HUSHAI (tIrt ; Sept. Xouo-f ; Vulg. Chusai) appears as a prominent actor in the history of Absalom's rebellion. When David fled from his capital Hushai joined his mournful train at the top of Mount Olivet, and seems to have been the means of first raising the forlorn monarch from the dejection into which he was thrown by the tidings of the desertion of his ablest counsellor Ahithophel (2 Sam. xv. 32). At his royal master's suggestion Hushai returned to the city for the purpose of serving his cause as occasion might offer (vv. 33-37). One of the prince's first acts was to convene a meeting, which Dr. Kitto mentions as the first cabinet council to which history admits us' (Debit 4.20) : Hushai was invited to attend rather as an amicus curia than as a recognised member. After Ahithophel had tendered his sage but fiendish counsel, Hushai, called on by Absalom himself to offer his opinion, availed himself of his opportunity with an adroitness which reminds us of ihe artfulness of a Ulysses or a Themistocles. In I winged words of florid eloquence he portrayed the I martial spirit of the king, and, true to his object of defeating Ahithophel's fatal counsel, he urged the prince to delay his pursuit of the chafed' monarch until he had effected an ampler preparation (xvii. 7-13). The earnestness °ibis manner recommended his specious advice to Absalom as preferable to that of the rival counsellor (xvii. 4). The immediate result was the suicide (the first on record, Kitto, c.) of the vexed and disappointed Ahithophel, and the ultimate consequence was the crushing out of the formidable rebellion. Much curious and vain discussion has been raised as to the conduct of Ilushai in his service of David ; all through he seems to have closely followed the suggestions of his royal master (xv. 34) ; so that whatever censure is passed on him belongs equally to the king. Peter Martyr combines them both in his extra ordinary conclusion (in /oc.), Si ex instinctu Dei hoc fecerunt non peccarunt ; si humano impulsu, peccarunt, et non stint excusandi.' We are not called upon to justify every act in the conduct of the best of men, when we read the simple and un adorned narrative of it in Holy Scripture. In all the excitement of that sad history of filial impiety, human counsel and human passion it was which ordered the means for accomplishing what was an undoubtedly Divine appointment (see 2 Sam. xvii. 14). In justifying the ways of God to men, and admiring the issues of His will, we are in no case obliged to approve actions which have nothing but their success to commend them. Whatever was Hushai's general character (and there is no ground for supposing it to be other than good, and worthy of David's highcst fricndship) in the cabinet council of the rebellious prince, he seems to have been at least a match for the astutest diplomacy, and by the boldness of his prevarication to have becn the means of disappointing the devices of the crafty, so that their hands could not perform their enterprise' (Job v. 12). Hushai is called
the 'friend' and conpanion' of David (2 Sam. xv. 37 ; Citron. xxvii. 33) ; but Holy Scripture does not assign him these honourable titles in acknow ledgment of his service to his master during the rebellion ; he was well known for these valuable characteristics long before Absalom put them to so severe a test (see 2 Sam. xvi. 16, 17, compared with xv. 37). It saw, no doubt, the greater earnestness and devotion of his chamcter, as com pared with the cold and calculating Gilonite (comp. the epithets applied to the two mcn, in 1 Chron.
xxvii. 33 ; where the '61:6 ;IA+, the mere genitive _ .
of possession, seems to indicate a looser relation to the king than the VD, which, being a phrase of the construct state,' probably expresses the doses/ connection that the words will bear ; see also Gesen. Gram. [by Rodiger], p. 208) which induced Absalom to pay greater deference to Hushai, as if he felt that in him he had a more trustworthy man to lean on.
But besides his advice at the council, Hushai promoted David's cause by keeping up a communi cation with him afterwards, and especially by the promptitude with which he despatched messengers to urge the king to flee for his life (2 Sam. xvii. 15-22). Hushai is called the Archite' in five of the fourteen passages where his name occurs. This gen/1u, designation is very probably the same as is tioned in Josh. xvi. 2, in the description of the southern border of the tribe of Ephraim, where the +ritzn :Ina (A. v. the bora'ers of Arehi,' more properly the borders of the Archite') lay near Bethel or Luz towards Ataroth," about midway between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. The city which originated this gentile designation w'as no doubt called Erech (TIN), of the same form with the Babylonian city mentioned in Gen. x. xo, with which of course it is not to be confounded. The gentile of this Eastern city is Archevites,' nniN, mentinned in Ezra iv. 9.
In the next generation and next reign the dis tinguished honour of being the king's friend' was enjoyed by a son of Nathan the prophet (i Kings iv. 5) contemporary with him was BAANAH, the son of'Hushai, who served Solomon as one of his twelve officers or prefects appointed to levy the royal revennes. There is no reason to doubt that this functionary was the son of our Hushai ; the absence of the designation Archite ' is immaterial, for it does not invariably accompany Hushai's name in the passa..es of his history ; it is for instance absent in 2 S6arn. xv. 37, though found in ver. 32 ; in the next chap. it is only once mentioned in the four occurrences of Hushai's name ; while in xvii. chap. the name occurs six times, but the gentile epithet only twice.—P. H.