2 Samuel Chapter 20
The Rebellion of Sheba
A. David returns to Jerusalem and to an insurrection.
(2 Samuel 20:1–2) — “And there happened to be there a rebel, whose name was Sheba the son of Bichri, a Benjamite. And he blew a trumpet, and said: ‘We have no share in David, nor do we have inheritance in the son of Jesse; every man to his tents, O Israel!’ So every man of Israel deserted David, and followed Sheba the son of Bichri. But the men of Judah, from the Jordan as far as Jerusalem, remained loyal to their king.”
Sheba was a man of Belial, a worthless and rebellious man, who rose up against David at a moment of national weakness. He took advantage of the tension between Judah and the other ten tribes following the recent conflict over David’s return to Jerusalem after Absalom’s rebellion. This opportunist sought to fracture the fragile unity of Israel through deceitful slogans and prideful ambition.
Sheba’s declaration, “We have no share in David,” was an outright denial of David’s God-given authority as king. By saying this, Sheba rejected the divine appointment of David, whom God Himself had anointed through the prophet Samuel. To say “nor do we have inheritance in the son of Jesse” was to belittle David’s origin, reminding the people that he came from humble beginnings as the son of a farmer from Bethlehem. Rebels often seek to undermine a leader’s legitimacy by demeaning his background. Sheba’s final call, “Every man to his tents, O Israel!” was a rallying cry for division, an invitation to return to tribal isolation and reject the unity that God had established under David’s rule.
G. Campbell Morgan noted that this phrase was likely a powerful slogan — one of those popular and emotionally charged catchwords that can quickly spread among the discontented. It serves as a warning that such persuasive but rebellious phrases must always be tested against truth and godly wisdom. What sounds right in the heat of resentment can easily lead to destruction.
Israel’s desertion of David revealed the fickleness of human loyalty. These same northern tribes had just argued for greater honor toward David (2 Samuel 19:40–43), yet now they turned their backs on him. Their earlier show of loyalty was self-serving, not genuine devotion. Their willingness to follow Sheba exposed a heart of pride and division, not love for their king. As Morgan observed, one wrong is never corrected by committing another. To rebel against David because of perceived unfairness from Judah was to deepen the nation’s wound, not heal it.
Division has always been the natural tendency of the flesh. Without the restraining and unifying power of the Holy Spirit, men drift toward pride, rivalry, and self-interest. The Apostle Paul reminded believers in Ephesians 4:1–3, “I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Unity among God’s people is not something we create; it is something the Spirit gives, and it must be guarded diligently.
Yet amid the rebellion of Israel, there remained a faithful remnant. “The men of Judah… remained loyal to their king.” Their steadfastness in a time of mass desertion demonstrated true faithfulness. When others faltered, they stood firm beside David. In the same way, believers today must hold their allegiance to Jesus Christ regardless of who falls away. Loyalty to the King of Kings is often tested when the crowd turns away. True devotion is proven not in times of comfort but in times of controversy.
We must be loyal to Christ even when the majority mocks Him, when our own flesh rebels, and when God seems distant in our trials. The loyalty of Judah serves as an enduring example of faithfulness when others fall into compromise. In a world full of Shebas who call for rebellion against divine authority, the faithful must choose to stand with the true King.
(2 Samuel 20:3) — “Now David came to his house at Jerusalem. And the king took the ten women, his concubines whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in seclusion and supported them, but did not go in to them. So they were shut up to the day of their death, living in widowhood.”
When David returned to Jerusalem after the suppression of Absalom’s rebellion, one of his first acts was to deal with the tragic situation of the ten concubines whom Absalom had violated. These women had been left behind to tend the royal household when David fled, yet through Absalom’s act of public humiliation (2 Samuel 16:20–23), they became unwilling participants in his sin. Upon his return, David put them in seclusion, caring for them financially but keeping them apart for the remainder of their lives. This act was not vindictive but sorrowful, showing the complicated aftermath of sin within David’s household.
As Adam Clarke observed, David faced an impossible dilemma. He could not divorce them, for they had done no wrong. He could not treat them as wives, for they had been defiled by his son. Nor could he marry them off, for such an act might have created further instability in the kingdom. Thus, David chose to provide for them but keep them secluded, allowing them to live out their days in solitude and widowhood. It was a merciful yet grievous resolution to a situation that never should have occurred.
Their fate is a sobering reminder that sin never occurs in isolation. The concubines suffered grievously because of Absalom’s wickedness and, ultimately, because of David’s earlier sin with Bathsheba that set in motion a chain of rebellion, shame, and judgment in his house. As the Lord declared in 2 Samuel 12:10–11, “Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife. Thus says the LORD: ‘Behold, I will raise up adversity against you from your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun.’” The concubines became living testimonies of the lasting wounds caused by sin — scars upon the kingdom that could not easily be healed.
(2 Samuel 20:4–5) — “And the king said to Amasa, ‘Assemble the men of Judah for me within three days, and be present here yourself.’ So Amasa went to assemble the men of Judah. But he delayed longer than the set time which David had appointed him.”
David’s next act was to command Amasa, his newly appointed general, to gather the men of Judah. Amasa had been Absalom’s commander during the rebellion, and David’s decision to appoint him now was a deliberate act of reconciliation meant to heal the divisions between Judah and the other tribes. David sought to show grace by replacing Joab with Amasa, signaling that those who had supported Absalom could find peace and restoration under his rule.
However, Amasa’s delay revealed a lack of military competence and decisiveness. David had learned firsthand the danger of hesitation; during Absalom’s rebellion, that delay had nearly cost him his throne. Determined not to repeat that mistake, he expected immediate action. But Amasa’s failure to mobilize the army in the appointed time demonstrated that he was not fit for the task. Leadership requires both loyalty and efficiency, and Amasa possessed neither in sufficient measure.
Joab’s prior experience in battle made Amasa’s shortcomings even more evident. Though Joab was often ruthless and self-serving, he was also effective and tactically brilliant. The delay under Amasa’s command created an opening for Sheba’s rebellion to gain strength, endangering the stability of the nation once again.
(2 Samuel 20:6–7) — “And David said to Abishai, ‘Now Sheba the son of Bichri will do us more harm than Absalom. Take your lord’s servants and pursue him, lest he find for himself fortified cities, and escape us.’ So Joab’s men, with the Cherethites, the Pelethites, and all the mighty men, went out after him. And they went out of Jerusalem to pursue Sheba the son of Bichri.”
Recognizing the danger of delay, David turned to Abishai, Joab’s brother, and placed him in charge of the pursuit. David feared that Sheba’s insurrection could inflict even greater harm than Absalom’s. While Absalom’s rebellion was driven by personal ambition and vanity, Sheba’s revolt carried the potential for deep tribal division — a fracture between Judah and the ten northern tribes that could shatter the unity of Israel entirely.
David ordered immediate pursuit, warning that Sheba must not be allowed to reach a fortified city where he could establish a base of resistance. Speed and precision were vital. The “lord’s servants” whom Abishai led were David’s personal royal guard, including the Cherethites and the Pelethites, elite units of foreign-born warriors loyal to the king. Alongside them went “all the mighty men,” the core of David’s seasoned veterans.
Although Abishai was placed in command, the text emphasizes that “Joab’s men” went with him, showing that Joab’s influence in the military remained strong. Even without holding the formal title of commander, Joab was the de facto leader in the field. This tension between Abishai’s official authority and Joab’s practical control foreshadowed the inevitable conflict between Amasa and Joab that would soon follow.
David’s sense of urgency and his reliance on these loyal warriors underscore his experience as both a soldier and a king. He knew that rebellion, if not crushed swiftly, could consume a kingdom. The lesson is timeless: when sin or rebellion arises in our own lives or in the household of faith, it must be addressed immediately. Delay only strengthens the enemy’s hand.
B. Joab kills Amasa and defeats Sheba.
(2 Samuel 20:8–10) — “When they were at the large stone which is in Gibeon, Amasa came before them. Now Joab was dressed in battle armor; on it was a belt with a sword fastened in its sheath at his hips; and as he was going forward, it fell out. Then Joab said to Amasa, ‘Are you in health, my brother?’ And Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him. But Amasa did not notice the sword that was in Joab’s hand. And he struck him with it in the stomach, and his entrails poured out on the ground; and he did not strike him again. Thus he died. Then Joab and Abishai his brother pursued Sheba the son of Bichri.”
As David’s forces gathered at Gibeon, Amasa came to meet them, still attempting to fulfill his delayed orders to assemble the men of Judah. Despite his previous failures, Amasa did not wish to be excluded from the campaign, seeking perhaps to redeem his reputation in David’s eyes. Yet his arrival brought him face to face with Joab, the man whose command he had replaced. Joab’s bitter rivalry, ambition, and unrestrained temperament made this encounter deadly.
Joab, dressed in full battle armor, approached with the practiced cunning of a seasoned warrior. His sword, attached to his belt, “fell out” as he advanced—a gesture that seemed accidental but was, in all likelihood, intentional. It gave the false impression that he was unarmed and harmless. As he greeted Amasa, Joab reached out with his right hand, the hand of peace, to take Amasa by the beard—a customary gesture of respect and brotherly affection before a kiss of greeting. In the same instant, however, Joab used his left hand to draw the sword and thrust it into Amasa’s abdomen.
The text notes that “his entrails poured out on the ground,” an especially gruesome image that underscores Joab’s brutality. He struck Amasa once, fatally, showing his cold efficiency. Clarke observed that Amasa may not have died immediately, as such wounds could take hours to bring death. This chilling detail reveals not only Joab’s violence but also his lack of compassion.
Joab’s murder of Amasa was driven by both personal jealousy and political calculation. Amasa, though promoted by David as a gesture of reconciliation, likely inspired no confidence in Joab. Joab may have believed that Amasa’s previous service to Absalom made him untrustworthy and that his incompetence endangered the kingdom. Yet this act was not a defense of David’s throne—it was another demonstration of Joab’s arrogance and self-will.
This was not the first time Joab acted as judge, jury, and executioner. He had earlier slain Abner (2 Samuel 3:27), who, like Amasa, was meeting him under a pretense of peace. Both murders took place in nearly identical circumstances—each man being taken aside for a friendly greeting, only to be stabbed in the stomach. In both cases, Joab justified his violence under the guise of loyalty, but in truth, it was pride and vengeance that motivated him.
Joab’s cunning reminds us of the hypocrisy of deceitful men who outwardly appear loyal and brotherly but harbor violence in their hearts. Psalm 55:21 says, “The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart; his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords.” Joab’s greeting was smooth and deceitful, cloaked in civility yet deadly in intention.
After the murder, Joab immediately took command. The narrative shifts seamlessly to say, “Then Joab and Abishai his brother pursued Sheba the son of Bichri,” indicating that Joab once again assumed authority without question. Despite David’s attempt to remove him, Joab’s dominance within the army remained unchallenged. His ruthless competence made him indispensable, yet his ambition made him dangerous.
This episode reveals the cost of tolerating unchecked sin in leadership. David’s continued leniency toward Joab allowed a man of blood to act without restraint. Though Joab’s actions often secured military victories, his repeated acts of murder brought lasting dishonor to David’s reign. The lesson is clear: when leaders refuse to confront sin among those close to them, it will continue to resurface with greater destruction.
(2 Samuel 20:11–14) — “Meanwhile one of Joab’s men stood near Amasa, and said, ‘Whoever favors Joab and whoever is for David—follow Joab!’ But Amasa wallowed in his blood in the middle of the highway. And when the man saw that all the people stood still, he moved Amasa from the highway to the field and threw a garment over him, when he saw that everyone who came upon him halted. When he was removed from the highway, all the people went on after Joab to pursue Sheba the son of Bichri. And he went through all the tribes of Israel to Abel and Beth Maachah and all the Berites. So they were gathered together and also went after Sheba.”
After Joab murdered Amasa, one of his men immediately sought to secure loyalty from the soldiers who stood in shock at the grisly sight. Standing near Amasa’s lifeless body, the soldier cried out, “Whoever favors Joab and whoever is for David—follow Joab!” This public declaration effectively restored Joab’s position as the de facto commander of David’s forces. The cry united the troops under Joab’s authority, appealing to both loyalty to David and trust in Joab’s proven leadership. Despite Joab’s insubordination and bloodshed, his reputation as a victorious warrior gave him command through sheer force of presence.
The image of Amasa wallowing in his own blood upon the highway is haunting. His body became a spectacle that halted the progress of the entire army. The men who passed by were gripped by horror and sorrow at the sight. Recognizing that this delay hindered their mission, one of Joab’s men dragged Amasa’s corpse aside into a field and covered it with a garment. This act was not out of respect but practicality — to remove the distraction so the army could continue. Once the body was hidden from view, the text says, “all the people went on after Joab to pursue Sheba.”
This moment reveals much about human nature and leadership. The same men who had once followed Amasa now marched behind his murderer without hesitation. Their allegiance was to victory and survival more than moral principle. Joab’s ruthlessness had not cost him authority; it reinforced it in the eyes of pragmatic soldiers who valued strength above righteousness.
Joab’s man called the people to follow him not only “if they favored Joab,” but “if they were for David.” Joab’s name was again tied to David’s cause, blurring the line between personal ambition and true service. Joab was indeed fighting for David’s kingdom, yet his heart was not wholly submitted to David’s rule. His loyalty was conditional — unwavering in the field but self-serving in motive. Such divided allegiance reflects the danger of those who labor in God’s work with their own ambitions intertwined.
The sight of Amasa’s death also symbolizes the cost of disunity within leadership. David’s attempt to reconcile factions by appointing Amasa ended in blood. The army was forced to move forward united under a man whose loyalty was pragmatic rather than pure. God’s people cannot advance effectively when divided between rival loyalties; there must be clarity of leadership under divine authority.
Joab then led the forces through the land in relentless pursuit of Sheba. The text says he went “through all the tribes of Israel to Abel and Beth Maachah and all the Berites.” These locations mark the northernmost reaches of the kingdom, near the borders of modern-day Lebanon. Sheba had fled far north seeking refuge among those less loyal to David, but Joab’s determination ensured that the rebellion would be chased to its very edge.
Even in rebellion, Israel was not wholly lost. The passage notes that Joab was able to find “men loyal to David in all the tribes of Israel.” Though Sheba’s uprising had attracted followers, many still recognized David as God’s chosen king. This shows that even in times of national division, the Lord preserves a remnant of the faithful. There are always those who remain loyal to God’s anointed, even when the nation at large wavers.
Joab’s leadership was deeply flawed but undeniably effective. He embodied the paradox of human strength — capable of great achievements for God’s kingdom yet tainted by pride, anger, and self-interest. His leadership reminds us that success without submission to righteousness leads to eventual judgment. Joab’s triumphs did not cleanse his guilt; they only delayed the reckoning that would one day come.
(2 Samuel 20:15–22) — “Then they came and besieged him in Abel of Beth Maachah; and they cast up a siege mound against the city, and it stood by the rampart. And all the people who were with Joab battered the wall to throw it down. Then a wise woman cried out from the city, ‘Hear, hear! Please say to Joab, “Come nearby, that I may speak with you.”’ When he had come near to her, the woman said, ‘Are you Joab?’ He answered, ‘I am.’ Then she said to him, ‘Hear the words of your maidservant.’ And he answered, ‘I am listening.’ So she spoke, saying, ‘They used to talk in former times, saying, “They shall surely seek guidance at Abel,” and so they would end disputes. I am among the peaceable and faithful in Israel. You seek to destroy a city and a mother in Israel. Why would you swallow up the inheritance of the LORD?’ And Joab answered and said, ‘Far be it, far be it from me, that I should swallow up or destroy! That is not so. But a man from the mountains of Ephraim, Sheba the son of Bichri by name, has raised his hand against the king, against David. Deliver him only, and I will depart from the city.’ So the woman said to Joab, ‘Watch, his head will be thrown to you over the wall.’ Then the woman in her wisdom went to all the people. And they cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri, and threw it out to Joab. Then he blew a trumpet, and they withdrew from the city, every man to his tent. So Joab returned to the king at Jerusalem.”
When Joab and his men pursued Sheba, the rebel took refuge in the fortified city of Abel of Beth Maachah, near Israel’s northern border. Joab immediately set up a siege against the city, casting up a mound against its wall in an effort to breach the defenses. Siege warfare in the ancient world was a dreadful experience for the citizens trapped within. Starvation, disease, and fear were the usual companions of such an ordeal. Yet in this moment of peril, one woman’s courage and wisdom preserved her city from destruction.
This “wise woman” of Abel is one of the remarkable figures in Scripture who demonstrates how discernment and godly reasoning can achieve what force and bloodshed cannot. As Joab’s men battered the wall, she cried out from the city, calling for Joab himself to approach so she could speak with him. Her words were diplomatic and respectful, but firm. She reminded Joab of Abel’s reputation as a place of wisdom and arbitration, a city known for resolving disputes peacefully in Israel’s earlier days. She appealed to Joab’s sense of justice and national identity, describing the city as “a mother in Israel,” meaning it was a place of significance, a center of life and heritage within the covenant nation.
Her question pierced to the heart of Joab’s conscience: “Why would you swallow up the inheritance of the LORD?” By this, she meant that to destroy a faithful city in Israel would be to devour part of God’s chosen inheritance, His covenant people. Her tone carried both respect and conviction, showing herself to be both courageous and shrewd.
Joab’s response revealed his practicality. He insisted that he had no desire to destroy the city or harm the innocent, only to capture Sheba, the traitor who had “raised his hand against the king, against David.” Joab was ruthless, but not senseless; his campaign was focused, and he was satisfied with the removal of the guilty man. The wise woman immediately understood what must be done. Her words, “Watch, his head will be thrown to you over the wall,” show the decisive leadership she exercised among her people. She quickly persuaded the citizens of Abel to execute Sheba themselves rather than bring destruction upon the entire city.
Sheba’s false confidence in the city’s walls could not save him. His rebellion against God’s anointed king sealed his fate. The citizens, acting upon the woman’s wisdom, cut off his head and threw it over the wall to Joab, ending the rebellion instantly. Joab then blew the trumpet — the signal of cessation of hostilities — and his men withdrew, each returning to his tent. The rebellion was crushed, and peace temporarily restored to the kingdom.
This passage underscores a powerful spiritual lesson. As Matthew Henry and Trapp observed, Sheba’s rebellion serves as a picture of sin lodged within the human heart. Every heart is like a fortified city where sin, the traitor, hides behind the walls. God, the righteous Judge, demands the death of that traitor — not out of hatred for the person, but for the evil that resides within. As Trapp wrote, “Every man’s breast is a city enclosed. Every sin is a traitor that lurketh within those walls. God calleth for Sheba’s head, neither hath he any quarrel to us for our person, but for our sin. If we love the head of our traitor above the life of our soul, we shall justly perish in the vengeance.” The lesson is clear: sin must be executed, not excused. If we defend the traitor within, we share in his destruction.
The account also foreshadows Israel’s later history. Although Sheba’s rebellion ended here, the seeds of division between Judah and the ten northern tribes were not uprooted. The fracture remained beneath the surface, eventually culminating in the permanent division of the nation after Solomon’s death. The southern kingdom of Judah and the northern kingdom of Israel would become separate, fulfilling the warning that internal strife, if not healed, will one day tear the nation apart.
Thus ended Sheba’s rebellion — swiftly, decisively, and symbolically. His headless body was a grim reminder of the folly of rebellion against God’s appointed authority. As Proverbs 11:21 declares, “Though they join forces, the wicked will not go unpunished; but the posterity of the righteous will be delivered.”
(2 Samuel 20:23–26) — “And Joab was over all the army of Israel; Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites; Adoram was in charge of revenue; Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder; Sheva was scribe; Zadok and Abiathar were the priests; and Ira the Jairite was a chief minister under David.”
This passage provides a summary of David’s restored administration following the turmoil of Absalom’s and Sheba’s rebellions. Despite years of conflict and personal loss, David’s government was once again stabilized and functional, with his chief officers clearly defined. It is both a testament to God’s sustaining grace and a sober reminder that David’s kingdom endured, not because of human perfection, but because of divine mercy and covenant faithfulness.
Joab once again held command over the army of Israel. Though he regained the position through bloodshed, murdering both Abner and Amasa, David tolerated his authority rather than confronting him. This reveals a persistent weakness in David’s leadership — his inability or unwillingness to deal decisively with Joab’s defiant character. Joab remained indispensable as a warrior, but his ambition and violence continually cast a shadow over David’s reign. The fact that Joab, a man who repeatedly defied orders and shed innocent blood, still ruled the army shows that David’s kingdom, though blessed, was far from perfect. The seeds of Joab’s eventual downfall were already sown.
Benaiah the son of Jehoiada commanded the Cherethites and the Pelethites, David’s elite royal guard. Benaiah was one of David’s most trusted and loyal warriors, a man of courage and integrity who would later play a crucial role in establishing Solomon’s throne. His oversight of the king’s personal guard made him a figure of both military and ceremonial importance.
Adoram, also called Adoniram in other passages, was placed in charge of revenue — the system of taxation and labor levies that funded the kingdom’s operations. This was a vital role in a nation transitioning from constant warfare to structured governance. Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud served as recorder, functioning as a royal historian and chronicler of state affairs, ensuring that the deeds and decrees of David’s reign were preserved. Sheva, the scribe, likely handled correspondence, official documents, and the legal administration of the kingdom. Together, these men reflect the growing complexity and maturity of David’s government.
The priests Zadok and Abiathar remained central to both spiritual and political life in Israel. Their joint service symbolized unity in worship and administration. Zadok descended from Eleazar, while Abiathar came from Ithamar, both lines of Aaron’s priestly family. This dual priesthood foreshadowed the later transition under Solomon when Zadok alone would remain, signifying the narrowing of priestly authority to a single faithful line.
Finally, the passage mentions Ira the Jairite as “a chief minister under David.” The phrase can also be translated “a priest to David” or “David’s chaplain.” As Adam Clarke suggested, Ira likely served as a spiritual advisor and personal minister to the king. Even as a prophet and psalmist himself, David still recognized the need for ongoing spiritual accountability and guidance. His example is instructive — no matter how spiritually mature or experienced one becomes, the need for devotion, prayer, and godly counsel never ceases.
The structure of David’s second administration demonstrates his God-given wisdom in leadership. He surrounded himself with capable and trustworthy men, each fulfilling specific roles within the kingdom. The success of David’s reign was not due to his strength alone but to his discernment in delegating authority and empowering others. True leadership is never about self-reliance; it is about the ability to build and sustain a team committed to a common divine purpose.
This restored administration also points forward to the perfect rule of Christ, the Son of David, whose kingdom will one day be established in righteousness without corruption or rebellion. Unlike David, Christ will reign with absolute justice and holiness, uniting mercy and truth perfectly. Where David’s reign depended on fallible men, Christ’s reign will be marked by divine perfection and everlasting peace, fulfilling the promise spoken through the prophets: “Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever.” (Isaiah 9:7)
