Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 3:1
Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David: but David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker.
Ch. 2Sa 3:1-5. Progress of David’s cause. His family
2. And unto David, &c.] The list of David’s sons born in Hebron is given again in 1Ch 3:1-3, apparently in an independent form, but with only one important variation. It appears to interrupt the course of the narrative here, but it is quite in accordance with the usual practice of O.T. historians to insert information about the family of a king at critical points in the history of his reign, and moreover it is in place here as a practical evidence of the strengthening of David’s house. Cp. 1Sa 14:49-51 ; 2Sa 5:13-16.
Amnon ] Infamous for the sin which cost him his life, and indirectly proved the source of shame and calamity to his family and nation. See on ch. 13.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
2Sa 3:1-39
Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David.
Progress and termination of the civil war
What grief tales of distress are folded up in these brief words, There was long war! Probably it was only irregular war, without much bloodshed; the war of skirmish and surprise, not of pitched battles, or protracted sieges, or desperate assaults; but many a pillaged town, and many a homestead laid in ashes, and many a heart crushed to despair or maddened to fury, and many a deep and deadly curse, and many a fiendish vow of vengeance, would everywhere follow the track of war. And it was war of the most distressing and demoralising kind–not foreign but civil. Great national wars are usually attended by one counteracting benefit–they soften the keenness of private quarrels. But when parties in the same nation arc fighting with each other, as the tribes of Israel now were, private quarrels, instead of being healed, are only exasperated to greater bitterness.
1. Before the remarkable change of policy on the part of Abner that led to the termination of the war is recorded, a glimpse is given us of the domestic life of King David (2Sa 3:2-5); and whether it be by design or not, there immediately follows (2Sa 3:6-11) a specimen and illustration of the kind of evils to which that mode of life was liable to give rise. Though polygamy was not allowed to David, it certainly was winked at; it was not imputed to him as guilt; it was not treated as an act of rebellion against Gods law. But, on the other hand, this toleration of polygamy did not and could not prevent the evils to which, from its very nature, it gives rise. There could be no unity in Davids family, none of that delightful feeling of oneness, which gives such a charm to the home. In his own breast, that sense of delicacy, that feeling of chastity, which has such a purifying influence in a family, could scarcely flourish. And further, as the absence of delicacy must have been characteristic of David, so was it also of his children; the unbridled passions of some of his sons gave rise to the most dismal tragedies; and left blots on their name that even time could never wash out.
2. It is immediately after this glimpse of Davids domestic life that we come upon a sample of the kind of evils to which that mode of life commonly gives rise. Saul, too, had his harem; and it seems to have been a rule of succession in the East, that the harem went with the throne; hence to take possession of the one was regarded as setting up a claim to the other. When, therefore, Ishbosheth heard that Abner had taken one of his fathers concubines he seems to have regarded that circumstance as a proof that Abner was setting up a claim to the kingdom for himself. Mistaking the semblance of power for the reality–forgetting that Ishbosheth had but the one, and Abner the other, Ishbosheth denounced the conduct of Abner with great bluntness and rudeness; and gave him such mortal offence that Abner abruptly and peremptorily assured him that he would not strike another blow in his service, but would at once go over to David. The loss of Abner was to Ishbosheth the loss of all. His cause had for some time been a losing one; it was now quite destroyed.
3. The next step in the narrative brings us to Abners proposal to David, to make a league with him for the undisputed possession of the throne. As a preliminary to any further arrangements, David insisted, first of all, that his wife Michael, the daughter of Saul, should be restored to him. Some have pronounced this a harsh condition, especially considering that Michal was now living as the wife of another person, who appears to have been much attached to her, and most unwilling to surrender her. It is undoubted, however, that Michal was not the wife of Phaltiel, but the wife of David; Phaltiel must have known that she was another mans wife when he received her; and it is misplaced compassion to be sorry for a man when called to surrender what he never had a right to take. It may be asked, however, what could have been Davids motive for demanding back Michal, when he had so many wives without her? It might be enough to say in reply that Michal was his wedded wife, and that it would have been disgraceful to David, when he could prevent it, to allow his wife to live in adultery with another. Of all Davids wives, Michal, as the daughter of a king like Saul, was the first in worldly rank; David, therefore, wished to recover her; probably also, he thought, that by having her again for his wife there would be a bond of union between the two royal families of the kingdom that might draw the people together, and save the further shedding of blood. Another consideration appears also to have influenced him. In demanding back Michal he makes special mention of the dowry he had given for her–a hundred foreskins of the Philistines. In mentioning this he probably desired to revive among the people the remembrance of his ancient services and exploits against these inveterate enemies of his country and religion. His recent alliance with the Philistines had brought him into suspicion; he wished to remind his people, therefore, of his ancient bearing towards these enemies, and to encourage the expectation of similar deeds of successful warfare.
4. When the preliminaries between Abner and David were settled Abner appears to have exerted himself with real sincerity and zeal in behalf of David. Most probably he was not sorry for the occasion of his breach with Ishbosheth; Davids was obviously the rising star; probably tie was watching an opportunity to transfer his allegiance from the one to the other. Abner now became as zealous for David as formerly he had been for Ishbosheth; and in holding communication with the elders of Israel and of Benjamin, and urging them very strongly to submit to David, he did him a service which no other living man could then have rendered. The tender heart of the shepherd king was doubtless inexpressibly grieved at the continuance of the war; he would have welcomed with unbounded delight any honourable arrangement that would have prevented further bloodshed; and when Abner was seen using his great influence with the leaders of the tribes in the cause of peace, he must have appeared to David like a very angel of God. When, therefore, at the most critical moment in these negotiations, the impetuous and vindictive Joab thrust his sword through Abners heart–when, to the revolting ferocity of the deed itself, and its glaring outrage on the laws of hospitality, he added the crime of placing in jeopardy a most delicate national negotiation, and exasperating those whom it was most desired to conciliate, Davids mortification must have been unbounded. (W. G. Blaikie, M. A.)
Perpetual war
I. Warring interests.
1. Sauls interests were natural–they were carnal–they were worldly–they were selfish. Davids interests, on the contrary, were Of God–they were spiritual–they were under Gods sovereign direction–they were Divine. Just such is the distinction between the Church of God and the world. What is the result? Why, just warring, jarring, contending interests; for one is in the interest of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the other in the interest of the devil. Sauls house, the carnal, selfish, worldly multitude are all under the influence of the Prince of Darkness, the prince of the power of the air, who rules in the hearts of the children of disobedience; they are all under the sway of their carnal inclinations and affections, and the men of the world ought not to be offended for being told by us what their own consciences must admit to be the fact. On the contrary, the army of David associates with the beloved soldiers of the cross; they are the ransomed of the Lord; they take this blessed book as their guide; the word of command of the Captain of their salvation is imperative, and they call on high for grace, implicity to regard and obey it. The result is that Satans interests arc bolstered up by the former, and real Christianity is maintained by the latter.
2. Let us now take another view of the difference which subsists between the house of Saul and the house of David–I mean an experimental view. And what will you say when I declare unto you that there are both the house of Saul and the house of David in your own hearts–that there are both the house of Saul and the house of David inhabiting this body of flesh and blood–that there are all the vile corruptions and carnal inclinations of the house of Saul; but, blessed be God, there are also the especial graces, and the spiritual implantations of the house of David–an old and new nature–a propensity to every evil, as was the case with Saul, but a panting after every good, as was the case with David.
3. Observe, they are so contrary, so opposed to each other, that they are altogether irreconcilable, and it is quite in vain, therefore, to attempt a reconciliation. He that is born after the flesh will persecute him that is born after the Spirit. What fellowship can light have with darkness? What communion can Christ have with Belial? What oneness, or intimacy, can subsist between him who is a believer and him who is an infidel?
II. The advancing power of the conquering side. David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker.
1. The first feature of Davids prosperity lay in this, that his fame and his prowess were advancing and increasing, and his power extending. So with our glorious Lord, Davids antitype; His kingdom is growing and extending, prospering and thriving, His name is exalted, and shall be exalted, and all His household.
2. But what constituted Davids waxing stronger and stronger in the most conspicuous point of view, was the accessions which were constantly being made to his kingdom, and all of which were so many instances, not merely of the increase of his own strength, but of the diminution of the kingdom and power of Saul. The very way in which oar glorious David advances. All the accessions that are made to His kingdom are lawful captives delivered from the terrible power of darkness and translated into His own kingdom.
3. The next point is the warring interests between the two houses that occupy our poor nature. Is it in your power honestly to say that within the circle of your experience the house of David is waxing stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxing weaker and weaker? I want the graces growing in strength. I want to have faith like Abrahams. I want to give glory to God and believe against apparent impossibilities. I want love to be growing like Johns, so that no place will do for me but the bosom of Jesus; I want hope to be victorious, strong and firm, entering within the veil, sure and steadfast. I want humility to lay me at the feet of Christ, and keep axe there. I want the zeal of the house of my beloved Lord to eat me up, and I want the meekness and patience of my Lord to make me quite immoveable to all the provocations of the wicked world through which I am passing. Oh! if the graces of Jesus were thus exercised. If the new man were always thus enthroned. If the new man were always seated uppermost, always thus favoured with supplies of grace from above, how old Adam would groan! How he would be nailed up! How he would be mortified!
II. The results of the warfare. You know how it resulted with David: it resulted in the entire destruction of the house of Saul, in imperishable honours worn by himself and his household, his throne set above all the kingdoms of the earth, and a glorious lasting peace settled and secured. So shall it be with our glorious Christ and His household. All the honours which the covenant of grace provides, which the promises of the word unfold and exhibit, and which the grace of the Spirit can put on and wear, and which must after all return and redound to Jesus precious name, are claimed and appropriated by the followers of the Lamb, the household of David.
1. Moreover, there is a peculiar circumstance in relation to this warfare and its results–that is that with all this fighting, and skirmishing, and wounding, never one soul is killed or destroyed.
2. The throne of our David must become noted for its fame, and be exalted above all others. It must be so established as to reign over all dominions, and put down every authority that opposes it, for it is written that He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. Then comes the glorious consummation, eternal peace. (J. Irons.)
A long war
I. There was war. David ascended the throne of Judah, but not to enjoy peace, as he might have presupposed. The descendants of Saul opposed his election, though ratified by heaven; usurped the throne, and maintained personally, or by their representative and chief agent, Abner, unceasing and bitter opposition to his government. Is it not thus with the Christian, after his decided confirmation in the faith? When we are in Christ, or rather Christ is in us, by virtue of our spiritual elevation, then it is that the enmity between our fallen nature and the true will of God betrays itself in vehement activity.
2. The war was long. With David the literal conflict endured but seven years and six months, till the last opponent of his rightful sway was removed. With every spiritual child of God the war must endure from conversion to death, while one fragment of this infected mortality cleaves to another in animation–so thoroughly, so desperately has the opposition of Satan to Gods rule preoccupied and possessed our natural being.
3. Further, it is mentioned that the house of David waxed stronger and stronger. It must be so with the Christian. The condition of the believer is a growing one: he is perfectly born in Christ at once, but his powers and faculties are matured in action, and his progress is decided. (C. M. Fleury, A. M.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER III
Account of the children born to David in Hebron, 1-5.
Abner being accused by Ish-bosheth of familiarities with
Rizpah, Saul’s concubine, he is enraged; offers his services
to David; goes to Hebron, and makes a league with him, 6-22.
Joab, through enmity to Abner, pretends to David that he came
as a spy, and should not be permitted to return, 23-25.
He follows Abner, and treacherously slays him, 26, 27.
David hearing of it is greatly incensed against Joab, and
pronounces a curse upon him and upon his family, 28, 29.
He commands a general mourning for Abner, and himself follows
the bier weeping, 30-32.
David’s lamentation over Abner, 33, 34.
The people solicit David to take meat; but he fasts the whole
day, and complains to them of the insolence and intrigues of
Joab and his brothers: the people are pleased with his
conduct, 35-39.
NOTES ON CHAP. III
Verse 1. There was long war] Frequent battles and skirmishes took place between the followers of David and the followers of Ish-bosheth, after the two years mentioned above, to the end of the fifth year, in which Ish-bosheth was slain by Rechab and Baanah.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Long war; for five years longer; for it is probable that Ish-bosheth was made king presently upon Sauls death, to give them countenance for their rebellion against David; and the other tribes did not submit to David before seven years were expired.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. there was long war between thehouse of Saul and the house of DavidThe rival parties hadvarying success, but David’s interest steadily increased; less,however, by the fortunes of war, than a growing adherence to him asthe divinely designated king.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Now there was a long war between the house of Saul and the house of David,…. The recent battle, though so much in favour of David, did not, put an end to the war between him and Ishbosheth, which lasted five years longer; for it was when Ishbosheth had reigned two years that that battle was fought, and he reigned five years longer; for not till his death, and when David had reigned above seven years in Hebron, was he made king over all Israel; and during this time peace was not made, but the war carried on; though perhaps not in pitched battles, of which we no more read, but in skirmishes:
but David waxed stronger and stronger; he having the advantage in all such skirmishes, and persons continually coming over to his side from the several tribes:
and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker: being always worsted whenever they skirmished with David’s men, and by continual revolts from them. This is reckoned an emblem of the kingdoms of Christ and antichrist, the one increasing more and more, as it has and will do, and the other decreasing, and before long will be consumed; and of the two parties in a regenerate man, grace and indwelling sin, the one as to its exercise growing stronger and stronger, and the other as to its influence on the outward conversation weaker and weaker.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
“And the war became long (was protracted) between the house of Saul and the house of David; but David became stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul weaker and weaker.” , when connected with another verb or with an adjective, expresses the idea of the gradual progress of an affair (vid., Ges. 131, 3, Anm. 3). The historian sums up in these words the historical course of the two royal houses, as they stood opposed to one another. “The war” does not mean continual fighting, but the state of hostility or war in which they continued to stand towards one another. They concluded no peace, so that David was not recognised by Ishbosheth as king, any more than Ishbosheth by David. Not only is there nothing said about any continuance of actual warfare by Abner or Ishbosheth after the loss of the battle at Gibeon, but such a thing was very improbable in itself, as Ishbosheth was too weak to be able to carry on the war, whilst David waited with firm reliance upon the promise of the Lord, until all Israel should come over to him.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| David’s Wives and Children. | B. C. 1048. |
1 Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David: but David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker. 2 And unto David were sons born in Hebron: and his firstborn was Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; 3 And 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; 4 And the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital; 5 And the sixth, Ithream, by Eglah David’s wife. These were born to David in Hebron. 6 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.
Here is, I. The struggle that David had with the house of Saul before his settlement in the throne was completed, v. 1. 1. Both sides contested. Saul’s house, though beheaded and diminished, would not fall tamely. It is not strange between them, but one would wonder it should be a long war, when David’s house had right on its side, and therefore God on its side; but, though truth and equity will triumph at last, God made for wise and holy ends prolonged the conflict. The length of this war tried the faith and patience of David, and made his establishment at last the more welcome to him. 2. David’s side got ground. The house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker, lost places, lost men, sunk in its reputation, grew less considerable, and was foiled in every engagement. But the house of David grew stronger and stronger. Many deserted the declining cause of Saul’s house, and prudently came into David’s interest, being convinced that he would certainly win the day. The contest between grace and corruption in the hearts of believers, who are sanctified but in part, may fitly be compared to this recorded here. There is a long war between them, the flesh lusted against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh; but, as the work of sanctification is carried on, corruption, like the house of Saul, grows weaker and weaker; while grace, like the house of David, grows stronger and stronger, till it come to a perfect man, and judgment be brought forth unto victory.
II. The increase of his own house. Here is an account of six sons he had by six several wives, in the seven years he reigned in Hebron. Perhaps this is here mentioned as that which strengthened David’s interest. Every child, whose welfare was embarked in the common safety, was a fresh security given to the commonwealth for his care of it. He that has his quiver filled with these arrows shall speak with his enemy in the gate, Ps. cxxvii. 5. As the death of Saul’s sons weakened his interest, so the birth of David’s strengthened his. 1. It was David’s fault thus to multiply wives, contrary to the law (Deut. xvii. 17), and it was a bad example to his successors. 2. It does not appear that in these seven years he had above one son by each of these wives; some have had as numerous a progeny, and with much more honour and comfort, by one wife. 3. We read not that any of these sons came to be famous (three of them were infamous, Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah); we have therefore reason to rejoice with trembling in the building up of our families. 4. His son by Abigail is called Chileab (v. 3), whereas (1 Chron. iii. 1) he is called Daniel. Bishop Patrick mentions the reason which the Hebrew doctors give for these names, that his first name was Daniel–God has judged me (namely, against Nabal), but David’s enemies reproached him, and said, “It is Nabal’s son, and not David’s,” to confute which calumny Providence so ordered it that, as he grew up, he became, in his countenance and features, extremely like David, and resembled him more than any of his children, upon which he gave him the name of Chileab, which signifies, like his father, or the father’s picture. 5. Absalom’s mother is said to be the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur, a heathen prince. Perhaps David thereby hoped to strengthen his interest, but the issue of the marriage was one that proved his grief and shame. 6. The last is called David’s wife, which therefore, some think, was Michal, his first and most rightful wife, called here by another name; and, though she had no child after she mocked David, she might have had before.
Thus was David’s house strengthened; but it was Abner that made himself strong for the house of Saul, which is mentioned (v. 6) to show that, if he failed them, they would fall of course.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Second Samuel – Chapter 3
David Rules in Hebron, vs. 1- 5.
As the war between the forces of Abner and those of David progressed it seems that David gradually became ascendant. The strife itself is but a measure of the jealousy between the northern tribes and that of Judah which dominated the south. From the beginning Ephraim had been a leader of the north, and jealous of any endeavor in which they had no prominent part. Why the Lord did not allow David to gain a speedy victory is not stated. However, it may be that in this way He would bring the tribes all to see that David is the obvious king for the nation.
Meantime David’s family grew prolifically. His six older and more prominent sons were all born at this time, all of a different wife. Doubtless there were other children, but these were the chief princes in later years of their father’s reign.
Ammon, the firstborn, would turn out to be an evil man and die a victim of fratricide (2Sa 13:23 ff); Absalom would rebel against his father and be killed in battle (2Sa 18:9 ff); Adonijah would seek to usurp the throne while his father lay on his death bed and be executed by Solomon (1Ki 1:5-10; 1Ki 2:13 ff). Chileab, also called Daniel (1Ch 3:1), is the second son, but not prominently mentioned elsewhere, leading some to speculate that he died as a child. Sons numbers five and six, Shephatiah and Ithream, also are not prominently mentioned elsewhere. All these were born while David had his capital in Hebron.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES
2Sa. 3:1. The war. Not continual fighting, but the state of hostility in which they continued to stand towards one another. (Keil.)
2Sa. 3:3. Chiliab. Called Daniel in 1Ch. 3:1. Probably had two names. (Keil.) Geshur. A small independent kingdom in Syria.
2Sa. 3:4. Nothing is known of the origin of these wives of David, nor of the one mentioned in the following verse.
2Sa. 3:5. Davids wife. This appendage to Eglah has led some to conjecture that Michal is here intended; but Keil and others think it merely serves as a fitting conclusion to the list.
2Sa. 3:6. That Abner, etc. Keil here reads and Abner, making 2Sa. 3:6-7 into one sentence, expanded by the introduction of circumstantial clauses; the conjunction before said (i.e. Ishbosheth said), must then be translated that. Wherefore hast thou. As the harem of an Oriental king becomes the property of his successor, such an act on the part of Abner Would be an act of political treason.
2Sa. 3:8. Then was Abner very wroth, etc. He neither admits nor denies the charge, and most expositors regard him as guilty of the act; but as Erdmann remarks, it seems rather the outflow of passionate self-will and presumptuous contempt towards Ishbosheth than an attempt to secure the throne. His subsequent conduct towards David seems to contradict the idea that he had such an intention.
2Sa. 3:9. As the Lord hath sworn. We have no record of any formal Divine oath such as Abner here speaks of. But the promise of God is equivalent to an oath, as God is the true God, who can neither lie nor deceive (1Sa. 15:29, etc.).
2Sa. 3:10. From Dan even to Beersheba, i.e., throughout the entire land, from north to south. (Jdg. 20:1, etc.)
2Sa. 3:11. And he could not answer, etc. This characterises Ishboseth sufficiently for the whole situation. Having with an effort plucked up courage to ask that reproachful question, he here shows the greatest feebleness, cowardice, and timidity towards Abner. This also contributes to the explanation of what is said in 2Sa. 3:1 concerning the house of Saul. (Erdmann.)
2Sa. 3:12. On his behalf. Two general renderings of this phrase are found in the ancient versions, viz., in his place, equivalent to the English version, and immediately or on the spot. Keil adopts the first, but Erdmann the latter, remarking that it accords well with. Abners passionate excitement in 2Sa. 3:9, and that the former translation makes a superfluous phrase. Whose is the land? Some expositors (Schmidt, Keil, Ewald, etc.) understand Abner to declare by this question that the land belonged to David by virtue of his anointing; but others (Erdmann, Thenius, etc.) think that the following words indicate that Abner considered the land was virtually in his hand. This, says Erdmann, is quite in keeping with his proud, haughty nature, as hitherto manifested in his words and conduct, and also with the facts of the case, since, in fact, the whole land, except Judah, was still subject to Sauls house, that is, to him (Abner) as dictator.
2Sa. 3:13. One thing I require. This condition was imposed by David, not only because Michal had been unjustly taken away by Saul, so that he could demand her back again with perfect justice, but probably on political grounds also, namely, because the renewal of his marriage to the kings daughter would show to all Israel that he cherished no hatred in his heart towards the fallen king. (Keil.) He was led to a re-union partly by love (she loved him, 1Sa. 18:27; 1Sa. 19:11 sq.), and as king he could not, in the presence of the people, leave Michal in a relation into which she had been forced against her will. (Erdmann.)
2Sa. 3:15. Phaltiel. (See 1Sa. 25:44.)
2Sa. 3:16. Bahurim. A village near Jerusalem, north east, on the road between the Mount of Olives and Gilgal. Phaltiel followed his wife to the border of Davids kingdom.
2Sa. 3:17. Ye sought for David in times past. A striking testimony to the fact that outside of Judah also there had been a favourable sentiment towards David, against which Abner had energetically established and hitherto maintained Ishbosheths authority. (Erdmann.) (See 1 Chronicles 12) The Lord had spoken. Abner either had some expression used by one of the prophets (Samuel or Gad) in his mind or he regarded the anointing of David by Samuel by command of the Lord, and the marvellous success of all that David had attempted, as a practical declaration on the part of God. (Keil.)
2Sa. 3:19. The ears of Benjamin, Because the family of Saul belonged to this tribe, and they had enjoyed many advantages in consequence. See 1Sa. 22:7. Also also. These denote mutualness, and point out the close connection and relation between the negotiation carried on with Benjamin as the tribe most important for David, and the earnest conversation that Abner therefore had with David (in the ears of David).
2Sa. 3:20. Twenty men. As representatives of all Israel. (Keil.) A feast. Not merely an entertainment, but of the nature of a league. (Patrick.)
2Sa. 3:21. I will arise, etc. The gradation in these words is characteristic of the rapidity, excitedness, and energy that we everywhere find in Abner. (Erdmann.) A league. This was not to consist in the establishment of a constitution after the nature of a constitutional monarchy, which is wholly foreign to the theocratic kingdom; but they are to vow to obey David as the king given them by the Lord, he promising to govern them as the theocratic king. (Erdmann.) Thine heart desireth. David had indicated the desire of his heart in his message to the Jabeshites. (Erdmann.)
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.2Sa. 3:1-21
ABNERS REVOLT TO DAVID
I. When the will of God and the will of men are contending, however long the struggle, the issue is not doubtful. In the preceding chapter we have the history of a contest in which the combatants were so equally matched that neither could conquer the other, but death claimed victory over both. This is not so very uncommon a case where there is an equality of resolution and resource and patience, and where neither side has any right to call in reinforcements from the God of right. But that episode in the warfare between Judah and Israel was not a type of the final issue of the struggle. It was the will of God that that struggle should be protracted for years, both to perfect the patience and faith of David, and to show the men of Israel where their true interest lay. But even had the men of Judah been as inferior to their opponents in bravery and skill as they probably were in numbersif every one of lshbosheths supporters had been an Abner and their number multiplied a thousandfoldit could have availed nothing in the long run, for they were fighting against the purpose and plan of God. This must be the issue of every contest of a like character. It may be good for the servants of God that the struggle be lengthened from years into centuries, but victory on the side of those who are on the side of God is only a question of time.
II. Men who consult Gods will in some acts of their life are sometimes strangely forgetful to do it in others. We take it as certain that David consulted only his own desires or his own idea of what would conduce to his honour and prosperity when he multiplied the number of his wives, and even took one at least from outside his own nation. Although we have no reason to suppose he broke any express Divine command in so doing, yet it was evidently a violation of Gods original intention, and an imitation of the customs of the heathen monarchs, and such an alliance with them was in direct opposition to that separation from them and their ways which is commanded by the law of Moses. If he had been as careful to inquire of the Lord concerning this matter as he was in others, how much domestic misery might he have escaped. But all good men omit sometimes to obey the command, In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and, following their own inclination instead of hearkening to the voice of God, sow seeds of evil which afterwards yield them very bitter fruit. (On this subject see also on 2Sa. 1:2.)
III. A good deed done from a wrong motive is of no value to the doer. By their fruits ye shall know them (Mat. 7:16) is the word of Divine wisdom, and yet it is quite true, as F. W. Robertson remarks, that we must not always judge a man by his deeds, but the deeds by the man. The repentance which follows when a good man does wrong must be taken into account, and the motive that goes before when a bad man does right must be considered, before passing judgment. When Abner came over to Davids side he was performing an act of tardy justice, but it was not the fruit of repentance. It was prompted by no desire to repair the wrong of the past, but by a determination to avenge an offence in the present. The same motive moved him to make friends with David as induced him to set Ishbosheth upon the throne, and, therefore, no more moral value can be attached to the one action than to the other. The declaration, the Lord hath sworn to David did not come from the lips of one who consulted the Divine will, but from one who made his own ambition his rule of life, and Abner only confesses his guilt when he utters it, because he makes it plain that he did not sin through ignorance.
IV. Those who receive from others what they have no right to bestow will find punishment in being compelled to relinquish it. Two men in this chapter are in this case. Ishbosheth received his crown, and Phaltiel his wife from men who were wronging others when they bestowed them, and the issue in both is what it must ever be under such circumstances. Every gift given by man which is not at the same time given by God is not bestowed upon its righful owner, and will sooner or later be taken from the unlawful possessor to become the property of him to whom it belongs. However far and with whatever force a stone is thrown into the air, we feel that its return to the earth is certain. Whatever may be the height to which it ascends, we know there will come a moment when its return journey will begin, and its fall will be more rapid than its rise. So, however great may be the power and strength which is behind unjust promotion, and however long we may hold a gift which belongs to another, there is a law above all others which can only be held at abeyance for a limited time, and when that limit has been reached the law will assert its dominion, and the work of restitution will often be as sudden as it is painful. Phaltiel must have known he was wronging David to take his wife, and Ishbosheth knew also that he had no right to the throne, but the one thought himself secure in the power of Saul, and the other trusted to the ability of Abner. The day of reckoning came for both, and they had both cause to bitterly regret they had accepted favours from men who had no right to bestow them.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
2Sa. 3:1. What grievous tales of distress are folded up in these brief words. Probably it was only irregular war, without much bloodshed; the war of skirmish and surprises, not of pitched battles or protracted sieges, or desperate assaults; but many a pillaged town and many a homestead laid in ashes, and many a heart crushed in despair or maddened to fury, and many a deep and deadly curse and fearful vow of vengeance would everywhere follow the track of war. And it was war of the most distressing and demoralising kind.not foreign, but civil. Great national wars are usually attended by one counteracting benefitthey soften the keenness of private quarrels. But when parties in the same nation are fighting with each other, private quarrels, instead of being healed, are only exasperated in greater bitterness. In the painful war, therefore, in which David was engaged, he was deprived of the comfort of reflecting that whatever ravages it was producing abroad, it was drawing mens hearts closer to each other at home, and sweetening the breath of domestic society.Blaikie.
2Sa. 3:8. In the variance of these two, we see there is no solid and constant friendship among the wicked, for that which is in God is only like unto Him, immutable and sure, and worthy of the name of amity, the other being more properly conspiracies.Guild.
2Sa. 3:13. In Davids yielding and acceptation of Abners offer we see that, albeit he hath a good cause, yet he neglects no occasion of secondary means offered, which is an example of imitation, for as men are said to contemn God who rely altogether upon seconds, so are they to be thought to tempt God, who altogether reject the use of lawful seconds.Guild.
2Sa. 3:16. From this occurrence it is clear that, among the wild briars of unsettled family relationships by which Israel was then overgrown, here and there also the flowers of a true genuine love and fidelity were to be met with. They bloomed, indeed, in the house of David, but their growth was not unhindered, and he did not remain untouched by the curse which the Lord had attached to the crime of polygamy in Israel.Krummacher.
2Sa. 3:18. Abner wins the heart of Israel, by showing Gods charter for him whom he had so long opposed. Hypocrites make use of God for their own purposes, and care only to make Divine authority a colour for their own designs. No man ever heard Abner godly till now; neither had he been so at this time, if he had not intended a revengeful departure from Ishbosheth. Nothing is more odious than to make religion a stalking-horse to policy.Bishop Hall.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
3. A Period of Two Kings in Israel, 2Sa. 3:1-39.
Davids Family. 2Sa. 3:1-5
Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David: but David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker.
2 And unto David were sons born in Hebron: and his first-born was Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess;
3 And 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;
4 And the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital;
5 And the sixth, Ithream, by Eglah Davids wife. These were born to David in Hebron.
1.
Who prevailed in the wars between Israel and Judah? 2Sa. 3:1
The house of David prevailed in the series of wars between Israel and Judah. The campaign which was fought in Gibeon was indicative of the outcome of later conflicts. As David had grown stronger day by day while fleeing from Saul, more and more people saw that he would be the better king when he and Ish-bosheth held rival thrones. Sauls house had been rejected by God. It was inevitable that the house of Saul would wax weaker and weaker. David had been anointed king by Samuel, and it was equally inevitable that his house should wax stronger and stronger.
2.
Which of the wives of David was of royal blood? 2Sa. 3:2
Significant it is that we read house of Saul instead of house of Ish-bosheth. Ish-bosheth was insignificant; he was merely a member of the house of Saul. Noteworthy too, is the fact that we read of six wives and six sons of David. We do not know when the last four wives were taken. Maacah was of royal blood. She was the daughter of a king; she was the mother of Absalom. Amnon was the natural heir to the throne of David, inasmuch as he was the oldest of the six sons mentioned.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(1) There was long war.Not actual fighting of pitched battles, but a state of hostility, in which Ish-bosheth and David each claimed the allegiance of the whole nation, and this continued until the death of Ish-bosheth. During this time Ish-bosheth was too weak to carry on actual war, and David was content to abide the fulfilment of the promises of the Lord in His own good time.
Waxed stronger.Time was working in Davids favour, partly, doubtless, on account of Ish-bosheths manifest incompetence, partly from a growing appreciation of the character and prowess of David, and a fuller realisation that he was the divinely appointed sovereign. In 1Ch. 12:19-22 there is an account of an important accession to David from the tribe of Manasseh on the eve of Sauls last battle, and a further mention of continued accessions to him day by day. As the necessary result of this constant transference of strength to David, the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
CONTINUED WAR BETWEEN THE HOUSE OF SAUL AND THAT OF DAVID, 2Sa 3:1-6.
1. Long war A struggle and bitter hostility continued for two years or more. See note on 2Sa 2:10.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
David Makes Himself Strong In Hebron While Abner Makes Himself Strong In A Weakened House Of Saul ( 2Sa 3:1-6 ).
There would appear to have been constant antagonism between Judah and Israel from the moment when David was made King of Judah, and the result was that while David and his house continued to grow in power, the house of Saul became weaker and weaker, until in the end it was dominated by one man, Abner, Saul’s cousin and former general. This probably does not indicate continuing warfare. Apart from the one incursion above which for Israel had been a disaster, which had taken place once Abner had made the house of Saul safe from Israel’s internal wrangling, Israel were in no position to make war on David. And David, in his usual manner, was seemingly happy to wait for YHWH to decide when he should make his next move. Indeed one of the reasons why the house of Saul grew so weak would be precisely because it was involved in these internal Israelite squabbles, with the result that Abner had to take control with a firm hand and assert his authority. David on the other hand was meanwhile prospering, marrying well and producing six fine sons, which the writer clearly saw as indicating his overall wellbeing and prosperity.
David’s growth in strength is thus illustrated in terms of his son-producing wives, for sons were always seen as making a man’s house strong. The marriages of people like David usually had political aims. His first two wives had firmly established his position in Judah and as a man of influence and great wealth. His third resulted in a treaty relationship with Talmai, the king of Geshur, a city in Syria, north east of Bashan (2Sa 15:8; 1Ch 3:2; Jos 12:5; Jos 13:11; Jos 13:13). We know little about the others but we need not doubt their importance in his plans.
Analysis.
a
b And to David sons were born in Hebron (2Sa 3:2 a).
c And his first-born was Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; and 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; and the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital; and the sixth, Ithream, of Eglah, David’s wife (3:2b-5a).
b These were born to David in Hebron (2Sa 3:5 b).
a And it came about that, while there was antagonism (war) between the house of Saul and the house of David, Abner made himself strong in the house of Saul (2Sa 3:6).
Note that in ‘a’ the continual antagonism between the two houses is mentioned along with the growing strong of David, while in the parallel the continual antagonism is again mentioned, along with the growing weakness of the Saulides as Abner begins to take over. In ‘b’ it is emphasised that sons were born to David in Hebron, and in the parallel the same is emphasised. Centrally in ‘c’ we have the names of David’s wives and sons.
2Sa 3:1
‘ Now there was long antagonism (war) between the house of Saul and the house of David, but David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker.’
As already mentioned the antagonism probably did not express itself in continual warfare in view of Israel’s weak condition. It rather resulted in non-recognition of each other’s positions and an attitude of opposition to each other’s claims. As we have seen in 2 Samuel 2 Israel’s one failed attempt at warfare came when Abner thought that he had established Ish-bosheth’s position firmly, and as we know, it resulted in dismal failure, simply because Abner had underestimated David’s power. (Had relations been more friendly Abner might have had contact with David and have recognised how foolish it would be to challenge him). David was meanwhile establishing Judah, while making raids on different antagonists in order to gain booty, as he had previously in Ziklag (2Sa 3:22), while at the same time leaving Israel well alone. He was prepared to wait for YHWH to fulfil His promises and did not therefore wish to antagonise Israel itself.
2Sa 3:2-5
‘ And to David sons were born in Hebron: and his first-born was Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; and 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; and the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital; and the sixth, Ithream, of Eglah, David’s wife. These were born to David in Hebron.’
The double emphasis on the fact that David had six sons in Hebron is clearly intended to demonstrate how God was prospering him, and how strong he was becoming. His time in Hebron was to be seen as one of growth and blessing. Later we will learn of further sons born to him in Jerusalem (2Sa 5:13-16).
Ahinoam and Abigail we know of from previous references. The remaining four marriages no doubt took place in Hebron. But what was most important was that they all bore him sons. Such sons when grown up could be politically useful (2Ch 11:22-23). The fact that some of them in fact became a thorn in his side was due solely to his own sin with regard to Uriah the Hittite and Bathsheba.
Apart from Maacah we know nothing about the wives he married in Hebron but they were probably politically influential. To a king marriage was a means of cementing his position and gaining political allies (concubines were for love). Thus these marriages emphasised his growing prestige and influence.
2Sa 3:6
‘ And it came about that, while there was antagonism (war) between the house of Saul and the house of David, Abner made himself strong in the house of Saul.’
One result of the continual antagonism between the two houses and the resulting weakness that it brought to the house of Saul was that Abner was able to establish his own position.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
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 3:27
Jos 21:13, “Thus they gave to the children of Aaron the priest Hebron with her suburbs, to be a city of refuge for the slayer; and Libnah with her suburbs,”
2Sa 3:31 And David said to Joab, and to all the people that were with him, Rend your clothes, and gird you with sackcloth, and mourn before Abner. And king David himself followed the bier.
2Sa 3:31
1Ki 2:32, “And the LORD shall return his blood upon his own head, who fell upon two men more righteous and better than he, and slew them with the sword, my father David not knowing thereof, to wit, Abner the son of Ner, captain of the host of Israel, and Amasa the son of Jether, captain of the host of Judah.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Abner Leaves Ishbosheth for David
v. 1. Now, there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David, v. 2. And unto David were sons born in Hebron; and his first-born was Amnon, of Ahinoam, the Jezreelitess; v. 3. and his second, Chileab v. 4. and the fourth, Adonijah, the son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah, the son of Abital; v. 5. and the sixth Ithream, by Eglah, David’s wife. v. 6. And it came to pass, while there was war between the house of Saul and the house of David, v. 7. And Saul had a concubine whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah; and Ishbosheth said to Abner, Wherefore hast thou gone in unto my father’s concubine? v. 8. Then was Abner very wroth for the words of Ishbosheth, v. 9. So do God to Abner, and more also, v. 10. to translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, v. 11. And he, v. 12. And Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf, v. 13. And he, v. 14. And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, v. 15. And Ishbosheth, v. 16. And her husband went with her along weeping behind her to Bahurim, v. 17. And Abner, v. 18. now, then, do it: for the Lord hath spoken of David, saying, By the hand of My servant David I will save My people Israel out of the hand of the Philistines and out of the hand of all their enemies. v. 19. And Abner also spake in the ears of Benjamin, v. 20. So Abner came to David to Hebron, and twenty men with him, v. 21. And Abner said unto David, I will arise and go, and will gather all Israel unto my lord the king that they may make a league with thee,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
2Sa 3:1
There was long war. As Ishbosheth reigned only two years, and as “the house of Saul” is the phrase used, it seems probable that after Ishbosheth’s murder, during the five years before David’s election to the throne of all Israel, the house of Saul had some puppet representative at Mahanaim, and some commander in Abner’s place. But after the death of this able man matters would go from bad to worse, and, though David probably remained on the defensive, yet the contrast between the peace and good government of Judah and the misery in Israel made all the tribes wish to put an end to a harassing civil war. It is plain, too, that the Philistines, repelled at first by Abner’s skill, had again gained the ascendant, and regarded themselves so completely as the rulers of the country, that they resented immediately with summary violence the bold act of the northern tribes in choosing David to be their common king.
2Sa 3:2
Unto David were sons born. This increase of his wives is mentioned as a proof of David’s prosperity. For though contrary to the Law (Deu 17:17), it was yet looked upon as part of the state of a king, and as such had been practised by Gideon (Jdg 8:30), who approached more nearly to the royal dignity than any other of the judges. But it is the rule of the Books of Samuel that they generally abstain alike from praise and ‘blame, and allow facts to speak for themselves. But never did a history more clearly deserve the title of ‘A Vindication of the Justice of God.’ Alike in Eli, in Saul, and in David, their sufferings were the result of their sins, and to the polygamy and lust of the last are due both the crimes which stained his character and the distress of the last twenty years of his life. (For Amnon, his first born, see 2Sa 13:1-39.)
2Sa 3:3-5
Chileab. The Midrash explains Chileab as meaning “Quite like the father.” He is called Daniel in the parallel genealogy in 1Ch 3:1, and this was probably his real name, and Chileab a name of affection. He must have died young, for Adonijah appears as David’s eldest son after the death of Amnon and Absalom; and it is thus natural that he should still be known by the name he bore as a child. Geshur. The word signifies “Bridgeland,” and is the name of two districts, one of which formed the northern part of the tribe of Manasseh, and extended on both sides of the Jordan, from the little Hermon to the sea of Gennesareth (Deu 3:14; Jos 12:5; Jos 13:13). The other was in Syria (2Sa 15:8), and probably was situated upon some river, though its exact position is not yet known. Talmai, its king, now gave his daughter to be one of David’s wives, and though he was probably only a petty prince, still it is a proof of David’s growing power that a potentate living at so great a distance was willing to make an alliance with him. Of the other wives and their sons nothing is known except of Adonijah, who inherited, on the death of Absalom, the dangerous position of firstborn; and who, after trying to make his rights good, was put to death by Solomon (1Ki 2:25). As Eglah is especially called David’s wife, the Jewish interpreters hold that she was the highest in rank in his household, and therefore identical with Michal, who was restored to David while at Hebron. But she was childless; and more probably the words are to be taken as simply closing the narrative, and as belonging, therefore, equally to each of the six.
2Sa 3:6
Abner made himself strong for the house of Saul. The Hebrew really means that until this miserable quarrel about Rizpah, Abner had been the mainstay of Ishbosheth’s throne and dynasty. She is proved to have been a noble woman, with a warm and devoted heart, by the narrative in 2Sa 21:8-11. But the harem of a deceased king was looked upon as the special inheritance of his successor; and Absalom, by taking David’s concubines (2Sa 16:21, 2Sa 16:22), treated his father as a dead man, and committed so overt an act of treason as made reconciliation impossible. So Solomon put his brother Adonijah to death for asking Abishag to wife (1Ki 2:23-25). Still, as Bathsheba there saw no impropriety in Adonijah’s request, and as Solomon deposed Abiathar and put Joab to death for complicity, as we must conclude, in Adonijah’s request, it was probably part of some scheme of conspiracy, and that, if granted, it would have been used by Adonijah as a proof that the kingdom really was his. Here there was no plot, and as Rizpah had probably always lived apart from Ishbosheth, Abner may have expected that the king would see no difficulty in the matter.
2Sa 3:8
Then was Abner very wroth. This extreme indignation on Abner’s part is not easy to understand; for he could scarcely have expected Ishbosheth to endure quietly what at least was a great insult. But probably the question, Wherefore hast thou gone in unto my father’s concubine? does not mean a mild expostulation on the king’s part, but the purpose to degrade Abner and strip him of his office. Probably after the defeat by Joab at Gibeon, the army was less satisfied with its leader, and his detractors may gladly have encouraged the king to use this opportunity for bringing Abner down to his proper place. Weak kings often try to play the strong man; but the attempt here only drove the imperious soldier to put the matter to the proof, and show that the strength was his. We know that David groaned all his life through under Joab’s iron will, and, though he tried, yet that he never succeeded in throwing off the yoke. But Joab never behaved unfaithfully to his sovereign as Abner did here, and his crimes were deeds of violence committed in David’s cause. Am I a dog’s head, which against Judah, etc.? The words literally are, Am I a dog’s head that is for Judah? and are rightly rendered in the Revised Version, Am I a dog’s head that belongeth to Judah? Am I at once worthless and a traitor, a thing of no account, and on the side of thy enemies? In the words that follow he protests, not so much his innocence as his great deserts. This daythat is, at this very timeI am showing kindness unto the house of Saul and this day thou wouldest visit upon methat is, punish me forthe fault about this woman. I make and maintain thee as king, and thou wouldst play the king upon me, the kingmaker!
2Sa 3:9
As the Lord hath sworn to David. This not only shows that the prophetic promise of the kingdom to David was generally known (see note on 2Sa 1:2), hut that Abner regarded it as solemnly ratified. There is no express mention of any such oath, but Abner was a man of strong words, and possibly only meant that Jehovah’s purpose was becoming evident by the course of events.
2Sa 3:11
He could not answer Abner. Though the reply was one of open treason, and was spoken with violence, yet Ishbosheth did not venture to bring the matter to an issue. Perhaps he looked round upon his officers to see if any would take his side, and, when all were silent, he was too feeble to dare to order the arrest and trial of his too powerful captain.
2Sa 3:12
Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf; Hebrew, under him. The Revised Version renders this “where he was;” but the phrase really means “immediately” (see note on 2Sa 2:23). And this agrees with the haughty temper of Abner. Without waiting for advice, or allowing his anger to cool, he at once sent trusty envoys to open negotiations with David. Whose is the land? Abner’s meaning in these words is plain. You, David, he seems to say, will answer that the land is mine; for Jehovah has promised it to me. But, as a matter of fact, much of the land is mine (Abner’s), or at least belongs to the house of Saul, whose prime minister I am. Yours is an abstract right; mine is actual possession. Come, let us make the two agree. Give me fitting assurances of safety and reward, and I will make your claim a reality.
2Sa 3:13
Except thou first bring Michal. Besides David’s affection for Michal, there were political reasons for demanding her restoration. Saul’s despotic act in giving her in marriage to another man (1Sa 25:44) had been a public disavowal of David as the son-in-law of the royal house, and equivalent to a proclamation of outlawry. David’s rights were all declared null by such an act. But now Ishbosheth must with equal publicity reverse his father’s deed, and restore to David his lost position. It must have been a most painful humiliation to him to be driven thus to cancel his father’s decree, and declare thereby to all Israel that he was unable to refuse hie assent to whatever his rival demanded. And for this reason David sent his messengers directly to Ishbosheth, because the importance of Michal’s surrender to him lay in its being a public act of the state. For Michal, in 2Sa 21:8, we ought to read Merab (see note there).
2Sa 3:14
A hundred foreskins. This was the number which Saul had required (1Sa 18:25), and David acted rightly in not boasting that he had really given twice as many (1Sa 18:27). As he had paid her father the stipulated price, Michal, by Oriental law, was David’s property.
2Sa 3:15
Phaltiel the son of Laish. In 1Sa 25:44 he is called Phalti. This word, in Hebrew lexicons, is usually regarded as a contraction for Phaltiyah, “Jehovah is deliverance,” while Phaltiel means “El is deliverance.” The substitution of El for Yah is one of those changes which arose out of the superstitious reverence for the sacred name which to this day causes the word LORD to be read in our Bibles where in the Hebrew are the four consonants Y, H, V, H, which, by attaching to them the vowels belonging to the Hebrew word edonay (or, adonay, lord) we make into “Jehovah” (Yehovah).
2Sa 3:16
Her husband went with her along weeping behind her. “Along weeping” is a very awkward rendering of the Hebrew phrase, “going and weeping.” The Revised Version is far better, “weeping as he went and followed her.” Phaltiel had been Michal’s husband for eight or nine years, and his sorrow at losing her excites sympathy for them both. They had evidently loved one another, and she was now going to be but one of many wives; and though David may have desired her restoration because he valued her and cherished the remembrance of their youthful affection, yet there was a large admixture of political motive in his conduct. At Gallim she had been Phaltiel’s one jewel, and had been loved for her own sake; at Hebron she would have many rivals. But women of royal rank have often to pay the price of sacrificed affections for the ends of statecraft. Near Bahurim, on the road from Jerusalem to Gilgal, in the valley of the Jordan, the convoy approached the borders of Judah, and Abner will not allow the weeping husband to enter David’s dominions. Painful as was his fate, he had himself done wrong in marrying another man’s wife; and if he was weeping now, we may well believe that David had felt equal anguish when Michal was torn from him and sold to another,for fathers in those days received instead of giving a dowry upon the marriage of their daughters. Saul in this matter was most to blame, and if he had not committed this wrong, David might never have sought an evil solace in multiplying to himself other wives
2Sa 3:17
And Abner had communication with the elders of Israel. Most probably this had taken place before Abner escorted Michal to Hebron, and that he paid David but one visitthat recorded in 2Sa 3:20. He would probably not take so decided a step as the surrender of Michal without sounding the elders, that is, the local sheikhs, and finding out how far they were inclined to support David as king of all Israel. When everything was ready he would take Michal to Hebron, and so have the opportunity of arranging with David for future action; and though Ishbosheth would dislike the matter and suspect Abner of ulterior purposes, yet he could not refuse so specious a plea as the escorting of his sister. His previous failure, too, had taught him that Abner was master. We may further be sure that David had everywhere many adherents. All Israel knew that he was marked out by prophecy to be their king, and, moreover, “all Israel and Judah loved him” (1Sa 18:16). But when Abner says, Ye sought for David in times past to be king over you, he makes it probable that, at some time after the defeat at Gilboa, the attempt had even been made to elect David king. But Abner had then opposed it, and his success in resisting the Philistines, and David’s unfortunate entanglement with those inveterate enemies of Israel, had made the attempt fail. And now Abner’s attempt was to be equally unsuccessful.
2Sa 3:18
The Lord hath spoken. Here again Abner’s statements go far beyond the text of anything recorded in Holy Scripture, but probably they give the popular interpretation of the prophecies respecting David. It will be noticed also that Abner endeavours to meet the general prejudice against David by asserting that he was Israel’s destined deliverer from Philistine oppression. As Abner’s speech is virtually an acknowledgment of failure, we may also be sure that he had found himself unable any longer to make head against the Philistines on the western side of the Jordan, and that Judah was the only tribe there that enjoyed tranquillity. Everywhere else they had once again established their supremacy. Though a brave soldier, Abner was inferior, not only to David, but also to Joab, both as statesman and general; and the weak Ishbosheth was no help to him, but the contrary.
2Sa 3:19
In the ears of Benjamin. This tribe alone, probably, was really loyal to the house of Saul, their kinsman. But since the withdrawal of the court to Mahanaim, they got but little good from it, and were left to resist the predatory bands of the Philistines as best they could. So warlike a tribe too would despise Ishbosheth, and long for a braver man to aid them in fighting their enemies.
2Sa 3:20
Twenty men with him. These, we may feel sure, were not common soldiers, but chieftains selected from those elders who were on David’s side; and, though the honourable escort of Michal was the pretext, yet Ishbosheth must have felt sure that more was intended. Most of them, however, would join Abner on the road, especially those who represented Benjamin and the western tribes. On arriving at Hebron they were honourably received, and, after a feast, they settled the conditions on which David was to be made king of all Israel; and Abner then departed in peace, after giving the assurance that all the tribes would now gladly assemble, and by solemn compact and covenant make David their king. The terms of the league, and the conditions agreed upon for Ishbosheth, are not mentioned, because upon Abner’s death the whole plan fell to the ground, and David had to wait for many years before his hopes were fulfilled. But we gather from this covenant and 2Sa 5:3 (where see note) that the early kings of Israel were not absolute monarchs.
2Sa 3:22
From pursuing a troop. This gives a wrong idea, as though Joab had been repelling an attack. The Revised Version is right in rendering “came from a foray,” the troop being a company of men sent out on a predatory excursion. It is not unlikely that David had arranged this expedition in order that his interview with Abner might take place in Joab’s absence; and as he returned with “great spoil,” he had probably been away for some nine or ten days, during which he had penetrated far into the country of the Amalekites. Had David acted frankly and honourably, Joab would not have stood in the way of his master’s exaltation, and the blood feud between him and Abner might have been arranged. But it is evident that David secretly disliked and chafed under the control of his strong-willed and too-able nephew.
2Sa 3:24, 2Sa 3:25
What hast thou done? David’s secret dealing makes Joab see a personal wrong to himself in the negotiation with Abner. There could be no room, he feels, for both of them in David’s army, and David meant, he supposes, to sacrifice himself. In hot haste, therefore, he rushes into the king’s presence, and reproaches him for what he has done, but covers his personal feelings with professed zeal for his master’s interests. Abner is a mere spy, who has come on a false pretext, and with the real intention of learning David’s going out and coming in, that is, his present manner of life and undertakings. All that thou doest; literally, all that thou art doing; all that is now going on, and thy plans and purposes. Abner would not only judge by what he saw, but in his interview with David would lead him on to talk of his hopes and prospects. David had little time to explain the real object of Abner’s coming, nor was Joab in a mood to listen to anything he said. He had detected his master in secret negotiations, and would regard his excuses as tainted with deceit. And after giving vent to his auger in reproaches, he hurried away to thwart David’s plans by a deed of most base villainy. Had David acted openly, all would have been done with Joab’s consent and approval.
2Sa 3:26
The wellHebrew, cisternof Sirah. Josephus (‘Ant.,’ 8. 1. 5) says that this cistern was situated about two miles and a half north of Hebron. There was probably a caravanserai there, at which Abner halted, intending to continue his march homewards as soon as the coolness of evening set in. Here Joab’s messengers overtook him, and, speaking in David’s namefor otherwise Abner would not have fallen into the trapasked him to return for further conference, mentioning, perhaps, Joab’s arrival as the reason. In this way Abner’s suspicions would be set at rest, and it would seem quite natural for him to find Joab waiting for him at the gate.
2Sa 3:27
Joab took him aside in the gate. As we read in 2Sa 18:24 of David sitting “between the two gates,” and of “the roof over the gate,” and in 2Sa 18:33 of “the chamber over the gate,” Ewald’s idea of there being a roofed inner space, with a guard room over it, as in the mediaeval gate towers in German towns, is probably right. As the “two gates” would make the space between them gloomy, the spot would just suit Joab’s purpose. He meets Abner, therefore, in a friendly manner, and drawing him aside, as if to converse with him apart from the people going in and out, there assassinates him. The place was so public that the deed must have been witnessed by multitudes, though the gloom, felt the more by them from the contrast with the bright glare of sunshine outside, had given Joab the opportunity of drawing his sword without Abner’s observing it. For the blood of Asahel his brother. Joab’s act was in accordance with Oriental feeling; and the duties of the avenger of blood might with some straining be made to cover his retaliation for an act done by Abner in self-defence (Num 35:26, Num 35:27). It is remarkable that Hebron was itself a city of refuge (Jos 20:7), and this may have led Joab to murder him in the gate, before he had actually entered. Still, Abner did not expect any such retribution, and supposing that Joab knew of the purpose that had brought him to Hebron, he could not suppose that he would be so indifferent to his master’s interests as to put a summary stop to the negotiations for uniting the tribes under David. As it was, this deed brought upon David an evil name, and four or five years had to elapse before the tribes could be induced to take him for their king. Even then his hold over them was far less than it would otherwise have been; for though the shock was gradually got over, yet the suspicion still dung to him. And if the deed was Joab’s own act, still David had contributed to it by underhand dealings. His very fear of Joab had caused him to wrong his able general, and given him just cause for resentment.
2Sa 3:28
I and my kingdom are guiltless. By this David means, not his royal house, but the people generally, who too often have to pay the penalty for the sins of their rulers (see 2Sa 21:1). Necessarily this is the case, wherever the crime is a state crime; but David protests that Abner’s murder was a private crime, for which Joab and Abishai alone ought to suffer.
2Sa 3:29
Let it rest on the head of Joab. The Hebrew word is very strong, “Let it roll itself,” or throw itself upon Joab’s head. The force of the expression thus indicates the great excitement under which David was labouring; yet even so it was no slight matter to utter so bitter a curse upon a man so powerful, and whose military skill was so essential to the maintenance of his throne. To a man of David’s strong sense of justice, it was a small matter that by Abner’s murder the kingdom of the ten tribes was lost perhaps forever; what he hated was the wickedness of this mean act of personal revenge. And thus his imprecations are all such as would be humiliating to a family so distinguished for great physical as well as mental gifts, as the house of Zeruiah. Nor was David content with this; for we gather from 1Ch 11:6 that during the intervening years Joab was deprived of his office, and that he regained it only by an act of daring bravery. (For the miserable condition of one suffering with an issue, see Le 1Ch 15:2, etc.; and for that of a leper, Lev 13:1-59; Lev 14:1-57.) Instead of one that leaneth on a staff, some translate “a distaff holder,” that is, a poor effeminate creature, fit only for woman’s work. The true sense is probably a crippleone who needs a crutch. That falleth on the sword; more correctly the Revised Version, that falleth by the sword. The two last imprecations mean that if any of the race of Joab and Abishai escape these personal blemishes, yet that his fate shall be, in war an inglorious death, and in peace a life of poverty. This curse of David is regarded in the Talmud (‘Sanhedr.,’ 48.2) as very sinful. Undeniably it was uttered in violent anger, and while Joab’s act was utterly base and perfidious, yet he had the excuse for it of Asahel’s death and David’s double-dealing. The latter made him conclude that the man who had killed his brother was also to usurp his place. Possibly this suspicion was not without reason. As David was strong enough to deprive Joab of his command, it is plain that he had nothing to fear from telling him his plans. Joab would have assented, the blood feud have been appeased by a money payment, and all gone well. But David, it seems, wished to hold Joab in check by giving at least a share in the command to the veteran Abner.
2Sa 3:30
Joab and Abishai his brother. Nothing is said of Abishai having taken part in the murder, but the words suggest that it was a premeditated act, and that Abishai was privy to it.
2Sa 3:31
David said to Joab. The excuse of the blood feud made it impossible for David to punish Joab further than by depriving him of his command; but he made him condemn his own deed by taking part in the public mourning for the man he had murdered. This mourning consisted in going in solemn procession, clad in sackcloth, before Abner’s body, carried on a bier to the grave, while David followed as chief mourner; and the emphatic way in which he is called King David suggests the thought that he went in royal state, so as to give all possible dignity to the funeral. His tears and lamentations with uplifted voice were so genuine and hearty as to move the people to a similar outburst of grief. But while all those at Hebron had proof that David was innocent, the people generally would know only that, when Abner was escorting the king’s wife back to him, and arranging for his election to rule over all Israel, he was treacherously murdered at the gate of Hebron by one who was chief over David’s army and also his nephew.
2Sa 3:33
The king lamented. The word is the same as that used in 2Sa 1:17. The word rendered “fool” is nabal (for which see 1Sa 25:25). The idea contained in the word is not that of mere silliness, but of worthlessness also; and thus in Psa 14:1 we find that the nabal is also an atheist.
2Sa 3:34
Thy hands were not bound. Abner had been put to death by Joab for killing Asahel. But there had been no legal process. He had not been brought in fetters before a judge to be tried for the crime alleged, but murdered for private ends. And thus, “As a man falleth before the children of iniquity, so had he fallen,” that is, by crime, and not by law. These words s re probably the refrain of the dirge, like those in 2Sa 1:19, 2Sa 1:25, 2Sa 1:27, and were followed by the celebration of Abner’s bravery, but they alone are recorded, because they contain the main point. Abner’s death was not, like the sentence upon Baanah and Rechab, an act of justice, but one of lawless revenge; and by this poem David proclaimed, not only his innocence, but also his abhorrence of the crime.
2Sa 3:35
The people came to cause David to eat meat. The Jewish commentators, Philippson, Cahen, etc; consider that the occasion for this was given by the custom of taking food after a funeral (Jer 16:7; Eze 24:17), which in time degenerated into the giving of a costly banquet (Josephus, ‘Bell. Jud.,’ 2. 1). To this day, at a Jewish funeral in Germany, the bearers are regaled with eggs, broad, and wine. While, then, others were partaking of the food that had been provided, David remained apart, and when urged by the assembled multitude to join them in their meal, he protested that he would continue fasting until sunset. He thus proved that his sorrow was genuine, and the people were convinced of his innocence, and pleased at the honour which he thus did to the fallen soldier.
2Sa 3:36
Whatsoever the king did pleased all the people. This is a tribute to the king’s conduct generally. The people would have been grieved and astonished if David had been guilty of this mean murder; but his indignant disavowal of it was in accordance with his usual justice and uprightness, and so it confirmed their high opinion of him. Thus while the more distant tribes condemned David, those who had the best opportunity for forming a judgment gave their verdict in his favour.
2Sa 3:37
All Israel understood. The twenty men who had accompanied Abner would be witnesses of all that David did, and would carry their report of it home, and of the high estimation in which his character was held at Hebron. And this gradually would be told throughout the tribes, and the final verdict of all well-disposed people would be in David’s favour.
2Sa 3:38
A prince and a great man. David pronounces this high estimate of Abner’s worth to his servants, that is, to his officers, and especially to the six hundred mighty men. His conduct is bold and open, and must have greatly humiliated Joab and Abishai. But though the six hundred approved of David’s conduct, and respected him for it, yet probably, as Abner had killed Asahel, they would not have consented to any further punishment than the disgrace inflicted on Joab by his being deprived of the command of David’s warriors.
2Sa 3:39
I am this clay weak the sons of Zeruiah be too hard for me. David would gladly have had Abner as a counterpoise to Joab’s too-great power. As it was, though an anointed king, he had but one tribe loyal to him; the rest were the subjects of a rival; and the Philistines were oppressing all alike. Had Abner’s enterprise been carried out, all the tribes would have been united under his sway. He could thus have made head against the Philistines, and Abner, in command of the Benjamites and other tribes, would have curbed the fierce self-will of Joab. As it was, the sons of Zeruiah might be reprimanded, and could not treat David as Abner had treated Ishbosheth; but they were indispensable. David had a strange set of men around him in those outlaws (1Sa 22:2); and Joab, brave, skilful, and unscrupulous, was a man after their own heart. They had just returned with great booty from a foray under his command; and it was a brave and manly thing in David to reprove him so openly, and dismiss him from his command. Had he attempted more, and Joab had stood upon the defence, there were plenty of “men of Belial” (1Sa 30:22) to side with him, and David might have met with the fate threatened him at Ziklag (1Sa 30:6). As it was, he proved himself to be king, and Joab, in spite of everything, remained a most faithful officer, and the right hand man in his kingdom, and one even trusted with perilous and disgraceful secrets (2Sa 11:14).
HOMILETICS
2Sa 3:1-11
Rival interests.
The facts are:
1. A desultory war is carried on between the house of Saul and the house of David, in which the latter has the advantage.
2. David has six sons born to him while at Hebron.
3. A quarrel arises between Abner and Ishbosheth, consequent on an accusation resented by Abner.
4. Abner charges his master with ingratitude, and threatens to transfer his allegiance to David.
5. In seeking to give emphasis to his threat, Abner indicates his knowledge of the Divine will concerning David. The object of the historian in 2Sa 3:1-5 is obviously to give a representation, from a political point of view, of David prior to the action of Abner in his favour; and in 2Sa 3:6-11 to state the circumstance that led to a transfer of Abner’s support from one side to the other. The general effect of the war between the two royal houses and the growth of David’s domestic establishment are the two prominent items of the situation prior to Abner’s change of policy. Judged solely by the standard of the age, they pointed in the direction of advancing influence, but looked at in the light of a higher standard they suggest a qualified prosperity. The general truths embodied in this account of rival interests may be set forth as follows.
I. DEFENSIVE ACTION IN A JUST CAUSE IS SOMETIMES THE BEST POLICY. That the cause of David was just is evident to every believer in the truth of the First Book of Samuel, and, as seen there and in the Psalms, the conviction of this governed his conduct. From a purely human point of view it might seem contrary to natural justice to set aside the son of the late king; and the effort of Ishbosheth to urge, by force of arms, his own claim may be a natural sequence of thought and feeling. But kings have no rights apart from the will of God; and, as the sequel shows (verse 10), both the young king and his general were not unacquainted with the Divine purpose. The right being with David, it might seem strange that he did not press his claim to entire dominion by aggressive war. His skill and valour, the coherence of his following, and the enthusiasm created by his personality, to say nothing of the demoralizing effect on Abner of his own infidelity to conscience, could not but have speedily made him master of all Israel. Instead of that, we find David simply authorizing such conflict as would suffice to hold his own and check the aggressive efforts of the house of Saul. It is interesting to see here the same David as of old, who had such faith in God and the gradual unfolding of his purposes that he would never raise a hand against Saul, or do anything, except in necessary self-defence, that could be construed into hostility. Had not Abner’s evil counsels prevailed with Ishbosheth, David would have lived in peace at Hebron till a mightier hand than his own cleared the way to the throne of a united people. Statesmen would do well to take such an example in many of the painful contingencies that arise. To a just man it is half the victory to be calm and strong in the conviction of his rectitude and the righteousness of his position. There is a watchful Providence cherishing the good and frustrating the evil. Forces under the direction of an evil genius are sure to wear themselves out if only the objects of their hate can hold their own; and the wasting of their strength means the final triumph of the cause of truth and justice. There are seasons in Church life when this policy of pure defence is wise; for at such times God has ends to effect which work in with the scope of more aggressive endeavours.
II. A RIGHT CONTENTION WILL COME TO A NIGHT ISSUE. “David waxed stronger and stronger.” Of course he did. It could not but be so, for he was a chosen servant, not seeking or doing his own will, but simply placing his life in the hands of God, to work out for his people and for future ages, purposes the precise nature of which he could not understand. No weapon formed against him could prosper. He who contended against him fought against God. The forces of nature were on his side. Never did mortal more vainly contend against late than did Ishbosheth contend against David. The principle involved in this instance is of wide range. Right is sure to prevail in the issue. The disturbing element introduced by sin into the universe causes strife of the most grave character. The whole line of Divine government, so far as we can trace it, seems to be a line of conflict between right and wrong, holiness and sin. The antagonism taken up in Eden runs on and becomes more acute on Calvary, and is apparent now in a “long war” between the children of light and the kingdom of darkness. Time is in favour of righteousness. There is an endurance in truth which cannot be affirmed of error. As perhaps the friends of David thought those years of war very tedious and dispiriting, and sometimes even inconsistent with rightness of claim and purpose, so we may be weary in the greater strife and become disturbed by cruel questionings; yet the issue is sure. “Stronger and stronger” may be affirmed of the kingdom of righteousness on earth. For even the seeming failures and delays only become, in the hands of Providence, the means of acquiring the hardier and more enduring virtues by which at last the final victory shall be won. The same is true of any conflicts in which character is at stake. Our “righteousness shall be brought forth as the light,” and our “judgment as the noonday.” The parallel may be seen also in the conflict of the “old” End the “new man.” The one is on the way to perish; the other is “renewed day by day.”
III. THE UNEXPRESSED WOES OF LIFE ARE VERY REAL. “There was long war.” The sentence is brief, and understandable by a child. It is repeated with careless ease. As a rule, it connotes to the ordinary reader only a general idea of men seeking to slay one another. But to read history aright we ought to bring the faculty of imagination into full play; and it is only as we exercise the historic imagination that we get a glimpse of the sad facts embodied in this simple form of expression. Subjected to the vitalizing power of this faculty, what unexpressed woes rise up to view! What harsh and fierce dispositions! What weary marchings and watchings! What murderous blows and bleeding wounds and agonizing deaths! What widows’ wailings and orphans’ tears! What losses to homes and nation of strong men and productive toil! This, which applies to the brief statement of the sacred narrative, is equally true of greater woes. Men read of great battles very much as they read algebraic symbols. The real items indicated are not vivid to the mind. Men read also of the banishment of the wicked to outer darkness in the same mechanical way. The hurry of life leaves no time for the imagination to lay hold of the actual facts connoted. Hence the power over the will of mere visible, present realities. Hence the difficulty of getting the “powers of the world to come” to influence motive. Hence, also, the necessity of each man making an effort to bring his mind into actual view of the facts covered by language, and of the preacher and teacher rendering the aid of well-chosen speech to further this effort.
IV. CONVENTIONAL STRENGTH MAY BE AN OCCASION OF MORAL WEAKNESS. The historian tells us of the growth of David’s domestic establishment at Hebron. Estimated by the customs prevalent in the East at that time, this acquisition by David of wives and sons was supposed to add to the splendour and stateliness of his regal position. All the paraphernalia of a court, the wide-reaching influence of family connections, and the imposing show of a large household would lead ordinary men to regard him as among the great ones of the earth. The accidental surroundings of life form a delusively important part of what is deemed to be human greatness. We are all children in so far as we are influenced in our judgments on social position and weight of character by the circumstantials of life. Even the more educated are prone to either identify or associate greatness with large establishments. This kind of conventionalism plays an important part in human affairs; but it is not God’s standard. David’s polygamous habits were consistent with the conventional morality of the age, and his domestic establishment projected his public position before the eye of the people in a form accordant to princely fashion; but we know that beneath all the signs of wealth and greatness there were influences at work which could not but weaken his moral three and mar the beauty and sweetness of his private life. Oriental splendour and conventional moralities were indulged in at great moral cost. David in Hebron with many wives and their accompaniments could not be as morally robust as was David in earlier days. The same danger attends all who conform to customs not based on strict principles of purity and godliness. Fashion cannot make righteousness. Goodness may live amidst habits essentially alien to the welfare of the individual and to saints, as surely as life may continue in an atmosphere charged with malarious poisons; but the enervation of the one will be as certain as of the other. The insensibility of the man to the subtle action of the evil is only an aggravation of its action and in no wise a palliation. Modern Christians should severely scrutinize the moral quality of the circumstances and habits in which conventional usage allows them to live. This can only be done by making use of tests absolutely given by God apart from the colouring which custom is apt to give even to Divine laws.
V. UNRIGHTEOUS MEN PAY HOMAGE TO RIGHTEOUSNESS. There can be no question but that Ishbosheth knew well the nature and validity of David’s claims; for the theocratic rule was a reality in Israel during and subsequent to the life of Samuel. It was, therefore, wrong for him to put forth any personal claim of his own. Jonathan’s example had been lost upon him; and yet this man recognized the evil done by Abner in lustful indulgence, and even ventured to protest against it. On the other hand, Abner, while being unrighteous enough to indulge in sinful lust and to abet the invalid claim of Ishbosheth, nevertheless is fired with indignation that the love of gratitude should have been violated by the young monarch. Thus men, pursuing a course which they know to be contrary to the will of God, become, when personal and family matters are involved, zealous, each in his own fashion, for what is right and proper. Truly, man is a strange compound of moral light and darkness. The psychological explanation is a study. It is the habituation to the wrong which renders men so dull to appeals, so insensible to the real demerit of their actions, and it is the latent force of conscience which saves them from being parties to a course on which they have not taken the initial step. Hence our Lord’s reference to the “gnat” and the “camel.” The prevalence of this state of moral confusion is very wide even in Christian society. In the same individual may be found great sensitiveness and great obtuseness. The holding of slaves and gain by the sale of them has coexisted with a profound regard for religious worship. Licentious men have had a dread of dishonesty. Multitudes who rob God of the love and obedience due to him are indignant if an ordinary business debt is not paid. The Pharisees could conspire to kill Jesus Christ, and yet feel very unhappy if they omitted any of the ceremonials of religion. It is a common thing for men and women to indulge in envy, jealousy, and ill will, while extremely careful to keep up an external conduct conformable to the requirements of the Decalogue. There is much scope for searching of heart on this subject; and in dealing with it the preacher needs to exercise great discrimination and delicacy of reference. Abner must be made to see himself as Ishbosheth sees him, and vice versa. “Man, know thyself,” is a maxim of immense importance to every one.
VI. PASSING EVENTS MAY SERVE TO UNVEIL THE WORKINGS OF CONSCIENCE. Viewed from a distance by the people, Abner seemed to be a man who all along was conscientiously and faithfully subordinating his life to the maintenance of a just cause. So far as we can see from the narrative, he had been reticent concerning the mental processes of which he was daily conscious. But the incident of Ishbosheth’s accusation of immorality was as the removing of a veil whereby the actual thoughts of Abner stood revealed. “So do God to Abner, and more also, except, as the Lord hath sworn to David, even so I do to him.” Thus Abner had known all along that it was God’s will to give the kingdom to David. The ideas and compunctions connected with this central fact had evidently been covered up and suppressed. The real inner life of struggle against right and God was now exposed by his own act. In the case of every man there is always an inner life necessarily hidden by himself from ordinary view. It is a necessity of social existence that each man should be more unknown than known to his fellows. Only where there is perfect holiness would perfect knowledge of others be helpful to love and confidence. But in the case of men pursuing a deliberate course which seems to others to be conscientious, but is known to themselves to be contrary to right, there is a rigid and designed concealment of their self-condemnation. They gain the reputation of being upright, though perhaps misguided, men, while their own conscience gives the lie to this public judgment. An incidental reference, an unguarded hasty admission of fact, an effort to justify an action, may be as a sudden rent in the covering of the real life within, exposing to the view of others a guilty violation of truth, a perpetual conflict against the well-ascertained will of God. This frequent concealment of aft inner guilty life and its possible unveiling by incidental events should be a guide in forming an estimate of conduct, and a warning to evil doers. The self-exposure, also, however incidental, is to be taken as a preintimation of the final exposure when God shall bring hidden things into judgment.
2Sa 3:12-21
The facts are:
1. Abner, disgusted with Ishbosheth’s conduct, opens negotiation with David for the transfer of the kingdom to him.
2. David consents to discuss the question on condition that Abner first of all undertakes to restore unto him Michal, Saul’s daughter.
3. Concurrent with Abner’s efforts to bring this to pass, David makes a demand on Ishbosheth for the restoration of Michal.
4. Abner, taking charge of Michal on her return to David, effects the final separation from her weeping husband.
5. Reminding Israel and Benjamin of their former preference of David, Abner seeks to bring them over to his cause.
6. Charged with instructions from the people, he pro-coeds to Hebron as a legate to arrange the business with David.
7. As a result of the interview, it was left to Abner to complete the formal submission of all the people to the authority of David
Faithfulness in small things.
The passage here in reference to David and Michal brings out a feature in the character of the king which was prominent from first to last. According to the common estimate of things, the a priori belief would be that, when a ruler desires the subjugation of a kingdom, he will readily accept offers of submission and of all powerful aids to bring it to pass. To obtain supremacy over Israel was the one thing above all others on which David’s mind was set, and the cooperation of so influential a man as Abner was a virtual realization of the king’s purpose. To an astute unprincipled man like Abner it was doubtless a cause of amazement that, when the kingdom was within the king’s grasp, he should practically refuse to have it unless a certain private affair was first arranged. The great affairs of the nation were made to wait on the settlement of what seemed to be a mere matter of sentiment and personal interest. Few monarchs in the East would thus have dealt with the chance of gaining the ends of long-cherished political ambition. In David’s case the stipulation was consistent with his character, lie was ever generously careful of maintaining the rights of individuals and of sacrificing his own ambition to the justice due to others. He was faithful in that which is least.
I. THE CLAIMS OF THAT WHICH IS LEAST ARE VALID AND ARE SUBSTANTIAL PARTS OF A VAST SYSTEM OF OBLIGATIONS. Michal was David’s wife, bound to his heart and life by ties sacred and memorable (1Sa 18:17-30). To political schemers it would seem absurd to set a woman, not seen for many years, and known to be living in forced matrimony with another man, ever against a whole kingdom. But wrong done to her (1Sa 25:44) had not invalidated her claim on David’s affection. It was due to her, due to the memory of her father in spite of his follies, due to the force of his Own character on others, and due to the old love (1Sa 18:20-28) which changing fortunes had not changed, that she should have justice done her on the very first opportunity of enforcing it. David’s vision was clear enough to see that, if his claim to be king over all Israel was valid because of the appointment of God, so equally the claim of this banished woman on his love and care was also valid, because based on principles which God had ordained for the regulation of domestic life. The same Divine wilt was in both; and, moreover, they were equally parts of the great system of obligations which covers the whole area of human activity, and which is productive of highest good to man when the different parts are equally held as sacred and are rigidly observed. In human affairs there is often an apparent collision of what are called small and great obligations. In reality there is no such thing. There may be a question of order in which actions shall be done; but obligation, in the moral sense, can never clash with obligation. To love the Lord with all the heart is the prime, the chief duty, hut it does not destroy the duty of love to our neighbour. To take part in public affairs may be an obligation, but the care of home is a valid claim which cannot be ignored. There are duties which, entering into the minutiae of life or pertaining to the home rather than to public affairs, may be regarded as relatively small, but inasmuch as they are not the creation of custom but proceed from the will of God and form parts of the great scheme of life, they are to be regarded as sacred and binding as those which figure more largely before the public eye.
II. THE BRINGING ABOUT OF GREAT EVENTS INVOLVES MORE CHANGES THAN LIE WITHIN OUR OWN ACTION, AND PROVIDENCE TAKES CARE OF THEM. The event of all Israel submitting to David would imply manifold influences brought to bear on the elders of the people, and through them on the masses, and in such a process of change there might arise many a circumstance adverse to the desired issue. It was not in David’s power to effect this by any personal action. All he could do was to set agencies at work through Abner, and trust in Providence for disposing the hearts of men aright. It was right doubtless for the people to own him as king, but it was not in his power to establish this right. On the other hand, it was in his power to do justice to a banished woman, and demand, as a prior step, that she be restored to his heart and home. There is always an uncertainty attending our efforts to bring about great issues in the world’s affairs, even though those issues be predicted and included in the Divine purpose; for our actions are but a few among myriads of forces for and against the end for which we strive, and for ages the goal may not be reached. It is our duty to do what we can, just as it was David’s to use means for winning Israel over to the allegiance which had been predicted and was part of the theocratic purpose; but we have to act in faith that an overruling Providence is at work above us and above all forces, and that the great issue will in some unknown way and time be brought to pass. The statesman cannot make the nation great and strong; he can only set in motion social and material forces which in due course may accomplish the purpose in view. The missionary can but contribute an item of force towards rendering the whole earth submissive to Christ. The parent can contribute but some of the elements which in the end will tend to form the final character of his children. The far-reaching aims of life are binding on us, but their realization is not all in our power. It is absolutely within our power to perform single acts of justice and consideration as occasion offers. As the products of will, they may fill but a small place in the world in comparison with the realization of those other wider aims which are products of many wills; yet they afford opportunities for proving our fidelity to truth and righteousness as surely as do the great events to bring about which we can only contribute our part. David’s profound regard for what was right shone forth in his care for a single individual, just as truly as his faith in Providence appeared in subordinating the attainment of his political ambition to this act of justice.
III. HUMAN DUTY IS PLEDGED TO THAT WHICH IS KNOWN AND DISTINCT. David knew that Michal was his wife, that she had been forcibly separated from him in the day of adversity, and that as a good man he was bound to amend her wrongs as soon as occasion offered. Though a king, he saw that domestic were prior to political obligations. There may have been, as a matter of fact, policy in showing his regard in this way for the house of Saul, but the evident motive was to do a right deed as soon as it was seen to be right and scope offered for its performance. In morals, prompt action is homage to righteousness. A known duty and scope for its performance should never be deferred. As air, in obedience to the law of its action, rushes in to fill a vacuum, so does a just mind at once seize opportunity for doing what is clearly known to be right. If men linger and hesitate to do specific acts discerned to be just, it is clear evidence that they are defective in righteousness of principle. Their inner life is pro tanto alien to that of God. This explains, in one way at least, how it is that some men do not at once turn from positive sins and surrender themselves to Christ. They see what is the right thing to do, but defer it till some great scheme of their life is completed.
IV. FAITHFULNESS IN THAT WHICH IS LEAST GIVES MORAL POWER FOR OTHER ACTS. Having discharged this more private domestic duty, and so satisfied his conscience in reference to an obvious obligation in which a sufferer was concerned, David was a stronger man for carrying through whatever might be useful for realizing the great purposes of Providence. A good conscience is a moral tonic. The impression produced on Abner and others by this regard for what is right in the more private sphere of life, could not but be favourable to the public interests of the king. Evil men are awed by pronounced goodness, and the halting are won to allegiance. History presents many instances of influence augmented by conscientious attention to duties in private and domestic life. The habit formed by such carefulness to do the right thing in minor matters gives momentum to the action of the will when it is called to act in reference to great questions in the face of strong opposition. Many men become morally enervated by careless inattention to obligations of a private nature, yet lying close at hand and clear as daylight. Their influence on great public questions is weakened by their consciousness of neglect, and by the disgust with which men regard public separated from private righteousness.
Policy without principle.
The Bible narratives do not enter into details concerning the inner motives of those whose actions are recorded; they rather state outward facts, and leave them to produce their natural impressions. The strange and apparently irreconcilable procedures of Abner are no doubt resolvable into some one governing feeling which, with unvarying consistency though in varying form, shaped his entire public actions. The whole facts from first to last reveal the operation at the base of his conduct of one master passionthe love of pre-eminence; and it is in the working out of this powerful feeling that we find a remarkable illustration of a policy in life apart from principle.
I. A LOVE OF PRE–EMINENCE IS OFTEN A CLUE TO MUCH IN LIFE THAT IS OTHERWISE UNACCOUNTABLE. It certainly does seem strange that a man of Abner’s abilities, brought up in full knowledge of the special relation of David to Samuel and Jonathan, and therefore fully aware of the reason why, after the exile from Palestine, David should assume royal state at Hebron and claim dominion also over the entire house of Israel, should give up his services in favour of David’s rival. In the light of mere custom and regal order it would seem to be patriotic and manly on his part to identify his life with the interests of a son of the reigning house, and probably he flattered himself that ordinary men would put this interpretation on his conduct. But the best solution of all the facts of his life is to be found in the hypothesis of his passionate love of preeminence. With so strong a man as Joab on David’s side, and the reputed zeal of the other sons of Zeruiah, there was little chance of his rising to the position of power which alone would satisfy his ambition. Although his ordinary sense must have assured him, to say nothing of the latent truth recognized by the conscience (2Sa 3:9, 2Sa 3:10), that Ishbosheth could never successfully compete with so brave and active a rival as David, yet, on the principle that it is “better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven,” he found it more congenial to throw in his lot with a man over whom he could exercise chief influence and in whose cause he would be the principal figure. This policy void of principle ran through, as we shall soon see, the actions of his entire course. There lies, also, at the spring of every man’s conduct, be he a public character or only a private individual, some master passion to which all other feelings and aims are subordinate, and it is good for each one, and necessary to the true interpreter of life, to find out what it is. In public affairs there can be no question that in very many instances it is not fear of God, not pure patriotism, not regard for human interests as such, but open or disguised love of pre-eminence which furnishes the main incentive to conduct. The form of conduct may be such as would result from the action of higher and better feelings, but that is simply the result of policy. This feeling, which finds its scope in the rivalry and struggle of individuals, is but the social form of the generic feeling known as selfishness, or, as modern theologians term it, selfism, which in its essence is sin and probably the metaphysical explanation of sin itself, and which, moreover, is the solution of the fact that men do not recognize the eternal King, but prefer to belong to an inferior order of things. To please self, men will even consent to lose moral rank, and become foes rather than friends of the Righteous One.
II. MORAL HUMILIATIONS MAY MODIFY THE FORM OF POLICY, BUT THEY WILL NOT DESTROY THE MASTER PASSION. To an aspiring man, as was Abner, it was intensely mortifying to be charged with wrong doing by one nominally his superior, and the moral sting of the charge probably lay in its truth. This was, on the part of Ishbosheth, a virtual assumption of both moral and legal superiority; and, as such, was a blow at that secret, unexpressed sense of superiority which Abner had all along felt in relation to the weak young man whose cause he had patronizingly advocated. In even bad men the moral sense is strong, if not in leading to right courses, yet in making them wretched for wrong doing, inwardly and morally Abner was now weak in the presence of his royal master. The soul that is humiliated does not like to be reminded of its humiliation, and, if possible, the occasions of such reminders must be avoided and punished. The change wrought in Abner lay in the deep region of unexpressed and inexpressible feelings. The old love of pre-eminence was untouched by the collision with Ishbosheth. The masterful springs of human life are not easily dried up or supplanted. The immediate effect was simply to raise up a minor yet strong personal feeling, which came as a dam between the old love of pre-eminence and the interests of Ishbosheth, and caused it to flow with widened channel in another direction. Emotions stimulate thinkings, and personal feelings arouse ingenuity. Swift as lightning Abner saw that he could be a yet more important personage than ever, and, at the same time qualify his moral humiliation by the sweets of revenge. In spite of Joab and the other son of Zeruiah, he would figure as the means of placing the crown of a united people on David’s head. It should be seen that what war could not do Abner had the power to do. The names of David, Israel, and Abner would henceforth be indissolubly associated in the annals of the time. Instead of pre-eminence at the court of Ishbosheth, there would be pre-eminence at the court of David, and in the judgment of a compact nation. There have been other instances of statesmen, under the influence of resentment, changing their course, and apparently, but not in reality) their principles.
The policy in all such cases has been to subordinate public interests to certain cherished feelings. A form of sound principles may be adopted for the very same reason as previously it was rejected. Evil men are prone to do the same in ecclesiastical affairs. In private life men have been known even to assume a form of godlinessto quote the Divine truth (2Sa 3:9, 2Sa 3:10)as a means of better subserving their purpose. It were well if rebuke of sin (2Sa 3:7, 2Sa 3:8) always produced the godly sorrow that leads to genuine repentance, and then the adoption of the true principles of the kingdom would be, not as a policy, but as a matter of conviction. The case of Saul of Tarsus in relation to the spiritual kingdom stands out in sharp contrast to that of Abner in relation to the temporal kingdom (cf. Act 9:5-20).
III. DURING THE WORKING OUT OF THE MASTER PASSION THE TRUTH OF GOD ABIDES AS A PERMANENT WITNESS. That Abner should have so explicitly referred to the Divine purpose (2Sa 3:9) cannot be ascribed to information recently received, but must be accounted for on the ground that he had all along had the truth suppressed in his own mind. He here unwittingly unveils his own conscience and condemns his past course as a violation of solemn obligations rising far above social considerations and personal preferences. To the people he, perhaps, seemed to be a man upheld by a sense of right, but to himself he was known as a rebel against God. The Divine truth asserted inwardly its own reality. Its light revealed to himself, whenever he calmly reflected on his conduct, the dark and damaging characters of his public career. And though he was now adopting right principles, and so would in future escape the pain of knowing that his actions were not running counter to their direction, yet, being conscious of adopting them for unprincipled reasons, he could not avoid the conviction that he was doing the right thing for David, not because of a love of God, but for personal ends. The sense of right would thus reveal to him the essential crookedness of ways that were ostensibly straight. The man who does right things from bad motives never knows the blessedness of the just. Probably there is no determinate course of wrong doing in which the light of truth does not bear some witness more or less distinct. Even those who, following lower passions, change the glory of the incorruptible God into images after their own likeness (Rom 1:23), at times find within a protest against their conduct (Rom 2:15). No man who has heard the claims of Christ to universal dominion as clearly and authoritatively set forth as ever Abner had heard of the Divine right of David, can live opposed to him, or, as a mere matter of policy, fall in formally with his rights, without being sensible at times of a voice which tells him of his dangerous position and worthless character. Many a converted man has borne testimony that, for years previous to his conversion, the truth of God bore faithful witness as to what was the will of God concerning him in his relation to the Anointed One.
IV. THE WORKING OUT OF A POLICY CHANGED IN OUTWARD FORM BUT NOT IN NATURE NECESSITATES AND ENSURES MUCH ZEAL AND INGENUITY. The change of allegiance was, for Abner, a momentous step. For onlookers it meant on his part a judgment, and self-respect demanded that that judgment should be justified by every possible means. His policy being the same along an altered course, he must so act as to make it appear that he had come into the possession of new and true principles, and so get the credit of acting on principle and not on policy void of principle. Of course, a man who sincerely came to the belief that God had purposed David to be king, and loved the doing of the will of God, would at once go and offer his services to David. Abner did this. Of course, he would be eager to fulfil all conditions that might be specified by David in bringing to pass the will of God (2Sa 3:13-16). This was true of Abner. And as to gaining over others to his new view of things, no pains would be spared to show the reasonableness of the course now to be taken. Abner made out a case before the elders of Israel and the more sturdy Benjamites, and was able to report to David complete success (2Sa 3:17-21). What zeal and ingenuity were implied in all this may be imagined by those only who know how hard it is to justify sudden changes of conduct and get one’s followers to entertain new ideas. But Abner’s love of pre-eminence in national affairs must perish if these efforts were not forthcoming. The same will apply to any one who changes sides in public affairs, and at the same time desires to attain to the distinction formerly obtained or secretly longed for. In fact, fully to gratify the cravings of selfish ambition means toil upon toil. However gratifying the completion of one’s aims may seem, it is a vain and miserable issue when regarded in the clear light of pure principle. In the real moral worldthe sphere in which God alone awards the prizes of lifehe is not crowned who does not “strive lawfully” (2Ti 2:5), that is, is not observant of all the great and holy principles on which alone God would have men act. It is certain, therefore, that men of the Abner stamp, who are doing the right things, not because they are right and of God, but for personal ends, will one day find that their efforts will, while being used up by God in furtherance of the dominion of Zion’s King, bring to themselves none of the glory and honour which alone fall to those who persist in “well doing” (Rom 2:6, Rom 2:7).
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. It becomes us now and then to search into the mainsprings of life, to ascertain what really are the principles or feelings which dominate our conduct.
2. We may rest assured, in our appeals to men on behalf of Christ, that there is in their conscience, confronting their actual life of rebellion, a witness for him the Divine authority of which they must secretly recognize.
3. Any change from an externally wrong to an externally right course is to be tested by its being or not being the outcome of pure love of what is pleasing to God.
4. There is a day coming when the actions which seem to lie in the direction of the kingdom of Christ, and, in fact, as right actions, are due to him, will be unveiled so as to be seen in their relation to the actual feelings in which they originated, and then those, who during a part of their life were regarded as good workers, will be known as “workers of iniquity” (Mat 7:21-23).
5. In the lives of some men one portion is spent in endeavouring to undo the deeds of former misspent days, and not always with clean hands in the sight of God.
6. The secret of every life is to be found in the heart, and hence the need constantly of the prayer that God would create within us a clean heart.
7. It is a right thing for men of influence, when the force of truth is openly admitted by themselves, to do what lies within their power to bring others over to its practical recognition.
8. The great mass of the people are very much influenced in the course they take in public affairs by the reasonings of able leaders; hence the responsibilities of leaderships in the government of God.
Policy with principle.
A careful examination of facts will show that David’s conduct in this narrative, and indeed all through his early career, was the very reverse of Abner’s. His entire course, from the day of his call from the sheepfold to the proffered allegiance of Abner, was one of simple honest desire to do the will of God. Again and again had he resisted temptations to grasp at power; and his conduct in the interview with Abner, and use of his services, proceeded from the same principle, that, in its very nature, excluded selfish motive.
I. ACTION GOVERNED BY DIVINE PURPOSE IS THE NORMAL COURSE FOR A RATIONAL CREATURE. In inanimate and irrational things the Divine purpose is so stamped upon their being or wrought into the texture of their nature that as a matter of course they, in their movements, follow in the line appointed. Their action is necessarily normal. In creatures endowed with a rational will there comes in the prerogative of option. The possibility of an abnormal course belongs to such beings as an essential element of their constitution. The angels that have kept their first estate, and fallen angels and man, illustrate the two sides of the case. In the affairs of ancient Israel the revealed purpose of God was that David should be king (2Sa 3:9). This was the will of the Eternal, by which every man, from Samuel and Saul in the highest ranks to the lowliest descendant of Jacob, was to be guided in his political life. How Samuel and Jonathan conformed to this law is beautifully seen in their respective careers. How David was governed by it is to be seen in the strong faith in his own destiny which ran through his patient endurance of exile; in his firm but restrained opposition to Ishbosheth; and also in his negotiations with Abner. It is this conscious conformity of action with the Divine purpose in relation to public affairs that raises the strong assertions of integrity in the Psalms above the suspicion of being the outgoings of a self-righteous spirit that claims perfect internal holiness in the sight of God. As a rule, our private conduct is normal in so far only as it is the carrying out in action of the definite purpose of God that we should govern self for him. Hence sin is properly said to be a fall (Hos 14:1). Hence our Saviour’s was the only true life. He was man as man should be. It was his meat and drink to do his Father’s will. The goal of redemption is to raise us to the full stature of men in Christ Jesus. This view of human life, inwrought as a principle into all the operations of heart and mind, will do much to bring about the final harmony of our own lives, and indeed of all things, for discords will cease in proportion as rational created wills move in unison with the Divine.
II. THE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH LIFE SHOULD BE CONDUCTED BEING CLEARLY RECOGNIZED, IT SERVES AS A LIGHT TO THE CHOICE AND REJECTION OF MEANS BY WHICH THE ATTAINMENT OF THE END MAY BE SECURED. Between David’s revealed predestination to be king over the chosen race, and the realization of the Divine will in the factual facts of history, many acts on his part had to be performed. It would be perplexing to an ordinary mind to prestate the agencies and methods by which the shepherd boy and exile should at last peacefully ascend the throne and reign over a united people. Had human passion, or bare calculation, or mere politic balancing of advantages been taken as guide and governor of action, there would doubtless have been, in his case, a reproduction of the tragic struggles so often recorded in the history of public affairs. But conformity of self to the holy will of God being the root principle of life, conjoined with the never absent conviction that Providence was sure to be on his side in seeking to conform self to the revealed will, this illumined his pathway even amidst the darkest of earth’s shadows, and enabled him to see what courses should be avoided and what pursued. Clearly he must not give scope to mere lust of power; for where the need and what the use of that when the Holy One had sworn that he should reign? Clearly, also, he must not use force and conquer the people over whom as king he is to rule; for had not God chosen him to be king over a chosen race, for the realization of high spiritual issues stretching far into a glorious future? Equally plain was it that there is no need to have recourse to the cunning and craft and falsehoodsthe policy void of moral principlewhich a godless spirit might suggest; for was he not the chosen servant of the Holy One of Israel, who has no need of low born policies to establish his dominion over men? Hence David’s patience in exile, his tender regard for Saul even when others suggested revenge, his merely defensive action at Hebron, and his manifest unwillingness to force Ishbosheth from the throne and to compel Israel to submit to himself. He had faith in God and in God’s supremacy over the hearts and destinies of men. In so far as he had a policy it was suggested by his fundamental principle, and embraced three things:
(1) Use of peaceful means.
(2) Waiting on Providence for some free movement on the part of Israel.
(3) A regard for the susceptibilities of the house of Saul and the natural interest of the people in that house.
Hence:
(1) His abstention from hostilities during Saul’s lifetime, and his subsequent nonaggressive action against Ishbosheth, as also his willingness to accept the services of Abner with the elders of the people.
(2) His acceptance of the allegiance of Abner, viewing it as simply a fact brought about apart from any bribe or effort on his part, and being in its outward form, with which he was alone concerned, conformable to the revealed purpose (verse 9), and consistent with his belief in an overruling Providence which reaches to the spirits of men.
(3) His laying down the condition (verses 13-16) on which he would accept the services of Abner; for while personal affection and conjugal duty alike suggested the restoration of Michal from her enforced banishment (1Sa 25:44), such a course would prove to Ishbosheth and Israel that he still cherished his old regard for the house of Saul, and thus tend to win all parties over to a peaceful settlement. Here, then, was a sound and wise policy grounded on, and in fact issuing out of, the abiding recognition of the main principle that God had a will concerning his life, to effect which was at once his glory and delight. The facts suggest their own application and lessons. They find their highest and truest counterpart in the life of the Son of David, whose advance to universal supremacy proceeds from the declared will of God (Psa 72:1-20.), and is secured in patience, by means in nature pure and peaceful, by an unseen action on the spirits of men making them willing, and by a kind and considerate regard for the varied susceptibilities of human nature. They also furnish illustrations of how the Church may combine policy and principle, displaying the wisdom of the serpent with the harmlessness of the dove. We furthermore learn that, in pursuing our individual course through the world, we may, by keeping the main principle of having a holy Divine purpose to work out clearly before the mind, ever have at hand a pure, bright light by which we shall see what means and methods in detail may be safely and honourably used for seeking the end we have in view.
III. A POLICY THUS FOUNDED ON PRINCIPLE IS SURE IN THE COURSE OF TIME TO ISSUE IN THE TRIUMPH OF LIFE. There is evidence in David’s early career that he had to endure the blame of eager and less conscientious men for being so very scrupulous in the use of means. The sons of Zeruiah were, also, not satisfied with what they would call his timorous policy (verses 24, 25, 39). Those years spent in Hebron, merely keeping in check the assaults of Ishbosheth’s men (verses 1, 22), seemed to give a doubtful meaning to the Divine promise which had become the property of both David and the true sections of the nation (verses 9, 10, 17, 18). But the man of God held on, and would not swerve from the policy founded on clear principle. Events proved that he was right and the overeager men wrong. In due course, Providence so governed the action of leading forces, that the entire people were brought (verses 17-21) under influences which at last issued in his realizing the end on which his heart had been so long set. In fact, he allowed God to work where man cannot work, i.e. on the spirits of men beyond the reach of our own hand and voice. Once more we see it illustrated that God’s time and methods are best. The same peaceful issue is coming on as the result of “the patience of the saints,” and their undying faith in the action of the Spirit of God on the spirits of men. It is when professing Christians lose their faith in God, and have recourse to questionable devices, that, in seeking to hasten on, they really retard the progress of that which they have at heart. Taking a wide view of the government of God in the unfolding of the moral order, we see the same attainment of remote ends by means of righteous and quiet acting through long epochs. What is thus true on a large scale will be found true also of the individual lifethe effort to realize the holy will of God in our personal experience. In public and private affairs, in working out our lines of policy founded on principle, we should not forget to leave a very broad margin for the action of God beyond anything we can do or attempt. This has ever been the case with the best men. There are springs which God’s hand alone can touch. He can govern the free actions of leaders of men, so that the actual course they freely take, though not most pure in motive, shall, in its form, harmonize with the main purpose of the Eternal. Would that man had more faith in God as the living God!
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. The sincere satisfaction of those who, like David, restrain feeling and bad in, pulse, and wait for God to open the way and change the course of events.
2. The important contribution to the realizing of the purposes of Christ the Anointed One sometimes made by men whose acts are not pervaded by his Spirit. As Abner’s acts accelerated God’s purposes, so the gains of commerce, of science and art, though not always made in the name of God, become means of advancing his kingdom.
3. The survival of sacred feelings amidst and in spite of the turmoil and commotions of life. The old love for Michal was still alive, as many an old affection cherished in early days reappears and asserts itself when occasion offers.
4. The deep wounds and secret sorrows induced by harsh and arbitrary acts. As the cruel deed of Saul (1Sa 25:44) left its traces in the lives of David, Michal, and Phaltiel (verse 15), so it is with other deeds of the same spirit but different in form.
5. The apparent subordination of great public interests to private is, in the case of men of principle, only on the surface; the reverse is really the truth. David’s promotion of the unification of the nation, on condition of getting back his wife (verse 13), was, as seen above, in the real interests of the unification under himself; and so when the acts of really good men are traced down to their principles, they only, in outward form, appear to be too personal.
6. The great extent to which the mass of men are biased even against what is plain truth (verses 9, 17, 18) by prejudice, and are swayed by able leadership.
7. The completeness with which, in the course of providence, influence slowly gathered and widely exercised against the cause of God, may be suddenly turned to work round in promotion of it (cf. Saul of Tarsus and Abner, verses 17-21).
2Sa 3:22-27
The facts are:
1. Joab, returning from an expedition, finds David at Hebron after Abner’s departure.
2. Hearing from the people a general statement of what had transpired between the king and Abner, Joab reproaches David for his peaceful conduct, and insinuates that Abner was simply playing the spy.
3. Sending a messenger, unknown to David, after Abner, he induces him to return to Hebron, and, under pretence of a quiet conference, he leads him aside and assassinates him.
4. Hearing of the affair, David at once repudiates it, and in strong terms desires that heavy judgments may fall on the head of Joab and his house.
5. David orders a general mourning for Abner, attends his funeral, and utters a pathetic lamentation over him.
6. The king’s sorrow assumes a solemn and impressive form throughout the day, so as to convince the people of his utter abhorrence of the crime and his sense of the national loss.
7. David causes his servants to know that he cherished a regard for the great abilities and possible services to Israel of Abner, and was pained and enfeebled in his action as anointed king by the perverse conduct of the sons of Zeruiah.
Defective sympathy.
The first impression, on reading the account of the conduct of Joab, is that of the most villainous treachery, and one at once enters into the anger and vexation of David. But the treacherous act professedly in the service of David was the outcome of a permanent condition of mind. Ostensibly it is to be ascribed to the resentment cherished on account of the death of Asahel; but the action of a man occupying a responsible position in a great undertaking is not governed merely by the presence of a feeling of this kind. The resentment would have had no positive power to issue in this deed had not the mind of Joab been out of harmony with the mind. of David in the views taken of the kingdom, its principles, and methods of consolidation. A public servant will govern his private passions if his mind is in full sympathy with his master’s, so as to see that the indulgence of them would be uncongenial to him and injurious to his interests. Joab was deficient in sympathy with the higher qualities and aims of his great master, and consequently the bad qualities found an outlet which otherwise would have either had no existence or would have been suppressed for his sake.
I. THE EMPLOYMENT OF MEN OF DEFECTIVE SYMPATHIES IS, IN THE PRESENT STATE OF THE WORLD, UNAVOIDABLE. That Joab was not in full sympathy with David’s pure and lofty aspirations is seen both in this account and also in the pressure previously put upon David in exile by his chief men to take away the life of Saul, as, again, in the subsequent allusions to his conduct (2Sa 19:7). That such a man should have been at the head of military affairs in David’s service is not surprising, for David had from the first to take such men as were disposed to follow his fortunes, and when he set up regal authority in Hebron it was in the nature of things for the man of greatest will power to push his way to the front. Kings cannot make their ministers; they can only use what the age produces. It was not David’s fault; it was the natural condition of things, arising from myriads of concurrent causes, that there was not one man since the death of Samuel and Jonathan that was so spiritual and far seeing as to enter with full enthusiastic sympathy into his conceptions of the kingdom of God and the holy principles on which it should be established and governed. The evil of having to work out great and glorious issues in conjunction with men who do not enter into the inner spirit of the enterprise is remarkably illustrated in the case of our Saviour. There was not one who could enter into the full depth and breadth of his work in the world. Relatively his blundering disciples, often paining his heart by their worldly notions, were as far removed from him as was Joab, With his crude ideas and low feelings, from David. Nor could it be otherwise unless men were supernaturally transformed. The same holds good now in the instruments Christ has to use in carrying on his work in the world. How defective many labourers and followers are in sympathy with his holy aspirations and methods! Indeed, it is the same in every secular employment. Seldom, if ever, does the servant enter fully into the mind of the master. Ideas and feelings cherished by the directing and originating mind are, of necessity, inadequately appreciated by instrumentalities not perfectly charged with them. The servant, in this sense, is not equal to his lord.
II. THE EXISTENCE OF THIS DEFECTIVE SYMPATHY BETWEEN SERVANT AND MASTER IS THE OCCASION OF VARIOUS EVILS. Because Joab did not really understand the pure and generous spirit of David, his very zeal for him assumed forms not only opposed to the king’s wishes, but fraught with evil tendencies for the kingdom. It is obvious from 2Sa 3:24 that Joab misapprehended the peaceful, generous policy of David, and 2Sa 3:25 reveals the fact that he was in his heart actually opposed to the course which had been taken; for he actually dares to rebuke him for not perceiving the cunning spy in the man of peace. So far was he out of sympathy with the principles and policy of the king, that he stealthily, and with the aid of his brother (2Sa 3:30), even allowed the personal resentment of his heart to issue in an act which was not only unjust and base in itself, but also in direct opposition to the will and measures of David. Here we have, as the outcome of his worldly spirit, displeasure with his king, assumption of superior wisdom, indulgence in personal revenge, murder, and practically assertion, for the time being and in a particular instance, of supreme power. Not one of these evils would have come to the surface of life, but would have been crushed in their most incipient stage, had his nature been more in sympathy with that of his master. Inasmuch as by full sympathy we alone can really understand, appreciate, fall in with, delight in, and surrender every faculty and subdue every errant feeling to the prompt carrying out of our Lord’s designs, so, conversely, a lack of sympathy cannot but result in the evils of misapprehension of designs, non-appreciation of motives and methods, discontent with actual deeds, withholding of services, and free scope to passions, in nature and consequences at variance with his superior will. The lives of the apostles during our Saviour’s ministry on earth abundantly illustrate this. Bred in an atmosphere of formalism and religious exclusiveness, they entered not into the perfect mind of Christ, and consequently wondered at his methods (Luk 9:44, Luk 9:45), desired what was contrary to his Spirit (verses 46-56), and, in the case of Peter, actually rebuked him for arranging to establish his kingdom by a method which seemed to them to be unnecessary and unbecoming (Mat 16:21-23). The persecutions authorized by the Church in dark ages, the methods introduced by Ignatius Loyola and subsequently adopted by his followers, the bitter spirit cherished towards men differing in minor matters of faith or practice, and the sundry base deeds which grow out of a professedly Christian life because it is not well nourished in fellowship with Christ himself,these are some of the evils appearing in the course of the establishment of the kingdom of heaven as a consequence of the servants of the Lord not being in full harmony of spirit with him they profess to serve.
III. THIS DEFECTIVE SYMPATHY, IF NOT GRADUALLY REMEDIED, MAY INVOLVE ACTIONS PERMANENTLY DAMAGING TO THE MOST POWERFUL OF MEN. It is probable that Joab was with David in exile, and, like many others, he may have been drawn over to his side partly because of the intimation given by Samuel and recognized by Jonathan of the Divine choice of David, and partly because of disgust at the misgovernment of Saul. However much he might have failed in the first instance to comprehend and appreciate the holy aims and principles of his leader, he could not have shared so long in David’s fortunes and misfortunes without having many opportunities of learning what manner of person he was, and how decidedly spiritual were his aims and purposes. He appears not to have profited by these privileges, and consequently, by the action of a well known psychological law, the original secularity of his nature gained in power, so that when a contest arose between a private passion and acquiescence in his master’s arrangements, there was not sufficient moral force to restrain and destroy the passion, and hence the dark deed which disgraced his name and caused him to be in the future a man distrusted and abhorred (2Sa 3:39). The reverse is seen in the case of the apostles, excepting Judas, who all yew out of their imperfect sympathy with the innermost heart of Christ, and brought forth fruit accordingly. In private life there can be no question but that, when opportunities for getting nearer and nearer to the mind of Christ are neglected, the lower tendencies of human nature gain force, and when temptation to exercise them arises, sad deeds are done and reputations are damaged. Probably, if all things were explained, it would come out that many of the sad crimes perpetrated by persons professedly in the kingdom and service of Christ are connected with failure to maintain and deepen the sympathy of the heart with all that is in Christ and his work. “Without me ye can do nothing;” “Abide in me.”
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. The incidental evils arising from imperfect sympathy with the holy and far reaching purposes of God may be found in course of the historic revelation which God has given us, and should be ascribed to their proper human source, and allowed for in our estimate of the form, matter, and incidents of the revelation.
2. A critical estimate of the degree of the triumphs of early Christianity should be formed on a consideration of the degree, more or less, to Which the leading and subordinate servants of Christ understood and entered into his spirit.
3. In a selection of men for any form of Christian work, great stress should be laid on their quick and eager perception of the purely spiritual aspects of his kingdom. Intellectual and other qualities are very subordinate to this.
4. It becomes us to be on our guard lest mere private feelings of the lower order should gain ascendency over the more general considerations that pertain to the kingdom of God.
5. It will be useful if we now and then calmly reflect on the degree to which the cause of God may have suffered through our own defective sympathy with its more spiritual interests.
6. The great need of each one is to cultivate close fellowship with Christ, so as more fully to enter into his mind.
The incidence of guilt.
When a great crime has been committed, the first question in the public mind isWho is guilty? In national affairs, where personal actions are supposed to be connected with public interests, it is not always clear at first whether one or another party is to be charged with blame for what has been done. It was impossible, even judged by the low standard that too often governed the conduct and opinions of Eastern people, but that the death of Abner would be regarded with consternation, and men would be swift in their judgment. It was, therefore, only natural that David should take steps to let it be known that, although Joab was a public servant, the guilt in this case must rest on the individual himself, and not in any sense on the government under which he served.
I. IN EVERY CASE, AS TO THE ACTUAL INCIDENCE OF GUILT, THERE IS NO UNCERTAINTY IN THE MINDS OF THE PARTIES CONCERNED. To men of low moral type in Judah, who may have suspected Abner’s zeal and who were disposed to judge of David as they would of themselves, it might be an open question as to whether he did not really connive at the treachery of Joab. To men in Israel, who were mindful of Abner’s former antagonism to David and who were themselves of implacable temper, it might be conceivable that David was an inactive partner in the crime. In the absence of any superior court of inquiry, or of any statement from David, disquieting rumours may have gained temporary currency. Meanwhile the real fact would stand clear before the conscience of both Joab and the king. Popular discussion never avails to alter the facts of conscience. Joab knew himself to be solely guilty, with consent of his brother (2Sa 3:30); David knew himself to be entirely innocent. Each carried within himself the judgment of God. It is here that we see the dividing line between the opinions and discussions of the world and the invisible moral sphere, where actual facts are registered in clear and ineffaceable lines so as to admit of no shadow of doubt. What though outsiders cannot ascertain reality, it is there, and it is only a question of time as to its being seen by others besides those now familiar with it. The secrecy of the guilty is only a play with an advantage for a short time. Men charged with public crimes, and men who live in sin against God, know that there is no mistake in the incidence of guilt. They possess exclusive knowledge, perhaps, but there is no consolation in that. Likewise those wrongly charged With complicity in evil are possessors of a secret knowledge which enables them to see that the permanent moral order is on their side, and that it is only a question of time, more or less, when their “righteousness shall be brought forth as the light,” and their “judgment as the noonday.”
II. A SACRED CAUSE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEEDS OF ITS PROFESSED SUPPORTERS. A hasty judgment would conclude that, as Joab was a prominent supporter of the Davidic cause, it must bear the shame and guilt of his murderous deed; but the only warrant for that being a true view of the case would be that the general spirit of David’s administration favoured treachery, and that the master and servant were in secret collusion,neither of which suppositions can be for a moment entertained. Kings and their officers, masters and their servants, are to be held jointly responsible only when the service generates the wrong. As a fact, governments and employers do suffer temporary loss of prestige when those in positions of trust act out their own individual wickedness; but in due course men will distinguish the manifestation of the individual baseness from the public interests with which it was associated. The separation of these is important in many relationships of life. The divinely appointed kingdom and just rule of David must not be confounded with Joab’s malice. The government of a country should not bear the guilt of men whose position enables them to violate moral laws with impunity. Private vice is not one with public crime. The evil deeds and imperfect character of men whose names are in the records of revelation must not be charged on the revelation of God or his method of educating the world for something better. The foul deeds done during the dark days of the Church’s life by some of the leaders of Christianity are not to be ascribed to the holy cause with which they were identified. The personal vices of professors of religion do not really compromise Christ. In all these cases it is the Joab spirit, and not the spirit of the king, which expresses itself, and it is condemned by the very cause in the interests of which it may at first seem to be manifested. Christ’s kingdom is one of unchangeable righteousness and love, in spite of all the injustice and hate of men bearing the blessed Name.
III. WHEN OCCASION OFFERS, DEEDS ALIEN TO THE SPIRIT OF A GOOD CAUSE SHOULD BE DISTINCTLY REPUDIATED. As a matter of duty and policy, David felt bound to take an early opportunity of repudiating any association, either in spirit or action, with the crime of Joab. It was due to himself as an individual and as prospective king of a united Israel, and to that better system of government which on the death of Saul he was called to inaugurate. Suspicions cannot be prevented, the odium of connection with a wrong doer cannot but arise, malicious foes will be sure to turn every possible event to his detriment; but as soon as the ear of the nation can be reached self-vindication becomes imperative. It is a question of opportunity. Sometimes good men may have to pass years “under a cloud,” and even go down to the grave trusting only to the vindication of the just in the day of judgment. David escaped that sorrow. His declaration, his daring to denounce so powerful a man, the severity of his curse on the evil doer, the evident sincerity of his sorrow for Abner, and the suspension of public duties for an elaborate funeral ceremonial,all made known as distinctly as possible how alien was the spirit of his life and government from the cruel treachery of Joab. The same course is open to us when individually our fair fame may be compromised by others. Modem governments often have to disown deeds of their officials. Our Lord himself has laid down principles in the New Testament by which he may in all ages have wherewith to repudiate the evil deeds and spirit of some of his professed friends; and in course of history, when danger arises of confounding his holy kingdom with vile actions, his providence brings out the true spirit inculcated in sharp contrast with the evil. As occasion offers, we in our age should be careful to let men see that he is not responsible for the abuses which have sprung out of the imperfections of some of his servants. Never did the world more need to see clearly Christ and his kingdom as they are in contrast with much that is done and maintained in his Name.
IV. TIME FAVOURS THE RIGHT ASSIGNMENT OF GUILT. If any were disposed to doubt the sincerity of David’s disclaimerand there are such suspicious, unfriendly men in every agehe could afford to wait. The true interpreter of our actions in the past is to be found in the tenor of our life. The years to come would reveal the true David and the true Joab. The pure feeling that prompted this quick repudiation would reappear in a life of kindliness and generosity and justice, and every good deed and generous sentiment would only make more clear his freedom from complicity in this crime; and, on the other hand, the hard, stern, vindictive feeling which continued to hold and fashion the life of Joab would only render more clear and emphatic the judgment against him. So of much past Church history; time will only tend to bring out more distinctly the separation between Christianity, as it is in Christ and his teaching, and those actions and feelings which too often were identified with his service. Individual deserts also will become manifest, however obscure the facts may be to present observers. The future is against the wicked and on the side of the just. Evil men may well dread the coming of the day when the hidden things of darkness shall be made manifest, when the exact incidence of guilt will be seen; good men, those who have made their peace with God and have received the Spirit of the kingdom, may lift up their heads in confidence in prospect of that same great day.
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. It adds to the guilt of a man when, knowing that he is solely responsible for certain deeds, he allows others with whom he has been associated to fall under suspicion. Joab ought to have voluntarily cleared David.
2. Good men unavoidably under suspicion may find consolation in that some of the bestJoseph, David, and even the best, Christ (Luk 23:2; Joh 19:12)were suspected of wrong.
3. Although the “peace of God” is the heritage of the just as a personal boon, yet it is due to the cause dear to their hearts to seek self-vindication, as in the case of David and Paul, and this will be the chief motive for a disclaimer.
4. It behoves Christian people especially to exercise a very calm and sober judgment when any one known as a servant of Christ is accused of or imagined to be in complicity with evil transactions.
5. The general character of a man under suspicion ought to give great weight to any disclaimer he may make, and be to us a set off against all prima facie evidence.
Deferred punishment.
It is natural to askIf Joab’s crime was so base, and David’s repudiation of complicity with it so emphatic, why was he not punished as an offender against morality and the principles of the new administration? The answer is nigh at hand. David was averse to signalize the establishment of his supremacy over all the tribes of Israel by the shedding of blood, and a less punishment than death in those times would have been misinterpreted to his injury. His cause at that juncture was in a critical position, and to have cleared off so competent and influential a man would have been perilous. Moreover, the execution of Joab would have tallied best with complicity in his guilt; the sparing of his life and abiding the issue of events was most favourable to the establishment of his own innocence. But most of all he was desirous of leaving the judgment in the hands of God, having in most scathing language stated his own sense of the evil desert of the man (2Sa 3:29). Herein we may trace analogies.
I. THE PRESENT STAGE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE IMMEDIATE PUNISHMENT OF ALL SIN. Many a modern Joab does not at once suffer for his sin as conscience and public opinion would demand. There are vile deeds performed, horrible.vices indulged, characters and fortunes ruined, and widespread miseries induced, by persons whose actions are not discovered, or, if discovered, are such as civil authority does not touch. The common judgment of men is that severe punishment is due to such, but it comes not in their life. The betrayer of purity, the licentious liver who hides his vices, the forger who escapes discovery, are but instances of many. They seem to escape any open and public infliction of punishment, and carry no more on their conscience than Joab did on his, which would be little, just in proportion as it was debased. The solution of this apparent anomaly is really to be found in the consideration that the government of God extends over an area wider than this present life, and that for profound reasons, not all revealed, it is not best for judgment to fall all at once and at the time of the committal or even discovery of the sin. Bishop Butler has dwelt on this aspect of the Divine government with great wisdom and sobriety of judgment. With God a thousand years are as one day. His methods of ruling men here evidently proceed on the fact that there is a future and a great day of account, when men shall receive according to the deeds done in the body.
II. ALTHOUGH PUNISHMENT IS DEFERRED, THE PERPETRATORS OF EVIL ARE UNDER THE PERSONAL DISPLEASURE OF GOD. David’s mind was averse to Joab. He cherished distrust and displeasure toward him. He had scope for action, and possibly for true repentance, but in his monarch’s estimation he was a base and condemned man. No easy, jaunty spirit on the part of Joab could alter this serious fact. There existed in the mind of his king the condition of feeling which was prophetic of a doom one day to be actualized. In like manner “God is angry with the wicked every day.” Those who seem to escape present punishment are already condemned in the sure, infallible judgment of God. Merciful and pitiful as he is, and not willing that any should perish, he cannot but regard their secret sins with abhorrence, and see in them, unless they repent and seek newness of life and forgiveness in Christ, a debased form of humanity gradually maturing to receive into themselves the wrath treasured up against the day of wrath (Rom 2:4-6). The prosperous wicked seldom reflect on how the Holiest and Wisest of all looks on them. Men great and esteemed in the world are often despised by God because he knows what their true character is.
III. THE MIND OF GOD IS REVEALED TO HIS SERVANTS AS TO THE DESERT OF THE WICKED, AND SOME INTIMATION IS GIVEN OF WHAT WILL COME UPON THEM. The imprecation (2Sa 3:29) of David the king was his way of revealing to all offended by the crime of Joab his sense of desert; and, considering how a distinguished posterity was regarded in the East as the crowning good of a long life, and how evidently ambitious Joab was to figure in history, it was not easy for the king to select terms more indicative of a terrible punishment. The utterance was not that of vindictiveness or malice, but of a mind anxious to show its sense of the desert of the evil doer; and no doubt it intimated his belief that some such terrible issue would in the course of providence be the reward of the crime. This is analogous to what God has been pleased to do. To remove the fears and perplexities arising from the fact that sin is often long unpunished in this world, he has distinctly made known how he regards it, what terrible issues will come of it, and how just is the outcome of all crime on the perpetrator. The words of David concerning Joab’s desert are mild compared with those of Christ and his apostles concerning the desert of those who deliberately reject Christ, pierce him with their sins, and trample on the blood of the everlasting covenant (Mat 11:20-24; Heb 10:26-31).
IV. MEANTIME, GOD DOES MANIFEST MUCH SYMPATHY WITH THOSE WHO SUFFER FROM WRONG DOING. David’s lament over Abner as one noble in position and in some aspects of character, and yet brought to a premature end as though he were a mean, weak, and inferior person; his taking upon his own heart the anguish which he knew must afflict multitudes; his abstention from food and present comforts because of the common calamity; his revulsion of feeling from the “men too hard” for him; and his use of authority for securing for Abner the highest funeral honours;all this, so natural and beautiful in Israel’s king, so soothing to the hearts of the troubled people, is strikingly suggestive of the wonderful way in which God, while denouncing sin and foretelling its punishment, manifests his sympathy with a world afflicted with the deeds of evil doers. This is largely the meaning of our Saviour’s life among men. This is one element which enters even into the great transaction on Calvary. This is the explanation of the manifold ministries of comfort and encouragement raised up by the Head of the Church for the relief of those who are bowed down, and the mitigation of many of the calamities which come in consequence of the sins of others.
V. WHILE PROVIDING THUS FOR THE DUE PUNISHMENT OF SIN AND THE MITIGATION OF THE CALAMITIES IT ENTAILS, GOD ALSO EXERCISES A RESTRAINING POWER OVER EVIL TENDENCIES. The continued presence of David, asserting his rightful authority and infusing his own generous spirit into the administration of affairs, could not but have the effect of lessening the influence of Joab and setting a limit to the range of evil he otherwise might do. The king was among his people for their good and the restraint of one who, in spirit, was their calamity. Here, again, do we not get a glimpse of what is true in the spiritual sphere? God does not leave evil men entirely unrestrained to carry out their designs and to afflict the world with their base spirit. As responsible beings, they have their freedom to act for a while, but he “restrains the wrath of man;” he is present in our human affairs, checking and controlling so that other influences less powerful in appearance shall be brought to bear and find full and free scope. It is never to be forgotten that, though there are Joabs amongst us, “hard” in spirit and cruel of purpose, and bearing on their conscience the blood of others, there is amongst us the eternal King, whose love, generous sympathy, and determination to care for the faithful never fail.
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. It is characteristic of a just man that, free from personal ill-will, he will have faith in the retribution of wrong doing, and will even forecast and acquiesce in its form.
2. A righteous indignation will induce a denunciation of men in power in spite of any resentment that may arise.
3. The guilty conscience is so cowardly that righteous denunciation may even increase the moral power of the just over the unjust man.
4. It is important to cherish strong faith in God’s methods of government if we would be calm and strong in assertion of right and awaiting a proper adjustment of rewards.
5. It will be a matter of sincere grief to a generous mind to see men of great abilities come to an ignoble end, even though in the past those abilities have not been used in the desired directionallowance being made for the strong temptations to which such men are liable.
6. A manifestation of sympathy with the sorrows of a people, and an effort to draw out their more tender feelings, is a sure way to the exercise of a moral influence more potent than the assertion of authority.
7. A man proves his capacity for ruling others when, without sacrifice of principle, he can by generous sentiments win their good will and awaken a prevailing kindly sentiment towards himself.
HOMILIES BY B. DALE
2Sa 3:1-5
(HEBRON.)
The house of David.
1. The theocracy had its chief support in David and his house. On him also rested the Messianic hope (2Sa 7:13). Hence the importance which attaches to events of his life that would otherwise have been left unrecorded.
2. “The summary narrative of these seven years presents the still youthful king in a very lovable light. The same temper which had marked his first acts after Saul’s death is here strikingly brought out. He seems to have left the conduct of the war altogether with Joab, as if he shrank from striking a single blow for his own advancement. When he does interfere, it is on the side of peace, to curb and chastise ferocious vengeance and dastardly assassination. The incidents recorded all go to make up a picture of rare generosity, of patient waiting for God to fulfil his purposes, of longing that the miserable strife between the tribes of God’s inheritance should end” (A. Maclaren).
3. In the house of David, at war with the house of Saul, we see an embodiment of the great conflict between good and evil; a representation of “the household of faith” as opposed to the world, and the spirit as opposed to the flesh (Gal 5:17). Notice
I. ITS PROTRACTED ANTAGONISM. “And there was long war,” etc. It:
1. Is rendered necessary by the opposite nature and aims of the contending parties. “These are contrary the one to the other.”
2. Implies a state of constant warfare, and involves many a painful struggle. “What grievous tales of distress are folded up in these brief words!”
3. Is permitted by God for wise and beneficent purposes: to test the principles of his servants; to exercise their faith and patience; to strengthen, purify, and perfect their character.
4. And must go on to the end. “This is a battle, from which, as it ends only with life, there is no escape; and he who fights not in it is of necessity either taken captive or slain” (Scupoli).
II. ITS INCREASING STRENGTH. “David waxed stronger and stronger,” in the number of his followers, the amount of his resources, the unity and vigour of their employment, the stability of his position, the extent of his influence, the assurance of his success. And all who “strive against sin” within and without also “go from strength to strength:”
1. In patiently waiting upon God and faithfully doing his will. “Wait on the Lord, be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart” (Psa 27:14).
2. By the bestowment of his grace and the cooperation of his providence, directing, protecting, and prospering them, in accordance with his promises. Their strength is not self-derived, but “cometh from the Lord.” “And he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God,” etc. (Zec 12:8); “Greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world” (1Jn 4:4); “I have all strength in him that giveth me power” (Php 4:13).
3. And thereby they show that God is with them, and that his righteous purposes concerning them will be accomplished.
III. ITS DECLINING OPPONENTS. “And the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker,” relatively and proportionately to the growth of David’s, and in consequence of the protracted antagonism and increasing strength of the latter.
1. In wilful separation from God, and seeking their own selfish ends in opposition to his will (see 2Sa 2:8-12). Those who fall away from God fall into self-division and self-contention (2Sa 3:8); “and a house divided against itself cannot stand.”
2. By the immovable might of God against whom they set themselves (Psa 2:4), and his wrath, which is “revealed from heaven against all ungodliness,” etc. (Rom 1:18). They are like a wave that dashes against a rock and is broken and scattered in foam. “The face of the Lord is against them that do evil” (1Pe 3:12).
3. And thereby they prove that God is against them, and are taught that their purposes will assuredly fail and they themselves be overthrown. From the time of his defeat (2Sa 2:17), if not from the very first, Abner probably felt that the cause in which he had embarked was hopeless. “He recognized now most distinctly in David the rising star in Israel; and, however haughtily his words might sound, he only sought to conceal behind them his despair of Ishbosheth” (Krummacher).
IV. ITS PERILOUS RELATIONSHIPS. (2Sa 3:2-5.) “The increasing political strength of David was shown, as usual among Eastern monarchs, by the fresh alliances through marriage into which he now entered” (Edersheim). In addition to his three wives, Michal, Ahinoam (mother of Amnon), and Abigail (mother of Chileab, who appears to have died early), he had “Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur” (mother of Absalom and Tamar), Haggith (mother of Adonijah), Abital, and Eglah; and he afterwards still further enlarged the royal household (2Sa 4:1-12 :13-16). “None of his sons here mentioned were eminent for virtue, and some of them were notorious for their sins.” Polygamy was tolerated by the Law of Moses (1Sa 1:2), although the king was forbidden (Deu 17:17) to “multiply wives to himself;” and it was practised by David in conformity with ancient and prevalent custom, from political considerations and natural inclinations, without reproof (2Sa 12:8); but (as his subsequent history shows) it fostered in him a sensual tendency, undermined his moral strength, and produced innumerable enmities and other evils in his family: “One deadly element of future woe mingled itself with the establishment of the kingdom of Davidhe brought into his family the curse of the harem. An utter lack of discipline was one of its first fruits; and it brought yet deeper ill even than that; for it poisoned all the springs of family life, and tainted it with ever-recurring impurity; working in him and all around him its universal fruits of impurity, jealousy, hatred, incest, and blood” (‘Heroes of Hebrews Hist.’). “It was the immemorial custom in all those countries for the magnificence and power of a ruler to display itself in the multiplication of his establishment, that is, of his wives; forevery wife involved a separate establishment. It shows the utmost depravity when Christians seek to shelter their own unjust and shameless lives under an appeal to that of David, and that, too, although none of their other proceedings show the smallest trace of David’s noble spirit, and although they are by no means ready to bear as David did the consequences of their shame” (Ewald). “If we want exemplifications of all the miseries and curses which spring from the mixture of families and the degradation of woman in the court and country where polygamy exists, David’s history supplies them. No maxims of morality can be half so effectual as a faithful record of terrible effects like these” (Maurice). In view of these effects we learn that no strength or prosperity can be lasting where “the friendship of the world” is cherished, and “the lusts of the flesh” are suffered to prevail; and that victory over some opponents may be followed by defeat by other more subtle and dangerous foes.D.
2Sa 3:6
(MAHANAIM.)
The character of Abner.
Abner, son of Net, was first cousin of Saul, probably about the same age, commander-in-chief of his army (1Sa 14:50), and contributed greatly to his early successes. He introduced David to the king after his victory over Goliath, sat at the royal table (1Sa 20:25), was well acquainted with their relations to each other, took part in the persecution (1Sa 26:14), and, after the battle of Gilbea, became the main support of the house of Saul (2Sa 2:8). “‘Abner made himself strong for the house of Saul,’ but God strengthened David, whom Abner knew to have been designed for the kingdom by God” (Wordsworth). Notice:
1. His eminent abilitiesmilitary skill, prudence, energy, courage, and perseverance; as shown by the honourable position he so long held in the service of Saul, and his successful efforts after his death (2Sa 2:8-12). “Abner’s act was not an ordinary act of rebellion against the person of David and his rightful claim to the throne; because Jehovah had not yet caused David to be set before the nation as its king by Samuel or any other prophet, and David had not yet asserted the right to reign over all Israel, which had been secured to him by the Lord, and guaranteed by his anointing as one whom the nation was bound to recognize” (Keil). Nor was he destitute of generous sentiments. If he could not be called a good man, he was “a prince and a great man” (2Sa 3:38).
2. His worldly ambition and carnal selfishness. This was probably the main, if not the only, motive of his opposition to the Divine purpose; and to it Ishbesheth evidently attributed the conduct with which he charged him, regarding his act as an assertion of royal rights (2Sa 3:7). His pride and self-esteem are also apparent in his haughty answer (2Sa 3:8).
“Ambition’s like a circle on the water,
Which never ceases to enlarge itself,
Till by broad spreading it disperse to nought.”
3. His passionate resentment, which, as is commonly the case, was an indication of the truth of the charge brought against him; nor did he deny it, but contemptuously declared that he was too great a man and had rendered too many services to be accused of such a “fault;” and then took an oath to avenge the insult by translating the kingdom to David, “as the Lord had sworn” to him (2Sa 3:9, 2Sa 3:10). “This was Abner’s arrogancy to beast such great things of himself, as if he had carried a king in his pocket, as that great Earl of Warwick in Edward IV.’s time, is said to have done” (Trapp). “No man ever heard Abner godly till now; neither had he been so at this time if he had not intended a revengeful departure from Ishbosheth. Nothing is more odious than to make religion a stalking horse to policy” (Hall).
4. His altered purposes. The change, although right and good in itself, was due to a passionate impulse and probably the desire of personal advantage; and, in its announcement, Abner betrayed his previous ungodliness and present hypocrisy. “Alas! how eloquently can hypocrites employ the Name of God, and take the sanction of religion, when by such means they think to advance their present interests!” (Lindsay). But, on the other hand, it may be said that his sudden wrath was only the occasion of his open avowal of an irrepressible and growing conviction of duty, and of his taking the decisive step which he had been long contemplating; and that he henceforth faithfully endeavoured to make amends for his former errors and sincerely sought the welfare of the nation. “When an opposer of God’s Word honestly turns, we should, without reluctance, give him the hand, without undertaking to pass judgment on the motives that are hidden in his heart” (Erdmann). David, unlike Joab (2Sa 3:25), put the best construction on Abner’s conduct.
5. His energetic action and extensive influence. He sent messengers “immediately” (LXX.) to David, recognizing his authority, etc. (2Sa 3:12); had communication with the elders of Israel (2Sa 3:18); spake in the ears of Benjamin (2Sa 3:19), who might be jealous of the transfer of sovereignty to Judah; and, having obtained their consent, came himself to Hebron with twenty men, “representatives of Israel, to confirm his overtures by their presence,” partook of an entertainment “of the nature of a league,” and went away in peace. “David believed that in this offer of Abner a Divine providence was to be observed which would make, as he hoped, a full end to the unhappy civil war” (Krummacher).
6. His cruel fate. “Now is Ishbosheth’s wrong avenged by an enemy” (Hall). Even though his present course was in fulfilment of the Divine purpose, it averted not the consequences of his former conduct; and retribution came upon him suddenly, unexpectedly, and by a wicked hand. “One wicked man is made to be another’s scourge.” “Human sin must serve the purposes of God’s kingdom” (Psa 76:10). “David’s kingdom is not promoted by Abner’s treason, as David so expected, but rather by the taking away of Abner; thus the Lord, in the promotion of his kingdom, chooseth not the instruments nor alloweth even the means which appear good to men; but, by the contrary, he taketh away the same instruments and means in which men have most confidence, and by others more unlikely, and without men’s expectation, he advanceth the cause of the Church and worketh great things” (Guild).D.
2Sa 3:7-11
(MAHANAIM.)
The dissensions of the wicked.
1. The union of wicked men rests only upon regard for their own interests. It is not founded on mutual esteem, and does not constitute true friendship (1Sa 18:1-4).
“The friendships of the world are oft
Confederacies in vice, or leagues in pleasure.”
(Addison.)
2. When their interests come into collision, their dissensions begin. And occasions of such collision are sure to arise. “Let us mark the inherent weakness of a bad cause. Godless men banded together for selfish ends have no firm bond of union. The very passions which they are united to gratify may begin to rage against one another. They fall into the pit which they have dug for others” (Blaikie).
3. Wicked men, engaged in a common enterprise against God, are not indifferent to their reputation in the sight of one another. “Am I a dog’s head,” etc. (2Sa 3:8)? Their conscience, though perverted, is not dead; their self-esteem and love of approbation are fully alive; and they estimate to the full their claims upon the gratitude of others.. They would even have their crimes connived at for the sake of the benefits which they confer.
4. Nothing more surely tests and manifests the character of the wicked than being reproved by each other for their faults. “Proud men will not bear to be reproved, especially by those to whom they have been obliged” (M. Henry). It is otherwise with the good (Psa 141:5).
5. The strong despise the weak, and passionately resent their complaints, however reasonable and just.
6. The weak suspect the strong, and, although they may feel justified in speaking, are put to silence by their fears. “And he could not answer Abner a word again, because he feared him,”
7. The dissensions of the wicked are the most effectual means of their common overthrow, usually turn out to the advantage of the righteous, and promote the extension of the kingdom of God.D.
2Sa 3:12-16
(BAHURIM.)
A domestic episode.
Michal was the first wife of David (1Sa 19:11-17). Of her he had been deprived when he fled from the court of Saul; she was given to Phaltiel (Phalti), the son of Laish, of Gallim (1Sa 25:44), by her father, perhaps as a piece of policy, to attach him to his house, and they lived together for many years, apparently in much domestic comfort. We have here
I. AN INJURED HUSBAND DEMANDING HIS JUST RIGHT. “Well; I will make a league with thee: but one thing I require,” etc. (2Sa 3:13). The demand was:
1. Founded upon justice; David having been unjustly and contemptuously treated.
2. Reverential toward the Law, which had been flagrantly violated. It does not appear that Michal was ever legally divorced from David.
3. Incited by affection toward her and the memory of her early love to him.
4. Adapted to test the sincerity and fidelity of Abner, and prepare the way for further negotiations.
5. Consistent with his honour. He could not suffer his wife to live as the wife of another man without shame.
6. Calculated to remind the northern tribes of his former services against the Philistines (2Sa 3:15, 2Sa 3:18).
7. And to increase his influence over them by the maintenance of his family alliance with the house of Saul and the public recognition of his power. There was policy as well as principle in the condition imposed.
II. A FEEBLE RULER ENFORCING A HUMILIATING REQUIREMENT. “And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth, Saul’s son,” etc. (2Sa 3:14). “Not to Abner, but to Ishbosheth (for the league between David and Abner was a profound secret), whom David knew must act feebly, as he was at Abner’s dictation” (‘Speaker’s Commentary’), “to demand the restoration of Michal, that her return might take place in duly legal form” (Keil), and that it might be apparent that he “had not taken her by force from her husband.” Nothing is said of Ishbosheth’s feelings on receiving the message. Like other incapable monarchs, he never exhibited any spirit except on the point of his royal dignity; and, even on this, his wrath was extinguished before the frown of Abner. Under constraint, he sent Abner himself, and took his sister from her husband. And the effect of this concession must have been to discredit him in the eyes of the people and hasten his downfall. Henceforth it was hardly necessary that Abner should disguise his intentions (2Sa 3:17). There is no more pitiful sight than that of a man who holds the royal office without adorning it with royal qualities.
III. A HELPLESS SUBJECT SUBMITTING TO A PAINFUL NECESSITY. (2Sa 3:15, 2Sa 3:16.) The scene is a pathetic one. Michal conducted forth, attended by her husband, “weeping behind her” to Bahurim (2Sa 19:17), on the borders of Judah, where he was compelled to part from her, with the contemptuous order, “Go, return.” “And he returned” in bitter disappointment, grief, and shame. Yet he had brought his trouble on himself. How fruitful in domestic misery are imprudence, ambition, and sinful expediency! It may be long delayed, but it surely comes. Men reap. as they sow. “Wherefore all Phaltiel’s tears move no pity of mine. Caveat raptor, let him beware who violently takes another man’s wife, seeing shame and sorrow are the issue of such ungodly marriages” (T. Fuller). “His tears ought to have been tears of repentance for his sin against God and against David” (Wordsworth). Perchance there lay hid in the evil he now suffered the seed of future good. But here his history ends.
IV. A HAUGHTY PRINCESS RESTORED TO HER LEGITIMATE LORD. Nothing is said of their meeting. This silence is ominous; and it is to be feared that the reunion was not one of unmingled satisfaction. Time and circumstances may have changed her feelings toward David (1Sa 18:20), separated her more widely from him in spiritual sympathy, and developed in her heart her father’s pride. She was now only one of many wives. At a subsequent meeting (2Sa 6:20) she was scornful, jealous, and unspiritual. And that which David anticipated with pleasure became an occasion of pain and lasting trouble.D.
2Sa 3:17, 2Sa 3:18
An urgent appeal: an evangelistic address.
“Now then do it “(2Sa 3:18). Having resolved to transfer his allegiance, Abner here persuades the elders of Israel to make David king over the whole land; as they afterwards did (2Sa 5:1-3). A similar appeal may be addressed to others, urging them to submit to the royal authority of Christ, of whom David was a type (1Sa 2:10). Translated into New Testament language, it is, “We beseech you, on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God” (2Co 5:20). Consider
I. WHAT YOU SHOULD DO. Jesus Christ is King, anointed and exalted to the right hand of God; he reigns in grace and righteousness in many hearts; but his kingdom is not yet fully revealed and universally extended on earth, and it cannot be set up “within you” except by your own consent. You must:
1. Receive him heartily as your King and Lord, your absolute Owner and supreme Ruler, as well as your Redeemer and Saviour; by a personal, inward, voluntary act; in the renunciation of whatever is opposed to his will, and the submission and surrender of your whole being to his direction and control. “Now be ye not stiff necked, as your fathers were, but yield yourselves unto the Lord” (2Ch 30:8; Rom 6:13).
“Our wills are ours, we know not how;
Our wills are ours to make them thine.”
2. Confess him openly, by uniting with his people, testifying your faith in him, and proclaiming his Name before men. “With the heart man believeth,” etc. (Rom 10:10; 2Co 8:5). “Whosoever therefore shall confess me,” etc. (Mat 10:32).
3. Serve him loyally, by obeying his commandments, assisting his friends, resisting his foes, seeking his honour and the spread of his kingdom. “It is not enough that I should love the Lord myself alone; every heart must love him, and every tongue speak forth his praise.”
II. WHY YOU SHOULD DO IT. “NOW then do it: for Jehovah hath spoken,” etc.
1. It is the purpose of God that he should reign over you. “He must reign,” either in mercy or in judgment.
2. It is the promise of God that through him you may be saved from your enemiessin, Satan, death, and hell. “There is none other Name.”
3. It has been your own desire in times past that he might be your King. “Ye sought for David both yesterday and the day before to be king over you: now then do it.” Under the bitter oppression of the ruler chosen by yourselves, in view of the superior worth of “the man of God’s choice,” in weakness, fear, and misery, you have often said. “Oh for one glorious hour of him who, in the Name of the Lord of hosts, smote Israel’s most formidable foe!” But your wishes led to no practical result. “Your goodness was as the morning cloud.” And now your reason, conscience, and all that is best within you urge you to accept Christ as your King. Let your feelings be translated into definite and decisive action, without which they are worse than useless. “Now then do it.” “Crown him Lord of all.”
III. WHEN YOU SHOULD DO IT. Whatever reason exists for doing it at all should induce you to do it now. There are not a few who are persuaded of their duty, yet break the force of every appeal by delay and the intention of doing it at a future time. But:
1. The present is a most favourable opportunity. The King “waits to be gracious,” and sends you the message of reconciliation. “Men and brethren, to you is the word of this salvation sent.” “Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2Co 2:1, 2Co 2:2).
2. If you do it today, tomorrow and all your future days will be days of peace and happiness.
3. If you wait till tomorrow, it is probable that you will never do it. Your susceptibility to Divine influences will be lessened, your indisposition, which is the real cause of delay, will be increased; life is uncertain, probation is brief, the end is nigh. “Our gracious Ahasuerus (Est 4:11) reacheth out the golden sceptre to all that have a hand of faith to lay hold of it; but then he shall take his iron mace or rod in his hand to bruise his enemies and break them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” Say not, with the procrastinator, “To morrow” (Exo 8:10); “Go thy way for this time” (Act 24:25); for “the Holy Ghost saith, Today” (Heb 3:7). “‘Cras! cras!’ (Tomorrow! tomorrow!) is the cry of the raven. This is the thing that destroys many; while they are saying, ‘Cras! cras!’ suddenly the door is shut”. “The man that procrastinates struggles ever with ruin” (Epictetus). “There is a circumscribed space of time appointed thee, which if thou dost not employ in making all calm and serene within, it will pass away and thou wilt pass away, and it never will return”.
“Defer not till tomorrow to be wise;
Tomorrow’s sun to thee may never rise.”
D.
2Sa 3:22-30
(HEBRON.)
The vengeance of Joab.
[References:
(1) Early life (1Sa 22:1);
(2) conflict with Abner (2Sa 2:13, 2Sa 2:24, 2Sa 2:30);
(3) capture of the stronghold of Zion (1Ch 11:6);
(4) captain of the host (2Sa 8:16; 2Sa 20:23);
(5) conflicts with the Ammonites and Syrians (2Sa 10:7);
(6) reduction of the Edomites (1Ki 11:15, 1Ki 11:16);
(7) complicity in the murder of Uriah (2Sa 11:14);
(8) capture of Rabbah (2Sa 11:1; 2Sa 12:26);
(9) relations with Absalom (2Sa 14:1, 2Sa 14:29);
(10) defeat and murder of Absalom (2Sa 18:2, 2Sa 18:14);
(11) upbraiding the king (2Sa 19:5);
(12) replaced by Amasa (2Sa 20:4);
(13) murder of Amasa (2Sa 20:10);
(14) defeat of Sheba (2Sa 20:22);
(15) remonstrance with David (2Sa 24:3);
(16) defection to Adonijah (1Ki 1:7);
(17) denounced by David (1Ki 2:5);
(18) put to death by Benaiah at the command of Solomon (1Ki 2:28, 1Ki 2:34).]
1. Among those who played a prominent part in David’s reign the foremost man was his nephew Joab. He was possessed of great physical strength and daring, clear judgment and strong will, eminent military skill, and immense power over others; “a bold captain in bad times.” With the ruder qualities of activity, courage, and implacable revenge, “he combined something of a more statesmanlike character, which brings him more nearly to a level with his youthful uncle; and unquestionably gives him the second place in the whole history of David’s reign. In consequence of his successful attempt at the siege of Jebus, he became commander-in-chief, the highest office in the state after the king. In this post he was content, and served the king with undeviating fidelity. In the wide range of wars which David undertook, Joab was the acting general, and he therefore may be considered as the founder, as far as military prowess was concerned, the Marlborough, the Belisarius, of the Jewish empire” (Stanley). His patriotism was unquestionable; nor was he without piety (2Sa 10:12).
2. His natural gifts, good qualities, and invaluable services were more than counterbalanced by his moral defects and numerous vices. “He ever appears wily, politic, and uuscrupulous” (‘Speaker’s Commentary’). “He is the impersonation of worldly policy, secular expediency, and temporal ambition, eager for his own personal aggrandizement, and especially for the maintenance of his own political ascendency, and practising on the weaknesses of princes for his own interests; but at last the victim of his own Machiavellian shrewdness” (Wordsworth).
3. “Joab was a type of the national aspect of Judaism. He was intensely Jewish, in the tribal meaning of the word, not in its higher, world wide bearing; only Judaean in everything that outwardly marked Judaism, though not regarded in its inward and spiritual reality. Nor is it without deep symbolical meaning, as we have the higher teaching of history, that Joab, the typical Eastern Judaeanmay we not say, the type of Israel after the flesh?should, in carrying out his own purposes and views, have at last compassed his own destruction” (Edersheim).
I. EVIL DEEDS ARE SELDOM WROUGHT WITHOUT PLAUSIBLE PRETEXTS. It is uncertain whether Joab was aware of former negotiations between David and Abner; but on returning to Hebron from a military expedition, being informed of the league that had just been made, his suspicion was aroused; he hastened to the king with the view of inducing him to share it, probably believing that Abner was not to be trusted; and finding the result doubtful or contrary to his expectation, resolved to take the matter into his own hands, on the ground of:
1. Guilt incurred by a public enemy.
2. Zeal inspired for the king’s safety (2Sa 3:25).
3. Obligation imposed by personal injury, according to the custom of blood revenge (Exo 21:13; Num 35:9 -35; Deu 19:1-13). This is twice mentioned by the historian (2Sa 3:27, 2Sa 3:30) as the ostensible ground, and was perhaps popularly regarded as a sufficient justification of his deed. “The act of Abner was justifiable homicide; but it was precisely to such cases that the rule applied, not to those of murder, against the penalties of which no sanctuary afforded protection. Besides, unless the right of avengement for blood did apply to such cases as this, whence the deep necessity of Abner to avoid slaying Asahel (2Sa 2:22)? It may be admitted that a case of this nature may have involved some doubt as to the application of the rule to it, and very likely it was not in such cases often enforced. But where any room for doubt existed, Joab and Abishai might interpret it in their own favour as their justification for an act the true motives of which durst not be alleged, and as a ground, on which they might claim exemption from the punishment due to murder (Kitto, ‘Daily Bible Illus.’).
II. PLAUSIBLE PRETEXTS OFTEN COVER THE BASEST MOTIVES, though they cannot entirely conceal them.
1. Vindictiveness. Joab’s act, even if it fell within the letter of the Law, which allowed punishment for homicide under certain circumstances (Num 35:22), was shown, by the place, the time, and the manner of it, to have been done, not from regard for justice, but from deliberate, unwarrantable, malicious revenge. So David regarded it (2Sa 3:28); denouncing it as the “shedding of the blood of war in peace” (1Ki 2:5), and joining it with the murder of Amasa.
2. Jealousy and ambition (1Sa 18:6-16). This was his main motive. He was “afraid of losing his command of the army and his dignity with the king, and lest he should be deprived of those advantages and Abner should obtain the first rank in David’s court” (Josephus). Hence his suspicion and slander of Abner (2Sa 3:25). “Through envy of the devil came death into the world” (Wis. 2:24).
“Envy at others’ good is evermore
Malignant poison setting on the soul;
A double woe to him infected by it
Of inward pain the heavy load he bears,
At sight of joy without he ever mourns.”
(AEschylus.)
3. Presumption. He rudely remonstrated with the king (2Sa 3:24), presuming upon his position; and afterwards, without the king’s authority, whilst seeming to act under it, recalled the man who had been sent away under the king’s protection; and gratified his private revenge, regardless of the effect of his conduct on the king’s dignity and reputation.
4. Treachery. Under the pretence of speaking with him in a friendly and confidential manner, he drew his victim aside in the middle of the gate, and smote him there. Possibly Abishai alone was witness of the act. “Cursed be he that smiteth his neighbour secretly. And all the people shall say, Amen” (Deu 27:24).
III. IMPUNITY IN CRIME IS COMMONLY PRODUCTIVE OF DISASTROUS EFFECTS. Under the circumstances, it would hardly have been possible for David to punish Joab and Abishai. “Probably public feeling would not have supported the king, nor could he, at this crisis of his affairs, have afforded the loss of such generals, or brave the people and the army” (Edersheim). Great men often owe their exemption from punishment to their position. But crime, although unpunished by man:
1. Incurs the righteous displeasure of God. (2Sa 3:29, 2Sa 3:39.) Human punishment does not and cannot always accord with the Divine. Although David could not punish, he durst not forgive. His words “express his moral horror at this evil deed, and at the same time the everlasting law of God’s recruiting justice.” “The extension of the curse to the descendants clearly refers to the threatenings of the Law; and in both cases the offensive character disappears if we only remember that whoever by true repentance freed himself from connection with the guilt, was also exempted from participation in the punishment” (Hengstenberg).
2. Incites other men to similar crimes. It is not improbable that Baanah and Rechab were induced to assassinate Ishbosheth (2Sa 4:6) by the unavenged death of Abner.
3. Encourages the criminal to continue his evil course, increases his obduracy, and causes him to “wax worse and worse.” “Joab prospered even after his sin. God gave him time for repentance. But he hardened his heart by sin. And in the end he was cut off. Successful crime is splendid misery.”
4. Escapes not forever the retribution which it deserves. “Evil pursueth sinners” (Pro 13:21; Pro 29:1). Joab sinned with a strong and violent hand, and by a strong and violent hand he at length perished (1Ki 2:34; Psa 58:11).
“O Blind lust!
O foolish wrath! who so dost goad us on
In the brief life, and in the eternal then
Thus miserably overwhelm us!”
(Dante, ‘Purg.,’ 12.)
D.
2Sa 3:31-35
(HEBRON.) David’s lament over Abner.
“As a fool dies should Abner die?
Thy bands unbound,
Thy feet not set in fetters:
As one falls before the wicked, thou didst fall!”
On hearing of the death of Abner, David exhibited the same generous spirit as formerly at the death of Saul (2Sa 1:11, 2Sa 1:12).
1. He disclaimed (before his trusted servants, as afterwards, 2Sa 3:38) against having had any part therein; declaring, “I and my kingdom are guiltless before the Lord,” etc. Malicious persons, judging others by themselves, might accuse him of it; and if it had been instigated by him, he would have brought guilt upon his people as well as himself (2Sa 21:1; 2Sa 24:1, 2Sa 24:17).
2. He invoked a curse on the head of the author of the deed; not from a feeling of personal hatred and vindictiveness, but of righteous indignation (1Sa 26:19).
3. He ordered a public mourning in honour of the deceased. “And David said to Joab,” etc. (2Sa 3:38). Although he durst not arrest him, he clearly indicated what he thought of his conduct, and sought to remove the odium which it cast on his own good name.
4. He followed in the procession as chief mourner, wept at the grave (Joh 11:35), and fasted until sunset. “There is no more beautiful picture in his life than that of his following the bier where lay the bloody corpse of the man who had been his enemy ever since he had known him, and sealing the reconciliation which death ever makes in noble souls by the pathetic dirge he chanted over Abner’s grave” (A. Maclaren). “This short poem is not only a dirge; it is also an apology for David and for Abner himself” (Wordsworth). It expresses
I. ADMIRATION OF EMINENT WORTH. Abner was not a villain (fool) or murderer, deserving of being put in fetters and dying a felon’s death; but brave, capable, noble-minded, “great in council, great in war,” and worthy of respect and honour. A generous man sees and appreciates what is best in other men. “The generous spirit of David kept down all base and selfish feeling, and added another to those glorious conquests over his own heart which were far higher distinctions than his other victories, and in which he has left us an example which all, from the least to the greatest, should try to emulate” (Blaikie).
II. AFFLICTION FOR A PUBLIC LOSS. A light was quenched “in Israel” (2Sa 3:38). His presence and influence would have contributed to the reconciliation of the tribes and the welfare of the nation (2Sa 3:21). David’s sorrow was sincere; his tears (in confirmation of his words) evinced the tenderness and sympathy of his heart, moved the people also to tears, and (in contrast with the bearing of Joab) convinced them of his innocence and uprightness.
III. ASTONISHMENT AT AN EXTRAORDINARY FATE. “The point of this indignant, more than sorrowful, lament lies in the mode in which Abner was slain” (Kitto, ‘Cyc.’). How strange that Abner should have fallen in the full possession of strength to defend himself and liberty to flee from danger; neither as a prisoner taken in battle nor (in allusion to the right of blood-revenge which Joab claimed) as a murderer delivered up in bonds to the avenger by lawful authority, as he would have been if he were guilty! His fallso different from what might have been expected and from what he meritedcould be accounted for only by its having been caused by the treacherous malice and murderous violence of “sons of wickedness.”
IV. ABHORRENCE OF A WICKED DEED. (2Sa 3:29, 2Sa 3:39.) The death of Abner was, even more than his life would have been, conducive to David’s interests. “It must have seemed to him, from a prudential point of view, that it was a piece of good fortune.
But the strength of his moral indignation does not suffer itself to be assuaged by worldly considerations” (Delitzsch). Hatred of wrong is a sign and measure of the love of right. “Ye that love the Lord, hate evil” (Psa 97:10). David was as severe toward evil doers as he was tender and pitiful toward the victims of their wickedness. “He was a man extreme in all his excellencesa man of the highest strain, whether for counsel, for expression, or for action, in peace and in war, in exile and on the throne” (E. Irving).D.
2Sa 3:36-38
(HEBRON.)
Acceptance with the people.
“And all the people took notice of it, and it pleased them,” etc. (2Sa 3:36). David’s conduct not only freed him from suspicion, but also won the confidence and affection of “all the people” (1Sa 12:3-5).
I. THE CONDUCT OF ONE IN AUTHORITY IS CAREFULLY OBSERVED BY THE PEOPLE. Because of:
1. His elevated position, which (like a mountain peak) attracts their attention, and exposes him to their constant gaze.
2. His responsible position, which leads them to compare his actions with the principles according to which he ought to rule.
3. His influential position, which makes them watchful of his course, out of concern for their own interests.
II. ACCEPTANCE WITH THE PEOPLE IS AN OBJECT WORTHY OF BEING DILIGENTLY SOUGHT. It is not the highest object, and ought not to be sought supremely. Truth and justice are of greater worth than popularity. The praise of God must be loved more than the praise of men (Joh 12:43). But it should not be neglected or despised, because:
1. It conduces to his safety and happiness.
2. It renders his measures less likely to be suspected and opposed; enables him to effect his purposes for their good; increases the measure of his usefulness.
3. It aids him in his endeavours to promote the glory of the supreme Ruler.
III. THERE IS NO WAY TO SECURE IT MORE EFFECTUAL THAN THE EXHIBITION OF AN UPRIGHT AND GENEROUS SPIRIT.
1. Other ways are uncertain and variable, like the changing moods of the people.
2. This appeals to what is noblest and most permanent in them, and secures the sympathies of the most reliable men.
3. It also obtains the favour and help of God, who disposes their hearts to approve, submit, and obey.
IV. ITS ATTAINMENT IS HONOURABLE AND BENEFICIAL TO THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES.
1. It shows a readiness to be pleased, and a disposition to admire genuine excellence.
2. It confirms his devotion to their welfare, and encourages him to persevere in well doing.
3. It tends to their improvement in virtue, and thus contributes to their peace and unity, power and prosperity.
CONCLUSION. What has been said applies to other relations besides that of ruler and subject. “A good name is better than precious ointment” (Ecc 7:1) or “great riches” (Pro 22:1); “Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification” (Rom 15:2; 1Co 10:33; Tit 2:9); “Whatsoever things are of good report, think on these things” (Php 4:8).D.
2Sa 3:38
(HEBRON.)
The fall of a prince and a great man.
The world is sometimes startled by the fall of an eminent man in a sudden and violent mannerlike that of the Czar of Russia or the President of the United States. Here is the epitaph of such a man. Reflect:
1. How uncertain is the continuance of human life! This familiar but little heeded truth is set forth in an impressive manner by such an event, teaching that no station is exempt from the approach of death, no safeguards effectual against it. “Death is come up into our windows, and is entered into our palaces” (Jer 9:24).
2. How unstable is the foundation of earthly greatness! It is built upon the sand, and in a moment crumbles into dust. Goodness alone (the essence of true greatness) endures and goes with the soul into “everlasting habitations.”
3. How deplorable is the less of superior excellence! The world is made poorer by its removal.
4. How dreadful is the prevalence of diabolical wickedness! One assassination begets another. And at times there is abroad in society a spirit of lawlessness, recklessness, and ungodliness, which is full of peril, and calls for the earnest efforts and prayers of good men that it may be overcome.
5. How mysterious are the ways of Divne Providence, in permitting the innocent to perish, the godless to succeed, the guilty to be spared!
6. How often is evil overruled for the promotion of beneficent ends (2Sa 4:1; 2Sa 5:1)!
7. How profitable is the remembrance of a noble minded man! “Know ye not,” etc.? “He being dead, yet speaketh.”D.
2Sa 3:39
(HEBRON.)
The sons of Zeruiah.
The mental and moral qualities of men are largely traceable to hereditary tendencies. If Joab and Abishai resembled their mother, she must have been a woman of strong mind, and of a suspicious, irascible, and intolerant temper, rather than noted for her simplicity, meekness, and forbearance. And so much may be inferred from the manner in which David associates the name of his sister with her sons (2Sa 16:10; 2Sa 19:22; 1Ki 2:5). Their spirit and conduct were different from his, obnoxious to him, and constrained him to make this confession to his confidential servants on the evening of the day of Abner’s funeral. “It was one of those moments in which a king, even with the best intentions, must feel to his own heavy cost the weakness of everything human, and the limits of human supremacy” (Ewald).
I. NO MAN, HOWEVER HIGHLY EXALTED, IS EXEMPT FROM WEAKNESS. “I am this day weak [tender, infirm], and an anointed king.” The most absolute monarch cannot do all he would. Truly good men, though anointed and endued with spiritual power, are by no means perfect, but are “compassed with infirmity.” The weakness of a strong man is felt:
1. In contending against the evil that surrounds him and presses in upon him like “the proud waves.”
2. In performing the duties that rest upon him, and attaining the ideal of character at which he aims. “I will walk within my house with a perfect heart,” etc. (Psa 101:2-8).
3. In effecting the purposes which he may have formed for the good of others.
II. THE WEAKNESS OF A STRONG MAN IS OFTEN OCCASIONED BY HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER MEN. “And these men, sons of Zeruiah, are too hard [rough, obstinate, powerful] for me.” His relationships with them not unfrequently:
1. Enable them to acquire undue power, and incite them to pursue a presumptuous, obstinate, unjustifiable course. “A man’s foes are they of his own household” (Mat 10:36; Num 12:1).
2. Bring him into intimate association with those who have little sympathy with his noblest feelings, and expose him to the influence of their adverse principles (Luk 9:54; Mat 16:22, Mat 16:23).
3. Become an occasion of hindrance, temptation, and peril. For, unlike him in whom the prince of this world “had nothing” (Joh 14:30), every man possesses an inward, carnal propensity on which outward evil may take hold, and thereby cause him to stumble.
III. THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF HIS CONDITION FILLS HIM WITH DEEP DISTRESS. “I am this day weak,” etc; which is a complaint of:
1. Painful restraint imposed upon him with respect to conduct he cannot approve.
2. Necessary endurance of men whom he cannot punish, and with whom he may not, out of regard to his own position and the common good, enter into open conflict.
3. Partial and not altogether blameless failure in the fulfilment of the obligations of his high calling. David has been severely condemned for not punishing the sons of Zeruiah; but in order to justify such condemnation, we should have a better acquaintance with all the circumstances of the case. He was not without sinful infirmity. Yet whose conviction of what is absolutely right exactly corresponds with his consciousness of actual performance? “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
IV. THE CHIEF ALLEVIATION OF HIS TROUBLE IS CONFIDENCE IN THE RIGHTEOUS RETRIBUTION OF GOD. “Jehovah reward the doer of wickedness according to his wickedness.” This is expressive of:
1. Dependence on the Divine power to accomplish what he himself cannot do.
2. Faith in the Divine permission of unrequited evil for a time, for wise and beneficent ends.
3. Desire for the maintenance, vindication, and triumph of eternal righteousness in the earth (2Sa 3:22-30). “The Lord will render to him according to his works” (2Ti 4:14). “Jehovah shall reward,” etc. This was the text to which Lady F. Cavendish directed attention on the occasion of the lamented death of her husband, Lord Frederic Cavendish; and which was so remarkably fulfilled in the fate that afterwards overtook his assassins. “It is the hope of the oppressed and the patience of the saints.”D.
HOMILIES BY G. WOOD
2Sa 3:9-12
Doing right wrongly. Abner knew well that David was appointed by God to be king over all Israel. Yet he set up Ishbosheth as king over the eleven tribes in opposition to David, and thus caused much unnecessary and useless delay and bloodshed. When, however, Ishbosheth (whether rightly or wrongly) remonstrated with him for his conduct towards Rizpah, he calls to mind the purpose and promise of God, and resolves to cooperate with him (!) in placing David over all the nation (2Sa 3:9); and he opens communications with David with this view. The known will of God thus becomes a convenient pretext for the gratification at once of his revenge and his ambition. His own lips convicted him of insincerity and hypocrisy. His tardy obedience to the truth he knew was unreal and unacceptable to God, however useful to David. It was self, and not God, that ruled him throughout. Abner has many imitatorsmen who, instead of simply and sincerely obeying the truth they know, make it wait on their ambition or covetousness, now neglecting it, now acting according to it, and professing great regard for it, as their selfish aims may prompt. They choose their side in religion or polities, not according to conviction, but according to their supposed interests; and if they change sides it is not because of changed convictions, but because their ambition or avarice has been disappointedthey have not been made enough of, or they have quarrelled with some one, or their pride has been mortified, or they see that they have been on the side of a decaying cause which cannot be of much more service to them. Such men may be welcomed to the side they join, and may be of some service; but they wilt not be trusted, and their service will be of doubtful value. In religion especially the adherence of such persons is to be deprecated as wanting in the right spirit, and likely to be injurious rather than beneficial. They tend to corrupt the society in which they are active and influential, and deprive it of its true strengththat of sincere, spiritual, consistent character. Observe:
1. The importance of simple and uniform obedience to the known will of God. To obey as it suits our worldly aims is not to obey at all, and the pretence of obedience is hypocritical and hateful to God. Such obedience may have its uses to others; God may overrule it for good; but it will bring no blessing to the doer.
2. The language of Abner may be adopted by us in relation to the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. “As Jehovah has sworn to his beloved Son, even so I do to him.” Our knowledge of the purpose and promise of God to establish Christ’s rule over all men should stimulate us to devoted service in his cause. It assures us that to be on his side is to be on God’s side, on the side that must succeed. In being thus workers with God we cannot labour in vain; and labouring not in pretence, but in truth, we shall ultimately share in the glory and power of the great King whose cause we espouse (Rev 3:21).G.W.
2Sa 3:38
Death of a great man.
Abner had great qualities, filled a high position, seemed likely to be of great service to David, who sincerely lamented his untimely end, and the wicked treachery and violence by which he fell.
I. GREAT MEN SHOULD BE HIGHLY VALUED. Great generals and naval commanders. If war must be, it is of vast importance that it should be conducted by able captains. But not only these, men great in the arts of peace,great statesmen, philosophers, historians, scientists, poets, artists, preachers, etc. Especially when distinguished ability is combined with unselfish devotion to the good of the nation or the race. For selfish ambition belittles the great, and moral corruption renders them powerful for evil instead of good. Abner’s greatness was marred by his unscrupulous ambition, and Joab was worse than he. The multitude are very dependent on great leaders, whether in war or peace, and can do little without them. “Thou art worth ten thousand of us” (2Sa 18:3). Leading and inspiring the many, they make them partners in their own greatness. The influence of their deeds, or (in the case of intellectual leaders) their thoughts, raises others towards their own level. The character as well as the progress of a people depends a good deal on its great men.
II. GREAT MEN MUST DIE. In some conditions of society their lives are more exposed to peril than the lives of otherswhether from the assassin, or from fickle monarchs or ambitious rivals, using the forms of law to put them out of their way; or the cares incident to greatness may shorten their days. “I have said, Ye are gods but ye shall die like men” (Psa 82:6, Psa 82:7)a truth they should bear in mind to keep them sober and humble, to stimulate their diligence, and preserve in them a sense of responsibility to God; a truth which others should remember, that they may not idolize the great, nor unduly confide in them (see Psa 146:3, Psa 146:4) or dread their anger (Isa 51:12), nor, to secure their favour, sin against him who lives forever; and that they may be themselves the more content to die.
III. GREAT MEN SHOULD BE HONOURED AFTER DEATH. By general mourning; by honourable burial; by commemoration of their virtues and services, in elegies (as here), or biographies, or monuments to their memory; by carrying out their unaccomplished purposes for the public good; and withal by praise to God for them and their services. Such honour is due to the men themselves, and tends to the good of society by exciting emulation, etc.
In conclusion:
1. Let Britons bless God for the large number and long succession of great men who have adorned and served their country in all departments; and pray that the succession may be maintained to the latest times. Not only are such men invaluable while they live; their works and memories survive them as a perpetual treasure. The truly great do not die altogether.
“But strew his ashes to the wind
Whose sword or voice has served mankind
And is he dead whose glorious mind
Lifts thine on high?
To live in hearts we leave behind,
Is not to die.”
(Campbell.)
2. Let us be thankful that it is not necessary to be great in order to be either happy or useful. Goodness is the essential thing. A comfort to the many who can never be distinguished.
3. Yet real greatness is possible to all. Through faith in Christ we become children of God, “heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ,” to be “glorified together” with him (Rom 8:17). In the kingdom of heaven greatness is secured by conscientious obedience to the Divine commandments (Mat 5:19), humility (Mat 18:4; Luk 9:48), and self abasing, self-denying service of others (Mar 10:42-45). Such greatness is substantial and immortal (1Jn 2:17).
4. Let us rejoice that the great “Captain of our salvation” lives forever, in fulness of power to save and bless all who trust in him.G.W.
2Sa 3:39
A weak king.
“I am this day weak, though anointed king.” David, indignant and distressed on account of the murder of Abner, could not venture to attempt to punish the murderers. They were too powerful for even him. Hence this lamentation. It was hardly wise to express his feelingit would help to confirm the power of Joab and his brother. Many a monarch has been similarly weak, owing to the power of those who are nominally his servants. This is injurious when it prevents the execution of justice; but as to measures of government it is often best, the servant being wiser and abler than the sovereign. We may take the words as a picture of what has place in human nature. Man has over him rightful kings, which too often are not, in fact, his rulers.
I. THE EVIL.
1. Objectively. Truth, the expressed will of God, is rightful sovereign of men, but it very partially rules. Many “sons of Zeruiah” are “too hard for” it, silence its utterances, oppose its power, prevent its sway. But it is king notwithstanding, and, by the Divine judgments it expresses, will determine men’s destiny, though they may refuse to let its precepts regulate their conduct.
2. Subjectively. Conscience, enlightened by truth, is anointed by God as king. “Had it strength as it had right, had it power as it had manifest authority, it would absolutely govern the world” (Bishop Butler). But in actual government it is often “weak.” The lower part of human nature is in rebellion against the higher. Appetite and passion and ill-regulated lawful affections, and all these hardened into habits, are “too hard” for it. Hence come degradation, ruin, misery, now and hereafter.
II. THE REMEDY. The redemption effected by the death of our Lord, realized in the heart by faith through the power of the Holy Spirit, is the only effectual remedy. “Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” “Sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under law, but under grace” (Rom 6:6, Rom 6:14). The revelation of God and man, of sin and holiness, in the cross of Christ; the deliverance from condemnation secured thereby; the new Divine power which is imparted to the believer; the love to his Redeemer which is planted in his heart; the filial relation into which he is brought to God; the new hopes by which he is inspired;these rescue him from slavery to sin, and give him freedom and will and power to serve God and righteousness (see Rom 6:1-23. and 7; and Rom 8:1-4). The rightful Sovereign is replaced on the throne, strong to govern, not yet with absolutely universal and perfect sway, but with the assured prospect of it. Let, then, those who groan under the consciousness of their moral weakness accept the great Deliverer, and submit themselves to his methods of imparting strength to the soul.
III. THE SEEMING RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN DAVID AND HIS DIVINE SON. It might seem as if our Lord Jesus, like David, might say, “I am weak, though anointed King.” Long has he been exalted to his throne at the right hand of God, as Lord of all; “from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool” (Heb 10:13). Yet how small a portion of mankind is actually under his moral and spiritual sway! and these how imperfectly! How much power have his foes, even where he does really rule! And his open foes and false friends seem to speak and act as they please with impunity. It is not, however, that he is “weak,” or that any are “too hard for” him. He is long suffering, and delays to execute judgment; but let his enemies continue impenitent and incorrigible, and they will learn by experience that he is strong to punish them. “Vengeance has leaden feet, but iron hands.” “The mill of God grinds late, but it grinds to powder.” Meanwhile he uses his foes as slaves to aid in working out his purposes. And as to the limits of his moral and spiritual rule, we must remember that, in extending and perfecting it, he pays respect to the freedom of men. It is not a matter of mere power, but of instruction and persuasion. He counsels, warns, invites, manifests his own yearning pity and love, stirs the conscience, moves the heart; but he does not compelcannot do so consistently with his own purpose or the nature of man and of the rule he would establish. But let us yield ourselves heartily to him, and we shall find that he is as strong as ever to save and make strong those who trust in him.G.W.
2Sa 3:39
Sure retribution.
“The Lord shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness.” In the Revised Version the words are rendered as a wish: “The Lord reward the wicked doer according to his wickedness.” The substantial meaning is the same in both translations. “In his impotence to punish Joab himself, David remits him to the just judgment of God” (‘Speaker’s Commentary’). The words may be taken in respect to all evil doers. None can escape the judgment of God, even if they escape punishment from men.
I. THE CERTAINTY OF THE DIVINE PUNISHMENT OF EVIL DOERS. This follows from:
1. The relations of God to men. As Ruler, Lawgiver, Judge. He will certainly not fail in the exercise of the functions which belong to these relations. Even if we think of him as Father, we may be equally certain that impenitent sinners will not go unpunished. What would a father be worth who should allow a depraved son to defy himself, and seriously injure other children of the family, with impunity? If he can by any means, gentle or severe, reform him, well,this he will prefer; but if not, he must banish and abandon him. And to say that Omnipotent love need not and cannot resort to this extremity of punishment is to go beyond our knowledge, and contrary to the plain statements of Holy Writ, where the chastisement which reforms and the punishment which crushes are clearly distinguished. To make Gehenna a purgatory is certainly to add to the teaching of our Lord respecting it.
2. His threatenings. Those of conscience and those of Holy Writ. They abound throughout the Bible, and are nowhere more frequent and awful than in the teaching of the tender and loving Christ.
3. His character. As holy and just, loving righteousness and hating iniquity; truthful in regard to his threatenings as well as his promises.
4. His omniscience. Men often succeed in hiding their evil deeds or themselves from their fellow men; but it is impossible thus to escape Divine judgments (see Job 34:21, Job 34:22).
5. His omnipotence. Criminals may in some states of society be, like Joab, too strong to be punished by those in authority; but God is mightier than the mightiest. There is, therefore, no possibility of resisting his judgments.
6. The teachings of experience. The penalties which follow violations of natural law. The results of wrong doing upon body, mind, circumstances. The penalties inflicted by society on those who practise certain forms of wickedness.
II. THE SATISFACTION WITH WHICH THIS CERTAINTY IS SOMETIMES REGARDED BY THE RIGHTEOUS. According to the Revised Version the words are a wish, a prayer; but even according to the Authorized Version they are uttered with evident satisfaction. David desired that justice should be executed on Joab; and, feeling his own inability to execute it, was relieved by the assurance he felt that it would not therefore fail of execution. Would such a feeling be wrong in a Christian? St. Paul did not think so. “Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward [or, ‘will reward’] him according to his works” (2Ti 4:14, where there are two readings, as here two renderings). In the case of powerful villains injuring and trampling down the weak, but who cannot be reached by human justice, can any one doubt that the feeling of confidence that the justice of God can and will reach them is a proper feeling to cherish, although it should be associated with the desire that they may, if possible, be converted? In the case of impenitent sinners in general, it is the known purpose of God to punish them according to their works. Shall his children disapprove his conduct, or only silently submit; or not rather acquiesce, approve, and, at times at least, cherish complacency? Does not the prayer divinely taught to them, “Thy will be done,” apply to this part of his will? They bear the image of God’s righteousness as well as loving kindness. They have strong regard for his character and honour, as well as for the happiness of his creatures. They cannot but desire that all rebellion against him should be put down by the power of his love on the hearts of the rebels, if it may be; if not, by the severe measures of his justice. In the case of serious wrong done to ourselves, we are doubtless to suppress all emotions of revenge, and to pray for and be ready to forgive the wrong doer; yet the above cited expression of St. Paul shows that, in certain circumstances, we may remit the offender to Divine justice; and in another place (Rom 12:19) he gives this as a reason for not avenging ourselves: “It is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” The love which is so characteristic of Christianity is not, then, incompatible with hatred of sin and the desire that sin should be punished. The two are identical when the punishment is desired that the sinner may be led thereby to repentance. They are not incompatible, when, the persistence and impenitence of the sinner being supposed, love for others and zeal for the law and government of God produce at least acquiescence in his judgments. It should be observed, however, that such emotions as we have been speaking of are to form but a small part of the inner life of the Christian. Indignation against evil, and desire for its punishment, need rather to be restrained and guided, than inculcated and cherished. The sentiments towards others which should ordinarily predominate are those of pure and direct benevolence. Yet let sinners lay to heart that, unless they repent and seek salvation through Christ, God will certainly render to them according to their wickedness. “Be sure your sin will find you out.” “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.”G.W.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
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
The account of the struggle on the part of Saul’s family for the kingdom with David, is continued in this Chapter. A quarrel takes place between Ishbosheth and Abner. The latter makes overtures to David. David’s treaty with him. Abner, while attempting to bring over Israel to David’s interest, is slain by Joab. David’s distress at this event. These are the principal points related in this Chapter.
2Sa 3:1
(1) Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David: but David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker.
The event as here related, of the decline of Saul’s interest, and the increase of David’s, is just as might have been expected. But I pass over the historical part of the relation, to call the Reader’s attention to an infinitely more important object veiled under the history, and to direct him to the very precious instruction, spiritually considered, contained in it.
The long war which subsisted between the house of Saul and the house of David, may serve to teach us both the length and strength of the battle which is carried on in the heart of the awakened believer, in the different dispositions of nature and grace. There is indeed long war, and dreadfully hot re-encounters, by reason of these contending powers. Speak, ye long tried, long exercised souls, who feel their force, and say what it is, for I have no ability to describe it. But what a relief to the soul is the consideration, (and I would charge it upon the mind of everyone groaning under it,) the issue of this war, is not doubtful. Your exercises are not for trial, as to the event; but for trial as to the proving the graces given you. Jesus, your spiritual David, hath already conquered for you, and in your name: and you must shortly be made more than conquerors through him and his victory. And in the mean time it is a precious thought, and ever to be cherished with the most grateful affection in the heart of the believer; though you see so little increase in the life of faith and grace, compared to what you wish; nay, as it seems to appear to you, matters sometimes grow worse and worse; yet in the strength that is in Christ Jesus, and your views of him, nature, like the house of Saul, is giving way; and grace, like the house of David, becoming every day more triumphant. That promise is absolute, The righteous shall hold on his way, and he that hath clean hands shall be stronger and stronger. Job 17:9 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2Sa 3
1. Now there was long war [not actual fighting but a hostile and military temper] between the house of Saul and the house of David: but David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker [Providence works through time].
2. And unto David were sons born in Hebron: and his firstborn was Amnon [see chap. xiii.], of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess;
3. And his second, Chileab [supposed to have died early], of Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite; and the third, Absalom [see chaps. xiii.-xviii.] the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur;
4. And the fourth, Adonijah [put to death by Solomon ( 1Ki 11:25 )] the son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital;
5. And the sixth, Ithream, by Eglah David’s wife. These were born to David in Hebron. [It is quite in the manner of the sacred historians to give such statistics about the house or family of the king.]
6. 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.
7. And Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah [see chap. 2Sa 21:8-11 ], the daughter of Aiah: and Ish-bosheth said to Abner, Wherefore hast thou gone in unto my father’s concubine?
8. Then was Abner very wroth for the words of Ish-bosheth, and said, Am I a dog’s head, which against Judah [ lit. Am I a dog’s head belonging to Judah?] do shew kindness this day unto the house of Saul thy father, to his brethren, and to his friends, and have not delivered thee into the hand of David, that thou chargest me today with a fault concerning this woman?
9. So do God to Abner, and more also [for he now saw the utter and contemptible weakness of Ish-bosheth], except, as the Lord hath sworn to David, even so I do to him;
10. To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba.
11. And he could not answer Abner a word again, because he feared him.
12. And Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf, saying, Whose is the land? saying also, Make thy league with me, and, behold, my hand shall be with thee, to bring about all Israel unto thee.
13. And he said, Well; I will make a league with thee: but one thing I require of thee, that is, Thou shalt not see my face, except thou first bring Michal Saul’s daughter, when thou comest to see my face. [“Besides the justice of this demand Michal having been wrongfully taken from him by Saul and besides all question of affection towards one who had loved him and saved his life (1Sa 18:20 ; 1Sa 19:11-17 ), there were political reasons of importance for the demand. The demand itself shewed that he bore no malice against the house of Saul, and the restoration would again constitute him Saul’s son-in-law, and thus further his claims to the throne; while it also shewed publicly that he was in a condition to enforce his rights as against the house of Saul.”]
14. And David sent messengers to Ish-bosheth Saul’s son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines.
15. And Ish-bosheth sent, and took her from her husband, even from Phaltiel the son of Laish.
16. And her husband went with her along weeping behind her to Bahurim [on the road from the Mount of Olives to the Jordan valley]. Then said Abner unto him, Go, return. And he returned.
17. And Abner had communication with the elders of Israel, saying, Ye sought for David in times past to be king over you:
18. Now then do it: for the Lord hath spoken of David [an unrecorded utterance], saying, By the hand of my servant David I will save my people Israel out of the hand of the Philistines, and out of the hand of all their enemies.
19. And Abner also spake in the ears of Benjamin [with whom careful negotiations were always made]: and Abner went also to speak in the ears of David in Hebron all that seemed good to Israel, and that seemed good to the whole house of Benjamin.
20. So Abner came to David to Hebron, and twenty [representative] men with him. And David made Abner and the men that were with him a feast [not convivial but sacrificial].
21. And Abner said unto David, I will arise and go, and will gather all Israel unto my lord the king, that they may make a league with thee, and that thou mayest reign over all that thine heart desireth. And David sent Abner away; and he went in peace.
22. And, behold, the servants of David and Joab came from pursuing a troop, and brought in a great spoil with them: but Abner was not with David in Hebron; for he had sent him away, and he was gone in peace.
23. When Joab and all the host that was with him were come, they told Joab, saying, Abner the son of Ner came to the king, and he hath sent him away, and he is gone in peace.
24. Then Joab came to the king, and said [in the tone of a rough remonstrance], What hast thou done? behold, Abner came unto thee; why is it that thou hast sent him away, and he is quite gone? [an inquiry inspired by suspicion].
25. Thou knowest Abner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee, and to know thy going out and thy coming in, and to know all that thou doest.
26. And when Joab was come out from David, he sent messengers after Abner, which brought him again from the well of Sirah [two and a half miles from Hebron]: but David knew it not [yet the messengers might have used his name].
27. And when Abner was returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside in the gate [customary place of conference in the east] to speak with him quietly, and smote him there under the fifth rib [abdomen must always be understood], that he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother [but more from jealousy].
28. And afterwards when David heard it, he said, I and my kingdom are guiltless before the Lord for ever from the blood of Abner the son of Ner:
29. Let it rest on the head of Joab [who was not the Goel, or lawful Avenger], and on all his father’s house; and let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff [a person unfit for war], or that falleth on [by] the sword, or that lacketh bread.
30. So Joab and Abishai his brother slew [denoting violence] Abner, because he had slain [had put to death] their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle.
31. And David said to Joab, and to all the people that were with him, Rend your clothes, and gird you with sackcloth, and [publicly] mourn before Abner. And king David himself followed the bier.
32. And they buried Abner in Hebron [in the royal city]: and the king lifted up his voice, and wept at the grave of Abner; and all the people wept.
33. And the king lamented over Abner, and said, Died Abner as a fool dieth?
34. Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters: as a man falleth before wicked men, so fellest thou. [“Abner, so valiant in war, with his hands free for defence, with his feet unfettered, unsuspicious of evil, fell by the treacherous act of a wicked man.”] And all the people wept again over him.
35. And when all the people came to cause David to eat meat while it was yet day, David sware, saying, So do God to me, and more also, if I taste bread, or aught else, till the sun be down.
36. And all the people took notice of it, and it pleased them: as whatsoever the king did pleased all the people.
37. For all the people and all Israel understood that day that it was not of the king to slay Abner the son of Ner.
38. And the king said unto his servants, Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel?
39. And I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these men the sons of Zeruiah be too hard for me: the Lord shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness.
David’s Magnanimity
DAVID will rejoice now that he sees his great foe is dead, or he will otherwise show the true quality of his life and character and purpose. The man who wrote this mighty lament, this thunderstorm turned into tears, was not a man who could afterwards write vindictive psalms. This lament is the key of his character. He will speak strongly, for he must speak strongly, if he speak at all. But understand that in this lament we have the secret and standard of his character. He is never so near breaking down in tears as when he is in a great tempest of wrath. Sometimes we hardly know how the paroxysm will end; but it always ends in some grand religious exclamation, some psalm of confidence in the living God. To prove this we must go over the history. The principal line in the narrative of these chapters points in the direction of David’s magnanimity. In no single line does he play the little man. He is strong in his weakness. We shall see at the conclusion how weak he was bent down because the burden was too strong for him, and yet still bent only as a true king can bend. The Philistines had overpowered Saul, first slaying Jonathan, Abinadab, and Melchishua, Saul’s son. That was hard enough. History suffers a great impoverishment when a man like Jonathan is taken out of it as an active presence; true, a new and celestial odour fills the pages of memory, but when Jonathan is removed actively, who can fill up the void?
A beautiful thing it is so to live that nobody can succeed us easily, as if the gap were a very small one, a mere handbreadth. We do not know how much space some men have filled until they are dead: then we find that it may take some ten or twenty men to fill up the vacancy and to do all the work, because so much of it was hidden: it was a work of influence, inspiration, stimulus, comfort, the kind of work that cannot be scheduled and set forth before the critical eye in plain figures and common estimates. But the worst is to come. The archers were hard upon Saul himself; he was sore wounded, and then he fell upon his sword and died. Many a wound was gaping in the flesh of king Saul. He would be killed; he would fall upon his sword; he would not have the last stroke dealt by a Philistinian hand if he could possibly help it: he would do otherwise. A noble pride comes up even in this last agony. Here is a test of his quality which we might not have suspected. Yet, on the other hand, why should he care how he died? He had seen views of life which are not granted to ordinary experience. He began “to peep,” as the poet says “to peep into glory.” He had begun to see somewhat of destiny, to feel the awfulness and grandeur of life, and the sacredness of a divine anointing.
We have seen how the king died. Now David comes to the front more than ever. He went unto Hebron under divine protection “and the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah.” And then for some motive or other, not altogether clear, they tell him that the men of Jabesh-gilead were the men that buried Saul. Why did they communicate that information to king David? Did they want to please the king? Or to create for the king an opportunity to avenge himself upon a hostile people? It is difficult to find the motive of all the actions of men, but we shall see David’s action in reply to the information:
“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. And now the Lord shew kindness and truth unto you: and I also will requite you this kindness, because ye have done this thing. 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” ( 2Sa 2:5-7 ).
Where is the vindictiveness? Where is there one note of evil triumph and glory? Why did not king David go out and slay the men of Jabesh-gilead and bury them in the dishonoured grave of a discrowned king? Is this the man to write imprecatory psalms psalms toned to the evil music of the worst wickedness? Is this the man to spend his after days in writing poetry of iniquity? We must have misunderstood him if we have thought there was anything meanly and narrowly personal in his imprecations; there must be some deeper meaning than this: otherwise David, a mightier man than Saul, fell infinitely more deeply. But the lesson to us comes in the form of a question: How much further than this have we advanced? We speak in somewhat of a tone of patronage of Old Testament saints men who “lived in the twilight,” who were “not permitted to see the full blaze of gospel day.” Historically the comment is true, but regarding this action of David as a standard, how do we measure ourselves? Could we have done this? When our enemies die, what is our inmost feeling? Is there not an unuttered sense of thankfulness and relief? Do we visit their graves and bedew them with tears? Do we listen with delight to a recital of their virtues? Do we become their encomiasts? Let us not fear these lance-questions; let them pierce us till the blood comes. Our boasting is great as to our historical position: we live in the Christian centuries; the whole heaven is flooded with Christian light, the whole air vibrates with evangelical music, what about our spirit, the reality of our heart’s desire? Who can compare with David? Who so great, so magnanimous? Surely he is in a great lineage: what if after this there shall arise a Man unlike all other men, who shall be hailed and blessed and worshipped as “the Son of David”?
Now another enemy arises. David was educated in the school of hostility. The experience of David was enough to make a poet of him, if the divine faculty were slumbering within him. Sorrow oftentimes makes us take the harp down as well as hang it up; sometimes we can have no comfort but in the harp; if the Gospel is to come to us at all it must come through the medium of music The next enemy is Abner. “Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David” ( 2Sa 3:1 ), not open standing battles: for such conflicts we can prepare ourselves. The “long war” was not a succession of fights in the open field, but vexatious war, hostility in which there was no possibility of renown: the little mischievous fretful chafing wars which make life so rough. When Saul spake he was misunderstood; when David spake he was misunderstood: the people on both sides did everything they could to irritate one another. That is the meaning of the long war; and this course of petty vexation was varied by open battle, great conflict and clash of arms. The leader of the host of Israel was Abner. He was inspired by the spirit of opposition. He was the hope of the followers of Saul. Not a man to be closely looked into, from a moral point of view. In the very height of his pride, in the very boasting of his strength, Ish-bosheth brought him to the ground. Ish-bosheth, the son of Saul, charged Abner with an evil deed. He put the thing before him in plain words. Let us have no hinted accusations. Men cannot answer such impeachments. Ish-bosheth put the case before Abner in terms that could not be misundertood, and Abner, like many a hard-hearted hypocrite, started into indignant self-defence, and asked if he was “a dog’s head” which could do the thing that was charged upon him, and sought to shut the mouth of Abner by telling him what he, Abner, had done for the house of Saul; saying in effect: You ought to be the last man to speak; seeing what I have done for the house of Saul you should let my conduct go without criticism or hostile comment. So Abner would no longer play the part of enemy to David. He said he would leave the cause of Israel. Is there any counterpart of this in our day? He said he would have no longer anything to do with the house that could treat him so in the person of its most conspicuous representative. So he left the cause. How very frail is the link that binds us to some causes! How soon our most faithful friends may become detached! But who can trust the man who will leave on such a ground as Abner indicated? If we are really bound to any cause, it should not be in the power of any man, bring what charge he may, to shake us from our purpose, or to break us in the completeness of our homage. The Christian cause is continually exposed to this kind of impoverishment. Men will flee from the Church on any pretence. We need not await the time when we can bring against them, even in the form of an inquiry, some desperate accusation: a little offence will do it; a small disappointment will sunder the connection, which consisted not of the very heart, and show that the love was only a conscious or unconscious pretence.
Abner had to undergo very severe criticism, but nevertheless very just. There was a follower of David, a servant, really a nephew, who had a head as long as Iscariot’s; a desperate man; nothing could drive him from his purpose. When Abner came to David and said, I will now be upon your side if you please, David made him a feast. Joab would have made him no banquet. When Joab heard of it he said, with a nephew’s license, “What hast thou done? Behold, Abner came unto thee; why is it that thou hast sent him away, and he is quite gone?” he should have been lying here, weltering in his blood; thou hast been taken in again; thou art king, and I am but thy nephew, servant, but I am amazed at this want of sagacity: the enemy was within the gate, and might never have left. Joab was not content with words only. “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 3:27 ). The king was the great man; the servant was the inferior man. It is true that Abner had done many a wicked deed, true that he was an enemy of the crown and throne of David. Now that he is dead, how does David view the circumstances? He will be secretly glad. That would only be a human frailty. But there is no proof of it. “King David himself followed the bier” of Abner. He went to his funeral. “They buried Abner in Hebron: and the king lifted up his voice, and wept at the grave of Abner; and all the people wept” ( 2Sa 3:32 ). Tears are infectious. Why all this tearfulness on the part of David now so valiant, so strong, so daring, at home and on the mountains, domesticated in the wilderness, counting a cave a palace? Why so broken down now? Because it is not in human nature to stand more than a certain amount of pressure. The old man weeps easily. Old soldiers often find their tears near at hand; they have had such discipline, such wearing experience, they have suffered so many losses, they have been pressed and pushed and driven with violence so extreme and unpitying, that there comes a time of reaction; they never shed tears in the fight; they were stronger than lions, they were swifter than eagles, in action, but there comes a time of recall, and then who can keep back the river of sorrow? There comes, too, a time when a man cannot bear to see all his contemporaries cut down one after another, even though in some respects they were hostile contemporaries. Their death makes him a stranger. He does not know the men who are coming on behind him. He has been accustomed to certain faces, salutations, messages, reciprocations, and now that men are falling on the right hand and on the left he feels a strange sense of solitude. What wonder if even the most valiant soldier-spirit should often break down in a child’s tears?
How did David treat the dead Abner and estimate him?
“And the king said unto his servants, Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel?” ( 2Sa 3:38 ).
If these considerations applied to David only, we might dismiss them as not bearing upon our immediate life, but they bring with them a present and urgent application. David was the most illustrious type of Christ. In a sense, he was the father of the Saviour of the world. “Son of David,” said the poor, the blind, the distressed, “have mercy on me.” Jesus himself spake about David in relation to sonship and lordship, and propounded a great question concerning the relation between David and himself. When did Christ rejoice over his enemies? We cannot point to a single instance in which he was glad when evil befell his foes. When did he rejoice, saying, Behold their harvest fields are blighted, their fountains are dried up, all their ships are sunk, and their fortunes are scattered by an avenging wind? When did one malevolent word escape the lips of this Son of David? What was Christ’s doctrine concerning the treatment of enemies? He said: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” He was in very deed David’s Lord. He advanced beyond the poet and stood forth as the inspirer. All the beautiful things we find in the Old Testament that are beautiful by reason of moral quality and value culminate in Jesus Christ. They are incomplete in themselves; they say, if we could hear them distinctly, Follow us; we are leading up to our own consummation that will be found in the Son of God. What view of his enemies did Christ take at the very last? Now that he hangs upon the tree he will speak what he feels. In his great agony his very soul will utter itself. In that hour he said: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” Are we not right, therefore, in thinking of David in all these historical details as more than an actor in a vanishing scene even as a type and forerunner of the Lord Jesus Christ? What was dim yet beautiful in David, is bright and divine in Christ.
Now observe the point of weakness referred to at the outset:
“And I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these men the sons of Zeruiah be too hard for me: the Lord shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness” ( 2Sa 3:39 ).
Selected Note
” Rend your clothes, and gird you with sackcloth, and mourn ” ( 2Sa 3:31 ). Sacks are usually made of hair in the East, whence we may understand that where sackcloth is mentioned, haircloth is intended. Hence the idea is different from that which we, whose sacks are not of the same material, would affix to the term. That this is correct, seems to be confirmed by the fact that the use of haircloth as a penitential dress was retained by the early Oriental monks, hermits, and pilgrims, and was adopted by the Roman Church, which still retains it for the same purposes. Haircloth was, moreover, called “sackcloth” by the early Greek and Latin fathers, and this seems conclusive. Perhaps, in a general sense, the word means any kind of very coarse cloth, but undoubtedly more particularly cloth of hair than any other. There is a reference to this practice of assuming a mortifying dress as an expression of grief or repentance in Exo 33:4 . The principle is so obvious that there are few nations among which, in mournings for the dead some kind of mortifying habit has not been adopted. We do not know that sackcloth is now much used for this purpose in the East; but ornaments ate relinquished, the usual dress is neglected, or it is laid aside, and one coarse or old assumed in its place.
Prayer
Almighty God, our hearts live in the great hope that all flesh shall see thy glory. The clouds are very dark, and there are many who do not like to retain God in their thought. Broad is the road that leadeth to destruction, and many there be who walk its perilous way. Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Yet amid all these discouragements thou dost lift up thy voice like a trumpet and say that thy kingdom shall come and thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. How this is to be lieth not within the scope of our poor imagining. The mouth of the Lord hath spoken it this is our one and our indestructible trust. We rest in thy promise, a nation shall be born in a day, the little one shall put the great down, and the strong one shall be smitten by the weak hand. We know that thou doest all things excellently, with a suddenness that doth startle our ignorance and with a completeness which none can amend. The earth is thine and the fulness thereof; thou lovest the little wandering star, thou dost leave the uncounted host that have not fallen from their orbits and thou hast come after that which was lost, and thou wilt not return until thou hast found it.
Behold us in prayer; look upon us inspired by one expectancy, as uttering one cry: “Even so, Lord Jesus, come quickly.” Our heart is perverse and our way is crooked, and our arm is outstretched in cruel rebellion against thy throne, yet is thy cross, O Christ, higher than all the mountain of our guilt, and the shining of thy grace shall chase away the darkness of our sin. Our hope is in the cross, our confidence is in the Priest who died upon it: we look unto his blood, it is more than our sin, and it answers the charges of thy law, thou mighty, gracious Judge. Amen.
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 3:1 Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David: but David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker.
Ver. 1. Now there was long war. ] Continuo iteratis proeliis: there was constant opposition, and continual skirmishing: so there is still betwixt Christ and Antichrist, betwixt the spirit and the flesh: and these will be bickering, whilst the world shall be standing.
And the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Saul. Note the Figure of speech Antimetabole (App-6) in this verse, and the Introversion of the subjects of this chapter.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 3
Now there was a long war [Verse, chapter three] between the house of Saul and the house of David: but David became stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul became weaker and weaker ( 2Sa 3:1 ).
Now David began to display a weakness that ultimately led him to that terrible sin for which he received so much notoriety. He began to add wives and concubines. So we have here a list of six sons that were born to him while in Hebron, and all six of them by different wives. So he just started taking wives and women into his harem, so to speak. Of course, his son Solomon carried this thing to ridiculous extremes, but David started multiplying wives.
Now that was one of the things that the kings were not to do according to the commandment of God in Deuteronomy. “When you set up kings, they’re not to multiply wives,” and so forth. But David started doing that, and it shows a weakness in David’s flesh that ultimately led him to that great sin with Bathsheba.
Now Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah ( 2Sa 3:7 ),
Saul of course had done the same thing. He had wives and concubines. This one concubine Rizpah had borne Saul two sons.
So Ishbosheth said to Abner, Why have you gone into my father’s concubine ( 2Sa 3:7 )?
Now this evidently was a false charge. It was a grievous charge. Actually, to go into another man’s concubine, even though the other man was dead, it was symbolic of taking over his authority and his rule.
You remember later on in David’s career when Absalom his son rebelled against him, and David fled from Jerusalem as Absalom was moving up from Hebron with his troops. David deserted from Jerusalem. When Absalom came into the city, he went into David’s concubines there in the sight of all the people, went into where David’s concubines were, which was equivalent to ascending to David’s place and taking over David’s place.
So the accusation, “You’ve gone into my father’s concubine. Why did you do that?” was equivalent of saying, “What are you trying to do? Take over my father’s place.”
And Abner became [extremely upset with this false allegation, and he was] very angry with Ishbosheth, and he said, Am I a dog’s head, which against Judah do shew kindness this day unto Saul thy father, and to his brothers and friends, and have I not delivered thee into the hand of David, that thou chargest me today with a fault concerning this woman? [“And I’ve not delivered thee into the hand of David. Look what I’ve done for you and yet you’re making this stupid allegation.”] So do God to Abner, and more also, except, as the LORD hath sworn to David, even so I do to him ( 2Sa 3:8-9 );
Now notice, he knew that the Lord had sworn to David, that David should be the king. In spite of the fact that he knew that the Lord had sworn to David that he should be king, yet he had gone against that in establishing Ishbosheth upon the throne. So it was something that he knew was wrong and yet he did it.
[So I swear to David] to translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba ( 2Sa 3:10 ).
Now Dan is up in the furthermost northern part of Israel, it’s where the Jordan River comes right out of the ground and begins its course southward. Beersheba was on the southern extreme, just on the border of the wilderness from which area south, it was just desert wilderness area. So it sort of circumcised the northern and southern borders of Israel from Dan to Beersheba.
And Ishbosheth could not answer Abner a word again, because he was afraid of him. So Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf, saying, Whose is the land? saying also, Make a league with me, and, behold, my hand shall be with you, to bring about all Israel to you. And he said, Well; I will make a league with you: but one thing I require of thee, and that is, Thou shalt not see my face, except you first bring me Michal Saul’s daughter, when you come to see my face ( 2Sa 3:11-13 ).
Now Saul had of course done a dirty deal to David and he had promised David his daughter as a wife because of the killing of the Philistine. He promised, “Whoever kills the Philistine giant can marry my daughter.” He gave his daughter Merab to another fellow, and then he heard that Michal was in love with David, he said, “Ah, she’s a little vixen; she’ll fix him, so I’ll let him marry her.” He was really planning to let her just be an irritant to David. Probably a self-willed, strong little gal, and he figured she’d really give him a bad time. So he allowed David to marry Michal, but when David fled from Saul’s presence, then Saul gave Michal to another man, Phaltiel, and he became her husband. But this other guy was really crazy about her.
David sort of is not-a lot of David I admire, and there’s some that I don’t admire, and this is one part that I really don’t admire. He almost is vindictive at this point. He’s just wanting almost to just prove something, which he really doesn’t need to prove. When Abner sent the message, “I’d like to make a league with you. I’ll turn all Israel into your hands.”
He said, “That’s fine, I’ll be glad to, but you can’t see my face unless you bring Michal,” who was his wife. Now as I pointed out, he had already taken a bunch of wives in Hebron, a bunch of concubines and wives, and it wasn’t really because of some sexual deprivation or whatever that he was wanting this gal. It was just to prove some kind of an ego point or something.
So David sent messengers to Ishbosheth Saul’s son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, which was espoused to me for [a dowry that he had given to Saul for her.] And Ishbosheth sent, and took her from her husband, even from Phaltiel the son of Laish. And her husband [This is a sad scene because evidently he liked her.] and he went after her weeping behind her to Bahurim. Then Abner said to him, Go, and return. And he returned. And Abner had communication with the elders of Israel, saying, You sought for David in times past to be the king over you: Now then do it: for the LORD has spoken of David, saying, By the hand of my servant David I will save my people Israel out of the hand of the Philistines, and out of the hand of all their enemies. [So he knew that David had been anointed of God, and that God had declared that through David they would be delivered.] And Abner also spake in the ears of the tribe of Benjamin: and Abner went also to speak in the ears of David in Hebron all that seemed good to Israel, and seemed good to all the house of Benjamin. So Abner came to David to Hebron, twenty men with him. And David made Abner and the men that were with him a feast. And Abner said to David, I will arise and go, and will gather all Israel to my lord the king, and they will make a league with thee, that you may reign over all that your heart desires. And David sent Abner away; and he went in peace. And, behold, the servants of David and Joab came from pursuing a troop ( 2Sa 3:14-22 ),
Now at this time Joab was gone when Abner was down here, and there was this bitterness that was being harbored in Joab’s heart against Abner because Abner killed his brother. So when Joab came back the guys said, “Did you know that Abner was here, and he made a league with David?” Joab said, “No, you sure?”
“Yeah.”
So Joab sent men after Abner saying, [Come on back there are some further things to discuss.] So Abner returned, and Joab met him in the gate and said, I want to talk to you, and took him in to a place and ran him through the heart, through the fifth rib, [Which is where the position of your heart, so he smote him under the fifth rib.] and he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother. Now when David heard it, he said, I and my kingdom are guiltless before the LORD for ever for the blood of Abner the son of Ner: Let it rest on the head of Joab, and on his father’s house ( 2Sa 3:26-29 );
Now here David actually curses Joab and his house for this deed, it’s cruel, it’s vindictive, it’s wrong, and David acknowledges the wrongness of it. He curses the house of Joab. Horrible curse.
let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff, or that falls on the sword, or that lacks bread ( 2Sa 3:29 ).
Man, he really wiped them out. You know, “Let there be a plague upon his house. Let them be crippled, let them fall by the sword, let them become beggars, let them be destitute.”
So Joab and Abishai his brother slew Abner, because he had slain their brother in Gibeon. And David said to Joab, and to all the people that were with him, Tear your clothes, put on sackcloth, and mourn before Abner. And David followed the casket. And they buried Abner there in Hebron: and the king lifted up his voice, and wept at the grave of Abner; and all of the people wept with him. And the king lamented over Abner, and said, Died Abner as a fool dieth? Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters: as a man falleth before wicked men, so you fell. And all the people wept again over him ( 2Sa 3:30-34 ).
So David is giving a public demonstration of his disapproval of Joab’s deeds. So that everyone knew that David disapproved of the thing that Joab did. Cursing Joab and Joab’s house for it, and putting on a big demonstration at the funeral, and lamenting over the death of Abner.
And when all the people came to cause David to eat meat while it was yet day, David sware, saying, So do God to me, and more also, if I taste bread, or anything else, till the sun goes down. And all the people took notice of it, and it pleased them: and whatsoever the king did pleased all the people ( 2Sa 3:35-36 ).
Now David was behaving himself very wisely, and allowing God to work, to establish the kingdom with him. In other words, though he knew that he had been anointed by God to be king over Israel, he figured, “If God anointed me king, and God wants me to be king, God is able to work out the circumstances.” So David isn’t in there trying to work things out for himself. He’s letting God take care of all of these things. He’s behaving himself very wisely and prudently and the people are noticing it, and are really being attracted and drawn to David because he shows that he does have a heart, and he does desire the right thing. He’s not really out promoting himself.
Now in one of the Psalms we are told, “Promotion comes not from the east or the west, but promotion comes from the Lord”( Psa 75:6 ). David really believed that. He wasn’t out trying to exalt himself, and promote himself; he was just waiting for God to do it.
That’s an important lesson. It would be good if each of us would follow the same thing. It seems that so many people are out to hype themselves, and to hype their programs. The world is filled with big hypes, everybody trying to hype everybody else. But David was not seeking to promote himself. He was just waiting upon God and letting the things fall, and letting God do it. Having that kind of confidence in God, “If this is what God wants, this is what God is able to bring to pass.”
How beautiful it is to have a commitment to the purposes of God knowing that if I just stay open and yielded, God is able to work His purposes out in my life, and not try to push things, or press things, because I know that this is what God wants. I know that this is what’s right. So I get in and I push and press. I can actually push myself ahead of God and out of the will of God. It is better if I just kick back, “All right God, if that’s what You want, I’m open to it, I’m ready for it, but I’m gonna let You work the thing out.” It is so much better when God does the promotion.
I look at what God has done here, without any full-page ads in the paper, and radio ads, and the big hypes and all. Look what God has done. It’s absolutely phenomenal. Years ago when we were still over in the other church, God was pouring out His Spirit and blessing us. So many at that time of the hippie kids were coming in and receiving Christ. It was sort of a novelty, as far as the news media was concerned. Of course, CBS had been down and done a story, and Look Magazine had done a story, and there had been a lot of-Reader’s Digest did a story, and there was just a lot of publicity going out, BBC, the German broadcasting system, magazines in Europe, magazines in South America, everybody.
In fact I was in Israel a couple of weeks ago and a French man came up to me, and he said, “You wouldn’t happen to be Chuck Smith would you?”
I said, “Yes.”
And he said, “Oh praise the Lord. Oh brother, this is exciting.” He said, “I read about you ten years ago in a magazine in France, and I saw your picture. I thought I recognized you.”
I thought, “All right. Ten years ago and you still recognize me.”
So all of this publicity and we weren’t out beating bushes, or trying to, you know, it was there and of course people were coming then to see the “hippie church,” and the “Jesus people,” and all of that.
Well, I read in Time magazine, they had a big write up on Blacks Beach down in San Diego. Twenty kids stripped to the buff and went swimming. It made this big article in Time of these young people in California, the drug scene, and nude bathing and all this kind of stuff, nude public bathing and the whole thing. It was a big splash because there were twenty kids down at Blacks Beach in San Diego that swam in the buff. Well it so happened that we were having a baptismal coming up at Del Mar. There were about a thousand kids to be baptized. I thought to myself, I ought to call the religion editor of Time magazine, and tell him that other things are happening in the beaches of California than just a few kids swimming in the nude. That’s some exciting thing. I mean, if you got twenty kids swimming in the nude, but you’ve got a thousand kids who are getting baptized, committing their lives to Jesus Christ. If twenty kids swimming in the nude were worthy, the article in Time and all, space and Time, surely ought to be worthy a little article in Time magazine also. Sort of as a contrast kind of an article.
As I was driving home, I was thinking about, “Well, I just need to call the religion editor of Time Magazine and let him know what’s going on because he could maybe send a reporter out, and cover the story, and it would just make a good, good story for Time.” As I was thinking this, driving home, the Lord spoke to my heart, and He said, “Who has been your publicity agent up till now?”
I said, “Well, You have Lord.”
He said, “Aren’t you satisfied with the job that I’m doing? You’ve been in Look Magazine, you’ve been in Reader’s Digest, you’ve been on CBS, and NBC. Aren’t’ you satisfied with the job I’m doing?”
I said, “Oh Lord, forgive me. How stupid of me of thinking to call somebody to try to get some publicity to what is happening here.” I just repented and asked the Lord to forgive me for even thinking of trying to publicize what God was doing.
I got home and there was a stranger in my living room. It was rather unusual in those days. So my wife said, “Honey this fellow is a reporter from Time Magazine and he’s been sent out here to do a story on the Jesus people.”
So the fellow introduced himself, shook hands, he said, “Do you have anything like a baptism or something coming up that we could-“
I said, “Oh Lord, You’re just always a step or two ahead.” You don’t have to get out and hype something. You don’t have to get out and promote, and you don’t have to get out and spend a lot of God’s dollars in advertising. God is able to do His work. How good it is for us to rest in God.
Now when a person strives to attain a goal, and you’ve achieved and attained your goal by great strivings, big hypes, publicities, and all this kind of stuff, when you strive to attain, then you must strive to maintain. You got this big ball rolling, but now you’ve got to keep pushing to keep the thing rolling. It’s a constant striving, constant effort, and the ministers are just dropping off with heart attacks, and everything else, because so much push, so much pressure. But when you don’t strive to attain, then you don’t have to strive to maintain. You can just kick back, go to Hawaii once in a while. God’s gonna keep the thing you know, if He wants to, and if He doesn’t then all of our efforts isn’t gonna keep it anyhow.
The work of the Lord, the purposes of God, He is fully able to accomplish. David had this as a deep consciousness. “God is able to accomplish His purposes, I don’t have to get in and push, I don’t have to get in and strive, God’s able to do it.” He was using real wisdom just letting the things fall as God directed, rather than getting in and striving. Thus, we can learn much from David’s example in these things. So everything that David did was pleasing the king. He was behaving himself properly.
And all of the people throughout all of Israel understood that it wasn’t David’s desire to destroy Abner. And the king said to his servants, [These are beautiful words.] Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel? And I am this day weak, though I’m the king; and these men the sons of Zeruiah they’re too much for me: may the Lord reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness ( 2Sa 3:37-39 ).
So Joab and his brother Abishai, David said, “They’re just too much for me, may God take care of them.” Well, David took care of them later. We’ll get to that as we move on in Samuel. David got Joab ultimately. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
The long warfare continued, and the progress of it is declared in the opening verse of this chapter: “And David waxed stronger and stronger, but the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker.”
At last matters in the kingdom of Israel were hastened to a crisis by a quarrel between Abner and Ishbosheth. The latter seems to have charged the former with a peculiar sin against his rights, a charge without foundation. This would explain Abner’s fierce rejoinder. As a result of this he made overtures to David, during which he revealed his knowledge of God’s purpose that David should occupy the throne. This is a revelation of the reason of his weakness. No man can hope successfully to bring any purpose to final issue when his own will power is weakened by an inward conviction that he is fighting against God.
Joab took advantage of this opportunity to wreak his vengeance on Abner by slaying him. David was at great pains to disavow all connection with the bloody act. His lamentation was the sincere regret of an upright man that anything should be done to aid an unjust cause.
His action was declared to be pleasing to the people. Thus he was steadily gaining his way into that respect and love which is the greatest element of power for a king.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
a Split in the Enemys Ranks
2Sa 3:1-11
Abners career reveals the principles on which ambitious men build their lives. He was, according to Davids estimate, a great man and a prince, but his soul was eager for his own advancement. He made himself strong in the house of Saul, 2Sa 3:6, r.v. He knew that David was Gods appointed king and that through him the divine purpose would move, 2Sa 3:10; 2Sa 3:18; but yet, because it seemed likely to insure his own advancement, he set Ish-bosheth on the throne. It was a deliberate attempt to thwart Gods will, and it failed miserably. Woe to him that striveth with his Maker!
Ish-bosheth was a poor weak soul, a mere puppet king, who was set on the throne because he was likely to be pliant in the hands of his great general. Yet even he was aroused to protest when Abner threatened to desert him. And so the alliance between ambition and weakness was broken and the way was made for David to come to the throne of all Israel. In the meantime he ruled at Hebron, waiting, as our Lord waits at the Fathers right hand, till His enemies should be made His footstool, Act 2:34-35.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
2Sa 3:33
I. The first mark of folly about Abner’s death is his strange simplicity and wonderful credulity. He had been used to court life; he had been continually by the king’s side, and therefore he must have learned that the art of political speaking is to conceal your thoughts, and that courtiers’ tongues shroud by language the intentions of the heart. Strange that a man like Abner, who had passed through such a school as two courts, should have believed so readily the message which Joab sent him. No man was ever more off his guard, or walked more deliberately into a trap. In the same way, it is marvellous how unsuspicious men are of sin’s designs. Sin seems to sing like an enchantress, like the sirens who sang to Ulysses; and the shrewdest and the cleverest men are irresistibly, almost imperceptibly drawn toward it, and they who would see through a deception of another sort in a moment, seem, like Abner, utterly blinded in this respect.
II. Note the next thing in Abner’s folly-his unused advantages. Abner was a prisoner to nobody but himself. No cord bound his arms; no iron fetters were upon his feet. Yet with hands unused and feet unemployed, he stands still like a fool to be killed.
We have had many advantages. We have the Bible, the message of the Gospel, the noble examples of parents and friends. If we die without hope, it may well be said as a requiem over us, “Died Abner as a fool dieth?”
III. Abner’s very position made his folly the greater. Hebron was one of the cities of refuge. Joab spoke with him outside the gate, so Abner was within one step of safety when he was slain. Jesus Christ, the true city of Hebron-the real city of refuge-is close by us now, and if we die unsaved, like Abner. we shall die with the shadow of security lying athwart our prostrate forms.
A. G. Brown, Penny Pulpit, No. 922.
References: 2Sa 3:38.-J. Hiles Hitchens, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xix., p. 281; H. Grey, A Parting Memorial, p. 112. 2Sa 3:39.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. vi., No. 334; Parker, vol. vii., p. 231. 2Sam 3-Ibid., p. 86. 2Sa 4:1.-Ibid., p. 232. 2Sa 4:4.-J. Ker, Sunday Magazine, 1875, p. 279. 2Sa 4:9-12.-Parker, vol. vii., p. 98. 2Sam 4-Ibid., p. 106. 2Sa 5:1-7.-F. W. Krummacher, David the King of Israel, p. 253. 2Sa 5:3.-T. Coster, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxii, p. 125. 2Sa 5:10.-Parker, vol. vii., p. 232. 5:11-6:23.-W. M. Taylor, David King of Israel, p. 154.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
4. Abners Deeds and End
CHAPTER 3
1. The long war and its results (2Sa 3:1)
2. Davids family (2Sa 3:2-5)
3. Abners defiant deed (2Sa 3:6-7)
4. Abner and Ish-bosheth (2Sa 3:8-11)
5. Abners defection to David (2Sa 3:12)
6. Davids request (2Sa 3:13-16)
7. Abner with David (2Sa 3:17-22)
8. Abners end (2Sa 3:23-30)
9. Davids lamentation over Abner (2Sa 3:31-39)
The first verse speaks of the long war between the house of Saul and the house of David. And David waxed stronger and stronger. The weakness of the king in giving way to the flesh is next faithfully recorded; his self-indulgence in his different marriages. Alas! he began his sowing in the flesh from which later he was to reap such a sad harvest. Six sons are mentioned, born to David by his six wives. Three of these sons became a source of sorrow and grief to him. Ammons vile deed is found in chapter 13. Absalom was a still greater trial to him, Adonijah became the rival of Solomon (1Ki 1:5). In this record of taking these different women as wives, in this gross indulgence of the flesh, he prepared himself for the great sin of his life. Disorder and much confusion followed. Abners deed in taking Rizpah insulted Sauls house and Ish-bosheth protested and Abners fury came upon the weakling whom he had made king. Then suddenly Abner professed belief in Davids God-given kingdom. His arrogant pride is seen in verse 10; as if it was in his power to set up the throne of David over all Israel, from Dan to Beer-sheba. The poor counterfeit king was silenced. Then we see Abner entering negotiations with David. Had David again relapsed that he fell in with Abner? We do not hear a word that he inquired of the Lord. He makes a condition under which Abner is to see his face. Michal, Sauls daughter, the first wife he had, who was now the wife of Phaltiell is to be brought to him. He then received her after his request to Ish-bosheth, while her husband accompanied her as far as the border of Judah. The subsequent history, Michals mockery, shows that it was a mistake for David to take her back. How different all would have been if David had inquired of the Lord.
Abner, the shrewd schemer, was then entertained by David in a great banquet at which occasion he offered to make David ruler over all Israel. And David listened and sent him away in peace. But was it Gods way and Gods plan to have His anointed made king through such an instrument? Abners death frustrating his plans gives the answer. Joab, moved by envy, jealousy and bitter hatred, slew Abner in the same way as he had slain his brother Asahel. He died for the blood of Asahel he had shed. An insinuation is made as if Joabs deed was justified as the avenger. This however could not be sustained by the law for Abners death in slaying Asahel was in self-defence. But David cleared himself from so abominable a deed. I and my kingdom are guiltless before the LORD forever from the blood of Abner. A public mourning is instituted in which Joab is forced to partake and the king lamented over Abner. And all the people took notice of it, and it pleased them, as whatsoever the king did pleased all the people. The kings wise behaviour had its effect upon the people and thus his kingdom was strengthened.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
long war: 1Ki 14:30, 1Ki 15:16, 1Ki 15:32
between: Gen 3:15, Psa 45:3-5, Mat 10:35, Mat 10:36, Gal 5:17, Eph 6:12
David waxed: 2Sa 2:17, Est 6:13, Job 8:7, Job 17:9, Psa 84:7, Pro 4:18, Pro 4:19, Dan 2:34, Dan 2:35, Dan 2:44, Dan 2:45, Rev 6:2
Reciprocal: Deu 33:7 – let his hands Jos 17:13 – waxen strong 2Sa 2:31 – three hundred 2Sa 5:10 – General 2Sa 22:44 – delivered 1Ch 11:9 – waxed greater and greater 1Ch 12:22 – day by day Est 9:4 – waxed Psa 18:43 – from Psa 71:21 – increase Psa 89:23 – I will
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2Sa 3:1. There was long war For five years longer: for it is probable Ish-bosheth was made king immediately upon Sauls death; and the other tribes did not submit to David before seven years were expired. Between the house of Saul and the house of David Their enmity continuing throughout the whole reign of Ish-bosheth. It is probable there were many skirmishes between Israel and Judah; but we do not read of any pitched battle.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Sa 3:1. Long war, of contention and strife, rather than of bloody battles.
2Sa 3:3. The daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur. David had invaded the country of this prince, and might have led her away among the captives; and in that case she might be married by an Israelite.
2Sa 3:8. Am I a dogs head? This phrase is brief, and therefore obscure. Moses says, thou shalt not bring the price of a dogs head into the house of the Lord. Abner gives himself this low name to show his folly in opposing the house of David.
2Sa 3:9. Except as the Lord hath sworn to David. Why had he then resisted David for seven years? Had he obeyed from the first, he had not killed Asahel, neither had Joab revenged his brothers blood. They that take the sword shall perish by the sword.
2Sa 3:15. Took her from her husband. The original term here rendered husband is not baalah, her husband, but only ishah, her man, which is often rendered keeper or overseer. Abarbanel thinks that Phaltiel was an old man, and that Saul had entrusted Michal to his care; but this is perfectly gratuitous.
2Sa 3:22. Joab came from pursuing a troop of Philistines, or their allies.
2Sa 3:27. Joab smote Abner under the fifth rib. This Hebraism displeases the critics. LXX, in the groin, which coincides with the discharges of the feces.
2Sa 3:28. I and my kingdom are guiltless of the blood of Abner. Moses directs the elders to wash their hands, and attest their innocence when a man was found murdered; because the Lord is the avenger of blood: and Davids curse fell on the head of Joab when Solomon slew him at the altar.
REFLECTIONS.
This chapter presents us with Davids rising household; and as he had but one son by each wife, we may conclude that he did not take this step till the fifth or sixth year of his reign; and that in this he followed the custom of the age, with a view to the stability of his throne. A king having but six wives would be thought a model of continence to all the kings of the east; such is human policy; it proved to David however a source of inquietude and trouble all his life, and disturbed his kingdom after his death. No man can violate the law of God without incurring his displeasure. The first woman he married in Hebron was Maachah, daughter of the king of Geshur, beyond the Jordan. This was not unlawful, if she were a captive in war, or a proselyte to Judaism; but if David intended this alliance to strengthen him on his throne, it proved the greatest source of all his calamities. Absalom, after the assassination of his brother Amnon fled to Geshur, where he plotted the dethroning of his sire. Good men guided by the divine counsel, have no need of any sinful policy.
While David thus strengthened himself in his kingdom, Abner did the same for the house of Saul; but in the skirmishes which happened, and in the scale of national influence, the house of David grew stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul weaker and weaker. So the kingdom of Christ shall rise and spread in all the earth, and the kingdom of darkness shall be overwhelmed in its progress. So grace shall triumph over nature in the faithful soul till sin is all destroyed, and till every thought is brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.
The means by which David was confirmed in his kingdom highly exemplify the wisdom and wonders of providence. Abner, wishing to reign while Ishbosheth had the name, took Rizpah, Sauls favourite concubine, a woman of influence, for his concubine. The relict of a king being deemed sacred in her person, Abner incurred by his presumption a severe reproof. This so mortified his pride, and inflamed his anger, that he swore to bring over the kingdom to David. This his conscience had long suggested was his duty, and a duty he owed more to God than to David. Had he done so on Sauls death, and from a loyal motive, he had secured his life, and immortalized his name among the worthies of Israel. But acting now from a base motive, God would not accept his services. The wicked very often do the Lords people a great service; but aiming solely to gratify their own passions, they have no reward. Abner acted as another wicked man, and was permitted to fall before he had lived to perform his vow.
If Abner was treacherous, Joab was still more so; and through mere malice against him, urged the right of avenging his brothers blood, as though Asahel had not fallen in fair battle. With these purposes he forged the kings commands to recal Abner, and taking him aside he stabbed him in that part of the body where he had pierced Asahel with the hilt of his spear. He did more, he traduced his memory as having come to Hebron to betray David. Hereby Joab completed his character as an assassin, and associated his name with those who ought not to see the light of the sun.
However much this crime of Joab might contribute to ruin the houshold of Saul, it awfully implicated David in the guilt of injustice. Joab was his nephew; he was his general, and had been the faithful companion of his exile; therefore his feelings would not suffer him to put him to death. This was wrong, for justice is more than the greatest of men. David had cause afterwards to repent; yet he honoured Abner as a prince in his burial, and entailed a curse on his assassin. How unhappy are princes when surrounded by factions of wicked men.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Sa 3:1-5. An editorial note, including an account of Davids family. It is curious that the last-named wife, Eglah, and she only, is expressly called Davids wife. The letters in the Heb. may be a corruption of some description which would have conveyed further information. ICC suggests that the original reading was sister of David. 2Sa 13:13 shows that such marriages were legitimate in Israel at the time.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Though Saul had died, yet there continues long war between his house and the house of David. We have seen that Saul stands for the energy of the flesh, which does not easily give up though it is doomed. The house of David waxes stronger and stronger, but the flesh cannot but expose its own weakness when it is given time.
We are told now of David’s having six sons, each by a different wife (vs.2-5). Never was it God’s intention that a man should have more than one wife. At the beginning He had said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife” — not “his wives.” Yet under law God bore with bigamy and polygamy because of the hardness of men’s hearts (cf.Mt.19:8). Also, far above men’s natural thoughts, God used this occasion to illustrate various distinct characteristics of the Lord Jesus in His coming kingdom. Those who are interested to check this in detail will find the Numerical Bible (2 Samuel, pages 405-407) most enlightening. This enforces the striking truth that God can overrule man’s failure in order to serve the greater purpose of highly exalting His beloved son, and reminds us that there will be certain precious fruits showing themselves in the Lord Jesus in “communion” (Hebron) before He reigns in glory.
The combination of Abner with Ish-bosheth seems to indicate the opposition of anti-christ in the Tribulation period, Abner showing his strength and Ish-bosheth his weakness (v.6). For the anti-christ will put on a show of strength that will in the end prove to be weakness, so that he will have an ignominious fall, as did both Abner and Ish-bosheth.
Verse 7 shows the beginning of the fall of Israel’s government. How many since Abner have ruined themselves by similar moral infractions! When Ish-bosheth made an issue of Abner’s having taken one of Saul’s concubines, Abner was furious that the question was even raised (v.8). He has no defense, but attacks Ish-bosheth as being ungrateful for Abner’s having elevated him to the place of king. He thinks Ish-bosheth should ignore his moral evil since he had backed up Ish-bosheth. Actually it was not really kindness to Ish-bosheth that had moved Abner, but jealousy for his own position of power.
Therefore his kindness quickly turns to bitter animosity. He will show Ish-bosheth who is in authority by just as quickly deposing him as he had exalted him. He would translate the kingdom from the house of Saul to the house of David, and thereby fulfil the word that God had sworn to David, that David would be king of all Israel (vs.9-10). Abner had known God’s expressed oath as this matter, but until this time had brazenly defied it. Even now he was not changing because of any real regard for the word of God, but because Ish-bosheth had questioned his character. In changing he was of course counting on David’s favor toward him.
This withering outburst was too much for Ish-bosheth: he was totally silenced from fear of Abner (v.11). If he had been a wise man he would have before refused to listen to Abner, to take any part in ruling Israel, for he knew he was not qualified for it. He loses everything.
But Abner does not intend to lose out. He immediately contacts David by Messenger, urging him to make a league with Abner, who would on his part bring all Israel into subjection to David (v.12). David responded also by messengers who told Abner that a league could be formed, but only on condition that Michal, Saul’s daughter should be returned to David as his wife. David confirmed this to Ish-bosheth by insisting that Michal, whom he had purchased by his slaughter of 100 Philistines, should be given back to him (v.14, Though the Lord does not comment on whether David should have done this, yet the subsequent history (ch.6:16-23) shows that their relationship was far from satisfactory. In fact, Michal had shown no fidelity to David in 1Sa 19:17, when she told her father that David had threatened to kill her if she did not let him escape from Saul. Why should he want her returned when she had proven undependable? Was it only his own rights he was thinking of? He could have reasoned too that since he had not taken the initiative, in putting her away, the Deu 24:1-4 would not apply. But that passage does say that the first husband was not to take his wife back after she had been defiled by marrying another man (v.4). If David had sought wisdom from God, this scripture might have been a protection for him.
At Ish-bosheth’s order Michal was taken from her husband, Phaltiel (v.15). Though she was not his in the first place the wrong was only compounded by her being taken from him and given again to David. When Phaltiel follows her weeping, Abner summarily tell him to return home. Saul had given Michal to Phaltiel but Abner does not have to reckon with a living Saul any longer. He wants David’s patronage.
Verse 17 tells us that Abner had already spoken with the elders of Israel, reminding them that before this they had desired David as king. He knew this, yet he had tried to overrule it by exalting Ish-bosheth. When this did not work out, then he can easily ignore his mistake and ignore Ish-bosheth by telling the elders of Israel to now accept David as king. In this he appeals to what God had already said: “By the hand of my servant David I will save my people Israel from the hand of the Philistines and from the hand of all their enemies” (v.18).
In verse 19 we are told that Abner boldly took the message of his decision to turn the kingdom over to David, to the tribe of Benjamin. These of course would likely be slow to accept David, since Saul (and of course Ish-bosheth) were Benjamites. Being a strongly influential man (in contrast to Ish-bosheth), Abner was able to persuade them, so that he could go to David as representing Israel and the whole house of the Benjamites. He therefore made an agreement with David that he would gather Israel in order that they might make a covenant with David. David approvingly sent him away with this understanding (v.21).
Joab knew nothing of this until he returned from a raid in which he and his men had been successful in gaining “much spoil.” However, when he heard of David’s favorable reception of Abner, he sensed danger, — not actually danger to David, but danger as regards his own position in David’s government. He would see Abner as a threat to his prominence. Immediately he went in to David and remonstrated strongly with him (v.24). He made it clear that he thought David ought to have killed Abner when he had the opportunity, or to have at least imprisoned him. He claims that Abner came as a spy to deceive David and learn of David’s activities in order to take advantage of him. Of course this was not true, but Joab wanted an excuse for getting rid of Abner. Nothing is said of how David responded to Joab’s accusation.
Joab saw his opportunity to act quickly. Without David’s knowledge, he sent messengers after Abner to bring him back. Abner, fully unsuspecting, came back willingly. Joab was ready to meet him at the gate of the city, and there took him aside as though to speak privately to him, and immediately plunged him through with his weapon “under the fifth rib,” as Abner had done to Asahel (ch.2:23), killing him instantly with this blow to the heart (v.27).
Joab no doubt considered that he was “the avenger of blood” on behalf of Asahel, his brother, and was able to kill Abner just outside Hebron, the city of refuge (Jos 20:7-9). Inside the city Abner would have been safe. Joab ignored the fact that Asahel had been killed in battle, and he killed Abner when showing himself outwardly on friendly terms with him. Joab had reproved David for being deceived by Abner, but he practiced far more cunning deception himself in dealing with Abner.
David was deeply affected by this news, and disavowed on behalf of himself and his kingdom all responsibility for the death of Abner. He does virtually ask for the intervention of God in discipline to Joab and to his family, that they might suffer as a consequence of this. But did David forget that he was king, and responsible to carry out some judgment against Joab? Joab had actually been guilty of cold-blooded, premeditated murder, and for this he deserved the death penalty. David very soon after ordered the death of the two men who murdered Ish-bosheth (ch.4:10-12). The murder of Abner was just as serious, but evidently because Joab was captain of his army, David made a difference. There is no word of David even speaking directly to Joab about this, let alone exercising more serious discipline. In this the weakness of David’s kingdom is evident from the beginning.
Verse 30 also involves Abishai in the death of Abner, though we are not told exactly what part he had. We are reminded again that they killed Abner in reprisal for Abner’s killing Asahel “in the battle,” a far different matter than deception in a time of peace.
David does tell Joab and all the people to rend their clothes and put on sackcloth in mourning for Abner. So far as Joab and Abishai were concerned, this would only be a false show, for they had no regrets for the death of Abner. But David, following the coffin, wept at the grave of Abner, and the people followed his example. His lamentation would no doubt make Joab feel uncomfortable: “Died Abner as a fool dieth? Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put in fetters: as a man falleth before wicked men, so fellest thou” (v.34). If Abner had been on guard, he would have been sure to at least get inside the city of refuge before meeting Joab, for he had before anticipated that he would incur Joab’s anger by his killing Asahel (ch.2:22). wisdom deserted him at that time, and he fell as “before wicked men.” But his wisdom deserted him at that time, and he fell as “before wicked men.”
The genuineness of David’s mourning was further proven by his refusal to eat until the sun was down (v.35). The people were impressed by this and fully realized that David did not approve the killing of Abner. He said that Abner was “a prince and a great man” in Israel, and his fall was not an asset to David’s kingdom, but rather weakened David, though he was anointed king. He tells the people also that the sons of Zeruiah (Joab and Abishai) were too hard for him, and that the Lord would justly reward their acts of wickedness.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
3:1 Now there was {a} long war between the house of Saul and the house of David: but David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker.
(a) That is, without intermission enduring two years, which was the whole reign of Ishbosheth.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
6. The strengthening of David’s position 3:1-5
The first verse in this chapter summarizes 2Sa 2:8-32. The point of the remaining verses is that during the seven and one-half years that David ruled Judah, he grew stronger because God was blessing him. Many of the sections of 2 Samuel, beginning with this pericope, plus 1 Samuel 31, were recast in 1 Chronicles. [Note: For the parallel references, see Youngblood, p. 803; William D. Crockett, A Harmony of the Books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, pp. 106-41; James D. Newsome Jr., ed., A Synoptic Harmony of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, pp. 23-79; or, for the Hebrew, Abba Bendavid, Parallels in the Bible, pp. 31-70.] David resorted to further polygamy even though God had commanded Israel’s kings not to multiply wives (Deu 17:17). He undoubtedly married the women mentioned, partially in order to cement political alliances, as was common in the ancient Near East. [Note: Abraham Malamat, "Aspects of the Foreign Policies of David and Solomon," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 22:1 (1963):8.]
The site of Gesher (2Sa 3:3) was northeast of the Sea of Chinnereth (Galilee) and north of Jabesh-gilead. The Israelites were to make no covenants with the inhabitants of the Promised Land (Exo 23:32; Exo 34:12). That is where the king of Gesher lived. Perhaps if David had relied less on foreign alliances, he would not have had to fight as many battles with his neighbors as he did. Unfortunately he spent a large portion of his total reign as king fighting battles (cf. 1Ch 22:8).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
CHAPTER IV.
CONCLUSION OF THE CIVIL WAR.
2Sa 3:1-21.
THE victory at the pool of Gibeon was far from ending the opposition to David. In vain, for many a day, weary eyes looked out for the dove with the olive leaf. “There was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David.” The war does not seem to have been carried on by pitched battles, but rather by a long series of those fretting and worrying little skirmishes which a state of civil war breeds, even when the volcano is comparatively quiet. But the drift of things was manifest. “David waxed stronger and stronger; but the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker.” The cause of the house of Saul was weak in its invisible support because God was against it; it was weak in its champion Ishbosheth, a feeble man, with little or no power to attract people to his standard; its only element of strength was Abner, and even he could not make head against such odds. Good and evil so often seem to balance each other, existing side by side in a kind of feeble stagnation, and giving rise to such a dull feeling on the part of onlookers, that we cannot but think with something like envy of the followers of David even under the pain of a civil war, cheered as they were by constant proofs that their cause was advancing to victory.
And now we get a glimpse of David’s domestic mode of life, which, indeed, is far from satisfactory. His wives were now six in number; of some of them we know nothing; of the rest what we do know is not always in their favour. The earliest of all was “Ahinoam, the Jezreelitess.” Her native place, or the home of her family, was Jezreel, that part of the plain of Esdraelon where the Philistines encamped before Saul was defeated (1Sa 26:12), and afterwards, in the days of Ahab, a royal residence of the kings of Israel (1Ki 18:46) and the abode of Naboth, who refused to part with his vineyard in Jezreel to the king (l Kings 21.). Of Ahinoam we find absolutely no mention in the history; if her son Amnon, the oldest of David’s family, reflected her character, we have no reason to regret the silence (2Sa 13:1-39.). The next of his wives was Abigail, the widow of Nabal the Carmelite, of whose smartness and excellent management we have a full account in a former part of the history. Her son is called Chileab, but in the parallel passage in Chronicles Daniel; we can only guess the reason of the change; but whether it was another name for the same son, or the name of another son, the history is silent concerning him, and the most probable conjecture is that he died early. His third wife was Maachah, the daughter of Talmai the Geshurite. This was not, as some have rather foolishly supposed, a member of those Geshurites in the south against whom David led his troop (1Sa 27:8), for it is expressly stated that of that tribe “he left neither man nor woman alive.” It was of Geshur in Syria that Talmai was king (2Sa 15:8); it formed one of several little principalities lying between Mount Hermon and Damascus: but we cannot commend the alliance; for these kingdoms were idolatrous, and unless Maachah was an exception, she must have introduced idolatrous practices into David’s house. Of the other three wives we have no information. And in regard to the household which he thus established at Hebron, we can only regret that the king of Israel did not imitate the example that had been set there by Abraham, and followed in the same neighbourhood by Isaac. What a different complexion would have been given to David’s character and history if he had shown the self-control in this matter that he showed in his treatment of Saul! Of how many grievous sins and sorrows did he sow the seed when he thus multiplied wives to himself! How many a man, from his own day down to the days of Mormonism, did he silently encourage in licentious conduct, and furnish with a respectable example and a plausible excuse for it! How difficult did he make it for many who cannot but acknowledge the bright aspect of his spiritual life to believe that even in that it was all good and genuine! We do not hesitate to ascribe to the life of David an influence on successive generations on the whole pure and elevating; but it is impossible not to own that by many, a justification of relaxed principle and unchaste living has been drawn from his example.
We have already said that polygamy was not imputed to David as a sin in the sense that it deprived him of the favour of God. But we cannot allow that this permission was of the nature of a boon. We cannot but feel how much better it would have been if the seventh commandment had been read by David with the same absolute, unbending limitation with which it is read by us. It would have been better for him and better for his house. Puritan strictness of morals is, after all, a right wholesome and most blessed thing. Who shall say that the sum of a man’s enjoyment is not far greatest in the end of life when he has kept with unflinching steadfastness his early vow of faithfulness, and, as his reward, has never lost the freshness and the flavour of his first love, nor ceased to find in his ever-faithful partner that which fills and satisfies his heart? Compared to this, the life of him who has flitted from one attachment to another, heedless of the soured feelings or, it may be, the broken hearts he has left behind, and whose children, instead of breathing the sweet spirit of brotherly and sisterly love, scowl at one another with the bitter feelings of envy, jealousy, and hatred, is like an existence of wild fever compared to the pure tranquil life of a child.
In such a household as David’s, occasions of estrangement must have been perpetually arising among the various branches, and it would require all his wisdom and gentleness to keep these quarrels within moderate bounds. In his own breast, that sense of delicacy, that instinct of purity, which exercises such an influence on a godly family, could not have existed; the necessity of reining in his inclinations in that respect was not acknowledged; and it is remarkable that in the confessions of the fifty-first Psalm, while he specifies the sins of blood-guiltiness and seems to have been overwhelmed by a sense of his meanness, injustice, and selfishness, there is no special allusion to the sin of adultery, and no indication of that sin pressing very heavily upon his conscience.
Whether it be by design or not, it is an instructive circumstance that it is immediately after this glimpse of David’s domestic life that we meet with a sample of the kind of evils which the system of royal harems is ever apt to produce. Saul too had had his harem; and it was a rule of succession in the East that the harem went with the throne. To take possession of the one was regarded as equivalent to setting up a claim to the other. When therefore Ishbosheth heard that Abner had taken one of his father’s concubines, he looked on it as a proof that Abner had an eye to the throne for himself. He accordingly demanded an explanation from Abner, but instead of explanation or apology, he received a volley of rudeness and defiance. Abner knew well that without him Ishbosheth was but a figure-head, and he was enraged by treatment that seemed to overlook all the service he had rendered him and to treat him as if he were some second or third- rate officer of a firm and settled kingdom. Perhaps Abner had begun to see that the cause of Ishbosheth was hopeless, and was even glad in his secret heart of an excuse for abandoning an undertaking which could bring neither success nor honour. “Am I a dog’s head, which against Judah do show kindness this day unto the house of Saul thy father, to his brethren, and to his friends, and have not delivered thee into the hand of David, that thou chargest me to-day with a fault concerning this woman? So do God to Abner, and more also, except, as the Lord hath sworn to David, even so I do to him, to translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah from Dan even to Beersheba.”
The proverb says, ”When rogues fall out, honest men get their own.” How utterly unprincipled the effort of Abner and Ishbosheth was is evident from the confession of the former that God had sworn to David to establish his throne over the whole land. Their enterprise therefore bore impiety on its very face; and we can only account for their setting their hands to it on the principle that keen thirst for worldly advantage will drive ungodly men into virtual atheism, as if God were no factor in the affairs of men, as if it mattered not that He was against them, and that it is only when their schemes show signs of coming to ruin that they awake to the consciousness that there is a God after all! And how often we see that godless men banded together have no firm bond of union; the very passions which they are united to gratify begin to rage against one another; they fall into the pit which they digged for others; they are hanged on the gallows which they erected for their foes.
The next step in the narrative brings us to Abner’s offer to David to make a league with him for the undisputed possession of the throne. Things had changed now very materially from that day when, in the wilderness of Judah, David reproached Abner for his careless custody of the king’s person (1Sa 26:14). What a picture of feebleness David had seemed then, while Saul commanded the whole resources of the kingdom! Yet in that day of weakness David had done a noble deed, a deed made nobler by his very weakness, and he had thereby shown to any that had eyes to see which party it was that had God on its side. And now this truth concerning him, against which Abner had kicked and struggled in vain, was asserting itself in a way not to be resisted. Yet even now there is no trace of humility in the language of Abner. He plays the great man still. “Behold, my hand shall be with thee, to bring about all Israel to thee.” He approaches King David, not as one who has done him a great wrong, but as one who offers to do him a great favour. There is no word of regret for his having opposed what he knew to be God’s purpose and promise, no apology for the disturbance he had wrought in Israel, no excuse for all the distress which he had caused to David by keeping the kingdom and the people at war. He does not come as a rebel to his sovereign, but as one independent man to another. Make a league with me. Secure me from punishment; promise me a reward. For this he simply offers to place at David’s disposal that powerful hand of his that had been so mighty for evil. If he expected that David would leap into his arms at the mention of such an offer, he was mistaken. This was not the way for a rebel to come to his king. David was too much dissatisfied with his past conduct, and saw too clearly that it was only stress of weather that was driving him into harbour now, to show any great enthusiasm about his offer. On the contrary, he laid down a stiff preliminary condition; and with the air of one who knew his place and his power, he let Abner know that if that condition were not complied with, he should not see his face. We cannot but admire the firmness shown in this mode of meeting Abner’s advances; but we are somewhat disappointed when we find what the condition was – that Michai, Saul’s daughter, whom he had espoused for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, should be restored to him as his wife. The demand was no doubt a righteous one, and it was reasonable that David should be vindicated from the great slur cast on him when his wife was given to another; moreover, it was fitted to test the genuineness of Abner’s advances, to show whether he really meant to acknowledge the royal rights of David; but we wonder that, with six wives already about him, he should be so eager for another, and we shrink from the reason given for the restoration – not that the marriage tie was inviolable, but that he had paid for her a very extraordinary dowry. And most readers, too, will feel some sympathy with the second husband, who seems to have had a strong affection for Michal, and who followed her weeping, until the stern military voice of Abner compelled him to return. All we can say about him is, that his sin lay in receiving another man’s wife and treating her as his own; the beginning of the connection was unlawful, although the manner of its ending on his part was creditable. Connections formed in sin must sooner or later end in suffering; and the tears of Phaltiel would not have flowed now if that unfortunate man had acted firmly and honourably when Michal was taken from David.
But it is not likely that in this demand for the restoration of Michal David acted on purely personal considerations. He does not seem to have been above the prevalent feeling of the East which measured the authority and dignity of the monarch by the rank and connections of his wives. Moreover, as David laid stress on the way in which he got Michal as his wife, it is likely that he desired to recall attention to his early exploits against the Philistines. He had probably found that his recent alliance with King Achish had brought him into suspicion; he wished to remind the people therefore of his ancient services against those bitter and implacable enemies of Israel, and to encourage the expectation of similar exploits in the future. The purpose which he thus seems to have had in view was successful. For when Abner soon after made a representation to the elders of Israel in favour of King David and reminded them of the promise which God had made regarding him, it was to this effect: “By the hand of My servant David I will save My people Israel out of the hand of the Philistines and out of the hand of all their enemies.” It seems to have been a great step towards David’s recognition by the whole nation that they came to have confidence in him in leading them against the Philistines. Thus he received a fresh proof of the folly of his distrustful conclusion, ”There is nothing better for me than that I should escape into the land of the Philistines.” It became more and more apparent that nothing could have been worse.
One is tempted to wonder if David ever sat down to consider what would probably have happened if, instead of going over to the Philistines, he had continued to abide in the wilderness of Judah, braving the dangers of the place and trusting in the protection of his God. Some sixteen months after, the terrible invasion of the Philistines took place, and Saul, overwhelmed with terror and despair, was at his wits’ end for help. How natural it would have been for him in that hour of despair to send for David if he had been still in the country and ask his aid! How much more in his own place would David have appeared bravely fronting the Philistines in battle, than hovering in the rear of Achish and pretending to feel himself treated ill because the Philistine lords had required him to be sent away! Might he not have been the instrument of saving his country from defeat and disgrace? And if Saul and Jonathan had fallen in the battle, would not the whole nation have turned as one man to him, and would not that long and cruel civil war have been entirely averted? It is needless to go back on the past and think how much better we could have acted if unavailing regret is to be the only result of the process; but it is a salutary and blessed exercise if it tends to fix in our minds – what we doubt not it fixed in David’s – how infinitely better for us it is to follow the course marked out for us by our heavenly Father, with all its difficulties and dangers, than to walk in the light of our own fire and in the sparks of our own kindling.
It appears that Abner set himself with great vigour to fulfill the promise made by him in his league with David. First, he held communication with the representatives of the whole nation, “the elders of Israel,” and showed to them, as we have seen – no doubt to his own confusion and self-condemnation – how God had designated David as the king through whom deliverance would be granted to Israel from the Philistines and all their other enemies. Next, remembering that Saul was a member of the tribe of Benjamin, and believing that the feeling in favour of his family would be eminently strong in that tribe, he took special pains to attach them to David, and as he was himself likewise a Benjamite, he must have been eminently useful in this service. Thirdly, he went in person to Hebron, David’s seat, to speak in the ears of David all that seemed good to Israel and to the whole house of Benjamin.” Finally, after being entertained by David at a great feast, he set out to bring about a meeting of the whole congregation of Israel, that they might solemnly ratify the appointment of David as king, in the same way as, in the early days of Saul, Samuel had convened the representatives of the nation at Gilgal (1Sa 11:15). That in all this Abner was rendering a great service both to David and the nation cannot be doubted. He was doing what no other man in Israel could have done at the time for establishing the throne of David and ending the civil war. Having once made overtures to David, he showed an honourable promptitude in fulfilling the promise under which he had come. No man can atone for past sin by doing his duty at a future time; but if anything could have blotted out from David’s memory the remembrance of Abner’s great injury to him and to the nation, it was the zeal with which he exerted himself now to establish David’s claims over all the country, and especially where his cause was feeblest – in the tribe of Benjamin.
It must have been a happy day in David’s history when Abner set out from Hebron to convene the assembly of the tribes that was to call him with one voice to the throne. It was the day long looked for come at last. The dove had at length come with the olive leaf, and peace would now reign among all the tribes of Israel. And we may readily conceive him, with this prospect so near, expressing his feelings, if not in the very words of the thirty-seventh Psalm, at any rate in language of similar import:
“Fret not thyself because of evil-doers,
Neither be thou envious against them that work unrighteousness
For they shall soon be cut down like the grass,
And wither as the green herb.
Trust in the Lord and do good;
Dwell in the land, and follow after faithfulness.
Delight thyself also in the Lord,
And He shall give thee the desires of thine heart
Commit thy way unto the Lord,
Trust also in Him, and He shall bring it to pass.
And He shall make thy righteousness to go forth as the light,
And thy judgment as the noonday.
Rest in the Lord and wait patiently for Him;
Fret not thyself because of him that prospereth in his way.
Because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass.
For evil-doers shall be cut of;
But those that wait on the Lord, they shall inherit the land.”
But a crime was now on the eve of being perpetrated destined for the time to scatter all King David’s pleasing expectations and plunge him anew into the depths of distress.