was willing to risk alienating the man responsible for his return (2Sam 14:25-33).

Absalom’s next moves confirm one’s suspicions. He acquired a small militia, publicly criticized state policies, and campaigned for (and won) popular support (2Sam 15:1-6). He was so confident that he lied to David about a trip to Hebron. Saying he wanted to worship there, he went instead to be proclaimed king. Ahithophel’s support indicated that he had some backing from palace personnel as well (vv.7-12).

By the time David caught on, it was too late. The king, household staff (excepting concubines), bodyguard, and a few elite forces had to flee (2Sam 15:13-18). Of course, David was not without resources. Some foreign mercenaries remained loyal; ironically, he could not count on similar loyalty from his own family (vv.19-22). David also retained considerable popular support (v.23). Most importantly, David trusted Providence. Demanding that the ark be returned to Jerusalem, he left it to God to decide whether he would see it again (vv.25-26). And he prayed that the Lord would confuse the traitor Ahithophel’s counsel (v.31).

David banked as well on his military and strategic gifts by sending his priests and their sons, as well as Hushai, to Jerusalem as spies (2Sam 15:27-29, 32-37).

As David fled, he was informed that Mephibosheth (cf. ch. 9) saw the king’s plight as opportune (16:1-4). Saul’s house still had life, something also indicated by Shimei’s accusation that David was being punished for violence against the Saulides. But was this so? In fact, David had killed those who took (or said they took) the lives of Saul or his family (cf. 1:1-16; 4:5-12), and he had refused to kill Saul when he had the chance (cf. 1Sa 24, 26). In any case, David, severely shaken by his son’s actions and resigned to God’s will, ignored the slander, though some of his retinue wanted to respond (16:5-14).

Hushai meanwhile positioned himself inside Absalom’s inner circle by insisting that his loyalty extended to the one anointed by the Lord, the people, and the men of Israel, not to one man (2Sam 16:15-19). Absalom failed to see how ironic it was for him to charge Hushai with disloyalty (v.17)!

Ahithophel’s (2Sam 15:12, 31) first advice to Absalom resulted unwittingly in the fulfillment of the oracle of judgment against David (12:11-12). The usurper king slept with his father’s concubines on the roof of the palace to publicize his irreparable break (16:20-22).

In spite of his sterling reputation (2Sam 16:23), Ahithophel’s next piece of advice was rejected for Hushai’s. Though Ahithophel’s plan was clearly superior (17:1-13), the Lord induced Absalom and his men to favor Hushai. This was an answer to David’s prayer and the triumph of his strategy (v.14; cf. 15:31, 34). The informant priests' sons then risked their lives to get word to David (17:17-22).

Ironies abound at the end of the episode. Ahithophel killed himself because his advice was rejected—had it been followed, Absalom would not have been killed (2Sam 17:23; cf. 18:9-15). Amasa, Joab’s cousin (presumably there are difficulties in this genealogy; cf. 1Ch 2:13-17), was appointed commander of Absalom’s forces so that both David and Joab had to fight kinfolk (17:24-26; McCarter, II Samuel, 391-92). Finally, David received better treatment from foreigners than from Israelites or from his own son (vv.27-29).

In contrast to the scene where David shirked military duties (2Sam 11:1) and got himself in trouble, he took charge again (18:1-2). But he was advised against this, since he was thought to be the principal target of the revolt. Almost pathetically compliant, David agreed to desist, asking only that Absalom be treated leniently (vv.3-5). This too was ironic in that David’s paternal indecision brought about the precarious situation in which he now found himself.

Though prospects had at times looked bleak, David’s forces prevailed (2Sam 18:6-8). But in the process Absalom became entangled in a tree and was helplessly exposed. The first to find Absalom heeded David’s admonition and let him be, foregoing potential wealth and fame. But David’s instructions did not faze Joab, who was perhaps still smarting from the previous altercation (14:28-31). He and his armor-bearers mercilessly slew the royal scion, foregoing an easy capture (18:9-15).

When Joab and his troops piled stones on Absalom’s corpse, erecting a victory monument, it was a tragic counterpoint to the monument that Absalom had built to preserve his memory (2Sam 18:16-18). It is ironic, too, that David’s first premonition of what had happened came on a roof (v.24; cf. 11:2). Ahimaaz, who had been so insistent on giving David the news first, hedged when he got there, making it possible for a Cushite to tell the king insensitively that Absalom was dead. Finally, was David conscious of his pun when he asked: “Is Abšālôm [=‘The (Divine) Father Is Peace’] safe [šālôm]?” (18:19-32)?

David’s reaction to Absalom’s death threw a pall over the victory, making his men ashamed rather than jubilant (2Sam 18:33-19:4; Heb. 19:1-5). Joab excoriated the king for not realizing that regaining power necessitated Absalom’s death. Further, David would lose support if he remained naïve about Absalom and unappreciative of his troops. David appeared to accede to Joab’s argument (2Sam 19:5-8).

Their fortunes reversed with Absalom’s death, the Israelites believed they had to invite David to rule again. But the king told Zadok and Abiathar to urge Judah to act before Israel, apparently because of kinship ties. In another strategic move, David replaced Joab with Amasa. Then, as Absalom had (15:6), David won over Judah and was invited to rule (19:9-15).

On the way back to Jerusalem, Shimei, who had reviled David as he fled (2Sam 16:5-14), asked forgiveness. Though Abishai protested, David forgave, arguing that his return should be a day of celebration not vengeance (19:18-23; cf. 1Sa 11:13; 26:8). Mephibosheth, whose servant had accused him of seeking political advantage (16:1-4), was also restored to favor when he accused Ziba of lying (19:24-30). Finally, David blessed Barzillai, who had helped the king before (vv.31-39; cf. 17:27; 1Sa 21, 25).

But the path of David’s return was not smooth. Israel and Judah fought over who had the superior claim to reinstall the king. Since Judah won the dispute, a certain Sheba incited Israel to rebel again (2Sam 19:40-20:2). Before David dealt with this new crisis, he attended to his concubines (cf. 15:16; 16:21-22). The king provided for them but no longer slept with them, which perhaps suggests a truncated future (20:3).

David dealt with the revolt by commanding Amasa to solicit help from Judah. Because Amasa tarried, David ordered Abishai to organize a search for Sheba. When Amasa finally caught up with the deployed forces, he was assassinated by Joab, who had accompanied Abishai (cf. 2Sam 2:16; Jdg 3:12-30). Joab used the murder to rally support for himself and ostensibly David, and resumed the chase. Once David’s forces had Sheba holed up in Abel, they besieged it and urged a wise woman to convince the townspeople to hand over the fugitive or pay dire consequences. The woman persuaded the Abelites to throw Sheba’s head over the wall! The episode ended as it began: with the trumpet blast (20:1, 4-22; cf. 14:1-3).

Though this rebellion too was squashed, since that fateful day when David stayed home (2Sam 11:1), nothing had been the same. Even in a seemingly mundane note about the cabinet, a reference to the officer in charge of forced labor is another indication that David had not lived up to the ideals set for him (20:23-26; cf. 1Sa 8:10-18; 1Ki 4:6; 5:13-18; 9:15, 22-23; 12:18).