Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 2:1
And it came to pass after this, that David inquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah? And the LORD said unto him, Go up. And David said, Whither shall I go up? And he said, Unto Hebron.
Ch. 2Sa 2:1-7. David anointed King over Judah at Hebron. His message to the Gileadites
1. after this ] After the defeat of Israel and the death of Saul and Jonathan, David saw that the way was clear for the fulfilment of God’s promise that he should be king. Still he desired divine direction how to act in this crisis. He therefore “inquired of the Lord” by means of the Urim and Thummim through the High-priest Abiathar. See notes on 1Sa 10:22; 1Sa 23:6.
Unto Hebron ] The central position of Hebron in the tribe of Judah, its mountainous and defensible situation, its importance as a priestly settlement and an ancient royal city, the patriarchal associations connected with it, combined to render it the most suitable capital for the new kingdom, while the North was held partly by the Philistines, partly by Saul’s adherents. In its neighbourhood moreover David had spent a considerable part of his fugitive life, and gained many supporters. See 1Sa 30:31, and note there.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Enquired of the Lord – Through Abiathar, the high priest. The death of Saul and Jonathan had entirely changed Davids position, and therefore he needed divine guidance how to act under the new circumstances in which he was placed. Compare the marginal references.
Hebron was well suited for the temporary capital of Davids kingdom, being situated in a strong position in the mountains of Judah, amidst Davids friends, and withal having especially sacred associations (see the marginal references note). It appears to have also been the center of a district 2Sa 2:3.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
2Sa 2:1-32
And it came to pass after this, that David inquired of the Lord.
Strength and weakness
David’s sense of dependence upon God!
1. His passive patience is exquisitely touching, and presents such a contrast to his recent unsettled haste of spirit. We shall find this quiet restfulness characterising his triumphant hours. Not inertness and supineness–active dependence. Not sloth–that marked his faithless hours–but a calm restfulness, betokening living faith. He makes no effort to secure the throne, and yet every hope concerning it he has ever nourished is moving toward fruition. Had his eye rested upon the human side, he was well able to make the forward movement. By nature a man of quick decision and quicker action, his valiant men would urge him to move towards Jerusalem. Instead of any such movement, he stays to inquire of the Lord (2Sa 2:1).
2. Additional emphasis is given to this view of David’s state of heart in the tone of his prayer: Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah? not selecting the city. Being of the tribe of Judah, it rises to his lips to ask if he may be among his own people. Do we not often ask advice, with deepest emphasis when we see not our way? It is strong faith, genuine humility, which submits our choice to Divine over-ruling.
3. How simple the record I So David went up thither. How much the record covers! Prompt obedience and unfaltering trust. This is the way to move towards the consummation of Divine purposes–to obey Divine commands unhesitatingly. I made haste, and delayed not to keep Thy commandments (Psa 119:60).
4. The consequences of sin remain long after the sin itself is forgiven. David’s sojourn among the Philistines bore fruit after many days–fruit that was bitter to the taste. For David to ally himself with the Philistines could bring only pain and weakness. To-day the believer marries the worldling, the child of God takes into partnership the child of the world. Ziklag experiences are repeated all too surely around us. Prompted to the deed by personal jealousy or fear of losing his position, Abner sets up as king Ishbosheth, Saul’s son (2Sa 2:8). To this the western tribes agree;–their fear lest David’s compact with Philistia be yet undissolved largely minister.
(H. E. Stone.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER II
David, by the direction of God, goes up to Hebron, and is
there anointed king over the house of Judah, 1-4.
He congratulates the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead on their
kindness in rescuing the bodies of Saul and his sons from
the Philistines, 5-7.
Abner anoints Ish-bosheth, Saul’s son, king over Gilead, the
Ashurites, Jezreel, Ephraim, Benjamin, and all Israel; over
whom he reigned two years, 8-10.
David reigns over Judah, in Hebron, seven years and six months,
11.
Account of a battle between Abner, captain of the Israelites,
and Joab, captain of the men of Judah; in which the former
are routed with the loss of three hundred and sixty men: but
Asahel, the brother of Joab, is killed by Abner, 12-32.
NOTES ON CHAP. II
Verse 1. David inquired of the Lord] By means of Abiathar the priest; for he did not know whether the different tribes were willing to receive him, though he was fully persuaded that God had appointed him king over Israel.
Unto Hebron.] The metropolis of the tribe of Judah, one of the richest regions in Judea. The mountains of Hebron were famed for fruits, herbage, and honey; and many parts were well adapted for vines, olives, and different kinds of grain, abounding in springs of excellent water, as the most accurate travellers have asserted.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
David inquired of the Lord, by Urim, as 1Sa 23:6,9; 30:7,8. Thus David begins at the right end, and lays his foundation in Gods counsel and assistance, which now he seeks. He asketh not whether he should take the kingdom, for that was appointed and known before; and he would not offend God, nor dishonour his ordinance, with frivolous and unnecessary inquiries; but only where he should enter upon it; whether in Judah, as he supposed, because of his relation to that tribe, and his interest in it; or whether in some other tribe; for he doth not limit God, but resolves exactly to follow his counsels. Unto Hebron; which was next to Jerusalem, (part whereof the Jebusites now possessed,) the chief city of that tribe, and a city of the priests, Jos 21:10, &c., and in the very centre or middle of that tribe, to which the whole tribe might speedily resort, when need required.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1-4. David inquired of the LordByUrim (1Sa 23:6; 1Sa 23:9;1Sa 30:7; 1Sa 30:8).He knew his destination, but he knew also that the providence of Godwould pave the way. Therefore he would take no step in such a crisisof his own and the nation’s history, without asking and obtaining thedivine direction. He was told to go into Judah, and fix hisheadquarters in Hebron, whither he accordingly repaired with his nowconsiderable force. There his interests were very powerful; for hewas not only within his own tribe, and near chiefs with whom he hadbeen long in friendly relations (see on 1Sa30:26), but Hebron was the capital and center of Judah, and oneof the Levitical cities; the inhabitants of which were stronglyattached to him, both from sympathy with his cause ever since themassacre at Nob, and from the prospect of realizing in his persontheir promised pre-eminence among the tribes. The princes of Judah,therefore, offered him the crown over their tribe, and it wasaccepted. More could not, with prudence, be done in the circumstancesof the country (1Ch 11:3).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And it came to pass after this,…. After David had heard of the death of Saul and Jonathan, and made a lamentation over them, perhaps the next day; since David and his men are only said to mourn, and weep, and fast till even, 2Sa 1:10;
that David inquired of the Lord; of the Word of the Lord, as the Targum, by Abiathar the priest, and through the Urim and Thummim, in the ephod he had put on on this occasion:
saying, shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah? though the Lord had promised him the kingdom, and he had been anointed by Samuel by his appointment, yet he was not hasty to take it into his hands, but was desirous of acting according to the will of God, and by his direction, and wait his time when and where he should go and take possession of it; he mentions Judah because it was his own tribe, and where he had the most friends:
and the Lord said unto him, go up; from Ziklag into the tribe of Judah, but did not mention any particular place whither he should go; hence another question was put:
and David said, whither shall I go up? To what town or city in the tribe of Judah? whether Jerusalem or any other?
And he said, unto Hebron; a city of the priests, a city of refuge, Jos 21:13, twenty miles from Jerusalem, or more, which is not directed to, because it was then chiefly in the hands of the Jebusites, and because, as Procopius Gazaeus says, Hebron was now the metropolis of Judah.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
David’s return to Hebron, and anointing as king over Judah. – 2Sa 2:1. “After this,” i.e., after the facts related in 2 Samuel 1, David inquired of the Lord, namely through the Urim, whether he should go up to one of the towns of Judah, and if so, to which. He received the reply, “to Hebron,” a place peculiarly well adapted for a capital, not only from its situation upon the mountains, and in the centre of the tribe, but also from the sacred reminiscences connected with it from the olden time. David could have no doubt that, now that Saul was dead, he would have to give up his existing connection with the Philistines and return to his own land. But as the Philistines had taken the greater part of the Israelitish territory through their victory at Gilboa, and there was good reason to fear that the adherents of Saul, more especially the army with Abner, Saul’s cousin, at its head, would refuse to acknowledge David as king, and consequently a civil war might break out, David would not return to his own land without the express permission of the Lord. 2Sa 1:2-4. When he went with his wives and all his retinue (vid., 1Sa 27:2) to Hebron and the “cities of Hebron,” i.e., the places belonging to the territory of Hebron, the men of Judah came (in the persons of their elders) and anointed him king over the house, i.e., the tribe, of Judah. Just as Saul was made king by the tribes after his anointing by Samuel (1Sa 11:15), so David was first of all anointed by Judah here, and afterwards by the rest of the tribes (2Sa 5:3).
A new section commences with . The first act of David as king was to send messengers to Jabesh, to thank the inhabitants of this city for burying Saul, and to announce to them his own anointing as king. As this expression of thanks involved a solemn recognition of the departed king, by which David divested himself of even the appearance of a rebellion, the announcement of the anointing he had received contained an indirect summons to the Jabeshites to recognise him as their king now.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| David Made King at Hebron. | B. C. 1053. |
1 And it came to pass after this, that David enquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah? And the LORD said unto him, Go up. And David said, Whither shall I go up? And he said, Unto Hebron. 2 So David went up thither, and his two wives also, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail Nabal’s wife the Carmelite. 3 And his men that were with him did David bring up, every man with his household: and they dwelt in the cities of Hebron. 4 And the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah. And they told David, saying, That the men of Jabesh-gilead were they that buried Saul. 5 And David sent messengers unto the men of Jabesh-gilead, and said unto them, Blessed be ye of the LORD, that ye have shewed this kindness unto your lord, even unto Saul, and have buried him. 6 And now the LORD shew kindness and truth unto you: and I also will requite you this kindness, because ye have done this thing. 7 Therefore now let your hands be strengthened, and be ye valiant: for your master Saul is dead, and also the house of Judah have anointed me king over them.
When Saul and Jonathan were dead, though David knew himself anointed to be king, and now saw his way very clear, yet he did not immediately send messengers through all the coasts of Israel to summon all people to come in and swear allegiance to him, upon pain of death, but proceeded leisurely; for he that believeth doth not make haste, but waits God’s time for the accomplishment of God’s promises. Many had come in to his assistance from several tribes while he continued at Ziklag, as we find (1 Chron. xii. 1-22), and with such a force he might have come in by conquest. But he that will rule with meekness will not rise with violence. Observe here,
I. The direction he sought and had from God in this critical juncture, v. 1. He doubted not of success, yet he used proper means, both divine and human. Assurance of hope in God’s promise will be so far from slackening that it will quicken pious endeavours. If I be elected to the crown of life, it does not follow, Then I will do nothing; but, Then I will do all that he directs me, and follow the guidance of him who chose me. This good use David made of his election, and so will all whom God has chosen. 1. David, according to the precept, acknowledged God in his way. He enquired of the Lord by the breast-plate of judgment, which Abiathar brought to him. We must apply to God not only when we are in distress, but even when the world smiles upon us and second causes work in favour of us. His enquiry was, Shall I go up to any of the cities of Judah? Shall I stir hence? Though Ziklag be in ruins, he will not quit it without direction from God. “If I stir hence, Shall I go to one of the cities of Judah?” not limiting God to them (if God should so direct him, he would go to any of the cities of Israel), but thus expressing his prudence (in the cities of Judah he would find most friends), and his modesty–he would look no further at present than his own tribe. In all our motions and removals it is comfortable to see God going before us; and we may, if by faith and prayer we set him before us. 2. God, according to the promise, directed his path, bade him go up, told him whither, unto Hebron, a priest’s city, one of the cities of refuge, so it was to David, and an intimation that God himself would be to him a little sanctuary. The sepulchres of the patriarchs, adjoining to Hebron, would remind him of the ancient promise, on which God had caused him to hope. God sent him not to Bethlehem, his own city, because that was little among the thousands of Judah (Mic. v. 2), but to Hebron, a more considerable place, and which perhaps was then as the county-town of that tribe.
II. The care he took of his family and friends in his removal to Hebron. 1. He took his wives with him (v. 2), that, as they had been companions with him in tribulation, they might be so in the kingdom. It does not appear that as yet he had any children; his first was born in Hebron, ch. iii. 2. 2. He took his friends and followers with him, v. 3. They had accompanied him in his wanderings, and therefore, when he gained a settlement, they settled with him. Thus, if we suffer with Christ, we shall reign with him, 2 Tim. ii. 12. Nay, Christ does more for his good soldiers than David could do for his; David found lodging for them–They dwelt in the cities of Hebron, and adjacent towns; but to those who continue with Christ in his temptations he appoints a kingdom, and will feast them at his own table,Luk 22:29; Luk 22:30.
III. The honour done him by the men of Judah: They anointed him king over the house of Judah, v. 4. The tribe of Judah had often stood by itself more than any other of the tribes. In Saul’s time it was numbered by itself as a distinct body (1 Sam. xv. 4) and those of this tribe had been accustomed to act separately. They did so now; yet they did it for themselves only; they did not pretend to anoint him king over all Israel (as Judg. ix. 22), but only over the house of Judah. The rest of the tribes might do as they pleased, but, as for them and their house, they would be ruled by him whom God had chosen. See how David rose gradually; he was first anointed king in reversion, then in possession of one tribe only, and at last of all the tribes. Thus the kingdom of the Messiah, the Son of David, is set up by degrees; he is Lord of all by divine designation, but we see not yet all things put under him, Heb. ii. 8. David’s reigning at first over the house of Judah only was a tacit intimation of Providence that his kingdom would in a short time be reduced to that again, as it was when the ten tribes revolted from his grandson; and it would be an encouragement to the godly kings of Judah that David himself at first reigned over Judah only.
IV. The respectful message he sent to the men of Jabesh-Gilead, to return them thanks for their kindness to Saul. Still he studies to honour the memory of his predecessor, and thereby to show that he was far from aiming at the crown from any principle of ambition or enmity to Saul, but purely because he was called of God to it. It was told him that the men of Jabesh-Gilead buried Saul, perhaps by some that thought he would be displeased at them as over-officious. But he was far from that. 1. He commends them for it, v. 5. According as our obligations were to love and honour any while they lived, we ought to show respect to their remains (that is, their bodies, names, and families) when they are dead. “Saul was your lord,” says David, “and therefore you did well to show him this kindness and do him this honour.” 2. He prays to God to bless them for it, and to recompense it to them: Blessed are you, and blessed may you be of the Lord, who will deal kindly with those in a particular manner that dealt kindly with the dead, as it is in Ruth i. 8. Due respect and affection shown to the bodies, names, and families of those that are dead, in conscience towards God, is a piece of charity which shall in no wise lose its reward: The Lord show kindness and truth to you (v. 6), that is, kindness according to the promise. What kindness God shows is in truth, what one may trust to. 3. He promises to make them amends for it: I also will requite you. He does not turn them over to God for a recompence that he may excuse himself from rewarding them. Good wishes are good things, and instances of gratitude, but they are too cheap to be rested in where there is an ability to do more. 4. He prudently takes this opportunity to gain them to his interest, v. 7. They had paid their last respects to Saul, and he would have them to be the last: “The house of Judah have anointed me king, and it will be your wisdom to concur with them and in that to be valiant.” We must not so dote on the dead, how much soever we have valued them, as to neglect or despise the blessings we have in those that survive, whom God has raised up to us in their stead.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Second Samuel – Chapter 2
David Takes Steps to the Kingship, vs. 1-7
With Saul now dead David was ready to assume the kingship over Israel. However, he would not act without knowing the will of the Lord, a custom that endeared him to the Lord, although he failed to follow it at times in his later life, and had to repent. It is not said by what means David inquired of the Lord. Probably he used the ephod, as he had on other occasions, but he learned that the Lord wished him to remove from Ziklag into Judah, to Hebron, the principal city of that tribe. So David, his two wives, his men and their wives moved into Judah and dwelled in Hebron and its satellite towns.
The people of Judah seem to have readily welcomed their fellow tribesman and readily anointed him to be their king. This seems to have been done without consultation with the other tribes, or an invitation to them to join in making David king over all Israel. Already there were strained relations between Judah and other of the tribes, and this doubtless did nothing to help the situation.
David himself took the initiative in seeking to win support for his rule from other of the tribes. When he learned that it was the men of Jabesh-gilead who had stolen the bodies of Saul and his sons and given them honorable burial he sent them a message of congratulation and commendation to the Lord. He prayed for them the kindness and truth of the Lord and promised to reward them himself for that kindness to Saul. He then asked them to strengthen themselves and act valiantly on his behalf, informing them that Judah has crowned him their king and inviting them to follow suit. Jabesh was in Gilead on the east of Jordan the tribal possession of Gad.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES
2Sa. 2:1. Hebron. A city of Judah, situated among the mountains (Jos. 20:7), twenty Roman miles south of Jerusalem, and the same distance north of Beersheba. Hebron is one of the most ancient cities of the world still existing, and in this respect it was the rival of Damascus. It was a well-known city when Abraham entered Canaan 3,780 years ago (Gen. 13:18). Sarah died here, and here is the famous Cave of Machpelah, the burying-place of the patriarchs. At the division of Canaan it was given to Caleb (Jos. 10:36), and was assigned to the Levites and made a city of refuge Its modern name is el-Khulil, i.e., the friend, the same designation as is given to Abraham by the Mohammedans. It now contains about 5,000 inhabitants, of whom some fifty families are Jews. It is picturesquely situated in a narrow valley surrounded by hills, whose sides are still clothed with luxurious vineyards. (Smiths Bible Dictionary.) This city must now have had for David a very special importance, which appeared all the clearer from the Divine decision, and in respect to his future life became indubitable; here now was to be fulfilled the old patriarchal promise (Gen. 49:8. s.q.) the establishment of the theocratic kingdom in the tribe of Judah. (Erdmann.)
2Sa. 2:3. Cities of Hebron. The places belonging to the territory of Hebron.
2Sa. 2:4. And the men of Judah came, etc. AS the throne was now vacant by Sauls deaththe crown never entailed upon his descendants, and his whole family rejected by God, who first advanced him to the kingdomDavid, without injuring the rights of any person whatsoever, might have taken any just and honourable measures to have gained over the tribes to his interest and secured the succession, as the election of a new king now devolved upon the nation, even if he had not previously been designed by God the supreme governor of Israel But as this circumstance of the consecration was known throughout the whole nation, it was natural for the tribe of Judah to seize the opportunity of Sauls death, and acknowledge him whom God had pointed out as their king. It is also probable that they were further induced because of the ancient prophecy (Gen. 49:10). This tribe was also the most powerful and respectable of all the twelve, and as they had a right to choose their own prince they might reasonably have expected that the other tribes would follow their example. (Chandler.)
2Sa. 2:6. Kindness, or favour, in general the gracious love that God shows His people on the ground of His covenant with them. Truth is the trustworthiness and attestation of all His promises. (Erdmann.) As this expression of thanks involved the solemn recognition of the departed kingby which David divested himself of even the appearance of a rebellionthe announcement of the anointing he had received contained an indirect summons to the Jabeshites to recognise him as their king now. (Keil.) I also will, etc. It is incorrect to render this in the future. It may be rendered I greet you with blessing, viz., the prayer already uttered.
2Sa. 2:7. Be ye valiant. Literally, be ye sons of force or strength. The opposite are men of Belial, that is, of no force of character. (Biblical Commentary.) His exhortation to valour and courage is intelligible only on the supposition that he gives them to understand that for them also he has taken Sauls place as king, and that they must valiantly espouse his cause against his enemies. It is not clear whether Ishbosheth had at this time been set up as king by Abner. But from 2Sa. 2:9 (which states that Gilead was one of the districts gained by Abner for Ishbosheth) it is evident that David, seeing Abners movement thither (comp. 1Sa. 26:7), must have been concerned to secure to himself the capital city (Jabesh) of this province. Whether he succeeded in this is questionable. (Erdmann.)
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.2Sa. 2:1-7
WAITING FOR ORDERS
In Davids conduct here we have:
I. A recognition that God knows the best time to fulfil His promises. Many promises are given both by human fathers and by the Divine Father to their children without any specification of the time when they will be fulfilled, and this for a good reason. For such a reservation on the part of the human parents or of God serves to test faith in a superior wisdom, and to work submission to a higher will, and so to foster and increase a truly filial spirit. And so the child or the man is by the uncertainty being fitted and prepared to receive the promised blessing in a right spirita spirit of grateful dependence which brings him nearer to the giver. David had long before been promised the throne of Israelthe anointing of Samuel had been such a promise, and both Saul and Jonathan had declared that such was the intention of God. At times he had seemed to doubt it, and but lately his want of faith had led him into sin, but he had doubtless upon the whole regarded it as certain that the time would come when he should be king. And now that time seemed to have arrived, but the discipline of the past had borne the fruit for which it was given, and Davids confidence in God, and dependence upon Him, were not now marred by any intrusion of his own desires or opinions. By this inquiry of the Lord, he said most emphatically, My times are in thy hand (Psa. 31:15), and recognised by his conduct that it was not for him to judge when God should fulfil His word. We cannot do justice to the completeness of Davids self-surrender at this time, unless we contemplate the irksomeness of his present position, the strength of the desire he must have had to return to his own country, and the opportunity which Sauls death seemed to open up to him. Most men would have been unable to control their impatience, and would have counted every delayeven such a delay as this of Davidas so much gain to the opposite party, but David had learned that time spent in waiting upon God is only such a delay as that which the traveller in the desert makes when he stands still to take his bearings by the starsa delay which is the truest way to speed him on his journey.
II. That when that time has come, the fulfilment will only be accomplished by mans active and obedient co-operation. Although the time and the method of working are to be left to God, all the working is not to be left to Him. Faith in God makes a man willing to wait when it is Gods will, but it makes him equally willing to be up and doing when the time for action has come. When God gave Canaan to the Israelites at first, although it was in fulfilment of a promise made long before, yet they were obliged to go up and fight for the land before they could possess it, and to fight according to the directions given them by God. David here shows that he does not expect God to fulfil His word to him except by means of his own active and unconditional obedience. Although the sovereignty of Israel was secure to him, he knew that he must use means to secure it, and that the means must be those which God appointed and no other. By his questions he doubly binds himself to do whatever God commands and to go wherever He directs; for if when we know the will of God we are bound to do it, we are surely under a double obligation when we ask for guidance.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
2Sa. 2:1. The form in which he made the inquiry shows how clear the expediency of going up to one of the cities of Judah was to his own mind; probably it was also the earnest advice of his followers; there seemed no doubt or difficulty as to its being the proper course; but all the more on that account does his devout and pious spirit shine out, in his asking direction from God. Prayer, on this occasion, was not the resort of one whom all other refuge failed, but the first resort of one by whom the guidance of God was regarded as all-important.Blaikie.
The time now came when Davids faith in the existence of a righteous kingdom, which had its ground in the unseen world, and which might exhibit itself really, though not perfectly in this, was to be brought to the severest of all trials. The new mode of government for which the people craved so earnestly had been triedthey had become like the countries round aboutthese countries were now their masters. They had gained such a king as they had imagineda leader of their hosts. They had lost law, discipline, and fellowship; now their hosts had perished. Could there come order out of this chaos? Whence was it to come? From a band of freebooters? That was to be seen. If the chief of this band thought of setting up a dominion for himself, of making his followers possessors of the lands from which they had been driven out, of putting down his private enemies, of rising, by the arms of his soldiers and the choice of a faction, to be a tyrant, his life would be merely a vulgar tale such as age after age has to record. But if David took this miserable country of his fathers into his hands, not as a prize which he had won but as a heavy and awful trust committed to him. then, however hopeless the materials with which he had to work, and which he had to mould, he might believe confidently that he should be in his own day the restorer of Israel, and the witness and prophet of the complete restoration of it and mankind. This was the man after Gods own heartthe man who thoroughly believed in God as a living and righteous Being; who in all changes clung to that conviction; who could act upon it, live upon it; who could give himself up to be used as he pleased who could walk on in darkness secure of nothing but this, that truth must prevail at last, and that he was sent into the world to live and die that it might prevail.Maurice.
God sends him to Hebron, a city of Judah; neither will David go up thither alone, but he takes with him all his men, with their whole households: they shall take such part as himself; as they had shared with him in his misery, so they shall now in his prosperity: neither doth he take advantage of their late mutiny, which was yet fresh and green, to cashier those unthankful and ungracious followers; but, pardoning their secret rebellions, he makes them partakers of his good success. Thus doth our heavenly leader, whom David prefigured, take us to reign with Him, who have suffered with Him. Passing by our manifold infirmities, as if they had not been, He removeth us from the land of our banishment, and the ashes of our forlorn Ziklag, to the Hebron of our peace and glory: the expectation of this day must, as it did with Davids soldiers, digest all our sorrows.Bp. Hall.
We can see that Hebron is a fit place. The city of Abraham, Caleb, and the Levitesa city of refugethe principal town in Davids tribe, and somewhat remote from Sauls tribeand David had taken pains to conciliate its inhabitants (1Sa. 30:31). Divine directions are seen to coincide with true human wisdom wherever we sufficiently understand the facts.Transr. of Langes Commentary.
In that orderly he begins at God, we see that it is not sufficient to have good causes public or private, but in like manner it is requisite to prosecute them aright, otherwise a good cause in the matter may become evil in the preposterous (inverted in order) form, albeit the reciprocant be never true, that a good form may make an evil cause good in substance.Guild.
Psalms 27 is traditionally referred to this part of Davids life. (The 70 gives as the title, Before the anointing,) and the courageous and hopeful spirit which it breathes, the confident expectation that a better day was at hand, whilst it lends itself to the manifold applications of our own later days, well serves as an introduction to the new crisis in the history of David and the Jewish Church which is now at hand.Stanley.
In that Judah apart from all Israel anointed David their king, being warranted herein by the promises of God concerning the pre-eminence of that tribe, and by the manifest declaration of Gods will concerning David, therefore having and following the warrant of Gods will and word herein, they are not the division or schism makers, but Israel wanting the same though the greater multitude by far. It is not they, then, who separate themselves from the company or persons of men, but who separate themselves from the truth, and Gods word (which is the touchstone thereof) that are schismatical or rent-makers in the Church, and all those who follow the direction of it (as Judah doth here) assuredly shall go aright, where such as contemn the same, and with Israel glory in multitude, shall go astray.Guild.
2Sa. 2:5-7. People were persuaded by it that this man, uninfluenced by the low spirit of revenge and malice, knew how to forgive and to forget, and that all the wrongs and injuries which he had experienced had not the power to obscure to him the dignity and sacredness of his predecessor, as the anointed of the Lord. Moreover, by that conduct of David, the decided impression was produced among the people that they might expect from him a humane government, whilst he would also honour the lowliest and most insignificant praiseworthy actions which might be anywhere done in the land, with a thankful recognition of their worth.Krummacher.
Grace and truth (2Sa. 2:6) are the fundamental attributes of God which set forth His relation to the people of Israel as the covenant people. Grace is the special exhibition of His love by which He
(1) chooses the people,
(2) establishes the covenant with them, and
(3) in this covenant relation imparts favour and salvation. Truth is Gods love unchanging and continuing over against the peoples sinlove that
(1) does not suffer the choice of free-grace to fail,
(2) maintains the covenant, and
(3) fulfils uncurtailed the promises that correspond to the covenant relation. Compare Exo. 32:6; Psa. 25:10.Langes Commentary.
Every human work well-pleasing to God, wrought out of genuine love and truth, is a reflection of Gods love and truth, of which the heart has had experience, an offering brought to the Lord, the impulsion of which has come from this inwardly experienced love and truth, an object of Gods love and truth which repays with blessing and salvation, and of mens honouring recognition in respect to its ethical value.Langes Commentary.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
2. Davids Reign begun in Hebron, 2Sa. 2:1-32.
David, King in Hebron. 2Sa. 2:1-7
And it came to pass after this, that David inquired of the Lord, saying, Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah? And the Lord said unto him, Go up. And David said, Whither shall I go up? And he said, Unto Hebron.
2 So David went up thither, and his two wives also, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail Nabals wife the Carmelite.
3 And his men that were with him did David bring up, every man with his household: and they dwelt in the cities of Hebron.
4 And the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah. And they told David, saying, That the men of Jabesh-gilead were they that buried Saul.
5 And David sent messengers unto the men of Jabesh-gilead, and said unto them, Blessed be ye of the Lord, that ye have showed this kindness unto your lord, even unto Saul, and have buried him.
6 And now the Lord show kindness and truth unto you: and I also will requite you this kindness, because ye have done this thing.
7 Therefore now let your hands be strengthened, and be ye valiant: for your master Saul is dead, and also the house of Judah have anointed me king over them.
1.
Why did David go up to Hebron? 2Sa. 2:1
Hebron was the principal city of a coalition of surrounding cities in Judah. Caleb took Debir (Jdg. 1:11; cf. Jos. 14:13) and settled in this area. Abraham had made his home near Hebron. It was near Hebron that Abraham bought the cave of Macpelah for a burial place for Sarah when she died (Gen. 23:1-20). Hebron was about half-way down the length of the Dead Sea and some ten miles west of its western shore. It was central in Judah and far enough away from the home of Saul to make it safe from any who might support a Benjamite as a king to succeed Saul.
2.
What is the meaning of the word Hebron? 2Sa. 2:3
The word Hebron means a strong fortified city, There were little cities grouped around the larger city. We read of the cities of Hebron. The city itself was the strongest and oldest city in Judah at this time. It was something of a sacred city. Although the fact that the name was appropriate did not make necessary the selection of this particular city, the positon of the city, which no doubt influenced its naming, also made it the logical place for such a service as was held in it at the anointing of David.
3.
Why did Judah first anoint David? 2Sa. 2:4
David belonged to the tribe of Judah. He had been in the midst of the tribe of Judah while he was in exile. The gifts that David had bestowed upon the tribe alone would have been enough to cause this particular tribe to want to be first to anoint David as their king. All of these reasons would contribute to this desire.
4.
What did David mean when he said, I also will requite you. 2Sa. 2:6
David was a diplomat. At the time he commended the men of Jabesh-gilead for their kindness toward Saul, he also announced to them that he was King of Judah. By promising these men of Jabesh-gilead that he would requite them (give them a reward) and by showing a regard for Saul, David hoped to win these men over to his side. These men had taken Sauls body from the walls of Beth-shan and buried it (1Sa. 31:13).
Sauls son, King in Gilead. 2Sa. 2:8-11
8 But Abner the son of Ner, captain of Sauls host, took Ish-bosheth the son of Saul, and brought him over to Mahanaim;
9 And made him king over Gilead, and over the Ashurites, and over Jezreel, and over Ephraim, and over Benjamin and over all Israel.
10 Ish-bosheth Sauls son was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and reigned two years. But the house of Judah followed David.
11 And the time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months.
5.
What was Abners motive in proclaiming Ish-bosheth king? 2Sa. 2:8
Abner was the son of Sauls uncle. A number of things contributed to his proclaiming Ish-bosheth king. In the first place, (1) he would want to defend the familys pride and interests. In the second place, (2) there were Abners own personal ambitions. These could be more probably justified if Ish-bosheth ruled. Ish-bosheth was weak; Abner was strong. Abner might easily persuade Ish-bosheth to follow his own directives. In the third place, (3) Abner had a natural interest in the tribe of Ish-bosheth.
6.
Is there a previous mention of Ish-bosheth? 2Sa. 2:8 b
There is no previous mention of Ish-bosheth before the time that Abner had him proclaimed king. Ish-bosheth was quite young when Saul became king. This may account for the fact that he is not mentioned. He was weak; he may have been an illegitimate son. All of these things would account for the fact that his name had not been previously mentioned. He is listed as the fourth and last of Sauls sons in 1Ch. 8:33; 1Ch. 9:39.
7.
Where was Mahanaim? 2Sa. 2:8 c
Somewhere east of the Jordan River near the Jabbok River would be the proper location of Mahanaim. At the time of Ish-bosheths coronation, the kingdom was disunited. This was a small beginning for a king, but about all that could be had during that time. Jacob had camped at this place which means two companies (Gen. 32:1). David fled to Mahanaim when he tried to get away from his rebellious son Absalom (2Sa. 17:27).
8.
Over what territory did ish-bosheth rule? 2Sa. 2:9
Ish-bosheth ruled over Gilead. He also ruled over the Ashurites. Gilead would indicate all of the land east of the Jordan river. The mention of the Ashurites causes some question. This may have been a reference to the house of Asher which was in Galilee on the west side of the Sea of Galilee (Jdg. 1:32). There is a city of Asher (Jos. 17:7). It was southwest of Jezreel. Ish-bosheth also ruled over Jezreel, that land between Mount Gilboa and Mount Carmel. His main jurisdiction was over Ephraim, the tribe formed from the descendants of the son of Joseph. He also ruled over Benjamin, his own tribe. This wide domain would mean that Ish-bosheth had jurisdiction over most of the northern part of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan river.
9.
How long did Ish-bosheth rule over Israel? 2Sa. 2:10
Ish-bosheth was forty years old when he began to rule. He reigned but two years. David, however, ruled over the house of Judah for seven years and six months. David must have reigned in Judah for five years and one-half, after Ish-bosheth was slain. This difference in the length of Davids reign over Judah alone and the reign of Ish-bosheth over the rest of Israel can only be accounted for by supposing that David was not anointed king over all Israel immediately after Ish-bosheths death.
10.
What is the meaning of the name Ish-bosheth? 2Sa. 2:10
The word Ish-bosheth means man of shame. In 1Ch. 8:33 this man is called Esh-baal. This word Esh-baal would mean man of Baal. Baal is a name for a false god. One would hardly expect that the Israelites would put a man on the throne who had a name of Esh-baal. Abner may have changed his name to Ish-bosheth when he put him on the throne. Even so his name is not at all flattering, and we are left to wonder if this man was of rather bad reputation. Perhaps his weakness or folly had been the reason for his not being in the army. These factors might explain his name.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(1) Enquired of the Lord.At this important juncture of affairs, Davids first care is to know the Divine will. His inquiry was, doubtless, made through the high priest Abiathar, as in 1Sa. 23:9-10 (comp. 2Sa. 22:20; 2Sa. 23:1; 2Sa. 23:4). The answer definitely directed him to go up to Hebron.
Hebron is one of the most ancient cities of the world (built seven years before Zoan in Egypt, Num. 13:22), long the residence of Abraham (Gen. 13:18), and the place where he and Sarah, Isaac and Jacob, were buried. Its original name was Kirjath-arba (Gen. 23:2; Jos. 14:15, &c). It is situated in a valley among the hills of Southern Judea, at a height of nearly 3,000 feet above the Mediterranean. It is about twenty miles S.S.W. from Jerusalem, somewhat more than this N.E. of Beersheba, and about fifteen miles E.S.E. of the Philistine town of Gath. From Ziklag, where David had been living, it was distant about thirty-eight miles. It has always been famous for its vineyards, and its grapes are still considered the finest in Southern Palestine. The valley in which it is situated is probably the valley of Eshcol, from which the spies brought the great cluster of grapes to Moses in the wilderness (Num. 13:23). It was a priestly city (Jos. 21:10-11), and the most southerly of the cities of refuge (Jos. 20:7). Here was the home and the throne of David for the next seven and a half years (2Sa. 2:11; 2Sa. 5:5). The larger part of the land, since the recent defeat, was in the power of the Philistines; and Hebron, on account of its situation at the far south, and its strategical strength, as well as its sacred associations, was a peculiarly fitting place for the beginning of Davids reign.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
DAVID KING IN HEBRON, AND ISHBOSHETH KING IN MAHANAIM, 2Sa 2:1-11.
1. After this After his lamentation over the death of Saul and Jonathan.
Inquired of the Lord By the urim of the priest Abiathar. Compare 1Sa 23:9-12.
Shall I go up David knew that he was to be king, but how to attain the throne he knew not. He had no unholy ambition, and in matters of so great responsibility he wished Jehovah to guide him.
Hebron The ancient city of the patriarchs. See on Gen 13:18, and Jos 10:3. It was inexpedient for David longer to abide in the land of the Philistines, and Hebron, because of its peculiarly sacred associations and its central position in the tribe of Judah, was a most appropriate place for David to begin his reign. But it should be observed that, though he received divine counsel to go up to Hebron, he was not divinely advised to receive the kingdom from a single tribe. See note on 2Sa 2:4.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
David Is Anointed As King Over Judah And Ish-bosheth Receives The Crown Of Israel ( 2Sa 2:1-11 ).
After consulting YHWH David moved his men into Judah while still retaining authority over Ziklag, and was anointed as king over Judah. His upward career was moving in accordance with YHWH’s promises and plan. Meanwhile Abner was conducting a campaign in Transjordanian Israel in order to ensure that the rule of the Saulides continued over what remained of Israel, a campaign which took five years and may have included harassing the Philistines who had moved into their cities (1Sa 31:7), and dealing with any internal opposition to Ish-bosheth taking direct rule over Gilead. It may well be that, if the description of the area of his rule is to be taken in any sense literally, he then agreed to Ish-bosheth becoming a vassal king of the Philistines so as to consolidate his throne. The Philistines would be well pleased with this situation. Israel was divided into two, and their vassal kings ruled each part separately.
While Judah had always maintained a certain level of independence within the confederacy of tribes, this further accentuated it. For the first time in their history, Judah, and all who saw themselves as united with Judah and lived in the South (e.g. many of the Simeonites (Jdg 1:3; Jdg 1:17; 2Ch 15:9), the Kenites (Jdg 1:16; 1Sa 27:10), and the Jerahmeelites (1Sa 27:10)), now stood alone from the remainder of the tribes. They would never again really see themselves as part of Israel, and would later be joined by the Benjaminites (1Ki 12:23) and some members of other tribes who would move into Judean territory (2Ch 15:9). We must recognise in all this that tribal movements were fluid and not static, and that not all remained within their allotted boundaries (see e.g. 1Ch 4:42; 2Ch 15:9). The history of the tribes is very complicated and, for example, if we take ‘the ten tribes’ who made up Northern Israel to include Simeon (1Ki 11:31; compare 2Ch 34:6), many Simeonites clearly later moved to northern Israel. This would not be too surprising if they had found themselves being submerged by Judah and had resented it.
Analysis.
a
b So David went up there, and his two wives also, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite, and his men who were with him did David bring up, every man with his household, and they dwelt in the cities of Hebron. And the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah (2Sa 2:2-4 a).
c And they told David, saying, “The men of Jabesh-gilead were they who buried Saul.” And David sent messengers to the men of Jabesh-gilead, and said to them, “Blessed be you of YHWH, in that you have showed this kindness to your lord, even to Saul, and have buried him” (2Sa 2:4-5).
d “And now YHWH show lovingkindness and truth to you, and I also will requite you this kindness, because you have done this thing” (2Sa 2:6).
c “Now therefore let your hands be strong, and be you valiant, for Saul your lord is dead, and also the house of Judah have anointed me king over them” (2Sa 2:7).
b And Abner the son of Ner, captain of Saul’s host, had taken Ish-bosheth the son of Saul, and brought him over to Mahanaim, and he made him king over Gilead, and over the Ashurites, and over Jezreel, and over Ephraim, and over Benjamin, and over all Israel (2Sa 2:8-9).
a Ish-bosheth, Saul’s son, was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and he reigned two years. But the house of Judah followed David. And the time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months’ (2Sa 2:10-11).
Note than in ‘a’ David is to go up to Hebron at the command of YHWH, and in the parallel David is reigning over Hebron in the midst of YHWH’s inheritance, in contrast with Ish-bosheth who is reigning in Mahanaim outside YHWH’s inheritance. In ‘b’ David dwells in Hebron and is anointed king over Judah and in the parallel Ish-bosheth is made king over Israel. In ‘c’ it is stressed by David that the men of Jabesh-gilead have buried Saul, and in the parallel David emphasises to them that their lord is now dead, and informs them that the men of Judah have anointed him as king over them. In ‘d’ and centrally David calls for YHWH’s blessing on the men of Jabesh-gilead because they have honoured Saul in his death, and assures them of his favour.
2Sa 2:1
‘ And it came about after this, that David enquired of YHWH, saying, “Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah?” And YHWH said to him, “Go up.” And David said, “Where shall I go up?” And he said, “To Hebron.” ’
News having reached David of the wholesale defeat of the Israelite army by the Philistines, and recognising that Judah would be next to feel their iron hand, he was naturally concerned for his fellow-tribesmen and decided that it was time that he provided them with some support. But it was a sign of his genuine determination to do YHWH’s will and not to act before YHWH’s time, that he would not do so without YHWH’s agreement. So he enquired of YHWH through the ephod as to whether he should go up into the hill country of Judah, into one of their cities. And when the answer was positive the next question was as to which one. The reply was unambiguous. It was ‘to Hebron’.
We need not doubt that he did have some expectation that they might well ask him to be their king, (the death of Saul had left them almost defenceless), but his method of approach counts against any suggestion that it was simply a cynical ploy. Whatever others might do David was not the kind of person who would have manipulated God’s method of revealing His will, for with all his ambition he constantly comes through as determined not to act before YHWH’s time. We must therefore accept his approach to YHWH as genuine.
Hebron was the natural capital of Judah. It was a very ancient city in the Judean highlands, previously named Kiriath-arba, and dating back to the time of Abraham who spent much time there (Gen 23:2; Gen 35:27).
2Sa 2:2-3
‘ So David went up there, and his two wives also, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite. And his men who were with him did David bring up, every man with his household, and they dwelt in the cities of Hebron.’
Accordingly David took his two wives (a sign that he saw the move as at least semi-permanent) and along with his men and their households took up residence in the cities of Hebron. In view of his previous generosity to them, and the parlous situation in which the Philistine victory had left them, we need not doubt that they were doubly welcome.
2Sa 2:2-4 a
‘And the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah.’
As a result of his arrival the men of Judah came to him and asked him to be king over them, and there they anointed him as king over the house of Judah. Whether they had any choice in the matter or not, it can hardly be doubted that the appointment of David as king of Judah was almost automatic. Consider the circumstances.
The Philistines were no doubt about to invade.
Many of their choicest warriors would have died alongside Saul.
They would have among them no other war-leaders of note.
They had to hand a man whom Samuel had approved of, (even if they did not yet know about his anointing by Samuel).
The same man had a reputation as a warrior that reached throughout the whole of Israel, and was imbedded in their folklore (‘David has slain his ten thousands’).
Many said of him that he was YHWH’s choice as their next king.
He owned much land in Judah through his marriage to Abigail.
He had always been generous to them and had shared with them the fruits of his victories.
He was a man whom they themselves favoured, and who had a powerful standing army. It really was ‘no contest’, even if he was in danger of getting a negative vote from the Ziphites.
So we will not find it surprising that they immediately anointed him as king over Judah. What would turn out to be a bonus was that this would then satisfy the Philistines, who would see him as taking possession of Judah as their vassal, so that any danger of invasion ceased.
To be anointed as king over the house of Judah would remind the writer of the promise of the coming of the powerful king Shiloh in Gen 49:10, the king to whom all the people would gather and who would bring great prosperity. The crowning of this coming king would thus in his eyes be closely associated with the house of Judah.
2Sa 2:2-4 b
‘And they told David, saying, “The men of Jabesh-gilead were they who buried Saul.” ’
The reintroduction of the men of Jabesh-gilead confirms the writer’s deep interest in them. These men were the bright spot amidst Israel’s failure, and demonstrated the resilient spirit that would be Israel’s hope in the future. David recognised this and sought to fan the flame within them. Here were the men who by their brave action had restored some of Israel’s lost pride and had dented the reputation of the Philistines. It was clearly something being boasted about among those who could be trusted, for when a nation has almost reached rock bottom in its morale, even such a seemingly ‘small’ victory can have a far reaching effect. It had not altered the parlous situation in which they were, but it was the one peace of good news that they still had left for them to boast about. They had shown those Philistines a thing or two. It strengthened their feeling of national pride. And besides, David may well have been intrigued as to who had carried out the act that had so enraged the Philistines. Now he was given the answer.
It was, of course, more than a titbit of good news to David, for he was Saul’s son-in-law and had once been on very good terms with him, and he had looked to him as YHWH’s anointed. What had happened to his body was therefore something in which he had a great personal interest.
2Sa 2:5-6
‘ And David sent messengers to the men of Jabesh-gilead, and said to them, “Blessed be you of YHWH, in that you have showed this kindness to your lord, even to Saul, and have buried him. And now YHWH show lovingkindness and truth to you, and I also will requite you this kindness, because you have done this thing.”
So David despatched messengers to the men of Jabesh-gilead bearing a message of goodwill and gratitude. He asked YHWH to bless them because they had ‘shown compassion to their lord’ and had ensured that he had a decent burial. And he prayed that in the same way YHWH would show compassion and truth towards them, and assured them that, as regards himself, he would requite them with kindness for what they had done. It would never be forgotten. From now on they could be sure of his goodwill.
2Sa 2:7
“ Now therefore let your hands be strong, and be you valiant, for Saul your lord is dead, and also the house of Judah have anointed me king over them.”
Then he called on them in the face of the death of Saul to be strong of hand and to be ‘valiant’, and brought to their attention the fact that he has been anointed as king over Judah. He was thus a good friend to have. It was hardly a call to them to make him their king as well, for they were probably not in a position to do so, but it was a call for them to continue to be strong and to look to him if they ever needed his help. It was an assurance that he would be there for them if ever they were in need. Just as he had previously prepared the elders of Judah in order that later they might find him acceptable, so he now wanted these Transjordanians to see him in the same way for when the possibility of his receiving the kingship of Israel might arise. But it is being over-cynical to suggest that that was his only motive. Genuine gratitude very much played its part, together with the desire to keep the spirit of Israel alive.
It is probably to be seen as significant that while David is described as being ‘anointed’ as king, the same is not said of Ish-bosheth (2Sa 2:9) even though he probably was anointed (compare Jdg 9:8 which suggests that the idea of a king being anointed on appointment was normal). To the writer there was only one anointed king, the one whom YHWH had anointed.
2Sa 2:8
‘ Now Abner the son of Ner, captain of Saul’s host, had taken Ish-bosheth the son of Saul, and brought him over to Mahanaim,’
We are now given a description of what was meanwhile happening in Israel. Here there is no mention of anointing, and the king is established outside YHWH’s inheritance in Transjordan. Furthermore he is not of the house of Judah.
It would be natural for a power seeking Abner to seek to establish a member of the Saulide house as king, especially one whom he was sure that he could control. For there seems little doubt that Ish-bosheth was in some ways somewhat lacking, although we do not know how. This comes out in that he was never mentioned along with his brothers as a warrior, even though he was of fighting age and five years or so older than David. We are given no details about him but something was clearly lacking in him. He may have been partly disabled, or mentally weak.
The name Ish-bosheth means ‘man of shame’. It is a play on his real name, Esh-baal (‘fire of Baal’)/Ish-baal (1Ch 8:33; 1Ch 9:39). With people who bore a name containing the name of Baal it was regularly later replaced by bosheth in order to bring out the shame of having such a name. (Compare Jerubbaal = Jerubesheth – Jdg 9:1; 2Sa 11:21 and Meribaal = Mephibosheth – 2Sa 4:4; 2Sa 9:6; 1Ch 9:40). Originally in fact ‘Baal’ had meant ‘Lord’ and had been intended to indicate YHWH (compare Hosea 3:16), but its later connections with idolatry had brought it into disrepute.
2Sa 2:9
‘ And he made him king at Gilead, and at Ha’ashuri (or ‘the Ashurites’), and at Jezreel, and over Ephraim, and over Benjamin, and over all Israel.’
Abner made Ish-bosheth king at Gilead. Note the emphasis on the fact that it was what Abner did, not what Israel did. It is quite possible that there was a good deal of resistance in Israel which he had to quell, an that the position was obtained by force of arms.
The theoretical extent of Ish-bosheth’s kingdom is described here, but there is little doubt that it was to some extent wishful thinking, otherwise, if he really ruled over Ephraim and Benjamin and all Israel, why would he remain in Mahanaim? It is, of course possible that some arrangement was made with the Philistines with them allowing him some kind of control as a vassal king
The first three names are introduced with the same preposition (el), and the last three are introduced with a slightly different preposition (‘al). This may suggest that the first three are administrative areas or administrative towns while the last three are tribal descriptions. In that case we should probably seek the first three in Transjordan. Gilead is unquestionably in Transjordan and could refer to a town or to a large administrative area (the name is very flexible), Jezreel may indicate the town/valley of Jezreel in the north, but the name means ‘God sows’ and may have been given to a number of towns, including one east of Jordan. Consider how there was also a Jezreel in Judah. It is in fact unlikely that the Philistines would have allowed him control over the important valley of Jezreel through which the trade routes ran, except possibly in a perfunctory way. ‘Ashurim’ is mentioned elsewhere in Gen 25:3 as the name of a son of Dedan. While there is probably no direct connection Ha’ashuri could well therefore here indicate a town (now unknown) situated in Transjordan and connected with Arabs sojourners, (or even one west of the Jordan). The lack of mention of a major well known city probably indicates that the Philistines had control over all such cities.
King over ‘Benjamin and Ephraim and all Israel’ probably reflects the number of Benjaminites and Ephraimites at his court, and may also indicate that in fact the tribes did acknowledge him as their king, without necessarily being under his direct rule due to the controlling Philistines. In the same way Saul had only loosely ruled some of the more distant tribes in his day, the main rule in those tribes being with the elders of the tribes. Where his authority was expressed was when he called up the tribal levies in accordance with the covenant.
2Sa 2:10
‘ Ish-bosheth, Saul’s son, was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and he reigned two years. But the house of Judah followed David.
The details of Ish-bosheth’s reign are now given in terms of the kind of formula which will characterise future kings, presenting his age and the length of his reign. David himself will be introduced in this way later (see 2Sa 5:4). The age of forty may be an approximate round number indicating maturity. It occurs far too often for it always to be seen as numerically specific (in those days numbers were regularly used adjectivally. People were not on the whole numerate). The reign of two years contrasts with the seven years, six months of David. It would appear that it had taken five years to establish Ish-bosheth’s position. This was not surprising given the drubbing that they had had from the Philistines, the fact that all Israel were not yet necessarily convinced about a dynastic kingship, and the fact that the Transjordanian Israelites might well not have been too happy about a king situated on their own doorstep, especially one whom they saw as having failed. Abner may well have had to gradually ‘persuade’ them that it was in their own interests, and on top of that there may have been other ‘pretenders’ to the throne of Gilead.
It is emphasised that the house of Judah followed David. We have already noted how the writer regularly contrasts Ish-bosheth with David, and does so in a poor light. For example Ish-bosheth was not stated to have been ‘anointed’, he was not in any way seen as connected with Judah and therefore with the related prophecy of the coming Shiloh (Gen 49:10), he was ruling outside the land of YHWH’s inheritance with only a perfunctory control over the tribes, and he only had a short reign, possibly indicating that many had resisted his right to be king.
2Sa 2:11
‘ And the time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months.’
Meanwhile David had been king in Hebron over the house of Judah for seven years and six months and no one doubted his right. He was truly anointed, he had continued, in Hebron, his previous rule over Ziklag in the land of YHWH’s inheritance, he was wanted by the elders of Judah and he was from the ‘royal’ house of Judah (Gen 49:10). There is no doubt therefore who was superior in the writer’s eyes. And the writer knew why it was. It was because the Spirit of YHWH had fallen on him (1Sa 16:13). He was YHWH’s designated true king.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2Sa 2:8 But Abner the son of Ner, captain of Saul’s host, took Ishbosheth the son of Saul, and brought him over to Mahanaim;
2Sa 2:8
2Sa 2:16 And they caught every one his fellow by the head, and thrust his sword in his fellow’s side; so they fell down together: wherefore that place was called Helkathhazzurim, which is in Gibeon.
2Sa 2:16
2Sa 2:23 Howbeit he refused to turn aside: wherefore Abner with the hinder end of the spear smote him under the fifth rib, that the spear came out behind him; and he fell down there, and died in the same place: and it came to pass, that as many as came to the place where Asahel fell down and died stood still.
2Sa 2:23
2Sa 3:27, “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.”
2Sa 4:6, “And they came thither into the midst of the house, as though they would have fetched wheat; and they smote him under the fifth rib: and Rechab and Baanah his brother escaped.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
David at Hebron
v. 1. And it came to pass after this that David enquired of the Lord, v. 2. So David went up thither, and his two wives also, Ahinoam, the Jezreelitess, and Abigail, Nabal’s wife, the Carmelite, v. 3. And his men that were with him did David bring up, v. 4. And the men of Judah came, v. 5. And David sent messengers unto the men of Jabesh-gilead, v. 6. And now the Lord show kindness and truth unto you, v. 7. Therefore, now, let your hands be strengthened, v. 8. But Abner, the son of Ner, captain of Saul’s host, took Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, v. 9. and made him king over Gilead, v. 10. Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and reigned two years. But the house of Judah, v. 11. And the time,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
2Sa 2:1
Unto Hebron. As soon as David had assuaged his grief, his thoughts would naturally turn towards his country. Fuller news would reach him every day respecting the movements of the Philistines, who, after so decisive a victory, would quickly overrun all the central districts of Palestine, where the battle had been fought. And very bitter must David’s feelings have been. Had he continued in Israel, he and his six hundred men would now have hastened to the rescue, and all the braver warriors of the land would have gathered round them. As it was, he was too entangled with the Philistines, and too much distrusted by the northern tribes, to be of much use. Still, we learn from 1Ch 12:1-40; that brave men did continually swell the number of his followers. Detachments of the tribes of Gad and Manasseh, instead of joining Saul at Gilboa, went to David as he withdrew to Ziklag. And while he remained there a considerable body of men from Benjamin and Judah came to him under the command of Amasa, David’s nephew. So numerous were they as to alarm David, who went out to meet them, fearing lest they had come to betray him; and glad was he to hear their answer, “Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse.” Thus even as it was, his forces daily grew more numerous; for “from day today there came to David to help him, until it was a great host, like the host of God” (l Chronicles 12:22). But there was no national acknowledgment. With his numbers thus continually increasing, David was encouraged to make some attempt for the deliverance of Israel; but his position was one of serious danger. Great was the risk, but he knew where to go for guidance, and determines, therefore, to put the matter into God’s hand. He summons Abiathar with the ephod, and, in the presence of his captains, asks for permission to go up to some city of his own tribe. The answer is favourable, and Hebron is the city selected. It was a place of ancient sanctity, was well situated in the mountains of Judah for defence, and as the Philistines bad not yet invaded that region, but probably would soon try to ravage it, the people would be sure to welcome the presence of one who brought with him a powerful body of trained men.
2Sa 2:3
They dwelt in the cities of Hebron. Not only had David wives, whom he took with him to Hebron, but many of his warriors were married, and thus they and their households formed a numerous body of people, for whom Hebron could scarcely find accommodation. Moreover they had flocks and herds captured from the Amalekites, for which they needed pasturage. And therefore David dispersed them in the towns and villages of which Hebron was the capital, posting them in such a manner as to render it easy for him to summon them together, while taking care that they did not injure his tribesmen, or dispossess them of their lauds. We may feel sure that he consulted the chief men of Hebron as to these arrangements, and obtained their approval.
2Sa 2:4
They anointed David. Samuel’s anointing (1Sa 16:13) had been private, and, if we may judge by the manner in which Eliab treated David (1Sa 17:28), even his own family had not attached much importance to it. It was nevertheless the indication of Jehovah’s purpose, and now the anointing of David by the elders of Judah was the first step towards its accomplishment. And this was an independent act, though the knowledge of Samuel’s anointing had prepared the way for it; and David thus acquired a legal right and authority by the nation’s will, which Samuel could not have given him. So Saul’s anointing by Samuel, and his election to be king at Gilgal, were independent acts; and while the former gave the king his sacredness, the latter conferred upon him jurisdiction and power. King over the house of Judah. How came the Philistines to allow this? When subsequently he was again anointed, and became King of all Israel, the Philistines gathered their hosts at once; not because he captured Jerusalem, which was then a mere hill fort belonging to the Jebusites, but evidently because they thought him dangerous. But why did they not crush him now? One reason, probably, was that Judaea was a difficult country for military operations. The tribe, too, had stood aloof from Saul, and its strength was unbroken. But the chief reason apparently was that David maintained friendly relations with Achish, and paid him tribute. This explains the curious fact that Ziklag continued to be the private property of the house of David (1Sa 27:6). The doings of a vassal of the King of Gath were regarded as of little importance. Had he not even marched with them to Aphek, as one of the servants of Achish? But when he endeavoured to restore the kingdom of Saul, they first made a hasty rush upon him, and, when repelled, they gathered their forces for as formidable an invasion as that which had ended in their victory at Gilboa.
2Sa 2:5
David sent messengers unto the men of Jabesh-Gilead. This was David’s first act as king, and it was worthy of him. Some suppose that when David was told of their deed, it was with a view of prejudicing him against them. But this is not credible. By this time all men knew how loyal and affectionate were David’s feelings towards his former king; and moreover the men of Jabesh were bound to Saul by no ordinary ties of gratitude (1Sa 11:1-15.). Nor could David wish that Saul’s remains, and those of Jonathan, should be subject to indignity. We may well feel sure that information respecting Saul was eagerly welcomed at Hebron, and the valiant men there would all rejoice at finding that the high spirit of the nation was not quenched. But in sending to thank them, in premising to requite them, and in bidding them persevere in similar conduct, David was acting as the head of the nation; and, to justify his action, he informs them that the men of Judah had made him their king.
2Sa 2:8
Abner. This hero had been present at the battle of Gilboa, and probably had rallied many of the defeated Israelites, and made as much resistance as was possible to the onward march of the Philistines. And as soon as he had effected his retreat into the region beyond the Jordan, his power would be supreme. There was no one there to oppose the commander-in-chief of what remained of Saul’s army. Certainly all that remained of Saul’s body guard of three thousand men would gather round Abner, and as the Philistines did not push their pursuit further than the Jordan, he was free to do as he chose. Nor would there be any opposition. Abner was bound to do his best for Saul’s family, and the people would feel this, and approve of his conduct in standing up for the children of their king. Moreover, David by his conduct had made himself an object of suspicion to all the valiant men who had formed Saul’s army, and these would be the more embittered against him by their defeat. Ishbosheth. This name signifies “man of shame,” that is, “man of the shameful thing,” the idol. Originally he was named Eshbaal (1Ch 8:33; 1Ch 9:39), that is “man of Baal,” the word esh being merely a dialectic variation for ish, equivalent to “man.” At this early date Baal was not the specific name of any idol, but simply meant “lord,” “master,” “husband.” In the earlier books of the Bible we find the word used of many local deities, who were lords of this or that, but had nothing in common with the Phoenician Baal, whose worship Ahab attempted to introduce into Israel. From that time Baal became a term of reproach, and Bosheth, “the shame,” was substituted for it in the old names of which it had formed part. Thus Gideon is still called Jerubbaal in 1Sa 12:11, but the title is transformed into Jerubbesheth, or more correctly, Jerubbosheth, “let the shame plead,” in 2Sa 11:21. Originally, therefore, the name Ishbaal had no discreditable meaning, but signified, “man of the Lord,” or, as Ewald supposes, “lordly man.” It was not till long afterwards, when Israel had been horrified by Jezebel’s doings, that Baal, except in the sense of “husband,” became an ill-omened word. Jonathan, whose own name, “Jehovah’s gift,” in Greek Theodore, is proof sufficient that Saul’s family were worshippers of the true God, called his son’s name Meribbaal, “the Lord’s strife” (1Ch 8:34). In some strange way this was altered into Mephibosheth, that is, “from the face of the shameful thing” (2Sa 4:4. etc.). Possibly it is a corruption of Meribbosheth, but it is remarkable that a son of Saul by his concubine Rizpah also bore the name (2Sa 21:8). Among the ancestors of Saul, the simple name Baal, “Lord,” occurs (1Ch 8:30). Mahanaim. Abner chose this town because it was on the eastern side of the Jordan, and so beyond the range of the Philistines, who never seem to have crossed the river. It was situated on the borders of the tribe of Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh, from both of which valiant warriors had joined David; hut the people generally were not ill affected to the house of Saul. As having been assigned to the Levites (Jos 21:38), it had a quasi-religious character, inherited from the vision of angels seen there by Jacob (Gen 32:2). As a safe, out of the way place, David subsequently took refuge there (2Sa 17:24).
2Sa 2:9
Make him king over. A different preposition is used with the first three names from that employed afterwards, as though Ishbosheth’s reign over Gilead and Jezreel was a reality, but that he had only a shadowy claim to dominion over Ephraim, Benjamin, and all Israel. Gilead. As Mahanaim lay upon the borders of Gad and Manasseh, Abner would easily control these two tribes, and Reuben, which was never an active or enterprising tribe, would follow their lead. Of the Ashurites nothing is known, and the reading is uncertain, as the LXX. has “Thasir,” and the Vulgate and Syriac “Geshur.” The Chaldee paraphrase boldly gives “the house of Asher;” but this tribe lay close to Phoenicia, on the extreme northwest. There are two places called Geshur (see on 2Sa 3:3), but neither of them seems meant, and more probably it was some place the name of which was uncommon, and so was wrongly copied by scribes until the present confusion arose. Jezreel. The name of this place, as specially subject to Ishbosheth, is surprising; for the town, at this time of no importance, lay in the wide plain between the mountains of Gilboa and the little Hermon. But this district was the prize won by the Philistines, and was a region where their cavalry and chariots gave them a great advantage. For Ishbosheth to have had even a nominal dominion over Jezreel, he must either have become a tributary, or Abner must have maintained a not unsuccessful struggle there after the battle of Gilboa. The latter is the more probable. In safe possession of all the country east of the Jordan, Abner was not likely to consent to anything so humiliating as submission to the Philistines; while David’s connection with Achish made it neither so galling to him nor so disadvantageous. As the Transjordanic tribes assembled at Hebron to make David king to the number of one hundred and twenty thousand men (1Ch 12:37), Abner plainly had large resources at his command, and, though the people were not very earnest in the cause of Saul’s house, yet they would probably assemble in considerable numbers after the battle of Gilboa, to prevent any irruption of the victors into their country. At their head Abner probably gained some advantages over the Philistines, and thus became powerful enough to proclaim Ishbosheth king, and as Ephraim and Benjamin acquiesced, he became nominally ruler over all Israel.
2Sa 2:10, 2Sa 2:11
Ishbosheth two years David seven years and six months. Where are we to place the five years and a half of difference? The usual assumption is that David was made King of Israel immediately upon Ishbosheth’s murder; but this is wrong. We cannot believe that Abner would allow so long a period as five years to elapse before asserting the claims of Saul’s family, especially as David was already made King of Judah at Hebron. Still, as the war with the Philistines was the first object of his care, and as some form of popular ratification was necessary, some months may have passed before Ishbosheth was publicly installed as king, though Abner must have acted in his name from the first. The main interval of five years before David’s accession must have been after Ishbosheth’s death. That murder, and still more so the murder of Abner, must have made David an object of great suspicion to all Israel. Shimei, when he called him “a bloody man” (2Sa 16:8), was but uttering a slander commonly current among the people. Gradually most of them would become convinced of his innocence; and all, as they contrasted the anarchy which prevailed in their country with the peace and security won by David for Judah, would regard his election as the best course under the circumstances. As the Philistines immediately resented their action, and endeavoured to crush the king before he could concentrate his power, it is probable that during these five years they had again obtained practical command of the more fertile districts of Palestine. Ishbosheth was forty years old. In the previous narrative Jonathan always appears as the most important of Saul’s sons, and naturally it is assumed that he was the firstborn; yet his child was but five years old at his father’s death, while Ishbosheth, his uncle, a younger brother of Jonathan, is described as a man of forty. Some think that Ishbosheth was the eldest son, but in 1Ch 8:33 he is placed last, and, though a weak man, was not so feeble as to have been set aside from the succession. But confessedly the chronology of Saul’s reign is so full of difficulties, that it is impossible altogether to explain it (see note on 1Sa 13:1).
2Sa 2:12
Abner went out. This is a further proof of considerable success on Abner’s side. Encouraged by the result of numerous skirmishes with the Philistines, and the gradual restoration of the king’s authority in Ephraim and Benjamin, Abner determined to make the attempt to win back Judah also. There David had been content with protecting Judah, and establishing good order; and, following his constant custom, had taken no steps to obtain for himself the kingdom “over all Israel.” The war was of Abner’s choosing, and shows him to us in the character of an able but ambitious and restless man.
2Sa 2:13
The pool of Gibson. As Gibeon, which lay about six miles northwest from Jerusalem, was twenty-six miles distant from Hebron, and about the same distance from Mahauaim, it is plain that David knew of Abner’s march. Possibly he had been summoned to yield his kingdom up to Ishbosheth as the rightful lord, but, while taking no measures to extend his rule, he felt himself justified in defending his election to be king ever Judah. The pool of Gibeon is described by Robinson (‘Researches,’ 2.136) as “an open tank about a hundred and twenty feet in length and a hundred in breadth, surrounded by a grove of olive trees. Above it, excavated in the rock, is a subterranean reservoir, to receive the water from a copious spring, from which the overflow descends into the tank below.” As neither party was willing to shed the first blood in a civil war, of which the Philistines would reap the benefit, they both halted in sight of one another on opposite sides of the hill, with the tank below them in the middle.
2Sa 2:14
Let the young men now arise. “Now” is not an adverb of time, but is hortative, and therefore rightly translated in the Revised Version, “I pray thee.” It is by no means certain that Abner meant that this single combat should decide the war; for similar preludes before a battle are not uncommon among the Arabians, and serve, as this did, to put an end to the mutual unwillingness to begin the onslaught. So, too, games often preceded outbreaks of Scandinavian blood feuds. And this was probably Abner’s object. He was the assailant, but now found that his men shrank from mortal combat with their brethren. There is thus no comparison between this combat and that of the Curiatii and Horatii described in Livy, 1. 10.25. Let them play. The word is grim enough, though intended to gloss over the cruel reality. On each side twelve of the most skilful champions were to be selected, who were to fight in stern earnest with one another, while the rest gazed upon the fierce spectacle. The sight of the conflict would whet their appetite for blood, and their reluctance would give place to thirst for revenge. The request was too thoroughly in accordance with Joab’s temper for him to refuse, and his immediate answer was, Let them arise.
2Sa 2:16
His sword in his fellow’s side. The absence of the verb in the original sets powerfully before us the rapidity of the whole action. But what an action! Twenty-four experienced men each take the other by the head, and, without any attempt at self-defence, thrust their swords into their opponents’ side, and leave their own sides exposed to a similar thrust. Were they, then, unskilful in the use of weapons? Impossible. Were they blinded by hatred of one another? But no rancour would make a man forget his skill in defence. Here there is no variety, no checkered fortune of the combatants, but all twenty-four do and suffer just the same; and it is remarkable that they had swords only, and no shields. With shields on their arms, they could not have seized one another by the hair. It seems certain, therefore, that this mutual butchery was the “play;” nor can we conceive of a more murderous and savage proceeding. Abner, at the head of his fierce Benjamites, thought, perhaps, that Joab had no men among his followers willing to throw life away in so senseless a manner. But Joab was as ready as Abner, and possibly some code of false honour, such as used to make men practise duelling, required the acceptance of the challenge. And so, with their appetite for blood whetted by the sight of twenty-four murders, they hastened to begin the fight. Helkath-hazzurim. Literally this means “the field of flints;” but as the flint is constantly used for any hard rock (Psa 78:20), the Authorized Version has admitted into the margin a paraphrase taken from the Vulgate, which supposes that by flints are meant “strong men,” and renders, “the field of strong men.” So in Isa 26:4 “the flint,” or rock, “of ages,” is even translated “everlasting strength.” Flints, however, were constantly used by the Israelites for knives whenever extreme sharpness was required. Thus for the circumcising of Israel, Jehovah commanded Joshua to prepare knives of flint (Jos 5:2); and in course of time the sharp or whetted edge of a weapon was called its flint. Thus in Psa 89:43 we read, “Thou hast turned back the flint of his sword.” The name therefore probably means “the field of the sharp knives”, and refers to the short swords with which they murdered one another.
2Sa 2:17
A very sore battle. The purpose of Abner was thus gained. Excited by the spectacle of merciless slaughter, the armies manoeuvred no longer, but rushed fiercely to the attack, and fought with fury. But the mighty men of David were irresistible. Only nineteen of his warriors fell, while Abner lost three hundred and sixty, and was forced to flee.
2Sa 2:19
Asahel pursued after Abner. This episode is fully narrated, both because of Asahel’s rank as David’s nephew, and also because of its tragical consequences to Abner himself. Asahel was a son of Zeruiah, David’s sister, and, while his own brothers were of little use to him, his nephews, Joab, Abishai, and Asahel, were the mainstays of David’s throne. As their father’s name is never mentioned, but only the mother’s, Zeruiah was probably a woman of great ability, and her sons inherited it from her. Possibly she had married beneath her station, or her husband had died early; but certainly her sons, thinking more of her than of their father, had soon thrown in their lot with David her brother (but see note on 2Sa 2:32). The youngest of the three, Asahel, was remarkable for his personal accomplishments, and especially for swiftness of foot, for which he was compared to the Zebi, the camp name of Jonathan (2Sa 1:19). It now caused his death. For conscious that Abner was the sole support of Ishbosheth’s party, and indignant at his challenge to useless slaughter, he pursued after him, allowing nothing to divert him from his object, and hoping to end the war by slaying the veteran commander. But though he had the fleetness of an Achilles, he had not his robust strength, and Abner, knowing that the combat was unequal, remonstrated with him, and bade him turn aside, and be content with winning the spoils of some meaner warrior. It is evident from this that Abner saw in this defeat in a battle of his own choosing, the certainty of the near downfall of the house of Saul, and, as he would then be in Joab’s power, he was unwilling to have a blood feud with a man of such determined character. “How,” he asks, “should I hold up my face to Joab thy brother?” It would be his duty, as the avenger of blood, to slay me. Apparently, during this conference, he was standing with the butt end of his lance held towards Asahel, to ward off his blows, but, as the spearhead was turned the other way, Asahel forgot that even so it might be used for offence. For it was pointed, that it might be stuck in the ground at night (1Sa 26:7), and possibly shod with iron, though it is more likely that it was only hardened by being thrust into the fire. So when he saw that his words had no avail, and that Asahel was not on his guard, he suddenly struck him with it so violent a blow that it pierced his body right through, and Asahel fell down dead. It is probable, from the merciless force used, that there was a sudden outburst of anger on Abner’s part.
2Sa 2:23
The fifth rib. This rendering here and in other places arises from the derivation of the word from the numeral five, but this notion has long been abandoned, and the word is now known to be formed from a verb signifying “to be fat or stout.” Really it means the abdomen, and is so translated in the LXX. and Vulgate, while the Syriac gives only the general sense, and renders “the breast.” In the same place; Hebrew, under him; that is, immediately. So violent was the blow that Asahel dropped down dead without a struggle. So tragic was his fate, and so great the affection of David’s men for the young warrior, that the pursuit ceased, and all, as they came up, remained standing by the side of the corpse.
2Sa 2:24
Josh also and Abishai pursued after Abner; really, but Joab and Abishai pursued, and so the Revised Version. The sight of their slaughtered brother made them only the more determined in the pursuit, and doubtless, at their command, the soldiers would leave Asahel and follow their commanders. Of the “hill of Ammah” and Giah we know nothing; but it is evident that no halt was made until sunset.
2Sa 2:25
The children of Benjamin became one troop. Benjamin was probably the only tribe that entered keenly into Ishbosheth’s cause; for the maintenance of the kingdom in the family of Saul meant the continuance of that favouritism which had enriched them at the expense of the community (1Sa 22:7). They were, too, a very warlike tribe, and Abner was one of themselves, and probably, therefore, the main body of his army, and certainly his most trustworthy men, were Benjamites. Profiting by the delay caused by the halting of David’s soldiers round tile body of the fallen Asahel, Abner had rallied his men, and posted them on the top of the hill, where they were prepared now to fight on more equal terms.
2Sa 2:26
Knowest thou not that it will be bitterness in the latter end! The Vulgate renders this, “Art thou not aware that desperation is dangerous?” This is a very obvious truth, but probably Abner had in his mind something more statesmanlike. The struggle was for the empire over all Israel, and whoever won would be king over both sides. But every man slain meant a blood feud, which would continue even after the kingdom was united; and Abner probably felt that his own slaughter of Asahel that day would render his position in David’s realm difficult and dangerous. Among the Arab tribes quarrels are very common, but bloodshed rare, because of the blood feud which follows. Moderation was thus necessary on both sides, while cruelty and the immoderate use of victory would sow the seeds of future trouble.
2Sa 2:27
Unless thou hadst spoken, surely then in the morning the people had gone up; or as the Revised Version renders, had gone away, nor followed every man his brother. The Revised Version makes the sense more plain. Joab throws the whole blame, and rightly so, on Abner. David would under no circumstances have attacked Ishbosheth, and Joab with his men had marched to the tank of Gibeon simply to repel an invading force. When there, Joab, doubtless by David’s orders, had remained strictly on the defensive, and so unwilling were both armies to fight, that Abner had to resort to a most cruel scene of butchery in order to inflame their passions and force them to begin a conflict of brother against brother. But for Abner’s challenge, both armies would have separated as friends. And Joab still acts upon the same principle of forbearance, and gives the signal for stopping the pursuit. He was not a man of a tender heart, but he was wise and sensible, and fully aware that the slaughter of Abner and his men, even if he could have destroyed them all, would only have rankled in the minds of all Israel, and set them against David and his rule.
2Sa 2:29
And Abner and his men walked all that night. At the end of the chapter we learn that Joab did the same. Each army had about twenty-six miles to march, and the night was less exhausting for a long walk than the day. As soon, then, as Abner saw Joab and his men occupied with the removal of Asahel’s body, he withdrew from the hill of Ammah, and, passing through the Arabah, or plain of Jordan, crossed the river by the same ford which he had used when starting on his unfortunate errand, and so returned home. The phrase, all Bithron, shows that this was a district, but nothing more of it is known.
2Sa 2:30, 2Sa 2:31
Nineteen men three hundred and three score men. Though David’s “mighties,” as they were called, excelled in the use of arms, yet the disparity of numbers is remarkable; for the Benjamites were also famous warriors. We can only account for it by the superiority of the tactics of Joab, who was a man of consummate military skill, and who knew both how to gain a victory and how to use the advantage which the pursuers have over the pursued to the full. If we sometimes wonder that David endured Joab so long, we ought to remember how much he owed to his nephew’s genius, and that Joab was always faithful to himself.
2Sa 2:32
The sepulchre of his father, which was in Bethlehem. The Name of Zeruiah’s husband is never mentioned, but he was evidently of the same town as his wife, and at his death, when probably still young, he had received honourable sepulture. As Bethlehem is about eleven miles distant from Gideon, Joab probably marched thither straight from the battlefield, anti spent the next day in paying the last tribute of respect to his brother, and in refreshing his men. At nightfall he resumed his march to Hebron, which was fifteen miles further to the south, and where he would arrive on the morning following that on which Abner reached Mahanaim.
HOMILETICS
2Sa 2:1-7
The facts are:
1. David, knowing that time was come for action, and being in doubt as to what movement would further the end in view, seeks guidance of God.
2. Not only does he obtain sanction to enter Judah, but is even instructed to make Hebron his headquarters.
3. Entering the district around Hebron with his family and attendants, he is anointed by the men of Judah over the tribe of Judah.
4. Being informed of the kind and valiant act of the men of Jabesh-Gilead (1Sa 31:11-13), David sends them a message of thanks, and assures them of the Divine blessing and of his own grateful remembrance.
5. He also reminds them that the crisis in the affairs of the nation, in the death of Saul on the one hand, and his own elevation by the men of Judah on the other, required of them to be true to their reputation as men of courage. There are several themes suggested by these facts. Among them, consider
The beginnings of prosperity.
As the Second Book of Samuel introduces a turn of affairs in the national experience, so this second chapter introduces a turn n the personal experience of David. He passes from the bitter trials of the past, through the anguish depicted in the first chapter, into the more prosperous and easy circumstances of free public activity. Undoubtedly he was conscious of a sense of relief from burdens almost more than he could bear (1Sa 27:1); and being naturally buoyant and hopeful in spirit, the hitherto restrained powers of his nature were now eager to manifest their energy. His day had come after a long night of waiting. The promises of the past were about to be fulfilled. Jonathan’s dream of his beloved friend being a more worthy successor than himself was coming true. In one sense David had always, even during his exile and sufferings, been a prosperous man, for he was God s chosen servant, blessed with a good conscience and the favour of the Eternal; but now he was all that with the additional circumstance of being about to enter on a position of commanding influence among the people of God. We have a counterpart to David’s position at this juncture in some of the circumstances of our life; for in youth, in business, in Church work, and in national affairs we sometimes meet with a similar beginning of prosperity. In so far as the passage before us affords teaching on this subject, observe
I. E BEGINNING OF PROSPERITY IS A TIME OF PECULIAR DANGER. In reading the narrative of David’s trials on the one side, and of his prosperous circumstances on the other, we feel at once that in so far as his religious life is concerned there was far more hope of him under the former. The spiritual uses of adversity are very valuable, while on the other hand the spiritual dangers of prosperity are subtile and manifold. And likewise the transition from the one to the other is a time of peculiar danger. For David the occasion for dependence on God was not so obvious; and the demand for action would lay him open to mistakes and sacrifices of principle new in his experience. The dangers of such a time may perhaps be summarized thus. There arises a new and fascinating diversion of thought and feeling from God; a corresponding absorption of mental energy in the externals of life. The self-culture which consists in the watchful and constrained subordination of every feeling and motive to the will of God becomes somewhat relaxed. The free play of a much greater variety of feeling, passing out toward the attractive objects present in an opening success, lays us open to the insinuating flatteries of events, and the consequent encouragement to substitute expediency for stern principle. The presence or the prospect of a more abundant supply of material comforts cannot but give vitality to whatever of latent power there may be in the lusts of the flesh. The conscious elevation which awaits us is sure to appeal to that deeply seated human pride which, when developed, looks on others with more or less of disdain, and in proportion as the human lot is now or prospectively free from care does the heart care less for the blessings of a future life. The youth passing from the restraints and discipline of years into the wider sphere of life, and so enjoying the first taste of freedom and of manly dignity, stands in a slippery place. Churches passing from the trials of persecution into the ease of toleration cannot be sure of the old fidelity. Nations springing into prominence may contract habits of indulgence and arrogance in strange contrast with their former self-control and devotion to duty. Private Christians when emerging from the struggles of their early convictions may cease to watch and pray as heretofore, and soon lose the vigour of their former faith.
II. THE MORAL STRENGTH ACQUIRED DURING SEASONS OF PREPARATION WILL SHOW ITSELF IN CONTINUED DEPENDENCE ON THE GUIDANCE AND BLESSING OF GOD. Unquestionably David was a much stronger man, as a consequence of the protracted trials of past years, than he would have been had there been no waiting for the realization of hopes enkindled by the promise of God (1Sa 16:13). In the spiritual sphere, as in the material, reserves of force are gathered, by the action of special laws, in view of a demand to be made at a later stage of development. David in the wilderness and caves, Paul in the retirement of Arabia (Gal 1:17, Gal 1:18), other good men during seasons of discipline and culture, fulfilled the Divine law of acquisition of moral power prior to expenditure. And the reality of this acquisition in the case of David appeared at once in the promptitude with which, under all the distracting and diverting influence of a sudden elevation to importance, he acknowledges his need of the guidance and blessing of God. There is a natural necessity, not identical with true godliness, which causes men to turn to God in their troubles. It is the instinct of a genuine piety alone which prompts towards God when troubles cease and success begins. It is a blessed omen when men, on the dawning of their prosperity, and when flushed with the prospect of realizing long-cherished hopes, go straight to God, and in prayer both acknowledge his goodness and seek his special help for the occasion. Thus the subtile temptations and perils of the new circumstances are met by a wise use of that spiritual strength which bad been stored amidst the trying influences of adversity or deferred hope. No doubt the apostles during their early ministry, on and after the Day of Pentecost, were giving out some of the spiritual power gathered into their nature during the three years of discipline and restraint under their visible Lord; in like manner men who go forth to successful encounter with evil owe much to the spirit trained to honour God in all things.
III. THE HOPE OF COMING PROSPERITY, WHEN MODERATED BY PIETY, INDUCES CAUTION AND CONSIDERATION FOR OTHERS. Not only is continuous prosperity very perilous to man’s higher life, but the prospect of it, after a season of trial, is likely to be charged with elements of danger which only a well-nourished piety can neutralize. David could not but think much of himself now as a free man, an object of public interest, on the high road to affluence, and about to enter on activities that would render him the chief object of interest. There would thus arise a new and perilous self-consciousness. The sobrieties, caution, and self-restraint acquired in adversity might now seem to be virtues suited to a bygone time. A profound knowledge of the world and of self would correct this judgment; but still the risk would be considerable, for man at his best estate is morally weak. It is just here that a sincere, well-cultured godliness comes in as a support to the dictates of a purely moral judgment and the suggestions of expediency. The man after God’s own heart, because of being such a man, looks out on his opening prospects with a careful eye, and moves with as much caution and deference to a higher will as in the former days of trouble; and the comfort of his household, as well as the advancement to comparative ease and plenty of the men who had shared his sufferings, engage his thought, and they become the first partakers of the fruits of his improving fortunes (2Sa 2:2, 2Sa 2:3). The same moderating influence of piety is seen in the life of Joseph. The principle involved is taught by our Lord in his perfect freedom, even amidst growing honours, from self-absorption. With the measured step of sobriety he marches on to full dominion, and with tender regard for the welfare of all who have known the “fellowship of his sufferings.” The same mind in us will tone down the dangerous excitement of successes, and induce a broad and generous consideration of the claims and requirements of others.
The following GENERAL LESSONS naturally flow from this subject as exhibited in the life of David:
1. The consciousness of our being God’s servants, living supremely to effect his purpose in the world, gives great moral power to our conduct. David lived and moved as a “man of God.” Blessed is he who can go forth daily with that conviction!
2. The assurance that God has a definite will in reference to our daily movements is warranted, not only by philosophic considerations, but also by the record of his actual dealings with his servants. David, the “sparrow,” and the “hairs” of our head are means of illustrating that nothing in our life is too insignificant for Divine care, and therefore for matter of supplication (Mat 10:29-31).
3. The true policy of man is another name for what is the will of God. No doubt in this case it was humanly expedient to go first up to Hebron; and because God knew it was best under the circumstances, he willed David to go. In the higher moral sphere, God’s will is not a judgment based on knowledge of circumstances; but, though absolute, yet it always coincides with true policy.
4. The means of ascertaining the main lines of right action are within reach of a good man. God speaks in providence, conscience, and his Word.
5. There is immense moral support to our action when we have deliberately sought and have learnt the will of God. Firm is the step of such men, steady is their eye.
The uses of partial success.
David’s advancement to the throne of Judah was a great step towards the realization of the ideal which, ever since the day of his anointing, had drawn him on in the path of patient endurance; but it was far from being all that he wished. As compared with the understanding arrived at, and encouraged by all that God had said and done during the past years of exile, it fell below what he had a right to expect, for he was chosen of God to be ruler over the whole of the people; but, at the same time, it so far was satisfying that it became a pledge of still further advances till the original promise should be literally and in its entirety fulfilled. There is no indication here or elsewhere in the Psalms that David was vexed and fretful because he did not all at once succeed Saul as king of the entire nation. There were doubtless in the circumstances of the case sufficient pleas for an unfilial spirit to indulge in the language of disappointment; but the past discipline of this true child of God had manifestly wrought in him such confidence in the order of Providence, and such breadth of view with respect to Divine methods, as to render him deaf and indifferent to unhallowed suggestions. His cheerful acceptance of an instalment of fulfilled promise is in keeping with his former patient endurance of deferred hope.
I. THERE ARE MANY CONVERGING LINES INVOLVED IN OUR SUCCESS IN THE SERVICE OF GOD. The true final success of David’s career lay in his becoming the beloved and honoured ruler of the entire chosen race. But a fact of this kind means the adjustment, over a considerable period, of countless subtile human relationships, the kindling of apparently divergent interests, and the physical removal of barriers by the action of natural causes directed by a controlling mind towards a single issue. Not only must Saul be put aside and Jonathan be rendered willing to give place to another, but the mass of the nation must be won. The hand that had won over Jonathan and removed Saul now operates silently on the hearts of the men of JudahDavid’s own kindred; and their recognition of him as king at Hebron was preliminary, in the order of Providence, to the acquisition on the part of David of the experience that would qualify for sovereignty over the entire nation, and to the gradual creation in the various tribes of confidence in his character and abilities, as also the gradual annihilation by a natural process of the interest which men very properly felt in surviving members of the family of Saul. As many lines converted on his reaching the throne of Judah, so this elevation was the opening up of new lines that would ultimately converge on the complete realization of the Divine purpose in his life. While absorbed in our own individual experience, we do not see how the line we have to follow is what it is because of being one of many terminating in a common issue. Later on we are able to take the position of a geographer, who surveying the watershed of a region, sees the convergence, after all the circuitous windings round rugged mountains and through wild gorges, of various watercourses into one calm and majestic stream. Thus we now interpret the lives of Jacob and Joseph, and, above all, the varied earthly experiences of our Saviour. We thus have warrant for believing that there are more forces working toward the goal of our life of godliness than we can at present trace. We ought to cherish faith in God’s silent action on the spirits of men for the furtherance of the ends for which we, as his servants, live and strive. David could obey, be patient and step forward when occasion offered; but meanwhile God could dispose the minds of Judah towards him, and educate the rest to recognize in due time his fitness to be their king also. The courses of nature are on the side of good men. The social world is not a chaos; there is a Power which subdues all things unto itself. This should comfort and strengthen us in all our efforts to see Christ recognized as King of kings.
II. SUCCESS PARTIALLY ATTAINED IS BOTH A PLEDGE OF DIVINE FAITHFULNESS AND A CALL TO HIGHER AND MORE DIFFICULT SERVICE. The elevation to the throne at Hebron was certainly a great success in the long and weary, and, so far as David was concerned with Saul, bloodless conflict. It must have given to the act of anointing by Samuel a fulness of meaning hitherto not realized. The venerable records of God’s faithfulness to Abraham and Jacob after many a severe trial, which doubtless he was accustomed, at this period of his history, to read and meditate upon (Psa 1:2; cf. Psa 119:97, Psa 119:99), were seen to be but counterparts of what he now could write. He had waited long; he had abstained from violent means and forced providences, and so could take heart and believe that the Lord forsaketh not his saints, but bringeth to pass that for which they wait (Psa 38:1-4). And yet this partial success was to him the starting point from which he was to advance still further in the fulfilment of life’s purpose; it demanded of him more skill, more watchfulness, more caution, than ever. A new set of qualities would find scope for development; different and more subtile temptations would arise; the final triumph would depend on present use of partial success. Now, the case of David reigning at Hebron over part of the nation is the case of all who, like him, are engaged in maintaining the honour of God in a sinful world. What they have attained to, either in personal self-conquest or in subduing men to the obedience of faith, may be taken as pledge of the faithfulness that remains yet to be proved, while it opens up wider reaches of exertion and exposes to new and very dangerous forms of temptation. The history of the Church up to the fourth century, and its subsequent career till it recovered its tone in the time of the Reformation, furnishes abundant illustration of this double aspect of partial success. Our modern missionary achievements furnish distinct pledges of God’s faithfulness, but they impose further and very serious obligations with a view to consolidation, and at the same time expose us to peculiar temptations which find no room in the season of early enthusiasm and sturdy endurance, The same applies to our own personal religion and the bringing of our entire nature into subjection to Christ (Luk 10:17-20; 1Co 10:11, 1Co 10:12).
III. SUCCESS PARTIALLY ATTAINED FURNISHES FACILITIES FOR GREATER ACHIEVEMENTS. The acquisition of Hebron as the seat of government, some twenty miles south, of Jerusalem, and situated among hills that rendered both defence and administration. more feasible, furnished solid ground for the expectation that some day the morn important city would become the centre of a greater kingdom. The memorable historic associations of the place (Gen 23:2-20; Jos 10:36; Jos 14:6-15; Jos 15:13, Jos 15:14; Jos 21:11-13) could not but create in the mind of David the feeling that he was succeeding men who were substantially engaged in the same cause as himself, and who prospered therein. The natural position of the city, and the wise measures which thence would go forth for the government of a compact tribe, would naturally consolidate his power, and, in due course, issue in a contrast between his judicious rule and that of rivals in Israel, which would tend to break down prejudices against him, and give force to his claim when an opening occurred for his assumption of sovereignty over the twelve tribes. Using well his moderate gains, he would convert them into agencies for complete triumph. Herein is the law of solid advance. In the organic world higher and more beautiful forms are built up by means of the powers latent in the lower forms already in being. Mental life becomes wide in range and profound in thought by conversion of partial knowledge acquired into means of further development. Social weal may proceed by stages, in which for a time progress may seem to be checked; but the institutions and habits consolidated soon become points from which other, and better, are formed. The growth of the spiritual life of the Christian means the successive attainment of points of advantage, which, though far from satisfying the earnest soul who seeks to subdue all to Christ, yet render the subjugation of the entire man to the Law of Christ more easy and certain. Christian enterprise often lays hold of some Hebron, in the heathen world, or in the midst of our non-Christian civilization, and working thence, with memories of past success to cheer and encourage, gets nearer to the goal of all prayer and effortthe bringing of the entire race into cheerful submission to Christ, the true King in Zion. Therefore, like David in Hebron, we all should gratefully accept what is vouchsafed as the reward of effort and patience, and apply our new resources and acquired position to higher issues.
An instructive episode.
The sacred narrative is in the main concerned with the great national events which point on to the coming of the permanent King in Zion; but here and there it introduces a personal incident, which forms a pleasing and instructive episode amidst the public transactions which are the staple of the history. So here, while describing the important facts connected with David’s elevation to the throne, and the consequent advance in the unfolding of the process by which at last the Christ should appear, the writer relates a circumstance of a more private character, and that both reveals noble qualities in David and sets forth truths of general interest. Observe, then
I. THAT, IN A TRUE MAN, AFFAIRS OF STATE DO NOT EXTINGUISH THE MORE TENDER AND REFINED SENTIMENTS OF LIFE. TO become monarch by a people’s choice and in accordance with Divine purpose involves the pressure of heavy responsibilities, the absorption of energy in onerous duties, and the exposure of the spirit to manifold temptations to selfish aggrandizement. It is to the honour of David that he retained, amidst all these new and perilous conditions, his old tenderness of feeling and noble generosity. He found time and faculty for thinking lovingly of his once relentless but now buried foe, and for cherishing gratitude and respect for the men who had, at much personal risk, striven to pay honour to the dishonoured corpse (verses 5, 6). He was not spoiled as a man of generous sentiments by becoming a king. He nourished private feelings amidst public cares. He would have the men of Jabesh-Gilead know how fondly he cherished the remembrance of their kindness to one now no more. How unlike many who have gained a throne through the disasters brought on rivals! How free, natural, and simple the expression of feeling as compared with the formal courtesies which sometimes society requires toward even the detested dead! In these respects David is a type of the greater One, who, amidst all the cares of life, cherished in his heart only pure, kindly, generous feelings towards even those who by others would have been forgotten. In like manner it is well that we strive to keep the heart fresh and warm when promotion comes, or public affairs absorb, or temptations arise to be indifferent to the minor claims of life.
II. THAT A TRUE MAN WILL EXHIBIT IN HIS CONDUCT THE SUPREMACY OF HIS LIFE‘S SPIRITUAL PURPOSE. There is an obscurity in the exhortation sent to the men of Jabesh-Gilead arising from its laconic character (verse 7). But, read in the light of what we know to have been David’s faith in the coming kingdom of God ever since the anointing by Samuel, it means this: “You are perplexed and anxious about the interests of the people of God and their future. Do not yield to that state of mind. Be true men; do your part as patriots in this time of change; for Saul, your master, is dead, and every man, therefore, should do his best for the common weal. I have been made king over one section of the people of God, and I, therefore, am in a position to do my part. Let us, then, work as brave men for the bringing on of the better time.” Thus, in the but partial fulfilment of the prediction by Samuel, and amidst the private affairs of life, David cherishes clear and full faith in the onworking of the Divine purpose towards final realization. His destiny as king over all the chosen race, in God’s Name, was still the predominant thought. All along during those bitter days of exile and persecution the thought was uppermost, and nerved him with patient courage; and even now, when more than half the people did not want him to be king, he keeps the thought clearly in view. So was it with our Saviour. He came knowing he was to be Lord of allHead of a united people. “For the joy that was set before him”in prospect of this”he endured the cross, and despised the shame;” and when only partially recognized as Lord by a few, he still had faith in the outworking of Divine purposes, and believed that to him “the gathering of the people” would be, and that there would be “one flock and one Shepherd.” Those, also, who enter into the Saviour’s Passion likewise keep the spiritual purpose of life clear above all earthly things, and adjust the partial successes, the deferred hopes, and even the private intercourse of life to the one absorbing ideal. Blessed men, who thus see Christ’s final triumph before it is realized! What tone, elevation, and patience does it give to life!
III. THAT TRUE MEN IN EXALTED POSITIONS GIVE TONE TO SOCIETY. During exile, David was at the head of a band of men, and now he became the ruler of a people with title of king. As leader and chief his spirit had influenced his followers. Now that he is king, the people told him of the men of Jabesh-Gilead burying Saul. Why? Was it that he might be revenged on men who had done honour to a persecuting enemy? Not thus had they learnt of their leader. They knew him of old as generous to Saul (1Sa 26:9-12); they had heard his pathetic lament over Saul (Psa 1:1-6 :17-27), and they were sure that he would be comforted in knowing how poor Saul’s corpse had been cared for. Obviously, the leader had given a nobler, more generous tone to men beneath him. In ordinary life, such men would have rejoiced in the death of a foe. It is doubtless true that the lone of society proceeds largely from the higher to the lower in position. A good monarch affects the peasant and the peer. The lower grades of society get their tone very much from what prevails in ranks above them. If our rulers and persons of position display kindliness, temperance, and piety, they do much. thereby to fashion the character of others. The same principle applies to thought. Ideas are wrought out by the highest minds, and gradually permeate the thinking of the undisciplined and uncultured. Hence the serious responsibilities of station!
2Sa 2:8-17
Fanatical patriotism.
The facts are:
1. By degrees, and with the aid of Abner, those parts of the country not subject to David, and which, during the decay of Saul’s power, had come under the control of the Philistines, now became consolidated under the rule of Ishbosheth.
2. The jealousy between Israel and Judah, owing mostly to the hostility of Ishbosheth’s adherents to David, assumes threatening form, and the leaders on each side, attended by a small army, come together face to face, probably to consider the points in dispute.
3. The political questions not being solved by discussion, Abner proposes (2Sa 2:13, 2Sa 2:14; cf. 2Sa 2:27) as alternative a settlement by a combat of twelve select men from each side.
4. The combat issuing in mutual destruction, the main forces come into conflict, and Abner suffers defeat. The men who entered into the strife here recorded doubtless prided themselves on the zeal they felt for their country, and were ready to justify in words the deeds of the sword. It is customary to credit people with patriotism, and to that extent condone their savage passions. But too often the plea of patriotism is only a cover for a lack of reason and a domination of inferior impulses.
I. ATTACHMENT TO KING AND COUNTRY IS SUBORDINATE TO A HIGHER LAW. Considered in the abstract, such attachment is worthy only of admiration, and it forms an element in a people’s well being. But human feelings, with their corresponding acts, are parts of a great complex whole and their worth in any particular concrete instance depends on antecedent and concomitant facts. There is a gradation of obligations, and virtues in name cease to be virtues in reality when they appear in isolation, or consequent on a disregard of a higher law. The men of Israel were bound to love their country, and to show love to it by asserting the rights of their ruler. But at the same time they were bound to follow the guidance of God; to submit to his supreme will; and, making this the standard of feeling and action, to modify the form of expressing love to country and ruler accordingly. Now, the men of Israel, especially the leaders, ought to have known, from the events and words of Samuel’s life, and, indeed, from the manifest interposition in favour of David and against Saul, that it was the Divine will that they should not oppose David; that, in fact, love of country was to show itself in accepting whom God had chosen. Any personal interest, therefore, which they may have felt in a son of Saul, and any regard top what they deemed the good of their native land, should have shaped its form of expression in harmony with their primary and higher obligation. The principle is of wide range. Any passion for our country and sovereign must be exercised within the limits of a higher love. If so-called patriotism involves hatred of men as men, or injustice to them, or national selfishness, then it is a violation of the second great commandment. If upholding a ruler and seeking to subdue a neighbouring ruler involves a contravention of God’s will, revealed in the order of manifest Providence or Scripture, then it is a spurious patriotism. Human feelings are not the tests of truth.
II. BLENDED IGNORANCE AND PASSION ENTAIL SUFFERING AND SLOW PROGRESS IN NATIONAL LIFE. Had Israel been alive to the lessons which God was teaching them all through the life of Saul, by means of Samuel and David and Jonathan, they would never have allowed the sentiment of interest in a monarch’s son to have developed into a strong aversion to David and a passionate effort to expel him from Judah. Considering all the facts of the case, there is no valid excuse for their ignorance, and, therefore, none for their feelings, even though patriotism be pleaded. Thus we see how neglect to gather up and use the lessons of Providence, slight an evil as it may seem to be at the time, really is the seed sowing of the innumerable miseries of a civil war. If, during those painful years of contention, the energies of men are diverted from industrial channels into the wasting channels of war, and if, consequently, national progress is retarded, the cause is to be found in the domination of ignorance and passion. So has it been again and again. That vox populi has always been vox Dei is little less than blasphemy. Generations looking back on their ancestors see how wars and strifes took their rise in stupidity; and yet, too often, there is an unwillingness to pause lest the same evil be repeated. The woes that have come upon nations in consequence of war are a dark foil, setting forth in wondrous light the wisdom and sweet reasonableness of the gospel of Christ. If peoples would find the clue to progressive national development, let them accept and put into practice the sober, generous precepts and principles of the New Testament. This harmony of Christ’s religion with economic law is no feeble strand in the evidence of its Divine origin.
III. THE GREAT ERROR OF LEADERS TOO OFTEN LIES IN THEIR INDISPOSITION TO TRACE OUT THE LEADINGS OF THE HIGHER LAW. Abner’s suggestion that the dispute should be settled by combat of twelve on each side was an appearance of humanity and sobriety as compared with the indiscriminate use of force. But in the light of reason it is absurd; for right cannot be constituted by chance superiority of might. The complication in which he found himself was simply the result of previous indisposition to find out the Divine meaning of Samuel’s dealings with Saul and of Jonathan’s compact with David (1Sa 13:11-16; 1Sa 15:24-31; 1Sa 16:6-13; 1Sa 20:12-17; cf. 16:57; 1Sa 26:3-16). It had been easier to follow the family feeling and official impulse (1Sa 14:50; 2Sa 2:8, 2Sa 2:9) than to look at private and public interests in the light of such revelations of God’s will as were then available. It is a good maxim in moral questions that first promptings are best. The voice of conscience is quick to speak, even though in low tone, Most probably Abner recognized that voice telling of God’s will in David. But where there is an unwillingness, because of personal or other interests, to give heed to that voice, it soon becomes easier to follow the lower impulses; and when once on the slippery incline of lower impulse, every movement adds to the momentum downwards. Herein lies the danger of our public men. They especially need the “light of the Lord.” Expediency and wrong principles gain on them unconsciously in so far as they lose the primary sensitiveness of conscience. The contagion of their spirit and conduct affects the lower orders. They will have no difficulty in finding men willing, under the cover of patriotic sentiment, to enter the “field of sharp edges,” and kill and be killed. Hence, it behoves preachers and all good men to bring the light of the higher law of life to bear with all its clearness and directness on the minds of those in authority.
2Sa 2:18-32
The facts are:
1. Asahel, a younger brother of Joab, taking part in the pursuit, fixes his eye on Abner, and keeps on his track, and, being swift of foot, soon overtakes him.
2. Abner, conscious of superiority in arms, and remembering the high family connections of the rash youth, chivalrously urges Asahel to try his prowess on some one else.
3. The counsel being proudly disdained, Asahel falls under the spear of Abner.
4. At the close of the day the scattered men of Israel concentrate on one spot, and pause, while Abner, perceiving the folly and misery of the civil war, appeals to Joab for a cessation of hostilities.
5. Joab, reproaching Abner for his having brought on the conflict by his own acts and words in the morning, sounds the recall to his men, and henceforth they cease to fight their brethren.
6. Abner and his men retire to the east of Jordan, while Joab and his men bury Asahel, and proceed to David’s seat of government.
Instructive youthful imprudence.
The historian here gives considerable prominence to the rash conduct of Asahel and its sad consequences. Without at all straining the narrative, or indulging in fantastic methods of interpretation, we may call attention to the following considerations naturally suggested by the narrative.
I. THE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH THE MATERIALS ENTERING INTO THE SACRED HISTORY WERE SELECTED. The Bible is a history formed by a selection of a few materials out of many. The unwritten history of a people is more ample than the written. The question naturally arisesOn what principle did the sacred historians proceed in accepting some items of fact, and rejecting others equally true? Many a noble youth besides Asahel must have fallen in the course of the ages traversed by the biblical story, but their name and deeds are unrecorded. The theory that the different writers of the historic fragments which from time to time appeared in Jewish life, and now make up the whole Bible, were literary artists or philosophical historians, is not tenable. There is in the narratives an entire absence of the art and the philosophy which may be traced in such writers as Thucydides, Niebuhr, Macaulay, and Froude; while, running through these fragments, there is a unity equal to anything found elsewhere. The case of Asahel is an illustration of the whole. The somewhat detailed reference to the occasion of his death is obviously connected with the subsequent reference to the occasion of the death of Abner, and the death of Abner is closely connected with the removal of the most influential barrier to David’s consolidation of the entire kingdom, and David’s life and reign are, we know, important in Hebrew history, because of their bearing on the line of providence by which “David’s greater Son” at last came to reign in the true Zion. Here, then, we get a clue to the principle on which, by the unconscious guidance of the Spirit of God, facts were culled from Hebrew annals and incorporated in the sacred history. Direct or indirect beating on the redemptive purpose in Christ was the criterion of incorporation. Not that everything related to that purpose is incorporated, but only such as is. The same doubtless applies to the principle on which the evangelists were, unconsciously perhaps, guided to select out of the mass of fact connected with the life of Christ such items as we have in the four Gospels.
II. THE WASTE INVOLVED IN THE USE OF VALUABLE POWERS TO UNSUITABLE ENDS. Asahel, the Hebrew Achilles without his skill in arms, was swift of foota valuable quality, and, in certain uses, likely to render great service to the state; but, as employed against the superior prowess of Abner in personal conflict, it only proved the occasion of premature unavoidable death. All the latent capacity for service in years to come, all the joys of domestic life, were thrown away by this rash encounter of the fleet-footed youth with a man of war. Looking at his conduct from a distance, we can see its essential folly, Physical and mental qualities, like limbs, are adapted to specific uses, and when applied to cases in which their excellence can turn the scale of advantage, then the utmost zeal may be displayed; but apart from this they may involve us in great trouble. Judgment in the use of small gifts will often achieve better results than can be secured by an indiscreet use of greater gifts. Possibly Asahel remembered the youthful David, skilled with the sling, going forth to fight Goliath; and it may be, also, that he was fully conscious of being on the side of the Lord’s anointed. But the case of David was not parallel. Then there was an imminent peril for all Israel, and no other means available for warding it off; while here, whatever peril had existed was gone. No conviction of being on the side of God is a justification for rashness. The fall of Abner as a foe of David was in wiser hands than those of the fleet-footed youth. We have all to learn the lesson of adaptation. The student of purely physical science renders great service where physical facts and conclusions embodying them are alone concerned; but, like Asahel, he applies his powers in a dangerous direction when he presumes to be an authority on super-physical questions. Much of the waste of Christian energy arises from individuals attempting to rid the world of evil by working along lines unsuited to their capacities; and we see daily instances of men and women wasting their mental and physical substance in occupations in which their specialities find no suitable objects. A little wisdom goes a long way in human affairs.
III. THE ENFORCED SUBJUGATION OF POWERFUL SENTIMENTS. With all his faults of lurking ambition and infidelity to conscience, Abner was not destitute of chivalrous qualities. Possibly the conviction that his ill-espoused cause was on the wane may have awakened the prudential desire to obviate as far as possible personal offence to Joab, the rising general; but with this there was evident pity for the rash youth, and a chivalrous wish to take no undue advantage over a noble though impetuous foe. His position was one of extreme difficulty. His own death, or that of his pursuer, seemed to him to be the only alternatives. The thought of surrender, or of simply disabling his foe, appears not to have occurred; and in the choice of death to Asahel there was consequently involved a subjugation of the kindly, generous sentiments, and also of minor expediencies, to the love of self-preservation. Junctures of a similar kind occur in the lives of most men. Contending considerations distress the spirit. Deeds have to be done which any way entail misfortune. Abraham had to part company with his kinsman Lot, or perpetuate painful strifes. Moscow was burnt by the hands of its inhabitants to save themselves from possible subjugation. Commercial men can point to instances in which they have had to subordinate strong impulses to one commanding call to safety and honour.
IV. PUBLIC HOMAGE TO ILL–FATED RANK. The general honours paid to Asahel were in accordance with the custom of the age, which made persons of superior birth the objects of unusual attention. In this case there was conjoined the sentiment of admiration for enthusiasm, rash but real. In so far as man can find a reward for self-sacrifice in the sorrowful attentions to mortal remains of survivors, this young man did not die in vain. The instinct of men which leads them to regard with tender sympathy the death of a young hero in a public cause is very sound; for it means a discernment of noble qualities, a charity toward weaknesses, an unspoken lament over promising gifts prematurely lost to the world, and sympathy with aspirations not realized. The addition of social rank intensifies these feelings, and at the same time infuses over them all the superiority derivable from rank being regarded as the symbol of an ideal life toward which human nature constantly aspires. The hard utilitarianism that would banish sentiment as a mystical superstitious nuisance, and the impossible democracy that would annihilate social differences, will ever find human nature too strong for them. It is a fair subject for studyWhat are the functions in life of the instincts which find an outlet in acts of homage? How much does society owe to their binding power? In what degrees do they tend to tone down the asperities of the struggle to live? How may they be made subservient to the cultivation of religious feeling?
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. We should endeavour carefully to trace analogies between the structure of the Word of God and the structure of the other works of his hand.
2. It is important to watch against the temptations arising from the possession of qualities developed in a high degree.
3. The more prominent our gifts are in a particular direction, the more need is there for the cultivation of a calm judgment, if we would give the world the full benefit of their exercise.
4. In a choice of what seem to be opposing evils, we should endeavour to be guided by some clear and broad principle irrespective of consequences.
The alternations of passion and reason.
The battle between the forces of Abner and Joab was a small affair as compared with many of the conflicts recorded in Jewish history; and this is probably to be ascribed to the conviction which both leaders entertained of the weakness of the cause of Ishbosheth. Abner evidently had not made preparations commensurate with an unchangeable determination to see right done to his nominal master. The gathering of his few broken forces on the brow of a hill, and his appeal in their presence to Joab, were the outward signs of his virtual surrender. In his plea of humanity, “Shall the sword devour forever?” and in Joab’s prompt answer, we get revelations of human character common to every age.
I. IT IS THE LOWER PASSIONS OF MEN THAT LEAD THEM TO SEEK TO ESTABLISH WHAT THEY CALL THE RIGHT BY VIOLENT MEANS. Ostensibly Abner was engaged in establishing the right of Ishbosheth to the rulership over the entire nation. As Joab reminds him, it was his will that led to war that day. In the eye of ordinary men, and judged by the customs of both ancient and modern peoples, Abner was justified in seeking to establish his right by force. But in his case, at least, the use of force was not the result of calm reason and conscience applied to the solution of a question of right. His past acquaintance with all the incidents connected with Samuel’s recognition of David, and with the general evidence of the Divine rejection of the house of Saul, must have made him feel that however much personal ambition may have. inclined him to identify himself with Ishbosheth, reason and conscience pointed the other way. In the depths of his heart, therefore, he knew that his was not the right side. The same may be said of most of the wars into which men have entered. However much they may have talked about their right, it has been passionlove of domination, selfishness, greed, jealousy, family feuds, or some other low-born feelingthat has darkened the eye of reason and drowned the voice of conscience. Let any one study the words and read the feelings of a people at war, and he will soon see how low and base are the passions that sway their conduct. As when an arm is stretched out to smite an individual, there is a flow of passion that dethrones reason for a while, so is it with communities when they enter into strife. As to the abstract question of right being enforced by might, it may suffice to say that while an orderly government is a terror to evil doers (Rom 13:2, Rom 13:3), in the disputes of nations no might can make a right, and if rulers and people will but suppress passion of every kind, and give sole heed to the guidance of a calm reason and to the subtle dictates of conscience, they will not be long in doubt as to what the right is; and seeing it, they will not be able to do in the name of reason and conscience what can only come from the domination of low passions. The fact is Christianity is consistent. In so far as men are Christian they will not bring on war. The war spirit is a disgrace to a people calling themselves Christian, and must be shocking to the Blessed One, whose acts were the outcome of light and love.
II. A DEFEAT OF PLANS AND PURPOSES AFFORDS A NEW CHANCE FOR THE DICTATES OF REASON. The inflaming of some of the worst of passions, which necessarily takes place in carrying on war, is a sad detriment to the finer susceptibilities of human nature. Abner was deaf to reason before and during the turmoil of conflict, when the lust of power anti the passion of self-defence were at work within him. The frustration of his schemes by the defeat he encountered toned down these strong feelings, and gave some room for higher influence to come into action. The animal had spent its powers, and reason remained. On the brow of the hill, among his exhausted men, he thinks of peace, and recognizes the barbarity and folly of human slaughter. How truly is he a type of others! How often have nations slain and inflicted miseries, and when the fierce passion has spent itself have begun to speak of peace, and the need of staying the devouring sword! That the defeated are the first to do this makes no difference to the bearing of the fact on the moral question, since before defeat they were as much the slaves of passion as the victors. It is sad to think how little human life is governed by high and holy principle. A similar reassertion of the authority of reason and conscience on the occasion of defeat of purpose is seen in individuals who, having followed in their private life the heat of passion, are at last brought low by disaster or sickness, and constrained, as the fires of passion become slack, to give heed to the higher authority within. Though life may have been wasted, and, as in Abner’s case, may have caused much misery, there is hope of a better end. The prodigal son is an extreme case of the kind.
III. IN SEASONS OF FAILURE MEN ARE GLAD TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE HIGHER CONSIDERATIONS THEY ONCE SET ASIDE. Both fools and every man of sense must have admitted the force of Abner’s appeal (2Sa 2:26). Now in his defeat he pleaded considerations of humanity, of common tribal interests, and of general expediency. One might have thought that the possibility of the death of three hundred and seventy men and the general miseries of a battle would have been of force with Abner in the morning of the day; but it is only when failure had come that be can use the higher reasons for saving himself and followers from still greater calamities. So is it that men can use moral reasons when it answers their purpose. They pay homage to the superiority of moral reasons by pleading them with emphasis when they have anything to gain thereby. France could appeal to Europe against what were termed bard and ruthless conditions when in defeat, but no question of humanity or common European interests was raised when she entered on the war against Germany. Many an evil doer, overtaken with the consequences of his deeds, speaks of the desirability of mitigating suffering and remembering the innocent that share the consequences of his actions, who, while in the path of his wrong doing, was heedless of the pleadings of humanity. In these facts have we not an intimation of the more comprehensive truth that the day will come, the day of the defeat of all the enemies of Zion’s King, when every soul shall recognize the righteousness and expediency of the great principles which once they rejected as the spring of conduct and which enter into the essence of Christ’s government?
IV. AMIDST THE DIN OF LIFE MEN SOMETIMES OBTAIN A GLIMPSE OF A BETTER ORDER OF THINGS THAN THAT THEY ARE IN. Abner was painfully impressed with the miseries consequent on that day’s conflict, and by a stretch of imagination he pictured to himself what would be the issue to his nation if the spirit of war which then prevailed in men’s hearts were to move on unrestrained. He saw only “bitterness in the latter end.” Then, by a reversion of the picture, he could not but think of the comparative blessedness that would ensue should the sword not continue to devour. Human life as we see it is a spoiled thing. Nationally and personally it is often laid waste. Neither individuals nor communities have attained to the development, physical, intellectual, and moral, which is the ideal of life, and which may, if men will, become real. Artists sometimes have depicted in contrast “War” and “Peace,” and so have given form to the ideal, which often steals before the imagination, of a more blessed state of things than that familiar to us. The representations of the Bible encourage us to dwell on the beautiful image of a time when the sword shall no more devourwhen men shall learn the art of war no more. Also, out of the dull and beclouded life of many a poor victim of sin there arises, consequent on the revived teaching of early years, a lovely and apparently unattainable image of a pure and blessed life, strangely in contrast with the defiled and restless past. Such a “heavenly vision” has a message to which it behoves us not to be disobedient.
V. A CONVICTION OF BEING ENGAGED IS A RIGHTEOUS CAUSE ENABLES MEN TO ABSTAIN FROM STRIFE. Joab did not seek to carry on the conflict. He contented himself with reminding Abner that had he been wiser in the morning he would not have had occasion to lament the evils of the evening. Most probably he knew the aversion of David to a civil war, and was simply carrying out the wishes of his king when he ordered his men back to Hebron. Moreover, his presence with David during the exile gave him abundant opportunities of knowing the validity of his claim. Subsequent facts show that Joab was not of the highest type of character, but he was sagacious, and could, as a Hebrew, recognize the force of the supernatural claims of David. It was doubtless the assurance that he was on the right side, which so often bad been vindicated by God’s providence, that induced him to cease from war and abide the issue of events. History proves that too often it is the men who are least conscious of rectitude of motive and justice of claim that press on with the sword, as though time, the healer of strifes, would be sure to work against them. David’s calm waiting during. all the years of provocation, when Saul was eager for conflict, was here showing itself again in the moderate conduct of his general. In the highest sphere, that of Christ’s life and kingdom, we see how assurance of right was conjoined with a spirit, that would not strive. It is along the same line that the Church should move to moral conquests, and kings and private persons may also do well to act in the same spirit.
HOMILIES BY B. DALE
2Sa 2:1-4
(ZIGLAG, HEBRON)
Divine guidance.
“David inquired of the Lord” (2Sa 2:1). A new chapter in the life of David now opens. By the death of Saul and Jonathan the obstacles to his accession were, in part, removed. The time of patient waiting was gone, and the time for decisive action come. As he had not run before he was sent, so he did not expect, without running, to attain. But he would not take a step without the approval and direction of God. His inquiry pertained to the Divine purpose he was chosen to fulfil, and the Divine guidance he needed for its accomplishment. In this inquiry, as in his subsequent conduct and experience, he was a pattern to us; since there is forevery man a Divine plan and purpose of life, which he should seek to ascertain and strive to realize. Consider Divine guidance (in the way to a crown) as
I. URGENTLY NEEDED. We are liable (like travellers in a strange country) to go astray from the right path and fall into danger.
1. This liability arises from many erroneous paths presented to our view; their attractive appearance and strong temptations. “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Pro 14:12).
2. And from the imperfection of our own nature; our ignorance, and our disposition to please ourselves rather than deny ourselves and please God. “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself,” etc. (Jer 10:23).
3. It is evident from experience of past failures. David had taken many false steps. And there is no man but has reason to feel, in looking back over departed years, that his greatest folly has been to walk in the light of his own wisdom, and his greatest wisdom to depend upon the wisdom of God.
4. The need of it is specially felt by us when about to enter upon a new enterprise, or a course of action to which we are impelled by outward circumstances or inward conviction, but the exact nature of which is uncertain, or which is dependent for its success upon the disposition and cooperation of other persons.
II. DILIGENTLY SOUGHT. Although the Urim and Thummim are gone (see 1Sa 14:16-23; 1Sa 23:1-12), yet:
1. There are certain means which must be employed for a similar purposesuch as considering our own capacities and condition; listening to the voice of conscience; seeking the advice of good men; observing the ways of Providence; studying “the Scriptures of truth;” and, above all, offering prayer to the Father “in the Name” of Christ.
2. And to their proper employment a right spirit is essential; viz. sincerity, docility, trustfulness, perseverance. Such was the spirit of David, as it appears in his psalms; and therefore, while Saul exclaimed, “God answereth me no more” (1Sa 28:15), he could say, “I sought the Lord, and he heard me” (Psa 34:4).
III. GRACIOUSLY AFFORDED.
1. In various ways, in accordance with the means just mentioned, and especially by the Holy Spirit, who prepares the heart, teaches the meaning and application of the written Word, and produces impressions and impulses in harmony therewith. “Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and know all things” (lJn 2Sa 2:20; Joh 16:13).
2. Individually, and in a measure fully adequate to the requirements of the case and the capacity of profiting by it.
3. Certainly. As of old, so now. God is as desirous as he is able to lead us in the way wherein we should go, and he has given many faithful promises to this effect. “I will guide thee with mine eye” (Psa 32:8; Psa 37:23; Psa 48:14). “Thine ears shall hear a voice behind thee,” etc. (Isa 30:21; Isa 42:16; Pro 3:6).
IV. FAITHFULLY FOLLOWED. “And David went up thither” (2Sa 2:2).
1. With humble obedience and entire dependence, as a child relying on the superior wisdom of his father.
2. Without hesitation, questioning, or delay.
3. With cheerfulness, zeal, and energy. It is always given with a practical end in view.
V. GRADUALLY CONFIRMED in the experience of him who obeys. “And his men and they dwelt in the cities of Hebron” (2Sa 2:3). God went before them and prepared their way, so that they met with a peaceable reception and found “a city of habitation.”
1. The operations of Providence concur with the teachings of the Word and the Spirit.
2. A stronger assurance of the Divine leading is possessed. “If any man willeth to do his will,” etc. (Joh 7:17).
3. More light is given for further advancement. “Then shall we know, shall follow on to know the Lord. His going forth is fixed like the morning dawn” (Hos 6:3); and it will brighten on our path into the radiance of perfect day.
VI. WIDELY BENEFICIAL. More especially it contributes to the good of those who are associated with him, and who, having shared his perplexity and distress, now share his prosperity. Those who are guided by God are thereby enabled and disposed to guide and bless others (Num 10:1-36 :39).
VII. GLORIOUSLY TERMINATING. “They anointed David king” (2Sa 2:4). And all who truly fulfil the Divine plan and purpose as David did (Act 13:22) are made “kings unto God,” and receive exalted honour among men, increased power over them, and at length a crown of life, of righteousness, and of glory. But, alas! how many go stumbling through life without an aim, or only with one which is unworthy, and contrary to the will of God, and then sink into “the blackness of darkness forever”! “The wise shall inherit glory; but shame shall be the promotion of fools” (Pro 3:35).D.
2Sa 2:4
(HEBRON.)
David anointed King of Judah.
Course of events:
1. David’s message to the men of Jabesh (2Sa 2:5-7).
2. Ishbosheth made King of Israel by Abner (2Sa 2:8-11).
3. Civil war, and the death of Asahel (2Sa 2:12-32).
4. Increasing strength of the house of David (2Sa 3:1-5).
5. Dissension between Ishbosheth and Abner.
6. Abner’s negotiations with David, restoration of Michal, communication with the tribes, and formal league (2Sa 3:12-21).
7. Abner slain by Joab (2Sa 3:22-28).
8. Lamented by David (2Sa 3:31-39).
9. Ishbosheth murdered (2Sa 4:1-8)
10. His assassins executed (2Sa 4:9-12).
It was a great day in Hebron. The ancient city among the hills of Judah (where the remains of the patriarchs had slumbered for centuries) was stirred by the assembling of the elders for the coronation of David. His presence among them, at the head of his six hundred heroes, had been virtually a “public assertion of his claims to sovereignty” on the ground of his Divine consecration by Samuel. His first anointing was essentially of a private nature. “This second one, performed by the elders of Judah, was his public solemn installation (based on that anointment) into the royal office.” Then followed the acclamation of the people (1Sa 10:24; 1Sa 11:15). “Now doth David find the comfort that his extremity sought in the Lord his God; now are the clouds for a time passed over, and the sun breaks forth; David shall reign after his sufferings” (Hall). It has been supposed that he wrote about this time Psa 27:1-14. (inscription, “Before the anointing,” LXX.).
“Jehovah is my Light and my Salvation;
Whom shall I fear?
Jehovah is the Strength of my life;
Of whom shall I be afraid?”
“It is not likely that David’s muse went to sleep when the death of Saul at Gilboa opened his way to the throne, or that it produced nothing but such comparatively secular songs as the lament for Saul and Jonathan. It is rather remarkable, however, that there is not a single psalm of which one can affirm with confidence that it was written during the seven years and a half that David reigned at Hebron over the tribe of Judah” (Binnie). Those who took part in his inauguration acted in fulfilment, not only of the Divine purpose concerning him, but also of the Divine predictions concerning themselves; for the pre-eminence of Judah had been long foretold (Gen 49:8). “In all great questions the men of Judah are the foremost and the strongest. From the time of David’s establishment on the throne, the greatness of the tribe follows in some measure that of his family (1Ch 5:2; 38:4)” (Davison). “And as they had the right to choose their own prince, they might reasonably have expected that the other tribes would have followed their example, and, by uniting in David, have quietly submitted to the appointment of God, as they themselves had done” (Chandler). In their conduct we see
I. AN EXALTED ESTIMATE OF HIS PERSONAL WORTH. One of themselves (Deu 17:15), “chosen out of the people” (Psa 89:19), he could understand and sympathize with them. He possessed eminent military abilities and noble moral qualities; and he had rendered invaluable services to his country, and shown special kindness to the elders of his own tribe (1Sa 30:26). His previous career was well known to them, and had won their confidence and affection. The character of a people is commonly manifested in that of its chosen ruler. As Saul embodied and reflected the prevailing spirit of Benjamin and Ephraim, so David embodied and reflected what was best in Judah; its independent spirit, lion-like courage, and religious devotion.
II. LOYAL ACCEPTANCE OF HIS DIVINE APPOINTMENT. With that appointment they were familiar. They recognized Jehovah as their King; the Source of authority and of the endowments which were needful for the kingly office. Their condition isolated them in feeling, to some extent, from the other tribes (as afterwards more fully appears); but in acting independently of them they rebelled against no existing and legitimate authority, and they neither aimed at dominion over them nor separation from them. They displayed a truly theocratic spirit. And, in the election of a ruler, a people should always recognize the authority and obey the will of God. “Kings derive their kingly majesty immediately from God, but also mediately from their subjects” (J. Lange).
III. VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION TO HIS ROYAL AUTHORITY. He was to them “a minister of God.” Their obedience to God required their submission to the king of his choice; whose authority, however, great as it was, was not absolute. It is not said, as on a subsequent occasion (Psa 5:3), that “he made a league with them;” but they doubtless submitted to him on the understanding that he would rule according to the Divine will. The efficiency of a ruler depends upon the free submission of his people; and there is not a nobler exercise of freedom than submission to the highest order.
IV. UNBOUNDED CONFIDENCE IN HIS BENEFICENT RULE. They expected, under the government of “the man worthy of the sceptre,” deliverance from their enemies, by whom they were now threatened; the establishment of justice, from the want of which they had long suffered; and the attainment of power and prosperity. Nor were they disappointed. The pre-eminence of this tribe was ordained with reference to the advent and exaltation of Christ, the promised Shiloh, “the Lion of the tribe of Judah” (Rev 5:5); and the conduct of the men of Judah may be taken as illustrating the free acceptance of “him whom God hath anointed with his Holy Spirit” on the part of his people; their humble obedience to his rule, and their fervent desire for his universal reign. “Thou art worthy.”
“Come, then, and, added to thy many crowns,
Receive yet one, the crown of all the earth,
Thou who alone art worthy! It was thine
By ancient covenant, ere Nature’s birth;
And thou hast made it thine by purchase since,
And overpaid its value with thy blood.
Thy saints proclaim thee King; and in their hearts
Thy title is engraven with a pen
Dipped in the fountain of eternal love.”
(Cowper.)
D
2Sa 2:4-7
(HEBRON.)
Commendation.
The first recorded act of David after he became king was of a kingly character. It is not improbable that the persons who informed him of what the men of Jabesh had done supposed that he had little love for the memory of Saul, and was apprehensive of Opposition from his “house” (2Sa 2:8), and wished to excite his jealousy against them; seeking to insinuate themselves into his confidence by detraction from the good name of others. But, instead of yielding to suspicion, he sent a message of peace and good will. His commendation was
I. WELL DESERVED by men who had performed a noble deed (see 1Sa 31:11-13). Their conduct displayed:
1. Gratitude toward their benefactor, whose kindness they returned with kindness.
2. Fidelity toward their king, whose faithfulness they repaid with faithfulness.
3. Reverence toward their God. “To bury the dead with the Jews was always reckoned an instance of humanity and kindness, and, indeed, of piety; an act done in imitation of God, who buried Moses; and so it might be expected the Divine blessing would attend it” (Gill).
II. WORTHILY BESTOWED by a king of royal disposition.
1. Unsuspecting. Others might find reason for suspecting their intentions, but he could see only what was deserving of praise.
2. Generous, with respect to Saul; appreciating and sympathizing with their kindness to their master, even though he had been his enemy. “Use the memory of thy predecessor fairly and tenderly; for if thou dost not, it is a debt will sure be paid when thou art gone” (Bacon).
3. Practical. “David sent messengers,” etc.
4. Devout. “Blessed be ye of Jehovah,” etc. Recognizing God as the Observer and Rewarder of men, he invoked for them his commendation and blessingkindness for kindness, faithfulness for faithfulnessas the highest good (Psa 40:11; Psa 86:15; Mat 5:7; Heb 6:10).
5. Becoming. “And I also”as one whose office it becomes to observe and recompense good as well as evil”requite you this kindness” (send you this message), “because,” etc.
6. Encouraging and stimulating. “And now,” as heretofore, “let your hands be strong, and be ye valiant” in the new circumstances which have arisen through the death of your master.
7. Candid, considerate, and dignified. “For me have the house of Judah anointed king over them.” He indicated delicately, but not obscurely, his claims to their allegiance, and assured them of his protection and help. “To act nobly is always the best policy.”
“Where’er a noble deed is wrought,
Where’er is spoken a noble thought,
Our hearts in glad surprise
To higher levels rise.
The tidal wave of deeper souls
Into our inmost being rolls,
And lifts us unawares
Out of all meaner cares.
Honour to those whose words or deeds
Thus help us in our daily needs;
And by their overflow
Raise us from what is low!”
(Longfellow.)
III. WISELY ADAPTED to effect a laudable end.
1. To confirm good men in a virtuous and praiseworthy course.
2. To win the confidence and support of such men.
3. To secure the benefit of their services to the nation and the kingdom of God.
4. To manifest to all the spirit of a just and generous rule.
OBSERVATIONS.
1. One good action tends to produce another; in performing it one knows not how far its influence may reach, or what blessings it may bring upon himself.
2. Although we ought not to do good simply for the sake of reward, yet the desire of the approval of the good is a proper motive of action.
3. We should be as ready to give commendation as to receive it.
4. We should desire, above all things, the approbation of God.D.
2Sa 2:8-12
(MAHANAIM.)
Opposition to the Divine purpose.
The purpose of God, to make David king over his people, was as yet only in part accomplished; and its fulfilment was opposed by Abner (1Sa 14:50; 1Sa 17:55; 1Sa 20:25; 1Sa 26:5) on behalf of “the house of Saul.” Having escaped from the battle of Gilboa, he “took Ishbosheth, the son of Saul” (a man of feeble character, and fitted to become a tool in his hands), “and brought him over to Mahanaim, and made him king over Gilead,” etc. After five years of great exertions (while David reigned peacefully at Hebron) he drove the Philistines out of the country, openly proclaimed Ishbosheth (now forty years old) “king over all Israel,” and “went out from Mahanaim to Gibeon” with the view of subjecting Judah to his sway. His principal motive was the desire of maintaining and increasing his own power. “He was angry that this tribe had set up David for their king” (Josephus). His conduct was “not only a continuation of the hostility of Saul towards David, but also an open act of rebellion against Jehovah” (Keil), whose purpose, as well as the wish of the elders of Israel, he well knew, as he afterwards acknowledged (2Sa 3:17, 2Sa 3:18). His opposition represents and illustrates that of men to the purposes of God generally, and more especially to his purpose, that Christ shall reign over them and all mankind; of which observe that
I. IT IS PLAINLY REVEALED. By the testimony of:
1. The Divine Word (1Sa 16:1). “To him give all the prophets witness,” etc. (Act 10:43; 1Pe 1:11).
2. Significant events, in confirmation of the Word; the overthrow of adversaries, the exaltation of “his Chosen,” the growth of his power (Act 2:22-24).
3. The irresistible convictions of reason and conscience, and the confessions which even opponents have been constrained to make. Abner was present when Saul said, “Thou shalt both do great things and shalt also still prevail” (1Sa 26:25). His opposition was therefore inexcusable. “While men go on in their sins, apparently without concern, they are often conscious that they are fighting against God” (Scott).
II. IT MAY BE WICKEDLY OPPOSED (in virtue of the freedom which, within certain limits, men possess) because of:
1. The delusions of unbelief. The tempter whispers as of old, “Yea, hath God said?” (Gen 3:1); they “wilfully forget” what has taken place (2Pe 3:5); “neither will they be persuaded” of the truth and obligation of the Word of God (Luk 16:31).
2. The plea of present expediency, and the expectation that, if they must submit, there will come a “more convenient season” for doing so. Abner thought “that he might be able, upon better terms, to make his peace with David when the time should come that the Lord was to advance him to be ruler over all Israel” (Chandler).
3. Selfishness, pride, and ambition; the love of pleasure and power, the habit of self-will, the self-confidence engendered by success, “the mind of the flesh,” which “is enmity against God. Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost” (Act 7:51).
III. IT CANNOT BE EFFECTUALLY DEFEATED. “He must reign,” in fulfilment of the Divine decree (Psa 2:7; Psa 110:1), which:
1. Changes not. “The Strength of Israel will not lie, nor repent” (1Sa 15:29).
2. Is effected by infinite wisdom and might, against which the skill and strength of men contend in vain.
3. Comes to pass either with or without their will, in mercy or in judgment, in the salvation of the penitent or the destruction of the persistently rebellious “These mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them bring hither and slay them before me” (Luk 19:27).D.
2Sa 2:13-17
(GIBSON.)
Fratricidal strife.
“And that place was called Helkath-Hazzurim” (2Sa 2:16). The hostile attitude assumed by Abner appeared to David to render necessary active measures in self-defence. It is not said that he inquired of the Lord. If he had done so the conflict which ensued between brethren might possibly have been averted. As it was, he sent an army of observation under the command of Joab, who (although not mentioned before) had doubtless accompanied him in his exile (1Sa 22:1), and was now general of his forces. And Joab and “the servants of David” marched to Gibeon and encamped opposite Abner “and the servants of Ishbosheth” (2Sa 2:13). At length Abner, impatient of delay, challenged a conflict between certain picked men on each side, not merely “to see which were best” (Josephus), but either to decide the day by the issue or to draw on a general engagement. Joab readily accepted the challenge, and the conflict commenced. It was
I. BEGUN RECKLESSLY. “Let the young men arise and play [fight] before us.” “Let them arise” (2Sa 2:14).
1. Self-interest, ambition, and envy often quench the love of brethren (2Sa 2:26, 2Sa 2:27), and indispose them to seek reconciliation with each other.
2. The indulgence of evil passion blinds men to the consequences of their words and actions.
3. Familiarity with scenes of strife and war tends to produce insensibility to human suffering and slaughter. That a deadly struggle could be spoken of as a pastime shows how lightly life was estimated and how heartlessly it was sacrificed. “Ambitious and bloody men often consider the dire trade of war and the slaughter of their fellow creatures as a mere diversion” (Scott).
“Some seek diversion in the tented field,
And make the sorrows of mankind their sport.
But war’s a game which, were their subjects wise,
Kings should not play at.”
(Cowper.)
II. WAGED FEROCIOUSLY. “And they caught each other by the head,” etc. (2Sa 2:16).
1. When the love which should prevail among brethren gives place to wrath, that wrath is generally most intense and cruel. Civil wars are proverbially more bitter than any other.
2. Men are sometimes so intent upon injuring their opponents as to forget to defend themselves, and rush upon their own destruction.
3. The attempt to end strife by means of strife is commonly vain; “it is rather a spur to further effusion of blood than a bridle to hinder the same.” “What can war but endless war still breed?”
4. The issue of the conflict does not necessarily prove the justice of the cause.
5. Mutual strife tends to mutual extermination. “All they that take the sword shall perish by the sword” (Mat 26:52). The “field of sharp blades” was a lasting memorial of destructiveness rather than of courage; a warning rather than a pattern.
III. EXTENDED RAPIDLY. “And there was a very sore battle that day,” etc. (2Sa 2:17).
1. The strife of a few excites the wrathful passions of many, by whom it is witnessed.
2. Every injurious word and act furnishes an additional impulse to wrath and retaliation; and the conflict goes on increasing.
3. That which at first may be easily checked passes entirely beyond control. “The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water,” etc. (Pro 17:14; Pro 26:21).
IV. ENDED LAMENTABLY. “Abner was beaten,” and three hundred and sixty of his men died; Joab’s brother Asahel was slain, with nineteen of David’s servants. “In war God punishes the sins of both parties.”
1. He who gave the challenge and commenced the conflict was the first to complain of the result (2Sa 2:26), and was bitterly reproached as the cause thereof (2Sa 2:27).
2. He who accepted the challenge was filled with grief and revenge.
3. Both sides experienced heavy loss and sorrow.
4. Even David could not but regret the weakening of the nation in presence of the common foe; or fail to see in the strife of brethren the consequences of his own faithlessness (1Sa 27:1, 1Sa 27:10, 1Sa 27:11). If he had not taken up his abode with the Philistines the conflict would probably never have occurred.
REMARKS.
1. When men commence a quarrel they little know where it will end.
2. Strife should be diligently checked at the beginning.
3. “Let us fight that good fight only whereof the apostle speaks, which is between the flesh and the spirit, which only hath the profitable end, the glorious theatre, the godly armour, and the blessed reward of assured triumph” (Guild)D.
2Sa 2:18-23
(GIBEON.)
The untimely fate of Asohel: to young men.
Asahel was the youngest of three brothers; the others being Joab and Abishai. They were the sons of Zeruiah (half-sister of David) and a Bethlehemite (2Sa 2:32) whose name has not been recorded; and they had much in common. When Asahel fled to David at the cave of Adullam (some ten or twelve years before the events here mentioned) he was probably a mere lad; he shared his uncle’s hardships and participated in his exaltation. He was one of the famous thirty (2Sa 23:24), “valiant men of the armies” (1Ch 11:26); accompanied Joab and Abishai in their march to Gibeon, and took part in the battle with Abner and “the servants [soldiers] of Ishbosheth.” He was:
1. Possessed of eminent gifts. “Asahel was as light of foot as a gazelle” (2Sa 2:18); like “swift-footed Achilles,” and like Harold I. (son of Canute), surnamed Hare-foot, “because he was light and swift of foot (Rapin). He was also distinguished by enterprise, courage, perseverance, and other admirable qualities. Mental endowments are incomparably superior to physical; but both are gifts of God, and should be recognized as such; they enable those who possess them to render valuable service to his people; and they should be employed in humble obedience to his will. Yet not unfrequently they become an occasion of vain glory, and are perverted from their proper exercise and end.
2. Actuated by an unwise ambition. “And Asahel pursued after Abner,” etc. (2Sa 2:19). He sought to take him prisoner or put him to death, and so end the conflict; and doubtless, also, to display his own superior speed and strength, and obtain the glory of the achievement. He was on the right side, and, considering the circumstances of the case, there was something laudable in his attempt. But it is possible, even in connection with the kingdom of God, to entertain an improper desire of worldly honour and power (Mat 20:20-23). Those who do so generally set an inordinate value upon the object at which they aim, exhibit an undue confidence in their own abilities, depreciate the difficulties of its attainment, and expose themselves to great risk and peril (Tit 2:6; 1Ti 6:9).
“Ah! who can tell how hard it is to climb
The steep where Fame’s proud temple shines afar?”
(Beattie.)
3. Heedless of salutary warning. “And Abner looked behind him, and said” etc. (2Sa 2:20-23). “Turn thee aside,” etc. “Slay one of the common soldiers and take his accoutrements as booty, if thou art seeking for that kind of fame” (Keil). He eared little about the safety of his men, and was chiefly concerned about his own; but his advice was considerate, wise, and once and again repeated. Asahel, though swifter of foot, was not his equal in experience and skill; and (like many other young men) he despised the warning of the old warrior, was headstrong and over confident of success, and rushed rashly and blindly upon his fate. “Heat of zeal sometimes, in the indiscreet pursuit of a just adversary, proves mortal to the agent, prejudicial to the service” (Hall).
4. Struck down in youthful prime. “And Abner with the hinder end of the spear smote him,” etc.; suddenly, unexpectedly, and when he seemed on the point of accomplishing his purpose. With one blow his life was cut short, his hope disappointed, his promise of a brilliant future extinguished. “Often do men fancy themselves about to seize upon happiness, when death stops their career and lays them in the dust. And if they will rush forward in the road to destruction, though plainly warned of their danger, they can blame none but themselves” (Scott).
“Fame is the spur that the clear spirit cloth raise
(That last infirmity of noble mind)
To scorn delights, and live laborious days;
But the fair guerdon when we hope to find,
And think to burst out into sudden blaze,
Comes the blind Fury with the abhorred shears,
And slits the thin-spun life.”
(Milton, ‘Lycidas.’)
5. Regarded with mournful pity. “As many as came to the place where Asahel fell down and died stood still” (see 2Sa 20:12), overcome with surprise, compassion, and grief; “and they took up Asahel, and buried him,” etc. (2Sa 2:32).
6. Remembered with mischievous resentment. (2Sa 3:30.) He left behind him a legacy, not of peace and good will, but of wrath and revenge. Pause at his tomb in Bethlehem, and lay to heart the lessons taught by his untimely, fate (Jer 9:23). Let your ambition be different from his; to overcome carnal and selfish ambition in your own heart, to save life rather than to destroy it, to follow in the steps of him who was servant of all (Mat 20:28). Here is scope for your noblest aspirations and most strenuous efforts. And your hope wilt not be destroyed, but crowned by death.
“Fool not; for all may have,
If they dare try, a glorious life, or grave.”
(Herbert.)
D.
2Sa 2:24-29
(GIBEON)
War.
“Shall the sword devour forever?” (2Sa 2:26; 2Sa 11:25). The sword is more destructive than ravenous beasts, famine, pestilence (2Sa 24:13; Le 26:26), earthquake, tempest, or fire. The history of its ravages constitutes a considerable portion of the history of mankind. Of these we have here a slight but noteworthy instance. Twenty-four brave men of the same nation (half of them chosen from each of the opposing forces) fell, pierced by each other’s weapons. In the succeeding battle and flight several hundreds were slain (2Sa 2:31). At sunset the defeated general rallied his scattered troops on the hill of Ammah, and appealed to the commander of the pursuing forces to withdraw them and avert the bitter consequences that would otherwise ensue. “Now the battle is going against him he complains of the devouring sword; and, though it had been employed but a few hours, it seemed long to hima sort of eternity” (Gill). Joab answered that but for his challenge in the morning there would have been no conflict at all; but (probably as yet unacquainted with the death of his brother Asahel) he sounded a retreat (2Sa 2:28); and Abner and his men forthwith departed, not to Gibeon, but across the Jordan to Mahanaim (2Sa 2:29). Regarding the question not merely as the utterance of Abner, nor from an Old Testament point of view, we may take it as expressive of
I. A CONVICTION OF THE EVILS OF WAR. “Shall the sword devour forever?” By it:
1. Numberless lives are consumed. The immediate and avowed object of war is the destruction of men’s lives; and its most effective instruments (to the Construction of which the utmost ingenuity is devoted) are those that destroy the greatest number in the shortest possible time. “War is the work, the element, or rather the sport and triumph of death, who glories not only in the extent of his conquest, but in the richness of his spoil” (R. Hall, ‘Reflections on War’). Since its ravages began many times more than the whole number of the present population of the globe have probably been its victims.
2. Incalculable snfferings are inflicted; on those who are left to die on the field, or are borne to hospitals and linger out a miserable existence; on the non-combatant population among whom the devourer pursues his way; on whole nations and multitudes of desolate and sorrowing homes far distant from the scene of strife.
3. Enormous cost is incurred; in the maintenance of armies and the provision of materiel, besides the withdrawal of great numbers from the operations of productive industry and serious interference with commerce; immense national debts are accumulated and burdensome taxes imposed on present and succeeding generations. There are nearly thirteen millions of men in Europe who have been trained for arms, and between four and five millions actually under arms, costing in all ways about five hundred millions sterling a year. The sum total of the national debts of the European nations amounts to nearly five thousand millions of pounds (‘Statesman’s Year-Book’).
4. A pernicious influence is exerted, with respect to morality and religion. “War does more harm to the morals of men than even their property and their persons” (Erasmus). It has its origin in unregulated desire (Jas 4:1; 1Jn 2:16), which it excites, manifests, and intensifies. “The causes of all wars may be reduced to five heads: ambition, avarice, revenge, providence (precaution), and defence” (Owen Feltham, ‘Resolves’). “If the existence of war always implies injustice in one at least of the parties concerned, it is also the fruitful parent of crimes. It reverses, with respect to its objects, all the rules of morality. It is nothing less than a temporary repeal of the principles of virtue. It is a system out of which almost all the virtues are excluded and on which nearly all the vices are incorporated” (R. Hall). What angry feelings does it stir up between nations whom “God hath made of one blood”! What infuriated passions does it arouse in contending armies! What cruel deeds does it commend! What iniquitous courses of conduct does it induce! What false views of glory does it inculcate! What bitter and lasting enmities does it leave behind!
“One murder makes a villain,
Millions a hero! Princes were privileged to kill,
And numbers sanctified the crime!
Ah! why will kings forget that they are men,
And men that they are brethren? Why delight;
In human sacrifice? Why burst the ties
Of nature, that should knit their souls together
In one soft bond of amity and love?”
(Bishop Porteus.)
Is war, then, under all circumstances, inexpedient and wrong? It is maintained that:
(1) The state, like the individual, has a natural right of self-defence, and is bound (in fulfilment of the purpose for which it exists) to protect its citizens by repelling external invasion as well as repressing internal violence (Whewell, ‘Elements of Morality;’ Paley; Gisborne; Mozley, ‘University Sermons’).
(2) By means of war national subjection is sometimes prevented, national grievances are redressed, national honour is upheld, aggression checked, pride abased, liberty, peace, and prosperity secured, patriotism kindled, powerful energies and heroic virtues developed.
(3) It has often received the Divine sanction (Exo 17:14; Jos 8:1; 1Sa 11:6). “Perpetual peace is a dream, and it is not even a beautiful dream. War is an element in the order of the world ordained by God. In it the noblest virtues of mankind are developedcourage and the abnegation of self, faithfulness to duty, and the spirit of sacrifice; the soldier gives his life. Without war the world would stagnate and lose itself in materialism” (Von Moltke). But this is the view of one who has been “a man of war from his youth” and “shed much blood” (1Ch 22:8).
And it may be said that:
(1) War is not ordained by God like tempests and earthquakes or even pestilence, but is directly due to the wickedness of men. That which is in itself evil, however, often becomes an occasion of good.
(2) “There is at least equal scope for courage and magnanimity in blessing as in destroying mankind. The condition of the human race offers inexhaustible objects for enterprise and fortitude and magnanimity. In relieving the countless wants and sorrows of the world, in exploring unknown regions, in carrying the arts and virtues of civilization to unimproved communities, in extending the bounds of knowledge, in diffusing the spirit of freedom, and especially in spreading the light and influence of Christianity, how much may be dared, how much endured!” (Channing).
(3) The right of resistance to evil is limited, and does not justify the taking away of life (Wayland, ‘Elements of Moral Science;’ Dymond, ‘Essays’).
(4) No advantages gained by war are an adequate compensation for the miseries inflicted by it; less suffering is experienced and higher honour acquired by enduring wrong than avenging it; the exercise of justice, forbearance, and active benevolence is the most effectual means of averting injury and securing safety and happiness.
(5) The Divine sanction given to specific wars in the Old Testament was not given to war in general, and it does not justify the wars which are waged, without the like authority, at the present time.
(6) War is virtually forbidden by numerous precepts and the whole spirit of the New Testament (Mat 5:9, Mat 5:39, Mat 5:44; Mat 26:52; Rom 12:18-21; 1Th 5:15; 1Pe 2:23; 1Pe 3:9-13). The most that can be said is that “any principles upon which the Christian casuist would justify war in certain circumstances would not justify perhaps one in ten of the wars that have been waged” (J. Foster, ‘Lectures,’ vol. 2.).
II. AN APPEAL FOB THE CESSATION OF STRIPE. “Shall the sword devour forever?” Its ravages may be stayed; and means must be employed for that end, such as:
1. The consideration of the real nature and terrible consequences of war; and the education of the people, especially the young, so that they may cease to admire military glory and to be beguiled by “the pomp and circumstance of war”may feel an intense aversion to it, and seek in other ways their common interest and true elevation.
2. The adoption of political measures for the settlement of international disputes and the removal of causes of strife; viE. arbitration by friendly powers, the reduction and disbandment of standing armies, etc.
3. The repression of evil passions in ourselves and others.
4. The practice and diffusion of Christian principles; which indispose all in whom they dwell to break the peace themselves, and dispose them to make peace among others. “The sons of peace are the sons of God.”
III. AN ANTICIPATION OF TEE PREVALENCE or PEACE, “Shall the sword devour forever?” Surely not. The hope of universal peace is warranted from:
1. The advancing intelligence of men, the growth of popular government (making war less dependent than heretofore on the arbitrary will of rulers), the possession of “nobler modes of life, with sweeter manners, purer laws.”
2. The better understanding and more perfect realization of the spirit of Christianity.
3. The overruling Providence and quickening Spirit of “the God of peace.”
4. The express predictions of his Word concerning the effects of the reign of “the Prince of Peace” (Isa 9:7; Mic 4:3; Mic 5:2, Mic 5:5; Psa 72:7). “It is in war that the power of the beast culminates in the history of the world. This beast will then be destroyed. The true humanity which sin has choked up will gain the mastery, and the world’s history will keep sabbath. What the prophetic words affirm is a moral postulate, the goal of sacred history, the predicted counsel of God” (Delitzsch, on Isa 2:4).
“O scenes surpassing fable and yet true;
Scenes of accomplished bliss; which who can see
(Though but in distant prospect) and not feel
His soul refreshed with foretaste and with joy?”
(Cowper.)
D.
2Sa 2:30-32
(GIBEON, BETHLEHEM, HEBRON.)
The sorrows of victory.
“What a glorious thing must be a victory, sir!” it was remarked to the Duke of Wellington. “The greatest tragedy in the world,” he replied, “except a defeat” (‘Recollections,’ by S. Rogers). The rejoicing by which it is attended, is usually mingled with weeping and sometimes swallowed up of grief. Various persons are thus affected for various reasons. Think of the sorrows endured:
1. At the fall of fellow soldiers. “Nineteen men and Asahel” (2Sa 2:23, 2Sa 2:30) who come not to the muster after sunset (2Sa 2:24, 2Sa 2:30), nor answer to the roll call, but lie in the chill embrace of death. “Alas! fallen are the heroes.”
2. In the burial of the dead. (2Sa 2:32.) No opportunity is afforded for seeking out and burying all the slain; but the remains of Asahel are carried across the hills by night (2Sa 2:29) and laid in the tomb of his father in Bethlehem, where the sorrow of the preceding day is renewed. It reminds us of a pathetic scene of recent times described in the familiar lines —
“We buried him darkly at dead of night,
The sod with our bayonets turning;
By the struggling moonbeam’s misty light,
And our lanterns dimly burning.”
(Wolfe.)
3. When the news is conveyed to their homes. “They came to Hebron at break of day;” a day of bitter grief to many bereaved hearts. “By the slaughter of a war there are thousands who weep in unpitied and unnoticed secrecy whom the world does not see; and thousands who retire in silence to hopeless poverty for whom the world does not care” (Dymond).
4. For the miseries of fellow sufferers; the enemydefeated, bereaved, and mourningfor they too are “brethren,” and cannot but be remembered with sympathy and pity.
5. Concerning the state of the departed. A soldier’s life is not favourable to piety and preparation for heaven, and the passions by which he is commonly swayed when his earthly probation is suddenly terminated are such that we can seldom contemplate his entrance into the eternal world with feelings of cheerfulness and hope. “After death the judgment.”
6. On account of the animosities of the living, which are increased by conflict and victory, and are certain to be a source of future trouble (2Sa 3:1, 2Sa 3:30, 2Sa 3:33).
7. Because of the dishonour done to the cause of the Lord’s Anointed. Religion suffers, the progress of the kingdom is hindered, and the King himself is “grieved for the misery of Israel.” “The victory that day was turned into mourning” (2Sa 19:2). So is every victory gained by “the devouring sword.” But there are victories which are bloodless and tearless, sources of unmingled joy; spiritual victories over ignorance and sin won by and through the might of him at whose birth the angels sang upon those hills of Bethlehem, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”D.
HOMILIES BY G. WOOD
2Sa 2:1
Inquiring of God.
David had now arrived at a very important point in his career. Saul being dead, his way to the throne was cleared; but the next step to take was doubtful. Under these circumstances he adopted the course usual to him when in difficulty. He “inquired of the Lord,” sought directions from him as to what he should do. The high priest, Abiathar, was with him with the ephod (1Sa 30:7), and by means of the Urim and Thummim could ascertain for him the Divine will. By this method, doubtless, he received directions to go into Judah and settle at Hebron; “and the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah.” We cannot ask direction from God in the same manner as David, but, using the means available for us, we should imitate him in this respect.
I. UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES WE SHOULD INQUIRE OF GOD.
1. It should be a constant practice. Part of our devotions every day should consist of endeavours to ascertain more fully and accurately the will of God concerning us, seeking of him guidance in all our ways, that we may know what the general commands of God mean for us in our position, in the practical details of our individual life.
2. The practice should be made special under special doubts and difficulties.
(1) When like David we have to make a choice on which much depends, and there is difficulty in choosing. When proposing to enter on a new enterprise, to form new connections (especially a lifelong alliance), to change our place of abode, etc. There will be reasons for and against, promises of good, possibilities of evil, in each direction. What shall be done? Inquire of the Lord.
(2) When we meet with perplexities in the inquiry after truth. It is not by mere logical processes that spiritual truth can be ascertained; from first to last we need guidance from above, and should earnestly seek it,
II. How such INQUIRY SHOULD BE CONDUCTED.
1. By what methods. Where shall we find a Divine oracle to answer our inquiries?
(1) Reason and conscience will often (if we allow them free speech) give a response which at once commends itself as a Divine reply. If one course be morally right and the other morally wrong, one in manifest accordance with the laws of Christ, the other in plain opposition to them, there is no room for further question.
(2) Holy Scripture is to be consulted. Not in the way of bibliomancy, but by study of its revelations and precepts. The New Testament is especially the Christian’s vade mecum, from whence he may obtain all needful instruction as to the will of God.
(3) The providence of God. Courses to which we are prompted by the best desires may be seen not to be our duty, because ability and opportunity are wanting to pursue them.
(4) The counsels of wise and good men. Consulting them, our course will often become clear. Yet we may not submit blindly and slavishly to our fellow men.
(5) The commands of superiors. For children at home the will of their parents is the will of God; for servants, the commands of their employers; always supposing in both cases that what is enjoined is not clearly sinful.
(6) Withal and always, prayer for Divine guidance should be resorted to. “Show me thy ways, O Lord; teach me thy paths” (Psa 25:4). By direct influence on the minds and hearts of those who seek him, God becomes their Guide. His Spirit leads those who are willing to be led by him.
2. In what spirit. A simple and sincere desire to know and do the will of God. In opposition to pride and self-will, and double-mindedness. Many seek counsel of God as the advice of men is often sought. They virtually make up their minds before they inquire, and “make it a matter of prayer” in order that they may obtain a feeling of the Divine approval of the course they have chosen. Not avowedly, not consciously, is this done. But “the heart is deceitful,” and never shows its deceitfulness more than in such cases (comp. Eze 14:1-5; 2Th 2:10-14).
III. MOTIVES TO SUCH INQUIRY.
1. Our ignorance. “The way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer 10:23). Human affairs are so complex, appearances so deceitful, men often so untrustworthy, our vision so limited, that we may well desire and shall wisely yield ourselves to the guidance of God.
2. The right and power of God to direct us. As supreme Ruler, as perfect in knowledge, wisdom, and goodness.
3. His promises. (See Psa 25:12, Psa 25:14; Jas 1:5.) Especially the great promise of the Holy Spirit to all who ask of God this unspeakably great and precious gift (Luk 11:13).
4. The blessedness of being divinely led. In present wisdom, holiness, and happiness, and in eternal life.
5. The certainty of fatal darkness and stumbling to those who do not inquire of God. (See Jer 13:16; Joh 12:35.)G.W.
2Sa 2:5-7
Gratitude and policy.
David was now king of the tribe of Judah by their own choice, but the rest of the tribes had not declared themselves. Amongst these the tribes beyond the Jordan were of special importance and influence; and David took an opportunity of reminding them of his position and claims. The chief city amongst those tribes was Jabesh-Gilead. Brave men from that city had rescued the bodies of Saul and his sons from the wall of Bethshan, and, after burning them, had buried their bones under the tamarisk tree (Revised Version) at Jabesh. David, being made acquainted with what they had done, sends messengers to assure them of his appreciation of their conduct, and at the same time to hint that, Saul being dead, and he having been appointed king over Judah, the way was clear for them to aid, if so disposed, in promoting his election as king by the other tribes. The message was at once a suitable expression of his gratitude and a politic endeavour to ingratiate himself with them.
I. DAVID‘S GRATITUDE.
1. On what account. Their burial of Saul. He speaks of this as kindness to him. We can show kindness to the dead by suitably interring them. Other ways of doing this would be upholding their reputation, caring for those they leave behind, promoting for their sakes any cause in which they were deeply interested. David could not but highly appreciate the brave deed of these men. His own marvellous courage would impel him to admire theirs. But it was the respect they had thus shown to their departed sovereign which especially moved him to send a message to them. His gratitude for this was quite in accordance with his usual feelings towards Saul, both during his life and after his death.
2. How he expresses his gratitude.
(1) By sending the messengers and message. “I also will requite,” etc; should be (according to Otto Thenius and the ‘Speaker’s Commentary’) “I also show you this goodness,” viz. sending the messengers with a kind message. They would value David’s message as soldiers distinguishing themselves in the field value a message from the queen.
(2) By the terms of the message. In which he invokes upon them the blessing of God, his “kindness and truth,” his true, faithful, constant kindness. A phrase common in the Old Testament (Psa 25:10; Psa 40:11, etc.; Gen 24:49; Gen 47:29, etc.), and reproduced in the New with some additional meaning (Joh 1:14). To pray for God’s blessing on those to whom we feel grateful is always suitable. When we can do nothing else, we can do this; and when we can show gratitude in other ways, we do well to show it thus also. For God’s blessing far surpasses ours, and will render ours more valuable and effectual. Only we should be careful not to substitute prayers for deeds when these are possible. But in some way or other we ought to express as well as cherish gratitude and other kindly feelings to others. It is good for ourselves and good for others. It encourages good and noble deeds. It tends to bind men together in the best bonds. It promotes happiness of a high order. We may enlarge the thought. We are required to confess God and our Saviour, as in other ways so by thanksgiving and praise. It is meet and right so to do. It promotes our own spiritual good and that of others. It glorifies God.
II. DAVID‘S POLICY. He intended by this message not only to give to brave men their due, but to win their favour towards himself. He justly thought that those who had at such hazards honoured their deceased king would be fitting helpers of himself, and likely to become loyal subjects. There was nothing unworthy in the course he took, for there was no flattery in his expressed appreciation of their conduct, and his endeavour to gain their cooperation was not an act of mere selfishness or ambition, but of regard to the will of God who had chosen him to be King of Israel, and to the welfare of the people, which was bound up with his speedy and peaceful recognition as king. We have here an illustration of mixed motives; and we learn that:
1. We should not hesitate to do what is right because tee see that it will also be beneficial to ourselves. All piety, rectitude, and benevolence tend, and are usually seen to tend, to the good of those who practise them. The promises of God are promises of blessing to those who serve him and their brethren, and are to be received as encouragements in doing so.
2. We may even in some cases aim to do good to ourselves by doing what is right. Only we must place first that which is first, or our good deeds will cease to be good, and become only another form of selfishness. Where motives are mixed, we need carefully to guard our hearts lest the lower predominate.
3. We should be glad of opportunities of showing pure, disinterested kindness. We thus most closely resemble our heavenly Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, and secure the best evidence of our being the children of God (Luk 6:32-36; Joh 13:34, Joh 13:35; Eph 5:1, Eph 5:2).
4. We ought not, without clearest evidence, to suspect of selfish motives those who in doing good secure for themselves present reward. It is to be hoped that only few are like the contributor to some charity who, being asked whether he wished his gift to be published, replied, “Why do you suppose I gave it to you?” And when the motives are not clearly revealed, it is often as just as it is charitable to give credit for the best.G.W.
2Sa 2:26
Longing for the cessation of wars.
“Shall the sword devour forever?” This exclamation of Abner respecting the pursuit of his discomfited troops by the conquering troops of Joab, has often been uttered in respect to war in general. As so employed it expresses horror of war, and impatient longing for its final termination.
I. THE QUESTION. The feelings which it indicates are excited in view of:
1. The nature of war. The mutual slaughter of each other by those who are “brethren.” This aspect of the slaughter of one part of the chosen people by another presented itself to Abner. But in the light of Christianity all men are brothers, and war is a species of fratricide. They are all children of God, brethren of Christ, redeemed by his blood, and capable of sharing his eternal glory and blessedness. In this view of war, not only the actual conflicts, but all the elaborate preparations made for them, appear very dreadful
2. Its causes. “Whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts?” (Jas 4:1). The evil passions of men are their causelust of territory, of dominion, of glory, of money; the spirit of revenge and retaliation; even the love of excitement and adventure. Not less, but if possible more hideous, is the cool, calculating policy of rulers, which sets armies in motion with no regard to the lives which it sacrifices or the misery it occasions; or, again, the desire for active service, with its opportunities of distinction, promotion, and other rewards, which springs up amongst the officers, if not the rank and file, of standing armies, and which takes no thought of the dreadful evil which “active service” inflicts.
3. Its effects. “Shall the sword devour forever?” War is like a huge wild beast which “devours.” It eats up human beings by thousands or tens of thousands at a time. It was a small consumption of men which took place in the battle and pursuit of which this question was first used. Only twenty men had fallen on the one side, and three hundred and sixty on the other. Modern wars “devour” on a far greater scale, partly in actual battle, more from wounds received in battle, and from the diseases which the hardships of war produce. War not only devours men in vast numbers, and thus occasions incalculable sorrow and misery; it consumes the substance of nations, the creation of peaceful industry; it wastes their mental and physical energies. And still more sad to contemplate are the moral effects both on the actual combatants and on those who employ them; the hateful passions excited and strengthened, the deterioration of national character produced.
4. Its universal prevalence. Among peoples in every part of the world, in every stage of civilization, and down through every age. However men differ in other respects, they are alike in this practice. Whatever changes take place, this survives. The progress of science and art, of discovery and invention, and of mechanical skill, seems to have no other effect in regard to war than to increase the power of mutual destruction. War lays them all under tribute to enlarge its ability to “devour” and destroy more easily and rapidly, and on a larger scale. In view of all these considerations good men may well sigh and cry, “Shall the sword devour forever?” There have doubtless been wars on which, in spite of all the evils they occasion, lovers of their kind could look with sympathy and satisfaction so far as one party was concerned. Such are wars of defence against unjust aggression, wars undertaken by a people to obtain liberty as against some crushing tyranny, wars against hordes of barbarians who threaten devastation and destruction to hearths and homes, and all that civilized men value. But even in such cases we may well askWill it ever be necessary to use so dreadful an instrument as war in the endeavour to obtain rights or abolish wrongs? Will men never be amenable to reason? Must there ever be retained the power to resort to the violent methods of war?
“The cause of truth and human weal,
O God above!
Transfer it from the sword’s appeal
To peace and love.”
(Campbell.)
II. THE REPLY WHICH MAY BE GIVEN TO THIS QUESTION. No. The sword shall not devour forever. Wars will at length come to a final end.
1. Divine prophecy assures us of this. (Isa 2:4; Isa 11:6-9; Mic 4:3, Mic 4:4; see also Psa 72:3, Psa 72:7; Zec 9:10.) Not only shall wars cease, but there shall be such a feeling of universal security that the arts of war shall cease to be learnt.
2. An adequate power for effecting this change is in the world. Christianitythe gospel of Jesus Christ, with the accompanying might of the Holy Spirit. The revelation of God in Christ, especially of the relation of God to all men and his love to all; the redemption effected for all; the precepts of the gospel, inculcating love even to enemies, and the doing good to all; the example of him who was Love Incarnate; the dignity and worth of men, and their relation to each other, as seen in the light of the gospel; the sacred brotherhood into which faith in Christ brings men of all lands; the prospect of a heaven where all Christians will be united in service and blessedness;these truths go to the root of the evil in the hearts of men. They cannot be truly received without subduing the passions which lead to war, and implanting the affections which insure peace.
3. Experience justifies the hope that this peace-producing power will at length be triumphant. That it will be in operation everywhere, and everywhere effectual. So far as it has been experienced, it has made its subjects gentle, loving, peaceful, more willing to suffer than to inflict suffering. Multitudes exist in the world so ruled by the gospel and the Spirit of Christ, that it is simply impossible they should on any account take to killing each other. What has transformed them can transform others. Let vital Christianity become universal, and peace must be universal too. It is on the way to become universal, though its advance is slow to our view. The effect of Christianity, so far as it has prevailed, on war itself encourages hope. It has become humane in comparison with wars recorded in this Book and in the pages of general history. And amongst civilized nations there is a growing indisposition to resort to war, an increasing willingness to settle their differences by peaceful methods. This is doubtless partly the result of the tremendous costliness and destructiveness of modern warfare, but partly also of the growth of a spirit of reasonableness, equity, and humanity.
In conclusion:
1. Cherish the spirit and principles of peace, i.e. of Christ and Christianity.
2. Endeavour to diffuse them. And do this earnestly and hopefully, with the assurance of a final success in which you will participate joyfully.
3. Use your influence as citizens to discourage war. “And the God of peace shall be with you” (2Co 13:11).G.W.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
2Sa 2:1. And he said, Unto Hebron Though God had appointed David to the kingdom, he would not pretend to take upon him the administration of affairs without immediately applying himself to him, by Abiathar the high-priest, to know when and by what means he should best be put into possession of it. He was directed by God to go up to Hebron, which was situated in the midst of the tribe of Judah, on the top of a ridge of high mountains, equally famed for fruits, herbage, and honey. Mr. Sandys seems to have surveyed the whole region round it with uncommon rapture; and Dr. Shaw has considered it with singular care and attention. He observes of that region, that it is admirably fitted for olives and vineyards, and in many parts for grain and pasture. It seems, therefore, to be a region peculiarly adapted to the reception of David and his men; for there they might then dwell, as Dr. Shaw tells us the inhabitants do now, in greater numbers, and with greater advantage: for here, says he, they themselves have bread to the full, while their cattle browse upon a richer herbage; and both of them are refreshed by springs of excellent water. Besides this, Hebron had also other advantages; it was a Levitical, priestly, and patriarchal city; venerable for the sepulchres of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and, as tradition adds, of Adam also; and upon all these accounts, long reputed (as it is at this day, even by the Turks) holy, and honoured with the title chosen or beloved. God had before appointed it for the residence of his favourite servants, and it was now peculiarly proper for the reception of David, as being the metropolis of his tribe. See Num 13:22. Jos 14:13.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
SECOND SECTION
2Sa 2:1 to 2Sa 3:6
I. David anointed King over Judahdwells in Hebron. 2Sa 2:1-7
1And it came to pass after this, that David inquired of the Lord [Jehovah], saying, Shall I go up into any [one] of the cities of Judah? And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto him, Go up. And David said, Whither shall I go up? And he said, 2Unto Hebron. So [And] David went up thither, and his two wives also, Ahinoam. the Jezreelitess and Abigail, Nabals wife [the wife of Nabal] the Carmelite.1. 3And his2 men that were with him did David bring up, every man with his household; and they dwelt in the cities of Hebron. 4And the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah.
And they told David, saying, That the men of Jabesh-Gilead were they3 that buried Saul. 5And David sent messengers unto the men of Jabesh-Gilead, and said unto them, Blessed be ye of the Lord [Jehovah] that ye have showed this 6kindness unto your lord, even [om. even] unto Saul, and have buried him. And now, the Lord [Jehovah] show [do] kindness and truth unto you; and I also will 7[om. will]4 requite [do] you this kindness, because ye have done this thing. Therefore [And] now, let your hands be strengthened [strong], and be ye valiant; for your master [lord] Saul is dead, and also [ins. me] the house of Judah have [have the house, etc.] anointed me [om. me] king over them.
II. Ishbosheths anti-godly Elevation to the Throne of all Israel through Abner, and the consequent long Contest between the House of Saul and the House of David 2Sa 2:8 to 2Sa 3:6.
8But [And] Abner, the son of Ner, captain of Sauls host, took Ishbosheth the son of Saul, and brought him over to Mahanaim, 9And made him king over [for]5 Gilead and over [for] the Ashurites and over [for] Jezreel, and over Ephraim and 10over Benjamin and over all Israel. Ishbosheth, Sauls son, was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and reigned two years; but6 the house of Judah followed David.7 11And the time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months. 12And Abner the son of Ner, and the servants of Ishbosheth the son of Saul went out from Mahanaim to Gibeon. 13And Joab the son of Zeruiah and the servants of David went out; and [ins. they] met together8 by the pool of Gibeon; and they sat down, the one [these] on the one 14side of the pool, and the other [those] on the other side of the pool. And Abner said to Joab, Let the young men now [om. now] arise and play before us. And Joab said, Let them arise. 15Then there arose and went over by number twelve of Benjamin, which [who] pertained9 to Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, and twelve of the servants of David. 16And they caught every one his fellow by the head, and thrust10 his sword into his fellows side, so they fell [and fell] down dead together; wherefore [and] that place was called Helkath-hazzurim,11 which is in Gibeon. 17And there was a very sore battle that day, and Abner was beaten, and the men of Israel, before the servants of David.
18And there were three sons of Zeruiah there, Joab and Abishai and Asahel; and Asahel was as light of foot as a wild roe [gazelle]. 19And Asahel pursued after Abner, and in going he turned not [he turned not to go] to the right hand nor to 20the left from following Abner. Then [And] Abner looked behind him and said, Art thou Asahel? And he answered [said], I am. 21And Abner said to him, Turn thee aside to thy right hand or to thy left, and lay thee hold on one of the young men, and take thee his armor. But Asahel would not turn aside from following of [om of] him. 22And Abner said again to Asahel, Turn thee aside from following me; wherefore should I smite thee to the ground? how then should I hold up 23my face to Joab thy brother? Howbeit [And] he refused to turn aside; wherefore [and] Abner with the hinder end of the spear smote him under the fifth rib [in the abdomen],12 that [and] the spear came out behind him, and he fell down there and died in the same place [on the spot]; and it came to pass that as many as came to the place where Asahel fell down and died stood still.
24Joab also [And Joab] and Abishai pursued after Abner; and the sun went down when they were come [and they came] to the hill of Ammah, that lieth before Giah13 by the way of the wilderness of Gibeon. 25And the children of Benjamin gathered themselves together after Abner, and became one troop, and stood on the 26top of an hill. Then [And] Abner called to Joab and said, Shall the sword devour forever? knowest thou not that it will be bitterness in the latter end? how long shall it be then, ere thou bid the people return from following their brethren? 27And Joab said, As God liveth, unless thou hadst spoken, surely [om. surely] then14 28in the morning the people had gone up every one from following his brother. So [And] Joab blew a trumpet, and all the people stood still, and pursued after Israel no more, neither fought they any more. 29And Abner and his men walked all that night through the plain, and passed over Jordan, and went through all 30[ins. the] Bithron, and they [om. they] came to Mahanaim. And Joab returned from following Abner; and when [om. when] he had [om. had] gathered all the people together, [ins. and] there lacked of Davids servants nineteen men and Asahel. 31But [And] the servants of David had smitten of Benjamin and of Abners men, so that15 three hundred and three-score men died. 32And they took up Asahel and buried him in the sepulchre of his father which was in Bethlehem.16 And Joab and his men went all night, and they [om. they] came to Hebron at break of day.
2Sa 3:1 Now [And] there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David; but [and] David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker. 2And unto David were sons born17 in Hebron; and his first-born was Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; 3And his second, Chileab, of Abigail, the wife of Nabal the Carmelite; and the third, Absalom the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur; 4And the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital; 5And the sixth, Ithream, by Eglah Davids wife. These were born to David in Hebron. And it came to pass, while there was war between the house of Saul and the house of David, that Abner made himself strong for the house of Saul.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
I. 2Sa 2:1-7. Davids elevation to the throne of Judah, and his residence in Hebron.
2Sa 2:1. The inquiry of the Lord was made through Urim and Thummim, comp. 1Sa 23:2; 1Sa 23:10 sq.; 1Sa 30:7-8 sq. The high-priest Abiathar with the Ephod was with David, 1 Sam. 22:30; 2Sa 23:6. At this decisive turning-point of his unquiet life he wished to know the will of the Lord. The after this refers to all that is narrated in 2 Samuel 1. and 1 Samuel 31. The motive for inquiring of the Lord is thereby at the same time indicated. He saw that the promise of the kingdom was now to be fulfilled to him. As he could no longer remain in the land of the Philistines, but must return to his country, and as the northern part of the land was held by the Philistines, the return to the territory of his own tribe was most natural; for there, where he had a long time found refuge (1Sa 22:5), he might count on a large following (1Sa 30:26 sq.) and firm support and protection against the remains of Sauls army under Abner. To the first question he receives from the Lord the definite answer that he is to return to Judah. To the second question: Whither? the answer is: To Hebron. This city, situated in a valley (Gen 37:14) in the most mountainous, and therefore the safest part of Judah, held to be a holy place from the recollections of the Patriarchal time, one of the principal places in the Tribe of Judah, an ancient royal city and a priestly city (Jos 12:10; Jos 21:11), must now have had for David a very special importance, which appeared all the clearer from the divine decision and in respect to his future life became indubitable; here now was to be fulfilled the old Patriarchal promise (Gen 49:8 sq.), the establishment of the theocratic kingdom in the Tribe of Judah.
2Sa 2:2 sq. In accordance with the will and direction of his God he went thither with his whole family. But also the men that were with him (comp. 1Sa 27:2). he led thither into the cities of Hebron, that is, the places that belonged to the district of Hebron;18 every man with his house, a complete and permanent colonization of Davids entire following took place, the foundation of Davids royal authority, which was established with its seat in Hebron. For it is forthwith declared in 2Sa 2:4 a that the men of Judah, that is, the elders as the representatives of the Tribe anointed him king over the house (the tribe) of Judah. See 2Sa 5:3, where the elders of all Israel come to make him king over the whole nation. The first anointment received from Samuel (1 Samuel 17.) denoted the divine consecration to the royal office; this second one, performed by the Elders of Judah, was the public solemn installation of David (based on that anointment) into this office. Comp. Sauls first anointment by Samuel (1Sa 10:1) and his subsequent public inauguration as king by the Elders, 1Sa 10:24; 1Sa 11:15.So two anointments of Solomon are described, 1Ch 23:1 sq.; 1Ch 29:22. The anointing of David was perhaps hastened because Abners purpose (2Sa 2:8 sq.) was already known. [On the motives of the Tribe of Judah in making David their king see Chandlers Life of David, Bk. II., 2 Samuel 30.Tr].
2Sa 2:4-7. Davids first act as king. The message to the Jabeshites with thanks for their burial of Saul and the announcement of his anointing as king.And they told David, saying (Luther: And when it was told David that) the men of Jabesh are they that buried Saul. (The form) of this sentence would certainly be somewhat hard and ill-constructed (Then.), but for the obvious pre-supposition that David, having heard of and deeply lamented Sauls death on the battle-field, inquired whether the body of the Anointed of the Lord had been rescued from the hands of the uncircumcised and buried in the sacred soil of his native land. S. Schmid well remarks of this explanation (which Tremellius has) that it accords with Davids piety. It is thus natural to suppose that David, now by Gods providence king in Sauls stead, in consequence of the afflicting news that had wrung from him such a lament, purposes to give a becoming royal burial to the man whose person had always been sacred to him, and whose heroic greatness and virtues he had so passionately celebrated. There is therefore no need for the bold emendation of Thenius (after Vulg. and Sept.), who would read simply: it was told David that the men of Jabesh buried Saul.19On the burial by the faithful and grateful Jabeshites of the bodies of Saul and his sons brought away from Bethshean, see 1Sa 31:11 sq.
2Sa 2:5. The message to the Jabeshites was couched in the tone or royal authority. It conveys 1) a grateful invocation of blessing for the noble deed of love that they have wrought on Saul by burying him; the phrase your lord indicates that they had herein acted as became their relation to Saul as their king and lord.
2Sa 2:6. And now the Lord do to you kindness and truth.This is the expansion of the wish of blessing in 2Sa 2:5. The first noun (), favor, kindness is not merely pardoning grace (Keil), but in general the gracious love that God shows His people on the ground of His covenant with them. The second (), truth is the trustworthiness and attestation of all His promises. David wishes them all exhibitions of the love and faithfulness of the Lord for the faithful love which they showed king Saul even in his death.And I also do you this good, because ye have done this thing; the good that he does them is not merely this wish for the divine blessing (Keil), or therewith a gift of honor (Bunsen), but this honorable royal embassy with expression of thanks and invocation of blessing. The rendering: And I also wish to show you such kindness (S. Schmid, Clericus, De Wette) gives no appropriate sense, whether the comparison be referred to Gods goodness or to the deed of the Jabeshites. Thenius excellently: greeting you with blessing by my ambassadors.[Eng. A. V., Patrick and Philippson give the incorrect future rendering.Tr.]
2Sa 2:7 adds 2) encouragement and exhortation: let your hands be strong means not: be consoled! but: be of strong courage. And be sons of power [valiant], that is, show yourselves brave men and unappalled. [The phrase means in general men of force, the context showing whether the force intended is moral, intellectual or physical. The word () is used of Ruth (Rth 3:11) and of the virtuous woman in Pro 31:10, and elsewhere of warlike valor and of wealth. Bib. Com.: the opposite of men of virtue are men of Belial, that is, men of no force of character.Tr.]The ground () of this exhortation is at the same time the explanation of its importance for the interests of David as anointed king. In the reason assigned he shows them not directly, but indirectly that he has been made king of Judah, their king Saul being dead. But his exhortation to valor and courage is intelligible only on the supposition that he gives them to understand that for them also he has taken Sauls place as king, and that they must valiantly espouse and defend his cause against his enemies, the party of Saul under the lead of Abner. It is not clear whether or not Ishbosheth had at this time been already set up as king by Abner. But from 2Sa 2:9 (which states that Gilead was one of the districts gained by Abner for Ishbosheth) it is evident that David, seeing Abners movement thither (comp. 1Sa 26:7), must have been concerned to secure to himself the capital city [Jabesh] of this province (Joseph., Ant. VI. 5, 1). Whether he succeeded in this is questionable. His demand that it should recognize him as king was justly founded on his divine call to be king over the whole people in Sauls stead, comp. 2Sa 3:9-10. So certainly along with sincere gratitude there was policy in this embassy (Then.), but it was a thoroughly justifiable theocratic policy.
II. 2Sa 2:8 to 2Sa 3:6. Ishbosheths antigodly elevation to the throne of Israel by Abner and the thence resulting war.
2Sa 2:8. On Abner see 1Sa 14:50.He had taken Ishbosheth the son of Saul, and brought him over to Mahanaim, that is, across the Jordan. Ishbosheth had probably taken part in the unfortunate battle of Gilboa, and as he survived, Abner his uncle saved him together with the force under his command in the flight across the Jordan (1Sa 31:7), in order to keep the kingdom in the house of Saul. This retreat across the Jordan passed from Bethshean or Mount Gilboa southeast into Gilead, where not the city Jabesh (as we might expect from the foregoing), but Mahanaim (that is, two camps, Gen 32:2) became the abode of Ishbosheth. In the division of the land this place was assigned to the Tribe of Gad, and lay on the border between it and the half-tribe of Manasseh (Jos 13:26; Jos 13:30) on the Jabbok [the present Wady Zerqa]. It was afterwards given to the Levites, Jos 21:38. At a later period David found refuge there in his flight from Absalom, 2Sa 17:24.Ishbosheth according to 1Ch 8:33; 1Ch 9:39, was Sauls fourth son, while in 1Sa 14:49 only three are named, who also fell with him in the battle, 1Sa 31:2. But in Chronicles he is called Eshbaal, that is, Fire of Baal [or man of Baal.Tr.]. For the name of the god Baal in Hos 9:10; Jer 3:24, is put as equivalent bosheth [shame] in order to indicate the reproach and shame of idol-worship (comp. Isa 42:17; Isa 45:16). So for Gideons surname Jerubbaal (Jdg 6:32; Jdg 8:35) we find Jerubbesheth (2Sa 11:21). Similarly the name Eshbaal was changed into Ishbosheth= man of shame or disgrace. Ewalds supposition that bosheth was originally used in a good senses= reverence, awe, is without foundation, and is in opposition to the fact that the word occurs only in a bad sense. It is therefore a natural conjecture that the change of Eshbaal to Ishbosheth had reference to the shame and disgrace that befell Sauls house in the person of this his last son, Psa 35:26 being thus fulfilled.[It seems more probable that the name Baal = lord was in early times given to the God of Israel, and proper names were formed from it, as Eshbaal or Ishbaal = man of the lord; afterwards when the worship of the false Baal was introduced into Israel, the change above-described was made. Possibly this change was made by later editors and scribes, and the original form was retained in the Book of Chronicles because this book was less read than the prophetic historical books.Tr.]That Ishbosheth was a weak, characterless tool in the hand of Abner for the maintenance of the interests of the fallen royal house is already intimated in the words: And Abner took Ishbosheth and carried him over.Mahanaim was fitted by its position to be a refuge for Ishbosheth and the remains of the defeated army.
2Sa 2:9. And made him king, as being in his view the legitimate heir to Sauls royal throne. Then follows the statement of the districts over which Abner extended Ishbosheths authority: he made him king for Gilead, in which was the central point of his dominion, Mahanaim, whence consequently the territory of the two and a half east-jordanic tribes in the first place, which in contrast with the west-jordanic Canaan (Jos 22:9; Jos 22:13; Jos 22:15; Jos 22:32; Jdg 5:17; Jdg 20:1) is put as equivalent to Gilead, was claimed for Ishbosheth. The change of prepositions, three times to, for (), and three times over (), is neglected by all the versions, which take the first as equivalent to the second. The difference, however, is to be retained; see Ew., 217; and c. The former, as sign of movement to [occurring in the Hebrew text with Gilead, the Ashurites and Jezreel], indicates those regions over which Abner gradually extended Ishbosheths authority, being obliged to wrest them from the Philistines by continued wars; for it cannot be doubted that the Philistines followed the flying Israelites across the Jordan, and that after the battle of Gilboa the districts of the Ashurites and Jezreel remained securely in their possession. It is obvious that the Ashurites here cannot be the Arabian tribe of Asshurim in Gen 25:3 (Maur.) nor the Assyrians. The Chald. has over the tribe of Asher; but, apart from the in that case strange insertion of the Article (Then.), this explanation does not accord with the position of the other districts here mentioned, according to which the territory of Asher must have embraced also that of Zebulon and Naphtali, which is not supposable. According to the view of Bachienne cited by Keil the reference is to the city Asher (Jos 17:7) with its territory, since this city lay south-east of Jezreel, and Abner might well from Gilead have first subjected this region to Ishbosheth. But in that case (Keil) no reason appears why the name of the inhabitants (Ashurites) is given instead of that of the city (Asher), and the mention of a city among districts is improbable. The best way out of the difficulty is to adopt the reading Geshurites found in Vulg., Syr. and Ar., and approved by Then., Winer (R. W. I. 414) and Ewald. This misreading might easily have gotten into the text. This Geshur cannot, however, be the district whose inhabitants, Geshurim = bridgemen, appear in the south of Palestine in connection with Philistia (Jos 13:2), and are mentioned along with Girzites and Amalekites (1Sa 27:8); nor can it be the little kingdom of Geshur which belonged to Syria (2Sa 15:8), and there formed an independent State (2Sa 3:3; 2Sa 13:37; 2Sa 14:23). From this latter is to be distinguished (against Keil) a district of the same name which (Deu 3:14 sq.; Jos 12:5 sq.) with the region of the Maachathites on the west formed the border of the kingdom of Bashan and at the same time touched Gilead. But the Maachathites dwelt on the southwestern declivity of Hermon, at the sources of the Jordan (so Jerome). We shall therefore have to look for the Geshurites (whose district is named also in Jos 13:11 along with both Gilead and Hermon) together with the Maachathites south of Hermon in the upper Jordan-region on both sides of the river. That this district is to be distinguished from the independent kingdom of Geshur in Syria is clear also from Jos 13:13 : the children of Israel drove not out the Geshurites and the Maachathites, and Geshur and Maachath have dwelt among Israel to this day, whence it appears that it belonged to the Israelitish territory. The name Geshur (Bridgeland) it doubtless received from the numerous crossings that connected the two banks of the Jordan (Winer, Thenius).And for Jezreelthis district called after the city of the same name, the scene of the great battle in which Israel succumbed to the Philistines, was the great fruitful plain ( , 1Ma 12:49; Jos., Ant. XV. 1, 22 u. s.) whose recovery must have particularly occupied Abner.To these three great regions, which are mentioned in geographical order, are added, going from north to south (with the preposition over), the tribe-territories of Ephraim and Benjamin.He made him king over Ephraim and Benjamin, these tribes, which had not yet been conquered by the Philistines, holding no doubt to the House of Saul.And over all (the rest of) Israel, that is, over all that country which afterwards formed the kingdom of Israel (Then.).
2Sa 2:10-11. Duration of Ishbosheths reign over Israel and of Davids in Hebron.Forty years old was Ishbosheth when he became king over Israel.The words: over Israel connect themselves with and take up the closing words of 2Sa 2:9 : and over all Israel. The following: and he reigned two years, might therefore be understood of his reign over all Israel excluding Judah, the words over Israel being naturally supplied from the context. Abner, in fact, on account of the wars necessary to conquer from the Philistines at least the three regions mentioned in 2Sa 2:9, could only gradually establish Ishbosheths royal authority, and could not make him king over all Israel till after the clearing of those districts. It may well be supposed that this reconquering process took five and a half years. This explanation (Ewald, Bunsen, Keil) sets aside the seeming discrepancy that arises when we compare the statements that Ishbosheth was king two years, and that David reigned in Hebron over Judah seven years and six months; and it yet remains beyond doubt that Ishbosheths elevation to the throne was nearly synchronous with Davids anointment as king over Judah, and his murder (2 Samuel 4), up to which he was king, with the anointing of David as king over all Israel. Ishbosheth occupied the throne as long as David was king over Judah; but he was only two years king over Israel, which he could really become only after the gradual expulsion of the Philistines. However, instead of this explanation the reading of Thenius (which, it must be confessed, does some violence to the syntax) commends itself as better: he takes the passage from but the house of Judah to the end of 2Sa 2:11 as parenthesis, and renders: and when he had reigned two years (only the house of Judah followed David, and the time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months), then went out Abner, etc. The harmonistic attempt of S. Schmid, Cler. and others who hold that David reigned two years over Judah till the murder of Ishbosheth and then further five and a half years over Israel in Hebron till the conquest of Jerusalem, is in direct contradiction with the words (2Sa 2:11): David reigned over Judah seven years and six months. Equally untenable is the view that the two years of Ishbosheths reign were the time of quiet till the outbreak of the war with David, during which Abner played the chief part (Grotius)for Ishbosheth was king till his murder after Abners death.[Wellhausen connects 2Sa 2:10 b with 2Sa 2:9, and throws out 10 a as chronologically wrong, and 2Sa 2:11 as interrupting the narrative. It seems probable that 10 a and 11 are parenthetical chronological statements; but they are not on that account to be rejected; they may be regarded as explanatory insertions by the editor of the book. As to the chronology, there is no objection to be made to 2Sa 2:11, which is well supported (1Ki 2:11), and the two years of 2Sa 2:10 is reasonably explained by Ewald as above stated by Erdmann, or if the numeral be incorrect, this merely leaves doubtful the duration of Ishbosheths reign (as Sauls in 1Sa 13:1), and does not invalidate the clause. Exception is, however, specially taken to Ishbosheths age as here given, forty. The context. it is said, represents him as a youth or child, and moreover, as probably Sauls youngest son, he must have been several years younger than Jonathan, who was the oldest son, and Jonathan seems to have been nearly of the same age with David, about thirty, when he died. To this it may be answered that Ishbosheth need not have been much younger than Jonathan (especially if Saul had more than one wife), that Jonathan may have been twelve years older than David without bar to their friendship, that Jonathan may easily at the age of forty-two have left just one infant child (2Sa 4:4), and that Saul might have been a husband and a father at the age of twenty-one, and, dying a stout warrior at the age of sixty-three, have left a son of forty-two. There is no difficulty in these suppositions single or combined. But if the number forty be incorrect, this does not affect the genuineness of the clause. The editor thought it well to insert here these chronological statements at the beginning of the narrative of the war between the house of Saul and the house of David. It is quite possible, but by no means certain, that the numerals have been lost or corrupted by copyists. See Text, and Gram.Tr.]
2Sa 2:12 sq. From 2Sa 2:12 on is related how Abner, after actually establishing Ishbosheth as king over Israel, begins the conflict against David in order to subject Judah also to Ishbosheth. He could not have undertaken this war, if he had not finished the war against the Philistines for the establishment of Ishbosheths authority over Israel, so that he knew that he was secure on that side. It is to be noted that David had at no time and in no way planned or begun hostilities against Ishbosheth. Rather he was forced into war by the latter through Abner. From Mahanaim, where Ishbosheths headquarters had hitherto been, Abner advanced with his army against David to Gibeon (the present Jib in the western part of Benjamin, five miles north of Jerusalem) in order thence to march southward on Hebron to attack David.[Bib. Com.: To go out is a technical phrase for going out to war.Tr.]
2Sa 2:13. Though David had no hostile designs against Ishbosheth, he was yet fully prepared against such a foreseen attack.[Some hold less well that war was already going on between the two princes.Tr.]To Ishbosheths army under Abner he opposed a force under Joab. Joab, the son of Davids sister Zeruiah (1Ch 2:16), had no doubt already, as his brother Abishai (who was with David during his persecution, as Davids family also, 1 Samuel 22, came to him for protection against Saul), had a military training with his uncle, and taken a prominent position among his warriors; else he would not now appear as the chief leader of Davids forces. In the roll of heroes in 2Sa 23:8 sq. his name is not given, probably because he already then stood above them all as General, as we may conjecture from 2Sa 23:18; 2Sa 23:24 (Vaihinger in Herzog VI. 712). As General-in-chief he appears in the official lists, 2Sa 8:16; 2Sa 20:13.The two armies met at the pool of Gibeon, David having hastened to anticipate Abners attack on the territory of Judah, and to carry the war into Ishbosheths territory. The pool of Gibeon is the great water mentioned in Jer 41:12; there is still in Jib (the ancient Gibeon) in a cave a copious spring [forming a large reservoir], and not far beneath [on the side of the hill] the remains of an open tank which Robinson (II. 353 sq. [Am. ed. 455 and ii. 256]) saw, one hundred and twenty feet long and one hundred feet wide, about equal to the pool of Hebron. Comp. Tobler, Topographie von Jerusalem II. 515 sq. [and Smiths Bib. Dict., Art. Gibeon.Tr.]. The armies encamped at this pool opposite one another, the one on this side, the other on that side.
2Sa 2:14-16. To avoid a bloody civil war and perhaps also to escape personal conflict with his near friend (2Sa 2:22) Joab, Abner proposes to Joab to decide the contest by a duel between individual warriors (young men, , comp. 2Sa 2:21) put up on both sides. This word play () is used of children in the street (Zec 8:5), of beasts in the sea (Psa 104:26), and so here of warlike play, = to wrestle, but not to denote a game of arms for entertainment (Ew.), but a serious battle-play to decide the matter for both armies (comp. 1 Samuel 17) as the result (2Sa 2:16) shows.Joab accepts the proposal immediately, a sign that it was agreeable to him. Twelve warriors from each side, the number probably derived from the number of the Tribes, meet in single combat on one side of the pool. The went over is to be understood of one party only, while the preceding arose refers to both.[The went over refers from the wording to both parties; probably they met at some intermediate point.Tr.]And they seized every man the head of his fellow, that is, they rushed on one another, in order by the stunning seizure of the head the more quickly and thoroughly to finish the struggle. It is not necessary (Then. and Ew. after Sept.) to supply his hand after man (they thrust each his hand on the head of his opponent) in order to get a verb for his sword [Eng. A. V. inserts thrust]; there is no need to repeat the verb seized, for we may without forcing render: and his (every ones) sword in the side of his opponent! The rapidity with which, at the same time with the seizure of the head, the sword entered the adversarys side is vividly set forth by the absence of the verb, it being logically necessary to supply merely the word was.And they fell together.This result shows the embittered feeling of the young men, but also their military skill and training.[Bp. Patrick understands that only the twelve Benjaminites were slain; but it was clearly a mutual slaughter, the twenty-four fell dead. Bib. Com. cites the strikingly similar combat of the Horatii and the Curiatii; as the Alban Mettius there urged the desirableness of avoiding bloodshed because the two people had in the Etruscans a common powerful enemy, so might Abner have here urged the same argument in reference to the Philistines (Livy I. 25).The hair was often worn long in those days; but it was a custom also to cut the hair (and sometimes the beard) before going into battle, that the enemy might not have a hold thereby.These single combats still occur among the Arabians.Tr.]The place (of combat) was called (by the people in consequence of this result).Field of knives (or edges) ( ). The narrative indicates that this name was connected immediately with what was peculiar in the occurrence, namely, the mutual synchronous slaughter by the edge of the sword, so that they fell down together. To this corresponds the meaning of , knife, edge (comp. Eng. knife), which is found also in Psa 89:44, and is established from the ground-idea of the Arabic stem by Fleischer in Delitzschs Comm. on the Pss. in loco (2 vols., 185960). Thenius after the Sept. ( , the plotters) renders field of adversaries (drngerfeld, ); but this does not answer to the characteristic fact that occasioned the name, which was not the mutual attack, but the mutual slaughter with swords. Thenius objection to the rendering: field of edgesthat it would apply to every place of combatholds rather against his own translation. Ewalds rendering: field of the artful () unwarrantably introduces the notion of artifice into the affair, and changes the Heb. text, which is supported by all the versions. Vulg.: ager robustorum, Aq., Sym.: , field of the strong, a rendering derived from the signification rock (which also belongs to the Heb. word), as if the rock-like firmness of the combatants (which, however, is not specially mentioned in the narrative) were here indicated.[Bishop Patrick follows the Vulg. in the translation of this name, Syr., Philippson, Bib. Com. (which, however, also suggests field of sides, ) give it as Erdmann. Chald. has possession of the slain.Tr.]
2Sa 2:17-25. In consequence of the undecisive result of the single combat, a general and fierce battle between the two armies, which issues in the defeat and flight of Abner. To the bitterness of the bloody duel answers the violence of the general conflict that arose the same day, which is described as very sore (2Sa 2:17). Its result, in allusion to the single combat, which had not proved decisive, is straightway given: Abner and his army were beaten.In 2Sa 2:18-23 we have a very vivid and interesting description of a special battle-scene or rather pursuit. In this scene the three nephews of David come forward, Joab, Abishai (comp. 1Sa 26:6 with 2Sa 16:9; 2Sa 18:2; 2Sa 21:17; 2Sa 23:18) and Asahel, who are expressly described as sons of Zeruiah (as Joab in 2Sa 2:13) in order to indicate the prominent part taken in this battle by the family of David. 2Sa 2:18. Asahel, distinguished for agility and swiftness, and therefore compared to a gazelle in the field [Eng. A. V.: wild roe], see Pro 6:5.
2Sa 2:19. He pursues Abner in order by conquering the General to strike the decisive blow that must end the battle.He turned not to the right hand nor to the left from following Abner, pressed hard and straight on him.
2Sa 2:20. Asahel was doubtless already known to Abner, comp. 2Sa 2:22. Abners speaking supposes that Asahel had almost overtaken him, and might now infer from his silence that he would surrender himself prisoner.
2Sa 2:21. Abners address to Asahel is based on the supposition that the latter is anxious only for the glory of making a prisoner and for booty.Take his armor,20 that is, after having slain him.[Such was the custom; see Homer for example.Tr.]
2Sa 2:22. Abner speaks again, since Asahel will not desist from the pursuit. He gives as reason for his exhortation that he wishes to spare Asahels life, and not, by slaying him, make a deadly enemy of his brother Joab, with whom, therefore, he must previously have stood in friendly relations (Thenius). From regard and former friendship to Joab, he was unwilling to kill the young hero (Keil), [who was also probably but a stripling and no fit antagonist for so great a warrior (Bib.-Com.).Tr.]How should I lift up my face? that is, present myself with a good conscience before him. [Bp. Patrick not so well: because Joab was a fierce man, and would study revenge.Tr.]
2Sa 2:23. Asahel, however, did not desist from pressing on Abner, who, not wishing to kill him, was compelled to defend himself, and so, not with the front part of the spear, which was designed for war, but with the hinder part, which was stuck into the ground (1Sa 26:7), and therefore no doubt was furnished with a sharp edge (perhaps of metal) smote him in the abdomen so that it came out behind in his back, and he fell dead on the spot. It hence appears that Asahel pressed violently on Abner, who was defending himself with the point of the spear, which must have been very sharp. In proof that there was a lower metallic point to spears, Bttcher cites Hom. I. vi. 213; x. 153; xiii. 443; Herod. vii. 41.[On the translation abdomen instead of fifth rib, see Text. and Gram.Tr.] This place, too, where Asahel fell, received importance among the people from the general mourning over the young hero. This is pathetically and vividly described by the single expression: Every one that came to the place stood still, comp. 2Sa 20:12.
2Sa 2:24. The pursuit continues with all the more violence. The two brothers Joab and Abishai follow Abner till the evening. At the same time the locality (now unknown) where the pursuit ended, the hill Ammah in front of Giah on the road to the wilderness of Gibeon, is stated with precision; an evidence of the exactness of the narrative. The wilderness of Gibeon lay east of Gibeon in the tribe of Benjamin.
2Sa 2:25. The children of Benjamin, as the nearest tribesmen, who must have been most interested for the kingdom of Ishbosheth. They gathered themselves together from the dispersion produced by flight into one body after Abner on a hill, that is, to protect Abner, and from this more favorable position to defend themselves.[Bib.-Com.: Abners skill and courage in rallying his followers to a strong position in spite of so crushing a defeat. On the text of 2Sa 2:24-25, see Text. and Gram.Tr.]
2Sa 2:26-28. On Abners appeal to Joab the conflict is straightway stopped, and the pursuit on Joabs part ceases. A truce is concluded. Abners first word: Shall the sword devour forever? expresses decided aversion to this bloody combat. The second question: Knowest thou not that it will be bitterness at last? points not to outward destruction, but to the empoisoning and brutalizing (the necessary result at last of such a war) of the feeling that the members of a people, and especially Gods covenant-people, ought to cherish towards one another. Just at this moment the bitterness had reached its highest point, and the result of the continuation of the war would necessarily have been bitter and sullen despair on the part of the Benjaminites and an increase of military fury in the army of Judah. Vulg.: Dost thou not know how dangerous is desperation? The third question is a pressing demand to Joab to suspend hostilities immediately and agree to a truce. Joab answers Abner with an oath, in which he partly charges him with the blame of the days bloody struggle, partly affirms his own perfect willingness to cease hostilities without following up his victory. The first = surely (imo), the mark of emphatic asseveration in an oath, Ew. 330 b; comp. 1Sa 14:44; 1Sa 20:3; Gen 22:16 sq.; 1Ki 1:29 sq.; 2Sa 2:23 sq., where, as here, it follows real oaths and introduces their contents. [This first surely is not in the Eng. A. V.Tr.] If thou hadst not said this, surely then.The second surely (), strengthened by then () as elsewhere by now (), Num 22:29; Gen 43:10; 1Sa 14:30, takes up the first in order to bring out more expressly and strongly what would then have happened. What Abner said is his proposition for the single combat (2Sa 2:14), which resulted in this obstinate battle. Yea verily, then had the people gone upthat is, returned (Niph. of in reflexive sense get up, Ew. 123 b). There would then have been no fraternal war. Thenius (after Syr. and Ar.) explains: If thou hadst not (now) spoken (about a truce), then surely in the morning, (namely to-morrow) would the people have been led back. But 1) The to-morrow is not in the Hebrew, and 2) Joabs answer would then amount to nothing, as it was then evening, and a return on the next morning was a matter of course. To our interpretation Thenius objects that Abners proposal of a duel was meant for good, and the two armies had originally marched out with intention to fight; but this objection is of no force against that interpretation, which follows the original word for word, for Joab means to say simply: if thou hadst not by that challenge given the signal for the battle, which, as a matter of fact, continued the whole day, then early in the morning one side would have retreated before the other, and the battle would not have occurred. Joab herein assumes that Abner, with the disposition which he has just expressed, would have avoided the battle if he had not excited it by his well-meant arrangement of the duel, and in his whole address and his bearing to Abner it may be seen that he (Joab) would not have made the attack, and that his march against Abner was simply to protect the territory of Judah. We must read between the lines: but for thine unfortunate word, which has had such results, we two should have avoided the battle. Here is to be noted what is indicated in 2Sa 2:12 as to the personal relation of Abner to Joab, and how afterwards (chap. 3) Abner passed from the House of Saul to Davids side. [Vulg., Lightfoot, Patrick, Philippson agree with Erdmann in the interpretation of this clauseBib. Comm. with Thenius. A common explanation is: even if thou hadst not spoken (for a truce), the pursuit would have ceased to-morrow morning. This answer would not (as Erdmann declares) be meaningless, for it was by no means otherwise certain that the battle would not have been continued the next day. Moreover the phrase from the morning might be understood of the following morning. Two facts seem to favor this latter interpretation: 1) the phrase from after their brethren, repeated by Joab after Abner, would naturally have the same meaning in both cases, desist from pursuit; 2) the form in which Joab couches his answer, that is, an oath, better refers to something which lay in his power, not the non-occurrence of a battle that day, but the cessation of the battle going on. Joab would then say (agreeably to the context): I did not design to continue the battle, but, if you had said nothing, my purpose was to withdraw my troops in the morningthe context showing (as in Exo 29:34) that the following morning was meant.Tr.] 2Sa 2:28. Joab straightway causes the trumpet to sound the signal Halt! Arms at rest! The army halts, the pursuit is discontinued, the battle is ended.
2Sa 2:29-32. The withdrawal of both armies from the scene of battle, and the loss on both sides.
2Sa 2:29. Abner and his men marched through the Arabah21 (that is, the valley or plain of the Jordan) from the south northward, having marched from the battle-field first directly eastward towards Jericho. The distance from the entrance into the Jordan-plain (to reach which point, however (2Sa 2:3-4), cost them some hours) up to the point where they crossed the Jordan to go to Mahanaim, was so great that it took them at least the whole night to pass through the Arabah. They marched the whole night, not from fear of pursuit (for the pursuit was discontinued and a truce concluded), but probably to avoid the heat of the day. After crossing the Jordan they traversed all the Bithron. The word all forbids us to understand here a cityit is therefore not Bethoron (Aq., Vulg.), apart from the fact that this lay in the opposite direction north-west of Gibeonbut it must mean a district beyond the Jordan, probably a mountain-gorge or a plain on the Jabbok between the Jordan and Mahanaim, which lay on the Jabbok. These specific geographical statements also about Abners return-march show the historical exactness and value of the narrative.
2Sa 2:30. At the same time Joab began his return-march from after Abner (who was withdrawing), as it is vividly described. Not till the whole force was assembled for the return was a muster held in order to learn the loss. Only nineteen men and Asahel were missing from Davids army. [Among these nineteen some reckon the twelve that fell in the single combat.Tr.]
2Sa 2:31. The Benjaminite loss, on the other hand, was much greater, 360 men dead, as might easily be determined by counting the slain. Joab had in his army only veteran servants of David, tried by many severe battles and privations, while Abner led into the battle the remains of the army that was beaten by the Philistines at Gilboa, who moreover in previous battles with that people might have been still more weakened and discouraged (Keil). The disproportion in the losses may, however, have been due also in part to the character of the ground, comp. 2Sa 2:25 (Then.). [On the apparently corrupt text of this verse see Text. and Gramm.Tr.]
2Sa 2:31. Asahel is buried on the march back in the burial-place of his father at Bethlehem, which lay only a little to the left of the direct road to Hebron. They went the whole night thence, and came at break of day to Hebron. Gibeon is distant from Hebron about 26 miles; they might therefore have gone from Gibeon to Hebron in one night, even if they stopped on the way to bury Asahel, which need not have taken much time (against Then.). [However, the text says only that they went all night from Bethlehem to Hebron, fifteen miles. They had previously marched from near Gibeon to Bethlehem, after having attended to the duties incident to the close of a battle.Tr.]
2Sa 3:1-6. Further general and summary account of the long duration of the conflict between the houses of David and Saul and their different fortunes.
2Sa 3:1. And the war was protracted between the house of Saul and the house of David.The former stands first because the attack came from it. From the account of the particular incident at Gibeon, where the contest assumed the form of open war, which was suddenly ended by the two generals, the narrator turns to the summary description of the condition in which the two houses from now on found themselves in respect to the contest, notwithstanding the discontinuance of external war. While this long-continued struggle lasted, outward hostilities were not renewed [at least there were no pitched battlesTr.], Ishbosheth lacking courage and energy therefor, Abner, as his bearing (chap. 2) towards Joab showed, having no special interest in continuing the bloody strife, and David, as before, so now holding back from attack, since, though he had power and courage to maintain his claims, he yet hoped to gain his promised royal authority over Israel, not by his own military power, but only by the interposition of the Lord. Further is related the fortune of the two houses during the long contest.22 David grew stronger and stronger.23Davids advance in strength means, however, not the increase of his family (Keil), but of his adherents, of the number of those that recognized him as king over all Israel, and came forward as supporters of his authority over the whole country, as is fully and clearly narrated in 1Ch 12:23 sq. On the other hand the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker in consideration and power. The reason of this was Ishbosheths incapacity for royal rule and Abners afterwards related defection from the house of Saul. During the time of struggle he was the only person that sought still to maintain this house (2Sa 3:6), and it rapidly sank and disappeared when he went over to David. 2Sa 3:1 and 2Sa 3:6 are therefore connected; 2Sa 3:1, according to this view, not only continues the preceding chapter (Then.), but at the same time begins a new section (2Sa 3:1-6) which forms a transition to the narrative from 2Sa 3:7 on, in which is related how Davids elevation to the throne of all Israel was prepared by the sinking and disappearance of the house of Saul under his last son.The statement (2Sa 3:2-5) concerning Davids family during his residence in Hebron, and the sons there born to him certainly interrupts the progress of the narrative (Then.); for it is not to be connected with 2Sa 3:1 as being a factual proof of the strengthening of Davids house (Keil). But it is quite in place here, since it is in keeping with the habit [of the biblical writers] of inserting at the beginning or at a turning-point of the history of the reign of each king, information about his house and family. Comp. 1Sa 14:49-51; 2Sa 5:13 sq.; 1Ki 3:1; 1Ki 14:21; 1Ki 15:2; 1Ki 15:9. The same list of the sons born in Hebron, with the names of their mothers, is found in 1Ch 3:1-3. The two first are the sons of the two wives Ahinoam and Abigail (1Sa 25:42 sq.), whom he brought with him to Hebron. On Amnon see chap. 13. The Prep. to (so the Heb. ) in these cases, where a corresponding noun is to be supplied, expresses immediate belonging [property], as a song of () David; so here son to (or of, Germ. von) Ahinoam, comp. Ewald, 292 a.
2Sa 3:3. The second son is called Chileab, in Chron. Daniel; he had perhaps two names (Keil). [The name Chileab is suspected by Wellhausen to be a collateral form of Caleb (see the two in the Heb.), while Bib. Comm. thinks it a copyists erroneous transcription of the first letters of the following word. The Midrash derives it from = exactly his father, the name indicating his likeness to David against those who said that he was the son of Nabal. Similarly the name Daniel, God has judged me, is said to refer to Gods judgment on Nabal. These are all conjectures, and the relation of the two names is involved in obscurity.Tr.] The third, Absalom (called in 1Ki 15:2 Abishalom), son of Maachah, daughter of king Talmai of Geshur. This was a small independent kingdom in Syria. See 2Sa 15:8, comp. 2Sa 2:9. Perhaps this marriage of David with a foreign un-Israelitish princess had a political ground. Comp. 1Ki 3:1, Solomons marriage with a daughter of Pharaoh. The origin of the three wives, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah, whose sons were Adonijah, Shephatiah, and Ithream, is not given. The last is strangely described in an especial way as Davids wife. Bertheau (on 1Ch 3:3) holds that the unknown and un-described Eglah is so called for the sake of a fuller conclusion; but Thenius justly remarks against this reason that Haggith and Abital also are otherwise wholly unknown. Thenius suggestion that Michal originally stood in the text is opposed by the fact that with the exception of the Cod. Vat., which has Aigal, the correctness of the text-reading is supported by all the witnesses. Probably this in itself superfluous addition is made in order to give a fuller conclusion by this epithet which suits each of the six women (Berth., Keil). [On this reading see Text. and Gramm.Tr.]
2Sa 3:6 resumes 2Sa 3:1 in relation to the continuance of the conflict between the two houses, and the statement: Abner showed himself strong (=a strong support) for the house of Saul, concludes the period during which the house of Saul was able through Abner to maintain itself against the house of David. In contrast therewith follows now the narrative of the events which, in consequence of Abners ceasing to work for it, through Ishbosheths unwise conduct, farther and farther depressed the house of Saul; comp. 2Sa 3:1 b. So 2Sa 3:1-6 form the bridge to the following history (from 2Sa 3:7 on).
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. Davids personality, bearing and doing after Sauls death, and the consequent turn of his life towards the fulfilment of his call to the theocratic kingdom, show in all points, as here detailed in the prophetic narrative, absolutely free, trustful and humble dependence on the will of God, as it has up to this time shown itself as the foundation of Davids life-development, and a determination of conduct solely by the carefully sought, distinctly apprehended and clearly recognized divine decision, as it had before been obtained by him at many important and difficult moments (1Sa 19:19; 1Sa 22:5; 1Sa 23:2; 1Sa 23:4; 1Sa 23:10; 1Sa 23:16; 1Sa 30:8). That this was accomplished here also through the Urim and Thummim is not doubtful; for the high-priest with the ephod was with him, while nothing is said of a prophet in his retinue, apart from the fact that the expression he inquired of the Lord cannot be applied to a prophet; it cannot, therefore, be supposed that David received a declaration from a prophet.
2. Davids pathway from Ziklag to Hebron, till he gained the crown of Judah, and thence passed to that of Israel, is the way of the Lord. For 1) he asks concerning the will of the Lord, which way he shall go (2Sa 2:1), humbly subjecting his will to that of the Lord, in his heart relying firmly on the Lords decision, which could be only for his good, and seeking by repetition of his question to obtain a clear and secure knowledge of the way he is to go. 2) He goes the way appointed him by the Lord (2Sa 2:2-3) in unconditional obedience towards His command, in the faithful discharge of his duties towards all about him, who had hitherto shared all sufferings with him, and in joyous reliance on the further help of the Lord. 3) He finds in this way appointed by the Lord after the cross the crown, and mounts up from lowliness to glory (2Sa 2:4). 4) He pauses on this way, which has led him to royal honor, in order quietly to wait in patience till the Lord direct him to go forward to the final goal, the kingdom over all Israel, and in order to unfold the noble royal virtues in which he proves himself the Anointed of the Lord (2Sa 2:5-7). 5) He advances on the same way according to the Lords direction to ward off the attack of the adversary (2Sa 2:8-13), to bloody war, into which he is drawn against his will (2Sa 2:14-23), to splendid victory over his opponents (2Sa 2:25-32), and to the attainment of increasing power and glory in respect to the sinking house of Saul.
3. Grace () and Truth () are the fundamental attributes of God, which set forth His relation to the people of Israel as the covenant-people; grace is the special exhibition of His love, by which Hebrews 1) chooses the people, 2) establishes the covenant with them, and 3) in this covenant-relation imparts favor and salvation; truth is Gods love unchangeable and continuing over against the peoples sin, love that 1) does not suffer the choice of free grace to fall, 2) maintains the covenant, and 3) fulfils uncurtailed the promises that correspond to the covenant-relation. Comp. Exo 34:6; Psa 25:10.
4. Every human work well-pleasing to God, wrought out of genuine love and truth, is a reflection of Gods love and truth, of which the heart has had experience, an offering brought to the Lord, the impulsion to which has come from this inwardly experienced love and truth, an object of Gods love and truth which repays with blessing and salvation, and of mens honoring recognition in respect to its ethical value.
5. Invocation of the Lords blessing (2Sa 2:5) presupposes the presence of the conditions under which alone this blessing can subsist.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
2Sa 2:1 sq. Faiths inquiry of the Lord. 1) Whereon it is founded; a) Upon an entire looking away from human prudence and wisdom; b) Upon unconditional trust in the divine love and faithfulness, and c) Upon previous experiences of His gracious help. 2) What sort of answer it finds; a) A certain decision, which puts an end to all doubt; b) A definite direction which way to go; c) A safe security that this way leads to the goal.
2Sa 2:1-4 a. From Ziklag to Hebronthe way of humility from the depths to the heights. 1) After humble subjection to sore trials, which the Lord had imposed, (after this, 2Sa 2:1). 2) After humble inquiry of the Lords will as to the way he must further go. 3) In humble submission to be directed and guided by the Lord in the way appointed for him. 4) In humble and patient expectation of the fulfilment of His promises.
The way of faith through cross to crown. 1) How it is surely found (2Sa 2:11), a) inquired for of the Lord; b) pointed out by the Lord. 2) How it is confidently pursued, a) under the guidance of the Lords hand; b) in communion with those united in the Lord (2Sa 2:2-3). 3) How it is joyfully completed, a) at the goal set up by the Lord; b) under the direction of faithful human love, the instrument of the Lords love (2Sa 2:4).
2Sa 2:4-7. Faithful love to our neighbor in time of need. 1) How it is in a noble and unselfish manner shown and attested amid the misfortune of our neighbor (2Sa 2:4 b). 2) How it is blessed by God in the manifestation of His grace and the attestation of His faithfulness (2Sa 2:5-6). 3) How it is honored by men through thankful recognition and righteous requital (2Sa 2:6). 4) How it is exalted in itself to a stout heart and to great joy (2Sa 2:7).
[2Sa 2:6. And now the Lord do kindness (grace) and truth unto you. See points for the homiletical discussion of this text in Hist. and Theol. No. 3.
2Sa 2:1-13. See outline of a sermon in Hist. and Theol. No. 2.Tr.]
2Sa 2:8-32. Gods judgment in war: I. How the divine decision falls: 1) Against him who has begun the war unrighteously, a) to fight out a pretended right; b) to extend an assumed power and dominion; c) in conscious resistance to Gods right and command. 2) For him who has been innocently drawn into it, a) to repel injustice; b) to defend His righteous cause; c) to uphold Gods command and righteousness. II. How men should submit to this divine decision: 1) The conquered have to bow in humility under Gods hand, and to abandon the war, a) in order to avoid further bloodshed; b) to ward off further mischief; c) to preserve the people from spiritually and morally running wild. 2) The conquerors must, a) in the course of victory and honor stop immediately with self-denial when the Lord commands it; b) give the conquered the hand of peace when they ask a cessation of hostilities on the ground of the divine decision which has been reached, and c) testify to the readiness for peace which they have felt, and against the unrighteousness which has constrained them to the conflict.
2Sa 3:1-6. By justice divine are decided All conflicts that men have divided. 1) What comes from God, alone can last; 2) What stands against God, soon is past.24
2Sa 2:1. Cramer: When the righteous are oppressed and have stood the test, God leads them by a right way that they may go to a city of habitation, Psa 107:7; so let us wait patiently for the right time, Heb 2:3; Psa 55:22. Osiander: A Christian should never undertake anything without good forethought and effort to learn Gods will from His word, and should often seek to strengthen his faith therefrom, Psa 119:105.Berl. B.: David rests not in all the illuminations and promises he has before received, but only in the will of God, and looks to the divine nod and glance, the truest and only guide for tranquilly trusting souls. Thereby the soul remains free in all things from selfishness and vain joy. [Henry: He doubted not of success, yet he uses proper means, both divine and human. Assurance of hope in Gods promise will be so far from slackening, that it will quicken pious endeavors.Tr.].
2Sa 2:3. Cramer: Faithful friends, proven in time of need, are a great treasure. Starke: When God gives us prosperity, we should cause this also to be shared by those who have shared with us in distress. [Hall: Thus doth our heavenly leader, whom David prefigured, take us to reign with Him who have suffered with Him.Tr.].
2Sa 2:4. Osiander: The hearts of subjects are in Gods hand, and God can incline them so that they must love their rulers. What God has promised is sure to come at last. After enduring sufferings thou shalt receive the crown of life, 2Ti 4:8.S. Schmid: Praiseworthy deeds always get their praise and their reward even among men, although they are not performed to that end, but from love to righteousness.
2Sa 2:6. Cramer: By gentleness and friendliness rulers may easily win the hearts of their subjects, and also quiet much contention, Jdg 8:2.
2Sa 2:7. J. Lange: Kings derive their kingly majesty immediately from God, but also mediately from their subjects.F. W. Krummacher: People gained here the conviction that this man, unmoved by the lower affections of revenge and malice, knew how to forgive and to forget, and that all the wrong and injustice he had experienced had not been able to darken for him in his predecessor the dignity and sacred-ness of an Anointed of the Lord. Besides, this conduct of Davids made on the people the decided impression that they might expect of him a humane rule, since he would reckon even the most trifling and insignificant praiseworthy thing that might happen anywhere in the land to be worthy of grateful recognition and consideration.
2Sa 2:8-9. Cramer: The whole life of pious men is and remains a continual school of the cross. In them holds good the saying: Must not man be always in strife on earth? Job 7:1. [So Luther. Similarly Conant: Has not man a term of warfare on the earth?Tr.].S. Schmid: Carnal prudence and pride is never willing to submit itself to Gods will, but will always oppose itself, Exo 5:2. = 2Sa 2:10. Schlier: He wore the crown that had been promised him, but the cross also did not yet cease for him. Still he must persevere and wait till the whole kingdom fell to him, still he must now also bear patiently whatever new burden was allotted to him.Berl B.: When he came into possesssion of his kingdom, even yet he remained quiet awhile, without considering how he might increase it, because he cast all this care upon Divine Providence. He thus shames the behaviour of those spiritual men, who when they recognize that God wishes to do something through them, are constantly making attempts and all sorts of beginnings to see whether they may perhaps achieve the work, and are never willing in patience and self-forgetfulness to wait on God, until God Himself performs His will. The hour must come itself, and so it must simply be waited for.
2Sa 2:12. Starke: A Christian must not let his courage sink because when he has gained a victory in a good cause, unexpectedly new obstacles and hindrances are found.Schlier: When a king takes the sword in an ambitious spirit, and wishes only to subjugate other peoples in order to extend his dominion, that is an unrighteous war, and woe to all the princes who in base ambition set at stake the blood of their people!A bad prince, who wilfully conjures up war upon his land. But also shame upon the prince who would not help his people when wrong is done them. A righteous war is a royal duty, from which no prince can venture to withdraw, even if it were fraternal war! It may have come hard enough to David to take up arms against his brothers, and yet he could not do otherwise. God the Lord had Himself given the arms into his hand.
2Sa 2:13-32. Cramer: Bloodthirsty warriors count mens blood as water, and have their pastime in it, but to God that is an abomination. Schlier: In such times there is only one consolation, namely, that the Lord sits as ruler, and that we should accept the war, if there is one, from the hand of the supreme Lord of war, that we should not regard what princes and kings of the earth do and design, but see in war the chastening rod of divine wrath, which visits the sins of the peoples even through the horrors of war.
2Sa 2:18-19. Cramer: Let no one rely on the powers of his body, for the race is not to the swift, Ecc 9:11
2Sa 2:23. Lange: Bravery is certainly very far different from foolhardy temerity. [Hall: Many a one miscarries in the rash prosecution of a good quarrel, when the abettors of the worst part go away with victory. Heat of zeal, sometimes in the indiscreet pursuit of a just adversary, proves mortal to the agent, prejudicial to the service. Henry: See here (1) How often death comes upon us by ways that we least suspect. Who would fear the hand of a flying enemy, or the butt end of a spear? (2) How we are often betrayed by the accomplishments we are proud of. Asahels swiftness, which he presumed so much upon, did him no kindness, but forwarded his fate.Tr.]
2Sa 2:24 sq. Schlier: The bloodshed was at an end, the horrors of fraternal war were over, the victory had been won by David, who had begun the war in the name of the Lord, and now from the Lord had also received the victory. For of this we should be certain: victory comes from the Lord. As surely as the Lord our God is no dead but a living Godas surely as He sits in government and orders everything as the Almighty God, so surely must it also be true that victory comes from the Lord, Psa 20:8
2Sa 2:24-26. Cramer: A wretched wisdom when one grows prudent only with losses. Therefore in the beginning think of the end. [Henry: See here (1) How easy it is for men to use reason when it makes for them, who would not use it if it made against them ! (2) How the issue of things alters mens minds! The same things which looked pleasant in the morning, at night looked dismal.Tr.].
2Sa 2:27. It is an honor to a man to stay out of contention; but they who love it are altogether fools, Pro 20:3.
2Sa 2:28. Starke: Even he who has been injured by another should show himself ready to be reconciled to the other if he desires forgiveness, Mat 5:5
2Sa 2:30-31. Cramer: Prosperity should be used reverently and with moderation, lest we fly too high.God punishes in war the sins of both parties.2Sa 3:1 sq. Roos: What is not devised, done, collected and set up in Gods name, has no permanence. God in His holy wrath is the fire that consumes such a thing, however specious it seems; on the contrary, what He wills and approves, is through His good pleasure obtained, advanced and made strong.
[2Sa 2:11. David at Hebron: 1) His choosing the place by divine direction (2Sa 2:1). And we can see that it was a fit place. The city of Abraham, Caleb and the Levitesa city of refugethe principal town in Davids tribe, and somewhat remote from Sauls tribeand David had taken pains to conciliate its inhabitants (1Sa 30:31). Divine directions are seen to coincide with true human wisdom, wherever we sufficiently understand the facts. 2) His apprenticeship to monarchy. Through several previous years he had been in a course of providential preparation for reigning; and now he begins to reign on a small scale. He has occasion to learn a) from the apparent failure of wild schemes (2Sa 2:5 sqq.), b) from open hostility, long continued (2Sa 2:12 sqq.; 2Sa 3:1), c) from the base cruelty of his trusted commander (2Sa 3:27). Amid all these he grew in popularity and strength (2Sa 3:1; 2Sa 3:36). The lessons e learned were especially, to be prudent (2Sa 2:5 sqq.; 2Sa 3:28), and to be patient (2Sa 2:11; 2Sa 3:1). 3) His founding a family, (2Sa 3:2-5). a) To have sons born to him is the joy of any man, especially of a monarch, b) But here polygamy was already paving the way to sore family dissension. c) And three of these sons born at Hebron, Amnon, Absalom, Adonijah, were destined to bring wretchedness and shame on their father and his house, and ruin on themselves. O the mingled hopes and fears with which a father must look on his little children!Tr.]
[A Sunday school address. 2Sa 2:18-23. The rash young prince. 1) He had a shining gift, 2Sa 2:18. (In ancient warfare, more were often slain in the pursuit than the battle; and so swiftness of foot was important to a warrior). 2) He was ambitiouspursuing the distinguished general of the enemy. 3) He had decision and perseveranceturning not to the right or left, and yielding to persuasion. 4) He fancied himself superior to an old mana common and natural, but grave fault in the young. (The old man at length killed him with ease, in mere self-defense). 5) He was slain as the penalty of self-confidence and rashnessbesetting sins of many gifted youth.Tr.]
Footnotes:
[22] with Vb. or Adj. (1Sa 2:26) indicating progressive increase. Ges. 131, 3, Rem. 3.
[23] is not= strong (Bttcher on Exo 19:19), but Partcp. or Verbal Adj.=strengthening (neuter), as (1Sa 2:26).
[24][This rhyming in propositions and division is a somewhat common practice in Germany.Tr.]
[1][2Sa 2:2. On the fem. form () here given in some MSS. see notes on 1Sa 27:3; 1Sa 30:5.Tr.]
[2][2Sa 2:3. Sept. reads the men, which better accords with Greek and Eng. idiom (Erdmann so has it in the Exposition), but hardly calls for a change in the Heb. text. Further on Sept. omits the verb did bring up, thus attaching the noun men to the verb of the preceding verse. The Syr. also has difficulty with this sentence, making the Hiphil into Qal, and inserting and David at the beginning of the verse, so as to read: and David and his-men were with him; and David went up and the men of his house, and they abode in Hebron. These readings seem to substantiate the Heb. text, only they had instead of , which the Sept. then omitted as superfluous. The Heb. Hiphil is preferable because it introduces a new statement, while the Syr. merely repeats.Tr.
[3][2Sa 2:4. So Erdmann, Philippson, Maurer; but Wellhausen declares it to be an impossible construction in prose. If not impossible, it is unusual and hard, and the simple rendering of the Syr. and Vulg.: the men of Jabesh-Gilead buried Saul, commends itself, except that, as this is probably the answer to a question: who buried Saul? we should expect the subject the men of Jabesh-Gilead to be put as the principal and essential part of the answer. The true form of the sentence is not apparent.Tr.]
[4][2Sa 2:6. The Fut. rendering is found in Sept., Sym., Vulg., and the idea requite in the two last; but the context (with the present text) points to the Pres., and it is better to render the Heb. verb () uniformly. Against Thenius Wellhausen insists that the cannot be rendered as Pres. (this would require ), and, since the Fut. does not accord with the , he would for the latter substitute , and render: I will do you good because (= in place that) ye have done, etc. (so the Vulg.), which certainly gives a more appropriate sense, though the rendering of Thenius (and Erdmann) is not impossible.Tr.]
[5][2Sa 2:9. The literal rendering of the Prep. () is here (with Erdmann) in these three cases retained, in contrast with the following , over, because an error of text does not here seem probable, in spite of the fact that ancient and modern translators (without exception, as far as I know) neglect the difference. Erdmann attempts in the Exposition to point out the difference of meaning between the two Prepositions in the connection.Instead of Ashurites many read Geshurites.The last word of the verse presents an example of a 3 pers. masc. suffix () usually considered to be archaic for ; the fem. pointing () would be possible, if Israel were considered in its national unity, or as a land.Tr.]
[6][2Sa 2:10. only, however, but the rendering only would here be ambiguous.Tr.]
[7][2Sa 2:10. 2Sa 2:10-11 are variously handled. Erdmann inclines to follow Thenius in regarding 10 b and 11 as parenthesis, Wellhausen regards 10 a and 11 as interpolations, connecting 10 b with ver.12. The difficulties in the figures do not prove ungenuineness of the text, since these may be corrupted by copyists, and the summary chronological statements are natural and in accordance with the manner of our Book. The better view is that the Redactor has inserted as summary statement in his narrative either 2Sa 2:10-11, or 10 a, 11. The objection to Thenius view (which connects 10 a with 12) is that 10 a is clearly the ordinary formula for the length of a kings reign and his age at his accession, and therefore an independent sentence. See the remarks on 1Sa 13:1.Tr.]
[8][2Sa 2:13. The use of the Acc. suffix and also the adv. is remarkable, since either (as expressing the idea of concurrence) would seem to exclude the other. We should expect either simply: they met them at the pool, or they met at the pool together. The present text may have arisen from the combination of the two constructions.Tr.]
[9][2Sa 2:15. The is either appositional, = namely, or it indicates that Ishbosheth had other soldiers besides Benjaminites.Tr.]
[10][Ver 16. Some insert (after Sept.) the word hand () after the first verb and read: they laid every man his hand on the head of his fellow, and his sword into his fellow’s side, on which see Erdmann. Bttcher adopts this reading, only he puts the Aramaic form (which he supposes to be popular) instead of the Heb. , in order to account for its falling out after . This supposition of an Aramaic reading is somewhat forced, and the Heb. is intelligible without the insertion of the word hand, which is found in no other ancient version.Tr.]
[11][2Sa 2:16. This word of doubtful meaning is properly left untranslated in Eng. A. V. The various proposed renderings are discussed by Erdmann.Tr.]
[12][2Sa 2:23. . Not one of the ancient VSS. renders this word fifth rib, Sept. loins (), Syr. breast, Chald. side of the loins. Vulg inguen; among moderns only Cahen maintains it, after Rashi and the Talmud (Sanhedrin 49, a). Gesenius and Frst connect the word with a root (found in Arabic), meaning to be fat or strong.Tr.]
[13][2Sa 2:24. To the reading of the verse Wellhausen objects: 1) that a way is stated to be the goal of the pursuit; 2) that the pursuit, starting from Gibeon (2Sa 2:16), nevertheless ends on the way to Gibeon: 3) that the name Giah is unknown and suspicious. He therefore substitutes , ravine, for , supposing that the scribe designed to locate the hill Ammah appropriately by a valley; but as the combination valley of the way thus obtained gives no sense, he finally throws out the and reads: opposite the way of the wilderness (remarking very justly that roads in Palestine, being unchangeable, answered as well as rivers for topographical definition). Here this generally acute critic has made difficulties for himself. For 1) the pursuit ends not on a road, but at a hill on a certain road; 2) the pursuit is not said not to have reached Gibeon, but to have reached a point on the road to the wilderness of Gibeon, which may have been of considerable extent; 3) as to Giah, many otherwise unknown names occur once in the Old Testament. It is not necessary to suppose that the hill of 2Sa 2:25 is identical with Ammah in 2Sa 2:24, or to change the into or something else.Tr.]
[14][2Sa 2:27. Literally: at that time from the morning. The second , rendered in Eng. A. V. surely, is better taken as repetition of the first, the Conj. introducing the clause, = that, and usually omitted in English.Tr.]
[15][2Sa 2:31. The text here is corrupt; but it is not easy to restore it. The Chald. follows the Heb. word by word; the Vulg. inserts the Rel. Pron.: three hundred and sixty who also died; the Syr. omits the verb died in 2Sa 2:31, and inserts it (Sing.) at the end of 2Sa 2:30. Literally the Heb. reads: smote of Benjamin, etc., three hundred and sixty men, they died. Not only is the syntax impossible, but also the addition of the statement that the smitten men died is unusual, being involved in the word smite (according to the Heb. usage). The simplest course would be to omit the word died, and read smote. three hundred and sixty men. Perhaps a marginal explanation has here gotten into the text (Wellh.).Tr.]
[16][2Sa 2:32. Some MSS. insert before .Tr.]
[17][2 Sam3:2. Kethib is Pual, Qeri Niphal. For an example of the latter see 2Sa 14:27. The text form may be Perf. Pual, ; but some prefer to regard it as Impf., for as the Pual Partcp. occurs without the preformative .Tr.]
[18][On Hebron (twenty miles south of Jerusalem) see the books of travel and Bible-dictionaries. Stanley has given in his History of the Jewish Church, Vol. I., App. II., an interesting account of the visit of the Prince of Wales thither in 1862. Bib. Com. calls attention to the unusual phrase cities of Hebron, as if Hebron were the name of a district, the common designation of dependent towns being villages or daughters (Jos 15:36; Num 21:25). No doubt the name of the city Hebron attached itself to the surrounding district.Tr.]
[19]Sept. has (= quod) after , and the latter is omitted by Vulg.; Thenius hence supposes that got into the text by mistake (through careless looking) for , and that the latter, being added by way of supplement in the margin, thence got into the wrong place in the text. [See Text, and Gram.Tr.]
[20] , not exuvi, spoil [so margin of Eng. A. V. and Bib.-Com.Tr.], from , to strip off, since then the suffix would be meaningless, but Armor from , to gird (from , loins), Niph.: to arm one’s self for battle, Num 32:21; Num 32:27; Num 32:29 sq.; Jos 6:7 sq.; Isa 15:4; comp. with Jer 48:41.Sept.: .
[21][On the Arabah (which is in general the deep gorge of the Jordan, extending from the sea of Kinnereth (Gennesaret) to the Gulf of Akabah), see Smiths Bible Dict. s.v. and Stanleys Sinai and Palestine, 481.Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
This chapter contains the relation of David’s accession to the throne of Hebron, A party however is formed by Abner the Captain of Saul’s host, in favour of Ish-bosheth, Saul’s son; which became the source of a long contention between the house of David and the house of Saul. David reigns in Hebron, and Ish-bosheth in Mahanaim.
2Sa 2:1
(1) And it came to pass after this, that David enquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah? And the LORD said unto him, Go up. And David said, Whither shall I go up? And he said, Unto Hebron.
If the Reader will again, in this chapter, consult 1Ch 12:23 to the end, he will there discover the means, under God, by which David’s kingdom became established. David consulted God after the death of Saul, what steps he should take, as this verse relates. Oh! how sweet and profitable it is to do so in everything. Reader! do turn to those two precious verses, and endeavor to keep them in your memory, for the mind to turn upon all occasions of your life: I mean, Isa 42:16 and Pro 3:6 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2Sa 2
1. And it came to pass after this, that David enquired of the Lord [through the high priest Abiathar], saying, Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah? And the Lord said unto him, Go up. And David said, Whither shall I go up? And he said, Unto Hebron [long the residence of Abraham].
2. So David went up thither, and his two wives also, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail Nabal’s wife the Carmelite.
3. And his [six hundred] men that were with him did David bring up, every man with his household: and they dwelt in the cities of Hebron.
4. And the men of Judah came, and there they [publicly] anointed David king over the house of Judah. And they told David, saying, That the men of Jabesh-gilead were they that buried Saul. [Jabesh-gilead had been destroyed in the civil war against the tribe of Benjamin.]
5. And David sent messengers unto the men of Jabesh-gilead, and said unto them, Blessed be ye of the Lord, that ye have shewed this kindness unto your lord, even unto Saul, and have buried him.
6. And now the Lord shew kindness and truth unto you: and I also will requite you this kindness [ lit. I also will shew you this good], because ye have done this thing.
7. Therefore now let your hands be strengthened, and be ye valiant: for your master Saul is dead, and also the house of Judah have anointed me king over them.
8. But Abner [the cousin-german of Saul] the son of Ner, captain of Saul’s host, took Ish-bosheth the son of Saul, and brought him over to Mahanaim [famous in the history of Jacob: on the east of the Jordan, and not far from the brook Jabbok];
9. And made him king over Gilead, and over the Ashurites, and over Jezreel, and over Ephraim, and over Benjamin, and over all Israel.
10. Ish-bosheth Saul’s son was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and reigned two years. But the house of Judah followed David.
11. And the time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months.
12. And Abner the son of Ner, and the servants of Ish-bosheth the son of Saul, went out from Mahanaim to Gibeon [five and a half miles north-west of Jerusalem].
13. And Joab the son of Zeruiah [Zeruiah was David’s sister], and the servants of David, went out, and met together by the pool of Gibeon [the ruins of this tank or reservoir yet remain, about 120 feet long and 100 broad]: and they sat down, the one on the one side of the pool, and the other on the other side of the pool.
14. And Abner said to Joab, Let the young men now arise, and play before us. And Joab said, Let them arise.
15. Then there arose and went over by number twelve of Benjamin, which pertained to Ish-bosheth the son of Saul, and twelve of the servants of David.
16. And they caught every one his fellow by the head, and thrust his sword in his fellow’s side; so they fell down together: wherefore that place was called Helkath-hazzurim [the field of sharp edges], which is in Gibeon.
17. And there was a very sore battle that day [nineteen slain on David’s side, and 360 on the side of Israel]; and Abner was beaten, and the men of Israel, before the servants of David.
18. And there were three sons of Zeruiah there, Joab, and Abishai, and Asahel: and Asahel was as light of foot as a wild roe.
19. And Asahel pursued after Abner; and in going he turned not to the right hand nor to the left from following Abner.
20. Then Abner looked behind him, and said, Art thou Asahel? And he answered, I am.
21. And Abner said to him, Turn thee aside to thy right hand or to thy left, and lay thee hold on one of the young men, and take thee his armour. But Asahel would not turn aside from following of him.
22. And Abner said again to Asahel, Turn thee aside from following me: wherefore should I smite thee to the ground? how then should I hold up my face to Joab thy brother?
23. Howbeit he refused to turn aside: wherefore Abner with the hinder end of the spear smote him under the fifth rib [abdomen], that the spear came out behind him; and he fell down there, and died in the same place: and it came to pass, that as many as came to the place where Asahel fell down and died stood still.
24. Joab also and Abishai pursued after Abner: and the sun went down when they were come to the hill of Ammah, that lieth before Giah by the way of the wilderness of Gibeon.
25. And the children of Benjamin gathered themselves together after Abner, and became one troop, and stood on the top of an hill.
26. Then Abner called to Joab, and said, Shall the sword devour for ever? knowest thou not that it will be bitterness in the latter end? how long shall it be then, ere thou bid the people return from following their brethren?
27. And Joab said, As God liveth, unless thou hadst spoken, surely then in the morning the people had gone up every one from following his brother.
28. So Joab blew a trumpet, and all the people stood still, and pursued after Israel no more, neither fought they any more [in that campaign].
29. And Abner and his men walked all that night through the plain, and passed over Jordan, and went through all Bithron, and they came to Mahanaim.
30. And Joab returned [to Gibeon, where he rallied his men, and buried the dead] from following Abner: and when he had gathered all the people together, there lacked of David’s servants nineteen men and Asahel.
31. But the servants of David had smitten of Benjamin, and of Abner’s men so that three hundred and threescore men died.
32. And they took up Asahel [nearly related to David], and buried him in the sepulchre of his father, which was in Bethlehem. And Joab and his men went all night, and they came to Hebron at break of day [the distance from Bethlehem to Hebron was about thirteen miles].
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XVI
DAVID, KING OF JUDAH AT HEBRON, AND THE WAR WITH THE HOUSE OF SAUL
2 Samuel 1:1-4:13; 1Ch 3:1-4
The state of the nation just after the battle of Gilboa was this:
1. The Philistines held all central Palestine, the remnants of Saul’s family and army, together with the people of that section, having fled across the Jordan, leaving all their possessions to the enemy.
2. David had gained a sweeping victory in the South country over the Amalekites and their allies, and had distributed the spoils among the near-by cities of Judah, but as Ziklag was destroyed he had no home.
In these conditions David displayed both piety and wisdom. He submitted the whole matter of his duty to Jehovah’s direction, and accordingly went with all his family and forces and possessions and settled at Hebron, there to await further indications of the divine will as they might be expressed to him by communication through prophet, priest, or providential leadings. He knew on many assurances that he was anointed to be king over Israel, but would not complicate a distressful situation by hasty assertion of his claim. He well knew that the charter of the kingdom required the people’s voluntary ratification of the divine choice, and took no steps to coerce their acquiescence.
Hebron was specially valuable as his home and headquarters pending the ratification by the people. It was the sacred city of Judah, hallowed by many historic memories from Abraham’s day to his own time. These memories clustered around him as a shelter and comfort, and a reminder of all the precious promises given to the fathers. Hebron was their home when living and burial place when dead. The aegis of a long line of illustrious sires was over him there as the heir of all legacies. It was also the most notable of the six cities of refuge. Whoever assaulted him, resting there by divine direction, must fight all the sacred memories of the past and all the glorious promises of the future. Jehovah, prophet, priest, and Levite were with him there. Moreover, this old city one of the oldest in the world was defensible against attack, and strategical for either observation or aggression.
The first expression of popular approval was when all Judah gathered there and made him king of the royal tribe concerning which a dying ancestor had prophesied: “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, till Shiloh come; and unto him shall be the obedience of the nations.” This act alone by this one tribe was worth more to David than recognition by all the other tribes.
The sending of an embassy by David to the men of Jabeshgilead, carrying his benediction for their loyalty to Saul in rescuing and burying with due honor his body and the bodies of his sons gibbetted in public shame on the walls of Besshan, together with his promise to requite what they had done, bears every stamp of tender sincerity and not one mark of a mere politician. What he did is in entire accord with all his past and future acts toward the house of Saul. He himself, under the greatest provocation, had never struck back at Saul, twice sparing his life, never conspiring against him, not only in every way honoring him as God’s anointed, but instantly inflicting the death penalty on every man who sought to gain his favor by indignity offered to Saul or any of his family.
Considering this past and future conduct toward the house of Saul, the evident tenderness of his elegy over Saul and Jonathan, we may not construe as the adroit stroke of a politician the last clause of his message, to wit.: “Now, therefore, let your hands be strong, and be ye valiant; for Saul your lord is dead, and also the house of Judah have anointed me king over them.” This is an exceedingly modest intimation that the way is now open for them without any disloyalty to the fallen house, to turn their allegiance to God’s choice of Saul’s successor. But this generous proposition of David was defeated, and a long and bloody civil war was brought on by the ambition of one man, Abner) the uncle of Saul, who, for mere selfish ends set up Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, as king. Here we need to explain the parenthetical clause of 2Sa 2:10 in connection with 2Sa 3:1 . This parenthetical clause reads: “Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and he reigned two years.” The other verse reads: “Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David.”
Attention has been called more than once to the uncertainty in Old Testament text, in numbers, because its numerals are expressed in letters, and that mistakes of transcription easily occur. Now if the two years in this clause expresses the true text, and not seven years and a half, then the meaning must be this that Abner set up Ishbosheth just as soon as possible after the battle of Gilboa, but it took him more than five years to bring all of the tribes except Judah into acceptance of Ishbosheth as king, and two years describes the last two of the seven and a half. If that be the meaning, then the history does not give the details of Abner’s five and a half years’ struggle to bring about Ishbosheth’s rule over all Israel but Judah, and these details must have shown, if we had any, that he had to drive out the Philistines that held the territory, and hence it was only in the latter part of Ishbosheth’s reign, counting from the time he was set up, to the approach to the west side of the Jordan which is described in this chapter.
It is evident from all the context that Abner knew that David was God’s choice, for he says so later on and makes a point on it. It is also evident that he regards Ishbosheth as assumption of the sovereignty. His taking to himself of Saul’s harem, against which Ishbosheth protested, did mean Just what Ishbosheth said it meant that it was equal to claiming the kingdom for himself. As soon, therefore, as he finds out that his motive is thoroughly understood, then as an evidence that good motives have not actuated him, he announces to Ishbosheth that he is going to carry all the people back to David, God’s choice.
We recall from English history that the Duke of Warwick is called “The King Maker;” that he made Edward IV king, and when Edward IV insulted him then he took sides with Henry VI and made him king. Just exactly in this way Abner acts in this history. His motives, therefore, are merely the motives of a man who knows that his course is opposed to God and to the best interests of the people, but is determined to further his own selfish ambitions.
This war of seven and a half years was thus characterized: “And David waxed stronger and stronger, but the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker.” But when, after five and a half years of confirming the authority of Ishbosheth, Abner felt himself strong enough, he left the east side of the Jordan and carried his army over near Gibeah, Saul’s old home, with the evident purpose of making Ishbosheth king over the whole nation. David did not make the aggression, but he resisted aggression, so he sends out his army under Joab and they stand opposed to each other near a pool of water at Gibeah. A hostile army being brought that near Hebron, David has to meet it. The war then was evidently forced by the house of Saul.
The events, in order, leading up to David’s being made king over all Israel are as follows: The first event is Joab’s great victory over Abner at Gibeah. Abner proposed that a dozen champions from each side fight a duel and let that settle the whole question. When these twenty-four men met they met with such fury that at the first stroke every man on either side killed his opponent and was killed by his opponent, so that the duel was not decisive, but it brought on the fight. Joab then gains an easy victory. One of Joab’s brothers, Asahel, swift of foot, follows Abner, pursues him, and your history tells you that Abner killed Asahel by thrusting him through with the butt end of his spear, striking backward. I suppose the end of the spear was sharp, as he didn’t hit him with the point, but with the sharpened butt of it. That stopped the battle, but no injury to Joab ever stopped him until he wreaked his vengeance. So here it ended by killing Abner for the death of Asahel, as we will see a little later.
The next event, in order, is the quarrel between Abner and Ishbosheth on account of Ishbosheth’s protest against the infamous deed of Abner, and the next is Abner’s deserting to David, persuading the tribes that Ishbosheth is just a figurehead and his cause getting weaker all the time, and David is getting stronger, and the right thing to do was for all to come in and recognize the king that God had chosen. Abner came to David making that proposition. David told him that the first thing to be done was that he should restore Michal, his wife, who had been given to another man. I do not know that any particular love prompted David. I don’t see why, with the number of wives he already had, he had any love to pour out on her, but if he had any political stroke in view it was that if the daughter of Saul was brought back to him as his wife, then it would make it easier for the followers of Saul to come to this united family, representing both sides, as it was proposed by Catherine de Medici to unite the Huguenots and the Romanists by marriage between Henry of Navarre on the Huguenot side to Margaret, the sister of King Charles of France, on the other side.
The next event is the murder of Abner by Joab a cold blooded murder. The plan of it was agreed on between himself and his brother Abishai that they would send for Abner, who had left after his interview with David, and bring him back in David’s name, and then Joab proposed to step aside and inquire about his health, and while he is inquiring about his health he stabbed him under the fifth rib. David laments the death of Abner, but does not punish Joab. On the contrary, he says, “These sons of Zeruiah are too hard for me.” His sister, Zeruiah, had three sons Joab, Abishai, and Asahel. He will have a good deal more trouble with that family yet. They will be harder than they were in this case.
The next step was, seeing that Ishbosheth now has no standing; Abner dead, no general, the people all agreeing to go back to David, two ruffians who wanted to make capital with David assassinated Ishbosheth and carried the news of their assassination to David, expecting to be rewarded. He rewarded them very promptly by executing them. There are the events in order that led up to the union of the nation under David.
The children born to David in Hebron are mentioned in the record: Ammon, or Amnon, the son of Abinoam. We will find out about him later. It would have been better if he had never been born. The next one is Chileab, or Daniel, as he is called in Chronicles, a son of Abigail. We do not know whether he turned out well or ill, as he drops out of the history. The next one is Absalom, the son of Maacah, the daughter of Tairnai, the king of Geshur. We will certainly hear of him later. It would have been better if he had never been born. The others make no mark in the history at all. O this polygamy! This polygamy! The jealousies of polygamy! It is an awful thing. Now let us look at the character of Abner, Ishbosheth, and Joab. Abner was a man of considerable talent and influence, but unscrupulously ambitious. Ishbosheth had just about as much backbone as a jellyfish. Joab was a great general a very stern, selfish warrior. Himself as unscrupulous as Abner, though not as disloyal. But we are a long way from being done with Joab. A great text for a sermon in this section is: “These sons of Zeruiah are too hard for me;” that is, a man should beware, in accomplishing his purposes, of the character of the instruments that he associates with him. If he calls in Turks, Tartars, and Huns to be his allies, then after a while he will have to settle with his allies, and he may find that his allies are too strong for him. A proverb advises us to keep no company with a violent man. We are always in danger if a violent, unscrupulous man is our associate. Like poor dog, Tray, we may get a beating for being in their company.
We have Joab’s reply to Abner in 2Sa 2:27 : “Then Abner called to Joab and said, Shall the sword devour forever? Knowest thou not that it will be bitterness in the latter end? How long shall it be then, ere thou bid the people return from following their brethren?” Joab was pursuing them sorely. “And Joab said, Ag God liveth, if thou hadst not spoken, surely then in the morning the people had gone away, nor followed every one his brother.” What is the sense of that last verse? Abner speaks and wants to know why they are pursuing him, and Joab says, “If thou hadst not spoken then every man would not be pursuing his brother.” I will leave that to the reader and the commentaries as to just what Joab meant.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the state of the nation just after the battle of Gilboa?
2. In these conditions how did David display both piety and wisdom?
3. What was the value of Hebron as his home and headquarters pending the ratification by the people?
4. What was the first expression of popular approval?
5. Was was David’s embassy to the men of Jabeshgilead the sincere act of a statesman, or an adroit stroke of a politician?
6. What defeated this generous proposition of David and brought on a long and bloody civil war?
7. Explain the parenthetical clause of 2Sa 2:10 in connection with 2Sa 3:1 .
8. Judging from his conduct throughout, what motives must have inspired Abner?
9. What characterizes this war of seven and one-half years?
10. Show how aggression came from Abner.
11. State, in order, the events leading up to David’s being made king over all Israel.
12. What children were born to David in Hebron, and what may we say about them?
13. What was the character of Abner, Ishbosheth, and Joab?
14. What is a great text for a sermon in this section?
15. What is the sense of Joab’s reply to Abner. 2Sa 2:27 ?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
2Sa 2:1 And it came to pass after this, that David enquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah? And the LORD said unto him, Go up. And David said, Whither shall I go up? And he said, Unto Hebron.
Ver. 1. And it came to pass after this. ] And after that many worthies out of several tribes had resorted unto him at Ziklag, so that he had a very great host, like the host of God. 1Ch 12:1-22 Job 25:3
Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah?
And he said, Unto Hebron.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2 Samuel
THE BRIGHT DAWN OF A REIGN
2Sa 2:1 – 2Sa 2:11
The last stage of David’s wanderings had brought him to Ziklag, a Philistine city. There he had been for over a year, during which he had won the regard of Achish, the Philistine king of Gath. He had, at Achish’s request, accompanied him with his contingent, in the invasion of Israel, which crushed Saul’s house at Gilboa; but jealousy on the part of the other Philistine leaders had obliged his patron to send him back to Ziklag. He found it a heap of ashes. An Amalekite raid had carried off all the women and children, and his soldiers were on the point of mutiny. His fortunes seemed desperate, but his courage and faith were high, and he paused not a moment for useless sorrow, but swept after the robbers, swooped down on them like a bolt out of the blue, and scattered them, recovering the captives and spoil. He went back to the ruins which had been Ziklag, and three days after heard of Saul’s death.
The lowest point of his fortunes suddenly turned into the highest, for now the path to the throne was open. But the tidings did not move him to joy. His first thought was not for himself, but for Saul and Jonathan, whose old love to him shone out again, glorified by their deaths. Swift vengeance from his hand struck Saul’s slayer; the lovely elegy on the great king and his son eased his heart. Then he turned to front his new circumstances, and this passage shows how a God-fearing man will meet the summons to dignity which is duty. It sets forth David’s conduct in three aspects-his assumption of his kingdom, his loving regard for Saul’s memory, and his demeanour in the face of rebellion.
I. David was now about thirty years old, and had had his character tested and matured by his hard experiences. He ‘learned in suffering what he taught in song.’ Exile, poverty, and danger are harsh but effectual teachers, if accepted by a devout spirit, and fronted with brave effort. The fugitive’s cave was a good preparation for the king’s palace. The throne to which he was called was no soft seat for repose. The Philistine invasion had torn away all the northern territory. He took the helm in a tempest. What was he to do? Ziklag was untenable; where was he to take his men? He could not stop in the Philistine territory, and he saw no way clear.
God’s servants generally find that their promotion means harder duties and multiplied perplexities. ‘Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.’ David did what we shall do, if we are wise-he asked God to guide him. How that guidance was asked and given we are not here told; but the analogy of 1Sa 30:7 – 1Sa 30:8 , suggests that it was by the Urim and Thummim, interpreted by the high-priest. The form of inquiry seems to have been that a course of action, suggested by the inquirer, was decided for him by a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No.’ So that there was the exercise of common-sense and judgment in formulating the proposed course, as well as that of God’s direction in determining it.
That is how we still get divine direction. Bring your own wits to bear on your action, and then do not obstinately stick to what seems right to you, but ask God to negative it if it is wrong, and to confirm you in it if it is right. If we humbly ask Him, ‘Am I to go, or not to go?’ we shall not be left unanswered. We note the contrast between David’s submission to God’s guidance and Saul’s self-willed taking his own way, in spite of Samuel. He began right, and, in the main, he continued as he began. Self-will is sin and ruin. Submission is joy, and peace, and success. God’s kings are viceroys. They have to rule themselves and the world, but they have to be ruled by His will. If they faithfully continue as His servants, they are masters of all besides.
Hebron was a good capital for the new king, for it was a defensible position, in the centre of his own tribe, and sacred by association with the patriarchs. Established there, David was recognised as king by his fellow-tribesmen, and by them only. No doubt, tribal jealousy was partly the cause of this limited recognition, but probably the confusion incident to the Philistine victory contributed to it. The result was that, though David’s designation by Samuel to the kingship was universally known, and his candidature had been popular, he had seven years of precarious sway over this mere fraction of the nation. We read of no impatience on his part. He let events shape themselves, or, rather, he let God shape events.
Passiveness is not always indolence. There are two ways of compassing our desires. One is that which David himself tells us is the ‘young lions’ way, of struggling and fighting, and that often ends in ‘lacking and suffering hunger’; the other is that of waiting on the Lord, and that always ends in ‘not lacking any good.’ If we are sure that God has promised us anything, and if He does not seem to have yet opened the way to obtaining it, our ‘strength is to sit still.’ If He has given us Hebron, we can be patient till He please to give us Jerusalem.
II. Another side of David’s character comes beautifully out in his treatment of the men of Jabesh-gilead. That town owed much to Saul 1Sa 11:1 – 1Sa 11:15, and its gratitude lasted, and dared much for him. It was a brave dash that they made across Jordan to carry off Saul’s corpse from its ignominious exposure; for it both defied the Philistines, and might be construed as hostile to David. But his heart was too true to ancient friendship to do anything but glow with admiring sympathy at that exhibition of affectionate remembrance. Reconciling death had swept away all memories of Saul’s insane jealousy, and he owned a brother in every one who showed kindness to the unfortunate king.
If the Jabesh-Gileadites are a pattern of long-memoried gratitude, David’s commendation of them is a model of love which survives injuries, and of forgivingness which forgets them. It was as politic as it was generous. Nothing could have been better calculated to attach Saul’s most devoted partisans to him than showing that he honoured their faithful attachment to Saul, and nothing could have more clearly defined his own position during his wanderings as being no rebel. The dictates of true policy and those of devout generosity always coincide. It is ever a blunder to be unforgiving, and mercifulness is always expedient.
But David did not hide his claim to the allegiance of these true hearts. He called on them to transfer their loyalty to himself, and he asserted, not his anointing by Samuel, but his recognition by Judah, the premier tribe, as the motive. No doubt the divine appointment is implied, as it was generally known, but Judah’s action is put forward as showing the beginning of the realisation of the divine designation. The men of Jabesh needed to ‘be valiant’ if they were to acknowledge him; for it was a far cry to Hebron, and the forces of the rival son of Saul were overrunning the northern districts.
We have to take our sides in the age-long and worldwide warfare between God’s King and the pretenders to His throne, and it often wants much courage to do so when surrounded by antagonists. It seems a long way off to the true monarch, and Abner’s army is a very solid reality, and very near. But it is safest to take the side of the distant, rightful king.
III. David’s bearing in the face of opposition and rebellion comes out in 2Sa 2:8 – 2Sa 2:11 . Abner, Saul’s cousin, who had been in high position when the stripling from Bethlehem fought Goliath, was not capable of the self-effacement involved in acquiescing in David’s accession, though he knew that the Lord had ‘sworn to David.’ So he set up a ‘King Do-nothing’ in the person of a weak lad, the only survivor of Saul’s sons. A strange state of mind that, which struggles against a recognised divine appointment!
But is it only Abner who knew that he was trying to thwart God’s will? Thousands of us are doing the same, and the attempt answers as well as it did in his case.
The puppet king is named Ishbosheth in the lesson, but 1Ch 8:33 and 1Ch 9:39 show that his real name was Esh-baal. The former word means ‘The man of shame’; the latter, ‘The man of Baal.’ The existence of Baal as an element in names seems to indicate the incompleteness of the emancipation from idolatry in Saul’s time, and the change will then indicate the keener monotheistic conscience of later days. Another explanation is that Baal ‘ Lord’ was in these cases used as a name for Jehovah, and was ‘changed at a later period for the purpose of avoiding what was interpreted then as a compound of the name of the Phoenician deity Baal’ Driver, Notes on Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel.
Abner set up his tool in Mahanaim, sacred for its associations with Jacob, but, no doubt, recommended to him rather by its position on the east side of Jordan, safe from the attacks of the victorious Philistines. From that fastness he made raids to recover the territory which the victory at Gilboa had won for them. First Gilead, on the same side of the river as Mahanaim; then the territory of the ‘Ashurites’- probably a scribe’s error for ‘Asherites,’ the most northern tribe; and then, coming southward, the great plain, with its cities, Ephraim and Benjamin,-in fact, all Israel except Judah’s country was reconquered for Saul’s house.
The account of the distribution of territory between the two monarchies is broken by the parenthesis in 2Sa 2:10 , which, both by its awkward interposition in the middle of a sentence and by its difficult chronological statements, looks like a late addition.
For seven and a half years David reigned in Hebron, but was rather shut up there than ruling thence. The most noteworthy fact is that he, soldier as he was, took no steps to put down Abner’s rebellion. He defended himself when attacked, but that was all. The three figures of David, Ishbosheth, and Abner point lessons. Silent, still, trustful, and therefore patient, David shows us how faith in God can lead to possessing one’s soul in patience till ‘the vision’ comes. We may have to wait for it, but ‘it will surely come,’ and what is time enough for God should be time enough for us. Saul’s son was a poor, weak creature, who would never have thought of resisting David but for the stronger will behind him. To be weak is, in this world full of tempters, to drift into being wicked. We have to learn betimes to say ‘No,’ and to stick to it. Moral weakness attracts tempters as surely as a camel fallen by the caravan track draws vultures from every corner of the sky. The fierce soldier who fought for his own hand while professing to be moved by loyalty to the dead king, may stand as a type of the self-deception with which we gloss over our ugliest selfishness with fine names, and for an instance of the madness which leads men to set themselves against God’s plans, and therefore to be dashed in pieces, as some slim barrier reared across the track of a train would be. To ‘rush against the thick bosses of the Almighty’s buckler’ does no harm to the buckler, but kills the insane assailant.
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
enquired. Probably by Urim and Thummim, in the breastplate of Abiathar the High Priest, who was with David (1Sa 22:20).
the LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah. App-4.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 2
Now it came to pass after this, that David inquired of the LORD, and he said, Shall I go up to Judah ( 2Sa 2:1 )?
Now to me it is interesting as we observe David, he doesn’t take any actions without first of all seeking guidance from God. Now there’s a scripture that says, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not to your own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your path”( Pro 3:4 , Pro 3:5 ).
Now many times we complain that we don’t know what God wants. We are confused as to the leading of God within our lives. Oftentimes it is as James says, “You have not because you ask not.” The scripture tells us that if in all of our ways we acknowledge Him, He will direct our paths. You see our problem is that we’re prone to just go ahead and barge in, then later say, “Lord, what am I doing here? Why did You allow me get in this place?” Whereas, had I stopped beforehand and said, “Lord, shall I go in?” He would’ve said, “No stay out of there, there’s problems in there.” So it’s important that we acknowledge the Lord in everything, and if we do, then God will direct our paths. Here David is a classic example of seeking the guidance of the Lord in every move.
Now you remember he was living in the city of the Philistines. Actually, the king of Gath, Achish had given him this city of Ziklag because Saul had been chasing him all over, and he got tired of running from Saul, figured Saul was finally gonna catch up with him and kill him. So he fled over to the Philistines knowing that Saul wouldn’t pursue him there. Achish gave him this Philistine City of Ziklag.
So David now says, “Lord, shall I go to one of the cities of Judah?”
And the Lord answered David and said, Go up. And David said, Where shall I go Lord? And the Lord said, To Hebron. [So here is David inquiring of the Lord, seeking the guidance of God for each move that he makes.] So David went up there, and his two wives also, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail Nabal’s wife the Carmelite. And his men that were with him David brought up, every man with his household: and they dwelt in the cities of Hebron. And the men of Judah came, and they anointed David king over the house of Judah. And they told David, saying, That the men of Jabeshgilead were those that buried Saul ( 2Sa 2:1-4 ).
So they came, anointed David king and he was informed at that point of the men of Jabeshgilead who took Saul’s body and Jonathan’s body out of the temple at Bethshan and took them over to Jabeshgilead for a decent burial.
So David sent messengers unto the men of Jabeshgilead, and said to them, Blessed be ye of the LORD, that you have showed this kindness unto your lord, even unto Saul, and you have buried him. And now may the LORD shew kindness and truth unto you: and I also will requite you this kindness, because you have done this thing. [“I’ll remember this,” David said.] Therefore let your hands be strengthened, and be valiant: for your master Saul is dead, and also the house of Judah have anointed me to be king over them. However Abner the son of Ner, who was the captain of Saul’s host, [He was the one that David had chided earlier because he had failed to guard Saul.] he took Ishbosheth the son of Saul, and brought him over to Mahanaim; [Which is on the other side of Jordan.] And he made him king over Gilead, and over the Ashurites, and over Jezreel, and Ephraim, and over Benjamin, and over all Israel. So Ishbosheth Saul’s son was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and he reigned for two years. But the house of Judah followed David. And the time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months ( 2Sa 2:5-11 ).
So the kingdom is divided. Later on the kingdom is to be divided again at the time of David’s grandson Rehoboam. Because of his stupidity, the northern ten tribes pulled out and formed a separate nation Israel, the southern two tribes became known as Judah. But David ruled only over Judah. The rest of the tribes swore their allegiance to Saul’s son Ishbosheth under Abner’s instigation.
Now Abner it would seem, knew that God had anointed David to be king. Abner was actually a cousin to Saul and was probably more or less seeking to reign himself, but using Ishbosheth as sort of a figurehead. So it was his own ambitions more or less to rule, and Ishbosheth, because he was the son of Saul, became sort of a figurehead, sort of like Carter is. Not really ruling you know, but just taking orders from those that control the things.
Now Ishbosheth was forty years old when he began to reign. David was thirty years old when he began his reign in Hebron. David reigned for seven years and six months in Hebron, over just Judah. It wasn’t until seven and a half years later that there came to David the rulers of Israel, and said, “We want you to rule over all of us.” So his reign began in Hebron over just the tribe of Judah.
Now Abner [Who was the general, and more or less the guy in charge of Israel.] and the servants of Ishbosheth the son of Saul, went out from Mahanaim to Gibeon. And Joab [who was David’s general], and the servants of David, went out, and they met them together by the pool of Gibeon: and they sat down, one on one side of the pool, and one on the other side of the pool ( 2Sa 2:12-13 ).
These guys are tough, bloody men of war, there’s very little to be admired in Joab. In fact Joab was a very cruel, and difficult person, tough as nails. David tolerated him because he had such tremendous devotion to David, and he was such a tremendous fighter. But David really was never comfortable with Joab because of the nature of the fellow. So what we read now isn’t at all commendable or pleasant, or it just shows really the corrupt nature of man. So here’s Abner with the men of Israel, young fellows, here’s Joab from David, they’re sitting by this pool, and they say, “How about having a little sport?”
“All right.” So ten of the young men of David, and ten from Abner got out to entertain these two generals.
They all of them grabbed each other by the head, and ran each other through with their swords ( 2Sa 2:16 );
Great sport, you know it’s just sort of hard for us in our Christian, Western culture, to even imagine such a thing as being sporting or whatever. So that escalated into a real battle, and Joab and his men jumped up, and Abner and his men, and Joab began to prevail. The men of David began to prevail over those of Abner. Abner and his men began to flee.
There were three sons there [Two brothers of Joab, actually three sons.] of Zeruiah, Joab, and Abishai, and Asahel: now Asahel was as fleet as a deer. [He was just a great runner.] And as Abner was fleeing, Asahel started chasing him. [But evidently Asahel didn’t have any armour, just running after him.] And Abner turned around, and said, Hey grab thee armour from one of those young boys, in order that you may be able to have sort of a fair fight. But he wouldn’t do it. [He just kept right on his heels, just running after him, right on his heels.] Finally Abner said, Hey turn away: why should I smite you? But he wouldn’t listen he just stayed right on his heels: and finally Abner ran him through with his spear; all the way through and Asahel died there ( 2Sa 2:18-23 ).
As the men of David came up to the spot, they just sort of waited, sort of shocked to see Asahel the brother of Joab dead. And when Joab and his men came up then they were getting ready to pursue again in the morning. It was evening, and they in the morning started to pursue.
Abner was up on a hill. And he said, Shall we fight with a sword forever? [We’re just gonna-What value is it?] So Joab said, Good thing you said that or else we would’ve been destroying each other ( 2Sa 2:25-27 ).
And Joab and his men went home. However, Joab in his heart carried that desire for vengeance against Abner. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
The first act of David was to inquire of God what he should do. Without hesitation, his own tribe crowned him king. His attitude toward the men of Jabesh-gilead was in the highest sense politic, and yet was in keeping with his attitude toward the house of Saul.
The spirit of Saul, which was antagonistic to David, was perpetuated in Abner, Saul’s cousin and captain of the host. He at once set himself to consolidate the house of Israel around the house of Saul. Ish-bosheth was merely a puppet in his hands. While it may be true that Abner did not desire the kingship for himself, it must be remembered that it would have been poor policy on his part to seek for that position. It was easier to gather the people around a son of the dead king.
Thus the kingdom was not actually David’s. It had to be gained, and seven years passed before his crowning over the whole nation.
Two remarkable men headed opposing factions in the nation. Joab was a strange and rugged character, at once fierce and faithful. His relation to David forms a strange picture of a troublesome friendship. He was a perpetual source of anxiety, and yet his rugged steadfastness naturally appealed to the king. On the other hand, Abner was strong, resourceful, and courageous. As will be seen later, by his own confession, he had fought through all the years against the howledge of the purpose of God; and yet in some respects he was more admirable than Joab. Here we have the account of the first battle under these leaders, in which Joab was victorious, but his brother Asahel was slain. Asahel’s death entered like iron into the soul of Joab, who never rested until his vengeance was satisfied on Abner.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
a Divided People
2Sa 2:1-11
Davids habit of inquiring of the Lord was not discontinued when he ascended the throne. He allowed his steps still to be ordered by the Lord, who delighted in His servants way. From how many blunders might we be saved, if we leaned less on our own understanding and trusted Him with all our hearts! Those who believe like this need not make haste.
This anointing in Hebron-the second in Davids life-is parallel with the unction of the Holy One received by our Lord on His ascension. Having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, said Peter on the day of Pentecost, He hath shed forth this. The house of Saul was still determined to rule. Its seat was across the Jordan. Is it not a type of the fashion of this world, which is destined to pass away? Between those who refuse and those who accept the Cross, with its separating death, there can be no peace. The war will be long and painful, but the result must end in the victory of the house of David, of which our Lord is both Root and Offspring, Rev 22:16.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
2. David Anointed King over Judah
CHAPTER 2:1-7
1. Davids inquiry of the Lord (2Sa 2:1-3)
2. Anointed king over Judah (2Sa 2:4)
3. His message to the men of Jabesh-gilead (2Sa 2:5-7)
The first thing mentioned of David after his lamentation over Saul and Jonathan is that he inquired of the Lord. He would not do a single step towards claiming the rights which belonged to him without consulting the Lord. It shows how David, with all his faults, was in submission to the Lord. He waits on the Lord ready to follow His guidance and in this David acknowledged his complete dependence on Him who had chosen him as His King over His people. In this he is a type also of our Lord Jesus. The answer came to him at once that he was to go up into the cities of Judah. Then the men of Judah came and anointed him king over the house of Judah. There is nothing ostentatious about it nor does he take any steps whatever to extend his God-given rights beyond the tribe of Judah. His first act as king was to thank the men of Jabesh-gilead for the kindness they had done in the burial of Saul. He also exhorted them to be strong and announced his kingship over Judah.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
inquired: 2Sa 5:19, 2Sa 5:23, Num 27:21, Jdg 1:1, 1Sa 23:2, 1Sa 23:4, 1Sa 23:9-12, 1Sa 30:7, 1Sa 30:8, Psa 25:4, Psa 25:5, Psa 27:4, Psa 143:8, Pro 3:5, Pro 3:6, Eze 36:37
Hebron: 2Sa 2:11, 2Sa 5:1-3, 2Sa 15:7, Gen 32:2, Num 13:22, Jos 14:14, Jos 14:15, 1Sa 30:31, 1Ki 2:11, 1Ch 29:7
Reciprocal: Gen 35:27 – Mamre Jos 9:14 – asked not Jos 21:11 – is Hebron 2Sa 15:10 – Hebron 1Ch 11:1 – Hebron 1Ch 14:10 – inquired 2Ch 18:4 – Inquire
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2Sa 2:1. David inquired of the Lord By Urim. When he had given a due time to his grief and mourning for Saul and Jonathan, he applied himself to God, who had appointed him to the kingdom, to know by what means he should best be put in possession of it. He did not inquire whether he should take the kingdom; for God had already signified his appointment of that, and David would not offend him nor dishonour his ordinance by unnecessary inquiries; but only where and at what time he should enter upon it; whether in Judah, as he supposed, because of his relation to that tribe and his interest in it, or in some other tribe; for he does not limit God, but resolves exactly to follow his instructions. Thus David begins at the right end, and lays his foundation in Gods counsel and assistance. Thus, in all our affairs, we ought to apply to God by prayer and supplication for his direction and aid.
He said, Unto Hebron Which, next to Jerusalem, (part whereof the Jebusites now possessed,) was the chief city of the tribe of Judah, a city of the priests, and situated in the very centre of that tribe, to which all the people might speedily resort when need required. It stood on the top of a ridge of high mountains, equally famed for fruits, herbage, and honey. According to Mr. Sandys, who seems to have surveyed the whole region round it with uncommon rapture, and the very learned and accurate Dr. Shaw, who also considered it with singular care and attention, it was not only delightfully pleasant, but admirably fitted for olives and vineyards, and in many parts for grain and pasture. It seems therefore to have been a region peculiarly fitted for the reception of David and his men, with less inconvenience to the country than in most other places; for here they might have bread to the full, and be refreshed with springs of excellent water. Add to this, that it was a patriarchal city, venerable for the sepulchres of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which would remind David of the ancient promises. See Delaney and Shaws Travels.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Sa 2:12. Mahanaim. See Gen 32:2.
2Sa 2:14. Abner said to Joab, &c. He did this in confidence that his twelve men would conquer, and make Joabs army flee. Why had he not challenged Joab to single combat?
2Sa 2:16. Helkath-hazzurim. Ager robustorum, the field of the strong or the brave. The LXX, the field of the sword.
REFLECTIONS.
Having traced the steps of David through seven years of painful exile, we now come to view him seven years as king of Judah. Herein the Lord made him the more strikingly a figure of Jesus Christ. So St. Paul has noticed when he says, Howbeit, we see not yet all things put under him.
David, before he dared to remove from the ashes of Ziklag, consulted the Lord; and he who stands in the divine counsel, stands on the rock of ages. He may then laugh at the storm, and smile to see the tempests exhaust their feeble rage. Let every man therefore learn, before he takes any step in life, carefully to consult the Lord by fervent and humble prayer.
When David removed to the most ancient and noble city of Hebron, he removed with all his friends, the faithful companions of all his exiles and afflictions. So they who have followed the Son of man in the regeneration and borne the cross, shall sit on thrones and wear the crown. God is not unrighteous to forget their work of faith and labour of love.
But while we admire Davids prudence, we have to reproach Abners folly; a folly which in the issue cost him his life. This man through a principle of family pride, anointed Ishbosheth in Mahanaim, wishful no doubt to be himself the real king, while his nephew had the name. They who oppose the Lords work and counsel may do much harm, and God for a time may suffer them to succeed, that he may accomplish his work in their correction, and in the punishment of the wicked. Abners crime was here great against the Lord and against David.
We are next led to view the great coolness and confidence of David. He precipitated not his country into a civil war. He was confident that the God of his anointing, who had brought him from the desert to the throne of Judah, would give him the hearts of all the tribes; he therefore sought to make his own people happy and secure. But though he was peaceful, he was not supine. Hearing after two years, that Abner had crossed the Jordan, and was come to Gibeon, he sent Joab to meet him, intending no doubt to follow after raising the army. Abner, finding himself opposed, and being too confident in himself and in his men, proposed to decide the dispute by a single combat of twelve picked men on each side. Here the strength, the skill and courage of each were so equal, that the whole twenty four fell together in the peaceful arms of death. What a wanton waste of the best men in Israel! How faulty was Abner to propose, and Joab to accept the challenge. On the subject of duelling, it was observed, that we had few instances of this horrid practice for several years after the hanging of Major ; and if a contemptible hangman, standing with a halter in his hand, can frighten our high-spirited duelists into peace, we have now proof sufficient that all their boasted courage was nothing but a frantic sense of honour, and utterly unconnected with the coolness and wisdom ever characteristic of a heroic soul.
The fall of Asahel, brother of Joab, should teach all young people modesty, and not to presume too much on the liberal endowments of nature. This youth, rising by David to be a prince, gloried no doubt in being the swiftest man in Israel; and it would have been happy had he been equally aware, that he was not the most valiant man in Israel. How fairly did Abner caution him, and even condescended to repeat that caution. Asahel therefore fell in lawful war: his blood was on his own head, because of his presumption. Many who are too proud of their personal accomplishments, have met with death by presuming too much on their own abilities.
Abner having gained a height, procured a cessation of hostilities, and repassed the Jordan: and happy if he had never crossed it to molest David. Those who meddle with the Lords anointed are sure soon or late to receive the reward of their folly. Abner retired in chagrin and shame. Joab justly reproached him with all the blood shed on that occasion. If thou hadst not said what thou didst say in the morning, let the young men rise up and play before us; surely the people had gone away every man from his brother. My sole wish was to oblige thee to return. Abner that day shed much innocent blood, and God expiated it by the blood of Abner.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2 Samuel 2-6. (J). Apart from minor additions and changes, it is very commonly held that these chapters form a continuous narrative from the same source.
2Sa 2:1 to 2Sa 3:5. Civil War between David, ruling at Hebron, and Ish-bosheth, ruling at Mahanaim (J).
2Sa 2:1-7. David occupies Hebron (Jdg 1:10*, p. 31), and is anointed king by the men of Judah, doubtless with the consent of the Philistines, and as their vassal. He thanks the men of Jabesh-gilead for their loyalty to Saul.
2Sa 2:8-11. Abner makes Ishbaal king over all Israel, except Judah, with his capital at Mahanaim. The connexion between Judah and the other tribes was always loose, and Israel is constantly used as here. The sentence enclosed by RV in brackets is an editorial addition; it interrupts the sequence. The two years is difficult; the impression conveyed by 2Sa 5:1-6 is that Ishbaal reigned all the time David was reigning at Hebron. 2Sa 2:11 is also commonly regarded as editorial.
2Sa 2:9. Ashurites: read, Asherites.
2Sa 2:10. Ish-bosheth: Ishbaal (1Sa 14:49*).
2Sa 2:12-17. The opposing forces meet at the pool at Gibeon, N. of Jerusalem (Jos 9:3); a contest between twelve champions from each party brought on a general engagement, in which Davids men were victorious.
2Sa 2:18-23. Asahel pursued Abner. He, anxious to avoid a blood-feud with Asahels grim and powerful brother Joab, warned Asahel not to drive him to extremities. But Asahel would not be warned, and Abner slew him.
2Sa 2:23-32. At the appeal of Abner, Joab stays the pursuit. Both parties return home.
2Sa 2:24. Ammah . . . Glah, 2Sa 2:29. Bithron: none of these places are identified.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
David was by no means in a hurry to take advantage of the situation that had been brought about by Saul’s death. Though he had not enquired of the Lord as to going down to king Achish at Gath (1Sa 27:1-2), he does enquire now as to leaving Ziklag and returning to Judah. The Lord tell him to do so. Yet in a spirit of felt dependence, he further inquires as to what city. God’s answer, “Hebron” is not merely intended to indicate a favorable location. Its name means “communion,” which would be a strong reminder to David that if he is to reign as king, he will need the place of constant communion with God.
In coming to Hebron David’s circumstances are completely changed. His two wives accompany him and all his men with their households. These were dispersed throughout the towns surrounding (v.3). David being of the tribe of Judah, and having before attracted the approval of the people through his faithfulness and ability, it is not surprising that the men of Judah came to him to anoint him king (v.4). The rest of Israel was however not ready to accept him in this way at the time.
When David heard the news that it was the men of Jabesh-Gilead who had buried Saul, he sent messengers to them to express his appreciation of this expression of their regard for the throne of Israel established by God. He shows the confidence that the Lord would bless them for this kindness, while promising that he also would reward them with kindness (vs.5-6). He encourages them also to be strengthened and valiant, though Saul had died, and informs them that the tribe of Judah had anointed him king over them. Of course Jabesh-Gilead was far north of Judah and had not acknowledged David’s rule, but David made no issue of this: he simply informed them of Judah’s action.
Abner, the captain of Saul’s army, could only understand natural succession. He did not seek the will of God, but decided to elevate Ish-bosheth, Saul’s son, to the throne of Israel (vs.8-9). How many since him have thought that the military has the right of such decisions! But this is God’s prerogative, and He had already anointed David as king of Israel (not only of Judah). Abner made Mahanaim the headquarters of Ish-bosheth’s kingdom. Mahanaim means “two camps,” therefore emphasizing the fact that Israel was divided. God would not allow this to continue, but Ish-bosheth did reign over Israel for two years, during which time there was “long war” between Judah and Israel. David reigned in Hebron seven and a half years (v.11). It seems that, after his being recognized as king by Israel (ch.5:1-3), he must have remained for a time in Hebron before going up to Jerusalem to reign there.
This history illustrates the necessity of the Lord Jesus first subduing His own people under Him before subduing His enemies. Abner was the strong man in Israel: Ish-bosheth was of no significance. Abner of course wanted to see Judah subject to him too, and desired to initiate a test of strength. He came to Gibeon with some of his men (v.12). Joab, the captain of David’s army, was fully willing for the test, and went out with his men, they sitting down on one side of the pool of Gibeon with Abner and his men on the other side. But the occasion is not to be a discussion of their differences. Abner asks that the young men should hold a contest (v.14) and Joab readily responds. Twelve men from each side then meet in deadly combat.
Verse 15 seems to indicate that all these men, on both sides, were prepared to catch each other by the head, each one simultaneously piercing the other with his sword, so that they fell down together. They did not stop to consider that they were all Israelites, and therefore brethren. But since that time the people of God have too often used the sword of the word of God cruelly against others of God’s people when they might have used it for the positive good of others.
The contest decided nothing, but was only the beginning of a battle that involved both armies, so that many more were dead before it was over. Nor did the battle make any real difference in the situation, though it was won by Judah. Only God’s work can bring about unity among His people.
Judah pursues Israel in the battle, and Asahel, the brother of Joab and Abishai, picks out Abner to pursue him. Being very swift of foot, he could easily keep up with Abner. If Joab had been in his place, he would not have hesitated to kill Abner, but Asahel was evidently not a practiced man of war, and only wanted to be sure that Abner did not escape. Abner suspected it was Asahel who followed him, and when he was assured of it, he told him to leave him and follow someone else (v.21). Abner did not want to fight it out with Asahel and kill him, because he was afraid that if he did so, he might incur the special animosity of Joab.
Asahel, however, after a second warning from Abner, refused to listen to him. He continued to follow very close behind him, and was not prepared for Abner’s cunning expertise in war. Abner suddenly pushed his spear backward, causing its butt end to pierce Abner under the fifth rib. He fell down and died. Asahel did not lack zeal, but did lack knowledge and wisdom as to warfare. The pursuers following Asahel were so shocked at finding him dead that they stopped their pursuit of Israel. They considered that Israel had been totally defeated, and to find that they had struck back in killing Asahel evidently gave them second thoughts.
Joab and Abishai continued their pursuit, both of them being capable warriors (v.24). However, Abner was able to regroup as the Benjamites came to him, and all ascended to the top of a hill. From there Abner calls to Joab, desiring a cessation of hostilities. He does not offer to surrender, but asks, “Shall the sword devour forever? do you not know that it will be bitter in the end?” This was true, for continued fighting would not resolve the issue as to who should be king. Yet Abner conveniently forgot that it was he who had initiated the battle. Still, Joab knew it would be wise to cease from battle, and tells Abner that if he had not spoken the battle would have ended by the next morning anyway (v.27). As if happened, however, Abner’s speaking was an admission of defeat, though not in so many words.
Joab blew a trumpet to cause all his men to no longer pursue Israel. Abner and his men travelled all that night to return across the Jordan to Mahahaim
Returning from the war, Joab found that twenty men of Judah (including Asahel) had died in this sad conflict, but of Abner’s men 360 were killed. Yet this had no decisive consequences, though it indicated a gradual weakening of Israel’s opposition, which will be true also at the time of the Tribulation, when Israel’s rebellion against the Lord Jesus will be worn down until an occasion of great public significance breaks them utterly in repentance and faith.
Asahel received an honorable burial, and Joab and his men returned by night to Hebron. This is significant in telling us that Judah must remain in “communion” with the Lord, to await His clear leading as to re-uniting the nation.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
2:1 And it came to pass after this, that David {a} enquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah? And the LORD said unto him, Go up. And David said, Whither shall I go up? And he said, Unto {b} Hebron.
(a) By means of the high priest, 1Sa 23:2, 2Sa 5:19.
(b) Which was also called Kirjatharba Jos 14:15.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
2. David’s move to Hebron 2:1-4a
"Without doubt this portion [of 2 Samuel, i.e., chapters 2-8] forms the crux of the book. Here the fertility motif reaches a peak. The thesis of the author-that Israel is blessed with fertility when the nation (and the epitome of the nation, the king) is following the covenant-is demonstrated in these chapters. The king, the ark (representing the presence of God and the Word of God, the covenant), and fertility are all intertwined in a beautifully artistic way." [Note: Ibid., p. 37.]
David again expressed his dependence on God by asking, probably by using the sacred lots (cf. 1Sa 14:37-42; 1Sa 23:9-11; 1Sa 30:7-8; 2 Samuel 19, 23) or by consulting a seer (cf. 1Sa 28:6; 2Sa 7:2-3), where God wanted him to relocate. He realized that he could not make the wisest choice alone since he did not have God’s perspective. He wanted God to use him most effectively, so he allowed God to place him in that spot. The territory of Judah was the divine choice. That was David’s tribal homeland and where he had the greatest acceptance (cf. 1Sa 30:26-30). Hebron stood about 19 miles south-southwest of Jerusalem on the highest promontory in the Judean hill country. [Note: See the map "Israel in the Time of David" in Joyce Baldwin, 1 & 2 Samuel, p. 48.] 2Sa 2:1 gives the key to David’s triumphs, namely, his dependence on God. 2Sa 2:2 gives the key to his tragedy, namely, his relationships with women (cf. Gen 2:24). This was David’s second anointing (in 1011 B.C.; cf. 1Sa 16:13). It represented a formal acknowledgment that the people of Judah viewed David as the Lord’s anointed.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
CHAPTER II
BEGINNING OF DAVID’S REIGN AT HEBRON.
2Sa 2:1-7.
THE death of Saul did not end David’s troubles. nor was it for a good many years that he became free to employ his whole energies for the good of the kingdom. It appears that his chastisement for his unbelieving spirit, and for the alliance with Achish to which it led, was not yet completed. The more remote consequences of that step were only beginning to emerge, and years elapsed before its evil influence ceased altogether to be felt. For in allying himself with Achish, and accompanying his army to the plain of Esdraelon, David had gone as near to the position of a traitor to his country as he could have gone without actually fighting against it. That he should have acted as he did is one of the greatest mysteries of his life; and the reason why it has not attracted more notice is simply because the worst consequences of it were averted by his dismissal from the Philistine army through the jealousy and suspicion of their lords. But for that step David must have been guilty of gross treachery either in one direction or another; either to his own countrymen, by fighting against them in the Philistine army; or to King Achish, by suddenly turning against him in the heat of the battle, and creating a diversion which might have given a new chance to his countrymen. In either case the proceeding would have been most reprehensible.
But to his own countrymen he would have made himself especially obnoxious if he had lent himself to Achish in the battle. Whether he contemplated treachery to Achish is a secret that seems never to have gone beyond his own bosom. All the appearances favoured the supposition that he would fight against his country, and we cannot wonder if, for a long time, this made him an object of distrust and suspicion. If we would understand how the men of Israel must have looked on him, we have only to fancy how we should have viewed a British soldier if, with a troop of his countrymen, he had followed Napoleon to the field of Waterloo, and had been sent away from the French army only through the suspicion of Napoleon’s generals. In David’s case, all his former achievements against the Philistines, all that injustice from Saul which had driven him in despair to Achish, his services against the Amalekites, his generous use of the spoil, as well as his high personal character, did not suffice to counteract the bad impression of his having followed Achish to battle. For after a great disaster the public mind is exasperated; it is eager to find a scapegoat on whom to throw the blame, and it is unmeasured in its denunciations of anyone who can be plausibly assailed. Beyond all doubt, angry and perplexed as the nation was, David would come in for a large share of the blame; his alliance with Achish would be denounced with unmeasured bitterness; and, probably enough, he would have to bear the brunt of many a bitter calumny in addition, as if he had instigated Achish, and given him information which had helped him to conquer.
His own tribe, the tribe of Judah, was far the friendliest, and the most likely to make allowance for the position in which he had been placed. They were his own flesh and blood; they knew the fierce and cruel malignity with which Saul had hunted him down, and they knew that, as far as appearances went, his chances of getting the better of Saul’s efforts were extremely small, and the temptation to throw himself into the hands of Achish correspondingly great. Evidently, therefore, the most expedient course he could now take was to establish himself in some of the cities of Judah. But in that frame of recovered loyalty to God in which he now was, he declined to take this step, indispensable though it seemed, until he had got Divine direction regarding it. “It came to pass, after this that David inquired of the Lord saying. Shall I go up to any of the cities of Judah? And the Lord said unto him. Go up. And David said. Whither shall I go up? And He said. Unto Hebron.” The form in which he made the inquiry shows that to his mind it was very clear that he ought to go up to one or another of the cities of Judah; his advisers and companions had probably the same conviction; but notwithstanding, it was right and fitting that no such step should be taken without his asking direction from God. And let us observe that, on this occasion, prayer was not the last resort of one whom all other refuge had failed, but the first resort of one who regarded the Divine approval as the most essential element for determining the propriety of the undertaking.
It is interesting and instructive to ponder this fact. The first thing done by David, after virtually acquiring a royal position, was to ask counsel of God. His royal administration was begun by prayer. And there was a singular appropriateness in this act. For the great characteristic of David, brought out especially in his Psalms, is the reality and the nearness of his fellowship with God. We may find other men who equaled him in every other feature of character – who were as full of human sympathy, as reverential, as self-denying, as earnest in their efforts to please God and to benefit men; but we shall find no one who lived so closely under God’s shadow, whose heart and life were so influenced by regard to God, to whom God was so much of a personal Friend, so blended, we may say, with his very existence. David therefore is eminently himself when asking counsel of the Lord. And would not all do well to follow him in this? True, he had supernatural methods of doing this, and you have only natural; he had the Urim and Thummim, you have only the voice of prayer; but this makes no real difference, for it was only in great national matters that he made use of the supernatural method; in all that concerned his personal relations to God it was the other that he employed. And so may you. But the great matter is to resemble David in his profound sense of the infinite value and reality of Divine direction. Without this your prayers will always be more or less matters of formality. And being formal, you will not feel that you get any good of them. Is it really a profound conviction of yours that in every step of your life God’s direction is of supreme value? That you dare not even change your residence with safety without being directed by Him? That you dare not enter on new relations in life, – new business, new connections, new recreations – without seeking the Divine countenance? That endless difficulties, troubles, complications, are liable to arise, when you simply follow your own notions or inclinations without consulting the Lord? And under the influence of that conviction do you try to follow the rule, “In all thy ways acknowledge Him”? And do you endeavour to get from prayer a trustful rest in God, an assurance that He will not forsake you, a calm confidence that He will keep His word? Then, indeed, you are treading in David’s footsteps, and you may expect to share his privilege – Divine direction in your times of need.
The city of Hebron, situated about eighteen miles to the south of Jerusalem, was the place to which David was directed to go. It was a place abounding in venerable and elevating associations. It was among the first, if not the very first, of the haunts of civilized men in the land – so ancient that it is said to have been built seven years before Zoan in Egypt (Num 13:22). The father of the faithful had often pitched his tent under its spreading oaks, and among its olive groves and vine-clad hills the gentle Isaac had meditated at eventide. There Abraham had watched the last breath of his beloved Sarah, the partner of his faith and the faithful companion of his wanderings; and there from the sons of Heth he had purchased the sepulchre of Machpelah, where first Sarah’s body, then his own, then that of Isaac were laid to rest. There Joseph and his brethren had brought up the body of Jacob, in fulfillment of his dying command, laying it beside the bones of Leah. It had been a halting-place of the twelve spies when they went up to search the land; and the cluster of grapes which they carried back was cut from the neighbouring valley, where the finest grapes of the country are found to this day. The sight of its venerable cave had doubtless served to raise the faith and courage of Joshua and Caleb, when the other spies became so feeble and so faithless. In the division of the land it had been assigned to Caleb, one of the best and noblest spirits the nation ever produced; afterwards it was made one of the Levitical cities of refuge. More recently, it had been one of the places selected by David to receive a portion of the Amalekite spoil. No place could have recalled more vividly the lessons of departed worth and the victories of early faith, or abounded more in tokens of the blessedness of fully following the Lord. It was a token of God’s kindness to David that He directed him to make this city his headquarters. It was equivalent to a new promise that the God of Abraham and of Isaac and Jacob would be the God of David, and that his public career would prepare the way for the mercies m the prospect of which they rejoiced, and sustain the hope to which they looked forward, though they did not in their time see the promise realized.
It was a further token of God’s goodness that no sooner had David gone up to Hebron than ”the men of Judah came and anointed him king over the house of Judah.” Judah was the imperial or premier tribe, and though this was not all that God had promised to David, it was a large installment. The occasion might well awaken mingled emotions in his breast – gratitude for mercies given and solicitude for the responsibility of a royal position. With his strong sense of duty, his love of righteousness and hatred of wickedness, we should expect to find him strengthening himself in the purpose to rule only in the fear of God. It is just such views and purposes as these we find expressed in the hundred and first Psalm, which internal evidence would lead us to assign to this period of his life: —
“I will sing of mercy and of judgment:
Unto Thee, O Lord, will I sing.
I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way,
when wilt Thou come unto me?
I will walk within my house with a perfect heart.
I will set no base thing before mine eyes:
I hate the work of them that turn aside;
It shall not cleave to me.
A froward heart shall depart from me:
I will know no evil thing.
Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I destroy; Him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer.
Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land that they may dwell with me:
He that walketh in a perfect way, he shall minister unto me.
He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house;
He that speaketh falsehood shall not be established before mine eyes.
Morning by morning will I destroy all the wicked of the land;
To cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.”*
(*From the use of the expression “city of the Lord,” it has been inferred by some critics that this Psalm must have been written after the capture and consecration of Jerusalem. But there is no reason why Hebron might not have been called at that time “the city of the Lord.” The Lord had specially designated it as the abode of David; and that alone entitled it to be so called. Those who have regarded this Psalm as a picture of a model household or family have never weighed the force of the last line, which marks the position of a king, not a father. The Psalm is a true statement of the principles usually followed by David in public rule, but not in domestic administration.)
By a singular coincidence, the first place to which the attention of David was called, after his taking possession of the royal position, was the same as that to which Saul had been directed in the same circumstances – namely, Jabesh-gilead. It was far away from Hebron, on the other side of Jordan, and quite out of the scope of David’s former activities; but he recognized a duty to its people, and he hastened to perform it. In the first place, he sent them a gracious and grateful message of thanks for the kindness shown to Saul, the mark of respect they had paid him in burying his body. Every action of David’s in reference to his great rival evinces the superiority of his spirit to that which was wont to prevail in similar circumstances. Within the Scriptures themselves we have instances of the dishonour that was often put on the body of a conquered rival. The body of Jehoram, cast ignominiously by Jehu, in mockery of his royal state, into the vineyard of Naboth, which his father Ahaz had unrighteously seized, and the body of Jezebel, flung out of the window, trodden under foot, and devoured by dogs are instances readily remembered. The shocking fate of the dead body of Hector, dragged thrice round the walls of Troy after Achilles’ chariot, was regarded as only such a calamity as might be looked for amid the changing fortunes of war. Mark Antony is said to have broken out into laughter at the sight of the hands and head of Cicero, which he had caused to be severed from his body. The respect of David for the person of Saul was evidently a sincere and genuine feeling; and it was a sincere pleasure to him to find that this feeling had been shared by the Jabeshites, and manifested in their rescuing Saul’s body and consigning it to honourable burial.
In the next place, he invokes on these people a glowing benediction from the Lord: “The Lord show kindness and truth to you;” and he expresses his purpose also to requite their kindnesbi himself. “Kindness and truth.” There is something instructive in the combination of these two words. It is the Hebrew way of expressing “true kindness,” but even in that form, the words suggest that kindness is not always true kindness, and mere kindness cannot be a real blessing unless it rest on a solid basis. There is in many men an amiable spirit which takes pleasure in gratifying the feelings of others. Some manifest it to children by loading them with toys and sweetmeats, or taking them to amusements which they know they like. But it does not follow that such kindness is always true kindness. To please one is not always the kindest thing you can do for one, for sometimes it is a far kinder thing to withhold what will please. True kindness must be tested by its ultimate effects. The kindness that loves best to improve our hearts, to elevate our tastes, to straighten our habits, to give a higher tone to our lives, to place us on a pedestal from which we may look down on conquered spiritual foes, and on the possession of what is best and highest in human attainment, – the kindness that bears on the future, and especially the eternal future, is surely far more true than that which, by gratifying our present feelings, perhaps confirms us in many a hurtful lust. David’s prayer for the men of Jabesh was an enlightened benediction: “God show you kindness and truth.” And so far as he may have opportunity, he promises that he will show them the same kindness too.
We need not surely dwell on the lesson which this suggests. Are you kindly disposed to any one? You wish sincerely to promote his happiness, and you try to do so. But see well to it that your kindness is true. See that the day shall never come when that which you meant so kindly will turn out to have been a snare, and perhaps a curse. Think of your friend as an immortal being, with either heaven or hell before him, and consider what genuine kindness requires of you in such a case. And in every instance beware of the kindness which shakes the stability of his principles, which increases the force of his temptations, and makes the narrow way more distasteful and difficult to him than ever.
There can be no doubt that David was moved by considerations of policy as well as by more disinterested motives in sending this message and offering this prayer for the men of Jabesh-gilead. Indeed, in the close of his message he invites them to declare for him, and follow the example of the men of Judah, who have made him king. The kindly proceeding of David was calculated to have a wider influence than over the men of Jabesh, and to have a conciliating effect on all the friends of the former king. It would have been natural enough for them to fear, considering the ordinary ways of conquerors and the ordinary fate of the friends of the conquered, that David would adopt very rigid steps against the friends of his persecutors. By this message sent across the whole country and across the Jordan, he showed that he was animated by the very opposite spirit: that, instead of wishing to punish those who had served with Saul, he was quite disposed to show them favour. Divine grace, acting on his kindly nature, made him forgiving to Saul and all his comrades, and presented to the world the spectacle of an eminent religious profession in harmony with a noble generosity.
But the spirit in which David acted towards the friends of Saul did not receive the fitting return. The men of Jabesh-gilead appear to have made no response to his appeal. His peaceable purpose was defeated through Abner, Saul’s cousin and captain-general of his army, who set up Ishbosheth, one of Saul’s sons, as king in opposition to David. Ishbosheth himself was but a tool in Abner’s hands, evidently a man of no spirit or activity; and in setting him up as a claimant for the kingdom, Abner very probably had an eye to the interests of himself and his family. It is plain that he acted in this matter in that spirit of ungodliness and willfulness of which his royal cousin had given so many proofs; he knew that God had given the kingdom to David, and afterwards taunted Ishbosheth with the fact (2Sa 3:9); perhaps he looked for the reversion of the throne if Ishbosheth should die, for it needed more than an ordinary motive to go right in opposition to the known decree of God. The world’s annals contain too many instances of wars springing from no higher motive than the ambition of some Diotrephes to have the pre-eminence. You cry shame on such a spirit; but while you do so take heed lest you share it yourselves. To many a soldier war is welcome because it is the pathway to promotion, to many a civilian because it gives for the moment an impulse to the business with which he is connected. How subtle and dangerous is the feeling that secretly welcomes what may spread numberless woes through a community if only it is likely to bring some advantage to ourselves! O God, drive selfishness from the throne of our hearts, and write on them in deepest letters Thine own holy law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
The place chosen for the residence of Ishbosheth was Mahanaim, in the half-tribe of Manasseh, on the east side of the Jordan. It is a proof how much the Philistines must have dominated the central part of the country that no city in the tribe of Benjamin and no place even on the western side of the Jordan could be obtained as a royal seat for the son of Saul. Surely this was an evil omen. Ishbosheth’s reign, if reign it might be called, lasted but two short years. No single event took place to give it lustre. No city was taken from the Philistines, no garrison put to flight, as at Michmash. No deed was ever done by him or done by his adherents of which they might be proud, and to which they might point in justification of their resistance to David. Ishbosheth was not the wicked man in great power, spreading himself like the green bay-tree, but a short-lived, shriveled plant, that never rose above the humiliating circumstances of its origin. Men who have defied the purpose of the Almighty have often grown and prospered, like the little horn of the Apocalypse; but in this case of Ishbosheth little more than one breath of the Almighty sufficed to wither him up. Yes, indeed, whatever may be the immediate fortunes of those who unfurl their own banner against the clear purpose of the Almighty, there is but one fate for them all in the end – utter humiliation and defeat. Well may the Psalm counsel all, “Kiss ye the Son, lest He be angry, and ye perish from the way, if once His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him.”