_THE RESTORATION._
2 SAMUEL xix. 5-30.
To rouse one's self from the prostration of grief, and grapple anew
with the cares of life, is hard indeed. Among the poorer classes of
society, it is hardly possible to let grief have its swing; amid
suppressed and struggling emotions the poor man must return to his
daily toil. The warrior, too, in the heat of conflict has hardly
time to drop a tear over the tomb of his comrade or his brother.
But where leisure is possible, the bereaved heart does crave a time
of silence and solitude; and it seems reasonable, in order that
its fever may subside a little, before the burden of daily work is
resumed. It was somewhat hard upon David, then, that his grief could
not get a single evening to flow undisturbed. A rough voice called
him to rouse himself, and speak comfortably to his people, otherwise
they would disband before morning, and all that he had gained would
be lost to him again. In the main, Joab was no doubt right; but in
his manner there was a sad lack of consideration for the feelings
of the king. He might have remembered that, though he had gained
a battle David had lost a son, and that, too, under circumstances
peculiarly heart-breaking. Faithful in the main and shrewd as Joab
was, he was no doubt a useful officer; but his harshness and want
of feeling went far to neutralise the benefit of his services. It
ought surely to be one of the benefits of civilisation and culture
that, where painful duties have to be done, they should be done with
much consideration and tenderness. For the real business of life
is not so much to get right things done in any way, as to diffuse
a right spirit among men, and get them to do things well. Men of
enlightened goodness will always aim at purifying the springs of
conduct, at increasing virtue, and deepening faith and holiness. The
call to the royal bridegroom in the forty-fifth Psalm is to "gird
his sword on his thigh, and ride forth prosperously, _because of
truth, and meekness, and righteousness_." To increase these three
things is to increase the true wealth of nations and advance the true
prosperity of kingdoms. In his eagerness to get a certain thing done,
Joab showed little or no regard for those higher interests to which
outward acts should ever be subordinate.
But David felt the call of duty--"He arose and sat in the gate. And
they told unto all the people saying, Behold, the king doth sit in
the gate. And all the people came before the king: for Israel had
fled every man to his tent." And very touching it must have been to
look on the sad, pale, wasted face of the king, and mark his humble,
chastened bearing, and yet to receive from him words of winning
kindness that showed him still caring for them and loving them, as a
shepherd among his sheep; in no wise exasperated by the insurrection,
not breathing forth threatenings and slaughter on those who had taken
part against him; but concerned as ever for the welfare of the whole
kingdom, and praying for Jerusalem, for his brethren and companions'
sakes, "Peace be within thee."
It was now open to him to follow either of two courses: either
to march to Jerusalem at the head of his victorious army, take
military possession of the capital, and deal with the remains of the
insurrection in the stern fashion common among kings; or to wait
till he should be invited back to the throne from which he had been
driven, and then magnanimously proclaim an amnesty to all the rebels.
We are not surprised that he preferred the latter alternative. It is
more agreeable to any man to be offered what is justly due to him
by those who have deprived him of it than to have to claim it as
his right. It was far more like him to return in peace than in that
vengeful spirit that must have hecatombs of rebels slain to satisfy
it. The people knew that David was in no bloodthirsty mood. And it
was natural for him to expect that an advance would be made to him,
after the frightful wrong which he had suffered from the people. He
was therefore in no haste to leave his quarters at Mahanaim.
The movement that he looked for did take place, but it did not
originate with those who might have been expected to take the lead. It
was among the ten tribes of Israel that the proposal to bring him back
was first discussed, and his own tribe, the tribe of Judah, held back
after the rest were astir. He was much chagrined at this backwardness
on the part of Judah. It was hard that his own tribe should be the last
to stir, that those who might have been expected to head the movement
should lag behind. But in this David was only experiencing the same
thing as the Son of David a thousand years after, when the people of
Nazareth, His own city, not only refused to listen to Him, but were
about to hurl Him over the edge of a precipice, So important, however,
did he see it to be for the general welfare that Judah should share the
movement, that he sent Zadok and Abiathar the priests to stir them up
to their duty. He would not have taken this step but for his jealousy
for the honour of Judah; it was the fact that the movement was now
going on in some places and not in all that induced him to interfere.
He dreaded disunion in any case, especially a disunion between Judah
and Israel. For the jealousy between these two sections of the people
that afterwards broke the kingdom into two under Jeroboam was now
beginning to show itself, and, indeed, led soon after to the revolt of
Sheba.
Another step was taken by David, of very doubtful expediency,
in order to secure the more cordial support of the rebels. He
superseded Joab, and gave the command of his army to Amasa, who had
been general of the rebels. In more ways than one this was a strong
measure. To supersede Joab was to make for himself a very powerful
enemy, to rouse a man whose passions, when thoroughly excited, were
capable of any crime. But on the other hand, David could not but be
highly offended with Joab for his conduct to Absalom, and he must
have looked on him as a very unsuitable coadjutor to himself in
that policy of clemency that he had determined to pursue. This was
significantly brought out by the appointment of Amasa in room of
Joab. Both were David's nephews, and both were of the tribe of Judah;
but Amasa had been at the head of the insurgents, and therefore in
close alliance with the insurgents of Judah. Most probably the reason
why the men of Judah hung back was that they were afraid lest, if
David were restored to Jerusalem, he would make an example of them;
for it was at Hebron, in the tribe of Judah, that Absalom had been
first proclaimed; and the people of Jerusalem who had favoured him
were mostly of that tribe. But when it became known that the leader
of the rebel forces was not only not to be punished, but actually
promoted to the highest office in the king's service, all fears of
that sort were completely scattered. It was an act of wonderful
clemency. It was such a contrast to the usual treatment of rebels!
But this king was not like other kings; he gave gifts even to the
rebellious. There was no limit to his generosity. Where sin abounded
grace did much more abound. Accordingly a new sense of the goodness
and generosity of their ill-treated but noble king took possession
of the people. "He bowed the heart of 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." From the extreme of backwardness they
started to the extreme of forwardness; the last to speak for David,
they were the first to act for him; and such was their vehemence in
his cause that the evil of national disunion which David dreaded from
their indifference actually sprang from their over-impetuous zeal.
Thus at length David bade farewell to Mahanaim, and began his journey
to Jerusalem. His route in returning was the reverse of that followed
in his flight. First he descends the eastern bank of the Jordan as far
as opposite Gilgal; then he strikes up through the wilderness the steep
ascent to Jerusalem. At Gilgal several events of interest took place.
The first of these was the meeting with the representatives of Judah,
who came to conduct the king over Jordan, and to offer him their
congratulations and loyal assurances. This step was taken by the
men of Judah alone, and without consultation or co-operation with
the other tribes. A ferry-boat to convey the king's household over
the river, and whatever else might be required to make the passage
comfortable, these men of Judah provided. Some have blamed the king
for accepting these attentions from Judah, instead of inviting the
attendance of all the tribes. But surely, as the king had to pass the
Jordan, and found the means of transit provided for him, he was right
to accept what was offered. Nevertheless, this act of Judah and its
acceptance by David gave serious offence, as we shall presently see,
to the other tribes.
Neither Judah nor Israel comes out well in this little incident.
We get an instructive glimpse of the hot-headedness of the tribes,
and the childishness of their quarrels. It is members of the same
nation a thousand years afterwards that on the very eve of the
Crucifixion we see disputing among themselves which of them should
be the greatest. Men never appear in a dignified attitude when they
are contending that on some occasion or other they have been treated
with too little consideration. And yet how many of the quarrels of
the world, both public and private, have arisen from this, that some
one did not receive the attention which he deserved! Pride lies at
the bottom of it all. And quarrels of this kind will sometimes, nay
often, be found even among men calling themselves the followers of
Christ. If the blessed Lord Himself had acted on this principle,
what a different life He would have led! If He had taken offence
at every want of etiquette, at every want of the honour due to the
Son of God, when would our redemption ever have been accomplished?
Was His mother treated with due consideration when forced into the
stable, because there was no room for her in the inn? Was Jesus
Himself treated with due honour when the people of Nazareth took Him
to the brow of the hill, or when the foxes had holes, and the birds
of the air had nests, but the Son of Man had not where to lay His
head? What if He had resented the denial of Peter, the treachery of
Judas, and the forsaking of Him by all the apostles? How admirable
was the humility that made Himself of no reputation, so that when
He was reviled He reviled not again, when He suffered He threatened
not, but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously! Yet how
utterly opposite is the bearing of many, who are ever ready to take
offence if anything is omitted to which they have a claim--standing
upon their rights, claiming precedence over this one and the other,
maintaining that it would never do to allow themselves to be trampled
on, thinking it spirited to contend for their honours! It is because
this tendency is so deeply seated in human nature that you need to be
so watchful against it. It breaks out at the most unseasonable times.
Could any time have been more unsuitable for it on the part of the
men of Israel and Judah than when the king was giving them such a
memorable example of humility, pardoning every one, great and small,
that had offended him, even though their offence was as deadly as
could be conceived? Or could any time have been more unsuitable for
it on the part of the disciples of our Lord than when He was about
to surrender His very life, and submit to the most shameful form of
death that could be devised? Why do men not see that the servant is
not above his lord, nor the disciple above his master? "Is not the
heart deceitful above all things and desperately wicked"? Let him
that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
The next incident at Gilgal was the cringing entreaty of Shimei,
the Benjamite, to be pardoned the insult which he had offered the
king when he left Jerusalem. The conduct of Shimei had been such
an outrage on all decency that we wonder how he could have dared
to present himself at all before David; even though, as a sort of
screen, he was accompanied by a thousand Benjamites. His prostration
of himself on the ground before David, his confession of his sin and
abject deprecation of the king's anger, are not fitted to raise him
in our estimation; they were the fruits of a base nature that can
insult the fallen, but lick the dust off the feet of men in power. It
was not till David had made it known that his policy was to be one
of clemency that Shimei took this course; and even then he must have
a thousand Benjamites at his back before he could trust himself to
his mercy. Abishai, Joab's brother, would have had him slain; but his
proposal was rejected by David with warmth and even indignation. He
knew that his restoration was an accomplished fact, and he would not
spoil a policy of forgiveness by shedding the blood of this wicked
man. Not content with passing his word to Shimei, "he sware unto
him." But he afterwards found that he had carried clemency too far,
and in his dying charge to Solomon he had to warn him against this
dangerous enemy, and instruct him to bring down his hoar head with
blood. But this needs not to make us undervalue the singular quality
of heart which led David to show such forbearance to one utterly
unworthy. It was a strange thing in the annals of Eastern kingdoms,
where all rebellion was usually punished with the most fearful
severity. It brings to mind the gentle clemency of the great Son of
David in His dealings, a thousand years after, with another Benjamite
as he was travelling, on that very route, on the way to Damascus,
breathing out threatenings and slaughter against His disciples. Was
there ever such clemency as that which met the persecutor with the
words, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? Only in this case the
clemency accomplished its object; in Shimei's case it did not. In the
one case the persecutor became the chief of Apostles; in the other he
acted more like the evil spirit in the parable, whose last end was
worse than the first.
The next incident in the king's return was his meeting with
Mephibosheth. He came down to meet the king, "and had neither dressed
his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes from the day
the king departed unto the day when he came again in peace." Naturally,
the king's first question was an inquiry why he had not left Jerusalem
with him. And Mephibosheth's reply was simply, that he had wished to
do so, but, owing to his lameness, had not been able. And, moreover,
Ziba had slandered him to the king when he said that Mephibosheth hoped
to receive back the kingdom of his grandfather. The words of this poor
man had all the appearance of an honest narrative. The ass which he
intended to saddle for his own use was probably one of those which Ziba
took away to present to David, so that Mephibosheth was left helpless
in Jerusalem. If the narrative commends itself by its transparent
truthfulness, it shows also how utterly improbable was the story of
Ziba, that he had expectations of being made king. For he seems to have
been as feeble in mind as he was frail in body, and he undoubtedly
carried his compliments to David to a ridiculous pitch when he said,
"All my father's house were but dead men before my lord the king." Was
that a fit way to speak of his father Jonathan?
We cannot greatly admire one who would depreciate his family to
such a degree because he desired to obtain David's favour. And for
some reason David was somewhat sharp to him. No man is perfect,
and we cannot but wonder that the king who was so gentle to Shimei
should have been so sharp to Mephibosheth. "Why speakest thou any
more of thy matters? I have said, Thou and Ziba divide the land."
David appears to have been irritated at discovering his mistake in
believing Ziba, and hastily transferring Mephibosheth's property to
him. Nothing is more common than such irritation, when men discover
that through false information they have made a blunder, and gone
into some arrangement that must be undone. But why did not the king
restore all his property to Mephibosheth? Why say that he and Ziba
were to divide it? Some have supposed (as we remarked before) that
this meant simply that the old arrangement was to be continued--Ziba
to till the ground, and Mephibosheth to receive as his share half
the produce. But in that case Mephibosheth would not have added,
"Yea, let him take all, forasmuch as my lord the king is come again
in peace unto his own house." Our verdict would have been the very
opposite,--Let Mephibosheth take all. But David was in a difficulty.
The temper of the Benjamites was very irritable; they had never been
very cordial to David, and Ziba was an important man among them.
There he was, with his fifteen sons and twenty servants, a man not
to be hastily set aside. For once the king appeared to prefer the
rule of expediency to that of justice. To make some amends for his
wrong to Mephibosheth, and at the same time not to turn Ziba into
a foe, he resorted to this rough-and-ready method of dividing
the land between them. But surely it was an unworthy arrangement.
Mephibosheth had been loyal, and should never have lost his land. He
had been slandered by Ziba, and therefore deserved some solace for
his wrong. David restores but half his land, and has no soothing word
for the wrong he has done him. Strange that when so keenly sensible
of the wrong done to himself when he lost his kingdom unrighteously,
he should not have seen the wrong he had done to Mephibosheth. And
strange that when his whole kingdom had been restored to himself, he
should have given back but half to Jonathan's son.
The incident connected with the meeting with Barzillai we reserve for
separate consideration.
Amid the greatest possible diversity of circumstance, we are
constantly finding parallels in the life of David to that of Him
who was his Son according to the flesh. Our Lord can hardly be said
to have ever been driven from His kingdom. The hosannahs of to-day
were indeed very speedily exchanged into the "Away with Him! away
with Him! Crucify Him! crucify Him!" of to-morrow. But what we may
remark of our Lord is rather that He has been kept out of His kingdom
than driven from it. He who came to redeem the world, and of whom
the Father said, "Yet have I set My King upon My holy hill of Zion,"
has never been suffered to exercise His sovereignty, at least in a
conspicuous manner and on a universal scale. Here is a truth that
ought to be a constant source of humiliation and sorrow to every
Christian. Are you to be content that the rightful Sovereign should
be kept in the background, and the great ruling forces of the world
should be selfishness, and mammon, and pleasure, the lust of the
flesh, and the lust of the eye, and the pride of life? Why speak ye
not of bringing the King back to His house? You say you can do so
little. But every subject of King David might have said the same. The
question is, not whether you are doing much or little, but whether
you are doing what you can. Is the exaltation of Jesus Christ to the
supreme rule of the world an object dear to you? Is it matter of
humiliation and concern to you that He does not occupy that place?
Do you humbly try to give it to Him in your own heart and life? Do
you try to give it to Him in the Church, in the State, in the world?
The supremacy of Jesus Christ must be the great rallying cry of the
members of the Christian Church, whatever their denomination. It is
a point on which surely all ought to be agreed, and agreement there
might bring about agreement in other things. Let us give our minds
and hearts to realise in our spheres that glorious plan of which we
read in the first chapter of Ephesians: "That, in the dispensation
of the fulness of time, God might gather together in one all things
in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth,
even in Him, in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being
predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things
according to the counsel of His own will, that we should be to the
praise of His glory, who first trusted in Christ."