2 Samuel 14:13

Wherefore then? Since David had followed such a course in this instance, what reason did he have for not following it in another? If he had done right in granting a reprieve to her son, who was worthy of death, what was there to prevent him from granting a reprieve to Absalom, who was guilty of murder?

Against the people. Against Absalom and all Israel with him. Absalom was the heir apparent. He therefore belonged to the people and they to him. A crime against him was a crime against all Israel. In refusing to allow the heir to the throne to return to his land, David was depriving the people of their rights to have with them their prospective king. The wrong against Absalom was a wrong against the nation he was to rule. The woman was still only hinting at what she wanted to say, but her words were sufficiently plain that David could no longer escape their meaning.

As one which is faulty. The woman now came directly to the point. David had just proved himself at fault in his dealings with Absalom by the verdict he had rendered in the case of her son. He had agreed that it was not right that she be deprived of her heir, but he was depriving Israel of its heir. In pronouncing himself in favor of her son he had condemned himself in his conduct toward Absalom.

The king doth not fetch. These words show clearly that David was responsible for the continued banishment of Absalom. All that was needed to bring him home was that David extend the invitation. The people wanted him, Absalom was anxious to return, and even the royal household would welcome him back. But David himself stood in the way. This was interpreted as a wrong, not only against Absalom, but against the nation at large.

Banished. From the Hebrew nadach, “to impel,” “to thrust.” The root occurs in Deut. 30:3-5, Jer. 40:12, Micah 4:6, and Zeph. 3:19, where it is applied to the people of God driven into a heathen land.