Bible Commentaries

RIVAL COUNSELLORS

‘The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel.’

2 Samuel 17:14

Ahithophel’s advice was excellent. The success of the rebellion would be insured by striking a sudden blow and securing the king’s person. A small body of picked troops might easily have overtaken David, who was not likely to get more than twelve or fifteen miles from Jerusalem the first day.

I. Anithophel’s counsel was a masterpiece, alike of sagacity and of wickedness.—He proposed to take a select body of twelve thousand out of the troops that had already flocked to Absalom’s standard, and follow the fugitive king. That very night he would set out, and in a few hours they would overtake the king and his handful of defenders; they would destroy no life but the king’s only, and thus, by an almost bloodless revolution, they would place Absalom peacefully on the throne. The advantages of the plan were obvious. It was prompt, it seemed certain of success, and it would avoid an unpopular slaughter.

II. How plausibly Hushai reasons; he insists much upon it, that David was a great soldier, a man of great conduct, courage, and experience; all knew and owned this, even Absalom himself: Thy father is a man of war, a mighty man, and not so weary and weak-handed as Ahithophel imagines. His retiring from Jerusalem must be imputed, not to his cowardice, but his prudence. His attendants, though few, were mighty men, men of celebrated bravery, and versed in all the arts of war. They were all exasperated against Absalom, were chafed in their minds and would fight with the utmost fury; so that with their courage and their rage there would be no standing before them. Thus does he represent them as formidable as Ahithophel had made them despicable. He suggests that probably David and some of his men would lie in ambush, and fall upon Absalom’s soldiers before they were aware, and the defeat, though but of a small party, would dispirit all the rest. First, He advises that all Israel should be gathered together, his taking it for granted that they were all for him, and giving him an opportunity to see them all together under his command would gratify him as much as anything. Secondly, He advises that Absalom go to battle in his own person, as if he looked upon him to be a better soldier than Ahithophel, more fit to give command and have the honour of the victory, insinuating that Ahithophel had put a slight upon him in offering to go without him. He counselled that which seemed to secure success without running any hazard. For if they could raise such vast numbers as they promised themselves, wherever they found him, they should not fail to crush him.

III. The pretences were fairer, though the grounds were unsound.—First, to sweeten his opposition, he yields the praise of wisdom to his adversary in all other counsels, that he may have leave to deny it in this; then he suggests certain apparent truths concerning David’s valour and skill, to give countenance to the inferences of his improbabilities: lastly, he cunningly feeds the proud humour of Absalom in magnifying the power and extent of his commands, and ends in the glorious boast of his fore-promised victory. As it is with faces, so with counsel, that is fair that pleaseth. The counsel of Hushai pleased better than that of Ahithophel, and so it was preferred. Absalom’s overweening vanity becomes the means of defeating the scheme and laying the foundation of Absalom’s ruin.

Illustrations

(1) ‘Hushai might have been a useful guide, but Absalom is bent on evil, and Ahithophel helps him in his wickedness. Hushai only seeks to defeat the evil counsel of the latter. This he attempts for David’s sake as well as Absalom’s. Absalom could, if he had been true, have had a most valuable counsellor in Hushai, but, under the circumstances, all Hushai can do is to endeavour to help David, or to give him time to escape, by counselling delay on the part of Absalom.’

(2) ‘“The Lord had ordained,” and Absalom forgot it. He left out the essential factor in the problem. Let me be more mindful. It is the secret of humbleness to remember that God’s plan and purpose are over all. Am I anxious about the development of my own inner life? Am I eager to render some service for Christ’s sake and Christ’s glory in the Church and in the world? It is well that it should be so. But I shall be utterly destitute of prosperity and progress, if God is not inspiring my speech and directing my labour. And it is the secret of restfulness to live in the knowledge that the King of kings pursues His own royal way. I torment myself about my growth in grace. I am sorely cast down because my endeavours on behalf of others meet with meagre success. But why should I be so careful and troubled? There is One Who has linked Himself with me, to perfect my life and to gather fruitage and vintage from what I say and do. “Ask ye who is this Same? Christ Jesus is His name.” Surely it is folly and sin to despair. But it is the secret of misery and ruin to forget that the Lord reigneth. I go down to death when I neglect His presence, and when I run counter to His law and love.’

A MODEL FOR OLD MEN

‘Barzillai the Gileadite.’

2 Samuel 17:27 (cf. 2 Samuel 19:31-40)

See in Barzillai a model for the aged. The whole scene is one of the most touching in sacred writ, and the venerable man stands out before us with vivid lifelike distinctness, as one of the most interesting characters in this thrilling history.… We feel as if we knew him thoroughly and loved him dearly. His old age was beautiful exceedingly. As the basis of a discourse specially addressed to those advanced in life, Barzillai’s case may be profitably made use of. The following points could be pressed:—

I. His sense of the nearness of death.—‘How long have I to live?… I am this day fourscore years old.’ To him the thought of death seemed to be neither unfamiliar nor unpleasant. Remembering his fourscore years he knew it could not be far distant, and he seems quite reconciled to the fact of its approach. His calmness in the prospect does not appear to have arisen from apathy or distaste for life. His sensibilities, even at his advanced age, were keen and tender. The whole tenor of the narrative goes to show that his composure in the thought and near prospect of death was the fruit of piety. This superiority to the terrors of death was quite possible even in Old Testament times, and was enjoyed by many during that period.

Christian men and women who are advanced in years should seek to copy Barzillai’s example, accustoming themselves to the thought and approach of death. How many aged ones, alas! dread to think of their end; delight to be told how hale and fresh-looking they are, how likely they are to be long-lived, as if these things could prolong their days or postpone the appointed hour! Better far, when whitening hair, dimming sight, faltering step, and trembling hand, remind such of Barzillai’s apostrophe, ‘How long have I to live?’ and turn their thoughts towards the other world.

II. His contentment under the infirmities of age.—‘Can I discern between good and evil? can thy servant taste what I eat or what I drink? Can I hear any more the voice of singing men and singing women?’ He had no wish for court life, for he was no longer fit to enjoy it. His powers were waning; he was no longer able to find enjoyment in that which ministered pleasure to others. There is no discontent in his admissions of infirmity. He cheerfully acquiesces in the common lot of the ‘outward man perishing.’ Resignation marks his words. Some aged people are fretful over their infirmities. Peevishness is a common characteristic of advanced life. Others endeavour to conceal the ravages of time, and eagerly mingle in the pleasures of youth. With one foot in the grave, they wish to appear and be considered as young as possible. Both courses are alike unbecoming in those who are in ‘the sere and yellow leaf.’ Better far when old age, with all its drawbacks and infirmities, is meekly accepted and patiently borne.

III. His unworldliness.—‘Why should the king recompense it me with such a reward?’ David’s proposal would have been greedily grasped at by many. Notwithstanding its attractiveness Barzillai courteously declined it. How beautiful to see at a time of life, when men, as a rule, cling more closely to worldly things, such an unregretful renunciation of worldly honour and prosperity! Avarice, the besetting sin of old age, seems to have had no place in Barzillai’s heart. His lavish hospitality to the king and his company (2 Samuel 17:29), and his prompt declinature of all that the king’s invitation implied, show how liberal and unselfish was this aged man. He was satisfied with what he already possessed of worldly good. How many are so? Is it not too true that in all this he is a great contrast to many old people, even professed Christians? How distressing to notice the worldliness of many aged men! On the very borders of eternity, eager to ‘lay up treasures on earth’; hoarding, pinching, saving, as if a life-time were again before them wherein to spend their gains. It is painful to see the tottering step of the grey-haired competing in the race for riches. Old age is the time for being utterly weaned from all such worldliness.

IV. His unselfishness.—‘Behold thy servant Chimham; let him go over with my lord the king; and do to him what shall seem good to thee.’ He manifested a kindly solicitude in the welfare of his son Chimham. The things in which the parent was no longer able to take delight, were not unsuited to a younger man. He had no selfish wish to prevent another from obtaining and finding pleasure in honours, privileges, and pursuits for which he himself was unfitted by reason of his age. How refreshing to see in one so aged this generous, kindly interest in behalf of one so far behind himself in the journey of life! Too often aged people, no longer able to ‘enjoy life,’ frown upon those younger than themselves who do enjoy it. Forgetful that they themselves were once young, they seek to crush the harmless desires and damp the seasonable enjoyments of youth. How vain and unbecoming! Can those who live mostly in the past, expect those who live the present and the future to feel as they feel, to think as they think, to act as they act? Barzillai had not only no objection that his son should enjoy that in which he himself could take no pleasure, but unselfishly made petition to the king on his behalf. Here we have a ‘looking not only on one’s own things, but also on the things of others’ in a spirit worthy of the New Testament. The most beautiful old age is that which is young-hearted, smiling and not frowning on the innocent pleasures of youth.

Illustrations

(1) ‘The “Young Men of the Bible” form a considerable and interesting group, and there has been no lack of sermons, preached and printed, concerning them. But the “Old Men of the Bible” are a no less interesting study; not merely those whose life-history is traced from youth through manhood to old age, but those who come upon the stage of Scripture history for the first time as old men, and of whose earlier life we know little or nothing. To this latter class belong such as Eliezer, Jethro, Eli, the nameless “old prophet in Bethel” (1 Kings 13), Zacharias, Simeon, Mnason. Not the least remarkable of his class is the “very aged man” Barzillai, the wealthy sheep-master of Rogelim in Gilead. Scripture notices concerning him take us back to the “troublous time” in the reign of King David.’

(2) ‘Barzillai never dreamed of being paid for what he did to David, “The people are hungry, and weary, and thirsty in the wilderness,” was the only consideration which prompted the deed. True sympathy needs only the sight of misery and distress, activity instantaneously will follow. Thank Heaven, there is a large and noble army of self-sacrificing men and women battling bravely every day with the enemy in the courts and alleys of our cities and large towns, who have not the remotest idea of having their names trumpeted before men, neither have they ever dreamed of being invited to a king’s table! They do it from love to the great King.’