{"id":8100,"date":"2022-09-24T02:25:33","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T07:25:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-2-samuel-37\/"},"modified":"2022-09-24T02:25:33","modified_gmt":"2022-09-24T07:25:33","slug":"exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-2-samuel-37","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-2-samuel-37\/","title":{"rendered":"Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 3:7"},"content":{"rendered":"<h3 align='center'><b><i> And Saul had a concubine, whose name [was] Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah: and [Ish-bosheth] said to Abner, Wherefore hast thou gone in unto my father&#8217;s concubine? <\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n<p> <strong> 7<\/strong>. <em> Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah<\/em> ] The heroine of the tragic story related in ch. <span class='bible'>2Sa 21:8-11<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><em> and<\/em> Ish-bosheth <em> said<\/em> ] <em> Ish-bosheth<\/em> has fallen out of the Heb. text. The Sept. has <em> Ish-bosheth the son of Saul<\/em>; the Vulg. <em> Ish-bosheth<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p><em> Wherefore<\/em>, &amp;c.] An Oriental monarch took possession of his predecessor&rsquo;s harem. Cp. ch. <span class='bible'>2Sa 12:8<\/span>, <span class='bible'>2Sa 16:21<\/span>; <span class='bible'>1Ki 2:22<\/span>. There is no further indication that Abner intended to dethrone Ish-bosheth, but the act was an invasion of royal rights, and consequently implicit treason.<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p><P STYLE=\"text-indent: 0.75em\"><B>Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah &#8211; <\/B>For the sequel of her history, see the marginal reference. Aiah, was an Edomite, or rather Horite name <span class='bible'>Gen 36:24<\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Albert Barnes&#8217; Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p><P> Either, first, To satisfy thy own lust. Or rather, secondly, By that pretence to take away my crown first; for this was that which stirred up his jealousy and rage, and caused him to speak that to Abner which otherwise he neither would nor durst. But whether Abner were guilty or no, it is not evident from the following words; for if it were true, great men cannot endure to be told of their faults, though they be true and great. <\/P> <\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p><strong>And Saul had a concubine, whose name [was] Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah<\/strong>,&#8230;. By whom he had two sons, <span class='bible'>2Sa 21:8<\/span>. Josephus a calls her father&#8217;s name Sibathus:<\/p>\n<p><strong>and [Ishbosheth] said to Abner<\/strong>; though the word &#8220;Ishbosheth&#8221; is not in the text, it is rightly supplied; for no other can be supposed to speak:<\/p>\n<p><strong>wherefore hast thou gone in unto my father&#8217;s concubine<\/strong>? and defiled her; though perhaps it was not so much the act of uncleanness that so much offended him, or the dishonour reflected on him and his family thereby, as it discovered an ambitious view in Abner to get the kingdom into his own hands, to which this was the leading step; see <span class='bible'>1Ki 2:22<\/span>. Whether Abner was really guilty of this sin or no is not easy to determine; though, by his not absolutely denying it, it looks as if it was not merely a jealousy of Ishbosheth, or a false report made unto him; though, especially if he was not fully satisfied of it, it would have been his wisdom to have said nothing of it to him, since his continuance on the throne so much depended on him.<\/p>\n<p>a Antiqu. l. 7. c. 1. sect. 4.<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: John Gill&#8217;s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p><TABLE BORDER=\"0\" CELLPADDING=\"1\" CELLSPACING=\"0\"> <TR> <TD> <P ALIGN=\"LEFT\" STYLE=\"background: transparent;border: none;padding: 0in;font-weight: normal;text-decoration: none\"> <span style='font-size:1.25em;line-height:1em'><I><SPAN STYLE=\"background: transparent\"><SPAN STYLE=\"text-decoration: none\">Abner Deserts to David.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> <TD> <P ALIGN=\"RIGHT\" STYLE=\"background: transparent;border: none;padding: 0in\"> <SPAN STYLE=\"text-decoration: none\"><FONT SIZE=\"1\" STYLE=\"font-size: 8pt\"><SPAN STYLE=\"font-style: normal\"><SPAN STYLE=\"font-weight: normal\"><SPAN STYLE=\"background: transparent\"><SPAN STYLE=\"text-decoration: none\">B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><SPAN STYLE=\"text-decoration: none\"><SPAN STYLE=\"font-style: normal\"><SPAN STYLE=\"font-weight: normal\"><SPAN STYLE=\"background: transparent\"><SPAN STYLE=\"text-decoration: none\"> 1048.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR>  <\/TABLE> <P>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 7 And Saul had a concubine, whose name <I>was<\/I> Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah: and <I>Ishbosheth<\/I> said to Abner, Wherefore hast thou gone in unto my father&#8217;s concubine? &nbsp; 8 Then was Abner very wroth for the words of Ishbosheth, and said, <I>Am<\/I> I a dog&#8217;s head, which against 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 to day with a fault concerning this woman? &nbsp; 9 So do God to Abner, and more also, except, as the <B>LORD<\/B> hath sworn to David, even so I do to him; &nbsp; 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 Beer-sheba. &nbsp; 11 And he could not answer Abner a word again, because he feared him. &nbsp; 12 And Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf, saying, Whose <I>is<\/I> the land? saying <I>also,<\/I> Make thy league with me, and, behold, my hand <I>shall be<\/I> with thee, to bring about all Israel unto thee. &nbsp; 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&#8217;s daughter, when thou comest to see my face. &nbsp; 14 And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth Saul&#8217;s son, saying, Deliver <I>me<\/I> my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines. &nbsp; 15 And Ishbosheth sent, and took her from <I>her<\/I> husband, <I>even<\/I> from Phaltiel the son of Laish. &nbsp; 16 And her husband went with her along weeping behind her to Bahurim. Then said Abner unto him, Go, return. And he returned. &nbsp; 17 And Abner had communication with the elders of Israel, saying, Ye sought for David in times past <I>to be<\/I> king over you: &nbsp; 18 Now then do <I>it:<\/I> for the <B>LORD<\/B> 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. &nbsp; 19 And Abner also spake in the ears of Benjamin: 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. &nbsp; 20 So Abner came to David to Hebron, and twenty men with him. And David made Abner and the men that <I>were<\/I> with him a feast. &nbsp; 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.<\/P> <P> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Here, I. Abner breaks with Ish-bosheth, and deserts his interest, upon a little provocation which Ish-bosheth unadvisedly gave him. God can serve his own purposes by the sins and follies of men. 1. Ish-bosheth accused Abner of no less a crime than debauching one of his father&#8217;s concubines, <span class='bible'><I>v.<\/I><\/span><span class='bible'> 7<\/span>. Whether it was so or no does not appear, nor what ground he had for the suspicion: but, however it was, it would have been Ish-bosheth&#8217;s prudence to be silent, considering how much it was his interest not to disoblige Abner. If the thing was false, and his jealousy groundless, it was very disingenuous and ungrateful to entertain unjust surmises of one who had ventured his all for him, and was certainly the best friend he had in the world. 2. Abner resented the charge very strongly. Whether he was guilty of the <I>fault concerning this woman<\/I> or no he does not say (<span class='bible'><I>v.<\/I><\/span><span class='bible'> 8<\/span>), but we suspect he was guilty, for he does not expressly deny it; and, though he was, he lets Ish-bosheth know, (1.) That he scorned to be reproached with it by him, and would not take reproof at his hands. &#8220;What!&#8221; says Abner, &#8220;<I>Am I a dog&#8217;s head,<\/I> a vile and contemptible animal, that thou exposest me thus? <span class='bible'><I>v.<\/I><\/span><span class='bible'> 8<\/span>. Is this my recompence for the kindness I have shown to thee and thy father&#8217;s house, and the good services I have done you?&#8221; He magnifies the service with this, that it was against Judah, the tribe on which the crown was settled, and which would certainly have it at last, so that, in supporting the house of Saul, he acted both against his conscience and against his interest, for which he deserved a better requital than this: and yet, perhaps, he would not have been so zealous for the house of Saul if he had not thereby gratified his own ambition and hoped to find his own account in it. Note, Proud men will not bear to be reproved, especially by those whom they think they have obliged. (2.) That he would certainly be revenged on him, <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:9<\/span>; <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:10<\/span>. With the utmost degree of arrogance and insolence he lets him know that, as he had raised him up, so he could pull him down again and would do it. He knew that God had sworn to David to give him the kingdom, and yet opposed it with all his might from a principle of ambition; but now he complies with it from a principle of revenge, under colour of some regard to the will of God, which was but a pretence. Those that are slaves to their lusts have many masters, which drive, some one way and some another, and, according as they make head, men are violently hurried into self-contradictions. Abner&#8217;s ambition made him zealous for Ish-bosheth, and now his revenge made him as zealous for David. If he had sincerely regarded God&#8217;s promise to David, and acted with an eye to that, he would have been steady and uniform in his counsels, and acted in consistency with himself. But, while Abner serves his own lusts, God by him serves his own purposes, makes even his wrath and revenge to praise him, and ordains strength to David by it. <I>Lastly,<\/I> See how Ish-bosheth was thunder-struck by Abner&#8217;s insolence: He <I>could not answer him again,<\/I><span class='_0000ff'><I><U><span class='bible'> v.<\/span><span class='bible'> 11<\/span><\/U><\/I><\/span>. If Ish-bosheth had had the spirit of a man, especially of a prince, he might have answered him that his merits were the aggravation of his crimes, that he would not be served by so base a man, and doubted not but to do well enough without him. But he was conscious to himself of his own weakness, and therefore said not a word, lest he should make bad worse. His heart failed him, and he now became, as David had foretold concerning his enemies, like a bowing wall and a <I>tottering fence,<\/I><span class='bible'><I> Ps. lxii. 3<\/I><\/span>.<\/P> <P> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; II. Abner treats with David. We must suppose that he began to grow weary of Ish-bosheth&#8217;s cause, and sought an opportunity to desert it, or else, however he might threaten Ish-bosheth with it, for the quashing of the charge against himself, he would not have made good his angry words so soon as he did, <span class='bible'><I>v.<\/I><\/span><span class='bible'> 12<\/span>. He <I>sent messengers to David,<\/I> to tell him that he was at his service. &#8220;<I>Whose is the land?<\/I> Is it not thine? For thou hast the best title to the government and the best interest in the people&#8217;s affections.&#8221; Note, God can find out ways to make those serviceable to the kingdom of Christ who yet have no sincere affection for it and who have vigorously set themselves against it. Enemies are sometimes made a footstool, not only to be trodden upon, but to ascend by. The earth helped the woman.<\/P> <P> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; III. David enters into a treaty with Abner, but upon condition that he shall procure him the restitution of Michal his wife, <span class='bible'><I>v.<\/I><\/span><span class='bible'> 13<\/span>. Hereby, 1. David showed the sincerity of his conjugal affection to his first and most rightful wife; neither her marrying another, nor his, had alienated him from her. Many waters could not quench that love. 2. He testified his respect to the house of Saul. So far was he from trampling upon it, now that it was fallen, that even in his elevation he valued himself not a little on his relation to it. He cannot be pleased with the honours of the throne unless he have Michal, Saul&#8217;s daughter, to share with him in them, so far is he from bearing any malice to the family of his enemy. Abner sent him word that he must apply to Ish-bosheth, which he did (<span class='bible'><I>v.<\/I><\/span><span class='bible'> 14<\/span>), pleading that he had purchased her at a dear rate, and she was wrongfully taken from him. Ish-bosheth durst not deny his demand, now that he had not Abner to stand by him, but took her from Phaltiel, to whom Saul had married her (<span class='bible'><I>v.<\/I><\/span><span class='bible'> 15<\/span>), and Abner conducted her to David, not doubting but that then he should be doubly welcome when he brought him a wife in one hand and a crown in the other. Her latter husband was loth to part with her, and followed her <I>weeping<\/I> (<span class='bible'><I>v.<\/I><\/span><span class='bible'> 16<\/span>), but there was no remedy: he must thank himself; for when he took her he knew that another had a right to her. Usurpers must expect to resign. Let no man therefore set his heart on that to which he is not entitled. If any disagreement has separated husband and wife, as they expect the blessing of God let them be reconciled, and come together again; let all former quarrels be forgotten, and let them live together in love, according to God&#8217;s holy ordinance.<\/P> <P> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; IV. Abner uses his interest with the elders of Israel to bring them over to David, knowing that whichever way they went the common people would follow of course. Now that it serves his own turn he can plead in David&#8217;s behalf that he was, 1. Israel&#8217;s choice (<span class='bible'><I>v.<\/I><\/span><span class='bible'> 17<\/span>): &#8220;<I>You sought for him in times past to be king over you,<\/I> when he had signalized himself in so many engagements with the Philistines and done you so much good service; no man can pretend to greater personal merit than David nor to less than Ish-bosheth. You have tried them both, <I>Detur digniori&#8211;Give the crown to him that best deserves it.<\/I> Let David be your king.&#8221; 2. God&#8217;s choice (<span class='bible'><I>v.<\/I><\/span><span class='bible'> 18<\/span>): &#8220;<I>The Lord hath spoken of David.<\/I> Compare <span class='bible'><I>v.<\/I><\/span><span class='bible'> 9<\/span>. When God appointed Samuel to anoint him he did, in effect, promise that by his hand he would save Israel; for for that end he was made king. God having promised, by David&#8217;s hand, to save Israel, it is both your duty, in compliance with God&#8217;s will, and your interest, in order to your victories over your enemies, to submit to him; and it is the greatest folly in the world to oppose him.&#8221; Who would have expected such reasonings as these out of Abner&#8217;s mouth? But thus God will make the enemies of his people to know and own <I>that he has loved them,<\/I><span class='bible'><I> Rev. iii. 9<\/I><\/span>. He particularly applied to the men of Benjamin, those of his own tribe, on whom he had the greatest influence, and whom he had drawn in to appear for the house of Saul. He was the man that had deceived them, and therefore he was concerned to undeceive them. Thus the multitude are as they are managed.<\/P> <P> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; V. David concludes the treaty with Abner; and he did wisely and well therein; for, whatever induced Abner to it, it was a good work to put an end to the war, and to settle the Lord&#8217;s anointed on the throne; and it was as lawful for David to make use of his agency as it is for a poor man to receive alms from a Pharisee, who gives it in pride and hypocrisy. Abner reported to David the sense of the people and the success of his communications with them, <span class='bible'><I>v.<\/I><\/span><span class='bible'> 19<\/span>. He came now, not as at first privately, but with a retinue of twenty men, and David entertained them with <I>a feast<\/I> (<span class='bible'><I>v.<\/I><\/span><span class='bible'> 20<\/span>) in token of reconciliation and joy and as a pledge of the agreement between them: it was a feast upon a covenant, like that, <span class='bible'>Gen. xxvi. 30<\/span>. <I>If thy enemy hunger, feed him;<\/I> but, if he submit, feast him. Abner, pleased with his entertainment, the prevention of his fall with Saul&#8217;s house (which would have been inevitable if he had not taken this course), and much more with the prospect he had of preferment under David, undertakes in a little time to perfect the revolution, and to bring all Israel into obedience to David, <span class='bible'><I>v.<\/I><\/span><span class='bible'> 21<\/span>. He tells David he shall <I>reign over all that his heart desired.<\/I> He knew David&#8217;s elevation took rise from God&#8217;s appointment, yet he insinuates that it sprang from his own ambition and desire of rule; thus (as bad men often do) he measured that good man by himself. However, David and he parted very good friends, and the affair between them was well settled. Thus it behoves all who fear God and keep his commandments to avoid strife, even with the wicked, to live at peace with all men, and to show the world that they are children of the light.<\/P> <\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Matthew Henry&#8217;s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p>(7) <strong>Rizpah.<\/strong>The name of this woman is associated with her strong and tender grief over the loss of her sons, recorded in <span class='bible'>2Sa. 21:8-11<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Wherefore hast thou gone in?<\/strong>The harem of an Eastern monarch was considered as the property of his successor, and therefore the taking of a woman belonging to it as the assertion of a claim to the throne. (See <span class='bible'>2Sa. 12:8<\/span>; <span class='bible'>2Sa. 16:21<\/span>; <span class='bible'>1Ki. 2:22<\/span>.) It is not probable that Abner had any such design, since he was exerting himself to maintain Ish-bosheth on the throne. But the king appears to have so regarded the act, as it is this implied charge of treachery that so greatly rouses the anger of Abner. The name of Ish-bosheth has dropped out of the Hebrew text, but appears in a few MSS., and is rightly restored in all the versions.<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Ellicott&#8217;s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p> ABNER&rsquo;S REVOLT, <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:7-21<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><strong> 7<\/strong>. <strong> <\/strong> <strong> Wherefore hast thou my father&rsquo;s concubine <\/strong> Whether or not Abner was guilty of this charge is not clear, but at least King Ishbosheth&rsquo;s suspicion was aroused, and he made the charge. Such an act, according to eastern notions, would have been one of shameless disrespect to the memory of Saul, and indicate a design to gain the crown. Compare <span class='bible'>2Sa 16:21-22<\/span>; <span class='bible'>1Ki 2:19-25<\/span>.<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Whedon&#8217;s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p> <strong> Abner Quarrels With Ish-bosheth Over One Of Saul&rsquo;s Concubines And Decides As A Consequence To Advance David&rsquo;s Claims To The Throne Of Israel (<span class='bible'><strong> 2Sa 3:7-16<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> <strong> ). <\/p>\n<p><\/strong><\/p>\n<p> While David&rsquo;s strengthening position is seen by the writer in terms of his wives and sons, Abner and Ish-bosheth are seen as falling out over Abner&rsquo;s association with one of Saul&rsquo;s former concubines. This may well have been an attempt by Abner to further strengthen his position in the house of Saul, for any children resulting from his relationship would be in line for the throne. And besides, to cohabit with a dead king&rsquo;s concubines was the privilege of the heir so that his action could be seen as a veiled claim to be Saul&rsquo;s heir (compare 16:21; <span class='bible'>1Ki 2:21-22<\/span>). Thus either way Abner was treading a dangerous path. Alternately it is possible that it really was simply because he desired her. Whichever way it was, however, the writer uses it to contrast Abner and his concubine with David who was married to a true-born daughter of Saul (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:13-14<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p><strong> Analysis. <\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:3.6em'> a <\/strong> Now Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah: and Ish-bosheth said to Abner, &ldquo;Why have you gone in to my father&rsquo;s concubine?&rdquo; (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:7<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:3.6em'><strong> b <\/strong> Then Abner was very angry because of the words of Ish-bosheth, and he said, &ldquo;Am I a dog&rsquo;s head who belongs to Judah? This day do I show kindness to the house of Saul your father, to his relatives (brothers), and to his friends, and have not delivered you into the hand of David, and yet you charge me this day with a fault concerning this woman (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:8<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:3.6em'><strong> c <\/strong> &ldquo;God do so to Abner, and more also, if, as YHWH has sworn to David, I do not even so to him, to transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beer-sheba&rdquo; (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:9-10<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:3.6em'><strong> d <\/strong> And he could not answer Abner another word, because he feared him (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:11<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:3.6em'><strong> c <\/strong> And Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf, saying, &ldquo;Whose is the land?&rdquo; saying also, &ldquo;Make your league with me, and, look, my hand will be with you, to bring about all Israel to you&rdquo; (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:12<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:3.6em'><strong> b <\/strong> And he said, &ldquo;Well. I will make a league with you. But one thing I require of you, that is, you shall not see my face, except you first bring Michal, Saul&rsquo;s daughter, when you come to see my face&rdquo; (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:13<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:3.6em'><strong> a <\/strong> And David sent messengers to Ish-bosheth, Saul&rsquo;s son, saying, &ldquo;Deliver me my wife Michal, whom I betrothed to myself for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines.&rdquo; And Ish-bosheth sent, and took her from her husband, even from Paltiel the son of Laish. And her husband went with her, weeping as he went, and followed her to Bahurim. Then said Abner to him, &ldquo;Go, return,&rdquo; and he returned (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:14-16<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p> Note that in &lsquo;a&rsquo; Ish-bosheth chides Abner for having relations with his father&rsquo;s concubine, and in the parallel he responds to David&rsquo;s demand for the return of his wife Michal. In &lsquo;b&rsquo; Abner is angry at being put at fault over a woman, and in the parallel David demands from him a woman, Michal his former wife, if he is to deal with him. In &lsquo;c&rsquo; Abner declares that he will deliver the kingdom to David, and in the parallel he contacts David and offers to bring all Israel to him. Centrally in &lsquo;d&rsquo; the &lsquo;brave&rsquo; king of Israel does not answer because he is afraid of Abner. <\/p>\n<p> <span class='bible'><strong> 2Sa 3:7<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:1.8em'><strong> &lsquo;<\/strong> Now Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, and Ish-bosheth said to Abner, &ldquo;Why have you gone in to my father&rsquo;s concubine?&rdquo; &rsquo; <\/p>\n<p> When Abner has sexual relations with his father&rsquo;s concubine Ish-bosheth chides him and asks him to explain himself. A dead king&rsquo;s concubines belonged to his heir, and to have sexual relations with them could be seen as a claim to be in line for the kingship, as Ish-bosheth recognised. Furthermore any children produced could be seen as in line for the throne. We should probably see in this not just a simple, annoyed, private enquiry, but an official calling to account. This time Ish-bosheth considered that Abner had gone too far and was afraid of what it might mean. In fact Abner had probably done it simply because he desired the girl and was contemptuous of Ish-bosheth (he hardly had any need to further his claims, even had he wanted to, for he was already the king-maker). But it is possible that he had done it partly in order to test out Ish-bosheth&rsquo;s reaction. Great men like Abner often liked to display their untouchable position by their actions. <\/p>\n<p> <span class='bible'><strong> 2Sa 3:8-9<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:1.8em'><strong> &lsquo;<\/strong> Then Abner was very angry because of the words of Ish-bosheth, and he said, &ldquo;Am I a dog&rsquo;s head who belongs to Judah? This day do I show kindness to the house of Saul your father, to his relatives (brothers), and to his friends, and have not delivered you into the hand of David, and yet you charge me this day with a fault concerning this woman. God do so to Abner, and more also, if, as YHWH has sworn to David, I do not even so to him,&rdquo; <\/p>\n<p> Abner was taken aback and furious at Ish-bosheth daring to challenge him. He was clearly very proud of his loyalty to Saul&rsquo;s house (even though he was the gainer by it) and was angry that Ish-bosheth should throw doubt on it. He may also have felt that Ish-bosheth was beginning to &lsquo;show his teeth&rsquo;. So he asked whether Ish-bosheth really thought that he was less trustworthy than David. His real opinion of David and of Judah is made clear by his words, &lsquo;Am I a dog&rsquo;s head of Judah?&rsquo;. He had no doubt been present when David had likened himself to a dead dog (<span class='bible'>1Sa 24:14<\/span>), and here he made it quite clear that he considered it a good description of David. Or it may be that the Israelites were simply in the habit of scathingly describing the men of Judah as &lsquo;dogs&rsquo; or &lsquo;dogs&rsquo; heads&rsquo;. <\/p>\n<p> He then stressed how, rather than trying to dethrone Ish-bosheth, (as he saw David as wishing to do), he had rather shown kindness to him and to all Saul&rsquo;s relations, and had not, as he could have done, delivered them into the hands of David. And now Ish-bosheth was chiding him simply because of a woman? He saw it as totally unacceptable. Then in his anger he swore that he would do for David just as YHWH had sworn to him, make him king over all Israel. There is an indication here that he was aware that in maintaining Ish-bosheth as king he was going against the will of YHWH. He was admitting that he knew what YHWH really wanted, and had fought against it. We should therefore see all that subsequently happened to him in that light. <\/p>\n<p> <span class='bible'><strong> 2Sa 3:10<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:1.8em'><strong> &ldquo;<\/strong> To transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beer-sheba.&rdquo; <\/p>\n<p> And what was YHWH&rsquo;s purpose for David? It was that He would transfer the kingship of Israel from the house of Saul to the house of David, and set up David as king over all Israel and Judah, &lsquo;from Dan to Beersheba&rsquo;. Dan in the north and Beersheba in the south, in the Negeb, were always seen as the northern and southern limits to the land. The phrase was thus indicating the whole land (compare <span class='bible'>1Sa 3:20<\/span>). It is an indication that with all their tribal divisions Israel\/Judah were in another way seen as potentially one whole. <\/p>\n<p> <span class='bible'><strong> 2Sa 3:11<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:1.8em'><strong> &lsquo;<\/strong> And he could not answer Abner another word, because he feared him.&rsquo; <\/p>\n<p> The silence of Ish-bosheth at this juncture spoke volumes. Having plucked up the courage to challenge Abner (there had probably been much comment in the court) it demonstrated that he was so terrified of Abner that he dared do nothing more. It made him fully aware that he was powerless to do anything to prevent Abner doing precisely what he wanted. So much for his position as king of Israel. <\/p>\n<p> <span class='bible'><strong> 2Sa 3:12<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:1.8em'><strong> &lsquo;<\/strong> And Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf, saying, &ldquo;Whose is the land?&rdquo; saying also, &ldquo;Make your league with me, and, look, my hand will be with you, to bring about all Israel to you.&rdquo; <\/p>\n<p> Had Abner been wise he would have recognised that in fact he had won and have left things as they were. But in the event he carried out his threat. This seems to suggest that he had already been considering betraying Ish-bosheth to David and finally made this his excuse. Thus he sent messengers to David to speak on his behalf, asking whose the land of Israel was? The implication was that it was &lsquo;open to grabs&rsquo;. Then he promised that if David would enter into a league with him he would use all his power and authority to bring all Israel to David&rsquo;s feet. He was still determined to be the king-maker. But he was to learn that David was made of harder mettle. <\/p>\n<p> <span class='bible'><strong> 2Sa 3:13<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:1.8em'><strong> &lsquo;<\/strong> And he said, &ldquo;Well. I will make a league with you. But one thing I require of you, that is, you shall not see my face, except you first bring Michal, Saul&rsquo;s daughter, when you come to see my face.&rdquo; &rsquo; <\/p>\n<p> David answered in a measured fashion. He said that he considered the proposal was a good one, and agreed to make a league with Abner, but only on condition that his previous wife Michal, the daughter of Saul, was delivered up to him. Until that had happened he would not meet Abner face to face. He wanted him to know who was in charge. <\/p>\n<p> His demand was also significant because if Michal was delivered up to him as his true wife, all would know that he was therefore seen by Abner as the true heir of Saul. It would be reuniting him to the house of Saul in a position of privilege as the acknowledged son-in-law of Saul. <\/p>\n<p> <span class='bible'><strong> 2Sa 3:14<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:1.8em'><strong> &lsquo;<\/strong> And David sent messengers to Ish-bosheth, Saul&rsquo;s son, saying, &ldquo;Deliver me my wife Michal, whom I betrothed to myself for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines.&rdquo; &rsquo; <\/p>\n<p> At around the same time as he sent his message to Abner David also on his own initiative sent a message to Ish-bosheth demanding the return of Michal on the grounds that he had betrothed her to him for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, a marriage gift that had never been returned to him. It was an indication of David&rsquo;s awareness of the superiority of his army that he made the demand, for it would fly in the face of Ish-bosheth&rsquo;s own kingship. It was also a pointed reminder to Abner not to see him as dependent on Abner. He wanted it recognised that if he did make a league with Abner, it would be on his own terms. <\/p>\n<p> <span class='bible'><strong> 2Sa 3:15<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:1.8em'><strong> &lsquo;<\/strong> And Ish-bosheth sent, and took her from her husband, even from Paltiel the son of Laish.&rsquo; <\/p>\n<p> It was also an indication of Ish-bosheth&rsquo;s awareness of his own weakness that he meekly submitted to David as he had to Abner, for he sent and took Michal from her second husband, Paltiel, the son of Laish (of whom nothing is known apart from the fact that he dearly loved Michal) and sent her to David. It was an indication of just how weak Ish-bosheth was. It had reached a point where he did not dare to refuse to do what David wanted. First he had been afraid of Abner. Now he was afraid of David. <\/p>\n<p> It should, however, be noted that David&rsquo;s request was not unreasonable. His wife had been taken from him by force when he had been outlawed, and Ancient Near Eastern law allowed in such a case for a man to take his wife back once he was no longer outlawed, or when he was released from foreign captivity. So anyone who married such a wife recognised that if the husband did ever return, he might lose his wife back to him. This was thus not a breach of <span class='bible'>Deu 24:1-4<\/span>. But what it would be was a recognition that David was no longer to be seen as outside the pale. <\/p>\n<p> <span class='bible'><strong> 2Sa 3:16<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p style='margin-left:1.8em'><strong> &lsquo;<\/strong> And her husband went with her, weeping as he went, and followed her to Bahurim. Then said Abner to him, &ldquo;Go, return,&rdquo; and he returned.&rsquo; <\/p>\n<p> Paltiel was heart broken at losing his wife, and tearfully followed her all the way to Bahurim, until Abner told him to return home. In all the power politics here was the real loser, the poor, innocent, unimportant Paltiel, although we should note that in agreeing to marry Michal he had risked this happening. He must have known what he was doing. <\/p>\n<p> Such was Abner&rsquo;s power that when he ordered him to return home and forget about Michal, he dared not refuse, in spite of his grief. Abner had truly made himself strong in the house of Saul (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:6<\/span>). <\/p>\n<p> Bahurim is modern Ras et-Tmim which is to the east of Mount Scopus near Jerusalem. A man of Bahurim, Shimei, would later curse David as David and his men were passing by when he was fleeing from Absalom (<span class='bible'>2Sa 16:5<\/span>). It was also at Bahurim that some of David&rsquo;s men would hide in a well when evading discovery by Absalom&rsquo;s men (<span class='bible'>2Sa 17:17-21<\/span>). <\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p>III. <em>Abners quarrel with Ishbosheth, defection from the House of Saul and transition to David<\/em><\/p>\n<p> <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:7-21<\/span><\/p>\n<p>7And Saul had a concubine whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, and <em>Ishbosheth<\/em><span class=''>4<\/span> said to Abner, Wherefore hast thou gone in unto my fathers concubine?<span class=''>5<\/span> 8Then was Abner [And Abner was] very wroth for the words of Ishbosheth, and said, Am I a dogs head which against Judah<span class=''>6<\/span> [a dogs head on Judahs side?] [<em>ins<\/em>. I] do show kindness this day [to-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 9[and] thou chargest me to-day with a fault concerning this [the] woman? [!] So do God to Abner and more also except, as the Lord [Jehovah] hath sworn to David, even so I do to him, 10To 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. 11And he could not answer Abner a word again, because he feared him.<\/p>\n<p>12And Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf [<em>or<\/em> in his stead<span class=''>7<\/span>], saying, Whose is the land?<span class=''>8<\/span> saying <em>also<\/em> [<em>om<\/em>. also], Make thy league [covenant] with me, and behold, my hand shall be with thee to bring about [to turn] all Israel unto 13thee. And <span class='bible'>Hebrews 9<\/span> said, Well; I will make a league [covenant] with thee; but one thing I require of thee, that is, Thou shalt not see my face except<span class=''>10<\/span> thou first7 [<em>om<\/em>. first] bring Michal, Sauls daughter, when thou comest to see my face. 14And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth, Sauls son, saying, Deliver [Give] <em>me<\/em><span class=''>11<\/span> my wife Michal, which [whom] I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines. 15And Ishbosheth sent and took her from <em>her<\/em> husband, <em>even<\/em> from Phaltiel the son of Laish.<span class=''>12<\/span> 16And her husband went with her along weeping behind her to Bahurim. Then said Abner [And Abner said] unto him, Go, return. And he returned.<\/p>\n<p>17And Abner had communication with the elders of Israel, saying, Ye sought for 18David in times past<span class=''>13<\/span> to be king over you; Now, then, do it; for the Lord [Jehovah] hath spoken of<span class=''>14<\/span> David, saying, By the hand of my servant David I will<span class=''>15<\/span> save my people Israel out of the hand of the Philistines and out of the hand of all their enemies. 19And Abner also<span class=''>16<\/span> spake in the ears of Benjamin; and Abner went also13 to speak in the ears of David in Hebron all that seemed good to Israel and <em>that seemed good<\/em> [<em>om<\/em>. that seemed good] to the whole house of Benjamin. So [And] 20Abner came to<span class=''>17<\/span> David to Hebron and twenty men with him. And David made Abner and the men that were with him a feast. 21And Abner said unto David, I will arise and go, and will gather all Israel unto my lord the king, that they<span class=''>18<\/span> may make a league [covenant] with thee, and that thou mayest reign over all that thine heart desireth. And David sent Abner away, and he went in peace.<\/p>\n<p>IV. <em>Murder of Abner by Joab<\/em>. <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:22-39<\/span><\/p>\n<p>22And behold the servants of David and Joab came from <em>pursuing<\/em> a troop [came from an expedition<span class=''>19<\/span>], and brought in a great spoil with them. But [And] Abner was not with David in Hebron, for he had sent him away and he was gone in peace. 23When 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. 24Then Joab came to the king and said, What hast thou done? behold, Abner came unto thee; why is it that thou hast sent him away, and he is quite [<em>om<\/em>. quite<span class=''>20<\/span>] gone? 25Thou knowest Abner the son of Ner<span class=''>21<\/span> that he came to deceive thee, and to know thy going out and thy coming in, and to know all that thou doest. 26And when [<em>om<\/em>. when] Joab was come out [went out] from David he [and] sent messengers after Abner, which [who] brought him again from the well of Sirah; but David knew it not.<\/p>\n<p>27And when Abner was returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside in [to the middle of] the gate to speak with him quietly, and smote him there under the fifth <em>rib<\/em> 28[in<span class=''>22<\/span> the abdomen] that he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother. And afterward when David heard it [when David afterward heard it], he said, I and my kingdom are guiltless before the Lord [Jehovah] for ever from the blood of Abner the son of Ner; 29Let it rest [be hurled] on the head of Joab and on all his fathers house, and let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff [crutch<span class=''>23<\/span>], or that falleth on [by] the sword, or that 30lacketh bread. So<span class=''>24<\/span> Joab and Abishai his brother slew Abner because he had slain their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle.<\/p>\n<p>31And 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 <em>himself<\/em> [<em>om<\/em>. himself] followed the bier. 32And they buried Abner in Hebron; and the king lifted up his voice and wept at the grave of Abner, and all the people wept. 33And the king lamented over Abner and said,<\/p>\n<p>Died Abner [Must Abner die] as a fool<span class=''>25<\/span> [<em>or<\/em> villain] dieth?<\/p>\n<p>34Thy hands were not bound<\/p>\n<p>Nor thy feet put into fetters.<br \/>As a man falleth before wicked men<br \/>So fellest thou.<\/p>\n<p>35And all the people wept again over him. And when [<em>om<\/em>. when] all the people came to cause David to eat<span class=''>26<\/span> meat [bread] while it was yet day [<em>ins<\/em>. and] David sware, saying, So do God to me and more also, if I taste bread or aught else till the sun be down. 36And all the people took notice of it, and it pleased them; as<span class=''>27<\/span> whatsoever 37the king did pleased all the people. For [And] all the people and all Israel understood that day that it was not of the king to slay Abner the son of <span class='bible'>Ner. <\/span><span class='bible'>3<\/span>8And the king said unto his servants, Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel? 39And I am this day weak, <em>though<\/em> anointed king, and these men the sons of Zeruiah be too hard for me; the Lord [Jehovah] shall [<em>om<\/em>. shall] reward the doer of evil [wickedness] according to his wickedness.<\/p>\n<p><strong>EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>III. <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:7-21<\/span>. <em>Abner quarrels with Ishbosheth, and goes over to David<\/em><\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:7-8<\/span>. <em>The falling out<\/em>. Its occasion was Abners taking Sauls concubine, Rizpah,<span class=''>28<\/span> the daughter of Aiah. The Harem was part of the property of the reigning house, and therefore fell to the successor, comp. <span class='bible'>2Sa 12:8<\/span>. Taking possession of it was a political act, and signified actual entrance on royal rights, comp. <span class='bible'>2Sa 16:21<\/span>, and of this act Abner was guilty. Supply from the connection <em>Ishbosheth<\/em> (comp. <em>my father<\/em> and <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:8<\/span>) as subject of the verb <em>said<\/em>. His question: Why, <em>etc.<\/em>, might be taken as the expression of <em>suspicion<\/em> that Abner was thus seeking the throne, for in the ancient Orient claim to the harem was claim to the throne, so especially with the Persian, comp. Herod. 3, 68; Justin. 10, 2. But, if Ishbosheth really had such a suspicion, Abners conduct gives no ground for such a view; his act seems rather the outflow of passionate self-will and presumptuous contempt towards Ishbosheth. If he had really wished to seize the throne of Israel for himself, his conduct towards David (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:9<\/span> sq.) would be inexplicable. His answer in <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:8<\/span> shows how loose his relation to Ishbosheth and concern for his cause already was. <em>Dogs head<\/em>, as in our language also, is the expression for something perfectly <em>despicable<\/em>. The. words: which is to Judah, omitted by Sept., are not to be connected with the preceding (Clericus: thinkest thou that I am worth no more to the Tribe of Judah than a dogs head? Syr.: Am I the head of the dogs of Judah? Ewald: Am I then a Judahite dogs head?such an adjectival periphrasis would be very strange)nor in sense to be connected with the following (Vulg.: who against Judah to-day show kindness; De Wette: who <em>in respect to<\/em> Judah now show kindness), but to be rendered simply as they stand: who is for Judah, pertains to, holds with Judah (Buns.). Abner is angered by the insult he thinks shown him by Ishbosheths reproachful question. The sense of his reply is: that Ishbosheth treats him as a despicable man, who takes no interest in him, as one who belongs to his opponents, the party of the Tribe of Judah, whereas <span class='bible'>Hebrews 1<\/span>) is showing only kindness to the whole house of Saul, and 2) especially has not delivered him, Ishbosheth, into the hand of David. By adducing these his services to the royal house Abner repels the reproach based on his appropriation of the concubine.<span class=''>29<\/span> His words express the extremest contempt towards his king, and the strongest consciousness of services, to which the house of Saul and Ishbosheth owed everything. The to-day is significant;, even now he occupies this position towards Sauls house; comp. the made himself strong, was a strong helper in <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:6<\/span>. The contrast to this comes out sharply in what follows. There follows<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:9-11<\/span>, the sudden complete <em>breach<\/em> with the house of Saul and the solemn <em>oath<\/em> in respect to the house of David. This is the culmination of what is said in <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:1<\/span> of Davids advance in strength over against the house of Saul. (On the simple  in oaths see on <span class='bible'>2Sa 2:27<\/span>; <span class='bible'>1Sa 3:17<\/span>.) The history does not show a formal divine <em>oath<\/em>, such as Abner here refers to. But the divine <em>choice<\/em> of David to be king, his <em>anointment<\/em> performed by Samuel at the divine command (<span class='bible'>1Sa 15:28-29<\/span>; <span class='bible'>1Sa 16:1-12<\/span>), and the therewith conjoined divine <em>declaration<\/em> which Samuel declares to be <em>inviolable<\/em> (<span class='bible'>1Sa 15:29<\/span>) because based on Gods truthfulness (comp. <span class='bible'>Num 23:19<\/span>)all this had in fact the significance and weight of a divine oath. Abners words presuppose that acquaintance with the promises given to David was, through the prophetic circles, widely extended. Abigail is an example of such acquaintance among the people (<span class='bible'>1Sa 25:28-31<\/span>).<strong>So will I do to him<\/strong>; Abner does not consider himself (as Cler. thinks) as the Lords instrument for fulfilling his declaration to David, which he in fact was not. He merely says, that he will now make David king, as had been promised him by divine oath. The remark of Cler. that military men do not sufficiently weigh what they say does not apply here; for in Abners words there is the distinct consciousness that over against the divine promise concerning David the cause of Saul and Ishbosheth is a lost one, but at the same time also the mortified ambition that thinks its services not sufficiently recognized, and the overweening pride of a vigorous and energetic man who thinks that he can of himself make history. In spite of his reference to a divine declaration, his conduct is anything but theocratic, is rather throughout autocratic, comp. <span class='bible'>2Sa 2:8<\/span>, <span class='bible'>2 Samuel 9<\/span> : he took Ishbosheth, and <em>made<\/em> him king. How far his previous energetic, autocratic activity for Sauls house was connected with ambitious, high-reaching plans for himself, is uncertain. In any case, however, so much is true: 1) that he knew Davids divine call to be Sauls successor, and therefore stood in conscious opposition to the known will of God, and thus in conflict with himself, and 2) that it was only after his defeat in the battle with Joab (which he himself began, <span class='bible'>2Sa 2:12<\/span> sq.) and his gradually confirmed recognition of the fact that Ishbosheth was wholly unfit for the kingly rule and its maintenance in the house of Saul, and in truth the personal insult now offered him by Ishbosheththat he suddenly decided to break with the house of Saul and go over to David. How far ambition herein influenced him along with political insight, we cannot tell; but it is not probable that he showed so much energy in gaining over all Israel to David, as is afterwards related, without hope of a high and influential position with DavidWith the words: to translate the kingdom from Saul, comp. Samuels word, <span class='bible'>1Sa 15:28<\/span>.<strong>From Dan to Beersheba<\/strong>, as in <span class='bible'>Jdg 20:1<\/span>; <span class='bible'>1Sa 3:20<\/span>.[<em>Bib. Com<\/em>. thinks it probable that Abner had before this begun to incline towards David, so that Ishbosheth had some ground for the taunt: which belongeth to Judah, and this made it all the more slinging to Abner.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:11<\/span>. <strong>And he<\/strong> (Ishbosheth) <strong>could not answer, because he feared him.<\/strong> This characterizes Ishbosheth sufficiently for the explanation of the whole situation. Having with an effort <em>plucked up courage<\/em> to ask that reproachful question, he here shows the greatest <em>feebleness<\/em>, <em>cowardice<\/em> and <em>timidity<\/em> towards Abner. This also contributes to the explanation of what is said in <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:1<\/span> concerning the house of Saul.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:12-21<\/span> <em>Abners covenant with David.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:12<\/span>. The threat against Ishbosheth is straightway carried out by sending an embassy to David.  is not in his place (Vulg. <em>pro se<\/em>, Cler., De Wette, Keil [Eng. A. V.: on his behalf]), which would be superfluous and unmeaning (Buns.), but, in keeping with Abners passionate excitement in <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:9<\/span>, on the spot, immediately,  (Sept., Chald.), as in <span class='bible'>2Sa 2:23<\/span>, where Keil also adopts this meaning, though he <em>here<\/em> declares that there is no ground for it.[On this whole passage see Text, and Gram.Tr.]The first saying () can be taken here only in the usual sense as introduction of direct discourse, not as = to say in reference to the messengers. And the second saying is also so to be taken, and not as = that is to say (Buns., Then.), since it introduces another direct discourse of Abner: Make a covenant, which cannot except by forcing be regarded as an <em>explanation<\/em> of the question: to whom belongs the land? rather the <em>demand<\/em> contained in it, as a <em>consequence<\/em> of the silent answer to this question, is, on account of its importance as the chief thing in the commission of the ambassadors, naturally appended by means of a repeated saying. The saying: <strong>To whom belongs<\/strong> (or <strong>whose is<\/strong>) <strong>the land?<\/strong> does not relate to David, as if = to whom does it belong but to thee? This interpretation, that the land properly belonged to David by virtue of his anointment (Vat., S. Schmid, Ew. [Patrick, <em>Bib. Com<\/em>.]), would agree indeed with Abners acknowledgment in <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:9<\/span>, but not with the following words: <strong>Make a covenant with me to turn all Israel to thee<\/strong>, which rather indicate that Abner means to say: <em>the land belongs to me<\/em> (Sanct., Thenius [Scott, Philipps]).This 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. Because he still as influential <em>ruler<\/em> controlled the greatest part of the land, he could 1) demand of David, as one standing on the same plane with him, to make a <em>covenant<\/em> with <em>him<\/em>, and 2) give him the promise (the product not only of strong self-consciousness, but also of extensive power): <em>my hand<\/em> is with thee to turn <em>all Israel to thee<\/em> Obviously there is here not merely implicitly involved as answer to the above question, the declaration: the land is his whom I, the leader of the army, shall favor (Cler.), but also the expectation that, after the fulfillment of this promise, David would assign him the highest position in the army and in the nation next to himself. Abners proud and haughty words hardly permit us to doubt that he was filled with such thoughts.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:13<\/span>. David replies with a <em>condition<\/em>, namely, <em>the restoration of his wife Michal<\/em><span class=''>30<\/span><strong>Thou shalt not see my face before (= except) thou bring Michal<\/strong>, <em>etc.<\/em>Certainly we should have the opposite of Davids meaning (Then.) If we rendered: Thou shalt not see my face except <em>before<\/em> thou bring Michal. But, if we retain the text (), this explanation is unnecessary, rather it quite answers to the original signification of the word to render literally: except <em>in the face<\/em> of thy bringing Michal . in thy coming to see my face, that is, thou shalt not see my face except by at the same time bringing me Michal when thou comest to see my face; thy coming to me to see my face shall not occur except in the presence of this fact, namely, that thou (= unless, before thou) bring Michal. It is therefore unnecessary either to omit the Prep. () after the Sept., and change the following Inf. into a Perf., = unless thou bring (Then.), or to omit the but( ) = thou shalt not see my face before thy bringing (= before thou bring) (Bttcher).<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:14<\/span> presupposes <em>the acceptance of this condition<\/em> by Abner. In realization of what Abner had threatened him with, <em>Ishbosheth<\/em> finds himself compelled to fulfil Davids condition himself, and that immediately by <em>Abners<\/em> own hand, to whom was assigned the duty of bringing, and who really did bring Michal to David (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:15-16<\/span>). To this end David sends a formal embassy to Ishbosheth, in order <em>legally<\/em> to demand and receive Michal back, she having been <em>illegally<\/em> taken by Saul and given to another man (<span class='bible'>1Sa 25:44<\/span>). Seb. Schmid: that it might be manifest that he had acted legally towards Phaltiel before his king, and taken her back, not carried her off by force from a husband. <strong>Whom I espoused to me<\/strong>, that is, purchased as bride, married<strong>For a hundred foreskins<\/strong>, comp. <span class='bible'>1Sa 18:27<\/span>, where two hundred is the number given. David thus justifies his claim that Michal lawfully belongs to him, since he had lawfully won her as his wife. Besides this <em>right<\/em> to Michal, which he was now for the first time in position successfully to assert, he was led to a reunion with her partly by love (she loved him, <span class='bible'>1Sa 18:27<\/span>; <span class='bible'>1Sa 19:11<\/span> sq.), partly by a <em>political motive;<\/em> 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,<span class=''>31<\/span> and he wished the people to see from his relation to Saul as son-in-law that he was free from hatred towards the latter.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:15<\/span>. <strong>And Ishbosheth sent,<\/strong> that is, to Gallim, where Phaltiel, the present husband of Michal, dwelt, <span class='bible'>1Sa 25:44<\/span>, and sent Abner himself (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:16<\/span>). Her husband cannot part with her without sorrow. [The Jewish tradition represents Phaltiel as the guardian merely, not the husband of Michala view that the text does not permit.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:16<\/span>. A touching scene, briefly but vividly sketched. The faithful husband follows his wife weeping to <em>Bahurim<\/em>, where Abner, who therefore had himself brought Michal from Gallim, ordered him to return. <em>Bahurim<\/em>, the home of Shimei (<span class='bible'>2Sa 19:17<\/span>; <span class='bible'>1Ki 2:8<\/span>), a village near Jerusalem (Jos., <em>Ant<\/em>. 7, 97) north-east, on the road between the Mount of Olives and the Jordan (Gilgal), not far from or in the plain of the Jordan (comp. <span class='bible'>2Sa 16:1<\/span>; <span class='bible'>2Sa 16:5<\/span>; <span class='bible'>2Sa 17:18<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:17-19<\/span>. Abners preparatory negotiations with the Elders of Israel and especially of Benjamin, and his report thereon to David.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:17<\/span>. Before Abner carried out Davids condition (the restoration of Michal), he had a <em>conversation<\/em> ( ) <em>with the Elders<\/em> of Israel, that is, the Northern Tribes with the exception of Benjamin<strong>Both yesterday and the day before<\/strong> (= in times past) <strong>ye desired<\/strong> [= sought] <strong>David to be your king<\/strong>a striking testimony to the fact that outside of Judah also there had been a favorable sentiment towards David, against which Abner had energetically established and hitherto maintained Ishbosheths authority. The existence of this favorable feeling towards David in the Northern Tribes is confirmed by <span class='bible'>1 Chronicles 12<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:18<\/span>. <strong>Now, then, do it,<\/strong> that is, fulfil your desire, recognize him as your king. As <em>reason<\/em> for this demand Abner refers to a <em>word of Jehovah<\/em>, which indeed in the form here given: <strong>I will save my people Israel,<\/strong> is never expressly mentioned as spoken to David (so the Vulg.); but it is to be regarded as <em>the word applied in the prophetic tradition<\/em> (which Abner, <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:9<\/span>, is well acquainted with) <em>to David<\/em>, with which <em>Saul<\/em> (<span class='bible'>1Sa 9:16<\/span>) received this divine commission, which in its completeness could only now be fulfilled by David.<span class=''>32<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:19<\/span>. The <em>special<\/em> elaborate and pressing negotiations with Benjamin were necessary not only because this tribe had enjoyed many advantages from the royal house of Saul, <span class='bible'>1Sa 22:7<\/span> (Then.), but in general because, though numerically the smallest tribe, it had hitherto had the honor of furnishing the reigning family; it was necessary to overcome the tribal ambition and the tribe-interest, to which Saul appealed, <span class='bible'>1 Samuel 22<\/span>. The <em>also  also<\/em> (), which denotes <em>mutualness<\/em> (Ew.,  352 <em>a<\/em>), points out the close connection and relation between the negotiations 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) at Hebron. He went, namely, after these double negotiations, in order to bring Michal to David.<strong>All that seemed good<\/strong>, that is, not their demands and conditions (De Wette, Then., Buns.), which does not accord with the context or lie in the words, but (since the negotiations referred to the recognition of Davids divine right to the kingdom over all Israel, <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:10<\/span>) the willingness to recognize him as king, the recognition of his royal authority.[Patrick observes that David so effectually attached the Benjaminites to him that, though they had been Sauls closest adherents, they became Davids warm friends, and never afterwards left him. However, comp. <span class='bible'>2 Samuel 20<\/span>.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:20<\/span>. The <em>twenty men<\/em>, who accompanied Abner to David and for whom he prepared a <em>feast<\/em>, appeared as representatives of all Israel, in order by their presence to confirm Abners overtures (Keil).[Patrick: The feast was not merely an entertainment, but of the nature of a league. <em>Bib.-Com.:<\/em> It is remarkable that not a word should be said about the meeting of David and Michal.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:21<\/span>. The same <em>quickness<\/em> with which Abner carried out his resolution to go over to David (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:12<\/span>) fulfilled the required condition (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:16<\/span>), pressed the preliminary negotiations (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:17<\/span> sq.) in order to inform David about them, he now shows in the further proceedings, that he may institute as soon as possible the solemn installation of David as king of Israel under formal conclusion of a covenant between king and people. The gradation in his following words: <strong>I will arise and will go and will assemble all Israel to my lord<\/strong>, is characteristic of the rapidity, excitedness and energy that we everywhere remark in Abner. He now for the first time calls David his lord. He will assemble the whole nation (<em>i. e.<\/em> in its elders and other representatives) to the solemn covenanting. This last was not to consist in the establishment of a constitution after the nature of a constitutional monarchy (Then.), which is wholly foreign to the theocratic kingdom, but the words: <strong>that they may make a covenant with thee<\/strong> mean: they are to vow to obey thee as the king given them by the Lord, thou promising to govern them as the theocratic king, through whom as His instrument the Lord Himself will rule over His people.<strong>And that thou mayest be king over all that thy heart desireth<\/strong>, that is, not: in a way or under conditions that thou canst accept (Then.), but he is to rule as <em>he<\/em> desires; it does not, however, mean: as thy soul desires (Clericus), or according to thy pleasure (Dathe), because the conception of the theocratic rule excluded all arbitrariness from it, but over all, according to which is the desire of thy soul, that is, according to the Lords will and appointment, over the whole people and land. David had indicated the desire of his heart in his message to the Jabeshites. Abner was <em>dismissed<\/em> by David as his king who was in accord with his purpose. That he was now looked on by David and his adherents as thoroughly a friend, and received no harm from any body, is indicated by the concluding words: <strong>And he went in peace<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>IV. <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:22-39<\/span>. <em>Murder of Abner by Joab and his solemn interment by David<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:22<\/span>. Instead of the Sing, came, referring to Joab as leader of the troop, Sept., Syr., Ar. render: they came. From the troop came Joab with the servants of David, who had undertaken an expedition for booty Whither, is not said, but probably outside the Israelitish territory near the tribe of Judah. In the incomplete organization of Davids court, such expeditions were necessary for the support of the large army. Abner was no longer with David; probably he had purposely chosen the time when Joab, with the army, was absent, to carry out his plan. He had gone <em>in peace<\/em> is repeated from <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:21<\/span> in contrast with the hostility afterwards shown him by Joab, when (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:23<\/span>) on his return he learns that Abner had meantime been with David and had been dismissed <em>in peace<\/em>. [For the correction of the rendering of this verse in Eng. A. V. see Text, and Gramm.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:24<\/span>. Joabs reproach of David that he had sent Abner awayso that he was now quite gone (  <strong>Ew.  280 <\/strong><strong><em>b<\/em><\/strong>)<strong>supposes that<\/strong> Abner had only come with evil and hostile purpose. [Joab, of course, was afraid that he would be superseded by Abner, if the latter entered Davids service. He was younger and less renowned than Abner.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:25<\/span>. Joab gives a reason for his charge of unwisdom against David in sending Abner away in peace: <strong>Thou knowest<\/strong> (or, as a question, knowest thou?) <strong>Abner, that<\/strong> .. In a quick, passionate speech, for the truth of which he appeals at the outset to Davids knowledge of Abners character (against Thenius remark: had David <em>known<\/em> what Joab here says, he would have acted differently), he makes a <em>threefold<\/em> charge against Abner, with the intent of thereby branding him as spy and traitor. He declares that Abner came 1) <em>to trick him out of his most secret thoughts<\/em>. The verb () means to be open (Ps. 20:19), Piel to make open, persuade, get ones secrets from him (<span class='bible'>Jdg 14:15<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Jdg 16:5<\/span>); so here; 2) to learn Davids <em>outgoing and incoming<\/em>, that is, all his present undertakings, his whole action and course of life (comp. <span class='bible'>Deu 28:6<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Psa 121:8<\/span>); 3) <em>all that he will do<\/em>, all his plans for the future.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:26<\/span>. <em>Without Davids knowledge<\/em> (whether expressly in Davids name, falsely used by him, is not stated) he sends messengers and brings Abner back, making him believe, no doubt, that David had something further to say to him. <strong>The pit<\/strong> (or <strong>cistern<\/strong>) <strong>of Sirah<\/strong>, to which Abner had gotten when he was turned back, according to Jos. <em>Ant<\/em>. 7, 1, 5, distant twenty stadia [= nearly two and a half English miles] from Hebron, is now unknown; the name is perhaps to be derived from a verb () meaning to turn in (Thenius), and denotes an inn or caravanserai. [According to others, so-called as surrounded with thorns, <em>Sirim<\/em>,  (Philippson).Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:27<\/span>. [<em>Bib. Comm.<\/em>: Abners conduct bespeaks his entire reliance on Davids good faith.Tr.] After Abners return to Hebron, Joab met him in the gate of the city, and turned him aside to the middle of the gate, in order to speak with him quietly. Clericus: made him turn aside, took him apart (the Hiphil  is transitive as in <span class='bible'>Job 24:4<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Num 22:23<\/span>). Joab could not speak with him in the way where people were going out and coming in. He had therefore to take him aside to the places in the gate-space, where, according to the oriental custom, men used to meet for private or public conversations and consultations. <strong>To the middle of the gate<\/strong>.Joab drew Abner to the middle of the inner gate-space (which was no doubt roofed) between the places of exit and entrance, because it was not so light there, and one could better escape the notice of the passers-by, who, however, were probably not very numerous. Bunsen renders well: made him turn aside (from the way) near the middle of the gate. For Joab wished, as he made Abner believe, to talk with him in quiet, undisturbed, in private (). There he stabbed him in the abdomen (, comp. <span class='bible'>2Sa 2:23<\/span>) [not under the fifth rib, as in Eng. A.V.Tr.]. <strong>For the blood of Asahel his brother<\/strong> see <span class='bible'>2Sa 2:23<\/span>; that is, to avenge or punish the death of his brother. According to this it was an act of revenge for bloodshed. But Abner had not wilfully slain Asahel, but in self-defence, when the latter pressed on him, <span class='bible'>2Sa 2:22<\/span> sq. But blood-vengeance was appointed only for intentional killing, and he was protected by law from it, who had killed a man unintentionally (<span class='bible'>Deu 4:41<\/span> sq.; <span class='bible'>Jos 20:1-9<\/span>). Joabs deed was a murder, like that which he afterwards committed on Amasa, <span class='bible'>2Sa 20:11<\/span>. He thereby cast false suspicion on David (comp. <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:37<\/span>), whose friendly relation to Abner he yet must have known, since David no doubt informed him in their conversation (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:24-25<\/span>) of Abners true position. The avenging of blood was a mere pretext; the real ground of Joabs deed was envy and ambition, as Josephus already rightly holds. He feared that Abner would take a higher position in the new kingdom than himselfespecially would cut him out of the rank of general-in chief of the whole army. Grotius: an equal and rival in military glory galled him.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:28<\/span> sq. What David said of this crime. <strong>And when David after-wards heard of it<\/strong>.The word afterwards (as the David knew it not in <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:26<\/span>) certifies that David had no share in Joabs deed. David 1) declares <em>his innocence<\/em> of this murder. He distinguishes between <em>himself<\/em> personally and his <em>kingdom<\/em>, that is, his royal house, his hereditary successors on the throne (Thenius), who no more than himself could be visited with divine punishment therefor. Comp. <span class='bible'>1Ki 2:31-33<\/span>. On the other hand, he affirms 2) that the righteous punishment of God in requital of this crime must fall both on the <em>person<\/em> and on the <em>house<\/em> (the posterity) of Joab. Let the blood of Abner <strong>turn, roll, plunge on the head<\/strong>.This strong expression, instead of the ordinary let it come, answers to the enormity of the crime and the energy of Davids righteous anger. And let there not fail, literally not be cut off, separated, exterminated (), so that it no longer exist, comp. <span class='bible'>Jos 9:23<\/span>. <strong>One that hath an issue<\/strong> (), one that pines away miserably with seminal or mucous flow,comp. <span class='bible'>Lev 15:2<\/span> sq., and a <strong>leper<\/strong>, see <span class='bible'>Lev 13:1-46<\/span>, and <strong>one that holds the distaff<\/strong>.The word () means in Heb., Talm., Arab, <em>only<\/em> distaff, never <em>staff<\/em> (Bttcher), comp. <span class='bible'>Pro 31:19<\/span>. Usually indeed the phrase is rendered after the Sept. ( ) one that holds a staff; that is, a cripple, lame, or blind (the last by Aquila). But against this it is to be said with Bttcher that, apart from the fact that the word cannot be shown to mean staff, the phrase one that holds a staff does not necessarily denote a cripple, since the staff was held by rulers and men of eminence (<span class='bible'>Jdg 5:14<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Gen 38:18<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Num 21:18<\/span>), old men (<span class='bible'>Zec 8:4<\/span>), travellers (<span class='bible'>Luk 6:3<\/span>), shepherds (<span class='bible'>1Sa 17:40<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Mic 7:14<\/span>), and where a cripple is described with a staff, the expression is quite different (<span class='bible'>Exo 21:19<\/span>). It is therefore better (with Bttcher) to take this as a contrast to the next described unfortunate strong warrior who falls by the sword = the weakly spindle-holder, unfit for war. The Greeks also had their Hercules with the distaff as a type of unmanly feebleness, and for a warrior like Joab there could be no worse wish than that there might be a <em>distaff<\/em>-holder among his descendants (Bttcher). So also Vulg., Schulz, Maurer (after <span class='bible'>Pro 31:19<\/span> ). [In spite of this forcible and striking argument of Bttcher (which is also adopted by Thenius) it seems better to take the signification crutch, chiefly because the other terms of imprecation in this verse are all literal, and the term distaff-holder would be figurative. The rendering crutch or staff is adopted by Gesenius, Ewald, Philippson, <em>Bible Commentary<\/em>, and others, and may be given without violence to the Hebrew word, though in the one other passage in the Old Testament in which it occurs it means distaffTr.] <strong>And that lacks bread<\/strong>.The indication of bitter poverty. These exclamations of David express no feeling of revenge (as indeed he undertakes no revenge or punishment against Joab and his house), but commit to the holy and righteous God the inevitable punishment of such a violation of the divine command. They are not genuinely <em>Jewish<\/em> (Thenius), but genuinely <em>theocratic<\/em>, as the expression of the clear, energetic consciousness of Gods punitive justice which maintains the laws of the moral government of the world and the foundations of the kingdom of God, and which here he wishes may exhibit itself on Joabs house in a fourfold manner: in miserable, levitically unclean <em>sicknesses<\/em>, in despicable <em>weakness and crippling<\/em>, in violent <em>death<\/em>, and in bitter <em>poverty<\/em>. As to Joabs violent end, comp. <span class='bible'>1Ki 2:28-34<\/span>, especially <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:31-33<\/span>, and as respects the curse on his <em>house<\/em>, see <span class='bible'>Exo 20:5<\/span>. [The ancient Jewish writers regarded this imprecation of Davids as sinful. The text passes no opinion on it, but from the religious-theocratic point of view of the time, it would seem even necessary that the wrath of God should be specially and sharply invoked on so high-handed a crime, especially as David was not able to call the criminal to legal account.Tr.] <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:30<\/span>. Supplementary remark of the narrator, who 1) confirms the fact that the slaying of Asahel by Abner was the ground (pretext) for the murder of the latter just related, and 2) adds the important statement that Joabs act was not merely <em>personal<\/em>, but also a <em>family-act: Joab and Abishai<\/em> slew Abner. Abishais part in the affair is not related. Literally: threw themselves on him, the verb being used with Dat. instead of Accus., <span class='bible'>Isa 22:13<\/span> (Bttcher, Then.).<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:31-39<\/span>. <em>Davids mourning for Abner<\/em>. <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:31<\/span>. David said to <em>Joab<\/em> (as him who by his murderous act was chiefly and terribly interested) and to all the people that were with him (those <em>about<\/em> him), not merely to the courtiers (Thenius): <strong>Rend your garments<\/strong>, <em>etc.<\/em>He ordered a public <em>mourning<\/em> with all the usual <em>ceremonies<\/em> (rending garments, putting on sackcloth, that is, rough mourning garments of haircloth, and lamentations for the dead). We must distinguish <em>two principal acts:<\/em> 1) <em>The mourning<\/em> not <em>over<\/em>, for, in honor of (Ew.  217 <em>l<\/em>) Abner, but before him (), in the presence of his corpse; 2) the <em>burial<\/em>, <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:31<\/span> <em>b<\/em> sq.: <strong>And the king David followed the bier<\/strong>.<span class=''>33<\/span> The word <em>king<\/em> is put emphatically first to indicate the official character that he as king gave to these obsequies, in order to show his personal deep sorrow for the death of Abner which concerned the whole people, and to stifle at the outset any suspicion that he had a share in it. His <em>tears at the grave<\/em> showed the <em>genuineness<\/em> of his grief to the people who shared in his trouble and wept with him. His <em>elegy<\/em> (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:33-34<\/span>) is the expression of the deepest sorrow over Abners <em>innocent<\/em> and <em>shameful<\/em> death. In reference to his guiltlessness he exclaims: <strong>Must Abner die as a worthless fellow dies?<\/strong>as a <em>nabal<\/em> (), a <em>fool;<\/em> where this term is used of immorality and crime, these, like denial of God and godlessness (<span class='bible'>Psa 14:1<\/span>), are regarded under the point of view of <em>foolishness; nabal<\/em> always denotes hollowness, emptiness, insipidity (see Moll [in Langes <em>Bible-Work<\/em>] on <span class='bible'>Psa 14:1<\/span>), and signifies therefore somewhat more precisely good-for-naught. [The sentence may be paraphrased: is this the fate that the noble Abner was to meet, to die like a worthless fool? alas that he found so inglorious a death.Tr.] But he was murdered in shameful wise also: <strong>Thy hands were not bound and thy feet not put into fetters<\/strong>with free hands, with which he might have defended himself; with free feet, with which he might have escaped from overpowering force; without suspecting evil, he was attacked and murdered as a defenceless man, who yet might have defended himself. (De Wette (against the ) wrongly renders: Thy hands were <em>never<\/em> bound, thy feet <em>never<\/em> put into fetters.) Only dishonorable, wicked men could so act. This lament of David increased the grief of the people, so that they wept still more over Abner.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:35<\/span>. Davids grief is strongest and most enduringhe refrains entirely from food. Fasting often occurs as a sign of sorrowsee <span class='bible'>2Sa 1:12<\/span>. All the people (that is, as many as were present) came <strong>to cause David to eat bread<\/strong>that is, not to give him to eat (De Wette), as <span class='bible'>2Sa 13:5<\/span> (an impossible conception in respect to all the people), but to demand of him to take food. Josephus: his friends tried to force him to take nourishment. It was the custom for mourners to fast immediately after the death of their friends, whereupon their relatives and friends exerted themselves to comfort them, and persuaded them to strengthen themselves with food and drink, comp. <span class='bible'>2Sa 12:16-17<\/span>; <span class='bible'>2Sa 12:20<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Jeremiah 16<\/span>. Perhaps the people here acted in accordance with this custom; but their demand may also be referred to the mourning meal that followed the burial. But David refuses with an oath;<span class=''>34<\/span> up to <em>evening<\/em> he will eat nothing. The expression of grief here reaches its culmination.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:36<\/span>. The people <strong>took notice of it<\/strong>namely, of his deep sorrow, and <em>estimated<\/em> this expression of his mourning as corresponding to the intensity of his grief. <strong>It pleased them, as<\/strong><strong><span class=''>35<\/span><\/strong><strong> all that the king did pleased all the people<\/strong>.Thus he was not only freed from suspicion of share in the murder of Abner (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:37<\/span>). but won the love and confidence of the people.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:38<\/span>. An echo of the elegy: <strong>Know ye not that there is a prince and a<\/strong> <strong>great man fallen this day in Israel?<\/strong><em>Not<\/em>: great prince (Thenius, after Sept., omitting the copula), since the distinction between the <em>prince<\/em>=army-leader and the <em>great man<\/em> is perfectly appropriate. Abner was a prince by his distinguished military ability, which (as this exclamation intimates) David might have employed for all Israel; he was a great man by reason of his lofty qualities of character and virtues, his power of action, his courage, the honorable self-conquest he exhibited in turning from his previous false course of opposition to David, the obedience that he yielded to the will of God, and the zealous desire he showed to serve by deeds the true king of Israel. On account of his natural noble endowments and these moral<span class=''>36<\/span> qualities, Abner rightly seems to David to be a great man in Israel, not merely, therefore, in the incorrect sense in which the term has been applied to a Napoleon.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:39<\/span>. The usual explanation: but I am still weak.. and these men are too strong for me; that is, as a weak young king I feel unable to bring a man like Joab to justice; I must therefore confine myself to an imprecation, and leave the punishment to God (Jos., Theod., Brent., Tremell., S. Schmid, Clericus, De Wette, Keil [Patrick]), is wholly untenable; for David could not and durst not so express himself. It would have been very <em>unwise<\/em> to acknowledge his fear and weakness in respect to Joab and Abishai; nor would it have been <em>true<\/em>; for he who had conquered Abner, by whose side stood 600 heroes, in whose grief over Abners murder all the people shared, no doubt had power to punish this crime; such a self-exculpation based on confession of weakness does not at all agree with the courage and fearlessness that form a fundamental trait of Davids character.Against Ewalds explanation: I indeed now live in palaces and am crowned king, and yet the sons of Zeruiah are out of my reach, it is to be remarked with Thenius that the word  [Eng. A. V.: weak, tender]) for whose meaning well living he cites <span class='bible'>Isa 47:1<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Deu 28:54-56<\/span>, is used in those passages in a bad sense=<em>delicatus<\/em> [luxurious, effeminate], and that the other adj. () cannot mean out of reach; and there is the further objection to this rendering that David had as yet no very splendid position, and his dwelling proudly in royal palaces is out of the question. Against Bunsens rendering: hard, out of my reach (Ex. 48:25), Thenius rightly remarks that <em>hard<\/em> and <em>out of reach<\/em> are two different conceptions, and that the former can be used only of <em>things<\/em>, not of <em>persons<\/em>. Bttcher translates: And I am to-day <em>easy<\/em>, and am crowned king, but these menare too rough for me, and finds in the easy () a double contrast, on the one hand between Davids present comfortable circumstances and Abners sad death, and on the other hand between the <em>easy<\/em> disposition (natural in easy circumstances) inclined to pardon (as was lawful and right for the king), and the <em>rough<\/em> deed of the sons of Zeruiah. But 1) we cannot suppose such a double meaning in the declaration (Thenius), and 2) the history is in conflict with this supposition of royal well-living on the part of David, who with his men must have depended chiefly for their living on the booty taken in their incursions. Thenius alters the text<span class=''>37<\/span> after the Sept. and translates: know ye not that and that I am to-day weak and am raised to the position of the king. Those men are harder than I. Jehovah reward, <em>etc.<\/em> But the text of the Sept in the first third of the verse is too confused<span class=''>38<\/span> to allow an emendation of the Hebrew to be based on it. Nor could David yet have said: I am raised to the position of the king. Holding to the text, we might rather adopt Thenius explanation, according to which David, over against Abners greatness and importance for all Israel (which he had just affirmed), sets his own present situation, in which this distinguished man would have been of the greatest value to him, so that the sense would be: How well in my situation could I have used such a man as <em>Abner<\/em>, I who have just been set on the throne! What these men have done I could not have done! (comp. <span class='bible'>2Sa 16:10<\/span>). But God will judge! Yet in this explanation also a confession of <em>weakness<\/em> would be the chief point, which in Davids present situation is altogether improbable. David was actually not set on the throne in respect to all Israel; that does not take place till <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:1<\/span>. The little word just is put in. Before the whole people David has avowed the deepest, sincerest grief of heart for Abner by declaring that he would continue his fasting till the sun went down. Then follows in <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:36-37<\/span> the parenthetical <em>double statement<\/em> of the impression that his conduct made on the <em>people:<\/em> they approved his feeling, and were firmly convinced that he had no part in the murder. It is then further related in <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:38<\/span> (which connects itself with <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:35<\/span>) how David expressed to the narrower circle of his servants (that is, his immediate royal retinue) his grief at the loss that he and Israel had suffered by Abners death. In <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:39<\/span> follows immediately the avowal of his <em>disposition of mind<\/em>, that he as king showed himself <em>soft<\/em> and weak, while those men showed themselves so <em>hard<\/em>. The <em>contrast<\/em> of <em>soft<\/em> and <em>hard<\/em> (here evidently intended) is thus fully preserved in respect not to the political situation, but to mental constitution. The meaning of Davids words would thus be: Wonder not that I so give myself up to grief. You know what a great man we and all Israel have lost. I am then soft and weak, I, an anointed king, while these men, the sons of Zeruiah, are in disposition <em>harder<\/em> than I. They (at least Joab) were obliged indeed to take part in the ceremony of mourning (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:31<\/span>); their hard, inflexible mind, whence proceeded the evil deed, showed itself in their mien and deportment at the ceremony. This gave David occasion to contrast his weakness, his absorption in grief with their hardness, a contrast that is sharpened by his comparing them with himself as king. The concluding words: <strong>The Lord will reward<\/strong>. are the natural expression of the feelings and thoughts that filled Davids soul when he looked at their hardness and inflexible defiance (comp. <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:29<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><strong>HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1. <em>The house of Saul grew weaker and weaker<\/em> <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:1<\/span>. This is the theme of the following narrative of Ishbosheths kingdom under Abners lead and guidance. In the first place, the heir to Sauls throne appears as a very weak man, unfit to rule, without character or will, who is merely an <em>object<\/em> of Abners mighty, unlimited activity, and never (except for a moment in the affair of the concubine) attempts to take the position of <em>subject<\/em> [that is, independent agent] in respect to Abner. While David undertakes nothing of his own will and strength in order to overthrow the dynasty of Saul and gain the promised kingdom over all Israel, patiently waiting for the fulfilment of the promise given him, this fulfilment is already introduced by the fall of Sauls house through its own weakness, and by its loss of the royal throne through the incapacity of its representative for the royal office, with the co-operation at last of Abner, who was still its only support. Ishbosheth appears as a will-less, weak mock-king in degrading dependence on the mighty, vigorous, heroic nature of Abner. When the latter, in reply to the charge made against him of high-handed and reckless proceeding against the royal house, breaks forth into anger, discarding all reverence for his royal master and openly announcing his defection to David, Ishbosheth has nothing to answer, because he fears Abner. Indeed in his utter helplessness Ishbosheth seems to have entertained the thought of sharing the royal dignity with David, being perhaps ready to cede to him the greater part of the power. At least he became Abners passive tool so far as to lend his hand to the fulfilment of the condition on which David was willing to yield to his proposals, namely, the restoration of Michal. The Scripture presents in him a living example of how the sacredly held right of legitimate inheritance has no root when it is not ennobled by a vigorous personality. When the divine calling is lacking, no legitimate pretensions help (P. Cassel, <em>Herz. s. v.<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p>2. David grew stronger and stronger. This second statement also in <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:1<\/span> is in respect to David the title of this section. While David bears himself patiently and humbly in respect to his royal interests, the spirit of the people, under the misrule of Ishbosheth, turns to him more and more in the desire that he may be king over the remaining tribes also (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:17<\/span>). Even the bearer and support of Sauls kingdom, the mighty Abner, inclines secretly to him on the ground of his ever clearer consciousness and conviction that it is Jehovahs will that the kingdom of Israel should depart from the house of Saul and pass over to David; till his rupture with Ishbosheth leads to his open transition to Davids side. Abner had indeed, against his better convictions, maintained his partisan position against David and continued his hostile efforts against him, and it was only after the overthrow of his hitherto unlimited power and the violence done to his self-esteem and ambition, that he came to the conclusion to abandon his position as Davids opponent; and certainly ambitious plans and views for his position in the new kingdom were not wanting in his transition to David and his energetic efforts <em>for<\/em> David. But all this could give David no ground to reject Abners offer; rather he was under obligation to employ this unsought change in Abners mind and position (which entered into his life as a factor permitted by the Lord) for the end (fixed not by himself, but by the Lord) of his kingdom over all Israel, the kingdom of Saul falling to pieces of itself, when the Dictator, who had furnished its outward support, left it. Abners defection from Ishbosheth and effort to gain from the whole people the recognition of Davids authority was an important preliminary step thereto. But further, by a wonderful providence of God, Abners shameful murder by the envious, ambitious Joab was to lead to this result, namely, that, after the <em>Elders<\/em> of the people had already shown themselves willing to recognize his authority over all Israel, <em>the whole people<\/em> gave him their love and confidence; all that he did pleased them (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:36<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>3. The realization of <em>the plans and aims of the wisdom of God<\/em> in the development of David up to his ascension of the royal throne in Israel is secured by the co-operation of human efforts and acts (like Abners and Joabs), which have their ground not in zeal for the cause of the kingdom of God, but in selfish ends and motives of the self-seeking, sinful heart. Human sin must subserve the purposes of Gods government and kingdom.The absolute freedom of control in the things of His kingdom takes the activity of human freedom into its dispensations, and weaves them into the fast closed web of divine arrangements and acts, in which they fulfil the plans of divine wisdom.J. Hetz (<em>Geschicht. Davids<\/em> I. 309) remarks on <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:18<\/span> : Here also it is to be noted how, merely by preparing circumstances, the <em>free<\/em> actions of men have been forced to accord with divine declarations, of which fact this theocracy gives so many examples.<\/p>\n<p>4. Davids words concerning <em>Joab and his house<\/em> are no more the expression of <em>revenge<\/em> than the orders that he gives to Solomon in his last words (<span class='bible'>1Ki 2:5<\/span> sq.) respecting the punishment of Joab for this bloody crime (against Dunker, <em>Gesch. des Alterth<\/em>. I. 386); but they express his moral <em>horror<\/em> at this evil deed, and at the same time the everlasting <em>law of Gods requiting justice<\/em>, which reaches not merely the person, but also the posterity (<span class='bible'>Exo 20:5<\/span>) of the offender. David (though, as theocratic king, he had the right to do it) does not himself execute the deserved act of divine righteousness on Joab, not, as the common view is, because he felt himself too <em>weak<\/em> in his royal office, but because he wished to avoid the appearance of personal revenge, especially now when Abner had just done him such great services. He therefore committed to the Lord the requital and expiation of this crime, <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:39<\/span>. This could be accomplished, however, only through a human instrument. The commission to this end he accordingly gave to his son Solomon (<span class='bible'>1Ki 2:5<\/span> sq.), who, not as his son, as a private person, but as his successor on the throne and as theocratic king, had therein an official duty to fulfil. For in the kingdom of God, in which ruled the law of earthly requital, such a crime might not go unpunished (O. v. Gerlach).<\/p>\n<p>5. In <em>Davids ethical conduct<\/em> in this important episode also, which immediately precedes his ascension of the promised throne, we see individual prefigurations of his humble obedience to the Lord, without whose will he will take no step in life. Under the strongest temptations to arbitrariness and violence, which were the rule with the ancient oriental princes, he maintains strict self-control, exhibits uniform circumspection, a wisdom and discretion cognizant of Gods ways, and does not permit anger at the deed of horror that had been done under his eyes to lead him to immediate, bloody punishment. We must guard against exaggerated demands on the morality of the Old Testament men of God, that we may not unfairly judge them by an improper standard, and that we may not pervert the truth of the divine development of revelation by confounding the stand-points of the Old and New Testaments. Davids invocation of divine punishment on Joab (<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:29<\/span>) (wherein, indeed, we must distinguish between the eternal truth of the divine justice and the <em>sinful<\/em> element of subjective passion) is held by some to be unjustifiable from the Christian point of view. To this it is to be replied once for all, that David belongs to the Old Testament, not the New Testament economy, stands on the stand-point of the Law, not of the Gospel, and therefore is not to be ethically judged according to the New Testament stand-point.<\/p>\n<p>[Dr. Erdmanns remarks on Davids moral motives are determined in part by his interpretation of <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:39<\/span>, about which there is much room for doubt. It may be merely a confession of political weakness that he here makes privately to his friends, in which case his self-control is simply political sagacity. David had high moral and spiritual qualities; at the same time we must guard against the determination to find the loftiest theocratic motives in every act of his life. Dr. Erdmann holds that in <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:39<\/span> David affirms his own softness of nature as reason for his deep grief over Abner, in contrast with the hardness of Joab. The objection to this is that it does not explain sufficiently why David immediately appends an appeal to God for the punishment of the doer of evil. Further, the reason assigned by our author for Davids failure to punish Joab (namely, his desire to avoid the appearance of revenge) seems unsatisfactory; nobody would have accused him of personal vengeance. To the usual interpretation Dr. Erdmann objects that a confession of political weakness on Davids part would have been unwise and untrue. But, what more natural than that he should make such a statement to a select body of friends; and that it was not true, we are not warranted in saying, since we do not know Joabs power and position. The words of the Heb. may refer to political relations, and such a statement would accord with the whole history. It must be allowed, however, that the words are obscure.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><strong>HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:7<\/span> sq. The designs that God has with His chosen ones for the furtherance of His kingdom often have the way smoothed for them through human sins.Single wicked deeds, proceeding from momentary passionate excitement, do often in Gods government give occasion for changes having important consequences.Division among the opposers of Gods kingdom must subserve the furtherance of His aims, and on the contrary, discord among those who, on a like ground of faith, wish to live and labor for the same tasks in the kingdom of God must help the wicked one and further his aims.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:12<\/span> sqq. When an opposer of Gods 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.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:13<\/span>. Where the honor of God and His holy ordinances are concerned, a man should guard his rights, and demand reparation of a right that has been impaired.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:17<\/span> sq. He who has left the ways of unrighteousness, upon which for a long time he had consciously or unconsciously gone, and returned to the way of truth and righteousness, will exhibit the sincerity of his change by a so much the more earnest striving to restore the damage done by his previous conduct, and to carry into execution the previously hindered aims of divine wisdom and love.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:23<\/span> sq. That there is a kingdom of evil is proven by the fact that a mans turning from evil to good, which pleases God and is a joy to the angels, commonly excites bitterness and hate in wicked men, who see their aims and plans thereby interfered with, and awakens an envy and jealousy that does not shrink from the most wicked deeds.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:28<\/span> sq. The honor of ones good name is too precious a possession to let even the suspicion cleave to it of participation in other mens guilt. Manly honor demands that in every way, by word and deed and behaviour, one should set forth his innocence when the circumstances and relations give occasion to untrue and unjust accusations.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:33<\/span> sq. In lamenting the loss of great men who were prominent in advancing the kingdom of God, we not merely render to them the honor they deserve, but also praise God who gave them.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:36<\/span>. That king will be most honored and loved by his people who walks in the ways of God, and by a noble disposition, magnanimity and hearty goodness himself awakens the nobler feelings of his people.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:39<\/span>. In patience and humility must we refer to God the Lord the righteous requital for wicked transgression of His holy commandments. Indifference thereto makes one a partaker of like guilt.[Comp. above at close of Hist. and Theol.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p>On <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:8<\/span>. Schlier: How many stand together and seem the most inseparable friends, so long as each hopes to gain his end; but only let this aim remove to a distance, only let it become manifest that a selfish or ambitious desire is not going to be fulfilled, and how soon is all rent in twain! For there is nothing that really unites men but the fear of God. No friendship is permanent and progressive that is not rooted in the fear of God.[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:9-10<\/span>. Scott: While men go on in their sins <em>apparently without concern<\/em>, they are often conscious that they are fighting against God.Tr.]On <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:16<\/span>. F. W. Krummacher: It appears from this occurrence that, amid the wilderness of ruined domestic relations by which Israel was then overgrown, there was yet here and there to be found the flower of a true and inward love and fidelity. This bloomed in Davids house also, but not unstunted, and he has not remained untouched by the curse which God had laid upon the abomination of polygamy in Israel.On <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:21<\/span>. When a mans ways please Jehovah, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him. <span class='bible'>Pro 16:7<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:27<\/span>. Henry: In this, 1. It is certain that the Lord was righteous. Abner had against the convictions of his conscience opposed David, and had now deserted Ishbosheth, under pretence of regard to God and Israel, but really from pride and revenge. 2. It is as certain that Joab was unrighteous. (1) Even the pretence for what he did was very unjust. (2) The real cause was jealousy of a rival. (3) He did it treacherously, under pretence of speaking peaceably to Abner, <span class='bible'>Deu 27:24<\/span>. (4) He knew that Abner was now actually in Davids service.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p>[Robinson: <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:33<\/span>. Are we all, in our several stations, grieved for the wickedness which we are compelled to witness, and which we cannot prevent or remedy?<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:39<\/span>. Those who possess the highest authority cannot do all they would. We should compassionate rather than envy their situation.Henry: <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:38<\/span>. When he could not call him a saint and a good man, he said nothing of that; but what was true he gave him the praise of, that he was a prince and a great man.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:39<\/span>. This is a diminution, (1) To Davids greatness; he is anointed king, and yet is kept in awe by his own subjects. (2) To Davids goodness; he ought to have done his duty, and trusted God with the issue. <em>Fiat justitia, ruat clum<\/em>.Taylor: Had he put Joab to death, public opinion would have sustained him in the execution of justice; and even if it had not, he would have had the inward witness that he was doing his duty to the state. For a magistrate to be weak, is to be wicked. O what sufferingmay I not even say what sin?David might have saved himself from, if he had only thus early rid himself of the tyrannic and overbearing presence of Joab!Wordsworth: He would have probably prevented other murders, such as that of Ishbosheth and of Amasa; and he would have been spared the sorrow of giving on his death-bed the warrant of execution against Joab, to be put in effect by Solomon. Impunity invites to greater crimes. He is cruel to the innocent who spares the guilty.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:15-16<\/span>. We pity a man who weeps in helpless and apparently innocent suffering. But consider a little, and it may appear that this is only the consequence of a wrong action he committed long ago (<span class='bible'>1Sa 25:44<\/span>). Our pity is not thereby destroyed; but its character is greatly changed.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:17-18<\/span>. How gracefully rulers can yield to the <em>popular wish<\/em> when they conclude that it is their own interest to do so. And how zealous some men will suddenly become to carry out <em>Gods own will<\/em> when their own places have been so changed as to coincide therewith!Hall: Nothing is more odious than to make religion a stalking-horse to policy.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:25<\/span>. An ambitious and unscrupulous man is quick to discern, and ready to distort, the selfish aims of others. Set a thief to catch a rogue. And one who acts from impure motives exposes himself to be accused of grossly wicked designs which he has not at all entertained.<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:27<\/span>; <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:30<\/span>. O mad ambition, that pleads fraternal love and sacred duty to the dead as an excuse for the foul deed that removes a rival! (The principle of blood-revenge did not apply, for Asahel was killed in war; and if it had applied, Hebron was a city of refuge.)<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:33-34<\/span>. The bitterest fruit that even civil war can bear is assassination, a thing to awaken horror in every noble mind.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:38<\/span>. Abner, <em>the soldier turned politician<\/em>.Or a sermon might be made on the general career and character of Abner. See <span class='bible'>1Ch 9:36<\/span>; 1Sa 14:51; <span class='bible'>1Sa 17:57<\/span>; <span class='bible'>1Sa 26:3-14<\/span>; <span class='bible'>2Sa 2:3<\/span>., and the notes; and comp. <span class='bible'>2Sa 4:1<\/span>.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><strong>Footnotes:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[1]<\/span>  with Vb. or Adj. (<span class='bible'>1Sa 2:26<\/span>) indicating progressive increase. Ges.  131, 3, Rem. 3.<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[2]<\/span>  is not= strong (Bttcher on <span class='bible'>Exo 19:19<\/span>), but Partcp. or Verbal Adj.=strengthening (neuter), as  (<span class='bible'>1Sa 2:26<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[3]<\/span>[This rhyming in propositions and division is a somewhat common practice in Germany.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>[4]<\/span><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:7<\/span>. The lacking subject Ishbosheth is supplied in 5 MSS., some printed EDD., and all the VSS. except Chald.; but this shows only that they regarded this name as the proper subject, not that it was originally in the text. Whether it stood originally in our Heb., or we have here a fragment of a fuller narrative in which the subject of the verb was indicated by the context, cannot now be determined.Before to his brethren, in <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:8<\/span>, the copula and is inserted in all VSS. except. Chald., and in some MSS.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>[5]<\/span><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:7<\/span>. In  the quiescent Jod instead of dagh. forte (as is frequent in Chald.). The origin of the word is unknown; comp. Chald.  vigorous beast, perhaps one that has reached years of puberty, (Levy); but comp. Arab. <em>falhas<\/em> and <em>uflud<\/em>.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>[6]<\/span><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:8<\/span>. This rendering of Eng. A. V., taken from the Vulg., cannot be well gotten from the Heb.; the translation in brackets is the one now generally adopted.Instead of  (for ) delivered, Syr. has  and Sept. has  =  (Then.).The change of Prep, after  ( and ) is to be notedSymmachus renders dogs head by  dog-headed.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[7]<\/span>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:12<\/span>.  Qeri . Two general renderings of this phrase are found in the Ancient VSS.: in his place (Sym.: instead of him, Vulg., <em>pro se dicentes<\/em>, Chald., from his place, Syr. omits it) and on the spot (Sept. , followed by Erdmann). The former best accords with the usage, and gives a good sense.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[8]<\/span>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:12<\/span>. The difficulties in this text are 1) the double  saying; 2) the absence of the Art. Before  land; 3) the obscurity of this question. The Heb. text is supported by the VSS., except that the second  is omitted in Syr., Arab., and in a few MSS., and the second in Sept., and the Sept. text of the question is corrupt (the Vat. Sept shows an imperfect triplet: Abner sent messengers to David     , in which  seems to be corrupted out of  ,   is for  , while  is translation of ). It appears that the question and the second  were not understood; Chald.: saying, I swear to him who made the land, sayingSyr.: what is the land?The best course seems to be to omit the second , and seek a meaning in the question.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[9]<\/span>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:13<\/span>. Some VSS. and MSS. have David, which is merely the expression of the obvious subject;Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[10]<\/span>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:13<\/span>. As the Heb. stands it can only be rendered except on condition of thy bringing, (so <em>Bib. Com<\/em>. and substantially Erdmann); Bttchers suggested readings  before (adv.) and  before me, are dropped by himself as unnatural here. He and Wellhausen see a duplet in this text (  and ), which is not improbable, but not necessary. If, in that case, the latter be adopted, the Inf. of the text is retained; if the former, the Perf. must be read.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[11]<\/span>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:14<\/span>. There is no need of inserting this Dat. in the Heb. text, since it is easily supplied from the context, and its omission is in accordance with Heb. usage. But in <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:15<\/span> the suffix must be written  her husband. Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[12]<\/span>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:15<\/span>. Such is the form in the Qeri or margin; the Kethib or text has Lush, which perhaps means the same thing lion. Apparently by inversion the Sept. writes the name Selle.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[13]<\/span>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:17<\/span>. Literally, both yesterday and the day before.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[14]<\/span>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:18<\/span>. so Sept., Syr., Arab., Keil, Cahen; but Vulg., Philippson, Erdmann to David. Thenius would read  concerning (as the context requires) on the ground that  cannot so be rendered; but see <span class='bible'>Jer 22:18<\/span>.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[15]<\/span>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:18<\/span>. The text has the Inf., which after  some would render Jehovah said to save = said that He would save, but this is hard on account of the intervening . and the Impf. is now generally read with many MSS. and printed EDD., and all the Ancient VSS.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[16]<\/span>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:19<\/span>. The  also qualifies not the succeeding word Abner, but the preceding spoke, went (Wellh.).Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[17]<\/span>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:20<\/span>. The Heb. has no Prep. here, employing the Acc. of the point reached; but some MSS. and EDD. insert , and so all VSS. except Chald., which has .Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[18]<\/span>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:21<\/span>. The Sept. has the first person, I will make a covenant with him, which is against the syntax of the context.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[19]<\/span>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:22<\/span>. Lit. from the troop (or predatory band), so the VSS. except Aquila, who has Geddur () which he renders  or . The Heb. expression is somewhat hard and obscure, but may have been a technical one.The Heb. Perfects are here from the connection properly rendered by Eng. Plups. had sent, was gone.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class='bible'>[20]<\/span><span class='bible'>2Sa 3:24<\/span>. The Inf. Abs., the force of which cannot be exactly given in English. Perhaps the Sept. in peace here was designed as a rendering of this Inf., though it is not improbable that it is merely a repetition from the two preceding verses; it is therefore not to be inserted in the Heb. text (against Wellh.).Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[21]<\/span>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:25<\/span>. The phrase the son of Ner is omitted by Syr. and Ar., and its points are omitted in one MS. (224 Kenn.)why, is not clear.The Sept. rendering: dost thou not know the wickedness of Abner? is a weakening of the original; the Syr. also has the neg.-interrog. form, and renders very well that he came to flatter thee.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[22]<\/span>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:27<\/span>. The Prep. is omitted in the text, but some MSS. insert , and so the VSS., according to the Heb. usage.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[23]<\/span>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:29<\/span>. Bttcher and Erdmann (with Vulg. and Syr.) render: one that holds a distaff, that is, an effeminate man (<span class='bible'>Pro 31:19<\/span>). See the Exposition.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[24]<\/span>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:30<\/span>, Erdmann renders: but Joab and Abishai had slain Abner, as if the purpose of the verse were to give the reason for the murder. Wellhausen holds the verse to be an interpolation on the ground that it adds nothing except the inclusion of Abishai in the guilt in order to justify Davids curse on Joabs <em>family<\/em>. It seems better, however, to regard the verse not merely as giving the reason for the murder (which is given in verse 27), nor as superfluous, but as a concluding summing up of the incident, as is so common in Heb. narration.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[25]<\/span>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:33<\/span>. Sept.: Will Abner die according to the death of Nabal? taking  (fool) as a proper name. So in <span class='bible'>2Sa 3:34<\/span> it has    , misunderstanding the  of the Heb., which it read .Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[26]<\/span>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:35<\/span>. De Rossi cites a reading in some MSS.  to make a feast (<span class='bible'>2Ki 6:23<\/span>), which Kimchi said was written but not read, perhaps a clerical error.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[27]<\/span>[<span class='bible'>2Sa 3:36<\/span>. . Wellhausen objects that this  cannot be rendered as a conjunction (as in Eng. A. V.), and therefore prefers the Sept., which omits the . Syr. accords with Sept., and Chald and Syr. insert and before . The reading of Greek and Syr. (and good in their eyes was all that the king did, and good in the eyes of all the people), however, contains a weak repetition, and something like the Heb. text is required by the connection.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[28]<\/span>[See <span class='bible'>2Sa 21:8-11<\/span> and <span class='bible'>Gen 36:24<\/span>.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[29]<\/span>[It is supposed by some that Abner did not marry Rizpah, but used her as a harlot.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[30]<\/span>  (as elsewhere after ) like the Perf., instead of the usual (<span class='bible'>Exo 23:30<\/span>; <span class='bible'>Lev 23:14<\/span> sq.; <span class='bible'>Deu 4:28<\/span>).  here = before. Ew.,  238 <em>d<\/em>,  337 <em>c<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[31]<\/span>[Whether she was divorced from David does not appear.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[32]<\/span>Instead of the Inf.  read with all VSS. and many MSS. the Impf. .<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[33]<\/span>[The bier () was a bed-like structure, often magnificent. So Herods, Jos. <em>Bell. Jud.<\/em> I. 23, 9. See more in Comms. of Pat. and Philipps.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[34]<\/span>  is asseverative particle = if, that is, surely not;  introduces the oath.<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[35]<\/span> . [On this see Text and Gramm.Tr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[36]<\/span>[Of these moral qualities nothing is said in the narrative. Abner <em>may<\/em> have possessed them, but we know nothing about it. Our author&#8217;s picture is the creation of his own imaginationTr.]<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[37]<\/span>He reads  to connect with the preceding  (  ) and    instead of  .<\/p>\n<p><span class=''>[38]<\/span>  for probably corrupted from  (Bttcher)and    alongside of .  .<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p> 2Sa 3:7 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&rsquo;s concubine?<\/p>\n<p> Ver. 7. <strong> Wherefore hast thou gone in, &amp;c.<\/strong> ] Whether this charge were true or false, it appeareth not. But Ishbosheth, belike, suspected that Abner aspired to the kingdom. Compare <span class='bible'>1Ki 2:17<\/span> <span class='bible'>2Sa 16:21<\/span> .<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: John Trapp&#8217;s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p>Ish-bosheth. Ellipsis. But some codices, with three early printed editions, read &#8220;the name&#8221;. <\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p>Rizpah: 2Sa 21:8-11 <\/p>\n<p>Wherefore: This action of Abner&#8217;s seems a most evident proof that he intended to seize on the government; and it was so understood by Ish-bosheth; see parallel texts. <\/p>\n<p>gone in: 2Sa 12:8, 2Sa 16:21, 2Sa 16:22, 1Ki 2:17, 1Ki 2:21, 1Ki 2:22 <\/p>\n<p>Reciprocal: Jdg 19:1 &#8211; a concubine 1Sa 26:5 &#8211; Abner 2Sa 2:8 &#8211; Ishbosheth 2Sa 21:10 &#8211; Rizpah Pro 29:12 &#8211; General<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n<p>2Sa 3:7. Wherefore hast thou gone in unto my fathers concubine?  It was then looked upon as a very great crime for any man, though never so great, to marry the relict of the king; for it was esteemed an affectation of the kingdom; as appears in the case of Adonijah.<\/p>\n<h4 align='right'><i><b>Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>And Saul had a concubine, whose name [was] Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah: and [Ish-bosheth] said to Abner, Wherefore hast thou gone in unto my father&#8217;s concubine? 7. Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah ] The heroine of the tragic story related in ch. 2Sa 21:8-11. and Ish-bosheth said ] Ish-bosheth has fallen out of the &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-2-samuel-37\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 3:7&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8100","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8100","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8100"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8100\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8100"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8100"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8100"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}