Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible
2 Samuel 17:24-3
The Two Opposing Armies Prepare For Battle (17:24-18:4a).
Just as Absalom had come to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 16:15), so David came to Mahanaim. Mahanaim had been the royal city of Ish-bosheth. Now it would welcome David. It would seem clear that Transjordan had not sided with Absalom. Absalom consequently crossed the Jordan at the head of his army (just as Hushai had advised) ready to meet David whose men, however, would not allow him to expose himself at the head of his army. So the battle was set, but here it was David who was receiving assistance from all around, including from Ammon. The rebellion had not taken hold in Transjordan.
Analysis.
a Then David came to Mahanaim. And Absalom passed over the Jordan, he and all the men of Israel with him (2 Samuel 17:24).
b And Absalom set Amasa over the host instead of Joab. Now Amasa was the son of a man, whose name was Ithra the Israelite, who went in to Abigal the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah, Joab's mother (2 Samuel 17:25).
c And Israel and Absalom encamped in the land of Gilead (2 Samuel 17:26).
d And it came about when David was come to Mahanaim, that Shobi the son of Nahash of Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and Machir the son of Ammiel of Lodebar, and Barzillai the Gileadite of Rogelim, brought beds, and basins, and earthen vessels, and wheat, and barley, and meal, and parched grain, and beans, and lentils, and parched pulse, and honey, and butter, and sheep, and cheese of the herd, for David, and for the people who were with him, to eat, for they said, “The people are hungry, and weary, and thirsty, in the wilderness” (2 Samuel 17:27).
c And David numbered the people who were with him, and set captains of thousands and captains of hundreds over them (2 Samuel 18:1).
b And David sent forth the people, a third part under the hand of Joab, and a third part under the hand of Abishai the son of Zeruiah, Joab's brother, and a third part under the hand of Ittai the Gittite (2 Samuel 18:2 a).
a And the king said to the people, “I will surely go forth with you myself also.” But the people said, “You shall not go forth, for if we flee away, they will not care for us; neither if half of us die, will they care for us; but you are worth ten thousand of us, therefore now it is better that you be ready to succour us out of the city.” And the king said to them, “What seems best to you I will do” (2 Samuel 18:2 a).
Note that in ‘a' Absalom is at the head of his men and will venture into battle (as advised by Hushai), while in the parallel when David attempts to go forth with his people they will not allow him to do so. We already observe the difference between the war experience of the two opposing sides. In ‘b' the leadership of the rebels is defined, and in the parallel the leadership of David's forces is. In ‘c' the rebels gather themselves together in their camp, and in the parallel David musters his own forces. Central in ‘d' is the fact that help is flocking to David at Mahanaim from every quarter.
‘ Then David came to Mahanaim. And Absalom passed over the Jordan, he and all the men of Israel with him.'
Here the description of large events is described succintly. David and his party arrived in Mahanaim where his household could be protected, to which help was flooding in, and from which his own army could now issue forth, organised and without having to worry about guarding the wagons. Mahanaim was a fortified city to the east of the Jordan, and was not far not far from the ford of the Jabbok (see 2 Samuel 2:8). It had been a refuge for Ishbosheth from the Philistines. It would now be a refuge for David from his son. Meanwhile Absalom, at the head of his army, crossed the Jordan in readiness to do battle, with the aim of doing it personally as advised by Hushai. The fact that Absalom was personally in charge is further emphasised by the parallel in the chiasmus. It was in complete contrast to David. In a civil war this factor could be important, for the whole purpose of the war was the death of the opposing royal claimant. That was why Hushai had fooled Absalom into taking a risk that he should not have taken.
‘ And Absalom set Amasa over the host instead of Joab. Now Amasa was the son of a man, whose name was Ithra the Israelite, who went in to Abigal the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah, Joab's mother.'
Meanwhile the host of Israel (in so far as it had followed Absalom) was placed under a new commander who had necessarily replaced Joab, who had continued his support for David. His name was Amasa. The description of his genealogy indicates some of the complications that genealogies could produce in ancient societies. We should note first of all that he is stated to have been the son of Yithra ‘the Israelite'. This unusual designation of someone as ‘the Israelite' is so rare from our viewpoint (we would normally expect the appellation connected with an Israelite to indicate a tribal or regional derivation, e.g. the Ephraimite, the Jezreelite), that it demands a special explanation, and the most probable explanation is that it was seen as conferring an honoured recognition on one who was not by normal appellation an Israelite. In 1 Chronicles 2:17 he is in fact called Yether the Ishmaelite. Thus ‘the Israelite' may have been a title arising from Absalom's aim (or the aim of someone earlier) to please and honour Amasa by officially re-designating his father as a true-born ‘Israelite', (which he might well have been to a certain extent, even though an Ishmaelite, if his earlier forebears had been adopted sufficiently long before into Israel, just as the mixed multitude of Exodus 12:38 were adopted as Israelites at Sinai). In fact, of course, many who were naturalised Israelites also bore an appellation (like Ishmaelite) that suggested that they were otherwise. It is, for example, probable that the forebears of Uriah the Hittite had become naturalised Israelites, and we could cite many other examples. So rather than seeing this as a copying error (which is so often all too easily assumed) we should probably see it as an indication of the way in which a special honour could be conferred. A man could in fact be both an Ishmaelite (by derivation) and an Israelite (by adoption). Calling him ‘the Israelite' might therefore have been seen as conferring on him special distinction. After all the overall term ‘the Israelites' or ‘all Israel' did undoubtedly include a miscellany of people from many backgrounds.
Then we note that ‘he went in to Abigal.' The wording may suggest forcible entry and indicate the kind of case described in Deuteronomy 22:28, in which case he might have been discreetly adopted, as an Ishmaelite, into the family into which he then married, thus becoming ‘the Israelite'. (On the other hand, ‘went in to' does indicate normal sexual intercourse in 1 Chronicles 2:21; 1 Chronicles 7:23, so that this might be reading in something that is not there). Abigal is then described as the daughter of Nahash. She is probably called Abigail in 1 Chronicles 2:17, where she appears to be the daughter of Jesse. Which then is correct? The answer is that both might be correct. Her true father may have been Nahash, and her father by adoption (when he married her widowed mother) Jesse. The same may also have been true of Zeruiah. (The fact that Nahash of Rabbah in 2 Samuel 17:27 has to be distinguished by the addition of ‘of Rabbah' serves as corroboration of the fact that the mention of a Nahash here is correct). It is a reminder that the derivations of women were not seen as having the same importance as those of men. We do not know the name of David's mother, and Zeruiah and/or Abigail may well have been his adopted half-sisters. Further speculation is groundless and unnecessary as it can lead nowhere, being merely surmise. But it does serve to demonstrate that we should be wary before we start talking about ‘errors' when the problem might simply be our lack of knowledge.
‘ And Israel and Absalom encamped in the land of Gilead.'
Having crossed the Jordan, Israel and Absalom encamped in ‘the land of Gilead'. The placing of Absalom's name after Israel may have been in order to underline the fact that Absalom was with the Israelite army, just as Hushai (and therefore YHWH) had ‘advised'. Thus YHWH's purpose was seen as going forward to its destined end.
The designation ‘Gilead' was used in so many ways that it was a term of wide meaning. It could often be seen as covering a large part, or even the whole, of Israelite Transjordan. Here, however, the intention was probably to indicate a smaller region in the north, within relative striking distance of Mahanaim.
‘ And it came about when David was come to Mahanaim, that Shobi the son of Nahash of Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and Machir the son of Ammiel of Lodebar, and Barzillai the Gileadite of Rogelim, brought beds, and basins, and earthen vessels, and wheat, and barley, and meal, and parched grain, and beans, and lentils, and parched pulse, and honey, and butter, and sheep, and cheese of the herd, for David, and for the people who were with him, to eat, for they said, “The people are hungry, and weary, and thirsty, in the wilderness.”
Meanwhile David's cause was prospering. His support included that of the royal family of Ammon, and some of the wealthiest Israelites in Transjordan. Their support would undoubtedly include men whom they would put at David's disposal. Thus Shobi, the son of Nahash of Rabbah, the capital of Ammon, brought provisions for him, almost certainly on behalf of the royal family of Ammon, while Machir, a clan leader from Lo-debar and firm Saulide (he had protected Mephibosheth), and Barzillai, another influential Israelite from Gilead, brought provisions from their respective areas. The impression intended to be given is that the whole of Transjordan were flocking to David's side, and were expressing it in practical ways. To a certain extent David was now reaping his reward for the mercy that he had shown to the house of Saul, while Shobi may well have been made vassal king by David in the place of Hanun (2 Samuel 12:26)
‘ And David numbered the people who were with him, and set captains of thousands and captains of hundreds over them.'
This was the point at which David numbered and marshalled his forces, which were now seemingly considerably larger, no doubt supplemented by men from Transjordan, and loyal subjects flocking over the Jordan. Dividing them into units of ‘thousands' and ‘hundreds', he would set over them experienced commanders and sub-commanders who would prepare them for the battle ahead. These would all be officers experienced in fighting under all conditions. He was no longer on the run, and was now ready to fight back. The situation foreseen both by Ahithophel and Hushai had come to fruition.
‘ And David sent forth the people, a third part under the hand of Joab, and a third part under the hand of Abishai the son of Zeruiah, Joab's brother, and a third part under the hand of Ittai the Gittite. And the king said to the people, “I will surely go forth with you myself also.” '
His forces were then divided up into three main sections, each commanded by an experienced general (something which Absalom could not match). The first was Joab, the second Abishai his brother, both of whom were totally committed to David and had been with him since his wilderness days, and the third was the noble Ittai the Gittite, the Philistine mercenary leader who had earlier committed himself to David (2 Samuel 15:19). It was a fearsome combination.
‘ But the people said, “You shall not go forth, for if we flee away, they will not care for us; neither if half of us die, will they care for us; but you are worth ten thousand of us, therefore now it is better that you be ready to succour us out of the city.” '
And crucially ‘the people' would not allow David to risk his life in the fighting. In view of the fact that it was a civil war the preservation of his life was rightly seen as paramount. It was for him that they were fighting. Once he was dead there would be no point in continuing the fight, for it was not nation fighting nation, but one single nation warring over the kingship. Furthermore they knew that if David was not with them they would be able to fight a normal battle, knowing that if they had to flee they would not necessarily be relentlessly sought out by those who knew that David was with them and had to be found at any cost. It would thus relieve the intensity of the battle on all fronts. And that brings out the folly of Absalom in personally leading Israel (on Hushai's, and YHWH's, ‘advice'). He was making himself the target at which all efforts would be aimed, and on which the intensest focus would be directed, simply because once he was dead the rebellion would be at an end.
Besides, as they further pointed out, they wanted David to be in the city so that he could direct any necessary operations in support of any section of his forces that might seem to require it. They had full confidence in his overall generalship, and knew that he could be depended on to make the right decisions. Absalom might still have the advantage in numbers, but he was clearly going to be outmanoeuvred on all flanks by David and his experienced generals.
‘And the king said to them, “What seems best to you I will do.”
Acknowledging his people's love and concern, David bowed to their will. In accordance with their wish he would take his stance behind the battle area, ready to intervene if and where necessary.