II Samuel 16



vs. 1-4 – We ran into Ziba back in ch. 9





vs. 5-14 - The cursing of Shimei


v. 9 - Shimei’s revilings were not only painful to

            David, but also, depressing to the people

            that were with him, and a murmur among

            ranks at the king allowing such conduct to

            go unpunished.


David was in a state of great mental distress &  self-

condemnation.  He had born sorrow after sorrow since

the day, when by his own great sin, he opened the

floodgates of wickedness, and now the son whom he

dearly loved, and who might never have gone wrong,

except for David’s evil example is seeking both his crown

 and his life, and had made David’s cup of sorrow full to the

brim and running over.


It was a relief to have outward affliction to bear - vs. 10-12

and the consoling thought that the Divine chastisement

had a merciful limit.


vs. 15-19 – Hushai meets up with Absalom and plays up

            to him – Absalom never suspecting that he is a spy.



v. 21 - Counsel of Ahithophel - Absalom going into David’s

            harem was utterly abominable - it was an outrage

            which David could never pardon and this was what

            Ahithophel wanted.  This advice led Absalom on to

            a crime which made reconciliation with David




v. 22 - “a tent on top of the house” - How a man’s ways

            come home to him - it was while walking on this roof

            that David had given way to guilty passion, now it

            is the scene of his dishonor - David knew that this

            open shame was the punishment of his own secret















In II Samuel 15 and 16 we interesting comparisons of people.  Ittai,

Zadok, Abiathar and Hushai have their opposites in Ziba, Shimei

and Ahithophel.  Thus is life:

























"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.

Materials are reproduced by permission."






v. 18 – Hushai evidently laid down a great and sound principle

            as the rule of his conduct when he declared that, as for

            himself, he was prepared to serve him whom the “Lord,

            and this people, and all the men of Israel” might choose.


Had Absalom been as keen as he was ambitious, he would have seen

that this was a principle which so far could not ensure attachments

to himself, because two of the conditions were not fulfilled at the

present.  No doubt he hoped that, in some strange way, his choice

by “this people” would be supplemented by the choice of God and

all Israel.


The fact that David had been anointed by God must have been familiar

to them all.  This evidence of his right to reign was clear enough, and

no counter-deposition had come from God; and yet such is the

blindness and desperate nature of men when alienated from God, that

they meditate the destruction of a rule guaranteed from on High.