Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 3:22
And, behold, the servants of David and Joab came from [pursuing] a troop, and brought in a great spoil with them: but Abner [was] not with David in Hebron; for he had sent him away, and he was gone in peace.
22 27. Abner treacherously murdered by Joab
22. from pursuing a troop ] Lit. from the troop, i.e. from the foray, or plundering expedition on which they had gone to procure supplies. In the absence of taxes and regular pay, it was the only means of supporting an army. Comp. David’s practice at Ziklag (1Sa 27:8 ff.).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
A troop of robbers, either Philistines, or Edomites, or some others, who taking advantage of the discord between the houses of Saul and David, made inroads into Judah, as they had occasion.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And, behold, the servants of David and Joab came from [pursuing] a troop,…. A troop of robbers, that made an incursion into the land, taking the advantage of a civil war between Israel and Judah; such as the Edomites, Amalekites, and especially the Philistines; which Joab hearing of went out in pursuit of them, and overtook them:
and brought in a great spoil with them; which they took from them:
but Abner [was] not with David in Hebron: when Joab and his army entered the city with their booty:
for he had sent him away, and he was gone in peace; he had just dismissed him, and he was gone off safely.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Joab Murders Abner; David’s Reflections on Abner’s Murder. | B. C. 1048. |
22 And, behold, the servants of David and Joab came from pursuing a troop, and brought in a great spoil with them: but Abner was not with David in Hebron; for he had sent him away, and he was gone in peace. 23 When Joab and all the host that was with him were come, they told Joab, saying, Abner the son of Ner came to the king, and he hath sent him away, and he is gone in peace. 24 Then Joab came to the king, and said, What hast thou done? behold, Abner came unto thee; why is it that thou hast sent him away, and he is quite gone? 25 Thou knowest Abner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee, and to know thy going out and thy coming in, and to know all that thou doest. 26 And when Joab was come out from David, he sent messengers after Abner, which brought him again from the well of Sirah: but David knew it not. 27 And when Abner was returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside in the gate to speak with him quietly, and smote him there under the fifth rib, that he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother. 28 And afterward when David heard it, he said, I and my kingdom are guiltless before the LORD for ever from the blood of Abner the son of Ner: 29 Let it rest on the head of Joab, and on all his father’s house; and let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff, or that falleth on the sword, or that lacketh bread. 30 So Joab and Abishai his brother slew Abner, because he had slain their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle. 31 And David said to Joab, and to all the people that were with him, Rend your clothes, and gird you with sackcloth, and mourn before Abner. And king David himself followed the bier. 32 And they buried Abner in Hebron: and the king lifted up his voice, and wept at the grave of Abner; and all the people wept. 33 And the king lamented over Abner, and said, Died Abner as a fool dieth? 34 Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters: as a man falleth before wicked men, so fellest thou. And all the people wept again over him. 35 And when all the people came to cause David to eat meat while it was yet day, David sware, saying, So do God to me, and more also, if I taste bread, or ought else, till the sun be down. 36 And all the people took notice of it, and it pleased them: as whatsoever the king did pleased all the people. 37 For all the people and all Israel understood that day that it was not of the king to slay Abner the son of Ner. 38 And the king said unto his servants, Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel? 39 And I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these men the sons of Zeruiah be too hard for me: the LORD shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness.
We have here an account of the murder of Abner by Joab, and David’s deep resentment of it.
I. Joab very insolently fell foul upon David for treating with Abner. He happened to be abroad upon service when Abner was with David, pursuing a troop, either of Philistines or of Saul’s party; but, upon his return, he was informed that Abner was just gone (2Sa 3:22; 2Sa 3:23), and that a great many kind things had passed between David and him. He had all the reason in the world to be satisfied of David’s prudence and to acquiesce in the measures he took, knowing him to be a wise and good man himself and under a divine conduct in all his affairs; and yet, as if he had the same sway in David’s cause that Abner had in Ish-bosheth’s, he chides David, and reproaches him to his face as impolitic (2Sa 3:24; 2Sa 3:25): What hast thou done? As if David were accountable to him for what he did: “Why hast thou sent him away, when thou mightest have made him a prisoner? He came as a spy, and will certainly betray thee.” I know not whether to wonder more that Joab had impudence enough to give such an affront to his prince or that David had patience enough to take it. He does, in effect, call David a fool when he tells him he knew Abner came to deceive him and yet he trusted him. We find no answer that David gave him, not because he feared him, as Ish-bosheth did Abner (v. 11), but because he despised him, or because Joab had not so much good manners as to stay for an answer.
II. He very treacherously sent for Abner back, and, under colour of a private conference with him, barbarously killed him with his own hand. That he made use of David’s name, under pretence of giving him some further instructions, is intimated in that, but David knew it not, v. 26. Abner, designing no harm, feared none, but very innocently returned to Hebron, and, when he found Joab waiting for him at the gate, turned aside with him to speak with him privately, forgetting what he himself had said when he slew Asahel, How shall I hold up my face to Joab thy brother? (ch. ii. 22), and there Joab murdered him (v. 27), and it is intimated (v. 30) that Abishai was privy to the design, and was aiding and abetting, and would have come in to his brother’s assistance if there had been occasion; he is therefore charged as an accessary: Joab and Abishai slew Abner, though perhaps he only knew it who is privy to the thoughts and intents of men’s hearts. Now in this, 1. It is certain that the Lord was righteous. Abner had maliciously, and against the convictions of his conscience, opposed David. He had now basely deserted Ish-bosheth, and betrayed him, under pretence of regard to God and Israel, but really from a principle of pride, and revenge, and impatience of control. God will not therefore use so bad a man, though David might, in so good a work as the uniting of Israel. Judgments are prepared for such scorners as Abner was. But, 2. It is as certain that Joab was unrighteous, and, in what he did, did wickedly. David was a man after God’s own heart, but could not have those about him, no, not in places of the greatest trust, after his own heart. Many a good prince, and a good master, has been forced to employ bad men. (1.) Even the pretence for doing this was very unjust. Abner had indeed slain his brother Asahel, and Joab and Abishai pretended herein to be the avengers of his blood (2Sa 3:27; 2Sa 3:30); but Abner slew Asahel in an open war, wherein Abner indeed had given the challenge, but Joab himself had accepted it and had slain many of Abner’s friends. He did it likewise in his own defence, and not till he had given him fair warning (which he would not take), and he did it with reluctancy; but Joab here shed the blood of war in peace, 1 Kings ii. 5. (2.) That which we have reason to think was at the bottom of Joab’s enmity to Abner made it much worse. Joab was now general of David’s forces; but, if Abner should come into his interest, he would possibly be preferred before him, being a senior officer, and more experienced in the art of war. This Joab was jealous of, and could better bear the guilt of blood than the thoughts of a rival. (3.) He did it treacherously, and under pretence of speaking peaceably to him, Deut. xxvii. 24. Had he challenged him, he would have done like a soldier; but to assassinate him was done villainously and like a coward. His words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords, Ps. lv. 21. Thus he basely slew Amasa, ch. xx. 9, 10. (4.) The doing of it was a great affront and injury to David, who was now in treaty with Abner, as Joab knew. Abner was now actually in his master’s service, so that, through his side, he struck at David himself. (5.) It was a great aggravation of the murder that he did it in the gate, openly and avowedly, as one that was not ashamed, nor could blush. The gate was the place of judgment and the place of concourse, to that he did it in defiance of justice, both the just sentence of the magistrates and the just resentment of the crowd, as one that neither feared God nor regarded men, but thought himself above all control: and Hebron was a Levites’ city and a city of refuge.
III. David laid deeply to heart and in many ways expressed his detestation of this execrable villany.
1. He washed his hands from the guilt of Abner’s blood. Lest any should suspect that Joab had some secret intimation from David to do as he did (and the rather because he went so long unpunished), he here solemnly appeals to God concerning his innocency: I and my kingdom are guiltless (and my kingdom is so because I am so) before the Lord for ever, v. 28. It is a comfort to be able to say, when any bad thing is done, that we had no hand in it. We have not shed this blood, Deut. xxi. 7. However we may be censured or suspected, our hearts shall not reproach us.
2. He entailed the curse for it upon Joab and his family (v. 29): “Let it rest on the head of Joab. Let the blood cry against him, and let divine vengeance follow him. Let the iniquity be visited upon his children and children’s children, in some hereditary disease or other. The longer the punishment is delayed, the longer let it last when it shall come. Let his posterity be stigmatized, blemished with an issue or a leprosy, which will shut them out from society; let them be beggars, or cripples, or come to some untimely end, that it may be said, He is one of Joab’s race.” This intimates that the guilt of blood brings a curse upon families; if men do not avenge it, God will, and will lay up the iniquity for the children. But methinks a resolute punishment of the murderer himself would better have become David than this passionate imprecation of God’s judgments upon his posterity.
3. He called upon all about him, even Joab himself, to lament the death of Abner (v. 31): Rend your clothes and mourn before Abner, that is, before the hearse of Abner, as Abraham is said to mourn before his dead (Gen 23:2; Gen 23:3), and he gives a reason why they should attend his funeral with sincere and solemn mourning (v. 38), because there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel. His alliance to Saul, his place as general, his interest, and the great services he had formerly done, were enough to denominate him a prince and a great man. When he could not call him a saint or a good man, he said nothing of that, but what was true he gave him the praise of, though he had been his enemy, that he was a prince and a great man. “Such a man has fallen in Israel, and fallen this day, just when he was doing the best deed he ever did in his life, this day, when he was likely to be so serviceable to the public peace and welfare and could so ill be spared.” (1.) Let them all lament it. The humbling change death puts all men under is to be lamented, especially as affecting princes and great men. Alas! alas! (see Rev. xviii. 10) how mean, how little, are those made by death who made themselves the terror of the mighty in the land of the living! But we are especially obliged to lament the fall of useful men in the midst of their usefulness and when there is most need of them. A public loss must be every man’s grief, for every man shares in it. Thus David took care that honour should be done to the memory of a man of merit, to animate others. (2.) Let Joab, in a particular manner, lament it, which he has less heart but more reason to do than any of them. If he could be brought to do it sincerely, it would be an expression of repentance for his sin in slaying him. If he did it in show only, as it is likely he did, yet it was a sort of penance imposed upon him, and a present commutation of the punishment. If he do not as yet expiate the murder with his blood, let him do something towards it with tears. This, perhaps, Joab submitted to with no great reluctancy, now he had gained his point. Now that he is on the bier, no matter in what pomp he lies. Sit divus, modo non sit vivus—Let him be canonized, so that he be but killed.
4. David himself followed the corpse as chief mourner, and made a funeral oration at the grave. He attended the bier (v. 31) and wept at the grave, v. 32. Though Abner had been his enemy, and might possibly have proved no very firm friend, yet because he had been a man of bravery in the field, and might have done great service in the public counsels at this critical juncture, all former quarrels are forgotten and David is a true mourner for his fall. What he said over the grave fetched fresh floods of tears from the eyes of all that were present, when they thought they had already paid the debt in full (2Sa 3:33; 2Sa 3:34): Died Abner as a fool dieth? (1.) He speaks as one vexed that Abner was fooled out of his life, that so great a man as he, so famed for conduct and courage, should be imposed upon by a colour of friendship, slain by surprise, and so die as a fool dies. The wisest and stoutest of men have no fence against treachery. To see Abner, who thought himself the main hinge on which the great affairs of Israel turned, so considerable as himself to be able to turn the scale of a trembling government, his head full of great projects and great prospects, to see him made a fool of by a base rival, and falling on a sudden a sacrifice to his ambition and jealousy–this stains the pride of all glory, and should put one out of conceit with worldly grandeur. Put not your trust in princes,Psa 146:3; Psa 146:4. And let us therefore make that sure which we cannot be fooled out of. A man may have his life, and all that is dear to him, taken from him, and not be able to prevent it with all his wisdom, care, and integrity; but there is that which no thief can break through to steal. See here how much more we are beholden to God’s providence than to our own prudence for the continuance of our lives and comforts. Were it not for the hold God has of the consciences of bad men, how soon would the weak and innocent become an easy prey to the strong and merciless and the wisest die as fools! Or, (2.) He speaks as one boasting that Abner did not fool himself out of his life: “Died Abner as a fool dies? No, he did not, not as a criminal, a traitor or felon, that forfeits his life into the hands of public justice; his hands were not pinioned, nor his feet fettered, as those of malefactors are: Abner falls not before just men, by a judicial sentence; but as a man, an innocent man, falleth before wicked men, thieves and robbers, so fellest thou.” Died Abner as Nabal died? so the LXX. reads it. Nabal died as he lived, like himself, like a sot; but Abner’s fate was such as might have been the fate of the wisest and best man in the world. Abner did not throw away his life as Asahel did, who wilfully ran upon the spear, after fair warning, but he was struck by surprise. Note, It is a sad thing to die like a fool, as those do that in any way shorten their own days, and much more those that make no provision for another world.
5. He fasted all that day, and would by no means be persuaded to eat any thing till night, v. 35. It was then the custom of great mourners to refrain for the time from bodily refreshments, as 2Sa 1:12; 1Sa 31:13. How incongruous is it then to turn the house of mourning into a house of feasting! This respect which David paid to Abner was very pleasing to the people and satisfied them that he was not, in the least, accessory to the murder (2Sa 3:36; 2Sa 3:37), of which he was solicitous to avoid the suspicion, lest Joab’s villany should make him odious, as that of Simeon and Levi did Jacob, Gen. xxxiv. 30. On this occasion it is said, Whatever the king did pleased all the people. This intimates, (1.) His good affection to them. He studied to please them in every thing and carefully avoided what might be disobliging. (2.) Their good opinion of him. They thought every thing he did well done. Such a mutual willingness to please, and easiness to be pleased, will make every relation comfortable.
6. He bewailed it that he could not with safety do justice on the murderers, v. 30. He was weak, his kingdom was newly planted, and a little shake would overthrow it. Joab’s family had a great interest, were bold and daring, and to make them his enemies now might be of bad consequence. These sons of Zeruiah were too hard for him, too big for the law to take hold of; and therefore, though by man, by the magistrate, the blood of a murderer should be shed (Gen. ix. 6), David bears the sword in vain, and contents himself, as a private person, to leave them to the judgment of God: The Lord shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness. Now this is a diminution, (1.) To David’s greatness. He is anointed king, and yet is kept in awe by his own subjects, and some of them are too hard for him. Who would be fond of power when a man may have the name of it, and must be accountable for it, and yet be hampered in the use of it? (2.) To David’s goodness. He ought to have done his duty, and trusted God with the issue. Fiat justitia, ruat coelum—Let justice be done, though the heavens should fall asunder. If the law had had its course against Joab, perhaps the murder of Ishbosheth, Amnon, and others, would have been prevented. It was carnal policy and cruel pity that spared Joab. Righteousness supports the throne and will never shake it. Yet it was only a reprieve that David gave to Joab; on his death-bed he left it to Solomon (who could the better wield the sword of justice because he had no occasion to draw the sword of war) to avenge the blood of Abner. Evil pursues sinners, and will overtake them at last. David preferred Abner’s son Jaasiel, 1 Chron. xxvii. 21.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
The Murder of Abner, vs. 22-30
Soon after the departure of Abner Joab and his men returned from a campaign in which they had acquired great spoil. When Joab learned that Abner had been in Hebron treating with David for peace and to enthrone David king over all the tribes he was very angry. For Joab had been biding his time until he could wreak vengeance on Abner for the slaying of his brother Asahel. Under the law of the manslayer Abner perhaps should have claimed sanctuary in a city of refuge. In actuality he had killed Asahel in a clear act of self defense, but Joab and Abishai claimed the right of the avenger of blood, even though their brother had been killed in battle, in time of warfare.
In this incident is found the first of many times when Joab demonstrated a great deal of insubordination toward the king. Perhaps he was as old, or older, than David, and being a close kinsman felt that he could rightfully so treat the king. And David for some mysterious reason allowed him to do this continually. Joab chided the king as having allowed himself to be deceived by Joab, and that Abner had surely come to see how things stood, to spy against David and see his weakness. And David had allowed him to depart in peace.
Joab went out from David without announcing his own evil plans for deceiving Abner and getting him back to Hebron. Abner had reached the well of Sirah about a mile north of Hebron. Joab’s messengers brought him back for what he believed was to be a quiet consultation with Joab. After all Joab was a leader of David’s forces, and it would not have been unusual for him to wish to confer with the commander of the opposing forces. However, Joab and Abishai took him aside quietly in the gate of Hebron and there murdered him by stabbing him under the fifth rib as Asahel had been killed.
It is astounding that David seems not to have meted out any punishment on the murderers. However he disclaimed any part in the affair insofar as he or his kingdom was concerned. He absolved them from any blood guiltiness before the Lord. But as for Joab David called for a curse on him whereby in all the generations of Joab’s descendants there should be afflictions; incurable issues, a leper, cripples, suicides, hungry, that they might always be reminded of the bloody deed of Joab.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES
2Sa. 3:22. Joab came from pursuing, etc. Whither, it is not said, but probably outside the Israelitish territory near the tribe of Judah. In the incomplete organisation of Davids court such expeditions were necessary for the support of the large army. Probably Abner had purposely chosen the time when Joab with the army was absent to carry out his plan. (Erdmann.)
2Sa. 3:24-25. Joab may have spoken what he believed to be the truth concerning Abner, or he was prompted by a fear that the older and more renowned general would take his place at the head of Davids army.
2Sa. 3:26. The Well of Sirah. According to Josephus, only about two and a half English miles from Hebron.
2Sa. 3:27. When Abner was returned. Joab probably used Davids name to recall him. Abners conduct bespeaks his entire reliance upon Davids good faith. (Biblical Commentary.)
2Sa. 3:27. In the gate. Literally to the middle of the gate. It was no doubt roofed, and Joab drew Abner to the middle of the inner gate space because it was not so light there, and one could better escape the notice of the passers-by. (Erdmann.) For the blood of Asahel. This was no doubt the plea which Joab used; but Abner had slain Asahel in battle and in self-defence, and Josephus and most commentators ascribe the murder to jealousy.
2Sa. 3:29. Let it rest. Literally, turn, or be hurled. This strong expression, instead of the ordinary let it come, answers to the enormity of the crime and the energy of Davids righteous anger. (Erdmann.) Hath an issue One that pines away miserably with seminal or mucous flow. Compare Lev. 15:2. (Erdmann.) That leaneth on a staff. This last word means a distaff, and many scholars take this phrase to designate an effeminate or weakly person. The Greeks also had their Hercules with the distaff as a type of unmanly feebleness, and for a warrior like Joab there could be no worse wish than that there might be a distaff-holder among his descendants. (Bottcher.) In favour of this reading, Erdmann remarks that one that holds a staff is not necessarily a cripple, since the staff was held by rulers, by old men, by travellers, and by shepherds (Jdg. 5:14; Num. 21:18; Zec. 8:4; Luk. 6:3; Mic. 7:14, etc.), and that where a cripple is described with a staff the expression is different (Exo. 21:19.) However, Gesenius, Ewald, Phillippson, Keil, and others render the word crutch or staff. Ancient Jewish writers regard this imprecation of Davids as sinful.
2Sa. 3:31. Before Abner. In the presence of his corpse. They were to take part in the funeral procession.
2Sa. 3:33. A fool. A nabal, or worthless man.
2Sa. 3:34. Thy hands were not bound. This means, either Thou hadst not made thyself guilty of any crime, so as to die like a malefactor, in chains and bonds (Keil), or, with free hands, with which he might have defended himself; with free feet, with which he might have escaped from overpowering force. Without suspecting evil, he was attacked and murdered as a defenceless man. (Erdmann.)
2Sa. 3:35. To eat meat. It is uncertain whether David was to eat with the people (cf. 2Sa. 12:17), i.e., to take part in the funeral meal that was held after the burial, or whether the people simply urged him to take some food for the purpose of soothing his own sorrow. (Keil.)
2Sa. 3:38. A prince, etc. A prince by reason of his positiona great man because of his intellectual endowments.
2Sa. 3:39. Weak, though anointed. Most commentators understand David to mean that he was too weaktoo lately come into powerto be able to visit upon Joab and his brother the just reward of their crime, but Erdmann objects to this view
(1). Because it would have been very unwise to acknowledge his fear before such men; and
(2). Because it would have been untrue, for he who had conquered Abner, and who had the people on his side, must have possessed the power to punish Joab. He understands the first adjective to signify soft, and hard to apply, not to the contrast between himself and the sons of Zeruiah as to political situation but as to disposition. While he, though a king, is absorbed in grief, they are unmoved and indifferent.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.2Sa. 3:22-39
THE MURDER OF ABNER
I. Unprincipled men judge others by themselves. A man looking in a glass sees a reflection of himselfnot perhaps of the man he ought to be or might have been, but exactly what he is. So a bad man is apt to think, when he looks upon his brother, that he is but a reflection of himself in character, that his motives, and hopes, and intentions are the same as his own. Not being accustomed himself to act from principle, but in all things to put his own supposed interest in the foremost place, he thinks every other man must do the same. This was the way in which Joab regarded Abner and his conduct. He knew that if he were in Abners place he should not hesitate to do what he now charged him with doing if he thought he should gain by it, and was, or pretended to be, far more suspicious of his honesty than David was. Or if he really believed that Abner was in earnest in his professions of loyalty to David, still judging him by his own standard, he looked forward to what would happen in the future. He knew that in the same circumstances he should endeavour to supplant all Davids old servants, and never rest till he attained to the highest honour the king could bestow. That would involve a decrease of his powera prospect his ambitious spirit could not brook. Hence his anger and his revenge.
II. In Gods government of the world, one bad man is often the means of removing another. Neither God nor godlike creatures delight in destructive workthey love to build up rather than to destroyto dispense reward rather than retribution. But as in the natural world the ground must be cleared of weeds if the corn is to have space to grow, so the power of evil men must be limited, and they sometimes removed from the earth, that the good may live and multiply. And this work of removal is often done by their own kind, and it is the only work for God that they can do. Wicked men cannot bring any positive blessing upon the world, but they can be used in this negative way to lessen the evil and make room for the work of the good. When the fire burns up the weeds and clears the ground for the sower, one destructive force in nature is used to destroy another, and when one bad man, in his self-seeking and passion, ends the career of another, he is the unconscious instrument in the hands of God of clearing the ground for the work of godly men. So was it with Joab in relation to Abnerboth were godless, and consequently hindrances to the progress and happiness of the kingdom of God in Israel, and when one was permitted to fall by the sword of the other, one moral destroyer was used for the destruction of another that Gods servant might find the place and do the work allotted to him.
III. Although one man is thus the retribution of God to another, the responsibility of the deed rests upon himself. Every human action must be judged, not by its consequences, but by its character. Men have sometimes murdered one whom they rightly judged to be an enemy of their country; but even if the belief was correct, neither it nor the good consequences arising from the deed affected its morality. The belief may be right and the consequences may be according to the belief, but the end can never justify the use of means which are contrary to the command of God. Still less can the results of such an act as that of Joabs justify the doer or lessen his guilt in the smallest degree. Joab was a murderer, although he was a sword of retribution in the hand of God. If he had slain Abner because he believed him to be a traitor to David and an enemy to God, the motives which actuated him could not have absolved him from blood-guiltiness. Still less can the fact of Abners guilt justify a deed done purely from motives of revenge and jealousy, although that deed brought just punishment to a bad man. The fact that God overrules mens sin to further His purposes, does not do away with the sinfulness. (See also chapter 4)
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
2Sa. 3:28-29. These words have often been regarded as an expression of exaggerated passion but David here wishes nothing more than what the law predicts, and it can never be sinful to wish God to do what, in accordance with His will, He must do. The extension of the curse to the descendants clearly refers to the threatenings of the law; and in both cases the offensive character disappears, if we only remember that whoever by true repentance freed himself from connection with the guilt was also exempted from participation in the punishment.Hengstenberg.
2Sa. 3:38. This verse has been made the text of many sermons on the death of great men. We subjoin the outline of one. I. A man has fallen. I do not mean a mere male human individual, one whom the tailor rather than the mantua maker clothes,a walking thing that wears a hat. I speak of that which God meant when He said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Marred sadly now by the concussion of that fearful fall, but capable of restoration through the cross, and justifying well, in the renewal of its fair proportions and its countenance erect, the sacred record, God has made man uprighta man that has a mind and uses ita man that has a heart and yields to ita man that shapes his circumstancesa man that cares not for himself a man to make occasionsa man to meet emergenciesa man to dare not only but to bear. II. A great man has fallen. A great man first must be a man, and then must find or make the occasion to be great. In every man that is a man there is, potentially, a great man. III. A prince has fallen. A prince in place. The head, as the word simply means, of twenty millions of free people, so constituted and declared by their own choice and act. A prince in rank a prince in power a prince in quiet dignitya prince in calm indomitable resolutiona prince in utter disregard of consequences, when the right is seen and done. Know ye notwho does not know, who does not feel, who does not own that it is so?Bishop Doane on the Death of President Taylor of the United States. 1850.
2Sa. 3:39. David was weak, not so much because Joab was strong, as because he himself shrank from doing what he knew to be right in the case. Had he put Joab to death, public opinion would have sustained him in the execution of justice; and even if it had not, he would have had the inward witness that he was doing his duty to the State. For a magistrate to be weak, is to be wicked. He is set to administer and execute the law without fear or favour; and whensoever he swerves from justice from either cause, he is a traitor at once to God and to the commonwealth. Weak! this is not to speak like a man, not to say a king.Taylor.
It seems surprising that David, who was then in the flower of his age, and who had long been distinguished for his courage and skill as a military leader, should now decline into a subordinate position as a warrior, and that Joab should occupy the principal place in the wars of Israel and should exercise a dominant influence over David, so that the king was constrained to say this. Was this unhappy condition a consequence of his polygamy? Was this multiplication of wives, contrary to Gods command, a cause of effeminacy and softness? Did it disqualify him for the hardness of the field, and afford an opportunity for such bold, ambitious, and insidious persons as Joab, who profited by his weakness and favoured it, to gain a mastery over him? If David had done what his conscience told him was right, and what he did to the murderers of Ishbosheth; if he had fully trusted God, and done justice with courage, according to Gods law (Gen. 9:6); relying on God, and not looking to the carnal advantages he derived from the military skill of Joab and Abishai, he would probably have prevented other murders, such as that of Ishbosheth and Amasa; and he would have been spared the sorrow of giving on his deathbed the warrant of execution against Joab to be put in effect by Solomon. Impunity invites to greater crimes. He is cruel to the innocent who spares the guilty.Wordsworth.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Joab Murders Abner. 2Sa. 3:22-30
22 And, behold, the servants of David and Joab came from pursuing a troop, and brought in a great spoil with them: but Abner was not with David in Hebron; for he had sent him away, and he was gone in peace.
23 When Joab and all the host that was with him were come, they told Joab, saying, Abner the son of Ner came to the king, and he hath sent him away, and he is gone in peace.
24 Then Joab came to the king, and said, What hast thou done? behold, Abner came unto thee; why is it that thou hast sent him away, and he is quite gone?
25 Thou knowest Abner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee, and to know thy going out and thy coming in, and to know all that thou doest.
26 And when Joab was come out from David, he sent messengers after Abner, which brought him again from the well of Sirah: but David knew it not.
27 And when Abner was returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside in the gate to speak with him quietly, and smote him there under the fifth rib, that he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother.
28 And afterward when David heard it, he said, I and my kingdom are guiltless before the Lord for ever from the blood of Abner the son of Ner:
29 Let it rest on the head of Joab, and on all his fathers house; and let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff, or that falleth on the sword, or that lacketh bread.
30 So Joab and Abishai his brother slew Abner, because he had slain their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle.
17.
Was Joab sincere in making a charge against Abner? 2Sa. 3:25
Joab hated Abner. The blood feud that was between them was probably insincere. Joab was expected to seek revenge for the death of Asahel. The fact that Joab was absent was probably as David planned it. The servants of David who were with Joab were military men who had been on the pursuit of an enemy troop. The bounty brought back was that which was taken from surrounding tribes. Such spoil made up the revenue of a monarchy to a considerable extent. Whoever reported Abners visit to Joab may have given him misinformation, but there was nothing to indicate that Abner was planning to displace Joab. Abner was certainly friendly towards David, and Joab had no reason to kill him. It was only the strong hatred for Abner on the part of Joab which led to his action, Joabs first point was that David had let Abner get away. His second point was that Abner must have come from an evil motive, Joab could not see Abner as anything but an enemy of Judah.
18.
Where was the well of Sirah? 2Sa. 3:26
The well of Sirah was about a mile north of Hebron. This is the only mention of it in the Bible, and the only important thing that occurred there is the murder of Abner by Joab. The well is probably the Ain Sirah pointed out in modern times. The freedom with which Joab expostulated with David shows the position which he occupied both as a kinsman and as an officer in Davids army. He moves about freely and acts on his own. David did not know what Joab was doing.
19.
Why was Abner so unsuspecting? 2Sa. 3:27
Abner, no doubt, thought that the king had summoned him and so he turned back. The curious thing about the whole transaction is not that Joab would take blood revenge but that Abner should be so unsuspecting. We can account for his conduct only by supposing that he had a distinct certificate of safe conduct from David. An enemy would hardly move into hostile territory without such a permit.
20.
How was the death of Abner connected with the blood of Asahel? 2Sa. 3:27
One of Gods long-standing laws was that a murderer should not go unpunished. This statute was laid down immediately after the flood, when God said, whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed (Gen. 9:6). God also indicated that He would require the blood of life at the hand of every mans brother. Joab evidently thought it was his duty to avenge the death of Asahel. The fact that Hebron was a political city of refuge does not alter the situation. It is true that the city of refuge was for the sparing of the life of a man who had slain another without premeditation (Num. 35:11). Hebron was a Levitical city (Jos. 21:11-13) and Hebron was also designated a city of refuge. Neither is the situation altered by the fact that Joab took him aside in the gate (2Sa. 3:27). Inside or outside the city of Hebron, Joab had no real reason to kill Abner.
21.
Why did David say that he was not to blame? 2Sa. 3:28
David cried out that he and his kingdom were innocent before the Lord, who avenges those slain without cause (Psa. 19:9-13). He did not know that Joab had sent to call Abner back to Hebron. He had nothing to do with the murder of Abner. He regretted the action and wanted his people to know it.
22.
What was Davids judgment on Joab? 2Sa. 3:29
David really uttered a prayer that the murder of Abner should rest on the hands of Joab and all his fathers house. It was his prayer that there would not fail to be a sickly member in his descendants. He specified that he hoped that there would be lepers among them. The one who leaned on a staff would be an effeminate person who was unfit for manly occupation, if the staff be considered a part of the spindle used in weaving. Aquila viewed this as being one who was blind, and therefore had to walk with a stick. At least one leaning on a staff would be infirm and old. David went on to say that he hoped that there would be those who would die in war and would be hungry and begging bread. It was a very full imprecation.
23.
What part did Abishai play in Abners murder? 2Sa. 3:30
Abishai may have been the one who ran out to call Abner back at Joabs command. Abishai was also the brother of Asahel, as well as Joabs brother. He was an officer in Davids army, and involved with the plot to kill Abner. He does not take the lead as did Joab, but he is guilty of Abners murder by reason of his following Joabs directives.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(22) Joab came.He had been either on some expedition against the Philistines, the Amalekites, or other enemies of Judah, or else engaged in repelling some attack from them. In either case, he returned elated with victory, and bringing great spoil; but Abner had concluded his interview and gone away before his return.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
ASSASSINATION OF ABNER BY JOAB, AND DAVID’S GRIEF, 2Sa 3:22-39.
“When David had sent Abner away, Joab, the general of his army, came immediately to Hebron; and when he had understood that Abner had been with David, and had parted with him a little before under leagues and agreements that the government should be delivered up to David, he feared lest David should place Abner, who had assisted him to gain the kingdom, in the first rank of dignity, especially since he was a shrewd man in other respects, in understanding affairs, and in managing them artfully, as proper seasons should require; and that he himself should be put lower, and deprived of the command of the army; so he took a knavish and wicked course.” Josephus.
22. From pursuing a troop Literally, from the troop; that is, a troop or band of select warriors that had been out fighting with hostile tribes of the desert. From one of those marauding expeditions in which David and his men in time past had been wont to engage. 1Sa 27:8.
Abner Murdered by Joab, Mourned by David
v. 22. And, behold, the servants of David and Joab, v. 23. When Joab and all the host that was with him were come, they told Joab, v. 24. Then Joab, v. 25. Thou knowest Abner, the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee, v. 26. And when Joab was come out from David, v. 27. And when Abner was returned to Hebron, v. 28. And afterward, when David heard it, he said, I and my kingdom are guiltless before the Lord forever from the blood of Abner, the son of Ner.
v. 29. Let it, v. 30. So Joab and Abishai, his brother, v. 31. And David said to Joab and to all the people that were with him, Rend your clothes, and gird you with sackcloth, v. 32. And they buried Abner in Hebron; and the king lifted up his voice and wept at the grave of Abner, v. 33. And the king lamented over Abner, v. 34. Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters, v. 35. And when all the people came to cause David to eat meat, v. 36. And all the people took notice of it, and it pleased them; as whatsoever the king did pleased all the people, v. 37. For all the people, v. 38. And the king said unto his servants, Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel? v. 39. And I am this day weak, (22) And, behold, the servants of David and Joab came from pursuing a troop, and brought in a great spoil with them: but Abner was not with David in Hebron; for he had sent him away, and he was gone in peace. (23) When Joab and all the host that was with him were come, they told Joab, saying, Abner the son of Ner came to the king, and he hath sent him away, and he is gone in peace. (24) Then Joab came to the king, and said, What hast thou done? behold, Abner came unto thee; why is it that thou hast sent him away, and he is quite gone? (25) Thou knowest Abner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee, and to know thy going out and thy coming in, and to know all that thou doest.
Though perhaps Joab’s displeasure was expressed rather too violently, yet certainly it was blameable in David to countenance a traitor, such as Abner had proved himself to Ishbosheth. David felt the ill effects of such a conduct in Doeg the Edomite, upon a former occasion. 1Sa 22:9 .
2Sa 3:22 And, behold, the servants of David and Joab came from [pursuing] a troop, and brought in a great spoil with them: but Abner [was] not with David in Hebron; for he had sent him away, and he was gone in peace.
Ver. 22. Joab came from pursuing a troop. ] Of foragers and brigands; Philistines likely. Spoilers shall be spoiled. Isa 33:1
pursuing a troop = making a raid.
a Treacherous Revenge
2Sa 3:22-30
There is no doubt that Abner was guilty of disloyalty and treachery, but this did not excuse Joabs dastardly act. He could not claim the right to act as goel-blood avenger-for his dead brother, because Asahel had died a soldiers death in open war. Joab was probably actuated by jealousy of the military talents, the vast influence and the widespread popularity of the rival general whom he murdered in cold blood, just outside the city of refuge. Evidently he was a fierce, cruel, unscrupulous man, who hurt David more than he helped him, 2Sa 3:39. But Joab also was destined to suffer similar punishment in after-years, 1Ki 2:28-34.
This world is governed according to a plan. We need not try to climb into the judgment-seat. God is there already. His rewards and punishments befall with greater certainty than we always believe. Whether their schemes are hidden amid the intricacies of state, or open to all eyes, let us be sure that evil men reap as they have sown, and suffer evils similar to those which they endeavor to inflict upon others. We all get our deserts.
Reciprocal: 2Sa 4:2 – captains
2Sa 3:22-27. Joab had been absent on a foray during Abners visit; on his return, he induced Abner to come back and meet him and then treacherously assassinated him, to avenge the death of Asahel.
2Sa 3:26. Sirah: not identified.
2Sa 3:27. midst: read, side of with LXX.
3:22 And, behold, the servants of David and Joab came {h} from [pursuing] a troop, and brought in a great spoil with them: but Abner [was] not with David in Hebron; for he had sent him away, and he was gone in peace.
(h) From war against the Philistines.
CHAPTER V.
ASSASSINATION OF ABNER AND ISHBOSHETH.
2Sa 3:22-39; 2Sa 4:1-12
IT is quite possible that, in treating with Abner, David showed too complacent a temper, that he treated too lightly his appearance in arms against him at the pool of Gibeon, and that he neglected to demand an apology for the death of Asahel. Certainly it would have been wise had some measures been taken to soothe the ruffled temper of Joab and reconcile him to the new arrangement This, however, was not done. David was so happy in the thought that the civil war was to cease, and that all Israel were about to recognize him as their king, that he would not go back on the past, or make reprisals even for the death of Asahel. He was willing to let bygones be bygones. Perhaps, too, he thought that if Asahel met his death at the hand of Abner, it was his own rashness that was to blame for it. Anyhow he was greatly impressed with the value of Abner’s service on his behalf, and much interested in the project to which he was now going forth – gathering all Israel to the king, to make a league with him and bind themselves to his allegiance.
In these measures Joab had not been consulted. When Abner was at Hebron, Joab was absent on a military enterprise. In that enterprise he had been very successful, and he was able to appear at Hebron with the most popular evidence of success that a general could bring – a large amount of spoil. No doubt Joab was elated with his success, and was in that very temper when a man is most disposed to resent his being overlooked and to take more upon him than is meet. When he heard of David’s agreement with Abner, he was highly displeased. First he went to the king, and scolded him for his simplicity in believing Abner. It was but a stratagem of Abner’s to allow him to come to Hebron, ascertain the state of David’s affairs, and take his own steps more effectively in the interest of his opponent. Suspicion reigned in Joab’s heart; the generosity of David’s nature was not only not shared by him, but seemed silliness itself. His rudeness to David is highly offensive. He speaks to him in the tone of a master to a servant, or in the tone of those servants who rule their master. “What hast thou done? Behold, Abner came unto thee; why is it that thou hast sent him away, and he is quite gone? Thou knowest Abner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee, and to know thy going out and thy coming in, and to know all that thou doest.” David is spoken to like one guilty of inexcusable folly, as if he were accountable to Joab, and not Joab to him. Of the king’s answer to Joab, nothing is recorded; but from David’s confession (2Sa 3:39) that the sons of Zeruiah were too strong for him, we may infer that it was not very firm or decided, and that Joab set it utterly at nought. For the very first thing that Joab did after seeing the king was to send a message to Abner, most likely in David’s name, but without David’s knowledge, asking him to return. Joab was at the gate ready for his treacherous business, and taking Abner aside as if for private conversation, he plunged his dagger in his breast, ostensibly in revenge for the death of his brother Asahel. There was something eminently mean and dastardly in the deed. Abner was now on the best of terms with Joab’s master, and he could not have apprehended danger from the servant. If assassination be mean among civilians, it is eminently mean among soldiers. The laws of hospitality were outraged when one who had just been David’s guest was assassinated in David’s city. The outrage was all the greater, as was also the injury to King David and to the whole kingdom, that the crime was committed when Abner was on the eve of an important and delicate negotiation with the other tribes of Israel, since the arrangement which he hoped to bring about was likely to be broken off by the news of his shameful death. At no moment are the feelings of men less to be trifled with than when, after long and fierce alienation, they are on the point of coming together. Abner had brought the tribes of Israel to that point, but now, like a flock of birds frightened by a shot, they were certain to fly asunder. All this danger Joab set at nought, the one thought of taking revenge for the death of his brother absorbing every other, and making him, like so many other men when excited by a guilty passion, utterly regardless of every consequence provided only his revenge was satisfied.
How did David act toward Joab? Most kings would at once have put him to death, and David’s subsequent action towards the murderers of Ishbosheth shows that, even in his judgment, this would have been the proper retribution on Joab for his bloody deed. But David did not feel himself strong enough to deal with Joab according to his deserts. It might have been better for him during the rest of his life if he had acted with more vigour now. But instead of making an example of Joab, he contented himself with pouring out on him a vial of indignation, publicly washing his hands of the nefarious transaction, and pronouncing on its author and his family a terrible malediction. We cannot but shrink from the way in which David brought in Joab’s family to share his curse; “Let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff, or that falleth on the sword, or that lacketh bread.” Yet we must remember that according to the sentiment of those times a man and his house were so identified that the punishment due to the head was regarded as due to the whole. In our day we see a law in constant operation which visits iniquities of the parents upon the children with a terrible retribution. The drunkard’s children are woeful sufferers for their parent’s sin; the family of the felon carries a stigma forever. We recognize this as a law of Providence; but we do not act on it ourselves in inflicting punishment. In David’s time, however, and throughout the whole Old Testament period, punishments due to the fathers were formally shared by their families. When Joshua sentenced Achan to die for his crime in stealing from the spoils of Jericho a wedge of gold and a Babylonish garment, his wife and children were put to death along with him. In denouncing the curse on Joab’s family as well as himself, David therefore only recognized a law which was universally acted on in his day. The law may have been a hard one, but we are not to blame David for acting on a principle of retribution universally acknowledged. We are to remember, too, that David was now acting in a public capacity, and as the chief magistrate of the nation. If he had put Joab to death, his act would have involved his family in many a woe; in denouncing his deeds and calling for retribution on them generation after generation, he only carried out the same principle a little further. That Joab deserved to die for his dastardly crime, none could have denied; if David abstained from inflicting that punishment, it was only natural that he should be very emphatic in proclaiming what such a criminal might look for, in never-failing visitations on himself and his seed, when he was left to be dealt with by the God of justice.
Having thus disposed of Joab, David had next to dispose of the dead body of Abner. He determined that every circumstance connected with Abner’s funeral should manifest the sincerity of his grief at his untimely end. In the first place, he caused him to be buried at Hebron. We know of the tomb at Hebron where the bodies of the patriarchs lay; if it was at all legitimate to place others in that grave, we may believe that a place in it was found for Abner. In the second place, the mourning company attended the funeral with rent clothes and girdings of sackcloth, while the king himself followed the bier, and at the grave both king and people gave way to a burst of tears. In the third place, the king pronounced an elegy over him, short, but expressive of his sense of the unworthy death which had come to such a man:
“Should Abner die as a fool dieth?
Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters;
As a man falleth before the children of iniquity, so didst thou fall.”
Had he died the death of one taken in battle, his bound hands and his feet in fetters would have denoted that after honourable conflict he had been defeated in the field, and that he died the death due to a public enemy. Instead of this, he had fallen before the children of iniquity, before men mean enough to betray him and murder him, while he was under the protection of the king. In the fourth place, he sternly refused to eat bread till that day, so full of darkness and infamy, should have passed away. The public manifestations of David’s grief showed very clearly how far he was from approving of the death of Abner. And they had the desired effect. The people were pleased with the evidence afforded of David’s feelings, and the event that had seemed likely to destroy his prospects turned out in this way in his favour. “The people took notice of this, and it pleased them, as whatsoever the king did pleased all the people.” It was another evidence of the conquering power of goodness and forbearance. By his generous treatment of his foes, David secured a position in the hearts of his people, and established his kingdom on a basis of security which he could not have obtained by any amount of severity. For ages and ages, the two methods of dealing with a reluctant people, generosity and severity, have been pitted against each other, and always with the effect that severity fails and generosity succeeds. There were many who were indignant at the clemency shown by Lord Canning after the Indian mutiny. They would have had him inspire terror by acts of awful severity. But the peaceful career of our Indian empire and the absence of any attempt to renew the insurrection since that time show that the policy of clemency was the policy of wisdom and of success.
Still another step was taken by David that shows how painfully he was impressed by the death of Abner. To “his servants” – that is, his cabinet or his staff – he said in confidence; “Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel?” He recognized in Abner one of those men of consummate ability who are born to rule, or at least to render the highest service to the actual ruler of a country by their great influence over men. It seems very probable that he looked to him as his own chief officer for the future. Rebel though he had been, he seemed quite cured of his rebellion, and now that he cordially acknowledged David’s right to the throne, he would probably have been his right-hand man. Abner, Saul’s cousin, was probably a much older man than Joab, who was David’s nephew, and who could not have been much older than David himself. The loss of Abner was a great personal loss especially as it threw him more into the hands of these sons of Zeruiah, Joab and Abishai, whose impetuous, lordly temper was too much for him. to restrain. The representation to his confidential servants, “I am weak, and these men, the sons of Zeruiah, are too strong for me,” was an appeal to them for cordial help in the affairs of the kingdom, in order that Joab and his brother might not be able to carry everything their own way. David, like many another man, needed to say, Save me from my friends. We get a vivid glimpse of the perplexities of kings, and of the compensations of a humbler lot. Men in high places, worried by the difficulties of managing their affairs and servants, and by the endless annoyances to which their jealousies and their self-will give rise, may find much to envy in the simple, unembarrassed life of the humblest of the people.
From the assassination of Abner, the real source of the opposition that had been raised to David, the narrative proceeds to the assassination of Ishbosheth, the titular king. “When Saul’s son heard that Abner was dead in Hebron, his hands were feeble, and all the Israelites were troubled.” The contrast is striking between his conduct under difficulty and that of David. In the history of the latter, faith often faltered in times of trouble, and the spirit of distrust found a footing in his soul. But these occasions occurred in the course of protracted and terrible struggles; they were exceptions to his usual bearing; faith commonly bore him up in his darkest trials. Ishbosheth, on the other hand, seems to have had no resource, no sustaining power whatever, under visible reverses. David’s slips were like the temporary falling back of the gallant soldier when surprised by a sudden onslaught, or when, fagged and weary, he is driven back by superior numbers; but as soon as he has recovered himself, he dashes back undaunted to the conflict. Ishbosheth was like the soldier who throws down his arms and rushes from the field as soon as he feels the bitter storm of battle. With all his falls, there was something in David that showed him to be cast in a different mould from ordinary men. He was habitually aiming at a higher standard, and upheld by the consciousness of a higher strength; he was ever and anon resorting to “the secret place of the Most High,” taking hold of Him as his covenant God, and labouring to draw down from Him the inspiration and the strength of a nobler life than that of the mass of the children of men.
The godless course which Ishbosheth had followed in setting up a claim to the throne in opposition to the Divine call of David not only lost him the distinction he coveted, but cost him his life. He made himself a mark for treacherous and heartless men; and one day, while lying in his bed at noon, was dispatched by two of his servants. The two men that murdered him seem to have been among those whom Saul enriched with the spoil of the Gibeonites. They were brothers, men of Beeroth, which was formerly one of the cities of the Gibeonites, but was now reckoned to Benjamin.
Saul appears to have attacked the Beerothites, and given their property to his favourites (comp. 1Sa 22:7 and 2Sa 21:2). A curse went with the transaction; Ishbosheth, one of Saul’s sons, was murdered by two of those who were enriched by the unhallowed deed; and many years after, his bloody house had to yield up seven of his sons to justice, when a great famine showed that for this crime wrath rested on the land.
The murderers of Ishbosheth, Baanah and Rechab, mistaking the character of David as much as it had been mistaken by the Amalekite who pretended that he had slain Saul, hastened to Hebron, bearing with them the head of their victim, a ghastly evidence of the reality of the deed. This revolting trophy they carried all the way from Mahanaim to Hebron, a distance of some fifty miles. Mean and selfish themselves, they thought other men must be the same. They were among those poor creatures who are unable to rise above their own poor level in their conceptions of others. When they presented themselves before David, he showed all his former superiority to selfish, jealous feelings. He was roused indeed to the highest pitch of indignation. We can hardly conceive the astonishment and horror with which they would receive his answer, “As the Lord liveth, who hath redeemed my soul out of all adversity, when one told me saying. Behold, Saul is dead, thinking to have brought good tidings, I took hold on him and slew him in Ziklag, who thought that I would have given him a reward for his tidings. How much more when wicked men have slain a righteous person in his own house upon his bed! Shall I not therefore require his blood at your hand, and take you away from the earth?” Simple death was not judged a severe enough punishment for such guilt; as they had cut off the head of Ishbosheth after killing him, so after they were slain their hands and their feet were cut off; and thereafter they were hanged over the pool in Hebron – a token of the execration in which the crime was held. Here was another evidence that deeds of violence done to his rivals, so far from finding acceptance, were detestable in the eyes of David. And here was another fulfillment of the resolution which he had made when he took possession of the throne – “I will early destroy all the wicked of the land, that I may cut off all wicked doers from the city of the Lord.”
These rapid, instantaneous executions by order of David have raised painful feelings in many. Granting that the retribution was justly deserved, and granting that the rapidity of the punishment was in accord with military law, ancient and modern, and that it was necessary in order to make a due impression on the people, still it may be asked. How could David, as a pious man, hurry these sinners into the presence of their Judge without giving them any exhortation to repentance or leaving them a moment in which to ask for mercy? The question is undoubtedly a difficult one. But the difficulty arises in a great degree from our ascribing to David and others the same knowledge of the future state and the same vivid impressions regarding it that we have ourselves. We often forget that to those who lived in the Old Testament the future life was wrapped in far greater obscurity than it is to us. That good men had no knowledge of it, we cannot allow; but certainly they knew vastly less about it than has been revealed to us. And the general effect of this was that the consciousness of a future life was much fainter even among good men then than now. They did not think about it; it was not present to their thoughts. There is no use trying to make David either a wiser or a better man than he was. There is no use trying to place him high above the level or the light of his age. If it be asked, How did David feel with reference to the future life of these men? the answer is, that probably it was not much, if at all, in his thoughts. That which was prominent in his thoughts was that they had sacrificed their lives by their atrocious wickedness, and the sooner they were punished the better. If he thought of their future, he would feel that they were in the hands of God, and that they would be judged by Him according to the tenor of their lives. It cannot be said that compassion for them mingled with David’s feelings. The one prominent feeling he had was that of their guilt; for that they must suffer. And David, like other soldiers who have shed much blood, was so accustomed to the sight of violent death, that the horror which it usually excites was no longer familiar to him.
It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ that has brought life and immortality to light. So far from the future life being a dim and shadowy revelation, it is now one of the clearest doctrines of the faith. It is one of the doctrines which every earnest preacher of the Gospel is profoundly earnest in dwelling on. That death ushers us into the presence of God, that after death Cometh the judgment, that every one of us is to give account of himself to God, that the final condition of men is to be one of misery or one of life, are among the clearest revelations of the Gospel. And this fact invests every man’s death with profound significance in the Christian’s view. That the condemned criminal may have time to prepare, our courts of law invariably interpose an interval between the sentence and the punishment. Would only that men were more consistent here! If we shudder at the thought of a dying sinner appearing in all the blackness of his guilt before God, let us think more how we may turn sinners from their wickedness while they live. Let us see the atrocious guilt of encouraging them in ways of sin that cannot but bring on them the retribution of a righteous God. O ye who, careless yourselves, laugh at the serious impressions and scruples of others; ye who teach those that would otherwise do better to drink and gamble and especially to scoff; ye who do your best to frustrate the prayers of tender-hearted fathers and mothers whose deepest desire is that their children may be saved; ye, in one word, who are missionaries of the devil and help to people hell – would that you pondered your awful guilt! For “whosoever shall cause any of the least of these to offend, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the depths of the sea.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary