Why Ahithophel Turned Against David – By Babatunde Olugboji
The Bible does not explicitly state Ahithophel’s motives for betraying David. However, it informs us that David’s trusted adviser switched allegiance to Absalom (2 Samuel 15:12), provided coldly calculated and politically astute advice to facilitate the coup (2 Samuel 16:20–22; 17:1–4), and ultimately took his own life when his counsel was disregarded (2 Samuel 17:23).
From the text, several likely motives emerge:
The facts:
• His role: Ahithophel the Gilonite was recognized as one of David’s most astute advisers; his counsel was valued “as if one consulted the word of God” (2 Samuel 16:23).
• His defection: He allied himself with Absalom at Hebron to instigate the rebellion (2 Samuel 15:12; 15:31).
• His counsel: He advised Absalom to sleep with David’s concubines (to signify a complete break, (2 Samuel 16:20–22) and recommended a rapid assault to eliminate David alone (2 Samuel 17:1–4).
• His end: When Absalom disregarded his strategy, Ahithophel “set his house in order and hanged himself” (2 Samuel 17:23).
Likely motives (inferences from Scripture)
1.Family grievances linked to Bathsheba and Uriah.
Bathsheba is referred to as “the daughter of Eliam” (2 Samuel 11:3) while Eliam, the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite” is listed among David’s valiant warriors (2 Samuel 23:34). When considered together, some scholars suggest that Ahithophel was Bathsheba’s grandfather. If this is the case, David’s infidelity with Bathsheba and the orchestration of Uriah’s demise (2 Samuel 11) may have fostered profound resentment and a thirst for vengeance.
2.Political strategy and personal ambition.
Ahithophel’s strategies were designed for a decisive, surgical victory (2 Samuel 17:1–4). He might have perceived Absalom as the prevailing faction and believed that his own power would increase. His suicide when rejected indicates pride and fury at losing control over the situation (2 Samuel 17:23).
3.Spiritual decline: wisdom devoid of loyalty to God’s chosen.
Despite his brilliance, he turned his counsel against the Lord’s anointed (see 1 Samuel 24:6; Psalm 2). David’s prayer “O LORD, turn Ahithophel’s counsel into foolishness” frames the spiritual conflict (2 Samuel 15:31; 17:14).
Biblical parallels and lessons
Type of Judas: David expresses sorrow over the betrayal by a close friend, stating, “my familiar friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread…” (Psalm 41:9; 55:12–14). This sentiment is later associated with Judas’s betrayal of Jesus (John 13:18). Similar to Judas, Ahithophel also betrays and subsequently takes his own life (2 Samuel 17:23; Matthew 27:5).
Lessons for today’s believers:
• Unchecked offense can harden into treachery. It is essential to address grievances in line with God’s guidance (Ephesians 4:26–27).
• Gifting does not equate to godliness. Possessing counsel and competence without loyalty to the covenant can lead to perilous outcomes (1 Corinthians 13:2; James 3:14–16).
• Trust in God’s providence. God has the power to overturn the most formidable schemes that oppose His purposes (2 Samuel 17:14; Romans 8:31).
Five “Ahithophel Warnings”
1. Beware of ambition masked as counsel (2 Samuel 16:23; James 3:14–16).
2. Refuse offense: deal quickly with hurts (Ephesians 4:26–27).
3. Don’t be transactional, love without keeping score (Luke 6:32–36).
4. Guard your tongue, no weaponized advice, no gossip (Proverbs 11:13; 18:8).
5. Submit counsel to Scripture—not to strategy alone (Psalm 1; Proverbs 3:5–6).
In conclusion, the Ahithophel situation highlights a combination of personal grievances, political ambitions, and spiritual betrayal. Regardless of the specific mixture, Ahithophel serves as a serious cautionary tale: brilliance devoid of covenant loyalty to God and His anointing ultimately results in destruction.
Have a great week!
Questions or comments?
+1-609-887-6610 (WhatsApp)
