2 Samuel 14:25-33

CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES.—

2 Samuel 14:26. “He polled his head,” i.e., cut his hair. “Two hundred shekels after the king’s weight.” The king’s shekel is probably a different weight from the sacred shekel, and probably less than that. Kitto mentions reading of a lady’s hair that weighed more than four pounds; and, if two hundred shekels is not more than this, it is a possible weight. The ancients were accustomed to bestow much care on the hair.” (Erdmann.)

2 Samuel 14:27. “Three sons.” From the fact that, contrary to custom, the names of these sons are not given, and from chap, 2 Samuel 18:1 it is concluded that they died in infancy.

2 Samuel 14:30. “Set the field on fire.” Some commentators regard this act of Absalom as an expedient to bring him face to face with Joab; and others look upon it merely as an act of angry revenge.

2 Samuel 14:32. “Let me see the king’s face.” Rather, “I will see,” etc. “Being sure that if he could do that all would be gained; such was his confidence in the tender-heartedness of David.” (Wordsworth.) “The message sent by Absalom through Joab to his father contain—

1. A reproach. ‘Why am I come from Geshur?’ Why didst thou send for me if I am not permitted to appear before thee?

2. A repudiation of the indulgence shown him in the permission granted him to return home: ‘It were better for me that I were still there.’

3. A self-willed demand, ‘and now I will see the king’s face.’

4. A defiant challenge. ‘If there be iniquity in me, let him kill me.’ From the tone of his speech he does not allow that he has done wrong, but relies on the right he thinks he has against his father, who had been too indulgent to Amnon.” (Erdmann.)

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— 2 Samuel 14:25

DAVID’S RECONCILIATION TO HIS SON

I. The difference between the godly and the ungodly is manifested by the different light in which they regard their sins. This truth becomes very apparent if we compare the behaviour of Absalom at this time with that of his father after his great fall. We cannot say that the sin of the ungodly son was greater than that of his godly parent—indeed we are compelled to admit that the opposite was the case. Although no rightful excuse can be found for any wrong deed, Absalom could plead some extenuations of his crime and might even have invested it with a show of justice. But nothing can be said which can in any degree make David’s guilt look less. And it must be confessed that in later days the godly man sometimes falls into more gross sin than his ungodly brother. But the grand line of demarcation is found in the difference in their conduct in relation to it. The one acknowledges and mourns over his fault, and perhaps, like David, goes with broken bones all the rest of his days, while the other either fails to see that he has done anything wrong or else excuses it on the plea of necessity or expediency. While all the acts of David, after his great sin, are pervaded more or less by a consciousness of his own unworthiness, we find in Absalom no trace of any regret that he was guilty of his brother’s blood. On the contrary, all his subsequent actions are marked by the same unscrupulousness. The same regard for his own supposed interest and entire disregard of what he owed to other men or to God are displayed in every deed that is recorded of him, and make him a striking example of the radical difference which exists between the natural and the spiritual man even when the latter falls sadly below the moral standard we might reasonably expect him to maintain.

II. To restore a wrong-doer to favour unconditionally, is a sin against the person forgiven. The prodigal whom the father welcomed back returned with a confession upon his lips and such contrition in his heart as showed that his restoration to his old place in the home would be a blessing to himself and others. But if he had been re-instated without any acknowledgment that he had sinned, it would have been not only useless but injurious to him. If he had not felt the sinfulness of the past, he would have wandered again into the far country if a tempting prospect had been held out to him, and his last state would have doubtless been worse than the first. The elder brother might have justly complained at such an unconditional blotting out of the past, and would have rightly urged that it did harm both to the sinner and to the innocent man. This is not God’s method. With Him it is—“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive” (1 John 1:9). “Repent and be converted (turn to God) that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19). For it is only the repentant to whom God’s forgiveness can be of any use. In Absalom’s case we see the consequence of his restoration to favour without any acknowledgment of his guilt—it gave him ample opportunity to organise and complete those rebellious designs which resulted in his downfall and ruin, and was therefore not only unjust but unkind.