After the death of Saul, when David had returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites, and David had stayed two days in Ziklag; on the third day, behold, a man came out of the camp from Saul, with his clothes torn, and earth on his head. When he came to David, he fell to the earth, and showed respect.
David said to him, “Where do you come from?” He said to him, “I have escaped out of the camp of Israel.”
David said to him, “How did it go? Please tell me.” He answered, “The people have fled from the battle, and many of the people also have fallen and are dead. Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also.”
David said to the young man who told him, “How do you know that Saul and Jonathan his son are dead?”
The young man who told him said, “As I happened by chance on Mount Gilboa, behold, Saul was leaning on his spear; and behold, the chariots and the horsemen followed close behind him. When he looked behind him, he saw me, and called to me. I answered, ‘Here I am.’ He said to me, ‘Who are you?’ I answered him, ‘I am an Amalekite.’ He said to me, ‘Please stand beside me, and kill me; for anguish has taken hold of me, because my life lingers in me.’ So I stood beside him and killed him, because I was sure that he could not live after he had fallen. I took the crown that was on his head and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them here to my lord.”
Then David took hold on his clothes, and tore them; and all the men who were with him did likewise. They mourned, wept, and fasted until evening, for Saul, and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of Yahweh, and for the house of Israel; because they had fallen by the sword. David said to the young man who told him, “Where are you from?” He answered, “I am the son of a foreigner, an Amalekite.”
David said to him, “Why were you not afraid to stretch out your hand to destroy Yahweh’s anointed?” David called one of the young men, and said, “Go near, and cut him down!” He struck him so that he died. David said to him, “Your blood be on your head; for your mouth has testified against you, saying, ‘I have slain Yahweh’s anointed.’ ”
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16 Seeming to lament the overthrow of the people of…
Seeming to lament the overthrow of the people of Israel.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–16 2Sa 1:1 Now it came to pass after the…
2Sa 1:1 Now it came to pass after the death of Saul, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites, and David had abode two days in Ziklag;
Ver. 1. Now it came to pass.] Heb., And it came to pass: for the history is here continued by some of Samuel’s disciples, and, as some gather from 1Ch 29:29, by Gad and Nathan.
Read full note →
After the death of Saul.] Who began his reign with great glory and renown, but ended it with shame. Contrariwise David; who therein also became a type of Christ. {Php 2:7-9}
When David was returned from the slaughter, &c.] And was now triumphing and sending presents to his friends, he is thus, for an allay to those his comforts, met by an evil messenger. Miscentur tristia laetis. It is in heaven alone that we shall have joys without measure or mixture.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16 Which though burnt, yet was not so consumed by…
Which though burnt, yet was not so consumed by the fire, that David and his men could not lodge in it.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 11 Here is, I. David settling again in Ziklag, his…
Here is, I. David settling again in Ziklag, his own city, after he had rescued his family and friends out of the hands of the Amalekites (Sa2 1:1): He abode in Ziklag. Thence he was now sending presents to his friends (Sa1 30:26), and there he was ready to receive those that came into his interests; not men in distress and debt, as his first followers were, but persons of quality in their country, mighty men, men of war, and captains of thousands (as we find, Ch1 12:1, Ch1 12:8, Ch1 12:20); such came day by day to him, God stirring up their hearts to do so, till he had a great host, like the host of God, as it is said, Ch1 12:22. The secret springs of revolutions are unaccountable, and must be resolved into that Providence which turns all hearts as the rivers of water.
II. Intelligence brought him thither of the death of Saul. It was strange that he did not leave some spies about the camp, to bring him early notice of the issue of the engagement, a sign that he desired not Saul's woeful day, nor was impatient to come to the throne, but willing to wait till those tidings were brought to him which many a one would have sent more than half-way to meet. He that believes does not make haste, takes good news when it comes and is not uneasy while it is in the coming. 1. The messenger presents himself to David as an express, in the posture of a mourner for the deceased prince and a subject to the succeeding one. He came with his clothes rent, and made obeisance to David (Sa2 1:2), pleasing himself with the fancy that he had the honour to be the first that did him homage as his sovereign, but it proved he was the first that received from him sentence of death as his judge. He told David he came from the camp of Israel, and intimated the bad posture it was in when he said he had escaped out of it, having much ado to get away with his life, Sa2 1:3. 2. He gives him a general account of the issue of the battle. David was very desirous to know how the matter went, as one that had more reason than any to be concerned for the public; and he told him very distinctly that the army of Israel was routed, many slain, and, among the rest, Saul and Jonathan, Sa2 1:4. He named only Saul and Jonathan, because he knew David would be most solicitous to know their fate; for Saul was the man whom he most feared and Jonathan the man whom he most loved. 3. He gives him a more particular account of the death of Saul. It is probable that David had heard, by the report of others, what the issue of the war was, for multitudes resorted to him, it should seem, in consequence; but he was desirous to know the certainty of the report concerning Saul and Jonathan, either because he was not forward to believe it or because he would not proceed upon it to make his own claims till he was fully assured of it. He therefore asks, How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan are dead? in answer to which the young man tells him a very ready story, putting it past doubt that Saul was dead, for he himself had been not only an eye-witness of his death, but an instrument of it, and therefore David might rely upon his testimony. He says nothing, in his narrative, of the death of Jonathan, knowing how ungrateful that would be to David, but accounts only for Saul, thinking (as David understood it well enough, Sa2 4:10) that he should be welcome for that, and rewarded as one that brought good tidings. The account he gives of this matter is, (1.) Very particular. That he happened to go to the place where Saul was (Sa2 1:6) as a passenger, not as a soldier, and therefore an indifferent person, that he found Saul endeavouring to run himself through with his own spear, none of his attendants being willing to do it for him; and, it seems, he could not do it dexterously for himself: his hand and heart failed him. The miserable man had not courage enough either to live or die; he therefore called this stranger to him (Sa2 1:7), enquired what countryman he was, for, provided he was not a Philistine, he would gladly receive from his hand the coup de grace (as the French call it concerning those that are broken on the wheel) - the merciful stroke, that might dispatch him out of his pain. Understanding that he was an Amalekite (neither one of his subjects nor one of his enemies), he begs this favour from him (Sa2 1:9): Stand upon me, and slay me. He is now sick of his dignity and willing to be trampled upon, sick of his life and willing to be slain. Who then would be inordinately fond of life or honour? The case may he such, even with those that have no hope in their death, that yet they may desire to die, and death flee from them, Rev 9:6. Anguish has come upon me; so we read it, as a complaint of the pain and terror his spirit was seized with. If his conscience now brought to mind the javelin he had cast at David, his pride, malice, and perfidiousness, and especially the murder of the priests, no marvel that anguish came upon him: moles (they say) open their eyes when they are dying. Sense of unpardoned guilt will make death indeed the king of terrors. Those that have baffled their convictions will perhaps, in their dying moments, be overpowered by them. The margin reads it as a complaint of the inconvenience of his clothes; that his coat of mail which he had for defence, or his embroidered coat which he had for ornament, hindered him, that he could not get the spear far enough into his body, or so straitened him, now that his body swelled with anguish, that he could not expire. Let no man's clothes be his pride, for it may so happen that they may be his burden and snare. "Hereupon," saith our young man, "I stood upon him, and slew him" (Sa2 1:10) at which word, perhaps, he observed David look upon him with some show of displeasure, and therefore he excuses himself in the next words: "For I was sure he could not live; his life was whole in him indeed, but he would certainly have fallen into the hands of the Philistines or given himself another thrust." (2.) It is doubtful whether this story be true. If it be, the righteousness of God is to be observed, that Saul, who spared the Amalekites in contempt of the divine command, received his death's wound from an Amalekite. But most interpreters think that it was false, and that, though he might happen to be present, yet he was not assisting in the death of Saul, but told David so in expectation that he would reward him for it, as having done him a piece of good service. Those who would rejoice at the fall of an enemy are apt to measure others by themselves, and to think that they will do so too. But a man after God's own heart is not to be judged of by common men. I am not clear whether this young man's story was true or no: it may consist with the narrative in the chapter before, and be an addition to it, as Peter's account of the death of Judas (Act 1:18) is to the narrative, Mat 27:5. What is there called a sword may here be called a spear, or when he fell upon his sword he leaned on his spear. (3.) However he produced that which was proof sufficient of the death of Saul, the crown that was upon his head and the bracelet that was on his arm. It should seem Saul was so foolishly fond of these as to wear them in the field of battle, which made him a fair mark for the archers, by distinguishing him from those about him; but as pride (we say) feels no cold, so it fears no danger, from that which gratifies it. These fell into the hands of this Amalekite. Saul spared the best of their spoil, and now the best of his came to one of that devoted nation. He brought them to David, as the rightful owner of them now that Saul was dead, not doubting but by his officiousness herein to recommend himself to the best preferments in his court or camp. The tradition of the Jews is that this Amalekite was the son of Doeg (for the Amalekites were descendants from Edom), and that Doeg, who they suppose was Saul's armour-bearer, before he slew himself gave Saul's crown and bracelet (the ensigns of his royalty) to his son, and bade him carry them to David, to curry favour with him. But this is a groundless conceit. Doeg's son, it is likely, was so well known to Saul that he needed not ask him as he did this Amalekite (Sa2 1:8), Who art thou? David had been long waiting for the crown, and now it was brought to him by an Amalekite. See how God can serve his own purposes of kindness to his people, even by designing (ill-designing) men, who aim at nothing but to set up themselves.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–16 Now it came to pass after the death of…
Now it came to pass after the death of Saul,.... The third day after, as appears from the next verse:
when David was returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites; as related in Sa1 30:17,
Read full note →
and David had abode two days in Ziklag; which, though fired by the Amalekites, was not utterly consumed, but there was still some convenience for the lodging of David and his men; within this time he sent his presents to several places in the tribe of Judah, of which mention is made in the chapter before quoted, and at the same time it was that so many mighty men came to him from several tribes spoken of in Ch1 12:1.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1–2 David receives an account of the death of Saul…
David receives an account of the death of Saul and Jonathan, ver. 1-10. He mourns over them, ver. 11, 12. Puts the man to death, who boasted he had killed Saul, ver. 13-16. His elegy upon Saul and Jonathan, ver. 17-27.
Ziklag - Which though burnt, yet was not so consumed by the fire, that David and his men could not lodge in it.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 8, 10, 16 -Year from the Creation, 2949.
THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL
-Year from the Creation, 2949.
Read full note →
-Year before the Incarnation, 1055.
-Year before the first Olympiad, 279.
-Year before the building of Rome, 302.
-Year of the Julian Period, 3659.
-Year of the Dionysian Period, 467.
-Cycle of the Sun, 19.
-Cycle of the Moon, 11.
CHAPTER I
An Amalekite comes to David, and informs him that the
Philistines had routed the Israelites; and that Saul and
his sons were slain, 1-4.
And pretends that he himself had despatched Saul, finding him
ready to fall alive into the hands of the Philistines, and
had brought his crown and bracelets to David, 5-10.
David and his men mourn for Saul and his sons, 11, 12.
He orders the Amalekite, who professed that he had killed Saul,
to be slain, 13-16.
David's funeral song for Saul and Jonathan, 17-27.
NOTES ON CHAP. I
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 2Sa 1:1-2. David had abode two days in Ziklag…
2Sa 1:1-2. David had abode two days in Ziklag — Which, it appears from this, the Amalekites had not so burned down that David and his men could not lodge in it. On the third day — From David’s return to Ziklag. With his clothes rent — As the manner of deep mourners was.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16 Now it came to pass ... - There is…
Now it came to pass ... - There is no break whatever between the two books of Samuel, the division being purely artificial.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 Siceleg, though it had been burnt down. (Salien, the…
Siceleg, though it had been burnt down. (Salien, the year of the world 2949.)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 2Sa_1:1 to 2Sa_5:5
FIRST DIVISION: DAVID’S RULE OVER JUDAH ALONE TILL HE BECOMES KING OVER ALL ISRAEL
2Sa_1:1 to 2Sa_5:5
Read full note →
__________________
FIRST SECTION
David after Saul’s Death
2Sa_1:1-25
1. The News of the Death. 2Sa_1:1-16
1Now [And] it came to pass1 after the death of Saul, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites,2 and David had abode [that David abode] two days in Ziklag [in Ziklag two days]. It came even [And it came] to pass on the third day that, behold, a man came out of [from] the camp from3 Saul with his clothes4 rent and earth upon his head; and so it was [om. so it was] when he came to David, that [om. that] he fell to the earth and did obeisance. 3And David said unto him, From whence comest5 thou? And he said unto him, Out of [From] the camp of Israel am I escaped. And David said unto him, How went the6 matter? 4I pray thee, tell me. And he answered [said], That [om. that]7 the people are fled from the battle, and many of the people also8 are fallen and dead, and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also.8 5And David said unto the young man that told him, How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan his son be dead?9 6And the young man that told him said, As [om. as] I happened by chance upon Mount Gilboa, [ins. and] behold, Saul leaned upon his spear, and lo, the chariots and [ins. the] 7horsemen10 followed hard after him. And when [om. when] he looked behind him [or turned round], he [and] saw me, and called unto me. And I answered [said], Here am I. 8And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered [said to] 9him, I am an Amalekite. He [And he] said unto me again [om. again], Stand I pray thee, upon11 me, and slay me, for anguish is come upon me [the cramp12 hath 10seized on me], because [for] my life is yet whole in me. So [And] I stood upon him and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen; and I took the crown [diadem13] that was upon his head and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord. 11Then David took hold on his clothes and rent them, and likewise all the men that were with him; 12And they mourned and wept and fasted until [ins. the] even for Saul and for Jonathan his son and for the people of the Lord [Jehovah14] and for the house of Israel, because they were fallen by the sword. 13And David said unto the young man that told him, Whence art thou? And he answered [said], I am the son of a stranger,15 an Amalekite. 14And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord’s [Jehovah’s] anointed? 15And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near and fall upon him [Approach, fall on him]. And he smote him that he died. 16And David said unto him, Thy blood16 be upon thy head, for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the Lord’s [Jehovah’s] anointed.
2. David’s Elegy. 2Sa_1:17-27
17And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son, 18(Also he bade them teach the children of Judah The use of the bow;17 behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.) [Om. parenthesis-sign, render: And he commanded that the children of Judah should be taught this song of “The Bow;” behold, etc.:]
19The beauty18 of Israel is slain upon thy high places [heights]!
How are the mighty fallen!
20Tell it not in Gath,
Publish it not in the streets of Askelon,
Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice,
Lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.
21Ye mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew, neither let there be rain upon you [be neither dew nor rain on you],
Nor fields of offerings;
For there the shield of the mighty is vilely cast away,19
[For there was cast away the shield of the heroes],
The shield of Saul as though he had not been anointed [unanointed]20 with oil.
22From the blood of the slain,
From the fat21 of the mighty [of heroes]
The bow of Jonathan turned not back,
And the sword of Saul returned not empty.
23Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant22 in their lives,
And in their death they were not divided.
They were swifter than eagles!
They were stronger than lions!
24Ye daughters of Israel, weep over23 Saul,
Who clothed you in scarlet with other delights,
Who put on ornaments of gold upon your apparel.
25How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle!
O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places [on thy heights].24
I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan.
Very pleasant hast thou been unto me,
Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
How are the mighty fallen,
And the weapons of war perished!
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
I. 2Sa_1:1-16. The news of Saul’s death, and David’s reception of it.
2Sa_1:1 sq. This narrative is closely connected with that of David’s return to Ziklag and Saul’s death in chaps. 30 and 31 of the First Book. The words: “and it came to pass after the death of Saul,” attach themselves immediately to 1 Samuel 31, thus continuing the narrative after the account there given of his death. The words: “and David was returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites,” resume the narrative in 2 Samuel 30, and connect themselves especially with 2Sa_1:17; 2Sa_1:26.—The grammatical apodosis begins with “and abode” (וַיֵּשֶׁב), though according to the sense and the connection 2Sa_1:2 forms the factual apodosis. The narrator desires to make an exact chronological statement for the following account, to bring out prominently that the news of Saul’s death was closely connected with the events related in chs. 30, 31. The precise statement that “after David had stayed two days in Ziklag, the messenger came on the third day with the news of Saul’s death,” indicates, on the one hand, that the narrative is drawn from exact, minute original sources, and, on the other, that David’s return from the battle with the Amalekites happened about the same time as the battle of Gilboa.
2Sa_1:2. And behold, a man came, according to 2Sa_1:6 a youth; he had belonged to the Israelitish army as a combatant.—[See the doubt as to this fact in “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.]—“From with Saul” (מֵעִם) = “from the neighborhood of Saul,” comp. 2Sa_1:3-4. The rent garment and the earth on the head are signs of grief. See 1Sa_4:12. His “falling down” recognizes David as future king. See 2Sa_14:4; 2Sa_19:18; 1Ki_18:7.
2Sa_1:3. “Escaped,” as all the people had fled from the battle, according to 2Sa_1:4.
2Sa_1:4. David’s question: “How was the affair, that happened?” is at the same time the expression of dismay at the news of the flight. The answer is introduced by a Conj. (אֲשֶׁר, Eng. A. V. “that”), here = our “namely;” comp. 2Sa_4:10; 1Sa_15:20 (כִּי is sometimes used). Three statements follow one on another in the rapid, curt account of the informant, who, in keeping with David’s word “tell me,” is repeatedly termed “the young man that told him,” 2Sa_1:5-6; 2Sa_13:1) “The people are fled from the battle,” the whole army broken up in flight; 2) “Many of the people are fallen and dead.”25 This is not in opposition with 1Sa_31:6 : “and all his men,” because the latter refers to the men immediately around Saul; 3) “And also Saul and Jonathan his son are dead.” We may render; “not only many of the people, … but also Saul and Jonathan are dead.” The climax in the three statements is obvious. To David’s question (2Sa_1:5), which refers only to the last statement respecting Saul and Jonathan, the messenger replies (2Sa_1:6-10) with a full account of Saul’s death.
2Sa_1:6. I happened by chance, that is, in the press of battle, and in the flight, which took the direction towards Mount Gilboa, see 1Sa_31:1.—Behold, Saul leaned on his spear. This does not mean (Bunsen) that Saul was lying on the ground, “propping his weary head with the nervously-clutched spear;” no support for this view is found in 2Sa_1:9-10, for the “after he was fallen” in 2Sa_1:10 does not refer to his fall to the ground. Nor is it to be understood (Cler. and others) of the attempt to kill himself (according to 1Sa_31:4). We must rather suppose that Saul was leaning on his spear (which was fixed in the earth, 1Sa_26:7) in order to hold himself up, being perfectly exhausted. While he was standing there, “lo, the chariots (that is, the chariot-warriors) and the horsemen followed hard on him,” came so near that they must soon have reached him, see Jdg_20:42. Death or captivity stared him in the face. It is not probable that “chariots and horsemen” followed the flying Israelites on the mountains; according to 1Sa_31:4 the pursuers were the archers. Cler. justly: “This seems to be the beginning of the young man’s falsehoods.”
2Sa_1:7. And he turned round, which could not be said of him, if he had been lying on the ground.26
2Sa_1:8. The marginal reading “I said” [so Eng. A. V.] is to be preferred to the text “he said,” which seems to have come from the “he said” in the beginning of the following verse (Then.).—[Some take the Hebrews 3 pers. to be oratio obliqua; but this is not probable.—Tr.]
2Sa_1:9. For the cramp has seized me. So we must render this subst., “cramp” as a twisting of the body (from a stem meaning “to weave, interwork, work together”), not “death-agony” (Vulg.), not the “cuirass” or other part of the armor (S. Schmid), nor “vertigo or fainting” (Gesen., De Wette), to which the following: “all my life is yet in me” does not suit. In consequence of his excitements and exertions, Saul found himself in a bodily condition in which he could not defend himself against the onpressing enemy. The “because” (the second כִּי) gives a further reason for the request to slay him, since Saul feared that in his defenceless condition he would suffer the indignity of falling alive into the Philistines’ hands.27—[Paraphrase of 2Sa_1:9 : Kill me, for the enemy will soon be on me, I am too badly wounded to defend myself, yet, not being mortally wounded, I shall be taken alive.—Tr.]
2Sa_1:10. The Amalekite says, that he slew Saul in accordance with his request, because he saw he “would not live after his fall,” could not survive his fall. The “fall”28 does not mean “apostasy from God” (O. v. Gerlach), for, apart from the impossibility of the Amalekite’s using such an expression, we should expect some corresponding additional phrase; nor “falling after a severe, but not mortal wound,” inflicted by himself (Cler., Schmid et al.), for this view presupposes a wrong conception of the “leaning on his spear,” the account in 1Sa_31:4 being mixed up with this account. The “fall” here means “defeat;” see Pro_24:16.—He took from his head his golden diadem (not “crown,” נֵזֶר), the emblem of the royal dignity. The “bracelet or arm-band” was worn not only by women, but also by men, see Num_31:50. So the army-commanders are adorned on the Assyrian monuments (Layard’s Nineveh), and the kings on the Egyptian. The Amalekite brings from Saul’s corpse the symbols of the royal dignity in order to confirm his words, and thus secure the favor of David, whom he looked on as king, and gain a rich reward.—The narrative of the Amalekite contradicts 1Sa_31:3, where Saul kills himself with his own sword. The explanation of this difference by the assumption of two different original accounts of Saul’s death (Gramberg, Religionsid. II. 89, and Ewald) is totally baseless (Then.). Winer (R.-W. II. 392): “In any other than a biblical writer, this difference would certainly not be regarded as proof of the composition of the Book from two narrations” Equally untenable is the attempt at harmonizing the two (Joseph., Ant. 6, 14, 7, some Rabbis, and especially S. Schmid) by saying that Saul had only wounded himself severely by falling on his sword, and received the death-stroke from the Amalekite; this contradicts the statement in 1Sa_31:1.—A careful comparison of the Amalekite’s account with the other shows that, although his statement about Israel’s defeat and the enemy’s pressing on Saul was true, he lied in saying that he killed Saul, in order to gain favor and a royal reward from David; so Theod., Brenz, Calov., Serar., Sankt., Cler., Mich., Winer, Then., Keil—[A. Clarke, Kitto, Bib. Com., Philippson reject the Amalekite’s story as a fabrication; Patrick and Gill seem to think it in general true, though distorted here and there; Wordsworth defends it (appealing to Josephus), taking it to be supplementary to the other—if it were not true, he asks, why did the Amalekite not deny it, when he saw that he was to be put to death for it? To this it may be replied, that no time was given him, or perhaps he did deny it, and his denial was disregarded. As for the diadem and bracelet, he might easily have picked them up before the Philistines came to strip the slain. His account of Saul’s death cannot well be harmonized with that of 1 Samuel 31., and then he had an obvious motive for his story.—Tr.]
2Sa_1:11 sq. “Weeping and mourning aloud” and rending the garments on the breast were signs of grief and sorrow for the dead. See Gen_37:34-35; Gen_50:1; 2Sa_3:32; 2Sa_3:34; Jdg_11:35.—The whole body of soldiers took part in David’s deep grief. The Sept. adds at the end: “rent their clothes” as explanatory of the terse Heb. text. The numerous signs of sorrow here mentioned, rending the garments, mourning, weeping, fasting (“till evening”) exhibit the greatness of David’s sincere grief. The order of mention of the objects of the lamentation is the inverse of that in 2Sa_1:4 : Saul, Jonathan, the people. His grief for Saul shows his heart to be free from bitterness, revenge and malignant joy; he mourns the fall of the anointed of the Lord. His heart must have been filled with deep sorrow for the death of Jonathan, whom he had not seen since the incident recorded in 1Sa_23:18. He laments over the slain and scattered people for the misery and ignominy that had befallen them through defeat by the uncircumcised heathen. He calls them “the people of the Lord” with special reference to their position as a people chosen by the Lord from all nations, thus His special property by a holy covenant, whose wars against foreign nations, out of whom he had separated them, are the Lord’s wars, comp. 1Sa_25:28. The house of Israel denotes the people as a unit, with reference to their common descent. The people of the Lord was in this battle abandoned by the Lord; the house of Israel as a whole and in all its parts was cast down.—[On the alleged difficulty in the text of the latter part of this verse see “Text, and Gram.”—Tr.]
2Sa_1:13 sq. To David’s question concerning his origin the young man answers that “he is the son of an Amalekite stranger,” that is, of an Amalekite who had settled in Israel29
2Sa_1:14. From the same reverence for the sacred life of Saul that he showed before in the words: “I will not lay my hand on my lord, for he is the Lord’s anointed” (1Sa_24:11), springs David’s indignant question to the Amalekite: How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thy hand against the Lord’s anointed?—Comp. 1Sa_31:4 where the armor-bearer “fears” to do such a thing. This question supposes that the young man, as a foreigner at home in Israel and living under its law, might very well know what a crime he committed in laying his hand on the king’s person, even at the king’s request. The question shows beyond doubt that David took his account to be true, and his indignation at the crime shows how far he was from any sort of revenge against the (in his eyes) sacred person of Saul.
2Sa_1:15. David causes the Amalekite to be straightway slain for his self-avowed crime. He slays him not merely that, after the Amalekite has confessed the regicide, he (David) may not be supposed to countenance such a crime, and especially not Saul’s murder (Thenius), but he punishes him for his crime against the person of the anointed of the Lord, and that on the ground of his right as the king now chosen and appointed by the Lord. It was a theocratic, not a political act, as Glericus think (“it is to be attributed to political reasons”), and so Thenius and other moderns.
2Sa_1:16. While the preparations for the execution of the judgment are going on, David pronounces the formal sentence of capital punishment: Thy blood30 be on thy head.—“Thou hast brought this bloody punishment on thyself, having confessed thy crime”—For thy mouth hath testified against thee—The ground of the sentence of death was the statement of the Amalekite himself; he affirmed that the ornaments he brought were taken from the body of Saul, designing thus to prove that Saul had been killed by his hand, and hoping to receive a rich reward. See 2Sa_4:10.—Theodoret remarks that it was becoming that the “Prophet and King” should be astonished at this deed, but not blame it.—[It was so obvious and dreadful a crime that he could only express astonishment at it.—Tr.]—What David himself with holy horror had refused to do, namely, to lay hands on Saul’s sacred person, this murderer (so it seemed to him) had done.—[The Commentators refer to the fact that the law requiring two witnesses in a death-sentence was here set aside from the peculiarity of the circumstances. There is no trace of special anger and haste because of the nationality of the supposed regicide; but the execution may without difficulty be regarded as having a political character—not that David, looking to his own accession to the throne, wished to ward off such attempts against himself, or to curry favor with Saul’s friends, but that, regarding himself as in fact the highest political authority in the land, he dispensed punishment for a notorious and shocking political crime. It can hardly be suspected (Philippson) from the words: “thy mouth hath witnessed against thee,” that “David saw through the Amalekite” Against the allegation that David’s conduct here was hypocritical, Chandler cites the cases of Alexander weeping over Darius, Scipio over Carthage, Caesar over Pompey, and Augustus over Antony.—Tr.]
II. David’s elegy. 2Sa_1:17-27
2Sa_1:17. And David sang this lament.—That David was the author of this elegy is proved by this history, as well as by the vigor of the song and its harmony with David’s situation and feeling. For the general defeat of Israel David and his men expressed their sorrow as is above related. Here follows the voice of mourning from David’s heart especially over Saul and Jonathan, the deaths of both of whom must powerfully have moved him, though for different reasons.
2Sa_1:18. Two notices are prefixed to the Song: one as to its destination; the other as to its source. As respects its destination it is said: “and he said (commanded) to teach it to the children of Judah,” they were to learn and practice it (comp. Deu_31:19; Psa_60:1), probably that they might sing it in their military practice with the bow (Grot., Delitzsch in Herz. xii. 280). For קֶשֶׁת is best understood (from 2Sa_1:22) as the title: Song of the Bow.—[Eng. A. V. improperly supplies: “the use of.”—Tr.]—With all its notes of sorrow the whole Song has a warlike ground-tone, celebrating Saul and Jonathan as warriors, and “the bow was a principal weapon of the times, and used especially by Saul’s tribesmen, the Benjaminites, with great success, see 1Ch_8:40; 1Ch_12:2; 2Ch_14:7; 2Ch_17:17” (Keil). Böttcher connects “bow” with “children of Judah” and renders: “to teach the archers of Judah;” but against this restriction to Judah, Thenius rightly remarks that David’s purpose doubtless was that the whole people should preserve a faithful remembrance of Saul and Jonathan. Instead of “bow” (קֶשֶׁת). Then. and Ew. substitute adverbial accusatives, the former “heedfully” (קֶשֶׁב, Isa_21:7), the latter “exactly” (קשֶׁט). Against this see the admirable remarks of Böttcher.—[Böttcher points out that Thenius’ “heedfully” applies to hearing, and does not suit here, and that Ewald’s conjectured word means “truth,” not “correctness,” and further requires (if he write קשת) the substitution of the late Aramaic ת (in this word) for the Heb. ט. To regarding “Bow” as the title of the Song Böttcher objects that this ought in that case to be its first word; or, if the mention of the bow in 2Sa_1:22 justifies this title (as the second Sura of the Koran is called “The Cow” from the incidental story of Moses’ cow in it), the word should at least have the Art., and we should indeed expect “the song of the bow.” On the other hand we may refer to such titles as those of Psalms 22, 56, 45, 60. (Kitto). A new suggestion is made by Bib. Com., that there was in the Book of Jashar a collection of poems, in which special mention was made of the bow (2Sa_1:19-27; 1Sa_2:1-10; Num_21:27-30; Lamentations 2.; Lamentations 3; Genesis 49; Deuteronomy 32; perhaps Deuteronomy 33, etc.), that this collection was known as Kasheth (the bow), and that the author of 2 Sam. transferred this dirge from the Book of Jashar to his own pages with its title as follows: “For the children of Israel to learn by heart. Kasheth from the Book of Jashar;” the “and he said” must then be regarded as introducing the Song, the title being a parenthesis. The objection to this rendering is the position of the “and he said,” which it is hard to attach to the dirge, and the way in which the Book of Jashar is referred to, which does not suit a title like those in the Psalms—So far no satisfactory translation has been given from the existing text, nor any satisfactory emendation suggested. The rendering of Erdmann is adopted as offering the fewest difficulties—Tr.]—The source whence the author drew this Song was “the Book of the Upright” (Sing.), or if the subst. (Jashar) be taken as collective, of the upright ones (Vulg. liber justorum). Comp. Jos_10:13. It was in existence before the Books of Joshua and Samuel, and contained (judging from the two extracts here and in Joshua) a collection of Songs on specially remarkable events of the Israelite history, together with celebration of the prominent pious men, whose names were connected with these events (see Bleek, Introd.); Maurer: “songs in praise of worthy Israelites.”—[On the Book of Jashar or The Upright, the various opinions as to its origin and character (including Donaldson’s fanciful and unsound book), the two Rabbinical works of this name, the anonymous work of 1625 (an English translation of which was published in New York in 1840 by M. M. Noah; it abounds in fables, and was apparently the work of a Spanish Jew), and the “clumsy forgery” which appeared in England in 1751 under the name of the “Book of Jasher” (reprinted in 1827 and in 1833)—see Art. “Book of Jasher” in Smith’s Bib. Dict., and Gill’s Commentary in loco and on Jos_10:13. Patrick holds the opinion that it was a book concerning the right art of making war (Jasher—right), and quotes Victorinus Strigelius, who says that it was “an ecclesiastical history like those of Eusebius and Theodoret.” The author has been surmised to be Gad or Nathan, inasmuch as no extract is given from the work later than the death of Saul. Dr. Erdmann states in the text the substance of what we know about it.—Tr.]
2Sa_1:19. The glory of Israel on thy heights slain!—This lament is the superscription of the whole song; herein David addresses “the people of the Lord, the house of Israel” (2Sa_1:12). “Israel” cannot be taken as Vocative, “O Israel” (Buns., Keil, et al. [Kitto, Stanley, Bib. Com.]), because then the expression “the glory” would stand too isolated and undefined, especially at the beginning of the song; we must therefore suppose it to be defined by the following word.—[Bib. Com., to avoid this difficulty, renders: “thy glory;” Chandler, Philippson and Cahen: “O glory of Israel,” which is easier as supplying an antecedent for the “thy heights;” but perhaps less suitable in the connection, where we should not so naturally expect a mere exclamation, and where the subst. verb could not with this translation be supplied. Still it is a quite possible rendering, and deserves consideration.—Tr.]—Some render the opening word (הַצְּבִי) “Gazelle” (De Wette, et al. [Kitto, Stanley]), and Ewald then refers this to Jonathan, who, he says (Thenius: “a high-handed way, in truth, of dealing with history”), was generally known among the warriors as “the Gazelle;” but this, apart from the absence in the song of any comparison with the gazelle, or any allusion to its swiftness and agility, is untenable simply because the song speaks throughout not of one hero (Jonathan), but of two (Saul and Jonathan). As the composition has the ring of a hero-song in honor of these two, who were in fact the hero-glory of Israel, we must render the word “glory, ornament.” The “heights,” on which these the “ornament of Israel” were slain, are the mountains of Gilboa, on which David looks as the scene of the tragic end of the two greatest heroes of Israel. At the outset of his song he laments the heavy loss which Israel suffered in noble, hero-power. This sorrowful lament is still more definitely expressed in the following words: “How are the heroes fallen!” Thrice it appears as the ground-tone of the whole song. Here at the beginning it introduces the lament for the two strong heroes, Saul and Jonathan (2Sa_1:20-24), which forms the greater part of the song; in 2Sa_1:25 it is the basis for the lament over Jonathan alone, the deeply loved friend. At the close (2Sa_1:27) it sounds out the third time, strengthened by a parallel exclamation, that the whole song as a hero-elegy may not merely “die away in a last sigh,” but close with an exclamation aloud of deepest grief over the loss of these great heroes.
2Sa_1:20. The two Philistine cities Gath and Askelon, as the most prominent, are named in the language of poetry, for the whole land, which they represent (Gath very near, Askelon at a distance on the sea). The singer will not have Israel’s great calamity known among the heathen [he did not know that the Philistines had possession of the bodies of Saul and his sons.—Tr.], for they are the “uncircumcised,” the enemies of Jehovah and of His people. The latter’s shame is already great enough in being overcome and trodden down by the uncircumcised nation; may it not be increased by Philistine songs of triumph over vanquished Israel.—Tell it not in Gath, so Mic_1:10. “The rejoicing of the daughters of the Philistines” refers to the common oriental custom of the celebration by the women and virgins with songs and dances of the heroic deeds and triumphal return of the men (see 1Sa_18:6).—David’s expression: “Tell it not,” etc., must be conceived and understood throughout according to its poetical significance: he wishes that Philistia may not learn of this defeat, that Israel may be spared the shame of becoming the object of the Philistines’ scornful joy over victory. In fact the defeat of Israel could not possibly remain unknown; news of it had already gone through the whole land (1Sa_31:9 sq.). It would be in contradiction with the poetical type to suppose (as Sack does) that David’s words are an exhortation to the men assembled about him on Philistine soil [at Ziklag], that they themselves at least should not announce the sad news to the enemy. Nor is 2Sa_1:21 to be taken as a real imprecation against Nature (Then.), but as a poetical image.
2Sa_1:21. Over against the exultant joy of victory of Israel’s enemies, which he would gladly be spared, David sets the attitude of mourning, in which he would behold the mountains of Gilboa, the scene of his heroes’ death-struggle: ye mountains in Gilboa, poetical for the usual prose-form: “mountains of Gilboa” (2Sa_1:6; 1Sa_31:1), the Preposition further defining the Stat. Const. (see on this construction Ew. § 289 b, Ges. § 116, 1).—[Others suppose, not so well, that Gilboa is here named as a tract of country.—Tr.]—Be there neither dew nor rain on you!—May you lack that which makes you green and fruitful, and dispenses fresh life. Waste and desert they were to lie, that their death might present forever a picture of the dreadful end of those that were slain there, and so Nature might, as it were, mourn for them.—And fields of first-fruits (be not on you).31 The fields from which were taken the firstlings (as best), were the most fruitful. The expression therefore means: may these places be destitute (not only of fructifying dew and rain, but also) of the products of a fruitful soil, may there be here no fruitful fields whence might be gathered offerings of first-fruits. This is a poetical elaboration of the thought expressed in the figure of the dew and rain, and is by no means “meaningless” (Then.). There is no need for changing the text, as Thenius, for example, after Theodotion would read: “ye forests and mountains of death.”32 Equally untenable is Böttcher’s conjecture (Aehrenlese, p. 24, and Neue Aehrenl, p. 139): “on the fields of Jarmuth,”33 especially as “the name of the city in question [Jarmuth] is doubtful, and its location near Gilboa arbitrary” (Then.). The translation “lofty fields” (campi editi, Cler., Maur.) is opposed to the usual meaning of the Heb. word (תְּרוּמות), is here without special significance, and requires too much to be supplied in order to connect it with the preceding: “and on you, ye lofty fields,” come neither dew nor rain.—For there is defiled the shield of the heroes, defiled with dust and blood, not “cast away” (Vulg.).—[Eng. A. V.: “vilely cast away,” combining, not badly, the two shades of meaning of the word.—Tr.]—The shield of Saul is specially mentioned as the military emblem of the leader of the army.—Not anointed with oil. This is not an explanation of the words “defiled is Saul’s shield,” as the Vulg. has it: “the shield of Saul, as if it were not anointed with oil,” nor a reference to Saul: “as if he were not anointed,” 1Sa_10:1 sq. (J. H. Michaelis, S. Schmid, Dathe, et al. [Eng. A. V.]), the “as if” and the reference to the royal anointing being both wrongly introduced; but it expresses the fact that the shield is not “anointed with oil,” as was usually done to the metallic shield (מָגֵן), in order to clean and polish it when it was stained with blood and defiled by dirt and rust (see the description in Isa_21:5). In the individualizing poetical language the defiled and uncleansed shields denote the unfitness for war and the helplessness of the glory of Israel lying powerless in dust and blood. If the shield of Israel lack its ornament and grace, so mayst thou also, O field of slaughter, lack thine, mourn thou waste and dreary! Let Nature respond to the shame and wretchedness of the people.
2Sa_1:22 celebrates the bravery of the two heroes, which impelled them ever onward to victory, that thus the contrast to their sad end may come out more prominently. To Jonathan is assigned the bow (comp. 1Sa_18:4; 1Sa_20:20), to Saul the sword. They thus represent the weapon-power (“Wehr und Waffen”34) of the whole people. The sword, and in a sort the arrow, drinks the blood and devours the flesh. This frequent poetical conception (2Sa_2:26; Deu_32:42; Isa_1:20; Isa_34:6; Jer_2:30; Jer_46:10) mingles in the words: Saul’s sword returned not empty [Jonathan’s bow turned not back]; these heroes were accustomed to gain complete victory, to overthrow and destroy all opposing power (comp. 1Sa_14:15).
2Sa_1:23. The singer sets forth how the two met death not only together, but also in a deep, cordial union of war-comradeship. They were “beloved” and “lovely, amiable,” the latter quality being the cause of the former; important data for the characterization of the two men, both adjectives being referred to each. Comp. the corresponding description of Saul in 1Sa_9:2 sq. and 1Sa_10:24. David here looks at him only in the light of his God-given noble endowments and qualities, and praises them, turning his glance away (in view of his death) from the time during which the “evil spirit” had darkened and destroyed his nobility, and not thinking of the persecutions he himself had suffered.—In life and in death—not divided.35—On the one hand David here bears witness to the cordial love that Saul felt for his son, traces of which we find in 1Sa_19:6; 1Sa_20:2, though according to 1Sa_20:30 sq. the evil spirit in him burned in hot anger even against Jonathan. On the other hand David here praises the filial love of Jonathan, in which he remained true to his father in spite of the latter’s hatred and persecution of his friend, not permitting his friendship to diminish his filial piety. Equal in noble qualities of heart, bound together in life and death in cordial personal association, they had also the noblest heroic qualities in common: each was distinquished for eagle-like swiftness and agility (Isa_40:31; Deu_28:49; Jer_4:13; Lam_4:19; Hab_1:8), for lion-like courage and strength (2Sa_17:10; Jdg_14:18; Pro_30:30). How sorrowful, then, the loss!
2Sa_1:24. Saul’s gracious free-handedness in dividing out the booty of war. Scarlet-red, purple or crimson (שָׁנִי, Exo_25:4; Jdg_5:30; Pro_31:21).—With delights=in an amiable manner [or the “with” may=“and;” in scarlet and (other) delights.—Tr.].—To this costly clothing for women he added golden ornaments, brought along in the spoil of war. As the men are to mourn for the hero, so the women for the gracious king, who out of the booty of his battles has bestowed on them costly adornment.—[The poetical power of this appeal to the women of Israel, beautiful in itself, is heightened when we recollect that these women had once sung the war-praises of Saul, and were therefore the admirers of his prowess as well as the grateful recipients of his bounty. Womanly tenderness is to mourn the fallen hero, whom in his life womanly enthusiasm had celebrated.—Tr.]
2Sa_1:25-26. The special lamentation for Jonathan. 2Sa_1:25. The first part is a repetition of the lamentation in 2Sa_1:19 b with the addition: in the midst of the battle. Then follows first the lamentation over the fact of his death: Jonathan on thy heights slain, comp. 2Sa_1:19 a. David mentions him alone, in order to bemoan what he had lost in him, the dearly-loved friend. His union of heart with his friend differences this lament sharply from the foregoing over him and Saul as heroes.—I am distressed, etc., thus standing first indicates that David’s heart was deeply moved, and utterly given up to grief. My brother—the expression of the cordial brotherly love that united them.
Very pleasant wast thou to me must be understood as setting forth the deep impression that Jonathan made on him by his faithful, absorbing love. On this account, and because of the expression: “I am distressed,” the “thy love” can only = “thy love to me,” not “my love to thee” (Bunsen). “David mourns for him not because he himself loved him, but because he has lost him” (Then.). “More wonderful, extraordinary”36 than the love of women, the love that women bear—thus he sets forth the deep devotion of Jonathan’s love, like that which is peculiar to women, and is the basis of the completest loving union between man and woman. Theodoret; “As they that are married are made one flesh by their union, so they that love one another perfectly are made one in soul by their disposition of mind.” In these words David has not only reared to Jonathan a monument of friendship, but also borne testimony to that highest ideal of friendship (realized in him), which in the Old Testament was possible only on the basis of a common covenant of heart with the living God.
2Sa_1:27. The climacteric expression of sorrow after this declaration of highest loss in Jonathan’s love: How are the heroes fallen! At this culmination of grief the lament again sounds the key-note of the whole, and returns in conclusion to its chief object, the sorrow for the hero-glory of Israel destroyed in Saul and Jonathan. For the concluding words: The weapons of war are perished, refer not to materials of war (Vulg., De Wette, Böttcher, al.). This would be a psychologically inconceivable transition, in sharpest contrast with the lofty tone of the Song, from the deepest, tenderest, innermost sorrow of heart for what the singer and all Israel had lost in these two heroes, to a lament which, as Thenius admirably says, a Napoleon might have made, but not a David. The “weapons of war” are the heroes considered as instruments of battle and war; comp. Isa_13:5; Act_9:15 (σκεν͂ος). [The exquisite beauty of this Ode has been noted by all commentators. The artistic skill with which its successive thoughts are introduced is equal to the beauty and passionate tenderness of the thoughts themselves. The lament over Israel’s glory slain—the picture of exulting foes—the imprecation on the spot of ground that witnessed and, as it were, permitted the misfortune—the praise of the military exploits of the heroes, their oneness, their strength—the appeal to the women—the picture of Jonathan’s deep and faithful love—these are all exquisitely expressed and connected; the ode has unity, and yet, short as it is, has wonderful variety.—It is to be observed that the divine name does not occur in the song, nor does it contain any theocratic or religious thought. There is no reference to Jehovah’s wrath, no prayer for Jehovah’s interposition, no expression of resignation to the divine will. Whatever David may have thought of these things, he here says nothing about them. The elegy, therefore (though noble in feeling), is not religious; it is a national song, as the title seems to indicate, and is here chronicled by the historian as the speech of Jotham (Judges 9.) or that of Tertullus (Acts 24.) is recorded—a gem of ancient Hebrew poetry, not only pleasing as poetry, but instructive in the light that it throws on the personages and events of the time.—Tr.]
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. David’s noble, kingly disposition is here splendidly attested in the temptation that the announcement of Saul’s death brought him. Suddenly he sees himself freed from the persistent murderous persecutions of Saul, and the way open for his accession to the long-promised royal power and honor; how easily might his heart have abandoned itself, if not to malicious joy, at any rate to joy at God’s righteous judgment on his enemy, and the restoration of quiet in his life and peace in his land! How human and natural it would seem if he expressed satisfaction at Saul’s end and its results for himself! Instead of this we see in David’s words and conduct in the presence of this terrible catastrophe the noblest and purest unselfishness, and concern only for the sacred interests of Israel as the people of the Lord. Looking altogether away from himself and his royal calling, he immerses himself with his men in mourning for the national calamity, for the downfall of the army of the Lord, for the violation done to the Lord’s honor in the defeat of His people. He shows deep, true sorrow for Saul’s death, looking away from all that Saul had done to him, and taking note only of what he was for Israel in his royal calling as Anointed of the Lord. Further, he without envy celebrates him as the glory of Israel in the elegy, which contemplates Saul only as military hero, but as such from the theocratic point of view in his quality of leader of the people and army of the Lord. As he acted theocratically with perfect justice in slaying in holy anger the Amalekite as the murderer of the Lord’s anointed, giving no room in his heart to revenge, so he stands on the summit of the theocratic view, when in his elegy he celebrates Saul as the national hero and consecrated leader of Israel, being wholly free from bitterness and anger at the suffering that Saul had so long inflicted on him. All selfish feeling vanishes, in the presence of the slaughtered people and the slain king, in the general theocratic concern for Israel and in the consciousness of the Lord’s control over His people with the army and its leaders. “David’s lament over Saul and Jonathan is the consecration of completion that is poured out over the attestation of his royal disposition” (Baumgarten). It is “a monument of his noble unrevengeful spirit. He who can so speak of the enemy who has for years sought his life and inflicted on his soul wounds that never heal, can certainly not be charged with revenge” (Hengst., 4:298 sq.).
2. While he thus exhibits a noble, high-hearted disposition, David also presents an example of true love of enemies, being not merely free from all feeling of revenge in the heart, making no complaint or accusation concerning the wrong done him, uttering no word of joy over the judgment that has befallen his enemy, but mourning his fall as that of a friend, avenging in holy anger the insult offered to God in his person, and dwelling with just recognition and praise on the good with which God has endowed him.
3. As David did, so must every servant of God keep the good and righteous cause for which he fights and suffers (whether it be merely personal, or also a matter of God’s kingdom) free and pure from the self-seeking that mingles therewith under the pretence of furthering and completing it, that he may not set himself at variance with God’s holy will, whose wise direction prepares right ways for it, nor with the ends of his kingdom which can never be furthered by sinful means. He who employs the sin of the world for a cause good and holy in itself, so as to make himself partaker of this sin, treads the path of falsehood and destruction, and desecrates the name and the aims of the kingdom of God.
4. Sincere love of enemies has its root in a heart purified from selfishness and in fellowship with the living God, which seeks not its own, but looks only to God’s love and honor. For God’s sake the truly God-fearing man loves his enemy. And so love to enemies shows itself in such main features as are here described: in the putting away of all revengeful feeling, in the refraining from a strictly justifiable condemnation in view of God’s completed judgment, in silence of heart and mouth before God and man as to the evil that the enemy has done, in covering the sin that the Lord has visited or will visit, in recognizing what was good and praise-worthy in the enemy, and what he was and what he accomplished by God’s will and endowment for his kingdom, in praising the name of God for all whereby the Lord even in the person and life of the enemy has maintained His honor and exhibited His merciful and long-suffering love.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Wonderful is God’s management in the life of His people. When through the entanglement of their life with the world their anxieties and afflictions have risen highest, the Lord suddenly causes things to take a turn that puts an end to all need and conflict, and introduces a thoroughgoing help that brings all temptations and trials of faith to a wholesome conclusion.—To those who are distinguished in the kingdom of God as specially called and favored instruments of His grace, falsehood and hypocrisy draw near most pressingly and corruptingly in the guise of humility and self-abasement.—Children of God should not betake themselves to the ways of unrighteousness and self-will, in order to attain the goal set up for them; they can reach this only through decided rejection of the means offered and commended to them by the tempting world.—The God-fearing man sees in the misfortune that strikes his enemy the judicial righteousness of God, and accordingly lets no feeling of revenge or of rejoicing at injury to others gain a place in his heart, and is humbly silent when the Lord speaks. Rather does he mourn over the fall of his opponent, and over the damage that has been done not only to the opponent, but to the common good cause.—Love to an enemy is righteous in that it recognizes the good in an opponent without envy and without reserve, and thankfully recognizes what God has done in his case according to His own goodness and mercy.—Even amid the most painful experiences we should be quick to discern the stamp of divine nobility in an immortal human soul.—When we behold God’s hand righteously smiting men from whom as our persecutors and foes we have had to suffer for the sake of God’s cause and kingdom, we should keep our eyes open against the sin which wishes to anticipate God’s will and assail the life of our opposers: we should by word and deed testify in holy wrath against conduct so offensive to God.
2Sa_1:1 sq. Schlier: God the Lord has for every one of us also fixed His aim, and though it be no royal crown that is destined for us, yet about us all God has long ago formed His special plan. The way to reach this end is the way of duty, the way of quiet, faithful obedience to God’s will. In such a way we come to the goal. Think of David, to whom the crown was promised, and who in order to obtain it did absolutely nothing else than his duty, and how beautifully did David reach the goal! without his asking, the crown was laid at his feet.
2Sa_1:2. Cramer: Hypocrites turn their cloak according to the wind, and worship the rising more than the setting sun; but He who deals hypocritically with his neighbor prepares a net for his own feet (Pro_29:5);
2Sa_1:3. Osiander: Those who wish to deceive other people mix truth and falsehood together, in order that they may sell one along with the other, like good and bad wares (Jam_3:10-12).
[2Sa_1:10. Hall: Worldly minds think no man can be of any other than their own diet; and because they find the respects of self-love, and private profit, so strongly prevailing with themselves, they cannot conceive how these should be capable of a repulse from others.—Henry: David had been long waiting for the crown, and now it is brought him by an Amalekite. See how God can serve His own purpose of kindness to His people, even by designing men, who aim at nothing but to set up themselves.—Tr.]
2Sa_1:11-12. For him who has the Holy Spirit it is not impossible to love his enemies.—Schlier: Who among us has such a persecutor as David had in Saul? What we have in the worst case is one or another opposer, who injures us or hurts our feelings. And yet how full we are of hate! and even if we do our opposer no evil, how glad we are when evil befalls him! Of this we will be ashamed, we will learn better the love of enemies. We are Christians, and as Christians have double cause to follow Him who for us, His enemies, gave up His life.—F. W. Krummacher: O how it should shame us, already in the days of the Old Testament to meet with a love of enemies such as here manifests itself in David, while it must with sincerity, truth and candor be confessed that among us, though we know the revelation of love to sinners in Christ, it belongs, alas! to the rarest pearls.
2Sa_1:16. It was indignation at such an outrage when David caused the regicide to be slain, and such indignation proceeded from fear of God, and at such a moment there was nothing like calculating prudence to be found in David. But in truth the fear of the Lord is always at the same time true prudence.—[David’s course in this matter was the best policy for him; but we have no right to conclude from that fact that he was led to it by considerations of policy. He had himself shown, on an occasion of great temptation (1Sa_24:6), that reverence for the Lord’s anointed of which he here speaks. The fact that “honesty is the best policy” will not of itself alone make a man honest; but neither does it prevent a man’s being honest, or give us a right to suspect a good man’s motives.—Tr.]
2Sa_1:17. S. Schmid: When a man dies, it is for the first time seen how people have been disposed towards him during his life.
2Sa_1:20. Krummacher: The word: “Tell it not in Gath,” etc., has since become a proverb in believing circles. It is often heard when one of their number has not guarded his feet, and has somewhere given offence. Would that this call were but more faithfully lived up to than is for the most part the case! Would that the honor of the spiritual Zion lay everywhere as near the heart of the children of the kingdom as to David’s heart that of the earthly Zion! But how often it happens that they are even zealous to uncover the nakedness of their brethren, and by this renewal of Ham’s offence become traitors in the Church which Christ has purchased with His blood. They thus make themselves partakers in the guilt of calumniating the gospel, in that they open the way for it by their perhaps thoroughly malicious tale-telling—Schlier: Do but let us once learn to love our fellow-man, not for the sake of what he is or deserves, but for the Lord’s sake who demands it of us; then shall we, even when we suffer injustice, for all that not be wanting in love, but shall understand the blessed art of showing love even where we find no love! How it ought to shame us though that David, after long banishment and tribulation, feels nothing at the death of Saul but mourning and lamentation.—Where office and calling does not otherwise demand, we should be silent as to the evil done by a dead man, especially when it was a prince or a king; love should cover all that, should find no joy m saying much of the faults of others. But it should be to us a rightful concern and a holy joy to bring to light the good that another has done.—[“De mortuis nil nisi bonum.”—Tr.]
[2Sa_1:23. How could David sincerely speak thus? There came back to him now the recollection of those bright days when he dwelt peacefully as Saul’s son and Jonathan’s brother, and his heart melted into tenderness as he recalled the amiable traits which not only his dear friend Jonathan, but even Saul in his better moments, had manifested. Eulogies over the dead often seem insincere or exaggerated to those who know not the memories awakened.
2Sa_1:26. To say, as is sometimes done, that the Scriptures speak of the love of Christ as “passing the love of women,” is utterly unwarrantable “accommodation.”—Tr.]
[2Sa_1:1-16. A cunning schemer failing and perishing; 1) Amid bloodshed and mortal agony he coolly lays a deep scheme to promote his own interest. 2) He makes a cunning mixture of truth and falsehood (David could not know, and we cannot tell, just how much of it was true)—as deep schemers usually do. 3) He calculates on the narrow selfishness of human nature—commonly a very safe basis of calculation. 4) He is foiled by encountering such generosity, loyalty and justice as he has not been used to and did not look for (2Sa_1:11-15). The shrewdest schemers sometimes mistake their man. 5) His plan issues in benefit to another, but only ruin to himself. In this world which so abounds in selfish schemers and tempters there is yet a grace that can sustain and a Providence that overrules.—Tr.]
[2Sa_1:19-27 : Henry: The excellent spirit which David here shows: 1) Very generous to his enemy, Saul; a) conceals his faults, b) praises what is worthy. 2) Very grateful to Jonathan, his sworn friend; a) nothing more delightful in this world than a true friend, b) nothing more distressful than the loss of such a friend. 3) Deeply concerned for the honor of God (2Sa_1:20). 4) Deeply concerned for the public welfare. The beauty of Israel slain (2Sa_1:19), the mighty fallen (2Sa_1:19; 2Sa_1:25; 2Sa_1:27).—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[1][2Sa_1:1. Cahen and Wordsworth regard this phrase as connecting the Second Book with the first; but it seems to be nothing more than the ordinary formula of historical narrative, referring to 1 Samuel 31. So begins 2 Samuel 2 of 2 Sam. There is no trace here of a division of “Samuel” into two Books.—Tr.]
[2][2Sa_1:1. Some MSS. and EDD. read הָעֲמָלֵקִי, the usual form. Whether the present Heb. text (with the Art.) is impossible (Wellh.) may be considered doubtful. A final Yod may, however, have fallen out from similarity to the following Waw.—Tr.]
[3][2Sa_1:2. Thenius thinks that the Sept. reading: “from the people of (מֵעַם) Saul” suits the connection as well as the Heb.; against which Wellhausen remarks that the Greek reading contradicts 2Sa_1:6, from which it appears that the Amalekite did not belong to the army. This reason of Wellh. does not seem decisive (for in 2Sa_1:3 he seems to say, that he had been in the army); but the Heb. phrase is more natural than the Greek.—Tr.]
[4][2Sa_1:2. בְּגָדָיו, the word for civilian dress, not military vestment (מַד) as in 1Sa_4:12; Jdg_3:16 (Bib. Com.). This would so far make against the supposition that he was a soldier.—Tr.]
[5][2Sa_1:3. The Impf. (תָּבוֹא) may represent the action as incomplete, = whence art thou now engaged in coming?—Tr.]
[6][2Sa_1:4. Sept.: What is this affair? that is, What is the matter? = מַה־זֶּה הַדָּבָר (Wellh.), which is not as good as the Heb. text. Syr.: “what is the affair?”—Tr.]
[7][2Sa_1:4. The אֲשֶׁר here = ὄτι, introducing a remark as oratio indirecta (Then. and Erdmann: = “namely”), and we might render: and he said, that the people were fled and … fallen, etc. (so Philippson); but “that” with orat. directa (as in Eng. A. V.) is not Eng. idiom.—Tr.]
[8][2Sa_1:4. This “also … also” is not a very good rendering of the Heb. גַּם ... גַּם, since it does not clearly bring out the collocation and climax in the two clauses. On the other hand Erdmann’s rendering: “not only are many of the people dead, but also Saul and Jonathan are dead,” makes a sharper contrast than the Heb. expresses. Perhaps the sense would be more exactly given by translating: “the people fled, and moreover many are dead, and moreover Saul,” etc—Tr.]
[9][2Sa_1:5. Lit: that Saul is dead, and Jonathan his son? The Syr. has: “David said to the young man, Tell me how died Saul and Jonathan his son?” a reading which seems to have nothing for it. The repetition of the descriptive phrase: “that told him” = “his informant,” is in accordance with the ancient manner of writing; compare the standing epithets of the Homeric gods and heroes—Tr.]
[10]2Sa_1:6. Lit: “possessors of horses,” where the last word פָרָשׁ is the charger or war-horse as distinguished from the ordinary horse (סוּם). The Chald. translates the first word (בַּעֲלֵי) “army,” which is a loose and inaccurate rendering. Wellhausen, regarding the Heb. phrase as a strange one, has an ingenious supposition that there was originally to this פָרָשִׁים of the text a correction בַּעֲלֵי קֶשֶׁת “possessors of bows,” of which the first word got into the text here, and the second (קֶשֶׁת) into 2Sa_1:18, to the vexation of interpreters. Our phrase, though it occurs here only, is perhaps possible, but the בעלי is probably an early insertion—Tr.]
[11][2Sa_1:9. עָמַר עַו. Instead of “stand upon” = “stand against,” some (Gesen., Philippson, Cahen, Erdmann) render “stand by,” = “come near, approach.” The objection to this latter rendering is that the verb means always “stand” or “make a stand,” as in the passages cited by Cahen, Dan_12:1, Michael stands by (on behalf of) the people, Est_8:11, the Jews make a stand for their lives. Here we should expect a verb of motion: “come near and slay me,” as in Jer_7:10; Jer_17:9. It is better, therefore, to adopt the sense of rising up, standing against, or to use the phrase “stand on” made familiar by the English Authorized Version.—Tr.]
[12][2Sa_1:9. So Aq. (ὁ σφιγκτήρ) and probably Syr. (צוּרֹנֹא, rendered badly in Walton's Polyg. caligines. Castellus gives vertigo, and J. D. Michaelis spasmus), and so most moderns. See Gesenius, Thesaur. s. v.—The last clause of the verse is literally: “for all yet is my life in me,” which is given by Saul as the reason why the young man should slay him—Tr.]
[13][2Sa_1:10. So Sym. and Theod. Aquila has ἁφορισμα from the ground-meaning of the stem נזר, “to set apart,” perhaps regarding the diadem as that which especially characterizes and sets apart a king (Schleusner)—Wellh. thinks that the Art. is necessary to אֶצְעָדָה.—Tr.]
[14][2Sa_1:12. Sept.: “for the people of Judah and for the house of Israel,” the other VSS. as the Heb. Wellh. thinks “people of Judah” the true text-reading, but supposes that this may be a corruption of “people of Jahveh,” and that it called forth the addition “house of Israel.” But, on the other hand, the Sept. reading looks like an attempt to smooth away a supposed difficulty, and the Heb. text gives a clear and deeply theocratic sense, which is well brought out by Then. and Erdmann. The Synopsis Criticorum and Wellh. are wrong in saying that “people of Jahveh” and “house of Israel” are identical expressions.—Tr.]
[15][2Sa_1:13. Or: “an Amalekite stranger.” Aq. προσηλύτου, and so Gill.—Tr.]
[16][2Sa_1:16. The text has the Plu., the Sing. is found in many MSS. (De Rossi) and in Qeri, apparently as if the Plu. alone meant “blood-guiltiness.” But in the Heb. of O. T. both Sing. and Plu. are used in both senses, of “blood” and of “blood-guiltiness,” see Lev_17:4 for the latter sense in the Sing. The Sing. in the VSS. decides nothing for the Heb. text, because elsewhere (as Gen_4:10) the Heb. Plu. = “blood” is given by the Sing. in Syr. and Chald. Wellh. thinks that this Qeri may have been determined by the use in 1Ki_2:33; 1Ki_2:37—After “saying” Sept. has ὄτι of orat. indirecta as in 2Sa_1:4, and De Rossi mentions that one MS. in his possession here has כִּי, which is perhaps a copyist's imitation of later usage—Tr.]
[17][2Sa_1:18. So Targ., Rashi and Gill. The discussion in the Exposition—Tr.]
[18][2Sa_1:19. Some take the ה as Interrog., and render: Is the beauty of Israel slain? etc.; but the interrogative form does not so well suit the connection. Others regard “Israel” as Vocative, on account of the following “thy,” which otherwise would have no antecedent; against this (otherwise most natural) rendering is, as Erdmann remarks, the hardness of the first word: The beauty, O Israel, is slain, etc. Bib. Com. therefore translates: Thy beauty, O Israel; but it is questionable whether the “thy” can lawfully be supplied. The rendering: “O beauty of Israel slain,” etc., is harsh, because we should expect “thou art slain” Perhaps the second of the above translations is the preferable—Tr.]
[19][2Sa_1:21. Erdmann and others render “defiled,” against which see Ges., Thes. s. v.—Tr.]
[20][2Sa_1:21. The Chald., and perhaps Syr., refers the anointing to Saul instead of to his shield. Eng. A. V. follows Vulg., which is undoubtedly wrong.—In some MSS. and printed EDD. מָשׁוּחַ is written instead of מָשִיחַ, and this is the more usual form; but in this poetical passage the less usual form is not unnatural. Instead of בְּלִי, “not,” some MSS. have בְּלּי = “implement:” “the shield of Saul, armor anointed with oil,” an improbable and unsupported reading—Tr.]
[21][2Sa_1:22. The reading חֶרֶב, “sword,” found in some MSS., is perhaps a mere textual error (found in no VS.), or perhaps a correction for dignity—Tr.]
[22][2Sa_1:23. These Adjectives have the Art. in the Heb., whence Then and Erdmann render: “Saul and Jonathan, the lovely and pleasant, in life and in death they were not divided.” Eng. A. V. is supported by all the ancient VSS. and by most modern commentators.—Tr.]
[23][2Sa_1:24. עַל instead of אֶל in some MSS.; but the change is unnecessary since אֶל = “in respect to, for.”—In מַלְבִּשְׁכֶם some codices substitute the fem. suffix כֶן, as in the last word of the verse; it is probable, however, that the masc. form was used (especially in poetry) for both genders.—Tr.]
[24][2Sa_1:25. Coislin.: εἰς θάνατον ἐτραυματίσθης, “thou wast wounded unto death,” a weak reading in comparison with the Heb. Text.—Tr.]
[25]On the adverb use of the Inf. Abs. (הַרְבֵּה) see Ew., § 280 c.—On גַּם ... גַּם, see 1Sa_17:36 and Ew. § 359, 1.
[26][The Heb. (וַיפֶן) means “turned his face, looked round,” which seems possible for a man lying on the ground, half-raised on a spear.—Tr.]
[27]This insertion of עוֹד between בּל as nomen regens and the nomen rectum occurs in a few other cases, Job_27:3. See Ges., §114, 3 R. 1.
[28]On the irreg. form (נְפְלוֹ) see Ew., § 255 d.
[29][For Jewish traditions and fables on this whole history see Patrick, Gill, Philippson.—Tr.]
[30]Read the Plu. of דָּם as in the Kethib [Germ. has Qeri, wrongly], since this alone is used in the sense of “blood-gniltiness.” [This is incorrect; see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.]
[31]As שְׂדֵי is Sing. (the Plu. is שְׂדוֹת), all explanations based on the Plu. are wrong. תְּרוּמָה is used of the bringing of first-fruits, Num_15:19 sq.; 2Ch_31:10 [but also of other offerings.—Tr.]
[32] יְעָרֵי וְחָרֵי מָוֶת [which is “unhebraic, and the first word ungrammatical” (Wellh.).—Tr.].
[33] וּשְׂדוֹת יַרְמוּת.
[34][A phrase from Luther’s famous hymn (Eine feste burg)—“shield and weapon.” For a translation see Carlyle's Miscellanies.—Tr.]
[35][On the translation see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.]
[36]The form נִפְלְאַתָה as if from a verb ל׳׳ה [with אַ for אָ]. Ges., § 75, 21 a, Ew. § 194, b.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv2, 10, 13 a man came out of the camp from Saul--As…
a man came out of the camp from Saul--As the narrative of Saul's death, given in the last chapter, is inspired, it must be considered the true account, and the Amalekite's story a fiction of his own, invented to ingratiate himself with David, the presumptive successor to the throne. David's question, "How went the matter?" evinces the deep interest he took in the war, an interest that sprang from feelings of high and generous patriotism, not from views of ambition. The Amalekite, however, judging him to be actuated by a selfish principle, fabricated a story improbable and inconsistent, which he thought would procure him a reward. Having probably witnessed the suicidal act of Saul, he thought of turning it to his own account, and suffered the penalty of his grievously mistaken calculation (compare Sa2 1:9 with Sa1 31:4-5).
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16 DAVID HEARS OF THE DEATH OF SAUL AND OF…
DAVID HEARS OF THE DEATH OF SAUL AND OF JONATHAN, 2Sa_1:1-16.
As soon as the results of the fearful battle of Gilboa became known, great must have been the excitement through all the land of Israel. Saul’s partisans and all his loyal subjects must have felt the spell of mingled alarm and grief, and even the bitterest malcontents must have been ill at ease when they learned that the whole army of Israel was demoralized and put to flight by the Philistines. In this chapter we learn with what anguish David’s loyal heart received the bitter tidings.
Read full note →
1. Two days in Ziklag — The town had not been so utterly destroyed (see
1Sa_30:1) that it was impracticable still to abide there.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 otherwise called,
THE
SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL,
Read full note →
otherwise called,
THE SECOND BOOK OF THE KINGS
Ch. 2Sa_1:1-16. The news of Saul’s death brought to David
1. Now it came to pass, &c.] The narrative of the closing chapters of the First Book is continued without any break. The division of the Books is purely artificial, and did not exist in the original Hebrew text. See Introd., ch. 1 § 1.
when David was returned] See 1Sa_30:26.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15 (1) After the death of Saul.—These words are immediately…
(1) After the death of Saul.—These words are immediately connected with 1 Samuel 31, and the following words, “when David was returned,” refer to 1 Samuel 30. The two books really form one continuous narrative.
Two days in Ziklag.—The site of Ziklag has not been exactly identified, but it is mentioned in Jos_19:5 as one of the cities in the extreme south, at first assigned to Judah, but afterwards given to Simeon. It is also spoken of in connection with Beersheba and other places of the south as re-occupied by the Jews on their return from Babylon (Neh_11:28). Its most probable locality is some ten or twelve miles south of beersheba, and nearly equidistant from the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea. It was thus quite four days’ journey from Mount Gilboa. and the messenger who brought the news of the battle must have left the field before David’s return to Ziklag.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Now it came to pass. During the last few…
Now it came to pass. During the last few days events had been crowding fast upon one another. Living as fugitives at Ziklag, in the land of the Philistines, David and his men, unfit for the peaceful occupations of agriculture, had been driven to seek their maintenance by raids upon the wild tribes in the desert. Of these the chief were the Amalekites, whose home was the bare region lying between the south of Judah and Egypt. We have ample proof that this race was utterly hostile to all order and quietness; it lived by the plunder of others, and, sheltering itself in the recesses of the wilderness, broke out thence on every opportunity to carry, ravage and ruin into all the neighbouring districts. The Amalekite was thus every man"s enemy, and the object of universal dislike; and the cruelty which he habitually practised would justify to David"s mind the barbarity with which he put to death all whom he found, man and woman alike. But his object was not justice. His cruelty was the result of selfish motives. For it was necessary for him to keep tidings of his real doings from the ears of Achish, who naturally would not approve of David"s military activity. He very probably had put him there upon the borders to protect his realm from incursions; but David in the Amalekite war was the assailant, and was, moreover, practising his men for ulterior objects. Achish most probably received a share of the captured cattle; but his inquiries were met with an equivocation, (1Sa_27:10-12) which made him suppose that David, with the usual bitterness of a renegade, had been harrying his own tribesmen. And the falsehood soon entangled David in most painful consequences; for Achish, nothing doubting of his fidelity, and of his bitter hatred of Saul. determined to take him with him in the grand army of the Philistines, which was slowly moving northward for the conquest of the land of Israel. David had God"s promise of ultimate safety, and he ought not to have deserted his country. As a deserter to the Philistines, he had to descend to falsehood, and now treason seemed inevitable. His only choice lay between betraying his country or the king who had given him so hospitable a refuge. The jealousy, or rather the good sense, of the Philistine (1Sa_29:4) saved him from this dreadful alternative, and he was sent back, to his great joy, to Ziklag. But it was a dreadful sight which there met his view. With strange mismanagement, he had left no portion of his men to guard his little city, and the Amalekites had made reprisals. The news of the Philistine army upon its march upwards would be quickly carried through the desert, and the wild tribes would be sure to take the opportunity for gathering plunder far and wide. So undefended: was the whole country, that they met nowhere with resistance. And David saw, on his return, only the smoking ruins of the little city where for many months he had dwelt. His wives, Ahinoam and Abigail, the wives and children of his men, had all been carried away for the Egyptian slave market. So secure were the Amalekites, that they had no fear about encumbering their march with a vast multitude of children and cattle. And to add to his distress, his men, indignant, and not without reason, at David"s want of precaution, were threatening to stone him as an alleviation for their distress. Never had David"s fortunes fallen so low as at that moment; but quickly they were to rise again. By energetic action he not only recovered the spoil and the captives taken from Ziklag, but also won the immense wealth gathered by the Amalekites in a wide raid made at a time when there was no one to resist them. His own share of the spoil was so large that he was able to send valuable presents of sheep, oxen, and camels to his friends in Judaea, probably not without some prescience that the way to his return might be opened by the events of the war between the Philistines and Saul. The dangerous issues of that war could not be hidden from him; but he would find solace for his anxieties in the active work of restoring order at Ziklag, and in providing hasty shelter for the women and children whom he had brought back to their desolated homes. But his suspense did not last long. For when David had abode two days in Ziklag, news came which confirmed his worst fears. The battle had Been fought; Israel had been routed; and Saul and Jonathan, the friend who had been to him more than a brother, lay among the slain.
Vers. 1-10.
Read full note →
The facts of this section may be stated thus:
1. David having retired to Ziklag during the conflict between Israel and the Philistines, a messenger from the seat of war comes to pay him homage.
2. David, being as yet in ignorance of the event on Gilboa, and being impressed by the signs of mourning on the stranger, is prompted to ask whence he came.
3. Eager to ascertain further information, he learns from the Amalekite, not only that Saul and Jonathan were dead, but that, according to the stranger"s story, the former had been killed by the hand of the narrator.
4. In evidence of the truth of his story, the man produces Saul"s crown andbracelet.
Waiting on Providence.
David"s retirement at Ziklag is to be regarded in connection with his well-established conviction that he was the chosen servant destined to occupy a foremost place in establishing the kingdom of God, and his persistent resolve not to take a single step of his own devising that would seem to force on the removal of Saul from the throne, in order to secure thereby his own elevation. Events had forced him into a quasi-public position as the rival of Saul, much as he disclaimed all rivalry; and now, in a foreign land, with a following not of his own seeking, and sensible that a crisis was at hand, he felt that he could do nothing but maintain a resolute inactivity, leaving the issue of impending events to Providence. A belief in Providence is very common; in word men express their dependence on it, and there are seasons in human life when, perhaps, all we can do is to wait on Providence. There is, however, a false, even wicked, waiting, which is but another name for idleness or fatalism, or vague looking for some lucky chance. Considering the case of David, we can trace some of the features of a true waiting on Providence. There is
I DEEP CONVICTION OF BEING DEVOTED TO A HOLY CAUSE. Life is devoted to a Divine, not a merely human, purpose. This was preeminently characteristic of David at this time. He was conscious of being personally identified with the working out of God"s holy purpose towards mankind. He had passed out of the realm of self-seeking into the kingdom of God, and in public and private lived for God. Here lies the beginning of our right and privilege to wait on Providence. As our Lord"s life was a nobler instance of consecration to a holy cause than was David"s, so now ours may be an instance less conspicuous than his, though in our measure as real. It is possible for us to be one with Christ and his kingdom absorbed, amidst even private and domestic life, with the purpose dear to his heart. Our life gains power and glory only in proportion as we are enabled to cherish a well-founded conviction that we are not living for merely temporal and material considerations, but for God, and in that sense are his chosen servants for specific purposes, as truly as was David when, in retirement at Ziklag, he knew he was the chosen King of Israel.
II FREEDOM FROM SELFISH AND MALEVOLENT DESIRES. David desired not elevation for the sake of personal gratification; nor did he desire disaster for Saul that a great obstacle to his own advance might be put aside. Men consecrated to God are open to the subtle temptation of desiring events to move on so as to promote their own personal ease at the cost of much that is sacred. Under plea of greater usefulness, we may long for Providence to open a pathway for us, when, if motives are severely scrutinized, there is discovered a secret longing for personal gratification. The interlacings of human life are such that the displacement of one may be a prerequisite to the freer action and wider usefulness of another; and one whose course is hampered by obstacles may almost unconsciously cherish the wish that some event may happen which, by the trouble and loss it brings to another, will promote his own interests. No one truly waits on Providence who cherishes this spirit. The man of business who, amidst difficulties, looks out eagerly for the downfall of others as a means of his own improved chance in competition, must not flatter himself that all along he has been quietly waiting on Providence. It often requires very high religious principle to labour on in obscurity, blessed by apparently few results, with a calm trust in God untainted by the desire that others, possibly less worthy in character, may be swept away by resistless events to make more room for ourselves. David"s sentiments towards Saul, who stood in his pathway, are full of instruction to all.
III RECOGNITION OF GOD"S CEASELESS CONTROL OVER OBSTACLES, AND OF HIS STEADILY UNFOLDING PURPOSES. Most probably David"s followers, knowing as they did that Saul stood between him and the throne, often marvelled at his patient inactivity. But by a keener spiritual vision than they possessed, he recognized the perfect control of the God he served, and had amazing faith in the sure though slow unfolding of his purposes. Hence he could wait and be still. This quality has always entered largely into the character of those who have done great service in the interests of truth and righteousness. Our Saviour, during his earthly life, was a conspicuous instance. He was despised, rejected, of the people there were none with him, and events seemed to the minds of his disciples (Joh_14:1 Joh_16:19-22; Luk_24:21) to be disastrous to his cause; and yet all through he never distrusted the Father, and in fulness of confidence could anticipate the results of a steady unfolding of the Divine purpose. (Joh_10:16) So likewise we in secular and spiritual affairs may be said to wait on Providence when, in spite of difficulties that almost crush out our life, we, being conscious of oneness with Christ, stagger not in our belief in the all-controlling wisdom and power, and rest in the certainty of an order of things which is being directed towards the realization of the Divine purposes with which our entire life is identified. "Have faith in God." He slumbers not; he sleeps not; he works, and who shall let?
IV HEADINESS FOR ACTION, REGULATED BY RESOLVE ONLY TO ACT IN HARMONY WITH HIGHEST LAW. David was ready to act whenever occasion offered; but he would not create occasion, and that because he saw that, in the continuance of Saul"s life and reign, there was involved a great principle. For had he not been chosen by God? and was not God now allowing him to work out his own chastisement in harmony with far-reaching moral laws? David could only act in harmony with the Divine law which seemed to be expressed in Saul"s sad life namely, the removal of the unworthy by a natural process. There was a reserve of power in Christ during his life among men which could have accomplished startling results had he put it forth just as David could have precipitated events by putting forth his strength against Saul but he restrained himself. He was patient, and abstained from any action that would run counter to the moral and physical laws by which God was then governing mankind. On the same principle he now carries on his work in the world. Men do not understand him when they look for an extension of Christianity in violation of the laws of moral and social life which God has ordained. We are entrusted with more power than it is fit to put forth. Its exercise is to be regulated by regard to law. Especially in embarrassed circumstances, when it seems as though, in our business, our domestic affairs, or Church action, we could make marked advance by a vigorous effort in a given direction, does it become us to ask whether such action would be in harmony with the law of righteousness. During the sorrows of the Church, (Luk_21:9-21) when it seemed as though active resistance by the sword was essential to self-preservation, the disciples were to be patient, and not run counter to the law of the gospel by endeavouring to maintain a kingdom of peace by carnal weapons. We must wait for God, be ready to act when action will harmonize with the holy laws of God"s government.
V JUDICIOUS USE OF TIME, AS JUSTIFIED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF OUR POSITION. David could not act against Saul; he could not benefit Israel by seeking to rid them of an unworthy ruler; but he could seek to remedy the evils caused by the Amalekites at Ziklag, (1Sa_30:1, 1Sa_30:26) and also discipline and organize his adherents, (1Ch 12) and so put himself and his men in a position to move towards Palestine when God opened the way. The disciples of Christ were powerless to act on the world for some weeks after his death, but they cherished faith in their Lord, and, till the time appointed by Providence came, they wisely kept together for prayer and mutual encouragement. (Act_1:14; cf. 2:1-13) The Christian Church may believe itself called to enter on a great missionary enterprise in an at present inaccessible country. It must not violate the laws of God by rushing into disaster under plea of promoting a good cause, hut must gather up materials and become ready to enter in when a higher power opens the way. The same principle applies to our extension of business, our entering on new or wider professions, and especially if we are ambitious to consecrate ourselves to the work of the Christian ministry. Those who, after the example of David, wait on Providence, will find in the end that the ways of God, though apparently slow and often trying to patience, are indicated by the issue.
A subtle temptation.
The Amalekite who came to David may be regarded as an instance of a quick-witted cunning man, observant of facts affecting the interests of others, and swiftly ingenious to work them up into a plausible form, ostensibly for the advantage of strangers, but really for his own advancement and material gain. He knew just enough of the outward development of the kingdom of God to see m events an opportunity for making them subservient to his own purposes. Like some of the present day, who are aliens to the spiritual Christian commonwealth, but who scruple not to make a profession of some interest in it a means of attaining to social position and material prosperity, so did he pay honour to the chosen servant of God for what he could gain thereby. But the main point in his conduct centres on David. He came practically in the form of a tempter to one who had long been under the force of strong temptation to desire and seek the removal from position, if not from life, of one who had been both an ungrateful enemy and an obstacle to the carrying out of his life"s mission. We have seen in our comments on the First Book of Samuel bow bravely David had withstood all the influences which urged to action against Saul. He had triumphed, and was now calmly waiting on Providence at Ziklag. But now the hand of Providence was being manifested without any action of his own. For does not this stranger declare the great news that the miserable king was fallen; that by an act of his own he had saved Israel from the shame of his dying directly under Philistine hands; and that the crown the symbol of authority was now within David"s own camp? Is there not here, then, release from the severe tension of self-restraint which for years had been put on thought and deed? Now surely David may breathe freely, and even bless God and take courage! Gratitude to such a newsbearer was surely due, and a sobered gladness may legitimately be cherished! Let us, then, consider the nature of subtle temptations.
I THEY MAY SPRING FROM UNLOOKED FOR SOURCES, AND SO TAKE US OFF OUR GUARD. Who would have supposed that an Amalekite a man whose tribe had been in conflict with David would have appeared before him as bearer of news most momentous as affecting his future career? The apparent disinterestedness of one who could not be a partisan would render David open to the natural effect of the tidings on an ordinary heart. So in our life subtle temptations, calling us to no ostensible act of wrong, spring up we know not how, and take us by surprise. It may be an evil thought is suddenly obtruded in a line of ordinary thought; or a friend hints at a possibility without suggesting a deed or a feeling; or a set of facts start before the observing faculty, conveying, by their convergence on a matter of special interest to us, an impulse to cherish a definite class of feelings which, when examined in cool moments, is found to be essentially unholy. "Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation," was an exhortation based on a profound knowledge of the manifold avenues along which subtle promptings to evil may enter into and possess the soul.
II THEY MAY NOT CALL TO ANY DEFINITE ACTION. In this case David was even relieved, by the fact of the tidings, from the pressure that had so long been on him to take action for his own advancement. Whatever appeal there was in the temptation was simply to the seat of feeling. The constitutional weakness of man is to feel satisfaction when an enemy is removed, and, though conventional custom may lead us to say that that satisfaction is tempered by sadness, it is to be feared that in this there is more of form than reality. Many men would not see any temptation in this narrative. They cannot see that character lies in feeling cherished, more than in acts that manifestly violate some law of God or man. Incitements to deeds of open vice do not form the most dangerous evils of our lot. Satan ruins more by undermining than by direct assault. The weakening of the inner seat of purity and kindliness alone need not involve any deed or word known to our fellow creatures.
III THEY MAY PRESENT THEMSELVES UNDER COVER OF CONSIDERATIONS OF EXPEDIENCY. Judging from the standard that governs the lives of most men, the Amalekite imagined that his story would gratify David for two reasons one, that hopes long cherished of being of service to Israel were soon to be realized; the other, that Saul was set aside by other hands than his own. There can be no doubt but that, in proportion to the strength of his hope of some day being the means of raising Israel from the sorrows which had come by the misrule of Saul, so would be the tendency to rejoice in its speedy realization; and this he knew would be legitimate. Hence, although, as a kindly good man, he might well abstain from cherishing any secret satisfaction at the disaster which had befallen Saul, yet, in view of the beneficial issues about to flow from the event, would there not be valid ground for so doing? Was not the welfare of the nation of more importance than sentiment for an individual? And could he not distinguish between malicious joy, and satisfaction in the rising of public good out of personal disaster? It is thus easy for one nation to find, by a swift process of thought, plausible pretext for satisfaction in the calamities of another nation. Possibly our Church life is not free from the subtle temptation, when we observe, in the decay of rival parties or denominations, a probable increase to the strength of our own. Business men may argue that benefits to society arise from the downfall of houses trading on an insecure basis, and so cover the real character of the personal satisfaction entertained. We need to be much on our guard when the reasoning powers are stimulated to justify sentiments which in their simple nakedness would be instinctively abhorred by a very holy and loving nature. In moral matters the first judgments are safest.
IV THEY DO NOT REVEAL OR SUGGEST THE IMMEDIATE AND REMOTE CONSEQUENCES OF YIELDING. The point of the temptation, as it fell on David"s nature, was simply to develop a certain feeling of satisfaction that, as he could not and would not raise a hand against Saul, some one else, in a natural course of events, had been permitted by Providence to do so, and thus had secured the opening of the door for which he had been waiting. Now, this feeling, so natural to many men, so commonly cherished under kindred circumstances, even though a human weakness, was simply a private transitory sentiment passing over the inner life, and forming no feature in conduct. It seemed to begin and end there and then. Its presence, if permitted, was a trifle, and inflicted no injury on society. Thus, while other temptations on presentation startle the ordinary mind by being associated at once with damage to social position, or to family or nation, temptations of this class do not reveal or suggest at the time their consequences. Of course, evil is to be resisted as evil apart from effects; and a pure mind will immediately detect the essentially immoral nature of any internal incitement to transitory impurity of sentiment. But it is easier to many to detect and resist temptations of the other class. No doubt every deterioration of feeling does issue in disastrous consequences, as surely as do open acts of vice, only the subtle process escapes notice. Consequently many good men, forgetting this, often entertain suggested transitory feelings of evil, which, did they hut duly consider the necessary deterioration of their entire life which thereupon sets in, they would carefully watch against and resist.
PRACTICAL LESSONS.
1. We ought to act at all times under the influence of the fact that at nohour are we free from the possibility of being subjected to very subtle temptations.
2. The more cultivated and tried our piety, the more likely is it that thetrials of our religious purity will come in forms not suggestive of open acts of transgression.
3. Whenever the reasonings of expediency come in to justify the indulgenceof sentiments of which doubt may have arisen as to their moral quality, we may safely be suspicious of fallacy, and so should close the debate at once.
4. It is very possible that a long season of persistent temptation to actualwrong, as in the case of David for years past, may culminate in a temptation more severe, because more difficult of detection, and which, if yielded to, would virtually undo the work of years of resistance. Therefore we need to be specially watchful when the end of our trials is near.
Vers. 1, 2. (ZIKLAG.)
A change of dynasty.
he came to David he fell to the earth, and did obeisance" (ver. 2). The title of David to the throne was primarily conferred upon him by the will of God, as declared by Samuel. But it remained in abeyance while Saul lived, and began to take effect only at his decease. On returning to Ziklag from his pursuit of the Amalekites, David occupied himself in repairing its ruins, and awaited tidings from the field of battle. On the morning of the third day there came a young man, "the son of a stranger, an Amalekite," bringing news of the defeat of Israel and the death of Saul and Jonathan. In proof of his statement he brought the king"s diadem, "a small metallic cap or wreath which encircled the temples, serving the purpose of a helmet, with a very small horn projecting in front, as an emblem of power" (Jamieson), and bracelet (or armlet worn above the elbow), and laid them at the feet of David, as the future king (ver. 10). His conduct reminds us of a well-known custom, according to which, whenever a French monarch departed this life, an official of the royal household appeared at the window, broke his staff, and cried, Le roi est mort! ("The king is dead!"); then took a new staff and shouted, Vive le roi! ("Long live the king!"). The change that occurred was
I OCCASIONED BY THE FALL OF AN UNFAITHFUL RULER. "After the death of Saul" (ver. 1).
1. Men are entrusted with power by God that they may employ it, notaccording to their own will and for their own honour, but according to his will and for his glory. This Saul failed to recognize.
2. Whenever a man misuses his trust he is sooner or later deprived thereof,and suffers the penalty of his sin. (1Sa_15:23)
3. No man can fall into sin and destruction without involving others in hisruin. How often has a monarch"s unfaithfulness caused the downfall of his dynasty!
4. The place from which he falls is thereby prepared for a more faithfulman, and such a man is seldom wanting for the place. "Take therefore the talent," etc.. (Mat_25:28) "Saul"s elevation was a first experiment in monarchy doomed to failure from the beginning; it was only when the people had been trampled down by his tyranny and involved in his fatal defeat that a lasting monarch was set according to the Divine will in the person and family of David, who was in this sense the man after God"s own heart" (P. Smith, " Ancient History," 1:168).
II AWAITED WITH PATIENCE BY A RIGHTFUL SUCCESSOR. "David abode in Ziklag." He was long ago assured of his royal destination. But:
1. The purpose of God is often slow in its accomplishment; which requiresto be waited for in faith and patience.
1. Its slow accomplishment presents a strong temptation to impatience, andthe. adoption of rash and unworthy expedients that hinder rather than
2. promote the desired end. David was subject to such a temptation, and for the most part overcame it. In so far as he yielded to it he suffered the consequences of his imprudence. (1Sa_27:1)
3. By patient continuance in well-doing men are best prepared for whatGod has prepared for them. David did not deem the crown "a thing to be grasped at." "What God has destined for him, he would not have until God gave it to him (Hengstenberg). "Endurance is the crowning quality." Qui dura vince ("He conquers who endures").
4. To those who await the accomplishment of the Divine purpose in a rightspirit, it comes surely and at the right time, often suddenly and by unexpected means. "By degrees doth the Lord perform, his works to exercise the faith, the hope, the patience, and constancy of his chosen, but at last to the full he accomplisheth whatsoever he promiseth" (Guild).
III RECOGNIZED AS INEVITABLE BY A SELF-SEEKING OBSERVER. It is remarkable that one of an alien and hostile race should be the first to perceive and acknowledge the speedy and certain transfer of the crown. He was a watchful observer of the course of events; acquainted, probably, with the general opinion concerning David, and with his present position; and, although possessing little love for his character and expecting little good to the Amalekites from his accession, he was desirous of using the occasion for the furtherance of his personal ends.
1. The tendency of human affairs is often so apparent that its result may beeasily anticipated by al hut the most obtuse.
2. A stranger or an enemy frequently perceives the destination of a man ofability more clearly than those who are intimately connected with him.
3. One who is supremely concerned about his own interest is quick to seeanything that may be made conducive to it, however blind and unfeeling he may be in other respects.
4. His attempt to turn it to his own advantage sometimes turns only to theadvantage of another, and to his own disappointment and ruin. "David had been long waiting for the crown, and now it is brought to him by an Amalekite. See how God can serve his own purpose of kindness to his people, even by designing men who aim at nothing but to set up themselves" (Matthew Henry).
IV EFFECTED BY THE OPERATION OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE. "The Lord slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse". (1Ch_10:14) "God is the Judge; he putteth down one and setteth up another" (Psa_75:7; 1Sa_2:1-10) By his providential working:
1. His purposes are fulfilled and the truth of his Word is confirmed. "By aseries of events following in the ordinary course of Providence, without any miracle interposed, this prediction (given by Samuel and exhibited in the act of anointing) was brought to pass. David was raised to his divinely appointed station, when his shepherd"s staff became a sceptre, and his flock a great people; none contributing more to the preparation of this event than Saul himself.... The complicated narrative is the exposition of the prophetic prescience" (Davison).
2. Those who oppose his purposes are overthrown.
3. He who humbly waits their fulfilment in the way of obedience ispromoted.
4. Individuals and nations are constrained to turn from their own way, andsubmit to his plans as the wisest and best. (2Sa_2:4 2Sa_3:9 2Sa_5:2) "The secret springs of revolutions are unaccountable, and must be resolved into that Providence which turns all hearts as the rivers of water" (Matthew Henry). "Notwithstanding those appearances which obscure the providence of God, it often.makes itself conspicuous in the midst of them all. When we have allowed to human agency, to human wisdom and human power, a large circle of events imputed to nothing else, we see the Divine wisdom frequently disencumber itself from all communication with second causes, and stretch itself out in the face of all men, in defeating and confounding the plans of human wisdom, in the failure of the deepest schemes" (R. Hall). D.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On v2 A man came out of the camp.
2Sa_1:2-16
A man came out of the camp.
Read full note →
The man who professed to have slain Saul
On the day that Saul fell by his own hand, and before his body had been discovered by the Philistines, an Amalekite, passing by, recognised the corpse of the fallen king, and bethought him how best to turn the event to his own advantage. He determined to hasten to David, at Ziklag, and to inform him that, at the king's own request, he had consented to slay him, being persuaded that in any case he must perish, as his wounds were mortal. Thus he hoped to render himself acceptable to David, whose name doubtless was prominently mentioned in popular report as that of the coming king, and who was known moreover to have been injured by Saul. His professed cruelty, ingratitude, and falsehood earned for him, not a reward, but the penalty of death.
I. That outward appearances are deceitful. How often are signs of sorrow thus assumed, when the heart within is joyful! How often is a cheerful countenance worn outwardly when the spirit within is broken! Scriptural phrases may be upon the lips of the ungodly, and falsehood may have a goodly outside. The Lord alone can see into the heart, and can discern between the hypocritical and the sincere. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
II. That sycophantic adoration of the fortunate ought not to be valued. The tendency of humanity is to worship the rising sun, to follow whatever fashion may be in vague, be it good or evil. If the inclinations of the leading personages of the day tend towards impiety, then the great mass of the people will be godless; if, on the other hand, the leaders of society condescend to extend their patronage to religion, then the people of the age become generally assiduous attendants on the ordinances of religion. Notwithstanding the genuflections of the Amalekite, David did not accord to him the welcome that he had expected.
III. That though evil communications corrupt good manners, association with the righteous does not make righteous. This Amalekite came out of the camp of Israel. A worthy parent has often an unworthy child, a godly man is found in union with an ungodly friend.
IV. That guileful heart makes crafty tongue. There is a world of iniquity in the tongue, and we need to guard against the errors into which it leads us.
V. That sycophancy leads to falsehood. There are three f's closely allied with each other--namely, flattery, fulsomeness, and fiction--that ought to be avoided by the Christian. There are three h's also related to each other, that he should strive to develop, namely humanity, honesty, and honour.
VI. That even the most hardened criminal tries to palliate his offence. We all attempt to make excuses for our faults and failings, to soften down our guilt, to palliate our offences, to lay cur' sins at the door of others. Is it fear, or a relic of man's better nature, that thus induces men to desire to exculpate themselves in some degree from their crimes? Who can tell? God alone, who trieth the hearts.
VII. That the most ingenious excuses, after a statement has been deliberately made, cannot invalidate the force of that statement. Noting, doubtless, that David was indignant at his treason, the Amalekite answers, when asked by David, Whence art thou? I am the son of a stranger, an Amalekite. So futile will be our excuses in the Judgment Day; so vain, indeed, are they often found to be now, even in the light of conscience, not to say in the sight of God.
VIII. That deceit leads to destruction sooner or later. How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord's anointed? No subterfuges or cunningly devised fables can deceive the Almighty, or can prevent Him from giving to every man according to his works. Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile. Is not destruction to the wicked, and a strange punishment to the workers of iniquity?
IX. That he who has sown the wind must expect to reap the whirlwind, Saul, contrary to the Divine command, spared a certain portion of the Amalekites, instead of destroying them utterly, as it had been determined, for their sins, that they should be thus severely punished. This very Amalekite may have been one of the captives thus spared; and lo! he comes now in triumph, as it were, in the death of the king whose mercy to the nation of the Amalekites had led to the ruin of Saul himself. Thus, of our pleasant vices the gods make instruments to scourge us with. He that pursueth evil, pursueth it to his own death.
X. That the path of honour is the path of real success. In selfishness we often injure self, and with a most shortsighted policy sacrifice a glorious and eternal future for a paltry and fleeting present. (R. Young, M. A.)
Tidings from Gilboa
The horrors of the battlefield are far from terminated when the actual encounter is over, and victory has declared in favour of one of the contending parties. The after-scenes are often such as cause humanity to shudder; and to one of the most revolting of these we are introduced by the circumstances under which the tidings of Saul's death first reached David. We refer to the traversing of the field of blood, for the purpose of spoiling and plundering those who can no longer resist the hand of violence. And, probably, it happened in this case--as it has many a time occurred in the annals of robbery and plunder--that the thing stolen has no sooner been actually obtained, than the spoiler finds its possession very inconvenient, on account of its unusual character, or extraordinary value. Wad it been of less splendid material, or of less intrinsic worth, its possession would have excited no remark, and it could have been parted with without difficulty. But a crown and a royal bracelet, which every one would know he could scarcely have acquired by fair means, which every Israelite would recognise as having belonged to his fallen king, and in which the Philistines, too, would have discovered a property to which they, as victors, were entitled, and of which they had been unlawfully deprived by the haste with which he had commenced his predatory excursion on the battle-field--what was to be done with these spoils? It did not answer his purpose to keep them, and yet they were far from being marketable commodities, for the ordinary ways of turning property to account were not available there. It was at this juncture we find him coming to David, and while professing to sympthise with the disgrace of Israel, telling them not only were Saul and his sons dead, but that he himself had put the finishing stroke to his existence; in token of which he stood there as the bearer of the crown and bracelet. The interested part which he had to act accounts for the discrepancy between the recital which he gave, and the narrative previously furnished by the sacred writer. In his own estimation, however, he was taking the surest way to honour and to the advancement of his worldly interests. What reward could be too large for the messenger who brought to David the intelligence of the death of his enemy?--nay , more, who had, by his own hand, put an end to the life of that bitter persecutor? Well contrived as was the plan, it nevertheless failed; and the reason of the failure deserves notice. Many an apparently well-arranged scheme of iniquity has broken through from exactly the same cause. The Amalekite had made a grievous miscalculation as to the character of the man with whom he had to deal. He had done David a gross injustice; and he, doubtless, was not long in discovering his mistake; but then it was quite too late to recede. His mistake was fatal. He was treated as a murderer, on his own confession. He had failed in his scheme for securing his own advantage and aggrandizement, because he had formed altogether a wrong estimate of the character of David.
1. The incident gives us an opportunity of marking the immense difference in the order of mind and character which may subsist between two individuals brought together by one event, and having their attention occupied by one and the same object. And we observe, too, in this instance, a circumstance which is the natural attendant upon this diversity--the incapability, on the part of the possessor of the meaner and inferior order of mental and moral qualities, to enter into the feelings and principles of the possesser of superior endowments. This incapability operates to prevent its unfortunate subject from suspecting the existence, in a fellow-creature, of any other mode of thinking and acting than that which he himself adopts and employs; and it issues, therefore, in the habit of judging all around him by his own standard, and of reckoning that they will be actuated, in their conduct, by the principles which direct his own proceedings. Now, whenever such judgments are formed, and on the same principle, it must be obvious that a considerable amount of personal injustice is perpetrated; and in reference, too, to that very point upon which a well-regulated mind will be most sensitive. To an upright man--to one who exercises himself to have a conscience void of offence towards God--character is a far more momentous consideration than thousands of silver and gold could ever be; and judgments formed on the principles of which this passage reminds us, do injustice to personal character. Nor is it to be wondered at that David should have felt the injustice acutely. For assuredly where, by the Grace of God, a man has been taught the lesson of true self-respect--where he has been enabled, as the child of God, to hold that principle humbly, firmly, and for sanctified purposes--where the Spirit of God has produced moral elevation, and has stamped sin with its real character of debasement and dishonourableness--where these results have been brought about in the moral history of an individual, there is something very humiliating, something peculiarly distressing, because felt to be deeply degrading, in this very circumstance of having been so misunderstood and misjudged, as to have been supposed capable of finding gratification in acting out the principles which rule minds of another order, and of sympathising with the courses to which these principles conduct. There is scarcely a trial which is more hard to endure, or which pierces the heart with so deep a pang, than thus to find one's self standing, in the estimation of a man whose feelings and principles are low, on that same low platform which marks his own moral position, and side by side with himself. It may be said, indeed, that conscious integrity--the personal conviction of uprightness--ought to have a power to heal the pang, that it ought to be enough for a man to know that the judgment formed of him is wrong. But a more delicate perception will discover that it is this very circumstance which occasions the pang, which embitters the trial. It would be no trial but for this consciousness of personal integrity; and in employing this argument as a comfort to the child of God writhing beneath an injurious and unjust supposition, whether implied or expressed, the danger would be, that instead of mitigating the smart, you should only increase the anguish of the wound. The true solace, then, for the heart bleeding at the injustice perpetrated by a false and injurious estimate of character will be found in an intelligent view of those important ends which such a trial is peculiarly calculated to answer, and in yielding to the trial for the sake of the spiritual benefit which it is designed to promote. It may be hard to bear--it will be; yet it will be worth while to have had the spirit wounded by the injustice, and the heart depressed by the injury, if only the principles of gratitude to God, of humility, dependence, and caution, acquire power in the painful process; if only sin become more hateful--self become more completely laid in the dust--and God be more completely glorified. So long as human nature is what it is--so long as men of corrupt minds want excuses for their sins, or sanction and encouragement in the commission of them--so long we must expect that they will find it convenient to form for themselves, and, if necessary, to present to others, a low and unjust estimate of the character of those whom Divine grace has made the subjects of a better nature. But the Lord taketh part with them that fear Him.
2. But let it not be thought by any that they can with impunity-commit, under any circumstances, the injustice which has now been described. Apart from the injury which they inflict upon religious character by so representing it to themselves or to others, as that it shall be employed as a sanction for their own sins, or as an excuse for their wrong-doing, it must not be forgotten that, supposing the real character of a professor of religion were such as they represent it--supposing that beneath a profession of purity and love, in any instance, there really did exist a cherished impurity and an indulged malignity, from which they might gain encouragement in their plans, and from which they might secretly expect sanction, yet even this would not justify them in sinning. God looks at sinners in their individual capacity, and deals with them as such. Sin is felt by God to be a personal matter in reference to Himself, and nothing can justify its commission; no, not all the suspected hypocrisy, nor all the proved unfaithfulness of professors of religion, with all the imaginary sanction which the one might give, and all the real encouragement which the other would afford. We know, indeed, that the formation of these wrong judgments of character constitutes a chosen method by which the great enemy of souls seeks to entrap men to their own destruction. He belies and misrepresents religion in their view. He suggests that the high standard of a religious profession is a thing of imagination rather than of reality. He whispers stealthily that, notwithstanding the untoward difference between the men whose lives are avowedly under a higher influence and the rest of mankind, it is not very difficult--for a consideration--to induce these very professors, either to act upon a lower, principle themselves, or to give their sanction to those who adopt an inferior standard of religion and morals. He thus removes the checks and restraints which religious example and influence would exert in discouraging the young from evil. He does more; for, by the insinuation and imputation of real sympathy with sin on the part of professors, he gives direct encouragement to evil courses. Having thus, by acting out his character of accuser of the brethren, produced an impression of personal religion as being hollow and valueless, the enemy of souls next presents some well-adapted temptation--some well-arranged enticement--to secure present advantage by means which involve personal guilt and expose to heavy penalty. The scheme succeeds--the youth falls into the trap prepared for him--the criminal deed is done--the actual guilt is incurred--and then, the tempter's object being gained, conscience is allowed to speak, to make itself heard; and, amidst shame and misery, the discovery is made that the impressions about religion and religious professors which induced to the commission of sin, were wrong after all. Then the victim of the temptation wakes up to learn that there is such a thing as religious principle; that it does produce a stats of mind which holds sin in abhorrence; that it teaches men to press the inquiry for themselves, How can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? There is a fearful peril which the Scripture exposes to view, and to which nothing will so certainly conduct men as this habit of misjudging the character of the people of God for the purpose of gaining sanction to their own sins. The transition is made from entertaining unjust and low thoughts of the people of God to forming unworthy and degrading views of God Himself; and in the same way that a transgressor finds encouragement and sanction for personal sins in attributing to his fellow-creatures the same vicious motives which rule his own heart, so may he proceed a step further, and imagine that the Creator is altogether such an one as himself. It would seem hardly credible, at first sight, that such an idea could ever find entrance in the human heart; but Omniscience records the fact as the object of its own discovery and censure--proving that there is no length to which the hardening influence of sin will not carry a man. (J. A. Miller.)
The Amalekite messenger
1. A scrutiny touching the veracity of this Amalekite's long harangue: Though I find some learned men patronising this Amalekite, and purging him from lying to David, saying his story was a real truth, for Saul had indeed fallen upon his own weapon, but his coat of mail had hindered it from piercing deep enough to be so speedily a mortal wound, but that the Philistines might come and catch him alive and abuse him; and though it be said (when his armour-bearer saw that Saul was dead) he slew himself (1Sa_31:5). Which yet Dr: Lightfoot senseth thus: When he saw Saul had given himself so deadly a wound, he did the like, and died indeed, but Saul's wound was not of so quick a dispatch, therefore he desired this man to kill him outright. Notwithstanding all this, yet upon a more serious inquest into particulars, this whole story seems more probably to be a pack of lies, one stitched to another for these reasons:--Tis altogether improbable, either that Saul, after he had given himself such a deadly wound, whereof he was ready to die, should be able to call him, and spend so many words in talking with him; or that this man should dare to stay so long in this discourse with Saul, seeing he also was fleeing (with the whole army) to save his own life, which he might have lost by making this halt, had the Philistines overtaken him in their pursuit (which Saul feared for himself) during this parley. Nor can it be probable that Saul should desire to die rather by the hands of an uncircumcised Amalekite, than of the uncircumcised Philistines which he so much feared. He could not put any such difference between them, seeing Amalek was more accursed and devoted to destruction than the Philistines. Tis expressly said, that Saul fell upon his own sword (1Sa_31:4), but this fellow saith, he fell upon his own spear (2Sa_1:6). Tis as expressly said, that Saul's armour-bearer, being yet alive, saw that Saul was dead (1Sa_31:5), which doubtless he would thoroughly know before he did kill himself. Had the armour-bearer been yet alive when Saul called this Amalekite to dispatch him, he would certainly have hindered him from doing that which himself durst not do (1Sa_31:4). Nor could that be more probable, which he told David, I took the crown that was upon his head (2Sa_1:10), but looked rather like a lie, for it is not likely Saul would wear his crown upon his head in battle; this would make him a fair mark to his enemies, whom they chiefly aimed at. A wise general will rather disguise himself (1 King. 22:30) than be so fondly exposed, etc. The scripture of truth does manifestly ascribe Saul's death to be his own action (1Sa_31:4-5), even to his failing upon his own sword, which must be of more credit with us, than an artificially composed speech of an accursed Amalekite, who had taught his tongue to tell lies (Jer_9:5), and all to curry favour with David, from whom he promised to himself some great preferment by thus glozing with him.
2. A just hand of God on this Amalekite for his lying. (C. Ness.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v1
CHAPTER I.
DAVDS LAMENT FOR SAUL AND JONATHAN.
Read full note →
2Sa_1:1-27.
DAVID had returned to Ziklag from the slaughter of the Amalekites only two days before he heard of the death of Saul. He had returned weary enough, we may believe, in body, though refreshed in spirit by the recovery of all that had been taken away, and by the possession of a vast store of booty besides. But in the midst of his success, it was discouraging to see nothing but ruin and confusion where the homes of himself and his people had recently been; and it must have needed no small effort even to plan, and much more to execute, the reconstruction of the city. But besides this, a still heavier feeling must have oppressed him. What had been the issue of that great battle at Mount Gilboa? Which army had conquered? If the Israelites were defeated, what would be the fate of Saul and Jonathan? Would they be prisoners now in the hands of the Philistines? And if so, what would be his duty in regard to them? And what course would it be best for him to take for the welfare of his ruined and distracted country?
He was not kept long in suspense. An Amalekite from the camp of Israel, accustomed, like the Bedouin generally, to long and rapid runs, arrived at Ziklag; bearing on his body all the tokens of a disaster, and did obeisance to David, as now the legitimate occupant of the throne. David must have surmised at a glance how matters stood. His questions to the Amalekite elicited an account of the death of Saul materially different from that given in a former part of the history, As I happened by chance upon Mount Gilboa, behold Saul leaned upon his spear; and lo, the chariots and the horsemen followed hard after him. And when he looked behind him, he saw me and called unto me. And I answered, Here am I. And he said unto me. Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. And he said unto me, Stand, I pray thee, beside me, and slay me, for anguish hath taken hold of me: because my life is yet whole in me. So I stood beside him and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen; and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was upon his arm, and have brought them hither to my lord. There is no reason to suppose that this narrative of Saul's death, in so far as it differs from the previous one, is correct. That this Amalekite was somehow near the place where Saul fell, and that he witnessed all that took place at his death, there is no cause to doubt. That when he saw that both Saul and his armour-bearer were dead he removed the crown and the bracelet from the person of the fallen king, and stowed them away among his own accoutrements, may likewise be accepted without any difficulty. Then, managing to escape, and considering what he would do with the ensigns of royalty, he decided to carry them to David. To David he accordingly brought them, and no doubt it was to ingratiate himself the more with him, and to establish the stronger claim to a splendid recompense, that he invented the story of Saul asking him to kill him, and of his complying with the king's order, and thus putting an end to a life which already was obviously doomed.
In his belief that his pretended dispatching of the king would gratify David, the Amalekite undoubtedly reckoned without his host; but such things were so common, so universal in the East that we can hardly divest ourselves of a certain amount of compassion for him. Probably there was no other kingdom, round and round, where this Amalekite would not have found that he had done a wise thing in so far as his own interests were concerned. For helping to dispatch a rival, and to open the way to a throne, he would probably have received cordial thanks and ample gifts from one and all of the neighbouring potentates. To David, the matter appeared in a quite different light. He had none of that eagerness to occupy the throne on which the Amalekite reckoned as a universal instinct of human nature. And he had a view of the sanctity of Saul's life which the Amalekite could not understand. His being the Lord's anointed ought to have withheld this man from hurting a hair of his head. Sadly though Saul had fallen back, the divinity that doth hedge a king still encompassed him. ''Touch not mine anointed" was still God's word concerning him. This miserable Amalekite, a member of a doomed race, appeared to David by his own confession not only a murderer, but a murderer of the deepest dye. He had destroyed the life of one who in an eminent sense was "the Lord's anointed." He had done what once and again David had himself shrunk from doing. It is no wonder that David was at once horrified and provoked, - horrified at the unblushing criminality of the man; provoked at his effrontery, at his doing without the slightest compunction what, at an immense sacrifice, he had twice restrained himself from doing. No doubt he was irritated; too, at the bare supposition on which the Amalekite reckoned so securely, that such a black deed could be gratifying to David himself. So without a moment's hesitation, and without allowing the astonished youth a moment's preparation, he caused an attendant to fall upon him and kill him. His sentence was short and clear, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee saying, I have slain the Lord's anointed.
In this incident we find David in a position in which good men are often placed, who profess to have regard to higher principles than the men of the world in regulating their lives, and especially in the estimate which they form of their worldly interests and considerations. That such men are sincere in the estimate they thus profess to follow is what the world is very slow to believe. Faith in any moral virtue that rises higher than the ordinary worldly level is extremely rare among men. The world fancies that every man has his price - sometimes that every woman has her price. Virtue of the heroic quality that will face death itself rather than do wrong is what it is most unwilling to believe in. Was it not this that gave rise to the memorable trial of Job? Did not the great enemy representing here the spirit of the world, scorn the notion that at bottom Job was in any way better than his neighbours, although the wonderful prosperity with which he had been gifted made him appear more ready to pay honour to God? It is all a matter of selfishness, was Satan's plea; take away his prosperity, and lay a painful malady on his body, his religion will vanish, he will curse Thee to Thy face. He would not give Job credit for anything like disinterested virtue - anything like genuine reverence for God. And was it not on the same principle the tempter acted when he brought his threefold temptation to our Lord in the wilderness? He did not believe in the superhuman virtue of Jesus; he did not believe in His unswerving loyalty to truth and duty. He did not believe that He was proof at once against the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eye, and the pride of life. At least he did not believe till he tried, and had to retreat defeated. When the end of His life drew near Jesus could say, The prince of this world cometh, but hath nothing in Me." There was no weakness in Jesus to which he could fasten his cord - no trace of that worldliness by which he had so often been able to entangle and secure his victims.
So likewise Simon the sorcerer fancied that he only needed to offer money to the Apostles to secure from , them the gift of the Holy Ghost. "Thy money perish with thee!" was the indignant rebuke of Peter. It is the same refusal to believe in the reality of high principle that has made so many a persecutor fancy that he could bend the obstinacy of the heretic by the terrors of suffering and torture. And on the other hand, no nobler sight has ever been presented than when this incredulous scorn of the world has been rebuked by the firmness and triumphant faith of the noble martyr. What could Nebuchadnezzar have thought when the three Hebrew children were willing to enter the fiery furnace? What did Darius think of Daniel when he shrank not from the lions' den? How many a rebuke and surprise was furnished to the rulers of this world in the early persecutions of the Christians, and to the champions of the Church of Rome in the splendid defiance hurled against them by the Protestant martyrs! The men who formed the Free Church of Scotland were utterly discredited when they affirmed that rather than surrender the liberties of their Church they would part with every temporal privilege which they had enjoyed from connection with the State. Such is the spirit of the world; if it will not rise to the apparent level of the saints, it delights to pull down the saints to its own. These pretences to superior virtue are hypocrisy and pharisaism; test their professions by their worldly interests, and you will find them soon enough on a level with yourselves.
The Amalekite that thought to gratify David by pretending that he had slain his rival had no idea that he was wronging him; in his blind innocency he seems to have assumed as a matter of course that David would be pleased. It is not likely the Amalekite had ever heard of David's noble magnanimity in twice sparing Saul's life when he had an excellent pretext for taking it, if his conscience had allowed him. He just assumed that David would feel as he would have felt himself. He simply judged of him by his own standard. His object was to show how great a service he had rendered him, and thus establish a claim to a great reward. Never did heartless selfishness more completely overreach itself. Instead of a reward, this impious murderer had earned a fearful punishment. An Israelite might have had a chance of mercy, but an Amalekite had none - the man was condemned to instant death. One can hardly fancy his bewilderment, - what a strange man was this David! What a marvelous reverence he had for God! To place him on a throne was no favor, if it involved doing anything against the Lord's anointed! And yet who shall say that in his estimate of this proceeding David did more than recognize the obligation of the first commandment? To him God's will was all in all.
Dismissing this painful episode, we now turn to contemplate David's conduct after the intelligence reached him that Saul was dead. David was now just thirty (2Sa_5:4); and never did man at that age, or at any age, act a finer part. The death, and especially the sudden death, of a relative or a friend has usually a remarkable effect on the tender heart, and especially in the case of the young. It blots out all remembrance of little injuries done by the departed; it fills one with regret for any unkind words one may have spoken, or any unkind deeds one may ever have done to him. It makes one very forgiving. But it must have been a far more generous heart than the common that could so soon rid itself of every shred of bitter feeling toward Saul - that could blot out, in one great act of forgiveness, the remembrance of many long years of injustice, oppression, and toil, and leave no feelings but those of kindness, admiration, and regret, called forth by the contemplation of what was favourable in Saul's character. How beautiful does the spirit of forgiveness appear in such a light! Yet how hard do many feel it to be to exercise this spirit in any case, far less in all cases! How terrible a snare the unforgiving spirit is liable to be to us, and how terrible an obstacle to peaceful communion with God! "For if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses."
The feelings of David toward Saul and Jonathan were permanently embodied in a song which he composed for the occasion. It seems to have been called "The Song of the Bow," so that the rendering of the Revised Version - "he taught them the Song of the Bow," gives a much better sense than the old - "he taught them the use of the bow." The song was first written in the book of Jasher; and it was ordered by David to be taught to the people as a permanent memorial of their king and his eldest son. The writing of such a song, the spirit of admiration and eulogy which pervades it, and the unusual enactment that it should be taught to the people, show how far superior David was to the ordinary feelings of jealousy, how full his heart was of true generosity. There was, indeed, a political end which it might advance; it might conciliate the supporters of Saul, and smooth David's way to the throne. But there is in it such depth and fullness of feeling that one can think of it only as a genuine cardiphonia - a true voice of the heart. The song dwells on all that could be commended in Saul, and makes no allusion to his faults. His courage and energy in war, his happy co-operation with Jonathan, his advancement of the kingdom in elegance and comfort, are all duly celebrated. David appears to have had a real affection for Saul, if only it had been allowed to bloom and flourish. His martial energy had probably awakened his admiration before he knew him personally; and when he became his minstrel, his distressed countenance would excite his pity, while his occasional gleams of generous feeling would thrill his heart with sympathy. The terrible effort of Saul to crush David was now at an end, and like a lily released from a heavy stone, the old attachment bloomed out speedily and sweetly. There would be more true love in families and in the world, more of expansive, responsive affection, if it were not so often stunted by reserve on the one hand, and crushed by persecution on the other.
The song embalms very tenderly the love of Jonathan for David. Years had probably elapsed since the two friends met, but time had not impaired the affection and admiration of David. And now that Jonathan's light was extinguished, a sense of desolation fell on David's heart, and the very throne that invited his occupation seemed dark and dull under the shadow cast on it by the death of Jonathan. As a prize of earthly ambition it would be poor indeed; and if ever it had seemed to David a proud distinction to look forward to, such a feeling would appear very detestable when the same act that opened it up to him had deprived him forever of his dearest friend, his sweetest source of earthly joy. The only way in which it was possible for David to enjoy his new position was by losing sight of himself; by identifying himself more closely than ever with the people; by regarding the throne as only a position for more self-denying labours for the good of others. And in the song there is evidence of the great strength and activity of this feeling. The sentiment of patriotism burns with a noble ardour; the national disgrace is most keenly felt; the thought of personal gain from the death of Saul and Jonathan is entirely swallowed up by grief for the public loss. "Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph!" In David's view, it is no ordinary calamity that has fallen on Israel. It is no common men that have fallen, but "the beauty of Israel," her ornament and her glory, men that were never known to flinch or to flee from battle, men that were "swifter than eagles, and stronger than lions." It is not in any obscure corner that they have fallen, but ''on her high places," on Mount Gilboa, at the head of a most conspicuous and momentous enterprise. Such a national loss was unprecedented in the history of Israel, and it seems to have affected David and the nation generally as the slaughter at Flodden affected the Scots, when it seemed as if all that was great and beautiful in the nation perished - "the flowers o' the forest were a' weed awa'."
A word on the general structure of this song. It is not a song that can be classed with the Psalms. Nor can it be said that in any marked degree it resembles the tone or spirit of the Psalms. Yet this need not surprise us, nor need it throw any doubt either as to the authorship of the song or the authorship of the Psalms. The Psalms, we must remember, were avowedly composed and designed for use in the worship of God. If the Greek term psalmoi denotes their character, they were songs designed for use in public worship, to be accompanied with the lyre, or harp, or other musical instruments suitable for them. The special sphere of such songs was - the relation of the human soul to God. These songs might be of various kinds - historical, lyrical, dramatical; but in all cases the paramount subject was, the dealings of God with man, or the dealings of man with God. It was in this class of composition that David excelled, and became the organ of the Holy Ghost for the highest instruction and edification of the Church in all ages. But it does not by any means follow that the poetical compositions of David were restricted to this one class of subject. His muse may sometimes have taken a different course. His poems were not always directly religious. In the case of this song, whose original place in the book of Jasher indicated its special character, there is no mention of the relation of Saul and Jonathan to God. The theme is, their services to the nation, and the national loss involved in their death. The soul of the poet is profoundly thrilled by their death, occurring in such circumstances of national disaster. No form of words could have conveyed more vividly the idea of unprecedented loss, or thrilled the nation with such a sense of calamity. There is not a line of the song but is full of life, and hardly one that is not full of beauty. What could more touchingly indicate the fatal nature of the calamity than that plaintive entreaty - "Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon"? How could the hills be more impressively summoned to show their sympathy than in that invocation of everlasting sterility - "Ye mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew, neither let there be rain upon you, or fields of offerings"? What gentler veil could be drawn over the horrors of their bloody death and mutilated bodies than in the tender words, "Saul and Jonathan were loving and pleasant in their lives, and in their deaths they were not divided"? And what more fitting theme for tears could have been furnished to the daughters of Israel, considering what was probably the prevalent taste, than that Saul had "clothed them with scarlet and other delights, and put on ornaments of gold upon their apparel"? Up to this point Saul and Jonathan are joined together; but the poet cannot close without a special lamentation for himself over him whom he loved as his own soul. And in one line he touches the very kernel of his own loss, as he touches the very core of Jonathan's heart - "thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." Such is the Song of the Bow. It hardly seems suitable to attempt to draw spiritual lessons out of a song, which, on purpose, was placed in a different category. Surely it is enough to point out the exceeding beauty and generosity of spirit which sought in this way to embalm the memory and perpetuate the virtues of Saul and Jonathan; which blended together in such melodious words a deadly enemy and a beloved friend; which transfigured one of the lives so that it shone with the luster and the beauty of the other; which sought to bury every painful association, and gave full and unlimited scope to the charity that thinketh no evil. Demortuis nil nisi bonum, was a heathen maxim, - "Say nothing but what is good of the dead." Surely no finer exemplification of the maxim was ever given than in this "Song of the Bow."
To "thoughts that breathe and words that burn," like those of this song, David could not have given expression without having his whole soul stirred with the desire to repair the national disaster, and by God's help bring back prosperity and honour to Israel. Thus, both by the afflictions that saddened his heart and the stroke of prosperity that raised him to the throne, he was impelled to that course of action which is the best safeguard under God against the hurtful influences both of adversity and prosperity. Affliction might have driven him into his shell, to think only of his own comfort; prosperity might have swollen him with a sense of his importance, and tempted him to expect universal admiration; - both would have made him unfit to rule; by the grace of God he was preserved from both. He was induced to gird himself for a course of high exertion for the good of his country; the spirit of trust in God, after its long discipline, had a new field opened for its exercise; and the self-government acquired in the wilderness was to prove its usefulness in a higher sphere. Thus the providence of his heavenly Father was gradually unfolding His purposes concerning him; the clouds were clearing off his horizon; and the "all things" that once seemed to be "against him" were now plainly "working together for his good."
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 2Sa_1:6. “The chariots and horsemen.” It has been remarked…
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES.—
2Sa_1:6. “The chariots and horsemen.” It has been remarked that it is extremely unlikely that chariots and horsemen, pursued the Israelites on to the mountains, and this statement has been generally regarded as a part of the falsehood of the whole story, which is throughout at variance with the account in the last chapter.
Read full note →
2Sa_1:7. “Here am I,” etc. This statement also, as Kiel remarks, has about it the air of untruth, for it is extremely improbable that Saul would have no Israelite by his side to whom to address his request.
2Sa_1:9. “Anguish.” From a verb meaning to interweave, or work together; hence some translate “My cuirass hindereth me,” etc., but Keil, Erdmann, Kunchi, and others cramp. Gesenius reads, giddiness, vertigo.
2Sa_1:10. “Crown,” rather diadem, “A small metallic cap or wreath, which encircled the temples, serving the purpose of a helmet, with a very small horn projecting in front, as the emblem of power.” “Bracelet,” i.e., “the armlet worn above the elbow, an ancient mark of royal dignity.” (Jamieson.)
2Sa_1:12. “The people of Jehovah” and the House of Israel are distinguished from one another, according to the twofold attitude of Israel, which furnished a double ground for mourning. Those who had fallen were first of all members of the people of Jehovah, and secondly, fellow-countrymen. (Ked.) “They were, therefore, associated with them both according to the flesh and according to the spirit, and for that reason they mourned the more.” (Schmidt.)
2Sa_1:13. “A Stranger,” etc, i.e. “An Amalekite who had emigrated to Israel.” (Keil). Although most Bible students regard the Amalekite’s story as untrue, yet Josephus adopts it. Wordsworth thinks it may be supplementary to the former account, and that though Saul was the author of his own death, inasmuch as he did what he could to destroy himself, yet he was despatched at last by the Amalekite, and remarks, “If the story be true, it is worthy of remark that Saul owed his death to one of that nation of Amalek, which he had been commanded by God to destroy.”
2Sa_1:15-16. Although some commentators think that this action of David was a political one, most believe that he was moved by a higher motive, and that according to Erdmann “he acted theocratically with perfect justice in slaying with holy anger the murderer of the Lord’s anointed.”
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—2Sa_1:1-16
THE DECEIVER DECEIVED
I. Those who plan to deceive others are often deceived by means of their own plan. This is a principle of Divine working which is continually manifesting itself. When the sons of Jacob laid a plot to rid themselves of their brother, and to prevent the fulfilment of his dreams, the deception which they thus practised on their father was the first step by which Joseph ascended to the rulership of Egypt. In the case before us we have a man who, having conceived a plan of deception, brought it forth in falsehood, hoping thereby to gain a great reward. But this scheme of his, instead of bringing him the praise and the preferment for which it had been planned, brought him the condemnation and death which his deception merited as much as the deed for which David judged and punished him.
II. Bad men judge others by their own moral standard. The untoward issue of this plan of the Amalekite arose from his mismeasurement of the man with whom he had to deal. He knew what his own feelings would be if he were in David’s case, and had no other rule by which to judge actions except the amount of fancied good or ill they brought to himself. So is it with all bad men. Their own supposed interest is the measure of all things—self is first, and often last, and if righteousness and mercy mingle at all with their plans and purposes, it is only when they do not hinder the main object of their existence. Hence they cannot understand a man who sorrows over anything that is not a personal and material loss, and still more are they puzzled to comprehend him who is displeased at a deed which brings him gain, or who grieves over the fall of others when that fall is a stepping-stone to his own elevation. This heathen of the olden time was not farther removed from David’s stand-point of action than men of the world now are from that of the spiritual man.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
David’s course in this matter was the best policy for him; but we have no right to conclude from that fact that he was led to it by considerations of policy. He had himself shown, on an occasion of great temptation, that reverence for the Lord’s anointed of which he here speaks. The fact that “honesty is the best policy” will not of itself alone make a man honest; but neither does it prevent a man’s being honest, or give us a right to suspect a good man’s motives.—Transr. of Lange’s Commentary.
David had been long waiting for the crown, and now it is brought him by an Amalekite. See how God can serve his own purpose of kindness to his people, even by designing men who aim at nothing but to set up themselves.—Henry.
There is something very humiliating—something peculiarly distressing, because felt to be deeply degrading, in this very circumstance of having been so misunderstood and misjudged as to have been supposed capable of finding gratification in acting out principles which rule minds of another order, and of sympathising with the courses to which these principles conduct. There is scarcely a trial which is more hard to endure, or which pierces the heart with so deep a pang, than thus to find one’s self standing in the estimation of a man whose feelings and principles are low, on that same low platform which marks his own moral position, and side by side with himself.—Miller.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Sermon Bible 1900 · Public Domain On v1 2Sa 1:18
2Sa 1:18
The Bow is the title given to David’s poem, and it should rather read "Also he bade them teach the children of Israel the song of the bow." David turned the death of Saul in his song into the means of bringing all the energies, the glowing patriotism, of the land upon national defence. He roused and concentrated the military spirit, and taught them the use, while he taught them the song, of the bow.
Read full note →
Notice:—
I. The song of the bow is a song of trial and discipline. He bade them teach, and teach the children, the young. The song of the bow is a song of war. In the old Hebrew fashion this is full of the grief of life. It is possible, not merely to set the sad things of life to music, but the discipline and endeavour of life itself, so that it becomes a grand overcoming,
II. The song of the bow is not only the song of battle, discipline and trial, but a song of victory and triumph. Let us spell over the illustrious story of our Saviour’s death, of His glorious resurrection and ascension, and let us take this as our song of the bow.
E. Paxton Hood, Christian World Pulpit, vol. i., p. 365.
Reference: 2Sa 1:18-27.—A. P. Stanley, Good Words, 1863, p. 121.
2Sa 1:19-27
I. One of the first lessons impressed upon us by this lament relates to David’s noble-minded forgetfulness of all personal injury.
II. The lament shows how David was able to take the highest and brightest view of human character.
III. The lament impresses us with the beauty of a zealous and tender care for the reputation of the Lord’s anointed.
IV. The lament shows how bitter is the distress which follows the irreparable losses of life.
The application of the whole: (1) Let us so live that death will be but a momentary separation. (2) In commending the wonderful love of Jonathan let us remember that there is a Friend that sticketh closer than a brother.
Parker, City Temple, vol. i., p. 359.
References: 2Sa 1:20.—J. Edmunds, Fifteen Sermons, p. 123. 2Sa 1:21.—G. Brooks, Outlines of Sermons, 1887, p. 414.
2Sa 1:25
This poem owes much of its admirableness to the fact that it combines the passionate love of country and the true love of a friend. If ever a man was born for friendship it was David the king. Once and once only during his long eventful life did he find a man he could love with the multitudinous energy of his heart; and this man was the king’s son, the darling of the nation, the "beauty of the forest" they called him, as like a gazelle he bounded from crag to crag in the mountains or dashed through the thickest of the wood. The homage paid by the poet to the beauty and the strength and the glorious prowess of his friend must be supplemented by the homage we know that he paid to the noble generosity of his friend. Such was David’s in memoriam to the one personal friend of his life. He delighted to think of his friend’s brilliancy, his strength, his courage; he was the champion of Israel, the protector of his countrymen against the natural enemy, and now the enemy was triumphant and the young hero was slain. The poem suggests some thoughts on friendship.
I. If any one of our friends were to die to-morrow, could we find anything in him which has ennobled our life, anything worthy of the stately name of friendship? If not, if the bond was unholy or unprofitable, what shame, what grief will be ours as we think of our departed friend.
II. Let us remember that the grave is not the only teacher though it is one of the most bitter. We are able now, at this moment, while we can still grasp our friends’ hands, and see them and walk with them, to see what true friendship is. Like the great Emperor Marcus Aurelius, we can tranquilly set down that we owe that to this friend, and something else to a second and a third; a kindly encouragement, a noble idea implanted, an enthusiasm, a painful duty carried out.
III. And then we can hope to be not only receptive, but to have been able to give back something which our friends have used well. Such a satisfaction as this is worth living for and worth praying for.
H. M. Butler, Contemporary Pulpit, vol. v., p. 99.
Reference: 2Sa 1:25-27.—A. P. Stanley, Good Words, 1873, p. 641.
2Sa 1:26
Two great qualities were combined in Jonathan, courage and faith. With such qualities, who could be more fit to succeed to the sceptre of Israel? And yet Jonathan waived all claim on behalf of the man whom he loved; he recognised in David qualities for rule greater than his own, and without a particle of envy he stood aside to make way for him. He had the true humility of soul which is content to take the lower place, and which is commended by our Lord in the Gospel.
I. The real friend will be like Jonathan, and true friendship is best described by the same words in which true charity is described. True friendship envieth not, vaunteth not itself, is not easily provoked, rejoiceth in the truth, and never faileth. In the world with its sorrows and its sufferings, its trials and temptations, there is nothing more truly precious than a real friend, such a friend as Jonathan was to David and David to Jonathan.
II. There is one Friend who is ever near at hand if only we will seek Him. In the Lord Jesus Christ are joined all the qualities of true friendship. He is a firm Friend, a constant Friend, a Friend that giveth good counsel, a Friend who has laid down His life on our behalf.
R. D. B. Rawnsley, Village Sermons, 3rd series, p. 139.
References: 2Sa 1:26.—C. Kingsley, Four Sermons Preached at Cambridge, 1865, p. 69; T. Guthrie, The Way to Life, p. 156; Spurgeon, Evening by Evening, p. 32; G. Brooks, Outlines of Sermons, p. 416; Homiletic Magazine, vol. xv., p. 107; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. v., p. 78. 2Sa 1:27.—G. R. Gleig. Good Words, 1871, p. 847. 2Sa 1:27.—Congregationalist, vol. vii., p. 659. 2Sam 1—Homiletic Magazine, vol. xiii., p. 22; Parker, vol. vii., p. 79. 2Sa 2:4.—J. Van Oosterzee, Year of Salvation, vol. ii., p. 451; F. W. Krummacher. David the King of Israel, p. 236. 2Sa 2:8.—Parker, vol. vii., p. 229. 2Sa 2:26.—Ibid.; C. Kingsley, The Water of Life, and Other Sermons, p. 158; Spurgeon, Evening by Evening, p. 367. 2Sa 2:29.—Parker, vol. vii., p. 230. 2Sam 2—Ibid., p. 83. 2Sa 3:10.—Ibid., p. 231. 2Sa 3:17.—J. M. Neale, Sermons for the Church Year, vol. ii., p. 101. 2Sa 3:17, 2Sa 3:18.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxiii., No. 1375.
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
F. W. Grant 1903 · Public Domain On v1 Subdivision 2. (2Sa 1:1-27; 2Sa 2:1-32; 2Sa 3:1-39; 2Sa…
Subdivision 2. (2Sa 1:1-27; 2Sa 2:1-32; 2Sa 3:1-39; 2Sa 4:1-12.)
The growth of David’s Kingdom.
Read full note →
We have closed thus the story of David prior to his reception of the throne to which he was destined. We are now to see him in a new character, in which he becomes plainly the type of the One true King that is to be, -King not over Israel only, but to the ends of the earth. Here it will be no great wonder, however, if, while the general truth is clear, the details should be to us often obscure, if only from their very brightness. David is not, indeed, as we soon find, by any means a perfect reflection of the glory of Christ as King. We could not rightly expect him to be. Often he seems to show us, as in designed contrast, just those blots and disfigurements which would suggest the interpretation to be by opposite application to the Lord of glory. Yet all this brings additional difficulty into it, if in the end it may tend, perhaps, as one may readily conceive, to fullness of vision. Assuredly we have, in any case, what the Spirit of God designs for our instruction, with the fullest command Of the material, we may be sure, which will fill out the picture. It is our privilege to inquire what the wisdom of God has given us in it, with the certainty that it is perfect wisdom.
At the outset there seems a very serious difficulty, which, however, lessens as we take it to Scripture for a solution. All our views of Christ’s coming kingdom must, of course, be derived entirely from Scripture. We are not prophets, but simply interpreters of prophecy; and our partial understanding of this is apt to lead us into what we find afterwards to be in contradiction with other statements which we had known, yet overlooked. So, no doubt, it is here. Christ coming in the clouds of heaven, to set up His kingdom and glory over the earth, -with this we naturally associate the thought of rapid, almost instantaneous, action, all enemies at once put down by divine power exerted throughout all the world, all nations summoned at once before the bar of His judgment-seat: and to this last the separation of sheep and goats, as given in our Lord’s Own prophecy of His coming (Mat 25:1-46), seems to give strong confirmation. But in this case the history presented here would be quite unintelligible. With the setting aside of Saul, David by no means comes to an uncontested throne, nor is the opposition even in Israel at once put down. For seven years and a half he reigns at Hebron over Judah only. Another king of the house of Saul carries off the allegiance of the other tribes, until first his supporter Abner, and then himself, are cut off by the hand of violence. After this there are long wars with surrounding nations, making the reign of David an emphatic contrast to that of Solomon, who is himself the type of the "Prince of peace." All this, at first, seems entirely against all correspondence between the history and the prophecy.
But the cloud lifts measurably as we gaze upon it. It will be necessary, however, to take up in some detail the consideration of this subject, -all-important to the interpretation of the book in which we now are, and try to realize what Scripture teaches.
And first, let us remember that, with all the strength of the divine hand, God’s dealings have been hitherto characterized by a patience which seems to us often extreme slowness. In the cherubic figures of the book of Revelation, which picture the features of the divine government over the earth, the slow ox succeeds the impetuous lion; and the order here and throughout seems to be corrective of the conceptions we might entertain from that which was earlier in the series. Power that cannot be turned aside (Prow. 30: 30) is what is indicated in the lion; and this is the first necessity for any true thought of government at all; but we should go far wrong if we supposed that this was the characteristic method in God’s governmental dealings, to leap at once to the end with one resistless spring. Thus, as I have said, the patient ox succeeds the lion. While the lion, moreover, would naturally suggest power hostile in character, the ox is the very type of the minister to man (1Co 9:8-10). Following this, again, "the face of a man" assures us that this apparent slowness is not unintelligent, but the contrary: it is God seeking to manifest Himself to us, as in humanity He has done, that we might have knowledge of His ways. It need not then surprise us if when the Lord acts even in such crises of judgment as when He appears in the clouds of heaven to judge the world, there should be nevertheless an entirely different procedure from what we might imagine.
Again, let us remember, that prophecy, as it is foreseen, so it is foreshortened, history. The element of time is, perhaps, most of all what is absent from it, -except, of course, as to order of succession. The seventy weeks of Daniel are a conspicuous example of this, the seventieth being separated from the rest by a long gap of time, into which comes the whole present dispensation. In the passage which the Lord quotes in the synagogue of Nazareth (Isa 61:2), from the proclamation of "the acceptable year of the Lord," with which he closes what was in that day fulfilled, the prophecy goes on without a break to "the day of vengeance of our God," -not even yet come. And similarly the events of the New Testament dispensation were hidden from the prophets of the Old Testament (Mat 13:35).
That when the Lord comes again in the clouds of heaven it will be in visible glory, so that "every eye shall see him," is pressed too far when it is taken to mean that He will then be visible to all the world. This the Lord Himself, by Isaiah, assures us: for after He has said that "the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire," and "it shall come that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and see my glory"; yet the prophecy goes on immediately to add, "And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, . . . to the isles afar off that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles." (Isa 66:15-19.) Thus we find that "every eye shall see Him" only intimates (what in connection with any other event it would be taken to intimate) a visible personal appearing of Christ, and not that the whole world will at that time see Him.
And again, though He come in visible glory to set up His kingdom upon earth, we are not anywhere told, that I am aware, how far He may continue or continue to be seen upon the earth during His reign here. It is certain that over the land of Israel there is to be a "prince," the laws for whose guidance are carefully given by Ezekiel (Eze 44:1-31; Eze 45:1-25; Eze 46:1-24; Eze 47:1-23; Eze 48:1-35); and that the glory appears in the temple in the same manner as of old (Eze 43:1-9).
To come nearer to what is before us here, while there are judgments that are executed by the Lord personally when He comes (Isa 63:1-6; Zec 14:1-21; Rev 19:15; Rev 19:21), yet we read of Israel also in action, and of human wars in which they take possession of the lands destined for them (Jer 51:20-24; Oba 1:18-21; Mic 5:7-9). After which, as it would appear, Gog with his great confederacy can still come up, not knowing with whom they are contending, and think to find the restored nation an easy prey (Eze 38:1-23; Eze 39:1-29).
All this is very different from what our own thoughts would be of a kingdom such as is prophesied of in the hands of Him who has the "rod of iron." Yet Scripture alone can be trusted to give us right thoughts in a matter like this, and we need do no more than point out the texts which decide very plainly what the truth is. They certainly enable us better to understand the typical application of this part of David’s reign, whether or not we may apprehend the details. To these we must now turn, believing that the promise given shall be fulfilled to us, "To him that knocketh it shall be opened."
In this first subdivision, then, we find David in possession only of part of a divided kingdom. We trace the growth of his power, spite of enemies and hindrances, until by the death of Ishbosheth the way is prepared for him to the throne of all Israel. During all this time (seven years and a half) his throne is in Hebron, that place of many and cherished memories, linked forever with the faith of his pilgrim fathers, from Abraham to Jacob. "Communion," with all that it implies, must be the power of a kingdom; and it is not without meaning that here the tribes come up, Judah first and then united Israel, to make David king. Even the divine kingdom can only have its rightful character when God dwells among the praises (and necessarily united hearts) of His people. Here, also, we see why it is in. Judah that David begins his reign. The spiritual meaning certainly holds here; and, indeed, is very easy to be traced. Literal as the history is, of course, this in no way hinders the deeper thought, in which we see how all through it God moulds the very facts of history that they may speak to attentive hearts. Jacob’s prophecy as to Judah here begins to be fulfilled.
(1) But, before even Judah, God acts: for the people’s choice this time must follow His. David is in the first place the divinely appointed king, although yet only the figure of the true: the Anointed, as we know, long since, he is now owned of God, the crown put into his hand by one of a strange and hostile race, who seeks but his own personal ends, to find judgment alone his recompense. For the king, to whom all here points, is that One of whom it is written that He is "first of all . . . king of righteousness [Melchizedek], and after that king of Salem, that is, king of peace" (Heb 7:1): who is David and Solomon, therefore, both in one.
The order is most important: the effect cannot come before the cause, "and the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance forever." (Isa 32:17.) But righteousness will not be established upon the earth except by power: "let favor be shown to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not behold the majesty of the Lord." Thus, judgment alone will answer; and "when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness." (Isa 26:9-10.) Thus we are to read David’s wars, then; and thus the judgment of the Amalekite in this first chapter.
Personal profit does not seduce David into any overlooking of the crime of lifting up the hand against the Lord’s anointed. Nor, on the other hand, does personal injury received prevent his recognition of all that was noble and good in the fallen king, and of the way in which God had used him for blessing to His people. The reference to the book of Jashar (of the "upright") seems in striking harmony with this, though we may be unable to explain it in any proper manner. The pathos of the lament speaks to the heart as from the heart.
(2) We now come to the divided condition of the kingdom, the anticipation of that into which it lapsed again in the second generation after David. In a world like this, that which is of God is sure to awaken opposition. As to Saul, though some might despise him, there was no thought of division. As regards David, every one must have known long since God’s choice of him, and that Saul’s house had been set aside with Saul himself. Yet Abner is able to make the feeble Ishbosheth king over the rest of the kingdom, gradually recovering itself out of the hands of the Philistines. Two years he reigns over the whole of Israel, while David remains for all the time (seven years and a half) king over Judah only. In the last two years it must have been that Abner found himself at last strong enough to attempt the conquest of Judah also.
(a) At the outset we have seen where David’s strength lay. We still find him clinging to God, and guided by divine wisdom. He is assured of being Jehovah’s anointed king. Saul is now dead, and his army defeated. The crown has come, in a way little to be expected, into his hand. Yet he will not be guided by providences, but must have the plain word of God to direct him, not merely whether he shall go up to Judah, but to what part. He is bidden to go to Hebron; and there he goes, allowing his men to scatter into the towns around, and there he quietly waits for whatever God has next. Good it is, this ability to wait on God on the part of a spirit so brave and energetic, in the very hour when circumstances invite to action. He is not left, however, to long patience now: the men of Judah, without waiting for the co-operation of the other tribes, assemble at Hebron and anoint him king.
That this was obedience to the divine will by which David had been long set apart to this position, saves them from the imputation of independence, with which otherwise it might have been justly charged. The Lord was the Supreme king over Israel; and therefore, when His mind was clearly known, obedience was that which alone would make for any proper unity. The course of Abner and the other tribes was mere rebellion.
Anointed long before by Samuel, this fresh anointing by the people had yet its rightful place. God’s will as to this awaits the glad concurrence of human hearts to make the reign of His king truly what He would have it. For this reason, also, David makes no movement to extend his dominion over the rest of Israel. Love can be satisfied only with love. Thus also he acknowledges sympathetically the act of the men of Jabesh in their respect and gratitude toward Saul, and informs them of Judah having made him king, but goes no further: does not even hint at the higher and wider title he possesses.
{*2Sa 2:9. Probably, with the Chaldee version, we should read "Asherites," a mere change of a vowel-point; though the Vulgate, the Syriac, and the Arabic, read "Geshurites."}
(b.) Abner has no such scruple, and mks no counsel of God: as the "father of light," his wisdom is from himself, -inspired, of course, by that ready prompter, self-interest, or what appears to be this. As prince of the host that had been Saul’s, he had opportunity also, and in Ishbosheth one who represented such shadow of title as could be derived from Saul. Ishbosheth means "man of shame," a name that might easily be supposed to be derived from his history, rather than to be his original one. We know from Chronicles (1Ch 8:33) that, in fact, his original one was Esh-baal; and we have a similar change in the case of Jonathan’s son Meribbaal, changed into Mephibosheth (1Ch 9:34; 2Sa 9:6), and even in that of Jerubbaal, changed into Jerubbesheth (2Sa 11:21). In Hos 9:10 Baal himself is called "that shame," and it cannot be reasonably questioned that the sense of this shameful character of idolatry led to these substitutions. That there was any idolatrous meaning in the names connected with Saul’s family it would be impossible to prove, the word baal being itself so variously applied. We have elsewhere seen it as of old even a title of God, which at last He is forced, because of its misuse, to disclaim (p. 194, n.).
Typically, however, the case is otherwise. When we consider the rivalry to David in its typical significance, Ishbosheth might seem a figure of Antichrist, and these idolatrous connections would then have their full force. Israel is yet to accept such a king, we know, at the time of the end, who will be consumed by the breath of the Lord’s mouth, and destroyed with the brightness of His coming. Yet in Ishbosheth himself, and in his history also, there are many difficulties in the way of such a view. The weak son of Saul is but a tool in the hands of Abner, who is all through the real heart and soul of the opposition to David. He it is, we find, who "took Ishbosheth, and brought him over to Mahanaim, and made him king." Mahanaim was the place of Jacob’s vision of angels, where "God’s host" and his own represented, as we know, "two camps." (Gen 32:2, n.) This ends in his own camp being divided into two, as Abner had in fact now divided Israel; where the camps were, moreover, hostile to one another. So had reliance on human strength wrought in all the intermediate history: for God will not be content to be a mere force among other forces; and the half-way dependence on Him, which is more than half independence, works quickly, alas, into real hostility. Abner and Ishbosheth were thus now very openly at issue with God,who had manifested very plainly His purpose in David, as Abner owns (ch. 3: 9). Spite of this, Ishbosheth’s kingdom grows from its beginning in Gilead, spreading to Asher, to Jezreel, and on, till there is a united Israel in opposition to the one tribe of Judah that cleaves to David. So readily does the leaven of rebellion spread! -so sure is there ordained to that which is of God a time of patience and of apparent failure. In each day of God there is an evening first and then a morning; for God is a God of resurrection.
David’s reign of seven years and six months in Hebron is just about the length of that interval of time, -the last week of Daniel’s seventy, -which intervenes between the removal of the Church to be with Christ, and His appearing openly as Son of man to take the kingdom. It is scarcely the place here to argue that such a period there is, -the broken off "end of the [Jewish] age" (Mat 24:1-51), and earth’s harvest-time, the crisis of the conflict between good and evil, the time of preparation for millennial blessing: every way, therefore, of such prophetic importance that we cannot wonder to find prophecy in fact full of it, as it is. It is the time in which arises the Antichrist, the culmination of the "many antichrists" that have preceded him (1Jn 2:18-22). This would harmonize with such a meaning, therefore, in Ishbosheth. During this time Christ has actually begun His reign, but not at Jerusalem, and Hebron and Judah might represent an acknowledgment of Him as the King by a remnant of Israel, before the time in which the nation at large shall acknowledge Him.
During this time conflict also will go on between the servants of the true King and of the false: Mahanaim will indeed characterize the rival kingdom. The place of strife, Gibeon, seems also significant. If Gibeon, "the pit of suffering for iniquity" (Jos 18:25, n.), remind us of the Cross, the Cross has been ever the battlefield -Helkath-hazzurim, "the place of sharp swords," between faith and unbelief, the place of victory in the end for David. For it is the Lamb slain, who is the lion of Judah; and as the Lamb He has title over the world. (Rev 5:6-7.) Abner, the false pretension to self-competency of knowledge is easily seen as the leader on the one side; but Joab, on David’s, is not such an one as we look for here, or, at least, so we should think at first sight. Who and what, then, is this Joab?
Joab is usually taken to be a contracted form of Jehoab, "Jehovah is Father." It is difficult to separate the man, such as we see him in the history, -crafty, self-seeking, unscrupulous, the murderer of men more righteous than himself, from any typical significance of history, so as to imagine any congruity in such a name. Yet God can overrule men and things so as to work out His good by that which is evil, -the evil being in the minds of others, the good in His. And we find shortly, in the history that follows, Amnon, "faithful," Absalom, "father of peace," Adonijah, "my Lord is Jah," acting in most distinct and undoubted contradiction to their names. Thus Joab would not stand alone in this. On the other hand, as the commander of all David’s forces, there could not, it would seem, be a more suited name than "Jehovah is Father." Was it not Christ’s mission on earth to declare the Father’s name? Do not His people rally joyfully, triumphantly, under the inspiration of that revelation, Jehovah is the Father"? And so will it be in that day also, when in the place in which it was said to Israel, "Ye are not my people, there they shall be called the sons of the living God." (Hos 1:10.)
With this meaning, also, it is in striking correspondence that Joab is the son of Zeruiah, and that this last word means "balmy"; or rather, one would say, "the balm of Jah." The exact substance to which the word was applied in Scripture is still disputed, but its use as a sovereign remedy for wounds, itself being obtained by a wound in the tree from which then the precious sap flowed out, is not disputed. Nor can we fail to find here once more the image of the Cross. That for us, or for any, Jehovah is Father, is, as we own adoringly, the fruit of the Cross, -of which how constant are the memorials in these precious types
Thus the captains on either side seem plain, and they meet with their respective hosts at the pool of Gibeon, -literally, and strikingly once more, the "blessing" of Gibeon, the "living water" issuing from the Cross, with regard to which the combatants still find themselves on opposite sides. In the conflict following they fall of both parties: but with what different significance we must interpret this! Christ’s servants have fallen, many; but death has not harmed them: on their adversaries the shadow of death is other and deeper, for they have rejected the Lord of life.
Three sons of Zeruiah are in the battlefield. The second is Abishai, whose name means "father (or source) of gift." This, under the number of service, may speak of the Cross as the inspiring cause of gift offered to God, the homage of a life which has been redeemed by it. While Asahel, the third son, plainly means "God has made" or "done," -emphasizing God as the worker, as the Cross surely does.
Abner is beaten and driven off, though Asahel perishes at his hand in the pursuit, -a thing which, however much an act of self-defense, has bitter consequences in the near future. Of all this I can say nothing, however.
(3) The war goes on, but we have no further incidents of it; only that David’s house waxes continually stronger as that of Saul grows weaker. After the manner of an eastern king, we see that David strengthens himself by marriages which the law found no ability to forbid, and in which the self-indulgence of his nature manifests itself. The great sin of his life was thus already preparing, which was to darken with its shadows so much his later days.
But this does not affect the typical meaning, as has just now been insisted. The moral lesson is fully enforced and inheres in the letter of the history, quite apart from the prophetic teaching which the Spirit of God has inwoven into it. At times this last seems to give way indeed to the first, to make prominent the moral: the sin and failure are seen to belong simply to the individual, and to unfit him to be, for the moment, in any way suitable to represent any divine thought save that of God’s holy judgment; while again sometimes the Spirit seems to refuse to be turned aside from His higher purpose, and the glory of the light streams through, as incapable of corruption or contamination by the evil to and beyond the end of which it looks.
David’s sons in Hebron are six, by as many mothers; and as the son represents the father, so they seem to represent the various characters of Christ in His kingly government and the principles of which they are the manifestation, or which occasion their display. We have learnt, too, the guard that numerical symbolism gives, as well as the help yielded by it to interpretation. The narrower the limits we have here, the more certainly shall we find our way. The divine marks cannot be too numerous.
Amnon is David’s first-born; and his name, "constant," or "faithful," is simply enough applicable in this manner, and in harmony with the first place he takes. He is the son of Ahinoam, the "kin of pleasure," -not exactly "pleasure," for that might seem at least to be in opposition to the underlying principle of constancy which is indicated in the expression, "he that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not." One may suppose that "congruity," what is according to its own nature, is that of which this "constancy" is born, and that this is what is looked for, yea, of prime necessity, in that which "God soweth," or Jezreel. Israel was once, as Isaiah tells us (Isa 5:2), planted as "the choicest vine," but proved wholly untrue to that beginning. When the Lord looked for it to bring forth grapes, it brought forth wild grapes. Thus there was no seed yet to sow upon the earth (Hos 2:23); but He shall have it: Israel in the latter days shall be true to its new beginning; and shall blossom and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit." (Isa 27:6.)
Constancy is Christ’s, for He is the unchangeable, Himself Jehovah; and such, through all their own unfaithfulness, will Israel prove Him in the days that are at hand.
The second son is Chileab, and the number expressive of service is well filled here with a name that seems to mean "the instrument of the Father." He is the son of Abigail, "father (or cause) of exultation," as Israel will be to Christ, when redeemed and brought out from former relationship, here therefore most suitably and pointedly referred to: "Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite," -the impious dresser of God’s vine. Put together, these names have the very obvious meaning, that the salvation of His own is that which has made Christ the instrument of the Father’s will. This salvation, for its complete realization, requires Him on the throne. He is the true Malchishua, whom no Gilboa can overthrow, -the Saviour-King."
The third son is Absalom, the "father of peace." Here the number may prepare us to expect what is a more inward realization of blessing, and the fruit of the Spirit’s work. He is the son of Maachah, "bruising": for He was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon Him" (Isa 53:5); how surely does the question of peace find for its answer the work of the Cross!
But Talmai the king of Geshur: what can he represent? Let us remember only that it is Maachah alone, the "bruising," that has to do with him, and we need not wonder at the Anakite name (Jos 15:14). Talmai, "my furrows," has been already read thus as "our own doings"; and these have indeed been that from whence Christ’s "bruising" sprang. Thus, though we may not be able to interpret the "king of Geshur" aright, the meaning as a whole is obvious.
The next three sons are more briefly characterized. The fourth, Adonijah, means "my Lord is Jah," and he is the son of Haggith, "festive," one who keeps Jehovah’s feast. This, under the number of experience and practical walk, shows us how the taste of Jehovah’s grace brings us into subjection to Him as Lord over us; and this is how the Lord’s rule is endeared to His own. How precious must it have been to faith in Israel in those days of old, when Jehovah gathered His people, three times in the year, around Himself! Jehovah’s feasts were times of gathering thus to and around Himself. Now, much more plainly, He is cultivating intimacy with us;and the more we respond and enter into this, the more will His rule be established over us. The nearer we are to Him, the greater He is to us: must it not be so? The indecent familiarity with God which some regard as intimacy is but an unholy mockery of it. Adonijah is still the son of Haggith.
The fifth son shows his number in his name, Shephatiah, "Jah judges." He is the son of Abital, "father (or source) of cover," or "protection." The thought is simplicity itself; and this is what true judgment is appointed for, -what, when judgment shall return to righteousness, it will be found to give, the protection (alas, that it should be needed), of man from man. When Jehovah judges in the earth openly and manifestly, as He will do, how will the earth rest and be secure? Oh, to see the time!
{*2Sa 3:7. The name Ishbosheth is absent from nearly all the Hebrew copies, but is found in all the versions, except the Chaldee, and is evidently required.
2Sa 3:12. Literally, "in his place."}
Finally the sixth son gives us the effect of all this in blessing, -Ithream, "the abundance of the people," for "in the multitude of the people is the king’s honor." (Pro 14:28.) But this "abundance" implies more than "multitude." Ithream, too, is the "son of Eglah," "heifer," the double type of labor and of fruitfulness; and therefore Eglah is in some special sense denominated "David’s wife"! Yes, our David has indeed linked himself in an especial way with service, -service in which all fruit is found! Blessed be His name, He has; and a goodly house is this our David has, when the spiritual interpretation is allowed to flash the luster out of an otherwise dull string of names. This, then, is David’s house.
(4) The history turns now to show us the commencing collapse of Ishbosheth’s kingdom. There was but, as we know, one pillar upon which it rested, Abner; and we can gather from elsewhere that the spirit of defection was at work in Israel. Abner now himself heads the defection, and there is no strength nor will to resist on the part of the people. But Abner’s motive is no worthy one, and it is not by such means as this that David is to attain the throne of Israel. The hand that prevents it may be more unscrupulous than his own; and the deed done by which it is stopped is treachery and murder. Still, over all this was a righteousness higher than its human instruments. David is feeble, and the sons of Zeruiah strong: every way there seems but contrast with the throne which David’s merely typically presents, but is not; and the type seems to lapse here in order to emphasize the more the contrast. Whether that be really so or not, -whether it is only ignorance that says so, -we shall surely sometime understand; but it does seem the method of this book to present these alternate glimpses of the glory to come, and of the mere sorrowful history of "man’s day," sorrowful even at its best. We shall but too soon come to darker scenes in which David himself will be found the near kinsman that he is to Joab, and the day of the true Anointed be seen to be far off yet.
(5) The death of Ishbosheth quickly follows that of Abner; and it in some respects resembles his. Commentators have suggested that, in this case also, the blood-vengeance which Joab and his brother had professedly taken for their brother Asahel, was probably at least once more the pretext. Baanah and Rechab, the slayers of Ishbosheth, were Beerothites, and belonged therefore to one of those Canaanite cities originally leagued with Gibeon, and with it having made peace with Israel by fraud. These Saul had sought to slay, in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah (2Sa 21:1-2), and had in fact slain some. Whether Beeroth had suffered at this time we know not; but we learn in this place that for some cause "the Beerothites had fled to Gittaim," and were still sojourning there. It is quite natural to put these things together; and if so, to understand that there might be special enmity on the brothers’ part to Saul’s house on this account. But if so, the history gives no plain proof of such connection; though, if it were so, Joab’s unpunished deed might have encouraged theirs. But they are mistaken, and fleeing to David with the head of the unhappy king, find summary judgment at his hands.
This is, at best, but history. Have we any sign in it of deeper meaning? In connection with Ishbosheth as a possible type of Antichrist, the circumstances of his death are among the things of which I have spoken as difficulties in accepting this. Antichrist is destroyed only at the coming of the Lord, and with the "beast" or head of the Gentile empire, is cast alive into the lake of fire. Yet here the names have apparent significance which (as realizing their constant value elsewhere) cannot but make one pause and question.
Beeroth we have already had among the cities of Benjamin (Jos 18:25), and taken it as significant of the "wells" of salvation out of which the redeemed "with joy draw water." Rimmon, "the pomegranate" is a figure of the fruitful and many-seeded word of God (compare p. 138, n.). Baanah, "in answer," son of Rimmon, would speak naturally of something sent in response to prayer, thus the fruit of the word which had awakened faith; while Rechab, "rider," is used to designate that "upper millstone" which is several times found in connection with destructive judgment from the Lord’s hand (Jdg 9:53, Mat 18:6, Rev 18:21). If, therefore, we take these two together we have judgment inflicted in answer to prayer and according to the Word, which is itself pictured as the sharp two-edged sword proceeding out of the mouth of the white-horsed Rider, with which He smites the nations (Rev 19:15). Nay, according to the Hebrew also, as we have seen, "millstone" and "Rider" a one!
If moreover, we remember the Lord’s parable of the unjust judge (Luk 18:1-43), we shall realize very clearly how the final judgment of the earth, which includes Antichrist and his followers, comes "in answer" to the prayer of God’s elect, the groans of suffering saints which have gone up to Him so long from a world whose "prince" is Satan and not the One who made it. Certainly in all this there is a congruity, a fitting together of things, which one cannot hastily dismiss because of apparent incongruity elsewhere. Let it be but a flash of light which expires again in darkness, still even a flash of light may be a true revelation. At least it is well for the reverent student of Scripture to have before him what materials can be given for the founding of judgment; and so we must leave it.
It may be well, also, to remark that Ishbosheth’s evident weakness of character is no conclusive proof that he could not be such a type as has been suggested. The wisest, strongest, most self-assertive of creatures, what is he before God his Maker? And this is often insisted on in the types themselves, as we have seen. The moral character of a typical person, also, has often apparently little or nothing to do with the place he fills in this way. Joab, and some noted ones among the sons of David are proofs near at hand of the truth of this.
F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 The Lament of David over Saul and Jonathan
The Lament of David over Saul and Jonathan
1. There is no break between the two books of Samuel; they really form one continuous narrative. This v. is a continuation of 1 Samuel 30, which describes David's successful attack upon Ziklag. He had not heard of the events narrated in 1 Samuel 31.
Read full note →
2. With his clothes rent, etc.] In 1Sa_4:12, which describes the arrival of the messenger at Shiloh with tidings of the capture of the ark, these were the same indications that he was the bearer of evil tidings.
8, 9. The Amalekite's account contradicts 1Sa_31:4 and is also improbable in itself. The man was probably lying in the hope of currying favour with David.
10. For the practice of wearing signs of royalty, when going into battle, see 1Ki_22:30. Bracelet] In the Assyrian sculptures warriors are often represented with such ornaments.
18. The use of the bow] RV 'the song of the bow,' lit. 'the bow.' The text of this v. is doubtful, but if the words are right, 'the bow' will be the title of the lamentation following. There is, however, no warrant for this in Hebrew usage. Some see an allusion to 2Sa_1:22, 'the bow of Jonathan.' The book of Jasher] RV 'Jashar,' mentioned also in Jos_10:13. It was apparently a book of martial or historical poetry. Jashar is probably a name of Israel. We get it in Deu_32:15 under the form Jeshurun: the word properly means 'righteous.'
21. Fields of offerings] fields bearing produce, from which firstfruits are offered. Not.. anointed with oil] It is doubtful if this refers to Saul or his shield. Shields were greased to preserye the leather and to prevent spears from sticking: cp. Isa_21:5.
22. In this figurative language, the bow is represented as drinking the blood of the slain and the sword as eating the fat of the mighty: cp. Deu_32:42; Isa_34:6. Turned not back] i.e. empty, as the parallel clause shows.
24. Scarlet.. gold] These were the ordinary ornaments of a Hebrew woman: cp. Jer_4:30.
25. O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places] RV 'Jonathan is slain upon thy high places.' The address is to Israel.
27. The weapons of war] The parallel clause shows that these are Saul and Jonathan themselves, regarded as the sword and bow of the nation. It is remarkable that this poem makes no distinction between Saul and Jonathan, but praises the courage, the success, and the patriotism of both alike. The gloomy picture of Saul given in the later chapters of 1 Sam must not be allowed to efface the courage and determination of his struggle with Israel's foes. On the other hand, the genuine grief expressed in this lament (which cannot be anything else than authentic) over the father as well as the son, shows David's chivalry in a very pleasing light.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v10 Cf. (See Scofield "1Sa 31:3").
stood
Cf. (See Scofield "1Sa 31:3").
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 Analysis and Annotations
Analysis and Annotations
I. DAVID KING OF JUDAH AND THE EVENTS OF HIS REIGN
Read full note →
1. David’s Lamentation for Saul and Jonathan
CHAPTER 1
1. The Death of Saul and Jonathan announced to David (2Sa 1:1-10)
2. David’s great Grief (2Sa 1:11-12)
3. The Amalekite slain (2Sa 1:13-16)
4. David’s Lamentation (2Sa 1:17-27)
David heard of the death of Saul and Jonathan from the lips of the Amalekite, who also brought him the crown and the bracelet of the dead king. The story of this young man has been branded by some as a falsehood, invented to gain favor from David. It is not necessary to reconcile the supposed contradiction of the Amalekite’s story with the account of Saul’s death in the last chapter of the preceding book, by saying the Amalekite lied to David. We have explained this in the annotations of chapter 31. When the Amalekite said to David, “So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen,” he referred to the fact that Saul had fallen upon his own sword, in committing suicide and was in great suffering. And great was David’s grief when he hears the sad news. He and his companions wept and fasted in mourning over Saul, Jonathan and the people of the Lord. Then he commanded the Amalekite to be slain because he had smitten the Lord’s anointed; thus he honored Saul in his death, while the Amalekite received the punishment for his deed. Then David broke out in his great lamentation over Saul and Jonathan. The eighteenth verse as given in the authorized version is unintelligible. The Hebrew reads “and he bade them teach the children of Judah the bow;” the words “the use of” are supplied. Others read instead “the song of the bow” and claim it has reference to this lamentation, which David taught Judah. (See verse 22.) The book of Jasher (the upright) is never mentioned again (Jos 10:12-14). The lamentation of David is a wonderful outpouring of soul. First he speaks of the calamity which has come to Israel in the death of Saul and Jonathan (verses 19-22); then he extols the virtues of both. What grace this manifests if we consider that Saul had hunted David and put upon him so many afflictions! He does not refer to it in a single word. Beautiful beyond description are his loving words on Jonathan.
I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan:
Very pleasant hast thou been unto me.
Thy love to me was wonderful,
Passing the love of women.
But there is one whose love is greater than David’s love for Jonathan, even our Lord Jesus Christ.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v1 The Message of the Amalekite
The Message of the Amalekite
v. 1. Now it came to pass after the death of Saul, as related in the last chapter, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites, 1 Samuel 30, and David had abode two days in Ziklag,
Read full note →
v. 2. it came even to pass on the third day that, behold, a man came out of the camp from Saul, a man who had fought in the Israelitish army, with his clothes rent and earth upon his head, as a sign of the deepest grief; and so it was, when he came to David, that he fell to the earth and did obeisance, giving homage to David as the future king.
v. 3. And David said unto him, from whence comest thou? And he said unto him, Out of the camp of Israel, out of the army in the field, am I escaped, indicating, even here, that a great calamity had befallen the host.
v. 4. And David said unto him, how went the matter? I pray thee, tell me. The question, How was the affair, How did things go? is at the same time an exclamation of dismay. And he answered, that the people are fled from the battle, the army being broken up in wild confusion, and many of the people also are fallen and dead, in addition to Saul’s body-guard, which had been cut down to the last man, 1Sa 31:6; and Saul and Jonathan, his son, are dead also. This was the climax of his sad message.
v. 5. And David said unto the young man that told him, How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan, his son, be dead?
v. 6. And the young man that told him said, As I happened by chance upon Mount Gilboa, in the confusion of the battle and of the flight, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear, apparently so exhausted and weak that he found it difficult to stand up alone; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him. It is here that the messenger’s falsehoods begin, for it was out of the question for the chariots of the Philistines to follow the fleeing army into the hills.
v. 7. And when he, Saul, looked behind him, he saw me and called unto me. And I answered, here am I.
v. 8. And he said unto me, who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. Here again the improbability of the report is apparent, since Saul would hardly have been standing alone, with not a single Israelite, not even an armor-bearer, to come to his assistance.
v. 9. He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, by stepping up very closely to him, and slay me; for anguish is come upon me, he had been seized with a cramp and found himself unable to wield his weapons, because my life is yet whole in me, and he was afraid lest, in his defenseless condition, he would suffer the indignity of falling into the hands of the Philistines.
v. 10. So I stood upon him, went closely up to him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after he was fallen, he would not survive this defeat; and I took the crown that was upon his head and the bracelet that was on his arm, for men, especially army officers, wore arm-bands as a mark of their rank, and have brought them, the symbols of the royal dignity, hither unto my lord. The man’s idea was to secure the favor of David by his action and obtain a rich reward.
v. 11. Then David took hold on his clothes and rent them, as a sign of uncontrollable grief, and like wise all the men that were with him, not only out of deference to David, but because they were aware of the significance of this defeat for the whole nation;
v. 12. and they mourned, and wept, and fasted until even, abandoning themselves to their grief as it swept over them, for Saul, and for Jonathan, his son, and for the people of the Lord, and for the house of Israel, the king, the prince, the army, and the entire nation all coming in to make their grief very great, because they were fallen by the sword. The people of the Lord, by a holy covenant, had in this battle been abandoned by Jehovah; the house of Israel, all descendants of the same patriarch, was overthrown.
v. 13. And David said unto the young man that told him, who had distorted the facts and lied in order to gain the favor of David, as though he had killed a dangerous enemy, Whence art thou? And he answered, I am the son of a stranger, an Amalekite, of a man who had settled in Israel, but had not yet been acknowledged as a member.
v. 14. And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed? What David had not dared to do, out of respect for the king’s position and person, this stranger, by his own confession, had profanely done, and evidently in hopes of a reward.
v. 15. And David called one of the young men and said, Go near and fall upon him. David here spoke the sentence of death by virtue of his position as Saul’s successor, upon a self-confessed murderer. And he smote him that he died.
v. 16. And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head, this bloody punishment was in agreement with the crime which he had confessed to; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the Lord’s anointed. David thus avenged a notorious and shocking political crime. If a person accuses himself of some transgression and glories in a crime which he did not commit, he shows a disposition which is guilty before God, and need not be astonished if he is judged according to his own words.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 14 This is the name of a city in the…
Ziklag
This is the name of a city in the southern part of Judah. (See: How to Translate Names)
Read full note →
On the third day
"After three days" (See: Ordinal Numbers)
with his clothes torn and with dirt on his head
In this culture, tearing one's own clothes and putting dirt on one's head was an act of mourning. (See: Symbolic Action)
he lay facedown on the ground and prostrated himself
This was an act of showing submission to David, who was now the king of Israel. (See: Symbolic Action)
translationWords
die
Saul (OT)
David
Amalek
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15 1:1-27 The forty years of Saul’s reign came to…
1:1-27 The forty years of Saul’s reign came to a painful end. The Philistines inflicted a crushing blow on Saul’s people, killing his sons and dismembering Saul’s body after his suicide (1 Sam 31). On the heels of these tragedies, David’s career as leader came into focus.
1:1-16 An unnamed Amalekite sought out David, claiming to have killed Saul. This was a lie, as Saul had committed suicide (1 Sam 31:4-6). The Amalekite might have hoped that David would reward him for making it possible for David to assume the throne. Instead, David ordered him killed for harming the Lord’s anointed.
Read full note →
1:1 David returned from his victory: Just prior to this encounter, David and his men had killed many Amalekites because of what they had done to David’s city and family (see 1 Sam 30).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.