Ch. 2Sa 4:1-7<\/span>. The Murder of Ish-bosheth<\/p>\n 1<\/strong>. his hands were feeble<\/em> ] His hands were weakened.<\/strong> His resolution was paralysed: he lost heart. Cp. Ezr 4:4<\/span>, and the opposite expression in ch. 2Sa 2:7<\/span>.<\/p>\n were troubled<\/em> ] Were dismayed.<\/strong> Ish-bosheth was a mere puppet, and Abner the real stay of the kingdom.<\/p>\n 2Sa 4:1<\/span><\/p>\n His hands were feeble.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Men without co-operation weak<\/strong><\/p>\n The man spoken of was Sauls son, and as the son of a king what reason had he to have enfeebled hands? The reason is that Abner was dead. But could not a kings son do without Abner? Have not kings sons abundant resources in themselves, without being dependent upon outsiders, however distinguished? All history replies in the negative. Men belong to one another. The kings son was nothing without Abner, but much with him. The unit one is but a singular number, but the <\/strong>moment a cipher is added to it becomes ten, and another cipher turns the ten into a hundred.<\/p>\n The integer is little by itself, the cipher is nothing at all when it stands alone, but when they are brought together they begin to make themselves felt. It is precisely so in our social relations. What is the husband without the wife? What is the son without the father? What is the scholar without the teacher? What is the flock without the shepherd? It is of no account to reason that there is a variety of value in men, some being worth much, and others being worth little; the fact is that they must all be brought into cooperation. (J. Parker, D. D<\/em>.)<\/p>\n CHAPTER IV <\/P> Some account of Rechab and Baanah, two of Ish-bosheth’s<\/I><\/P> captains, and of Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan<\/I>, 1-4.<\/P> Rechab and Baanah murder Ish-bosheth, and escape; and bring<\/I><\/P> his head to David<\/I>, 5-8.<\/P> David is greatly irritated, and commands them to be slain<\/I>,<\/P> 9-12. <\/P> NOTES ON CHAP. IV<\/P> <\/P> Verse 1<\/span>. All the Israelites were troubled<\/B><\/I>] Abner was their great support; and on him they depended; for it appears that Ish-bosheth was a feeble prince, and had few of those qualities requisite for a sovereign.<\/P> <\/p>\n His hands were feeble; <\/B>his spirit, and courage, and strength failed him. This phrase is used in the same sense Ezr 4:1<\/span>; Neh 6:9<\/span>; Isa 13:7<\/span>; 35:3<\/span>. The Israelites were troubled, because now they were unable to oppose David, and doubtful of obtaining his favour, now Abner their peace-maker was dead. <\/P> <\/p>\n And when Saul’s son heard that Abner was dead in Hebron<\/strong>,…. By Saul’s son is meant Ishbosheth, to whom tidings were soon brought of the death of Abner his general, and that he died in Hebron, where David his rival reigned, and was there murdered by Joab the general of his army:<\/p>\n his hands were feeble<\/strong>: not only in a natural sense, being quite dispirited at hearing such news; but in a civil sense, having lost his main support and strength, he being president of his council, and commander of his forces, and in whom he placed all his confidence: and if he knew nothing of his being at Hebron, it must surprise him to hear of his dying there; from whence he might conclude, that since he was there without his knowledge, it could not be in his favour, some plot was forming, and schemes laying with his rival to dethrone him; or if he knew of it, and understood it in this light, that he was endeavouring to make peace between him and David, and upon advantageous terms to him, of which now he might entertain no hopes; he was dispirited, and might conclude that Joab was against any terms at peace, and therefore had dispatched him:<\/p>\n and all the Israelites were troubled<\/strong>; at the loss of so great a man in their kingdom, and of whose designs to unite them to Judah, and put them under the government David, they were not ignorant; but now were in the utmost confusion, not knowing what step to take, and whom to send to carry on the treaty, in which Abner was concerned; and whether it would be safe for any to go upon it, since he who had the management of it was murdered, and no justice done on the murderer, and therefore might question David’s sincerity and uprightness in this affair; these things greatly distressed and embarrassed them for the present, but Providence opened a way for their future establishment and prosperity.<\/p>\n Murder of Ishbosheth.<\/em> – 2Sa 4:1<\/span>. When the son of Saul heard of the death of Abner, “his hands slackened,”<\/em> i.e., he lost the power and courage to act as king, since Abner had been the only support of his throne. “And all Israel was confounded;”<\/em> i.e., not merely alarmed on account of Abner’s death, but utterly at a loss what to do to escape the vengeance of David, to which Abner had apparently fallen a victim. <\/p>\n 2Sa 4:2-3<\/span> <\/p>\n <\/strong> Saul’s son had two leaders of military companies (for we must read ): the one was named Baanah<\/em>, the other Rechab<\/em>, sons of Rimmon<\/em> the Beerothite, “of the sons of Benjamin,”<\/em> i.e., belonging to them; “for Beeroth is also reckoned to Benjamin”<\/em> ( , over, above, added to). Beeroth<\/em>, the present Bireh<\/em> (see at Jos 9:17<\/span>), was close to the western frontier of the tribe of Benjamin, to which it is also reckoned as belonging in Jos 18:25<\/span>. This remark concerning Beeroth in the verse before us, serves to confirm the statement that the Beerothites mentioned were Benjaminites; but that statement also shows the horrible character of the crime attributed to them in the following verses. Two men of the tribe of Benjamin murdered the son of Saul, the king belonging to their own tribe.<\/p>\n 2Sa 4:3<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> “The Beerothites fled to Gittaim, and were strangers there unto this day.”<\/em> Gittaim<\/em> is mentioned again in Neh 11:33<\/span>, among the places in which Benjaminites were dwelling after the captivity, though it by no means follows from this that the place belonged to the tribe of Benjamin before the captivity. It may have been situated outside the territory of that tribe. It is never mentioned again, and has not yet been discovered. The reason why the Beerothites fled to Gittaim, and remained there as strangers until the time when this history was written, is also unknown; it may perhaps have been that the Philistines had conquered Gittaim.<\/p>\n 2Sa 4:4<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Before the historian proceeds to describe what the two Beerothites did, he inserts a remark concerning Saul’s family, to show at the outset, that with the death of Ishbosheth the government of this family necessarily became extinct, as the only remaining descendant was a perfectly helpless cripple. He was a son of Jonathan, smitten<\/em> (i.e., lamed) in his feet<\/em>. He was five years old when the tidings came from Jezreel of Saul and Jonathan, i.e., of their death. His nurse immediately took him and fled, and on their hasty flight he fell and became lame. His name was Mephibosheth<\/em> (according to Simonis, for , destroying the idol); but in 1Ch 8:34<\/span> and 1Ch 9:40<\/span> he is called Meribbaal<\/em> (Baal’s fighter), just as Ishbosheth is also called Eshbaal<\/em> (see at 2Sa 2:8<\/span>). On his future history, see 2Sa 9:1-13<\/span>, 2Sa 16:1<\/span>., and 2Sa 19:25<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2Sa 4:5<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> The two sons of Rimmon went to Mahanaim, where Ishbosheth resided (2Sa 2:8<\/span>, 2Sa 2:12<\/span>), and came in the heat of the day (at noon) into Ishbosheth’s house, when he was taking his mid-day rest.<\/p>\n 2Sa 4:6<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> “And here they had come into the midst of the house, fetching wheat <\/em> (i.e., under the pretext of fetching wheat, probably for the soldiers in their companies), and smote him in the abdomen; and Rechab and his brother escaped.”<\/em> The first clause in this verse is a circumstantial clause, which furnishes the explanation of the way in which it was possible for the murderers to find their way to the king. The second clause continues the narrative, and is attached to (2Sa 4:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n (Note: The lxx thought it desirable to explain the possibility of Rechab and Baanah getting into the king’s house, and therefore paraphrased the sixth verse as follows: , (“and behold the doorkeeper of the house was cleaning wheat, and nodded and slept. And Rahab and Baana the brothers escaped, or went in secretly”). The first part of this paraphrase has been retained in the Vulgate, in the interpolation between 2Sa 4:5<\/span> and 2Sa 4:6<\/span>: et ostiaria domus purgans triticum obdormivit; <\/em> whether it was copied by Jerome<\/em> from the Itala, or was afterwards introduced as a gloss into his translation. It is very evident that this clause in the Vulgate is only a gloss, from the fact that, in all the rest of 2Sa 4:6<\/span>, Jerome has closely followed the Masoretic text, and that none of the other ancient translators found anything about a doorkeeper in his text. When Thenius, therefore, attempts to prove the “evident corruption of the Masoretic text,” by appealing to the “nonsense ( Unsinn<\/em>) of relating the murder of Ishbosheth and the flight of the murderers twice over, and in two successive verses (see 2Sa 4:7<\/span>),” he is altogether wrong in speaking of the repetition as “nonsense” whereas it is simply tautology, and has measured the peculiarities of Hebrew historians by the standard adopted by our own. J. P. F. Knigsfeldt has given the true explanation when he says: “The Hebrews often repeat in this way, for the purpose of adding something fresh, as for example, in this instance, their carrying off the head.” Comp. with this 2Sa 3:22-23<\/span>, where the arrival of Joab is mentioned twice, viz., in two successive verses; or 2Sa 5:1-3<\/span>, where the assembling of the tribes of Israel at Hebron is also referred to a second time, – a repetition at which Thenius himself has taken no offence, – and many other passages of the same kind.) <\/p>\n Ish-bosheth Slain by His Servants.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 1048.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE> 1 And when Saul’s son heard that Abner was dead in Hebron, his hands were feeble, and all the Israelites were troubled. 2 And Saul’s son had two men that were<\/I> captains of bands: the name of the one was<\/I> Baanah, and the name of the other Rechab, the sons of Rimmon a Beerothite, of the children of Benjamin: (for Beeroth also was reckoned to Benjamin: 3 And the Beerothites fled to Gittaim, and were sojourners there until this day.) 4 And Jonathan, Saul’s son, had a son that was<\/I> lame of his<\/I> feet. He was five years old when the tidings came of Saul and Jonathan out of Jezreel, and his nurse took him up, and fled: and it came to pass, as she made haste to flee, that he fell, and became lame. And his name was<\/I> Mephibosheth. 5 And the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, went, and came about the heat of the day to the house of Ishbosheth, who lay on a bed at noon. 6 And they came thither into the midst of the house, as though<\/I> they would have fetched wheat; and they smote him under the fifth rib:<\/I> and Rechab and Baanah his brother escaped. 7 For when they came into the house, he lay on his bed in his bedchamber, and they smote him, and slew him, and beheaded him, and took his head, and gat them away through the plain all night. 8 And they brought the head of Ishbosheth unto David to Hebron, and said to the king, Behold the head of Ishbosheth the son of Saul thine enemy, which sought thy life; and the LORD<\/B> hath avenged my lord the king this day of Saul, and of his seed.<\/P> Here is, I. The weakness of Saul’s house. Still it grew weaker and weaker. 1. As for Ishbosheth, who was in possession of the throne, his hands were feeble, v.<\/I><\/span> 1<\/span>. All the strength they ever had was from Abner’s support, and now that he was dead he had no spirit left in him. Though Abner had, in a passion, deserted his interest, yet he hoped, by his means, to make good terms with David; but now even this hope fails him, and he sees himself forsaken by his friends and at the mercy of his enemies. All the Israelites that adhered to him were troubled and at a loss what to do, whether to proceed in their treaty with David or no. 2. As for Mephibosheth, who in the right of his father Jonathan had a prior title, his feet were lame, and he was unfit for any service, v.<\/I><\/span> 4<\/span>. He was but five years old when his father and grandfather were killed. His nurse, hearing of the Philistines’ victory, was apprehensive that, in pursuit of it, they would immediately send a party to Saul’s house, to cut off all that pertained to it, and would especially aim at her young master, who was now next heir to the crown. Under the apprehension of this, she fled with the child in her arms, to secure it either in some secret place where he could not be found, or in some strong place where he could not be got at; and, making more haste than good speed, she fell with the child, and by the fall some bone was broken or put out, and not well set, so that he was lame of it as long as he lived, and unfit either for court or camp. See what sad accidents children are liable to in their infancy, the effect of which may be felt by them, to their great uneasiness, all their days. Even the children of princes and great men, the children of good men, for such a one Jonathan was, children that are well tended, and have nurses of their own to take care of them, yet are not always safe. What reason have we to be thankful to God for the preservation of our limbs and senses to us, through the many perils of the weak and helpless state of infancy, and to own his goodness in giving his angels a charge concerning us, to bear us up in their arms, out of which there is no danger of falling, Ps. xci. 12<\/span>.<\/P> II. The murder of Saul’s son. We are here told,<\/P> 1. Who were the murderers: Baanah and Rechab,<\/I>2Sa 4:2<\/span>; 2Sa 4:3<\/span>. They were own brothers, as Simeon and Levi, and partners in iniquity. They were or had been Ish-bosheth’s own servants, employed under him, so much the more base and treacherous was it in them to do him a mischief. They were Benjamites, of his own tribe. They were of the city of Beeroth; for some reason which we cannot now account for care is here taken to let us know (in a parenthesis) that that city belonged to the lot of Benjamin, so we find (Josh. xviii. 25<\/span>), but that the inhabitants, upon some occasion or other, perhaps upon the death of Saul, retired to Gittaim, another city which lay not far off in the same tribe, and was better fortified by nature, being situate (if we may depend upon Mr. Fuller’s map) between the two rocks Bozez and Seneh. There the Beerothites were when this was written, and probably took root there, and never returned to Beeroth again, which made Beeroth, that had been one of the cities of the Gibeonites (Josh. ix. 17<\/span>), to be forgotten, and Gittaim to be famous long after, as we find, Neh. xi. 33<\/span>.<\/P> 2. How the murder was committed, v.<\/I><\/span> 5-7<\/span>. See here, (1.) The slothfulness of Ish-bosheth. He lay upon his bed at noon. It does not appear that the country was at any time of the year so hot as to oblige the inhabitants to retire at noon, as we are told they do in Spain in the heat of summer; but Ishbosheth was a sluggish man, loved his ease and hated business: and when he should have been, at this critical juncture, at the head of his forces in the field, or at the head of his counsels in a treaty with David, he was lying upon his bed and sleeping, for his hands were feeble (v.<\/I><\/span> 1<\/span>), and so were his head and heart. When those difficulties dispirit us which should rather invigorate us and sharpen our endeavours we betray both our crowns and lives. Love not sleep, lest thou come to poverty and ruin.<\/I> The idle soul is an easy prey to the destroyer. (2.) The treachery of Baanah and Rechab. They came into the house, under pretence of fetching wheat for the victualling of their regiments; and such was the plainness of those times that the king’s corn-chamber and his bed-chamber lay near together, which gave them an opportunity, when they were fetching wheat, to murder him as he lay on the bed. We know not when and where death will meet us. When we lie down to sleep we are not sure but that we may sleep the sleep of death before we awake; nor do we know from what unsuspected hand a fatal stroke may come. Ish-bosheth’s own men, who should have protected his life, took it away.<\/P> 3. The murderers triumphed in what they had done. As if they had performed some very glorious action, and the doing of it for David’s advantage was enough not only to justify it, but to sanctify it, they made a present of Ish-bosheth’s head to David (v.<\/I><\/span> 8<\/span>): Behold the head of thy enemy,<\/I> than which they thought nothing could be more acceptable to him; yea, and they made themselves instruments of God’s justice, ministers to bear his sword, though they had no commission: The Lord hath avenged thee this day of Saul and of his seed.<\/I> Not that they had any regard either to God or to David’s honour; they aimed at nothing but to make their own fortunes (as we say) and to get preferment in David’s court; but, to ingratiate themselves with him, they pretended a concern for his life, a conviction of his title, and a zealous desire to see him in full possession of the throne. Jehu pretended zeal for the Lord of hosts<\/I> when an ambition to set up himself and his own family was the spring of his actions.<\/P> <\/p>\n Second Samuel – Chapter 4<\/strong><\/p>\n Assassination of Ish-bosheth, vs. 1-8<\/p>\n When the news of Abner’s murder <\/em>in Hebron reached lshbosheth in Mahanaim he was so disturbed he became ill and had to go to bed. Here is another indication of weakness as the probable cause why he was not among the warrior sons of Saul. The people of Israel were also disturbed, for they did not know what to expect of this turn of events.<\/em><\/p>\n Verses 2 and 3 form <\/em>a kind of explanatory notice of the event about to be related, while verse 4 then is interspersed about the son of Jonathan for a seemingly inexplicable reason. It would appear that the two events (about the Beerothites and the son of Jonathan) are somehow related, but the reason is unclear. Beeroth was one of the towns of the Hivites, who along with Gibeon, made peace with Joshua (Jos 9:17<\/span>). Later it was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 18:25<\/span>). The family of Saul were Benjamites, and it is possible that the Beerothites had befriended his family, helping Mephibosheth to escape from the Philistines when his father and grandfather were slain.<\/em><\/p>\n The record relates how Mephibosheth <\/em>was five years of age when Jonathan, his father, was slain in battle. In the haste of fleeing, when the news of Israel’s defeat and the death of the king and princes reached them, Mephibosheth’s nurse had dropped him and crippled him. He grew up lame in both feet.<\/em><\/p>\n If the Beerothites had been friends <\/em>of Saul’s family, the two mentioned here, Baanah and Rechab, betrayed their trust. They were guilty of one of the most foul deeds related in the Scriptures, one which evidently compelled them to flee their ancestral city and go to Gittaim in another part of Benjamin (see verse 3). Baanah and Rechab must have been trusted servants of Ish-bosheth having free access to his house. They came in at mid-day, when Ish-bosheth had taken his bed, out of fear for Abner’s loss, as though they came to get wheat for the provision of the house hold.<\/em><\/p>\n Finding Ish-bosheth in bed <\/em>they did not hesitate to stab him under the fifth rib and cut off his head. They then fled across the plain in an all-night flight to Hebron and David. Once there they presented the head of their master to the king, informing him that the last of his enemies of the house of Saul was dead. They claimed to have avenged David of those who sought his life. Pfobably they thought David had caused Abner to be slain and would welcome and reward those who completed the coup.<\/em><\/p>\n CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES<\/strong><\/p>\n 2Sa. 4:1<\/span>. His hands were feeble,<\/strong> literally his hands slackened, i.e.<\/em>, he lost the power and courage to act as a king. (Keil.)<\/em> Troubled,<\/strong> or confounded<\/em>.<\/p>\n 2Sa. 4:2<\/span>. Sauls son.<\/strong> Noteworthy is this designation for Ishbosheth. (Erdmann<\/em>.) Captains,<\/strong> etc. The part that these two men play, as well as Abners conduct, suggests the supposition that the firm military organisation that Saul had called into being had relaxed, and a disintegration of the army into separate bodies under adventurers and partisans was imminent, if it had not already occurred. (Erdmann<\/em>.) Beeroth.<\/strong> Probably the present village of Bireh (Jos. 9:17<\/span>), about seven miles north of Jerusalem, and close to the western frontier of Benjamin.<\/p>\n 2Sa. 4:3<\/span>. Fled to Gittain.<\/strong> Where this place was or why the Benjamites fled there is not known; some have suggested that the flight took place at the time of the Philistine invasion mentioned in 1Sa. 31:7<\/span>. In Neh. 11:33<\/span>, a Gittaim<\/em> is mentioned as being inhabited by Benjamites after the exile, but it may not be the same place.<\/p>\n 2Sa. 4:4<\/span>. Mephibosheth,<\/strong> or Meribaal<\/em> (Baals fighter); see 1Ch. 8:34<\/span>. His name was changed doubtless for the same reason as Eshbaal was changed to Ishbosheth<\/em> (see on 2Sa. 2:8<\/span>). This fact is here introduced to show that Ishbosheth was the last of Sauls family who could make any pretensions to the throne, as, according to Oriental notions, the physical infirmity of Mephibosheth unfitted him for the duties of sovereignty.<\/p>\n 2Sa. 4:5<\/span>. On a bed,<\/strong> etc., literally on the mid-day bed<\/em>, in a quiet, cool, retired part of the house, both the hour and the place favouring their deed of bloodshed.<\/p>\n 2Sa. 4:6<\/span>. Fetched wheat.<\/strong> The grain for the supply of their soldiers was evidently kept in the house of the king. It is still a custom in the East to allow the soldiers a certain quantity of corn, together with some pay. (Jamieson<\/em>.)<\/p>\n 2Sa. 4:7<\/span>. As the thread of the narrative was broken by the explanatory remarks in 2Sa. 4:6<\/span>, it is resumed here by the repetition of some of the words. When Thenius, therefore, attempts to prove the evident corruption of the Masoretic text by appealing to the nonsense<\/em> of relating the murder of Ishbosheth, etc., twice over, he is altogether wrong, and has measured the peculiarities of Hebrew historians by the standard adopted by our own. J. P. F. Konigsfeldt has given the true explanation when he says:The Hebrews often repeat in this way for the purpose of relating something fresh, as for example in this instance, their carrying off the head. Compare with this 2Sa. 3:22-23<\/span>, where the arrival of Joab is mentioned twice in two successive verses; or 2Sa. 5:1-3<\/span>, and many other passages. (Kiel.)<\/em> The plain,<\/strong> i.e.<\/em>, the Arabah, or Valley of the Jordan, as in 2Sa. 2:29<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2Sa. 4:8<\/span>. The king.<\/strong> Notice that David is always here so termed, while in respect to Ishbosheth the title is always avoided. (Erdmann.)<\/em> Thine enemy, which sought,<\/strong> etc. These words may<\/em> refer to Ishbosheth, but are generally understood in reference to Saul. Nothing is said in the history of any attempt of Ishbosheth to slay David. (See also on 2Sa. 4:11<\/span>.)<\/p>\n 2Sa. 4:11<\/span>. How much more,<\/strong> etc. The form of the thought is a progression from the less to the greater. If I executed in Ziklag him who avowed having killed at his own request on the battlefield mine enemy Saul, under whose persecutions the Lord delivered me from all adversity, how much more must I demand at your hands the blood of this righteous<\/em> man whom ye murderously slew in his house<\/em> on his bed<\/em>. (Erdmann.)<\/em> Righteous person.<\/strong> The assumption of the regal power which Abner had forced upon Ishbosheth was not a capital crime in the existing state of things. (Kiel.)<\/em> Require his blood.<\/strong> On this phrase see Gen. 9:5<\/span>, according to which God is Himself the avenger of blood. (Comp. Psa. 9:13<\/span>.) David recognises himself as king in Gods service, and as His instrument. (Erdmann.)<\/em><\/p>\n 2Sa. 4:12<\/span>. Cut off,<\/strong> etc. Because the hands and feet were the offending members. Such unishment is still common in Eastern countries. The pool,<\/strong> etc. Outside the town of Hebron is a pool of good water, which, being below the level of the adjoining ground, is accessible by flights of steps at each corner; and there is another reservoir at a little distance, both of which are very ancient. One or other of these must certainly be the pool referred to. The exposure of the mutilated relics at the pool was owing to its being a place of public resort. (Jamieson<\/em>.)<\/p>\n MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE CHAPTER<\/em><\/p>\n THE MURDER OF ISHBOSHETH<\/p>\n This chapter further illustrates the teaching of the preceding one, inasmuch as it<\/p>\n I. Gives two examples of the unconscious co-operation of human actions and Divine purpose.<\/strong> The nurse of Mephibosheth obeyed a Divine instinct when she sought to save her charge from the danger which surrounded him. And she probably did save him from death at the hand of the Philistines, being so far permitted by God to succeed in her praiseworthy endeavour. Mephibosheth was spared to receive from David the tribute of gratitude which he deserved for his fathers sake, but an apparent accident prevented the execution of the full intention. The child was saved, but saved to be a hopeless cripple for the rest of his days, and we can well imagine that his nurse felt long and deep grief in consequence. But most likely her fall was the means of preventing the son of Jonathan from coming into collision with his fathers friend, and so bringing upon himself the fate which befel his uncle. To the miscarriage of the plans of man concerning him he probably owed the blessing of living a peaceful and honoured life instead of one of turmoil and disappointment. The event which to his friends seemed so untoward was an intervention of his fathers God on his behalf, and a meeting and co-operation of the Divine and the human in a purpose of mercy towards him and towards the nation. For the lameness of Mephibosheth, as well as the death of Ishbosheth, was the removal of a hindrance to Davids peaceful accession. The thoughts suggested by this latter event are the same as those upon the murder of Abner in the preceding chapter.<\/p>\n II. It shows the true standard by which to judge human actions.<\/strong> David, like the true man he was, looked at the deed of violence done to Ishbosheth not in the light of the relation in which it stood to himself, but in its relation to the eternal principles of right and wrong. As in the case of Saul (see page 276) he could separate the man from the opponent, and, as in the murder of Abner, he allowed no plausible excuse or plea to blind him to the real nature of the crime. On this subject see also page 289.<\/p>\n OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS<\/em><\/p>\n 2Sa. 4:1<\/span>. Cursed is the man that trusteth in men<\/em>, and maketh flesh his arm. <\/p>\n 1. Because of the frailty<\/em> of all human supports, with which fall the hopes based on them. <\/p>\n 2. Because of the faithlessness<\/em> of men, in whom blind confidence is placed instead of putting confidence in the faithfulness of the Lord. <\/p>\n 3. Because of the danger<\/em> and ruin<\/em> of body and soul to which one thereby exposes himself.Langes Commentary<\/em>.<\/p>\n The contrast is striking between the conduct of Ishbosheth under difficulty and that of David. In the history of David we have repeatedly found his faith faltering, and we have seen him overcome for the time by the spirit of distrust. But these occasions occurred in the midst of protracted and terrible struggles; they were exceptions to his usual bearing; faith commonly bore him up in his darkest trials. Ishbosheth, on the other hand, had no resourceno sustaining power whatever under visible reverses. Davids slips were like the temporary retiring of the gallant soldier, when, fagged and weary, he is driven back for a few moments by superior numbers; but as soon as he has recovered his breath, dashes on undaunted to the conflict. Ishbosheths failure was like the conduct of the soldier who lays down his arms and rushes from the field as soon as he has begun to taste the bitter storm and cruel reverses of the war. With all his slips and failures, there was something in the demeanour of David that showed him to be cast in another mould from that of other men. He was habitually aiming at a higher standard, and upheld by the consciousness of a higher strength.Blaikie<\/em>.<\/p>\n 2Sa. 4:8<\/span>. How evil seeks deceitfully to clothe itself with the appearance of good<\/em>. <\/p>\n 1. By falsehood, in alleging something evil in others as a pretext to make itself appear right and good. 3. By the Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
2. By hypocrisy<\/em>, in representing itself as in harmony with Gods word and will. <\/p>\n