Ahimaaz wanted to be the first to tell David the news of his victory since messengers often received a reward for bringing good news. Joab discouraged him thinking he would also report that Absalom was dead. David would not have rewarded that news and might have slain its bearer (cf. ch. 1). Joab sent "the Cushite"(v. 21), possibly one of Joab's servants (cf. v. 15), to tell David the bad news. Cushites came from the upper Nile region of Egypt (Nubia, modern Ethiopia).267Joab may have selected this man because he was a foreigner and therefore more expendable than an Israelite.
David seems to have concluded that a single runner bore good news because if the army had suffered a defeat many people would have been retreating to Mahanaim. Ahimaaz may have lied about not knowing Absalom's fate (v. 29), or he may have been telling the truth. The Cushite then arrived with the news of Absalom's death (vv. 31-32).
"There is a clear rule of law which connects a leader's conduct with his fate and the fate of his house. A degenerate leader, whether it is himself who has sinned or his sons, will ultimately be deposed (see the story of Samuel and his sons) or come to a tragic end, just as Eli and his sons die on the same day, and so do Saul and his. This law holds true of David also; . . . just as in the stories of the death of Eli, Saul and their sons, in the story of Absalom there appears a runner who announces the evil tidings of his death in battle (II Sam. 18:19-32); and before that, in the story of Amnon's murder, a rumor comes to the king of the killing of all his sons, although it is found that only Amnon had been killed (II Sam. 13:30-36). With this, the criticism of all four leaders described in the book of Samuel, together with their sons, reaches its conclusion."268
"The description of Absalom's demise resonates with allusions to Abraham's binding of Isaac in Genesis 22. . . . Both Absalom and the ram are caught in a thicket (sobek/sebak). Whereas Abraham is commanded not to send forth his hand (al tislah yadeka) unto the lad (22:12), Joab's soldier refuses to send forth his hand (lo' eslah yadi) unto the son of the king (18:12). And finally, Abraham offers up the ram in place of his son (tahat beno[22:12]). It takes a while for David to help us perceive this analogy, but finally he makes it clear: would that I had died in place of you (tahteka), O Absalom, my son, my son.'"269
David responded here similarly to the way he did when he heard of Saul's death (ch. 1). Certainly David was correct to weep over Absalom's death. However, Joab was also correct to warn David of the consequences of failing to thank his soldiers for saving his life and kingdom. David should have tempered his personal sorrow since Absalom had rebelled against the Lord's anointed. Since David had slain Uriah with the sword, God punished David by slaying his son, the fruit of his fertility, with death by the sword, too (12:9-10; cf. Gal. 6:7).
Joab's execution of Absalom cost him his position, at least temporarily (v. 13). Nevertheless his rebuke of the king (vv. 5-7) was good as well as needed.
A true friend--and Joab was a true friend to David here--will be willing to take personal risks to confront a friend in love. A wise person, such as David, will accept strong advice from a friend who really cares.
David's emotions were sometimes inappropriate, loving those whom he should have hated and hating those whom he should have loved (v. 6). Similarly Amnon had hated Tamar whom he should have loved (13:15). These emotions were common to father and son, both of whom committed serious injustices.270
