2 Samuel Chapter 16
David Flees as Absalom Asserts His Reign
A. Ziba’s Deception
(2 Samuel 16:1–2)
“And when David was a little past the top of the hill, behold, Ziba the servant of Mephibosheth met him, with a couple of asses saddled, and upon them two hundred loaves of bread, and an hundred bunches of raisins, and an hundred of summer fruits, and a bottle of wine. And the king said unto Ziba, What meanest thou by these? And Ziba said, The asses be for the king’s household to ride on, and the bread and summer fruit for the young men to eat, and the wine, that such as be faint in the wilderness may drink.”
As David fled from Jerusalem because of Absalom’s rebellion, he met Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, who brought supplies to him. The text records that Ziba met David “a little past the top of the hill,” likely referring to the Mount of Olives, which David had just ascended in sorrow and humility (2 Samuel 15:30). At this crucial moment, David and those who were with him were in desperate need of food and transport. Ziba’s arrival with two saddled donkeys, two hundred loaves of bread, one hundred clusters of raisins, one hundred summer fruits, and a skin of wine appeared to be a gesture of loyalty and support.
Ziba was the servant of Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, to whom David had shown great kindness earlier, restoring Saul’s lands to him and setting him at the king’s table continually (2 Samuel 9:7–13). Ziba’s approach now seemed noble, but it was a deceptive move, designed to manipulate David’s perception of Mephibosheth’s loyalty. This act of cunning opportunism exploited David’s vulnerable condition, as Ziba presented himself as a faithful servant who had come to aid the king in his distress.
When David asked, “What meanest thou by these?”, Ziba explained that the donkeys were for the king’s household to ride on, the bread and fruit were for the young men to eat, and the wine was for those faint in the wilderness. On the surface, this was a generous and practical provision for the weary fugitives. Yet Ziba’s heart was not pure; he used this moment of crisis to slander Mephibosheth and advance his own position. His deceit would soon unfold further when he accused Mephibosheth of betrayal (2 Samuel 16:3–4).
Ziba’s actions are a sobering reminder that not all apparent acts of kindness stem from sincere motives. Some use generosity as a cover for ambition and deceit. Scripture consistently warns against such hypocrisy. The Lord said through Jeremiah, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9). Ziba’s cunning illustrates how deceit can disguise itself as devotion, and how crisis often exposes the true motives of the heart.
This passage also demonstrates David’s humanity and vulnerability during his flight. He was a man under pressure, weary, grieving, and surrounded by uncertainty. Even a wise man can be susceptible to deception when emotionally and physically worn. As believers, this account calls us to spiritual vigilance. The apostle Paul warned, “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:13–14). Just as David was deceived by Ziba’s outward show of loyalty, so too can God’s people be misled by appearances if they do not discern with spiritual wisdom and prayer.
(2 Samuel 16:3–4)
“And the king said, Where is thy master’s son? And Ziba said unto the king, Behold, he abideth at Jerusalem: for he said, To day shall the house of Israel restore me the kingdom of my father. Then said the king to Ziba, Behold, thine are all that pertained unto Mephibosheth. And Ziba said, I humbly beseech thee that I may find grace in thy sight, my lord, O king.”
As David fled from Jerusalem during Absalom’s rebellion, he questioned Ziba concerning Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan. David had shown great kindness to Mephibosheth years earlier, restoring Saul’s inheritance to him and welcoming him as a constant guest at his table. Now, in a time of deep distress, David asked, “Where is thy master’s son?” Ziba’s reply was a calculated lie. He said, “Behold, he abideth at Jerusalem: for he said, To day shall the house of Israel restore me the kingdom of my father.” Ziba deceitfully claimed that Mephibosheth stayed behind in Jerusalem, hoping to reclaim the throne of Saul and use the rebellion to his own advantage.
This accusation painted Mephibosheth as an opportunist disloyal to David and ungrateful for his past kindness. However, the truth would later be revealed in 2 Samuel 19:24–30, when Mephibosheth explained that he had been betrayed and slandered. Being lame in both feet, he could not saddle a donkey or accompany David in flight, and Ziba left him behind deliberately to make it appear that Mephibosheth had deserted the king. This deceit reveals the cunning nature of Ziba, who sought to advance himself by exploiting David’s vulnerable emotional state. In times of turmoil, deceit often flourishes because leaders are forced to act on limited information, and manipulative individuals take advantage of the chaos.
Ziba’s lie deeply wounded David. Already burdened by the betrayal of his son Absalom, David now believed that even Mephibosheth, the crippled descendant of Saul to whom he had shown compassion, had turned against him. This false report compounded his suffering. As G. Campbell Morgan noted, Ziba was “utterly despicable, and the more so because at the moment the sorrow he brought to the heart of David was his feeling that his kindness toward Mephibosheth was ill requited.” Ziba’s deception exemplified the cruelty of those who exploit the grief of others for personal gain.
When David heard Ziba’s words, he responded immediately, saying, “Behold, thine are all that pertained unto Mephibosheth.” In a moment of haste and distress, David acted on incomplete information and rewarded Ziba, giving him all that belonged to Mephibosheth. This was precisely the outcome Ziba desired. His cunning manipulation achieved its goal, securing material wealth and favor from the king. Ziba’s deceit demonstrates how wicked men can use crises to elevate themselves by discrediting others. Proverbs warns of such corruption: “He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool” (Proverbs 10:18).
David’s response, though understandable given the pressure of his situation, reminds us of the danger of acting without discernment or verification. His decision, made in haste and grief, illustrates how emotional exhaustion can impair judgment. Scripture warns, “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him” (Proverbs 18:13). Later, when David learned the truth, he would attempt to rectify the situation by dividing the property between Ziba and Mephibosheth (2 Samuel 19:29), but the damage of misplaced trust had already been done.
Ziba stands as a warning against deceitful ambition. His falsehood, which momentarily succeeded, would eventually be exposed. The Lord detests such manipulation, as Proverbs 12:22 declares, “Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.” While Ziba’s scheme brought him temporary advantage, his actions revealed the emptiness of a soul driven by selfish gain. In contrast, Mephibosheth’s later humility and loyalty showed the enduring honor of those who remain faithful even when falsely accused.
B. Shimei Curses David
(2 Samuel 16:5–8)
“And when king David came to Bahurim, behold, thence came out a man of the family of the house of Saul, whose name was Shimei, the son of Gera: he came forth, and cursed still as he came. And he cast stones at David, and at all the servants of king David: and all the people and all the mighty men were on his right hand and on his left. And thus said Shimei when he cursed, Come out, come out, thou bloody man, and thou man of Belial: The LORD hath returned upon thee all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose stead thou hast reigned; and the LORD hath delivered the kingdom into the hand of Absalom thy son: and, behold, thou art taken in thy mischief, because thou art a bloody man.”
When David reached Bahurim, a small village east of Jerusalem on the road toward the Jordan, he was met by Shimei, a relative of Saul’s family. This man emerged from his home filled with bitterness, cursing David as he came. Shimei’s hatred for David stemmed from the fall of Saul’s dynasty, which David had replaced by the divine decree of God. Though Saul’s fall was the result of his own rebellion against the Lord, Shimei still viewed David as an illegitimate usurper and took this moment of humiliation in David’s life to vent his long-harbored resentment.
Shimei’s actions were both violent and shameful. The text says that he “cursed still as he came” and “cast stones at David and at all the servants of king David.” Surrounded by his mighty men, David was in no real danger from Shimei’s stones, yet the insults were grievous and humiliating. Shimei called David a “bloody man” and a “man of Belial,” accusing him of murder, treachery, and wickedness. He claimed that the Lord was now judging David for shedding the blood of Saul’s house and for taking Saul’s throne.
Shimei’s accusations were false. David had repeatedly spared Saul’s life when given the chance, saying, “The LORD forbid that I should do this thing unto my master, the LORD’S anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the LORD” (1 Samuel 24:6). David never lifted his hand against Saul or his descendants. In fact, he mourned Saul’s death, avenged the murder of Saul’s son Ishbosheth (2 Samuel 4:9–12), and showed great kindness to Mephibosheth, Saul’s grandson (2 Samuel 9:6–7). Shimei’s cursing was therefore unjust, based on lies and ignorance.
Nevertheless, from the outside, Shimei’s accusations might have seemed plausible. David’s throne had fallen to his own son, Absalom; his kingdom was in turmoil; his reputation was tarnished. To a carnal observer, this looked like divine judgment for past wrongs. But while the Lord was indeed chastening David for his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah, He was not judging him for Saul’s bloodline. Shimei misread the situation entirely, interpreting God’s discipline through the lens of personal bitterness.
This event reveals the cowardly nature of those who strike when a man is down. Spurgeon observed, “It is very hard to bear a cowardly attack. One is very apt to reply and use hard words to one who takes advantage of your position and deals you the coward’s blow. Only the coward strikes a man when he is down.” Shimei’s behavior is typical of those who harbor secret resentment but lack the courage to speak when times are good. When David was on the throne, Shimei kept silent; when David was fleeing in disgrace, he came out to mock and curse.
There are always people like Shimei who rejoice in the downfall of others, especially of leaders. They see failure as justification for their own envy or rebellion. Yet Scripture warns, “Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth: lest the LORD see it, and it displease him” (Proverbs 24:17–18). God detests such malicious gloating.
Although Shimei was wrong in his accusations, he was right in one respect: “The LORD hath delivered the kingdom into the hand of Absalom.” God was indeed allowing David to experience the bitter fruit of his sin. Yet the difference between divine discipline and divine rejection is critical. Saul had been rejected by God; David was being refined by God. Saul’s kingdom ended in judgment, but David’s would be restored in mercy.
This episode illustrates how the wicked twist truth to serve their hatred, and how God’s servants must bear false accusation with humility. The Apostle Peter wrote, “For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully” (1 Peter 2:19). David endured Shimei’s curses as part of his chastisement from the Lord, and he chose not to retaliate. That restraint, as the passage later shows, was one of David’s noblest moments of submission to God’s sovereignty.
(2 Samuel 16:9–14)
“Then said Abishai the son of Zeruiah unto the king, Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? let me go over, I pray thee, and take off his head. And the king said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah? so let him curse, because the LORD hath said unto him, Curse David. Who shall then say, Wherefore hast thou done so? And David said to Abishai, and to all his servants, Behold, my son, which came forth of my bowels, seeketh my life: how much more now may this Benjamite do it? let him alone, and let him curse; for the LORD hath bidden him. It may be that the LORD will look on mine affliction, and that the LORD will requite me good for his cursing this day. And as David and his men went by the way, Shimei went along on the hill’s side over against him, and cursed as he went, and threw stones at him, and cast dust. And the king, and all the people that were with him, came weary, and refreshed themselves there.”
As David and his loyal followers continued their weary march from Jerusalem, Shimei continued his verbal and physical assault from the hillside, cursing and throwing stones. Abishai, one of David’s mighty men and the son of Zeruiah, could not bear to hear this unprovoked disrespect. Furious at the insults hurled at the anointed king, Abishai said, “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over, I pray thee, and take off his head.” This was not an idle threat—Abishai was fully capable of doing it instantly. The mighty men surrounding David were fiercely loyal and would have gladly executed vengeance upon Shimei for his treasonous mockery.
However, David’s response revealed his humility, spiritual discernment, and deep trust in God’s sovereignty. He rebuked Abishai, saying, “What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah? so let him curse, because the LORD hath said unto him, Curse David.” David recognized that God was sovereign even over the insults of his enemies. Though Shimei’s motives were evil, David believed that the Lord might be allowing this moment for divine purpose. His perspective was not limited to human offense but expanded to spiritual reflection—he saw the hand of God even in the words of his accuser.
David refused to silence Shimei because he was not the kind of man Shimei accused him of being. If David had been truly bloodthirsty, as Shimei claimed, he would have ended Shimei’s life instantly. Instead, David restrained his men and allowed his enemy to speak freely. This self-control was a mark of godliness. David’s refusal to retaliate proved his confidence that vengeance belongs to the Lord. “Say not thou, I will recompense evil; but wait on the LORD, and he shall save thee” (Proverbs 20:22).
David further explained his reasoning by saying, “Behold, my son, which came forth of my bowels, seeketh my life: how much more now may this Benjamite do it?” He put the matter into proper perspective. His true enemy was Absalom, his own son, not this bitter man from the tribe of Benjamin. Compared to the betrayal of his own flesh and blood, Shimei’s cursing was a small matter. This showed David’s clarity of mind amid turmoil; he did not lose focus on what truly mattered. When a man is walking in humility before God, petty insults lose their power to wound him deeply.
David also looked beyond the immediate humiliation and trusted in God’s justice. “It may be that the LORD will look on mine affliction, and that the LORD will requite me good for his cursing this day.” This statement reveals a mature faith. David believed that God could turn even the bitterness of this moment into blessing. His hope was rooted not in vengeance but in divine vindication. This echoes the principle expressed later in Scripture: “Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21).
Spurgeon once observed, “David could take this fellow’s head off in a moment, and yet he said, ‘Let him alone. Let him curse.’ And this makes a splendid example. If you can revenge yourself, don’t. If you could do it as easily as open your hand, keep it shut.” This principle of meekness is difficult for most men, especially those with power. Yet David understood that restraint in the face of insult honors God more than retaliation ever could.
As David and his company continued their journey, Shimei followed along the ridge opposite them, continuing his cursing, throwing stones, and casting dust into the air—a vivid picture of scorn and hatred. Yet the passage concludes with calmness: “The king, and all the people that were with him, came weary, and refreshed themselves there.” Despite the exhaustion and humiliation, David and his men found rest. God, in His mercy, gave them a moment of peace. This divine comfort was possible only because David had submitted himself under the mighty hand of God.
In this, David foreshadowed the humility of Christ. Paul wrote of the Lord Jesus, “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant… and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:6–8). Like David, Jesus endured insult, rejection, and false accusation without retaliation, trusting the Father for ultimate vindication.
Gene Edwards captured this truth beautifully in A Tale of Three Kings when he imagined David saying, “The throne is not mine. Not to have, not to take, not to protect, and not to keep. The throne is the Lord’s.” That heart of surrender sustained David through his darkest hours. His humility under persecution revealed why he was called “a man after God’s own heart.”
As G. Campbell Morgan noted, this scene offers “a radiant illustration of the deep and inward peace given to any man who is living in fellowship with God in motive and desire.” When a man’s conscience is clear before God, he can endure insults without bitterness, knowing that the Lord rules over all things and will repay in His own time.
C. Absalom’s Counselors
(2 Samuel 16:15–19)
“And Absalom, and all the people the men of Israel, came to Jerusalem, and Ahithophel with him. And it came to pass, when Hushai the Archite, David’s friend, was come unto Absalom, that Hushai said unto Absalom, God save the king, God save the king. And Absalom said to Hushai, Is this thy kindness to thy friend? why wentest thou not with thy friend? And Hushai said unto Absalom, Nay; but whom the LORD, and this people, and all the men of Israel choose, his will I be, and with him will I abide. And again, whom should I serve? should I not serve in the presence of his son? as I have served in thy father’s presence, so will I be in thy presence.”
When Absalom entered Jerusalem and took possession of his father’s city, he was accompanied by Ahithophel, David’s former counselor, whose reputation for wisdom was unparalleled in Israel. The text says, “Ahithophel was with him,” underscoring that Absalom had gained a powerful ally whose influence could strengthen his rebellion. Yet even as Absalom was consolidating his power, God was already working through a hidden countermeasure—Hushai the Archite, David’s loyal friend.
Hushai had originally wanted to flee Jerusalem with David (2 Samuel 15:32–34), but David, recognizing the strategic value of his wisdom, sent him back as a covert agent. His mission was to infiltrate Absalom’s court, counteract the advice of Ahithophel, and send intelligence back to David through the priests Zadok and Abiathar. This was not mere survival strategy; it was an act of faith that God could use righteous cunning to defeat evil counsel.
When Hushai appeared before Absalom, he greeted him with the cry, “God save the king, God save the king!” The ambiguity of this greeting was deliberate. Hushai did not clarify which “king” he meant, for in his heart he was still loyal to David. Absalom, however, took it as allegiance to himself. Suspicious at first, Absalom asked, “Is this thy kindness to thy friend? Why wentest thou not with thy friend?” His question was natural—he knew that Hushai and David were close, and it seemed strange for Hushai to abandon David in such an hour.
Hushai’s answer was a masterpiece of deception cloaked in truth. “Nay; but whom the LORD, and this people, and all the men of Israel choose, his will I be, and with him will I abide.” On the surface, it appeared to affirm loyalty to Absalom, yet Hushai’s words were carefully crafted. He spoke of serving the one “whom the LORD and this people choose,” a phrase that subtly pointed back to David—the true anointed of the Lord. In Absalom’s arrogance, he failed to recognize the double meaning.
Hushai continued, “Whom should I serve? Should I not serve in the presence of his son? As I have served in thy father’s presence, so will I be in thy presence.” His statement was technically true but intentionally misleading. Just as he had served David faithfully, he now positioned himself near Absalom, not to assist him, but to undermine him. In this, Hushai acted much like a wartime agent behind enemy lines—outwardly conforming while inwardly devoted to the king he truly served.
From a moral standpoint, Hushai’s deception was not an act of cowardice but of strategic obedience to a higher purpose. Scripture often shows that in times of war or divine judgment, God may permit His servants to use cunning against the enemies of righteousness. Examples include Rahab hiding the spies and misleading the men of Jericho (Joshua 2:4–6), or Elisha deceiving the Syrians to protect Israel (2 Kings 6:19). In each case, deception was employed not for personal gain but for the fulfillment of God’s will.
Hushai’s arrival in Absalom’s camp was a direct fulfillment of David’s earlier prayer in 2 Samuel 15:31, where he pleaded, “O LORD, I pray thee, turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness.” God answered that prayer through Hushai’s presence. Though David was on the run, God was already planting the seeds of Absalom’s downfall in his own court.
This episode underscores the sovereignty of God in the affairs of men. Even when evil seems to triumph, God is working behind the scenes to preserve His anointed and accomplish His plan. Proverbs 21:30 affirms this truth: “There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.” Hushai’s apparent betrayal was, in truth, divine intervention cloaked in strategy.
(2 Samuel 16:20–23)
“Then said Absalom to Ahithophel, Give counsel among you what we shall do. And Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father’s concubines, which he hath left to keep the house; and all Israel shall hear that thou art abhorred of thy father: then shall the hands of all that are with thee be strong. So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel. And the counsel of Ahithophel, which he counselled in those days, was as if a man had enquired at the oracle of God: so was all the counsel of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom.”
After seizing Jerusalem, Absalom sought advice from Ahithophel, his most trusted counselor. “Give counsel among you what we shall do,” he said, seeking to establish his new rule with boldness and authority. Ahithophel, known throughout Israel for his remarkable wisdom, responded with advice that was both politically shrewd and morally corrupt. He told Absalom, “Go in unto thy father’s concubines,” suggesting that he should commit a public act of immorality to demonstrate his complete break with David.
This counsel was calculated to achieve several outcomes. In the ancient world, taking possession of a king’s harem symbolized a total transfer of power. It was not merely sexual sin but a declaration of sovereignty. Ahithophel’s advice ensured that reconciliation between Absalom and David would become impossible. By committing this abominable act, Absalom would irreversibly mark himself as his father’s enemy. Ahithophel reasoned that this display of defiance would embolden Absalom’s supporters, convincing them that there was no turning back.
However, Ahithophel’s advice was not purely political—it was deeply personal. As 2 Samuel 11:3 and 2 Samuel 23:34 reveal, Ahithophel was the grandfather of Bathsheba, the woman David had taken and whose husband he had sent to his death. Though David had repented and been forgiven, the consequences of his sin continued to ripple outward. Ahithophel’s heart had grown bitter, and now he seized an opportunity for vengeance. His counsel was poisoned by personal resentment. The Puritan commentator John Trapp wrote, “O tongue worthy to have been cut out, shred in gobbets, and driven down the throat of him that thus misused it, to the engaging of Absalom in such an unpardonable villainy, beside hazard of his immortal soul!”
“So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house,” the Scripture says, “and Absalom went in unto his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.” This was a deliberate act of public humiliation, carried out on the very rooftop where David had once gazed upon Bathsheba. The parallels are striking and sobering. Just as David’s private sin had taken place in secret upon a rooftop, now his chastisement was made open “before all Israel, and before the sun,” exactly as God had declared through Nathan the prophet: “Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun” (2 Samuel 12:11–12).
This act revealed the depths of Absalom’s depravity. He was not only proud and ambitious but also brazenly immoral and devoid of natural affection. Clarke rightly observed, “Every part of the conduct of Absalom shows him to have been a most profligate young man; he was proud, vindictive, adulterous, incestuous, a parricide, and in fine, reprobate to every good word and work.” His sin was not only an assault against his father but an act of rebellion against God Himself.
The closing verse testifies to Ahithophel’s great reputation: “The counsel of Ahithophel, which he counselled in those days, was as if a man had enquired at the oracle of God.” His words carried immense authority; men treated his advice as if it came directly from heaven. Yet even the wisest counsel becomes corrupted when the heart behind it is defiled by sin and bitterness. What was once a gift of discernment became a tool of destruction. Ahithophel’s brilliance, unrestrained by righteousness, produced ruin rather than wisdom. Bitterness turned his counsel sour, and in the end, his wisdom led to his own downfall and death (2 Samuel 17:23).
This episode also shows God’s sovereign hand at work. David had prayed earlier, “O LORD, I pray thee, turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness” (2 Samuel 15:31). Though Ahithophel’s advice appeared clever and effective, it ultimately fulfilled God’s purpose in bringing Absalom to judgment and David to restoration. The Lord answered David’s prayer not by silencing Ahithophel, but by letting his wisdom destroy itself.
This passage reminds us that human wisdom, even when impressive, is worthless when opposed to God’s will. “There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD” (Proverbs 21:30). Absalom’s sin fulfilled prophecy, Ahithophel’s malice revealed the rot of bitterness, and David’s chastening demonstrated the justice and faithfulness of God. The tragedy on the rooftop was not the triumph of evil, but the unfolding of divine discipline and the assurance that God’s word never fails.
