Now there was long war between Saul’s house and David’s house. David grew stronger and stronger, but Saul’s house grew weaker and weaker. Sons were born to David in Hebron. His firstborn was Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; and his second, Chileab, of Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite; and the third, Absalom the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur; and the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital; and the sixth, Ithream, of Eglah, David’s wife. These were born to David in Hebron.
While there was war between Saul’s house and David’s house, Abner made himself strong in Saul’s house. Now Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah; and Ishbosheth said to Abner, “Why have you gone in to my father’s concubine?”
Then Abner was very angry about Ishbosheth’s words, and said, “Am I a dog’s head that belongs to Judah? Today I show kindness to Saul’s house your father, to his brothers, and to his friends, and have not delivered you into the hand of David; and yet you charge me today with a fault concerning this woman! God do so to Abner, and more also, if, as Yahweh has sworn to David, I don’t do even so to him; to transfer the kingdom from Saul’s house, and to set up David’s throne over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba.”
He could not answer Abner another word, because he was afraid of him.
Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf, saying, “Whose is the land?” and saying, “Make your alliance with me, and behold, my hand will be with you, to bring all Israel around to you.”
He said, “Good. I will make a treaty with you, but one thing I require of you. That is, you will not see my face unless you first bring Michal, Saul’s daughter, when you come to see my face.”
David sent messengers to Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, saying, “Deliver me my wife Michal, whom I was given to marry for one hundred foreskins of the Philistines.”
Ishbosheth sent and took her from her husband, even from Paltiel the son of Laish. Her husband went with her, weeping as he went, and followed her to Bahurim. Then Abner said to him, “Go! Return!” and he returned. Abner had communication with the elders of Israel, saying, “In times past, you sought for David to be king over you. Now then do it; for Yahweh has spoken of David, saying, ‘By the hand of my servant David, I will save my people Israel out of the hand of the Philistines, and out of the hand of all their enemies.’ ”
Abner also spoke in the ears of Benjamin: and Abner went also to speak in the ears of David in Hebron all that seemed good to Israel, and to the whole house of Benjamin. So Abner came to David to Hebron, and twenty men with him. David made Abner and the men who were with him a feast. Abner said to David, “I will arise and go, and will gather all Israel to my lord the king, that they may make a covenant with you, and that you may reign over all that your soul desires.” David sent Abner away; and he went in peace.
Behold, David’s servants and Joab came from a raid, and brought in a great plunder with them; but Abner was not with David in Hebron; for he had sent him away, and he had gone in peace. When Joab and all the army who was with him had come, they told Joab, “Abner the son of Ner came to the king, and he has sent him away, and he has gone in peace.”
Then Joab came to the king, and said, “What have you done? Behold, Abner came to you. Why is it that you have sent him away, and he is already gone? You know Abner the son of Ner. He came to deceive you, and to know your going out and your coming in, and to know all that you do.”
When Joab had come out from David, he sent messengers after Abner, and they brought him back from the well of Sirah; but David didn’t know it. When Abner was returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside into the middle of the gate to speak with him quietly, and struck him there in the body, so that he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother. Afterward, when David heard it, he said, “I and my kingdom are guiltless before Yahweh forever of the blood of Abner the son of Ner. Let it fall on the head of Joab, and on all his father’s house. Let there not fail from the house of Joab one who has a discharge, or who is a leper, or who leans on a staff, or who falls by the sword, or who lacks bread.” So Joab and Abishai his brother killed Abner, because he had killed their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle. David said to Joab, and to all the people who were with him, “Tear your clothes, and clothe yourselves with sackcloth, and mourn in front of Abner.” King David followed the bier. They buried Abner in Hebron; and the king lifted up his voice, and wept at Abner’s grave; and all the people wept. The king lamented for Abner, and said, “Should Abner die as a fool dies? Your hands weren’t bound, and your feet weren’t put into fetters. As a man falls before the children of iniquity, so you fell.” All the people wept again over him.
All the people came to urge David to eat bread while it was yet day; but David swore, saying, “God do so to me, and more also, if I taste bread, or anything else, until the sun goes down.”
All the people took notice of it, and it pleased them; as whatever the king did pleased all the people. So all the people and all Israel understood that day that it was not of the king to kill Abner the son of Ner. The king said to his servants, “Don’t you know that a prince and a great man has fallen today in Israel? I am weak today, though anointed king. These men, the sons of Zeruiah are too hard for me. May Yahweh reward the evildoer according to his wickedness.”
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 39 That is, without intermission enduring two years, which was…
That is, without intermission enduring two years, which was the whole reign of Ishbosheth.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–39 2Sa 3:1 Now there was long war between the…
2Sa 3:1 Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David: but David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker.
Ver. 1. Now there was long war.] Continuo iteratis proeliis: there was constant opposition, and continual skirmishing: so there is still betwixt Christ and Antichrist, betwixt the spirit and the flesh: and these will be bickering, whilst the world shall be standing.
Read full note →
And the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker.] So do and shall do daily the eastern and western Antichrist. That stone cut out of the mountains without hands, shall bring down those golden images with a powder.
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, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 Long war; for five years longer; for it is…
Long war; for five years longer; for it is probable that Ish-bosheth was made king presently upon Saul’s death, to give them countenance for their rebellion against David; and the other tribes did not submit to David before seven years were expired.
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, 7, 22 Here is, I. The struggle that David had with…
Here is, I. The struggle that David had with the house of Saul before his settlement in the throne was completed, Sa2 3:1. 1. Both sides contested. Saul's house, though beheaded and diminished, would not fall tamely. It is not strange between them, but one would wonder it should be a long war, when David's house had right on its side, and therefore God on its side; but, though truth and equity will triumph at last, God made for wise and holy ends prolonged the conflict. The length of this war tried the faith and patience of David, and made his establishment at last the more welcome to him. 2. David's side got ground. The house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker, lost places, lost men, sunk in its reputation, grew less considerable, and was foiled in every engagement. But the house of David grew stronger and stronger. Many deserted the declining cause of Saul's house, and prudently came into David's interest, being convinced that he would certainly win the day. The contest between grace and corruption in the hearts of believers, who are sanctified but in part, may fitly be compared to this recorded here. There is a long war between them, the flesh lusted against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh; but, as the work of sanctification is carried on, corruption, like the house of Saul, grows weaker and weaker; while grace, like the house of David, grows stronger and stronger, till it come to a perfect man, and judgment be brought forth unto victory.
II. The increase of his own house. Here is an account of six sons he had by six several wives, in the seven years he reigned in Hebron. Perhaps this is here mentioned as that which strengthened David's interest. Every child, whose welfare was embarked in the common safety, was a fresh security given to the commonwealth for his care of it. He that has his quiver filled with these arrows shall speak with his enemy in the gate, Psa 127:5. As the death of Saul's sons weakened his interest, so the birth of David's strengthened his. 1. It was David's fault thus to multiply wives, contrary to the law (Deu 17:17), and it was a bad example to his successors. 2. It does not appear that in these seven years he had above one son by each of these wives; some have had as numerous a progeny, and with much more honour and comfort, by one wife. 3. We read not that any of these sons came to be famous (three of them were infamous, Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah); we have therefore reason to rejoice with trembling in the building up of our families. 4. His son by Abigail is called Chileab (Sa2 3:3), whereas (Ch1 3:1) he is called Daniel. Bishop Patrick mentions the reason which the Hebrew doctors give for these names, that his first name was Daniel - God has judged me (namely, against Nabal), but David's enemies reproached him, and said, "It is Nabal's son, and not David's," to confute which calumny Providence so ordered it that, as he grew up, he became, in his countenance and features, extremely like David, and resembled him more than any of his children, upon which he gave him the name of Chileab, which signifies, like his father, or the father's picture. 5. Absalom's mother is said to be the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur, a heathen prince. Perhaps David thereby hoped to strengthen his interest, but the issue of the marriage was one that proved his grief and shame. 6. The last is called David's wife, which therefore, some think, was Michal, his first and most rightful wife, called here by another name; and, though she had no child after she mocked David, she might have had before.
Read full note →
Thus was David's house strengthened; but it was Abner that made himself strong for the house of Saul, which is mentioned (Sa2 3:6) to show that, if he failed them, they would fall of course.
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 vv1–39 Now there was a long war between the house…
Now there was a long war between the house of Saul and the house of David,.... The recent battle, though so much in favour of David, did not, put an end to the war between him and Ishbosheth, which lasted five years longer; for it was when Ishbosheth had reigned two years that that battle was fought, and he reigned five years longer; for not till his death, and when David had reigned above seven years in Hebron, was he made king over all Israel; and during this time peace was not made, but the war carried on; though perhaps not in pitched battles, of which we no more read, but in skirmishes:
but David waxed stronger and stronger; he having the advantage in all such skirmishes, and persons continually coming over to his side from the several tribes:
Read full note →
and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker: being always worsted whenever they skirmished with David's men, and by continual revolts from them. This is reckoned an emblem of the kingdoms of Christ and antichrist, the one increasing more and more, as it has and will do, and the other decreasing, and before long will be consumed; and of the two parties in a regenerate man, grace and indwelling sin, the one as to its exercise growing stronger and stronger, and the other as to its influence on the outward conversation weaker and weaker.
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, 3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 19, 22, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39 David's success and sons, ver. 1-5. Abner's quarrel with…
David's success and sons, ver. 1-5. Abner's quarrel with Isbosheth, ver. 6-11. His treaty with David, ver. 12-16. He undertakes to bring Israel over to David, ver. 17-21. Joab murders Abner, ver. 22-27. David's concern and mourning over him, ver. 28-39.
Long war - For five years longer: for it is probable, Isbosheth was made king presently upon Saul's death; and the other tribes did not submit to David before seven years were expired.
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, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 27, 29, 31, 33, 36, 39 Account of the children born to David in Hebron,…
CHAPTER III
Account of the children born to David in Hebron, 1-5.
Read full note →
Abner being accused by Ish-bosheth of familiarities with
Rizpah, Saul's concubine, he is enraged; offers his services
to David; goes to Hebron, and makes a league with him, 6-22.
Joab, through enmity to Abner, pretends to David that he came
as a spy, and should not be permitted to return, 23-25.
He follows Abner, and treacherously slays him, 26, 27.
David hearing of it is greatly incensed against Joab, and
pronounces a curse upon him and upon his family, 28, 29.
He commands a general mourning for Abner, and himself follows
the bier weeping, 30-32.
David's lamentation over Abner, 33, 34.
The people solicit David to take meat; but he fasts the whole
day, and complains to them of the insolence and intrigues of
Joab and his brothers: the people are pleased with his
conduct, 35-39.
NOTES ON CHAP. III
Verse 1. There was long war] Frequent battles and skirmishes took place between the followers of David and the followers of Ish-bosheth, after the two years mentioned above, to the end of the fifth year, in which Ish-bosheth was slain by Rechab and Baanah.
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, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39 2Sa 3:1. There was long war — For five…
2Sa 3:1. There was long war — For five years longer: for it is probable Ish-bosheth was made king immediately upon Saul’s death; and the other tribes did not submit to David before seven years were expired. Between the house of Saul and the house of David — Their enmity continuing throughout the whole reign of Ish-bosheth. It is probable there were many skirmishes between Israel and Judah; but we do not read of any pitched battle.
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 vv3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 26, 29, 33, 34, 35 Chileab - In the duplicate passage (see the margin.)…
Chileab - In the duplicate passage (see the margin.) David’s second son is called Daniel (God is my judge), a name given to him in commemoration of the death of Nabal 1Sa 25:39. Chileab seems to be made up of the three first letters of the following Hebrew word, through an error of the transcriber, and intended to be erased.
Talmai king of Geshur - Talmai was the name of one of the sons of Anak at Hebron Num 13:22; this Talmai was perhaps of the same race.
Read full note →
Geshur - Where he reigned was in Bashan, and we know from Deu 3:11, that Og, king of Bashan, was of the “remnant of the giants.” See 1Sa 27:8 note.
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39 War, the particulars of which are not given. (Calmet)…
War, the particulars of which are not given. (Calmet) --- But David’s power continually increased, and he was blessed with many children. (Haydock) --- "Legions and fleets are not such strong bulwarks of the throne, as a numerous family." (Tacitus, Hist. v.)
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 v7 III. Abner’s quarrel with Ishbosheth, defection from the House…
III. Abner’s quarrel with Ishbosheth, defection from the House of Saul and transition to David
2Sa_3:7-21
Read full note →
7And Saul had a concubine whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, and Ishbosheth4 said to Abner, Wherefore hast thou gone in unto my father’s concubine?5 8Then was Abner [And Abner was] very wroth for the words of Ishbosheth, and said, Am I a dog’s head which against Judah6 [a dog’s head on Judah’s side?] [ins. I] do show kindness this day [to-day] unto the house of Saul thy father, to his brethren and to his friends, and have not delivered thee into the hand of David, that 9[and] thou chargest me to-day with a fault concerning this [the] woman? [!] So do God to Abner and more also except, as the Lord [Jehovah] hath sworn to David, even so I do to him, 10To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba. 11And he could not answer Abner a word again, because he feared him.
12And Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf [or in his stead7], saying, Whose is the land?8 saying also [om. also], Make thy league [covenant] with me, and behold, my hand shall be with thee to bring about [to turn] all Israel unto 13thee. And Hebrews 9 said, Well; I will make a league [covenant] with thee; but one thing I require of thee, that is, Thou shalt not see my face except10 thou first7 [om. first] bring Michal, Saul’s daughter, when thou comest to see my face. 14And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, saying, Deliver [Give] me11 my wife Michal, which [whom] I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines. 15And Ishbosheth sent and took her from her husband, even from Phaltiel the son of Laish.12 16And her husband went with her along weeping behind her to Bahurim. Then said Abner [And Abner said] unto him, Go, return. And he returned.
17And Abner had communication with the elders of Israel, saying, Ye sought for 18David in times past13 to be king over you; Now, then, do it; for the Lord [Jehovah] hath spoken of14 David, saying, By the hand of my servant David I will15 save my people Israel out of the hand of the Philistines and out of the hand of all their enemies. 19And Abner also16 spake in the ears of Benjamin; and Abner went also13 to speak in the ears of David in Hebron all that seemed good to Israel and that seemed good [om. that seemed good] to the whole house of Benjamin. So [And] 20Abner came to17 David to Hebron and twenty men with him. And David made Abner and the men that were with him a feast. 21And Abner said unto David, I will arise and go, and will gather all Israel unto my lord the king, that they18 may make a league [covenant] with thee, and that thou mayest reign over all that thine heart desireth. And David sent Abner away, and he went in peace.
IV. Murder of Abner by Joab. 2Sa_3:22-39
22And behold the servants of David and Joab came from pursuing a troop [came from an expedition19], and brought in a great spoil with them. But [And] Abner was not with David in Hebron, for he had sent him away and he was gone in peace. 23When Joab and all the host that was with him were come, they told Joab, saying, Abner the son of Ner came to the king, and he hath sent him away, and he is gone in peace. 24Then Joab came to the king and said, What hast thou done? behold, Abner came unto thee; why is it that thou hast sent him away, and he is quite [om. quite20] gone? 25Thou knowest Abner the son of Ner21 that he came to deceive thee, and to know thy going out and thy coming in, and to know all that thou doest. 26And when [om. when] Joab was come out [went out] from David he [and] sent messengers after Abner, which [who] brought him again from the well of Sirah; but David knew it not.
27And when Abner was returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside in [to the middle of] the gate to speak with him quietly, and smote him there under the fifth rib 28[in22 the abdomen] that he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother. And afterward when David heard it [when David afterward heard it], he said, I and my kingdom are guiltless before the Lord [Jehovah] for ever from the blood of Abner the son of Ner; 29Let it rest [be hurled] on the head of Joab and on all his father’s house, and let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff [crutch23], or that falleth on [by] the sword, or that 30lacketh bread. So24 Joab and Abishai his brother slew Abner because he had slain their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle.
31And David said to Joab and to all the people that were with him, Rend your clothes and gird you with sackcloth, and mourn before Abner. And king David himself [om. himself] followed the bier. 32And they buried Abner in Hebron; and the king lifted up his voice and wept at the grave of Abner, and all the people wept. 33And the king lamented over Abner and said,
Died Abner [Must Abner die] as a fool25 [or villain] dieth?
34Thy hands were not bound
Nor thy feet put into fetters.
As a man falleth before wicked men
So fellest thou.
35And all the people wept again over him. And when [om. when] all the people came to cause David to eat26 meat [bread] while it was yet day [ins. and] David sware, saying, So do God to me and more also, if I taste bread or aught else till the sun be down. 36And all the people took notice of it, and it pleased them; as27 whatsoever 37the king did pleased all the people. For [And] all the people and all Israel understood that day that it was not of the king to slay Abner the son of Ner. 38And the king said unto his servants, Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel? 39And I am this day weak, though anointed king, and these men the sons of Zeruiah be too hard for me; the Lord [Jehovah] shall [om. shall] reward the doer of evil [wickedness] according to his wickedness.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
III. 2Sa_3:7-21. Abner quarrels with Ishbosheth, and goes over to David
2Sa_3:7-8. The falling out. Its occasion was Abner’s taking Saul’s concubine, Rizpah,28 the daughter of Aiah. The Harem was part of the property of the reigning house, and therefore fell to the successor, comp. 2Sa_12:8. Taking possession of it was a political act, and signified actual entrance on royal rights, comp. 2Sa_16:21, and of this act Abner was guilty. Supply from the connection Ishbosheth (comp. my father and 2Sa_3:8) as subject of the verb said. His question: “Why,” etc., might be taken as the expression of suspicion that Abner was thus seeking the throne, for in the ancient Orient claim to the harem was claim to the throne, so especially with the Persian, comp. Herod. 3, 68; Justin. 10, 2. But, if Ishbosheth really had such a suspicion, Abner’s conduct gives no ground for such a view; his act seems rather the outflow of passionate self-will and presumptuous contempt towards Ishbosheth. If he had really wished to seize the throne of Israel for himself, his conduct towards David (2Sa_3:9 sq.) would be inexplicable. His answer in 2Sa_3:8 shows how loose his relation to Ishbosheth and concern for his cause already was. “Dog’s head,” as in our language also, is the expression for something perfectly despicable. The. words: “which is to Judah,” omitted by Sept., are not to be connected with the preceding (Clericus: thinkest thou that I am worth no more to the Tribe of Judah than a dog’s head? Syr.: Am I the head of the dogs of Judah? Ewald: Am I then a Judahite dog’s head?—such an adjectival periphrasis would be very strange)—nor in sense to be connected with the following (Vulg.: who against Judah to-day show kindness; De Wette: who in respect to Judah now show kindness), but to be rendered simply as they stand: “who is for Judah, pertains to, holds with Judah” (Buns.). Abner is angered by the insult he thinks shown him by Ishbosheth’s reproachful question. The sense of his reply is: that Ishbosheth treats him as a despicable man, who takes no interest in him, as one who belongs to his opponents, the party of the Tribe of Judah, whereas Hebrews 1) is showing only kindness to the whole house of Saul, and 2) especially has not delivered him, Ishbosheth, into the hand of David. By adducing these his services to the royal house Abner repels the reproach based on his appropriation of the concubine.29 His words express the extremest contempt towards his king, and the strongest consciousness of services, to which the house of Saul and Ishbosheth owed everything. The “to-day” is significant;, even “now” he occupies this position towards Saul’s house; comp. the “made himself strong, was a strong helper” in 2Sa_3:6. The contrast to this comes out sharply in what follows. There follows—
2Sa_3:9-11, the sudden complete breach with the house of Saul and the solemn oath in respect to the house of David. This is the culmination of what is said in 2Sa_3:1 of David’s advance in strength over against the house of Saul. (On the simple כִּי in oaths see on 2Sa_2:27; 1Sa_3:17.) The history does not show a formal divine oath, such as Abner here refers to. But the divine choice of David to be king, his anointment performed by Samuel at the divine command (1Sa_15:28-29; 1Sa_16:1-12), and the therewith conjoined divine declaration which Samuel declares to be inviolable (1Sa_15:29) because based on God’s truthfulness (comp. Num_23:19)—all this had in fact the significance and weight of a divine oath. Abner’s words presuppose that acquaintance with the promises given to David was, through the prophetic circles, widely extended. Abigail is an example of such acquaintance among the people (1Sa_25:28-31).—So will I do to him; Abner does not consider himself (as Cler. thinks) as the Lord’s instrument for fulfilling his declaration to David, which he in fact was not. He merely says, that he will now make David king, as had been promised him by divine oath. The remark of Cler. that “military men do not sufficiently weigh what they say” does not apply here; for in Abner’s words there is the distinct consciousness that over against the divine promise concerning David the cause of Saul and Ishbosheth is a lost one, but at the same time also the mortified ambition that thinks its services not sufficiently recognized, and the overweening pride of a vigorous and energetic man who thinks that he can of himself make history. In spite of his reference to a divine declaration, his conduct is anything but theocratic, is rather throughout autocratic, comp. 2Sa_2:8, 2 Samuel 9 : “he took Ishbosheth, and made him king.” How far his previous energetic, autocratic activity for Saul’s house was connected with ambitious, high-reaching plans for himself, is uncertain. In any case, however, so much is true: 1) that he knew David’s divine call to be Saul’s successor, and therefore stood in conscious opposition to the known will of God, and thus in conflict with himself, and 2) that it was only after his defeat in the battle with Joab (which he himself began, 2Sa_2:12 sq.) and his gradually confirmed recognition of the fact that Ishbosheth was wholly unfit for the kingly rule and its maintenance in the house of Saul, and in truth the personal insult now offered him by Ishbosheth—that he suddenly decided to break with the house of Saul and go over to David. How far ambition herein influenced him along with political insight, we cannot tell; but it is not probable that he showed so much energy in gaining over all Israel to David, as is afterwards related, without hope of a high and influential position with David—With the words: “to translate the kingdom from Saul,” comp. Samuel’s word, 1Sa_15:28.—From Dan to Beersheba, as in Jdg_20:1; 1Sa_3:20.—[Bib. Com. thinks it probable that Abner had before this begun to incline towards David, so that Ishbosheth had some ground for the taunt: “which belongeth to Judah,” and this made it all the more slinging to Abner.—Tr.]
2Sa_3:11. And he (Ishbosheth) could not answer, because he feared him. This characterizes Ishbosheth sufficiently for the explanation of the whole situation. Having with an effort plucked up courage to ask that reproachful question, he here shows the greatest feebleness, cowardice and timidity towards Abner. This also contributes to the explanation of what is said in 2Sa_3:1 concerning the house of Saul.
2Sa_3:12-21 Abner’s covenant with David.
2Sa_3:12. The threat against Ishbosheth is straightway carried out by sending an embassy to David. תחתו is not “in his place” (Vulg. pro se, Cler., De Wette, Keil [Eng. A. V.: “on his behalf”]), which would be superfluous and unmeaning (Buns.), but, in keeping with Abner’s passionate excitement in 2Sa_3:9, “on the spot, immediately,” παραχρῆμα (Sept., Chald.), as in 2Sa_2:23, where Keil also adopts this meaning, though he here declares that there is no ground for it.—[On this whole passage see “Text, and Gram.”—Tr.]—The first “saying” (לֵאמֹר) can be taken here only in the usual sense as introduction of direct discourse, not as = “to say” in reference to the messengers. And the second “saying” is also so to be taken, and not as = “that is to say” (Buns., Then.), since it introduces another direct discourse of Abner: “Make a covenant,” which cannot except by forcing be regarded as an explanation of the question: “to whom belongs the land?” rather the demand contained in it, as a consequence of the silent answer to this question, is, on account of its importance as the chief thing in the commission of the ambassadors, naturally appended by means of a repeated “saying.” The saying: To whom belongs (or whose is) the land? does not relate to David, as if = “to whom does it belong but to thee?” This interpretation, that the land properly belonged to David by virtue of his anointment (Vat., S. Schmid, Ew. [Patrick, Bib. Com.]), would agree indeed with Abner’s acknowledgment in 2Sa_3:9, but not with the following words: Make a covenant with me to turn all Israel to thee, which rather indicate that Abner means to say: “the land belongs to me” (Sanct., Thenius [Scott, Philipps]).This is quite in keeping with his proud, haughty nature, as hitherto manifested in his words and conduct, and also with the facts of the case, since in fact the whole land except Judah was still subject to Saul’s house, that is, to him (Abner) as Dictator. Because he still as influential ruler controlled the greatest part of the land, he could 1) demand of David, as one standing on the same plane with him, to make a covenant with him, and 2) give him the promise (the product not only of strong self-consciousness, but also of extensive power): “my hand is with thee to turn all Israel to thee” Obviously there is here not merely implicitly involved as answer to the above question, the declaration: “the land is his whom I, the leader of the army, shall favor” (Cler.), but also the expectation that, after the fulfillment of this promise, David would assign him the highest position in the army and in the nation next to himself. Abner’s proud and haughty words hardly permit us to doubt that he was filled with such thoughts.
2Sa_3:13. David replies with a condition, namely, the restoration of his wife Michal30—Thou shalt not see my face before (= except) thou bring Michal, etc.—Certainly we should have the opposite of David’s meaning (Then.) If we rendered: “Thou shalt not see my face except before thou bring Michal.” But, if we retain the text (לִפְנֵי), this explanation is unnecessary, rather it quite answers to the original signification of the word to render literally: “except in the face of thy bringing Michal …. in thy coming to see my face,” that is, thou shalt not see my face except by at the same time bringing me Michal when thou comest to see my face; thy coming to me to see my face shall not occur except in the presence of this fact, namely, that thou (= unless, before thou) bring Michal. It is therefore unnecessary either to omit the Prep. (לִפְנֵי) after the Sept., and change the following Inf. into a Perf., = “unless thou bring” (Then.), or to omit the “but”(כִּי אִם) = “thou shalt not see my face before thy bringing (= before thou bring)” (Böttcher).
2Sa_3:14 presupposes the acceptance of this condition by Abner. In realization of what Abner had threatened him with, Ishbosheth finds himself compelled to fulfil David’s condition himself, and that immediately by Abner’s own hand, to whom was assigned the duty of bringing, and who really did bring Michal to David (2Sa_3:15-16). To this end David sends a formal embassy to Ishbosheth, in order legally to demand and receive Michal back, she having been illegally taken by Saul and given to another man (1Sa_25:44). Seb. Schmid: “that it might be manifest that he had acted legally towards Phaltiel before his king, and taken her back, not carried her off by force from a husband.” Whom I espoused to me, that is, purchased as bride, married—For a hundred foreskins, comp. 1Sa_18:27, where two hundred is the number given. David thus justifies his claim that Michal lawfully belongs to him, since he had lawfully won her as his wife. Besides this right to Michal, which he was now for the first time in position successfully to assert, he was led to a reunion with her partly by love (“she loved him,” 1Sa_18:27; 1Sa_19:11 sq.), partly by a political motive; as king he could not in the presence of the people leave Michal in a relation into which she had been forced against her will,31 and he wished the people to see from his relation to Saul as son-in-law that he was free from hatred towards the latter.
2Sa_3:15. And Ishbosheth sent, that is, to Gallim, where Phaltiel, the present husband of Michal, dwelt, 1Sa_25:44, and sent Abner himself (2Sa_3:16). Her husband cannot part with her without sorrow. [The Jewish tradition represents Phaltiel as the guardian merely, not the husband of Michal—a view that the text does not permit.—Tr.]
2Sa_3:16. A touching scene, briefly but vividly sketched. The faithful husband follows his wife weeping to Bahurim, where Abner, who therefore had himself brought Michal from Gallim, ordered him to return. Bahurim, the home of Shimei (2Sa_19:17; 1Ki_2:8), a village near Jerusalem (Jos., Ant. 7, 9–7) north-east, on the road between the Mount of Olives and the Jordan (Gilgal), not far from or in the plain of the Jordan (comp. 2Sa_16:1; 2Sa_16:5; 2Sa_17:18).
2Sa_3:17-19. Abner’s preparatory negotiations with the Elders of Israel and especially of Benjamin, and his report thereon to David.
2Sa_3:17. Before Abner carried out David’s condition (the restoration of Michal), he had a conversation (דְּבַר־א׳ הָיָה) with the Elders of Israel, that is, the Northern Tribes with the exception of Benjamin—Both yesterday and the day before (= in times past) ye desired [= sought] David to be your king—a striking testimony to the fact that outside of Judah also there had been a favorable sentiment towards David, against which Abner had energetically established and hitherto maintained Ishbosheth’s authority. The existence of this favorable feeling towards David in the Northern Tribes is confirmed by 1 Chronicles 12.
2Sa_3:18. Now, then, do it, that is, fulfil your desire, recognize him as your king. As reason for this demand Abner refers to a “word of Jehovah,” which indeed in the form here given: I will save my people Israel, is never expressly mentioned as spoken “to David” (so the Vulg.); but it is to be regarded as the word applied in the prophetic tradition (which Abner, 2Sa_3:9, is well acquainted with) to David, with which Saul (1Sa_9:16) received this divine commission, which in its completeness could only now be fulfilled by David.32
2Sa_3:19. The special elaborate and pressing negotiations with Benjamin were necessary not only because this tribe had enjoyed many advantages from the royal house of Saul, 1Sa_22:7 (Then.), but in general because, though numerically the smallest tribe, it had hitherto had the honor of furnishing the reigning family; it was necessary to overcome the tribal ambition and the tribe-interest, to which Saul appealed, 1 Samuel 22. The “also … also” (גַּס־גַּם), which denotes mutualness (Ew., § 352 a), points out the close connection and relation between the negotiations carried on with Benjamin as the tribe most important for David, and the earnest conversation that Abner therefore had with David (“in the ears of David”) at Hebron. He “went,” namely, after these double negotiations, in order to bring Michal to David.—All that seemed good, that is, not their demands and conditions (De Wette, Then., Buns.), which does not accord with the context or lie in the words, but (since the negotiations referred to the recognition of David’s divine right to the kingdom over all Israel, 2Sa_3:10) the willingness to recognize him as king, the recognition of his royal authority.—[Patrick observes that David so effectually attached the Benjaminites to him that, though they had been Saul’s closest adherents, they became David’s warm friends, and never afterwards left him. However, comp. 2 Samuel 20.—Tr.]
2Sa_3:20. The twenty men, who accompanied Abner to David and for whom he prepared a feast, appeared “as representatives of all Israel, in order by their presence to confirm Abner’s overtures” (Keil).—[Patrick: The feast was not merely an entertainment, but of the nature of a league. Bib.-Com.: “It is remarkable that not a word should be said about the meeting of David and Michal.”—Tr.]
2Sa_3:21. The same quickness with which Abner carried out his resolution to go over to David (2Sa_3:12) fulfilled the required condition (2Sa_3:16), pressed the preliminary negotiations (2Sa_3:17 sq.) in order to inform David about them, he now shows in the further proceedings, that he may institute as soon as possible the solemn installation of David as king of Israel under formal conclusion of a covenant between king and people. The gradation in his following words: I will arise and will go and will assemble all Israel to my lord, is characteristic of the rapidity, excitedness and energy that we everywhere remark in Abner. He now for the first time calls David “his lord.” He will “assemble the whole nation (i. e. in its elders and other representatives) to the solemn covenanting.” This last was not to consist in the establishment of a constitution after the nature of a “constitutional monarchy” (Then.), which is wholly foreign to the theocratic kingdom, but the words: that they may make a covenant with thee mean: they are to vow to obey thee as the king given them by the Lord, thou promising to govern them as the theocratic king, through whom as His instrument the Lord Himself will rule over His people.—And that thou mayest be king over all that thy heart desireth, that is, not: “in a way or under conditions that thou canst accept” (Then.), but he is to rule as he desires; it does not, however, mean: “as thy soul desires” (Clericus), or “according to thy pleasure” (Dathe), because the conception of the theocratic rule excluded all arbitrariness from it, but “over all, according to which is the desire of thy soul,” that is, according to the Lord’s will and appointment, over the whole people and land. David had indicated the desire of his heart in his message to the Jabeshites. Abner was dismissed by David as his king who was in accord with his purpose. That he was now looked on by David and his adherents as thoroughly a friend, and received no harm from any body, is indicated by the concluding words: And he went in peace.
IV. 2Sa_3:22-39. Murder of Abner by Joab and his solemn interment by David.
2Sa_3:22. Instead of the Sing, “came,” referring to Joab as leader of the troop, Sept., Syr., Ar. render: “they came.” “From the troop” came Joab with the servants of David, who had undertaken an expedition for booty Whither, is not said, but probably outside the Israelitish territory near the tribe of Judah. In the incomplete organization of David’s court, such expeditions were necessary for the support of the large army. “Abner was no longer with David;” probably he had purposely chosen the time when Joab, with the army, was absent, to carry out his plan. “He had gone in peace” is repeated from 2Sa_3:21 in contrast with the hostility afterwards shown him by Joab, when (2Sa_3:23) on his return he learns that Abner had meantime been with David and had been dismissed in peace. [For the correction of the rendering of this verse in Eng. A. V. see “Text, and Gramm.”—Tr.]
2Sa_3:24. Joab’s reproach of David that he had sent Abner away—so that “he was now quite gone” (וֵיֵּלֶךְ הָלוֹךְ Ew. § 280 b)—supposes that Abner had only come with evil and hostile purpose. [Joab, of course, was afraid that he would be superseded by Abner, if the latter entered David’s service. He was younger and less renowned than Abner.—Tr.]
2Sa_3:25. Joab gives a reason for his charge of unwisdom against David in sending Abner away in peace: Thou knowest (or, as a question, knowest thou?) Abner, that ….. In a quick, passionate speech, for the truth of which he appeals at the outset to David’s knowledge of Abner’s character (against Thenius’ remark: “had David known what Joab here says, he would have acted differently”), he makes a threefold charge against Abner, with the intent of thereby branding him as spy and traitor. He declares that Abner came 1) to trick him out of his most secret thoughts. The verb (פָּתָה) means “to be open” (Ps. 20:19), Piel “to make open, persuade, get one’s secrets from him” (Jdg_14:15; Jdg_16:5); so here; 2) to learn David’s outgoing and incoming, that is, all his present undertakings, his whole action and course of life (comp. Deu_28:6; Psa_121:8); 3) all that he will do, all his plans for the future.
2Sa_3:26. Without David’s knowledge (whether expressly in David’s name, falsely used by him, is not stated) he sends messengers and brings Abner back, making him believe, no doubt, that David had something further to say to him. The pit (or cistern) of Sirah, to which Abner had gotten when he was turned back, according to Jos. Ant. 7, 1, 5, distant twenty stadia [= nearly two and a half English miles] from Hebron, is now unknown; the name is perhaps to be derived from a verb (סוּר) meaning “to turn in” (Thenius), and denotes an inn or caravanserai. [According to others, so-called as surrounded with thorns, Sirim, סִירִים (Philippson).—Tr.]
2Sa_3:27. [Bib. Comm.: Abner’s conduct bespeaks his entire reliance on David’s good faith.—Tr.] After Abner’s return to Hebron, Joab met him in the gate of the city, and turned him “aside to the middle of the gate, in order to speak with him quietly.” Clericus: “made him turn aside, took him apart” (the Hiphil הִטָּה is transitive as in Job_24:4; Num_22:23). Joab could not speak with him in the way where people were going out and coming in. He had therefore to take him aside to the places in the gate-space, where, according to the oriental custom, men used to meet for private or public conversations and consultations. To the middle of the gate.—Joab drew Abner to the middle of the inner gate-space (which was no doubt roofed) between the places of exit and entrance, because it was not so light there, and one could better escape the notice of the passers-by, who, however, were probably not very numerous. Bunsen renders well: “made him turn aside (from the way) near the middle of the gate.” For Joab wished, as he made Abner believe, to talk with him “in quiet, undisturbed, in private” (בַּשֶׁלִי). There he stabbed him in the abdomen (הַחֹמֶשׁ, comp. 2Sa_2:23) [not “under the fifth rib,” as in Eng. A.V.—Tr.]. For the blood of Asahel his brother see 2Sa_2:23; that is, to avenge or punish the death of his brother. According to this it was an act of revenge for bloodshed. But Abner had not wilfully slain Asahel, but in self-defence, when the latter pressed on him, 2Sa_2:22 sq. But blood-vengeance was appointed only for intentional killing, and he was protected by law from it, who had killed a man unintentionally (Deu_4:41 sq.; Jos_20:1-9). Joab’s deed was a murder, like that which he afterwards committed on Amasa, 2Sa_20:11. He thereby cast false suspicion on David (comp. 2Sa_3:37), whose friendly relation to Abner he yet must have known, since David no doubt informed him in their conversation (2Sa_3:24-25) of Abner’s true position. The avenging of blood was a mere pretext; the real ground of Joab’s deed was envy and ambition, as Josephus already rightly holds. He feared that Abner would take a higher position in the new kingdom than himself—especially would cut him out of the rank of general-in chief of the whole army. Grotius: “an equal and rival in military glory galled him.”
2Sa_3:28 sq. What David said of this crime. And when David after-wards heard of it.—The word “afterwards” (as the “David knew it not” in 2Sa_3:26) certifies that David had no share in Joab’s deed. David 1) declares his innocence of this murder. He distinguishes between himself personally and “his kingdom,” that is, his royal house, his “hereditary successors on the throne” (Thenius), who no more than himself could be visited with divine punishment therefor. Comp. 1Ki_2:31-33. On the other hand, he affirms 2) that the righteous punishment of God in requital of this crime must fall both on the person and on the house (the posterity) of Joab. Let the blood of Abner turn, roll, plunge on the head.—This strong expression, instead of the ordinary “let it come,” answers to the enormity of the crime and the energy of David’s righteous anger. “And let there not fail,” literally “not be cut off, separated, exterminated” (יִכָּרֵת), so that it no longer exist, comp. Jos_9:23. One that hath an issue (זָב), one that pines away miserably with seminal or mucous flow,—comp. Lev_15:2 sq., and a leper, see Lev_13:1-46, and one that holds the distaff.—The word (פֶּלֶךְ) means in Heb., Talm., Arab, only “distaff,” never “staff” (Böttcher), comp. Pro_31:19. Usually indeed the phrase is rendered after the Sept. (κρατῶν σκυτάλην) “one that holds a staff;” that is, a cripple, lame, or blind (the last by Aquila). But against this it is to be said with Böttcher that, apart from the fact that the word cannot be shown to mean “staff,” the phrase “one that holds a staff” does not necessarily denote a cripple, since the staff was held by “rulers and men of eminence (Jdg_5:14; Gen_38:18; Num_21:18), old men (Zec_8:4), travellers (Luk_6:3), shepherds (1Sa_17:40; Mic_7:14), and where a cripple is described with a staff, the expression is quite different (Exo_21:19).” It is therefore better (with Böttcher) to take this as a contrast to the next described unfortunate strong warrior who “falls by the sword” = the weakly “spindle-holder, unfit for war.” “The Greeks also had their Hercules with the distaff” as a type of unmanly feebleness, and for a warrior like Joab there could be no worse wish than that there might be a distaff-holder among his descendants” (Böttcher). So also Vulg., Schulz, Maurer (after Pro_31:19 ). [In spite of this forcible and striking argument of Böttcher (which is also adopted by Thenius) it seems better to take the signification “crutch,” chiefly because the other terms of imprecation in this verse are all literal, and the term “distaff-holder” would be figurative. The rendering “crutch” or “staff” is adopted by Gesenius, Ewald, Philippson, Bible Commentary, and others, and may be given without violence to the Hebrew word, though in the one other passage in the Old Testament in which it occurs it means “distaff”—Tr.] And that lacks bread.—The indication of bitter poverty. These exclamations of David express no feeling of revenge (as indeed he undertakes no revenge or punishment against Joab and his house), but commit to the holy and righteous God the inevitable punishment of such a violation of the divine command. They are not “genuinely Jewish” (Thenius), but genuinely theocratic, as the expression of the clear, energetic consciousness of God’s punitive justice which maintains the laws of the moral government of the world and the foundations of the kingdom of God, and which here he wishes may exhibit itself on Joab’s house in a fourfold manner: in miserable, levitically unclean sicknesses, in despicable weakness and crippling, in violent death, and in bitter poverty. As to Joab’s violent end, comp. 1Ki_2:28-34, especially 2Sa_3:31-33, and as respects the curse on his house, see Exo_20:5. [The ancient Jewish writers regarded this imprecation of David’s as sinful. The text passes no opinion on it, but from the religious-theocratic point of view of the time, it would seem even necessary that the wrath of God should be specially and sharply invoked on so high-handed a crime, especially as David was not able to call the criminal to legal account.—Tr.] 2Sa_3:30. Supplementary remark of the narrator, who 1) confirms the fact that the slaying of Asahel by Abner was the ground (pretext) for the murder of the latter just related, and 2) adds the important statement that Joab’s act was not merely personal, but also a family-act: “Joab and Abishai slew Abner.” Abishai’s part in the affair is not related. Literally: “threw themselves on him,” the verb being used with Dat. instead of Accus., Isa_22:13 (Böttcher, Then.).
2Sa_3:31-39. David’s mourning for Abner. 2Sa_3:31. David said to Joab (as him who by his murderous act was chiefly and terribly interested) and to all the people that were “with him” (those about him), not merely to the “courtiers” (Thenius): Rend your garments, etc.—He ordered a public mourning with all the usual ceremonies (rending garments, putting on sackcloth, that is, rough mourning garments of haircloth, and lamentations for the dead). We must distinguish two principal acts: 1) The mourning not over, for, in honor of (Ew. § 217 l) Abner, but “before” him (לִפְנֵיּ), in the presence of his corpse; 2) the burial, 2Sa_3:31 b sq.: And the king David followed the bier.33 The word “king” is put emphatically first to indicate the official character that he as king gave to these obsequies, in order to show his personal deep sorrow for the death of Abner which concerned the whole people, and to stifle at the outset any suspicion that he had a share in it. His “tears at the grave” showed the genuineness of his grief to the people who shared in his trouble and wept with him. His elegy (2Sa_3:33-34) is the expression of the deepest sorrow over Abner’s innocent and shameful death. In reference to his guiltlessness he exclaims: Must Abner die as a worthless fellow dies?—as a nabal (נָבָּל), a fool; where this term is used of immorality and crime, these, like denial of God and godlessness (Psa_14:1), are regarded under the point of view of foolishness; nabal always denotes hollowness, emptiness, insipidity (see Moll [in Lange’s Bible-Work] on Psa_14:1), and signifies therefore somewhat more precisely “good-for-naught.” [The sentence may be paraphrased: is this the fate that the noble Abner was to meet, to die like a worthless fool? alas that he found so inglorious a death.—Tr.] But he was murdered in shameful wise also: Thy hands were not bound and thy feet not put into fetters—with free hands, with which he might have defended himself; with free feet, with which he might have escaped from overpowering force; without suspecting evil, he was attacked and murdered as a defenceless man, who yet might have defended himself. (De Wette (against the לֹא) wrongly renders: Thy hands were never bound, thy feet never put into fetters.) Only dishonorable, wicked men could so act. This lament of David increased the grief of the people, so that “they wept still more over Abner.”
2Sa_3:35. David’s grief is strongest and most enduring—he refrains entirely from food. Fasting often occurs as a sign of sorrow—see 2Sa_1:12. All the people (that is, as many as were present) came to cause David to eat bread—that is, not to give him to eat (De Wette), as 2Sa_13:5 (an impossible conception in respect to “all the people”), but to demand of him to take food. Josephus: “his friends tried to force him to take nourishment.” It was the custom for mourners to fast immediately after the death of their friends, whereupon their relatives and friends exerted themselves to comfort them, and persuaded them to strengthen themselves with food and drink, comp. 2Sa_12:16-17; 2Sa_12:20; Jeremiah 16. Perhaps the people here acted in accordance with this custom; but their demand may also be referred to the mourning meal that followed the burial. But David refuses with an oath;34 up to evening he will eat nothing. The expression of grief here reaches its culmination.
2Sa_3:36. The people took notice of it—namely, of his deep sorrow, and estimated this expression of his mourning as corresponding to the intensity of his grief. It pleased them, as35 all that the king did pleased all the people.—Thus he was not only freed from suspicion of share in the murder of Abner (2Sa_3:37). but won the love and confidence of the people.
2Sa_3:38. An echo of the elegy: Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel?—Not: “great prince” (Thenius, after Sept., omitting the copula), since the distinction between the prince=“army-leader” and the great man is perfectly appropriate. Abner was a “prince” by his distinguished military ability, which (as this exclamation intimates) David might have employed for all Israel; he was a “great man” by reason of his lofty qualities of character and virtues, his power of action, his courage, the honorable self-conquest he exhibited in turning from his previous false course of opposition to David, the obedience that he yielded to the will of God, and the zealous desire he showed to serve by deeds the true king of Israel. On account of his natural noble endowments and these moral36 qualities, Abner rightly seems to David to be a great man in Israel, not merely, therefore, in the incorrect sense in which the term has been applied to a Napoleon.
2Sa_3:39. The usual explanation: “but I am still weak….. and these men are too strong for me;” that is, as a weak young king I feel unable to bring a man like Joab to justice; I must therefore confine myself to an imprecation, and leave the punishment to God (Jos., Theod., Brent., Tremell., S. Schmid, Clericus, De Wette, Keil [Patrick]), is wholly untenable; for David could not and durst not so express himself. It would have been very unwise to acknowledge his fear and weakness in respect to Joab and Abishai; nor would it have been true; for he who had conquered Abner, by whose side stood 600 heroes, in whose grief over Abner’s murder all the people shared, no doubt had power to punish this crime; such a self-exculpation based on confession of weakness does not at all agree with the courage and fearlessness that form a fundamental trait of David’s character.—Against Ewald’s explanation: “I indeed now live in palaces and am crowned king, and yet the sons of Zeruiah are out of my reach,” it is to be remarked with Thenius that the word רַךְ [Eng. A. V.: “weak, tender”]) for whose meaning “well living” he cites Isa_47:1; Deu_28:54-56, is used in those passages in a bad sense=delicatus [luxurious, effeminate], and that the other adj. (קָשִׁים) cannot mean “out of reach;” and there is the further objection to this rendering that David had as yet no very splendid position, and his dwelling proudly in royal palaces is out of the question. Against Bunsen’s rendering: “hard, out of my reach” (Ex. 48:25), Thenius rightly remarks that hard and out of reach are two different conceptions, and that the former can be used only of things, not of persons. Böttcher translates: “And I am to-day easy, and am crowned king, but these men—are too rough for me,” and finds in the “easy” (רַךְ) a double contrast, on the one hand between David’s present comfortable circumstances and Abner’s sad death, and on the other hand between the easy disposition (natural in easy circumstances) inclined to pardon (as was lawful and right for the king), and the rough deed of the sons of Zeruiah. But 1) “we cannot suppose such a double meaning in the declaration” (Thenius), and 2) the history is in conflict with this supposition of royal well-living on the part of David, who with his men must have depended chiefly for their living on the booty taken in their incursions. Thenius alters the text37 after the Sept. and translates: “know ye not that… and that I am to-day weak and am raised to the position of the king. Those men… are harder than I. Jehovah reward,” etc. But the text of the Sept in the first third of the verse is too confused38 to allow an emendation of the Hebrew to be based on it. Nor could David yet have said: “I am raised to the position of the king.” Holding to the text, we might rather adopt Thenius’ explanation, according to which David, over against Abner’s greatness and importance for all Israel (which he had just affirmed), sets his own present situation, in which this distinguished man would have been of the greatest value to him, so that the sense would be: “How well in my situation could I have used such a man as Abner, I who have just been set on the throne! What these men have done I could not have done! (comp. 2Sa_16:10). But God will judge!” Yet in this explanation also a confession of weakness would be the chief point, which in David’s present situation is altogether improbable. David was actually not “set on the throne” in respect to all Israel; that does not take place till 2Sa_3:1. The little word “just” is put in. Before the whole people David has avowed the deepest, sincerest grief of heart for Abner by declaring that he would continue his fasting till the sun went down. Then follows in 2Sa_3:36-37 the parenthetical double statement of the impression that his conduct made on the people: they approved his feeling, and were firmly convinced that he had no part in the murder. It is then further related in 2Sa_3:38 (which connects itself with 2Sa_3:35) how David expressed to the narrower circle of “his servants” (that is, his immediate royal retinue) his grief at the loss that he and Israel had suffered by Abner’s death. In 2Sa_3:39 follows immediately the avowal of his disposition of mind, that he as king showed himself soft and weak, while those men showed themselves so hard. The contrast of “soft” and “hard” (here evidently intended) is thus fully preserved in respect not to the political situation, but to mental constitution. The meaning of David’s words would thus be: Wonder not that I so give myself up to grief. You know what a great man we and all Israel have lost. I am then soft and weak, I, an anointed king, while these men, the sons of Zeruiah, are in disposition harder than I. They (at least Joab) were obliged indeed to take part in the ceremony of mourning (2Sa_3:31); their hard, inflexible mind, whence proceeded the evil deed, showed itself in their mien and deportment at the ceremony. This gave David occasion to contrast his weakness, his absorption in grief with their hardness, a contrast that is sharpened by his comparing them with himself as king. The concluding words: The Lord will reward.… are the natural expression of the feelings and thoughts that filled David’s soul when he looked at their hardness and inflexible defiance (comp. 2Sa_3:29).
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. “The house of Saul grew weaker and weaker” 2Sa_3:1. This is the theme of the following narrative of Ishbosheth’s kingdom under Abner’s lead and guidance. In the first place, the heir to Saul’s throne appears as a very weak man, unfit to rule, without character or will, who is merely an object of Abner’s mighty, unlimited activity, and never (except for a moment in the affair of the concubine) attempts to take the position of subject [that is, independent agent] in respect to Abner. While David undertakes nothing of his own will and strength in order to overthrow the dynasty of Saul and gain the promised kingdom over all Israel, patiently waiting for the fulfilment of the promise given him, this fulfilment is already introduced by the fall of Saul’s house through its own weakness, and by its loss of the royal throne through the incapacity of its representative for the royal office, with the co-operation at last of Abner, who was still its only support. Ishbosheth appears as a will-less, weak mock-king in degrading dependence on the mighty, vigorous, heroic nature of Abner. When the latter, in reply to the charge made against him of high-handed and reckless proceeding against the royal house, breaks forth into anger, discarding all reverence for his royal master and openly announcing his defection to David, Ishbosheth has nothing to answer, because he fears Abner. Indeed in his utter helplessness Ishbosheth seems to have entertained the thought of sharing the royal dignity with David, being perhaps ready to cede to him the greater part of the power. At least he became Abner’s passive tool so far as to lend his hand to the fulfilment of the condition on which David was willing to yield to his proposals, namely, the restoration of Michal. “The Scripture presents in him a living example of how the sacredly held right of legitimate inheritance has no root when it is not ennobled by a vigorous personality. When the divine calling is lacking, no legitimate pretensions help” (P. Cassel, Herz. s. v.).
2. “David grew stronger and stronger.” This second statement also in 2Sa_3:1 is in respect to David the title of this section. While David bears himself patiently and humbly in respect to his royal interests, the spirit of the people, under the misrule of Ishbosheth, turns to him more and more in the desire that he may be king over the remaining tribes also (2Sa_3:17). Even the bearer and support of Saul’s kingdom, the mighty Abner, inclines secretly to him on the ground of his ever clearer consciousness and conviction that it is Jehovah’s will that the kingdom of Israel should depart from the house of Saul and pass over to David; till his rupture with Ishbosheth leads to his open transition to David’s side. Abner had indeed, against his better convictions, maintained his partisan position against David and continued his hostile efforts against him, and it was only after the overthrow of his hitherto unlimited power and the violence done to his self-esteem and ambition, that he came to the conclusion to abandon his position as David’s opponent; and certainly ambitious plans and views for his position in the new kingdom were not wanting in his transition to David and his energetic efforts for David. But all this could give David no ground to reject Abner’s offer; rather he was under obligation to employ this unsought change in Abner’s mind and position (which entered into his life as a factor permitted by the Lord) for the end (fixed not by himself, but by the Lord) of his kingdom over all Israel, the kingdom of Saul falling to pieces of itself, when the Dictator, who had furnished its outward support, left it. Abner’s defection from Ishbosheth and effort to gain from the whole people the recognition of David’s authority was an important preliminary step thereto. But further, by a wonderful providence of God, Abner’s shameful murder by the envious, ambitious Joab was to lead to this result, namely, that, after the Elders of the people had already shown themselves willing to recognize his authority over all Israel, the whole people gave him their love and confidence; “all that he did pleased them” (2Sa_3:36).
3. The realization of the plans and aims of the wisdom of God in the development of David up to his ascension of the royal throne in Israel is secured by the co-operation of human efforts and acts (like Abner’s and Joab’s), which have their ground not in zeal for the cause of the kingdom of God, but in selfish ends and motives of the self-seeking, sinful heart. Human sin must subserve the purposes of God’s government and kingdom.—The absolute freedom of control in the things of His kingdom takes the activity of human freedom into its dispensations, and weaves them into the fast closed web of divine arrangements and acts, in which they fulfil the plans of divine wisdom.—J. Hetz (Geschicht. Davids I. 309) remarks on 2Sa_3:18 : “Here also it is to be noted how, merely by preparing circumstances, the free actions of men have been forced to accord with divine declarations, of which fact this theocracy gives so many examples.”
4. David’s words concerning Joab and his house are no more the expression of revenge than the orders that he gives to Solomon in his last words (1Ki_2:5 sq.) respecting the punishment of Joab for this bloody crime (against Dunker, Gesch. des Alterth. I. 386); but they express his moral horror at this evil deed, and at the same time the everlasting law of God’s requiting justice, which reaches not merely the person, but also the posterity (Exo_20:5) of the offender. David (though, as theocratic king, he had the right to do it) does not himself execute the deserved act of divine righteousness on Joab, not, as the common view is, because he felt himself too weak in his royal office, but because he wished to avoid the appearance of personal revenge, especially now when Abner had just done him such great services. He therefore committed to the Lord the requital and expiation of this crime, 2Sa_3:39. This could be accomplished, however, only through a human instrument. The commission to this end he accordingly gave to his son Solomon (1Ki_2:5 sq.), who, not as his son, as a private person, but as his successor on the throne and as theocratic king, had therein an official duty to fulfil. For “in the kingdom of God, in which ruled the law of earthly requital, such a crime might not go unpunished” (O. v. Gerlach).
5. In David’s ethical conduct in this important episode also, which immediately precedes his ascension of the promised throne, we see individual prefigurations of his humble obedience to the Lord, without whose will he will take no step in life. Under the strongest temptations to arbitrariness and violence, which were the rule with the ancient oriental princes, he maintains strict self-control, exhibits uniform circumspection, a wisdom and discretion cognizant of God’s ways, and does not permit anger at the deed of horror that had been done under his eyes to lead him to immediate, bloody punishment. We must guard against exaggerated demands on the morality of the Old Testament men of God, that we may not unfairly judge them by an improper standard, and that we may not pervert the truth of the divine development of revelation by confounding the stand-points of the Old and New Testaments. David’s invocation of divine punishment on Joab (2Sa_3:29) (wherein, indeed, we must distinguish between the eternal truth of the divine justice and the sinful element of subjective passion) is held by some to be unjustifiable from the Christian point of view. To this it is to be replied once for all, that David belongs to the Old Testament, not the New Testament economy, stands on the stand-point of the Law, not of the Gospel, and therefore is not to be ethically judged according to the New Testament stand-point.
[Dr. Erdmann’s remarks on David’s moral motives are determined in part by his interpretation of 2Sa_3:39, about which there is much room for doubt. It may be merely a confession of political weakness that he here makes privately to his friends, in which case his self-control is simply political sagacity. David had high moral and spiritual qualities; at the same time we must guard against the determination to find the loftiest theocratic motives in every act of his life. Dr. Erdmann holds that in 2Sa_3:39 David affirms his own softness of nature as reason for his deep grief over Abner, in contrast with the hardness of Joab. The objection to this is that it does not explain sufficiently why David immediately appends an appeal to God for the punishment of the doer of evil. Further, the reason assigned by our author for David’s failure to punish Joab (namely, his desire to avoid the appearance of revenge) seems unsatisfactory; nobody would have accused him of personal vengeance. To the usual interpretation Dr. Erdmann objects that a confession of political weakness on David’s part would have been unwise and untrue. But, what more natural than that he should make such a statement to a select body of friends; and that it was not true, we are not warranted in saying, since we do not know Joab’s power and position. The words of the Heb. may refer to political relations, and such a statement would accord with the whole history. It must be allowed, however, that the words are obscure.—Tr.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
2Sa_3:7 sq. The designs that God has with His chosen ones for the furtherance of His kingdom often have the way smoothed for them through human sins.—Single wicked deeds, proceeding from momentary passionate excitement, do often in God’s government give occasion for changes having important consequences.—Division among the opposers of God’s kingdom must subserve the furtherance of His aims, and on the contrary, discord among those who, on a like ground of faith, wish to live and labor for the same tasks in the kingdom of God must help the wicked one and further his aims.
2Sa_3:12 sqq. When an opposer of God’s word honestly turns, we should without reluctance give him the hand, without undertaking to pass judgment on the motives that are hidden in his heart.
2Sa_3:13. Where the honor of God and His holy ordinances are concerned, a man should guard his rights, and demand reparation of a right that has been impaired.
2Sa_3:17 sq. He who has left the ways of unrighteousness, upon which for a long time he had consciously or unconsciously gone, and returned to the way of truth and righteousness, will exhibit the sincerity of his change by a so much the more earnest striving to restore the damage done by his previous conduct, and to carry into execution the previously hindered aims of divine wisdom and love.
2Sa_3:23 sq. That there is a kingdom of evil is proven by the fact that a man’s turning from evil to good, which pleases God and is a joy to the angels, commonly excites bitterness and hate in wicked men, who see their aims and plans thereby interfered with, and awakens an envy and jealousy that does not shrink from the most wicked deeds.
2Sa_3:28 sq. The honor of one’s good name is too precious a possession to let even the suspicion cleave to it of participation in other men’s guilt. Manly honor demands that in every way, by word and deed and behaviour, one should set forth his innocence when the circumstances and relations give occasion to untrue and unjust accusations.
2Sa_3:33 sq. In lamenting the loss of great men who were prominent in advancing the kingdom of God, we not merely render to them the honor they deserve, but also praise God who gave them.
2Sa_3:36. That king will be most honored and loved by his people who walks in the ways of God, and by a noble disposition, magnanimity and hearty goodness himself awakens the nobler feelings of his people.
2Sa_3:39. In patience and humility must we refer to God the Lord the righteous requital for wicked transgression of His holy commandments. Indifference thereto makes one a partaker of like guilt.—[Comp. above at close of “Hist. and Theol.”—Tr.]
On 2Sa_3:8. Schlier: How many stand together and seem the most inseparable friends, so long as each hopes to gain his end; but only let this aim remove to a distance, only let it become manifest that a selfish or ambitious desire is not going to be fulfilled, and how soon is all rent in twain! For there is nothing that really unites men but the fear of God. No friendship is permanent and progressive that is not rooted in the fear of God.—[2Sa_3:9-10. Scott: While men go on in their sins apparently without concern, they are often conscious that they are fighting against God.—Tr.]—On 2Sa_3:16. F. W. Krummacher: It appears from this occurrence that, amid the wilderness of ruined domestic relations by which Israel was then overgrown, there was yet here and there to be found the flower of a true and inward love and fidelity. This bloomed in David’s house also, but not unstunted, and he has not remained untouched by the curse which God had laid upon the abomination of polygamy in Israel.—On 2Sa_3:21. “When a man’s ways please Jehovah, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.” Pro_16:7.
[2Sa_3:27. Henry: In this, 1. It is certain that the Lord was righteous. Abner had against the convictions of his conscience opposed David, and had now deserted Ishbosheth, under pretence of regard to God and Israel, but really from pride and revenge. 2. It is as certain that Joab was unrighteous. (1) Even the pretence for what he did was very unjust. (2) The real cause was jealousy of a rival. (3) He did it treacherously, under pretence of speaking peaceably to Abner, Deu_27:24. (4) He knew that Abner was now actually in David’s service.—Tr.]
[Robinson: 2Sa_3:33. Are we all, in our several stations, grieved for the wickedness which we are compelled to witness, and which we cannot prevent or remedy?
2Sa_3:39. Those who possess the highest authority cannot do all they would. We should compassionate rather than envy their situation.—Henry: 2Sa_3:38. When he could not call him a saint and a good man, he said nothing of that; but what was true he gave him the praise of, that he was “a prince and a great man.”
2Sa_3:39. This is a diminution, (1) To David’s greatness; he is anointed king, and yet is kept in awe by his own subjects. (2) To David’s goodness; he ought to have done his duty, and trusted God with the issue. Fiat justitia, ruat cœlum.—Taylor: Had he put Joab to death, public opinion would have sustained him in the execution of justice; and even if it had not, he would have had the inward witness that he was doing his duty to the state. For a magistrate to be weak, is to be wicked.… O what suffering—may I not even say what sin?—David might have saved himself from, if he had only thus early rid himself of the tyrannic and overbearing presence of Joab!—Wordsworth: He would have probably prevented other murders, such as that of Ishbosheth and of Amasa; and he would have been spared the sorrow of giving on his death-bed the warrant of execution against Joab, to be put in effect by Solomon. “Impunity invites to greater crimes.” “He is cruel to the innocent who spares the guilty.”—Tr.]
[2Sa_3:15-16. We pity a man who weeps in helpless and apparently innocent suffering. But consider a little, and it may appear that this is only the consequence of a wrong action he committed long ago (1Sa_25:44). Our pity is not thereby destroyed; but its character is greatly changed.
2Sa_3:17-18. How gracefully rulers can yield to the popular wish when they conclude that it is their own interest to do so. And how zealous some men will suddenly become to carry out God’s own will when their own places have been so changed as to coincide therewith!—Hall: Nothing is more odious than to make religion a stalking-horse to policy.—Tr.]
[2Sa_3:25. An ambitious and unscrupulous man is quick to discern, and ready to distort, the selfish aims of others. “Set a thief to catch a rogue.” And one who acts from impure motives exposes himself to be accused of grossly wicked designs which he has not at all entertained.
2Sa_3:27; 2Sa_3:30. O mad ambition, that pleads fraternal love and sacred duty to the dead as an excuse for the foul deed that removes a rival! (The principle of blood-revenge did not apply, for Asahel was killed in war; and if it had applied, Hebron was a city of refuge.)
2Sa_3:33-34. The bitterest fruit that even civil war can bear is assassination, a thing to awaken horror in every noble mind.—Tr.]
[2Sa_3:38. Abner, the soldier turned politician.—Or a sermon might be made on the general career and character of Abner. See 1Ch_9:36; 1Sa_14:51; 1Sa_17:57; 1Sa_26:3-14; 2Sa_2:3., and the notes; and comp. 2Sa_4:1.—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[1] הָלַךְ with Vb. or Adj. (1Sa_2:26) indicating progressive increase. Ges. § 131, 3, Rem. 3.
[2] חָזֵק is not=חָזָק “strong” (Böttcher on Exo_19:19), but Partcp. or Verbal Adj.=“strengthening” (neuter), as נָּדֵל (1Sa_2:26).
[3][This rhyming in propositions and division is a somewhat common practice in Germany.—Tr.]
[4]2Sa_3:7. The lacking subject “Ishbosheth” is supplied in 5 MSS., some printed EDD., and all the VSS. except Chald.; but this shows only that they regarded this name as the proper subject, not that it was originally in the text. Whether it stood originally in our Heb., or we have here a fragment of a fuller narrative in which the subject of the verb was indicated by the context, cannot now be determined.—Before “to his brethren,” in 2Sa_3:8, the copula “and” is inserted in all VSS. except. Chald., and in some MSS.—Tr.]
[5]2Sa_3:7. In כִּילֶנֶשׁ the quiescent Jod instead of dagh. forte (as is frequent in Chald.). The origin of the word is unknown; comp. Chald. פַלְנִיםָא “vigorous beast,” perhaps “one that has reached years of puberty,” (Levy); but comp. Arab. falhas and uflud.—Tr.]
[6]2Sa_3:8. This rendering of Eng. A. V., taken from the Vulg., cannot be well gotten from the Heb.; the translation in brackets is the one now generally adopted.—Instead of הִמְצִיתִי (for הִמְצִאתִי) “delivered,” Syr. has שׁלם and Sept. has ηὐτομόλησα = הִשְׁלַמְתִּי (Then.).—The change of Prep, after חֶסֶד (עִם and אֵל) is to be noted—Symmachus renders “dog’s head” by κυνοκέΦαλος “dog-headed.”—Tr.]
[7][2Sa_3:12. תַּחְתּוֹ Qeri תַּחְתָּיוְ. Two general renderings of this phrase are found in the Ancient VSS.: “in his place” (Sym.: “instead of him,” Vulg., pro se dicentes, Chald., “from his place,” Syr. omits it) and “on the spot” (Sept. παραχρῆμα, followed by Erdmann). The former best accords with the usage, and gives a good sense.—Tr.]
[8][2Sa_3:12. The difficulties in this text are 1) the double לֵאמרֹ “saying;” 2) the absence of the Art. Before אָרֶץ “land;” 3) the obscurity of this question. The Heb. text is supported by the VSS., except that the second לֵאמרֹ is omitted in Syr., Arab., and in a few MSS., and the second in Sept., and the Sept. text of the question is corrupt (the Vat. Sept shows an imperfect triplet: Abner sent messengers to David εἰς θαιλάμ οὖ ἦν παραχρῆμα, in which θαιλάμ seems to be corrupted out of תחתו למי, ο͂υ ῆν is for οῦ γῆν, while παραχρῆμα is translation of תחתי). It appears that the question and the second לאמר were not understood; Chald.: saying, I swear to him who made the land, saying—Syr.: what is the land?—The best course seems to be to omit the second לֵאמרֹ, and seek a meaning in the question.—Tr.]
[9][2Sa_3:13. Some VSS. and MSS. have “David,” which is merely the expression of the obvious subject;—Tr.]
[10][2Sa_3:13. As the Heb. stands it can only be rendered “except on condition of thy bringing,” (so Bib. Com. and substantially Erdmann); Böttcher’s suggested readings לִפְנַי “before” (adv.) and לְפָנַי “before me,” are dropped by himself as unnatural here. He and Wellhausen see a duplet in this text (כי אם and לפּני), which is not improbable, but not necessary. If, in that case, the latter be adopted, the Inf. of the text is retained; if the former, the Perf. must be read.—Tr.]
[11][2Sa_3:14. There is no need of inserting this Dat. in the Heb. text, since it is easily supplied from the context, and its omission is in accordance with Heb. usage. But in 2Sa_3:15 the suffix must be written אישָׁהּ “her husband.” Tr.]
[12][2Sa_3:15. Such is the form in the Qeri or margin; the Kethib or text has Lush, which perhaps means the same thing “lion.” Apparently by inversion the Sept. writes the name Selle.—Tr.]
[13][2Sa_3:17. Literally, “both yesterday and the day before”.—Tr.]
[14][2Sa_3:18. אֶל—so Sept., Syr., Arab., Keil, Cahen; but Vulg., Philippson, Erdmann “to David.” Thenius would read עַל “concerning” (as the context requires) on the ground that אל cannot so be rendered; but see Jer_22:18.—Tr.]
[15][2Sa_3:18. The text has the Inf., which after אָמַר some would render “Jehovah said to save” = “said that He would save,” but this is hard on account of the intervening לֵאמרֹ. and the Impf. is now generally read with many MSS. and printed EDD., and all the Ancient VSS.—Tr.]
[16][2Sa_3:19. The נַּם “also” qualifies not the succeeding word “Abner,” but the preceding “spoke,” “went” (Wellh.).—Tr.]
[17][2Sa_3:20. The Heb. has no Prep. here, employing the Acc. of the point reached; but some MSS. and EDD. insert בְּ, and so all VSS. except Chald., which has לְ.—Tr.]
[18][2Sa_3:21. The Sept. has the first person, “I will make a covenant with him,” which is against the syntax of the context.—Tr.]
[19][2Sa_3:22. Lit. “from the troop (or predatory band),” so the VSS. except Aquila, who has “Geddur” (נדר) which he renders μονοζώνου or εὐζώνου. The Heb. expression is somewhat hard and obscure, but may have been a technical one.—The Heb. Perfects are here from the connection properly rendered by Eng. Plups. “had sent,” “was gone.”—Tr.]
[20]2Sa_3:24. The Inf. Abs., the force of which cannot be exactly given in English. Perhaps the Sept. “in peace” here was designed as a rendering of this Inf., though it is not improbable that it is merely a repetition from the two preceding verses; it is therefore not to be inserted in the Heb. text (against Wellh.).—Tr.]
[21][2Sa_3:25. The phrase “the son of Ner” is omitted by Syr. and Ar., and its points are omitted in one MS. (224 Kenn.)—why, is not clear.—The Sept. rendering: “dost thou not know the wickedness of Abner?” is a weakening of the original; the Syr. also has the neg.-interrog. form, and renders very well “that he came to flatter thee.”—Tr.]
[22][2Sa_3:27. The Prep. is omitted in the text, but some MSS. insert אֶל, and so the VSS., according to the Heb. usage.—Tr.]
[23][2Sa_3:29. Böttcher and Erdmann (with Vulg. and Syr.) render: “one that holds a distaff,” that is, an effeminate man (Pro_31:19). See the Exposition.—Tr.]
[24][2Sa_3:30, Erdmann renders: “but Joab and Abishai had slain Abner,” as if the purpose of the verse were to give the reason for the murder. Wellhausen holds the verse to be an interpolation on the ground that it adds nothing except the inclusion of Abishai in the guilt in order to justify David’s curse on Joab’s family. It seems better, however, to regard the verse not merely as giving the reason for the murder (which is given in verse 27), nor as superfluous, but as a concluding summing up of the incident, as is so common in Heb. narration.—Tr.]
[25][2Sa_3:33. Sept.: “Will Abner die according to the death of Nabal?” taking נָכָל (fool) as a proper name. So in 2Sa_3:34 it has οὐ προσήγαγεν ὠς Νάβαλ, misunderstanding the כִּנְפוֹל of the Heb., which it read כְּנָכָל.—Tr.]
[26][2Sa_3:35. De Rossi cites a reading in some MSS. לְהַכְרוֹת “to make a feast” (2Ki_6:23), which Kimchi said was written but not read, perhaps a clerical error.—Tr.]
[27][2Sa_3:36. כְּכֹל. Wellhausen objects that this כְּ cannot be rendered as a conjunction (as in Eng. A. V.), and therefore prefers the Sept., which omits the כְּ. Syr. accords with Sept., and Chald and Syr. insert “and” before בְּעֵינֵי. The reading of Greek and Syr. (“and good in their eyes was all that the king did, and good in the eyes of all the people”), however, contains a weak repetition, and something like the Heb. text is required by the connection.—Tr.]
[28][See 2Sa_21:8-11 and Gen_36:24.—Tr.]
[29][It is supposed by some that Abner did not marry Rizpah, but used her as a harlot.—Tr.]
[30] הֱבִיאֲךָ (as elsewhere after לִפְנֵי) like the Perf., instead of the usual הֲבִיא׳(Exo_23:30; Lev_23:14 sq.; Deu_4:28). לִפְנֵי here = “before.” Ew., § 238 d, § 337 c.
[31][Whether she was divorced from David does not appear.—Tr.]
[32]Instead of the Inf. הוֹשִׁיעַ read with all VSS. and many MSS. the Impf. אוֹשִׁיעַ.
[33][The bier (מִטָּה) was a bed-like structure, often magnificent. So Herod’s, Jos. Bell. Jud. I. 23, 9. See more in Comms. of Pat. and Philipps.—Tr.]
[34] אִם is asseverative particle = “if,” that is, “surely not;” כִּי introduces the oath.
[35] כְּכֹל. [On this see “Text and Gramm.”—Tr.]
[36][Of these moral qualities nothing is said in the narrative. Abner may have possessed them, but we know nothing about it. Our author's picture is the creation of his own imagination—Tr.]
[37]He reads וְאָנֹכִי to connect with the preceding וְכִי (καί ὅτι ἐγώ) and הַמֶּלֶךְ מוּקָם תַּחַת instead of מֶלֶךְ וּמָשׁוּח.
[38] συγγενής for רַךְ—probably corrupted from ἀσθενής (Böttcher)—and καθεσταμένος ὐπό βασιλέως alongside of καθεστ. εἰς βασιλέα.
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, 3, 5, 6, 12, 17, 24, 31, 33 unto David were sons born in Hebron--The six sons…
unto David were sons born in Hebron--The six sons mentioned had all different mothers.
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, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 39 CONTINUED WAR BETWEEN THE HOUSE OF SAUL AND THAT…
CONTINUED WAR BETWEEN THE HOUSE OF SAUL AND THAT OF DAVID, 2Sa_3:1-6.
1. Long war — A struggle and bitter hostility continued for two years or more. See note on 2Sa_2:10.
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, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38 Ch. 2Sa_3:1-5. Progress of David’s cause. His family
Ch. 2Sa_3:1-5. Progress of David’s cause. His family
2. And unto David, &c.] The list of David’s sons born in Hebron is given again in 1Ch_3:1-3, apparently in an independent form, but with only one important variation. It appears to interrupt the course of the narrative here, but it is quite in accordance with the usual practice of O.T. historians to insert information about the family of a king at critical points in the history of his reign, and moreover it is in place here as a practical evidence of the strengthening of David’s house. Cp. 1Sa_14:49-51; 2Sa_5:13-16.
Read full note →
Amnon] Infamous for the sin which cost him his life, and indirectly proved the source of shame and calamity to his family and nation. See on ch. 13.
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, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 39 (1) There was long war.—Not actual fighting of pitched…
(1) There was long war.—Not actual fighting of pitched battles, but a state of hostility, in which Ish-bosheth and David each claimed the allegiance of the whole nation, and this continued until the death of Ish-bosheth. During this time Ish-bosheth was too weak to carry on actual war, and David was content to abide the fulfilment of the promises of the Lord in His own good time.
Waxed stronger.—Time was working in David’s favour, partly, doubtless, on account of Ish-bosheth’s manifest incompetence, partly from a growing appreciation of the character and prowess of David, and a fuller realisation that he was the divinely appointed sovereign. In 1Ch_12:19-22 there is an account of an important accession to David from the tribe of Manasseh on the eve of Saul’s last battle, and a further mention of continued accessions to him “day by day.” As the necessary result of this constant transference of strength to David, “the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker.”
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, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 There was long war. As Ishbosheth reigned only two…
There was long war. As Ishbosheth reigned only two years, and as "the house of Saul" is the phrase used, it seems probable that after Ishbosheth"s murder, during the five years before David"s election to the throne of all Israel, the house of Saul had some puppet representative at Mahanaim, and some commander in Abner"s place. But after the death of this able man matters would go from bad to worse, and, though David probably remained on the defensive, yet the contrast between the peace and good government of Judah and the misery in Israel made all the tribes wish to put an end to a harassing civil war. It is plain, too, that the Philistines, repelled at first by Abner"s skill, had again gained the ascendant, and regarded themselves so completely as the rulers of the country, that they resented immediately with summary violence the bold act of the northern tribes in choosing David to be their common king.
HOMILETICS.
Read full note →
Vers. 1-11.
Rival interests.
The facts are:
1. A desultory war is carried on between the house of Saul and the house of David, in which the latter has the advantage.
2. David has six sons born to him while at Hebron.
3. A quarrel arises between Abner and Ishbosheth, consequent on an accusation resented by Abner.
4. Abner charges his master with ingratitude, and threatens to transfer his allegiance to David.
5. In seeking to give emphasis to his threat, Abner indicates his knowledge of the Divine will concerning David. The object of the historian in vers. 1-5 is obviously to give a representation, from a political point of view, of David prior to the action of Abner in his favour; and in vers. 6-11 to state the circumstance that led to a transfer of Abner"s support from one side to the other. The general effect of the war between the two royal houses and the growth of David"s domestic establishment are the two prominent items of the situation prior to Abner"s change of policy. Judged solely by the standard of the age, they pointed in the direction of advancing influence, but looked at in the light of a higher standard they suggest a qualified prosperity. The general truths embodied in this account of rival interests may be set forth as follows.
I DEFENSIVE ACTION IN A JUST CAUSE IS SOMETIMES THE BEST POLICY. That the cause of David was just is evident to every believer in the truth of the First Book of Samuel, and, as seen there and in the Psalms, the conviction of this governed his conduct. From a purely human point of view it might seem contrary to natural justice to set aside the son of the late king; and the effort of Ishbosheth to urge, by force of arms, his own claim may be a natural sequence of thought and feeling. But kings have no rights apart from the will of God; and, as the sequel shows (ver. 10), both the young king and his general were not unacquainted with the Divine purpose. The right being with David, it might seem strange that he did not press his claim to entire dominion by aggressive war. His skill and valour, the coherence of his following, and the enthusiasm created by his personality, to say nothing of the demoralizing effect on Abner of his own infidelity to conscience, could not but have speedily made him master of all Israel. Instead of that, we find David simply authorizing such conflict as would suffice to hold his own and check the aggressive efforts of the house of Saul. It is interesting to see here the same David as of old, who had such faith in God and the gradual unfolding of his purposes that he would never raise a hand against Saul, or do anything, except in necessary self-defence, that could be construed into hostility. Had not Abner"s evil counsels prevailed with Ishbosheth, David would have lived in peace at Hebron till a mightier hand than his own cleared the way to the throne of a united people. Statesmen would do well to take such an example in many of the painful contingencies that arise. To a just man it is half the victory to be calm and strong in the conviction of his rectitude and the righteousness of his position. There is a watchful Providence cherishing the good and frustrating the evil. Forces under the direction of an evil genius are sure to wear themselves out if only the objects of their hate can hold their own; and the wasting of their strength means the final triumph of the cause of truth and justice. There are seasons in Church life when this policy of pure defence is wise; for at such times God has ends to effect which work in with the scope of more aggressive endeavours.
II A RIGHT CONTENTION WILL COME TO A NIGHT ISSUE. "David waxed stronger and stronger." Of course he did. It could not but be so, for he was a chosen servant, not seeking or doing his own will, but simply placing his life in the hands of God, to work out for his people and for future ages, purposes the precise nature of which he could not understand. No weapon formed against him could prosper. He who contended against him fought against God. The forces of nature were on his side. Never did mortal more vainly contend against late than did Ishbosheth contend against David. The principle involved in this instance is of wide range. Right is sure to prevail in the issue. The disturbing element introduced by sin into the universe causes strife of the most grave character. The whole line of Divine government, so far as we can trace it, seems to be a line of conflict between right and wrong, holiness and sin. The antagonism taken up in Eden runs on and becomes more acute on Calvary, and is apparent now in a "long war" between the children of light and the kingdom of darkness. Time is in favour of righteousness. There is an endurance in truth which cannot be affirmed of error. As perhaps the friends of David thought those years of war very tedious and dispiriting, and sometimes even inconsistent with rightness of claim and purpose, so we may be weary in the greater strife and become disturbed by cruel questionings; yet the issue is sure. "Stronger and stronger" may be affirmed of the kingdom of righteousness on earth. For even the seeming failures and delays only become, in the hands of Providence, the means of acquiring the hardier and more enduring virtues by which at last the final victory shall be won. The same is true of any conflicts in which character is at stake. Our "righteousness shall be brought forth as the light," and our "judgment as the noonday." The parallel may be seen also in the conflict of the "old" End the "new man." The one is on the way to perish; the other is "renewed day by day.
III THE UNEXPRESSED WOES OF LIFE ARE VERY REAL. "There was long war." The sentence is brief, and understandable by a child. It is repeated with careless ease. As a rule, it connotes to the ordinary reader only a general idea of men seeking to slay one another. But to read history aright we ought to bring the faculty of imagination into full play; and it is only as we exercise the historic imagination that we get a glimpse of the sad facts embodied in this simple form of expression. Subjected to the vitalizing power of this faculty, what unexpressed woes rise up to view! What harsh and fierce dispositions! What weary marchings and watchings! What murderous blows and bleeding wounds and agonizing deaths! What widows" wailings and orphans" tears! What losses to homes and nation of strong men and productive toil! This, which applies to the brief statement of the sacred narrative, is equally true of greater woes. Men read of great battles very much as they read algebraic symbols. The real items indicated are not vivid to the mind. Men read also of the banishment of the wicked to outer darkness in the same mechanical way. The hurry of life leaves no time for the imagination to lay hold of the actual facts connoted. Hence the power over the will of mere visible, present realities. Hence the difficulty of getting the "powers of the world to come" to influence motive. Hence, also, the necessity of each man making an effort to bring his mind into actual view of the facts covered by language, and of the preacher and teacher rendering the aid of well-chosen speech to further this effort.
IV CONVENTIONAL STRENGTH MAY BE AN OCCASION OF MORAL WEAKNESS. The historian tells us of the growth of David"s domestic establishment at Hebron. Estimated by the customs prevalent in the East at that time, this acquisition by David of wives and sons was supposed to add to the splendour and stateliness of his regal position. All the paraphernalia of a court, the wide-reaching influence of family connections, and the imposing show of a large household would lead ordinary men to regard him as among the great ones of the earth. The accidental surroundings of life form a delusively important part of what is deemed to be human greatness. We are all children in so far as we are influenced in our judgments on social position and weight of character by the circumstantials of life. Even the more educated are prone to either identify or associate greatness with large establishments. This kind of conventionalism plays an important part in human affairs; but it is not God"s standard. David"s polygamous habits were consistent with the conventional morality of the age, and his domestic establishment projected his public position before the eye of the people in a form accordant to princely fashion; but we know that beneath all the signs of wealth and greatness there were influences at work which could not but weaken his moral three and mar the beauty and sweetness of his private life. Oriental splendour and conventional moralities were indulged in at great moral cost. David in Hebron with many wives and their accompaniments could not be as morally robust as was David in earlier days. The same danger attends all who conform to customs not based on strict principles of purity and godliness. Fashion cannot make righteousness. Goodness may live amidst habits essentially alien to the welfare of the individual and to saints, as surely as life may continue in an atmosphere charged with malarious poisons; but the enervation of the one will be as certain as of the other. The insensibility of the man to the subtle action of the evil is only an aggravation of its action and in no wise a palliation. Modern Christians should severely scrutinize the moral quality of the circumstances and habits in which conventional usage allows them to live. This can only be done by making use of tests absolutely given by God apart from the colouring which custom is apt to give even to Divine laws.
V UNRIGHTEOUS MEN PAY HOMAGE TO RIGHTEOUSNESS. There can be no question but that Ishbosheth knew well the nature and validity of David"s claims; for the theocratic rule was a reality in Israel during and subsequent to the life of Samuel. It was, therefore, wrong for him to put forth any personal claim of his own. Jonathan"s example had been lost upon him; and yet this man recognized the evil done by Abner in lustful indulgence, and even ventured to protest against it. On the other hand, Abner, while being unrighteous enough to indulge in sinful lust and to abet the invalid claim of Ishbosheth, nevertheless is fired with indignation that the love of gratitude should have been violated by the young monarch. Thus men, pursuing a course which they know to be contrary to the will of God, become, when personal and family matters are involved, zealous, each in his own fashion, for what is right and proper. Truly, man is a strange compound of moral light and darkness. The psychological explanation is a study. It is the habituation to the wrong which renders men so dull to appeals, so insensible to the real demerit of their actions, and it is the latent force of conscience which saves them from being parties to a course on which they have not taken the initial step. Hence our Lord"s reference to the "gnat" and the "camel." The prevalence of this state of moral confusion is very wide even in Christian society. In the same individual may be found great sensitiveness and great obtuseness. The holding of slaves and gain by the sale of them has coexisted with a profound regard for religious worship. Licentious men have had a dread of dishonesty. Multitudes who rob God of the love and obedience due to him are indignant if an ordinary business debt is not paid. The Pharisees could conspire to kill Jesus Christ, and yet feel very unhappy if they omitted any of the ceremonials of religion. It is a common thing for men and women to indulge in envy, jealousy, and ill will, while extremely careful to keep up an external conduct conformable to the requirements of the Decalogue. There is much scope for searching of heart on this subject; and in dealing with it the preacher needs to exercise great discrimination and delicacy of reference. Abner must be made to see himself as Ishbosheth sees him, and vice versa. "Man, know thyself," is a maxim of immense importance to every one.
VI PASSING EVENTS MAY SERVE TO UNVEIL THE WORKINGS OF CONSCIENCE. Viewed from a distance by the people, Abner seemed to be a man who all along was conscientiously and faithfully subordinating his life to the maintenance of a just cause. So far as we can see from the narrative, he had been reticent concerning the mental processes of which he was daily conscious. But the incident of Ishbosheth"s accusation of immorality was as the removing of a veil whereby the actual thoughts of Abner stood revealed. "So do God to Abner, and more also, except, as the Lord hath sworn to David, even so I do to him." Thus Abner had known all along that it was God"s will to give the kingdom to David. The ideas and compunctions connected with this central fact had evidently been covered up and suppressed. The real inner life of struggle against right and God was now exposed by his own act. In the case of every man there is always an inner life necessarily hidden by himself from ordinary view. It is a necessity of social existence that each man should be more unknown than known to his fellows. Only where there is perfect holiness would perfect knowledge of others be helpful to love and confidence. But in the case of men pursuing a deliberate course which seems to others to be conscientious, but is known to themselves to be contrary to right, there is a rigid and designed concealment of their self-condemnation. They gain the reputation of being upright, though perhaps misguided, men, while their own conscience gives the lie to this public judgment. An incidental reference, an unguarded hasty admission of fact, an effort to justify an action, may be as a sudden rent in the covering of the real life within, exposing to the view of others a guilty violation of truth, a perpetual conflict against the well-ascertained will of God. This frequent concealment of aft inner guilty life and its possible unveiling by incidental events should be a guide in forming an estimate of conduct, and a warning to evil doers. The self-exposure, also, however incidental, is to be taken as a preintimation of the final exposure when God shall bring hidden things into judgment.
HOMILIES BY B. DALE. Vers. 1-5. (HEBRON.)
The house of David.
1. The theocracy had its chief support in David and his house. On him alsorested the Messianic hope. (2Sa_7:13) Hence the importance which attaches to events of his life that would otherwise have been left unrecorded.
2. "The summary narrative of these seven years presents the still youthfulking in a very lovable light. The same temper which had marked his first acts after Saul"s death is here strikingly brought out. He seems to have left the conduct of the war altogether with Joab, as if he shrank from striking a single blow for his own advancement. When he does interfere, it is on the side of peace, to curb and chastise ferocious vengeance and dastardly assassination. The incidents recorded all go to make up a picture of rare generosity, of patient waiting for God to fulfil his purposes, of longing that the miserable strife between the tribes of God"s inheritance should end" (A. Maclaren).
3. In the house of David, at war with the house of Saul, we see anembodiment of the great conflict between good and evil; a representation of "the household of faith" as opposed to the world, and the spirit as opposed to the flesh. (Gal_5:17) Notice
I ITS PROTRACTED ANTAGONISM. "And there was long war, etc. It:
1. Is rendered necessary by the opposite nature and aims of the contendingparties. "These are contrary the one to the other.
2. Implies a state of constant warfare, and involves many a painful Struggle."what grievous tales of distress are folded up in these brief words!
3. Is permitted by God for wise and beneficent purposes: to test theprinciples of his servants; to exercise their faith and patience; to strengthen, purify, and perfect their character.
4. And must go on to the end. "This is a battle, from which, as it ends onlywith life, there is no escape; and he who fights not in it is of necessity either taken captive or slain" (Scupoli).
II ITS INCREASING STRENGTH. "David waxed stronger and stronger," in the number of his followers, the amount of his resources, the unity and vigour of their employment, the stability of his position, the extent of his influence, the assurance of his success. And all who "strive against sin" within and without also "go from strength to strength:
1. In patiently waiting upon God and faithfully doing his will. "Wait on theLord, be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart". (Psa_27:14)
2. By the bestowment of his grace and the cooperation of his providence, directing, protecting, and prospering them, in accordance with his promises. Their strength is not self-derived, but "cometh from the Lord." "And he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God," etc.; (Zec_12:8) "Greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world"; (1Jn_4:4) "I have all strength in him that giveth me power". (Php_4:13)
3. And thereby they show that God is with them, and that his righteouspurposes concerning them will be accomplished.
III ITS DECLINING OPPONENTS. "And the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker," relatively and proportionately to the growth of David"s, and in consequence of the protracted antagonism and increasing strength of the latter.
1. In wilful separation from God, and seeking their own selfish ends in opposition to his will. (see 2Sa_2:8-12) Those who fall away from God fall into self-division and self-contention (ver. 8); "and a house divided against itself cannot stand.
2. By the immovable might of God against whom they set themselves, (Psa_2:4) and his wrath, which is "revealed from heaven against all ungodliness," etc.. (Rom_1:18) They are like a wave that dashes against a rock and is broken and scattered in foam. "The face of the Lord is against them that do evil". (1Pe_3:12)
3. And thereby they prove that God is against them, and are taught thattheir purposes will assuredly fail and they themselves be overthrown. From the time of his defeat, (2Sa_2:17) if not from the very first, Abner probably felt that the cause in which he had embarked was hopeless. "He recognized now most distinctly in David the rising star in Israel; and, however haughtily his words might sound, he only sought to conceal behind them his despair of Ishbosheth" (Krummacher).
IV ITS PERILOUS RELATIONSHIPS. (Vers. 2-5.) "The increasing political strength of David was shown, as usual among Eastern monarchs, by the fresh alliances through marriage into which he now entered" (Edersheim). In addition to his three wives, Michal, Ahinoam (mother of Amnon), and Abigail (mother of Chileab, who appears to have died early), he had "Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur" (mother of Absalom and Tamar), Haggith (mother of Adonijah), Abital, and Eglah; and he afterwards still further enlarged the royal household. (2Sa 4:13-16) "None of his sons here mentioned were eminent for virtue, and some of them were notorious for their sins." Polygamy was tolerated by the Law of Moses, (1Sa_1:2) although the king was forbidden (Deu_17:17) to "multiply wives to himself;" and it was practised by David in conformity with ancient and prevalent custom, from political considerations and natural inclinations, without reproof (ch. 12:8); but (as his subsequent history shows) it fostered in him a sensual tendency, undermined his moral strength, and produced innumerable enmities and other evils in his family: "One deadly element of future woe mingled itself with the establishment of the kingdom of David he brought into his family the curse of the harem. An utter lack of discipline was one of its first fruits; and it brought yet deeper ill even than that; for it poisoned all the springs of family life, and tainted it with ever-recurring impurity; working in him and all around him its universal fruits of impurity, jealousy, hatred, incest, and blood" ("Heroes of Hebrews Hist."). "It was the immemorial custom in all those countries for the magnificence and power of a ruler to display itself in the multiplication of his establishment, that is, of his wives; forevery wife involved a separate establishment. It shows the utmost depravity when Christians seek to shelter their own unjust and shameless lives under an appeal to that of David, and that, too, although none of their other proceedings show the smallest trace of David"s noble spirit, and although they are by no means ready to bear as David did the consequences of their shame" (Ewald). "If we want exemplifications of all the miseries and curses which spring from the mixture of families and the degradation of woman in the court and country where polygamy exists, David"s history supplies them. No maxims of morality can be half so effectual as a faithful record of terrible effects like these" (Maurice). In view of these effects we learn that no strength or prosperity can be lasting where "the friendship of the world is cherished, and "the lusts of the flesh are suffered to prevail; and that victory over some opponents may be followed by defeat by other more subtle and dangerous foes. D.
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 vv1, 10, 18, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39 Now there was long war between the house of…
2Sa_3:1-39
Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David.
Read full note →
Progress and termination of the civil war
What grief tales of distress are folded up in these brief words, There was long war! Probably it was only irregular war, without much bloodshed; the war of skirmish and surprise, not of pitched battles, or protracted sieges, or desperate assaults; but many a pillaged town, and many a homestead laid in ashes, and many a heart crushed to despair or maddened to fury, and many a deep and deadly curse, and many a fiendish vow of vengeance, would everywhere follow the track of war. And it was war of the most distressing and demoralising kind--not foreign but civil. Great national wars are usually attended by one counteracting benefit--they soften the keenness of private quarrels. But when parties in the same nation arc fighting with each other, as the tribes of Israel now were, private quarrels, instead of being healed, are only exasperated to greater bitterness.
1. Before the remarkable change of policy on the part of Abner that led to the termination of the war is recorded, a glimpse is given us of the domestic life of King David (2Sa_3:2-5); and whether it be by design or not, there immediately follows (2Sa_3:6-11) a specimen and illustration of the kind of evils to which that mode of life was liable to give rise. Though polygamy was not allowed to David, it certainly was winked at; it was not imputed to him as guilt; it was not treated as an act of rebellion against Gods law. But, on the other hand, this toleration of polygamy did not and could not prevent the evils to which, from its very nature, it gives rise. There could be no unity in Davids family, none of that delightful feeling of oneness, which gives such a charm to the home. In his own breast, that sense of delicacy, that feeling of chastity, which has such a purifying influence in a family, could scarcely flourish. And further, as the absence of delicacy must have been characteristic of David, so was it also of his children; the unbridled passions of some of his sons gave rise to the most dismal tragedies; and left blots on their name that even time could never wash out.
2. It is immediately after this glimpse of Davids domestic life that we come upon a sample of the kind of evils to which that mode of life commonly gives rise. Saul, too, had his harem; and it seems to have been a rule of succession in the East, that the harem went with the throne; hence to take possession of the one was regarded as setting up a claim to the other. When, therefore, Ishbosheth heard that Abner had taken one of his fathers concubines he seems to have regarded that circumstance as a proof that Abner was setting up a claim to the kingdom for himself. Mistaking the semblance of power for the reality--forgetting that Ishbosheth had but the one, and Abner the other, Ishbosheth denounced the conduct of Abner with great bluntness and rudeness; and gave him such mortal offence that Abner abruptly and peremptorily assured him that he would not strike another blow in his service, but would at once go over to David. The loss of Abner was to Ishbosheth the loss of all. His cause had for some time been a losing one; it was now quite destroyed.
3. The next step in the narrative brings us to Abners proposal to David, to make a league with him for the undisputed possession of the throne. As a preliminary to any further arrangements, David insisted, first of all, that his wife Michael, the daughter of Saul, should be restored to him. Some have pronounced this a harsh condition, especially considering that Michal was now living as the wife of another person, who appears to have been much attached to her, and most unwilling to surrender her. It is undoubted, however, that Michal was not the wife of Phaltiel, but the wife of David; Phaltiel must have known that she was another mans wife when he received her; and it is misplaced compassion to be sorry for a man when called to surrender what he never had a right to take. It may be asked, however, what could have been Davids motive for demanding back Michal, when he had so many wives without her? It might be enough to say in reply that Michal was his wedded wife, and that it would have been disgraceful to David, when he could prevent it, to allow his wife to live in adultery with another. Of all Davids wives, Michal, as the daughter of a king like Saul, was the first in worldly rank; David, therefore, wished to recover her; probably also, he thought, that by having her again for his wife there would be a bond of union between the two royal families of the kingdom that might draw the people together, and save the further shedding of blood. Another consideration appears also to have influenced him. In demanding back Michal he makes special mention of the dowry he had given for her--a hundred foreskins of the Philistines. In mentioning this he probably desired to revive among the people the remembrance of his ancient services and exploits against these inveterate enemies of his country and religion. His recent alliance with the Philistines had brought him into suspicion; he wished to remind his people, therefore, of his ancient bearing towards these enemies, and to encourage the expectation of similar deeds of successful warfare.
4. When the preliminaries between Abner and David were settled Abner appears to have exerted himself with real sincerity and zeal in behalf of David. Most probably he was not sorry for the occasion of his breach with Ishbosheth; Davids was obviously the rising star; probably tie was watching an opportunity to transfer his allegiance from the one to the other. Abner now became as zealous for David as formerly he had been for Ishbosheth; and in holding communication with the elders of Israel and of Benjamin, and urging them very strongly to submit to David, he did him a service which no other living man could then have rendered. The tender heart of the shepherd king was doubtless inexpressibly grieved at the continuance of the war; he would have welcomed with unbounded delight any honourable arrangement that would have prevented further bloodshed; and when Abner was seen using his great influence with the leaders of the tribes in the cause of peace, he must have appeared to David like a very angel of God. When, therefore, at the most critical moment in these negotiations, the impetuous and vindictive Joab thrust his sword through Abners heart--when, to the revolting ferocity of the deed itself, and its glaring outrage on the laws of hospitality, he added the crime of placing in jeopardy a most delicate national negotiation, and exasperating those whom it was most desired to conciliate, Davids mortification must have been unbounded. (W. G. Blaikie, M. A.)
Perpetual war
I. Warring interests.
1. Sauls interests were natural--they were carnal--they were worldly--they were selfish. Davids interests, on the contrary, were Of God--they were spiritual--they were under Gods sovereign direction--they were Divine. Just such is the distinction between the Church of God and the world. What is the result? Why, just warring, jarring, contending interests; for one is in the interest of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the other in the interest of the devil. Sauls house, the carnal, selfish, worldly multitude are all under the influence of the Prince of Darkness, the prince of the power of the air, who rules in the hearts of the children of disobedience; they are all under the sway of their carnal inclinations and affections, and the men of the world ought not to be offended for being told by us what their own consciences must admit to be the fact. On the contrary, the army of David associates with the beloved soldiers of the cross; they are the ransomed of the Lord; they take this blessed book as their guide; the word of command of the Captain of their salvation is imperative, and they call on high for grace, implicity to regard and obey it. The result is that Satans interests arc bolstered up by the former, and real Christianity is maintained by the latter.
2. Let us now take another view of the difference which subsists between the house of Saul and the house of David--I mean an experimental view. And what will you say when I declare unto you that there are both the house of Saul and the house of David in your own hearts--that there are both the house of Saul and the house of David inhabiting this body of flesh and blood--that there are all the vile corruptions and carnal inclinations of the house of Saul; but, blessed be God, there are also the especial graces, and the spiritual implantations of the house of David--an old and new nature--a propensity to every evil, as was the case with Saul, but a panting after every good, as was the case with David.
3. Observe, they are so contrary, so opposed to each other, that they are altogether irreconcilable, and it is quite in vain, therefore, to attempt a reconciliation. He that is born after the flesh will persecute him that is born after the Spirit. What fellowship can light have with darkness? What communion can Christ have with Belial? What oneness, or intimacy, can subsist between him who is a believer and him who is an infidel?
II. The advancing power of the conquering side. David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker.
1. The first feature of Davids prosperity lay in this, that his fame and his prowess were advancing and increasing, and his power extending. So with our glorious Lord, Davids antitype; His kingdom is growing and extending, prospering and thriving, His name is exalted, and shall be exalted, and all His household.
2. But what constituted Davids waxing stronger and stronger in the most conspicuous point of view, was the accessions which were constantly being made to his kingdom, and all of which were so many instances, not merely of the increase of his own strength, but of the diminution of the kingdom and power of Saul. The very way in which oar glorious David advances. All the accessions that are made to His kingdom are lawful captives delivered from the terrible power of darkness and translated into His own kingdom.
3. The next point is the warring interests between the two houses that occupy our poor nature. Is it in your power honestly to say that within the circle of your experience the house of David is waxing stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxing weaker and weaker? I want the graces growing in strength. I want to have faith like Abrahams. I want to give glory to God and believe against apparent impossibilities. I want love to be growing like Johns, so that no place will do for me but the bosom of Jesus; I want hope to be victorious, strong and firm, entering within the veil, sure and steadfast. I want humility to lay me at the feet of Christ, and keep axe there. I want the zeal of the house of my beloved Lord to eat me up, and I want the meekness and patience of my Lord to make me quite immoveable to all the provocations of the wicked world through which I am passing. Oh! if the graces of Jesus were thus exercised. If the new man were always thus enthroned. If the new man were always seated uppermost, always thus favoured with supplies of grace from above, how old Adam would groan! How he would be nailed up! How he would be mortified!
II. The results of the warfare. You know how it resulted with David: it resulted in the entire destruction of the house of Saul, in imperishable honours worn by himself and his household, his throne set above all the kingdoms of the earth, and a glorious lasting peace settled and secured. So shall it be with our glorious Christ and His household. All the honours which the covenant of grace provides, which the promises of the word unfold and exhibit, and which the grace of the Spirit can put on and wear, and which must after all return and redound to Jesus precious name, are claimed and appropriated by the followers of the Lamb, the household of David.
1. Moreover, there is a peculiar circumstance in relation to this warfare and its results--that is that with all this fighting, and skirmishing, and wounding, never one soul is killed or destroyed.
2. The throne of our David must become noted for its fame, and be exalted above all others. It must be so established as to reign over all dominions, and put down every authority that opposes it, for it is written that He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. Then comes the glorious consummation, eternal peace. (J. Irons.)
A long war
I. There was war. David ascended the throne of Judah, but not to enjoy peace, as he might have presupposed. The descendants of Saul opposed his election, though ratified by heaven; usurped the throne, and maintained personally, or by their representative and chief agent, Abner, unceasing and bitter opposition to his government. Is it not thus with the Christian, after his decided confirmation in the faith? When we are in Christ, or rather Christ is in us, by virtue of our spiritual elevation, then it is that the enmity between our fallen nature and the true will of God betrays itself in vehement activity.
2. The war was long. With David the literal conflict endured but seven years and six months, till the last opponent of his rightful sway was removed. With every spiritual child of God the war must endure from conversion to death, while one fragment of this infected mortality cleaves to another in animation--so thoroughly, so desperately has the opposition of Satan to Gods rule preoccupied and possessed our natural being.
3. Further, it is mentioned that the house of David waxed stronger and stronger. It must be so with the Christian. The condition of the believer is a growing one: he is perfectly born in Christ at once, but his powers and faculties are matured in action, and his progress is decided. (C. M. Fleury, A. M.)
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 vv1, 22
CHAPTER I V.
CONCLUSION OF THE CIVIL WAR.
Read full note →
2Sa_3:1-21.
THE victory at the pool of Gibeon was far from ending the opposition to David. In vain, for many a day, weary eyes looked out for the dove with the olive leaf. "There was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David." The war does not seem to have been carried on by pitched battles, but rather by a long series of those fretting and worrying little skirmishes which a state of civil war breeds, even when the volcano is comparatively quiet. But the drift of things was manifest. "David waxed stronger and stronger; but the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker." The cause of the house of Saul was weak in its invisible support because God was against it; it was weak in its champion Ishbosheth, a feeble man, with little or no power to attract people to his standard; its only element of strength was Abner, and even he could not make head against such odds. Good and evil so often seem to balance each other, existing side by side in a kind of feeble stagnation, and giving rise to such a dull feeling on the part of onlookers, that we cannot but think with something like envy of the followers of David even under the pain of a civil war, cheered as they were by constant proofs that their cause was advancing to victory.
And now we get a glimpse of David's domestic mode of life, which, indeed, is far from satisfactory. His wives were now six in number; of some of them we know nothing; of the rest what we do know is not always in their favour. The earliest of all was "Ahinoam, the Jezreelitess." Her native place, or the home of her family, was Jezreel, that part of the plain of Esdraelon where the Philistines encamped before Saul was defeated (1Sa_26:12), and afterwards, in the days of Ahab, a royal residence of the kings of Israel (1Ki_18:46) and the abode of Naboth, who refused to part with his vineyard in Jezreel to the king (l Kings 21.). Of Ahinoam we find absolutely no mention in the history; if her son Amnon, the oldest of David's family, reflected her character, we have no reason to regret the silence (2 Sam. 13.). The next of his wives was Abigail, the widow of Nabal the Carmelite, of whose smartness and excellent management we have a full account in a former part of the history. Her son is called Chileab, but in the parallel passage in Chronicles Daniel; we can only guess the reason of the change; but whether it was another name for the same son, or the name of another son, the history is silent concerning him, and the most probable conjecture is that he died early. His third wife was Maachah, the daughter of Talmai the Geshurite. This was not, as some have rather foolishly supposed, a member of those Geshurites in the south against whom David led his troop (1Sa_27:8), for it is expressly stated that of that tribe "he left neither man nor woman alive." It was of Geshur in Syria that Talmai was king (2Sa_15:8); it formed one of several little principalities lying between Mount Hermon and Damascus: but we cannot commend the alliance; for these kingdoms were idolatrous, and unless Maachah was an exception, she must have introduced idolatrous practices into David's house. Of the other three wives we have no information. And in regard to the household which he thus established at Hebron, we can only regret that the king of Israel did not imitate the example that had been set there by Abraham, and followed in the same neighbourhood by Isaac. What a different complexion would have been given to David's character and history if he had shown the self-control in this matter that he showed in his treatment of Saul! Of how many grievous sins and sorrows did he sow the seed when he thus multiplied wives to himself! How many a man, from his own day down to the days of Mormonism, did he silently encourage in licentious conduct, and furnish with a respectable example and a plausible excuse for it! How difficult did he make it for many who cannot but acknowledge the bright aspect of his spiritual life to believe that even in that it was all good and genuine! We do not hesitate to ascribe to the life of David an influence on successive generations on the whole pure and elevating; but it is impossible not to own that by many, a justification of relaxed principle and unchaste living has been drawn from his example.
We have already said that polygamy was not imputed to David as a sin in the sense that it deprived him of the favour of God. But we cannot allow that this permission was of the nature of a boon. We cannot but feel how much better it would have been if the seventh commandment had been read by David with the same absolute, unbending limitation with which it is read by us. It would have been better for him and better for his house. Puritan strictness of morals is, after all, a right wholesome and most blessed thing. Who shall say that the sum of a man's enjoyment is not far greatest in the end of life when he has kept with unflinching steadfastness his early vow of faithfulness, and, as his reward, has never lost the freshness and the flavour of his first love, nor ceased to find in his ever-faithful partner that which fills and satisfies his heart? Compared to this, the life of him who has flitted from one attachment to another, heedless of the soured feelings or, it may be, the broken hearts he has left behind, and whose children, instead of breathing the sweet spirit of brotherly and sisterly love, scowl at one another with the bitter feelings of envy, jealousy, and hatred, is like an existence of wild fever compared to the pure tranquil life of a child.
In such a household as David's, occasions of estrangement must have been perpetually arising among the various branches, and it would require all his wisdom and gentleness to keep these quarrels within moderate bounds. In his own breast, that sense of delicacy, that instinct of purity, which exercises such an influence on a godly family, could not have existed; the necessity of reining in his inclinations in that respect was not acknowledged; and it is remarkable that in the confessions of the fifty-first Psalm, while he specifies the sins of blood-guiltiness and seems to have been overwhelmed by a sense of his meanness, injustice, and selfishness, there is no special allusion to the sin of adultery, and no indication of that sin pressing very heavily upon his conscience.
Whether it be by design or not, it is an instructive circumstance that it is immediately after this glimpse of David's domestic life that we meet with a sample of the kind of evils which the system of royal harems is ever apt to produce. Saul too had had his harem; and it was a rule of succession in the East that the harem went with the throne. To take possession of the one was regarded as equivalent to setting up a claim to the other. When therefore Ishbosheth heard that Abner had taken one of his father's concubines, he looked on it as a proof that Abner had an eye to the throne for himself. He accordingly demanded an explanation from Abner, but instead of explanation or apology, he received a volley of rudeness and defiance. Abner knew well that without him Ishbosheth was but a figure-head, and he was enraged by treatment that seemed to overlook all the service he had rendered him and to treat him as if he were some second or third- rate officer of a firm and settled kingdom. Perhaps Abner had begun to see that the cause of Ishbosheth was hopeless, and was even glad in his secret heart of an excuse for abandoning an undertaking which could bring neither success nor honour. "Am I a dog's head, which against Judah do show kindness this day unto the house of Saul thy father, to his brethren, and to his friends, and have not delivered thee into the hand of David, that thou chargest me to-day with a fault concerning this woman? So do God to Abner, and more also, except, as the Lord hath sworn to David, even so I do to him, to translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah from Dan even to Beersheba."
The proverb says, ''When rogues fall out, honest men get their own." How utterly unprincipled the effort of Abner and Ishbosheth was is evident from the confession of the former that God had sworn to David to establish his throne over the whole land. Their enterprise therefore bore impiety on its very face; and we can only account for their setting their hands to it on the principle that keen thirst for worldly advantage will drive ungodly men into virtual atheism, as if God were no factor in the affairs of men, as if it mattered not that He was against them, and that it is only when their schemes show signs of coming to ruin that they awake to the consciousness that there is a God after all! And how often we see that godless men banded together have no firm bond of union; the very passions which they are united to gratify begin to rage against one another; they fall into the pit which they digged for others; they are hanged on the gallows which they erected for their foes.
The next step in the narrative brings us to Abner's offer to David to make a league with him for the undisputed possession of the throne. Things had changed now very materially from that day when, in the wilderness of Judah, David reproached Abner for his careless custody of the king's person (1Sa_26:14). What a picture of feebleness David had seemed then, while Saul commanded the whole resources of the kingdom! Yet in that day of weakness David had done a noble deed, a deed made nobler by his very weakness, and he had thereby shown to any that had eyes to see which party it was that had God on its side. And now this truth concerning him, against which Abner had kicked and struggled in vain, was asserting itself in a way not to be resisted. Yet even now there is no trace of humility in the language of Abner. He plays the great man still. "Behold, my hand shall be with thee, to bring about all Israel to thee." He approaches King David, not as one who has done him a great wrong, but as one who offers to do him a great favour. There is no word of regret for his having opposed what he knew to be God's purpose and promise, no apology for the disturbance he had wrought in Israel, no excuse for all the distress which he had caused to David by keeping the kingdom and the people at war. He does not come as a rebel to his sovereign, but as one independent man to another. Make a league with me. Secure me from punishment; promise me a reward. For this he simply offers to place at David's disposal that powerful hand of his that had been so mighty for evil. If he expected that David would leap into his arms at the mention of such an offer, he was mistaken. This was not the way for a rebel to come to his king. David was too much dissatisfied with his past conduct, and saw too clearly that it was only stress of weather that was driving him into harbour now, to show any great enthusiasm about his offer. On the contrary, he laid down a stiff preliminary condition; and with the air of one who knew his place and his power, he let Abner know that if that condition were not complied with, he should not see his face. We cannot but admire the firmness shown in this mode of meeting Abner's advances; but we are somewhat disappointed when we find what the condition was - that Michai, Saul's daughter, whom he had espoused for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, should be restored to him as his wife. The demand was no doubt a righteous one, and it was reasonable that David should be vindicated from the great slur cast on him when his wife was given to another; moreover, it was fitted to test the genuineness of Abner's advances, to show whether he really meant to acknowledge the royal rights of David; but we wonder that, with six wives already about him, he should be so eager for another, and we shrink from the reason given for the restoration - not that the marriage tie was inviolable, but that he had paid for her a very extraordinary dowry. And most readers, too, will feel some sympathy with the second husband, who seems to have had a strong affection for Michal, and who followed her weeping, until the stern military voice of Abner compelled him to return. All we can say about him is, that his sin lay in receiving another man's wife and treating her as his own; the beginning of the connection was unlawful, although the manner of its ending on his part was creditable. Connections formed in sin must sooner or later end in suffering; and the tears of Phaltiel would not have flowed now if that unfortunate man had acted firmly and honourably when Michal was taken from David.
But it is not likely that in this demand for the restoration of Michal David acted on purely personal considerations. He does not seem to have been above the prevalent feeling of the East which measured the authority and dignity of the monarch by the rank and connections of his wives. Moreover, as David laid stress on the way in which he got Michal as his wife, it is likely that he desired to recall attention to his early exploits against the Philistines. He had probably found that his recent alliance with King Achish had brought him into suspicion; he wished to remind the people therefore of his ancient services against those bitter and implacable enemies of Israel, and to encourage the expectation of similar exploits in the future. The purpose which he thus seems to have had in view was successful. For when Abner soon after made a representation to the elders of Israel in favour of King David and reminded them of the promise which God had made regarding him, it was to this effect: "By the hand of My servant David I will save My people Israel out of the hand of the Philistines and out of the hand of all their enemies." It seems to have been a great step towards David's recognition by the whole nation that they came to have confidence in him in leading them against the Philistines. Thus he received a fresh proof of the folly of his distrustful conclusion, ''There is nothing better for me than that I should escape into the land of the Philistines." It became more and more apparent that nothing could have been worse.
One is tempted to wonder if David ever sat down to consider what would probably have happened if, instead of going over to the Philistines, he had continued to abide in the wilderness of Judah, braving the dangers of the place and trusting in the protection of his God. Some sixteen months after, the terrible invasion of the Philistines took place, and Saul, overwhelmed with terror and despair, was at his wits' end for help. How natural it would have been for him in that hour of despair to send for David if he had been still in the country and ask his aid! How much more in his own place would David have appeared bravely fronting the Philistines in battle, than hovering in the rear of Achish and pretending to feel himself treated ill because the Philistine lords had required him to be sent away! Might he not have been the instrument of saving his country from defeat and disgrace? And if Saul and Jonathan had fallen in the battle, would not the whole nation have turned as one man to him, and would not that long and cruel civil war have been entirely averted? It is needless to go back on the past and think how much better we could have acted if unavailing regret is to be the only result of the process; but it is a salutary and blessed exercise if it tends to fix in our minds - what we doubt not it fixed in David's - how infinitely better for us it is to follow the course marked out for us by our heavenly Father, with all its difficulties and dangers, than to walk in the light of our own fire and in the sparks of our own kindling.
It appears that Abner set himself with great vigour to fulfill the promise made by him in his league with David. First, he held communication with the representatives of the whole nation, "the elders of Israel," and showed to them, as we have seen - no doubt to his own confusion and self-condemnation - how God had designated David as the king through whom deliverance would be granted to Israel from the Philistines and all their other enemies. Next, remembering that Saul was a member of the tribe of Benjamin, and believing that the feeling in favour of his family would be eminently strong in that tribe, he took special pains to attach them to David, and as he was himself likewise a Benjamite, he must have been eminently useful in this service. Thirdly, he went in person to Hebron, David's seat, to speak in the ears of David all that seemed good to Israel and to the whole house of Benjamin." Finally, after being entertained by David at a great feast, he set out to bring about a meeting of the whole congregation of Israel, that they might solemnly ratify the appointment of David as king, in the same way as, in the early days of Saul, Samuel had convened the representatives of the nation at Gilgal (1Sa_11:15). That in all this Abner was rendering a great service both to David and the nation cannot be doubted. He was doing what no other man in Israel could have done at the time for establishing the throne of David and ending the civil war. Having once made overtures to David, he showed an honourable promptitude in fulfilling the promise under which he had come. No man can atone for past sin by doing his duty at a future time; but if anything could have blotted out from David's memory the remembrance of Abner's great injury to him and to the nation, it was the zeal with which he exerted himself now to establish David's claims over all the country, and especially where his cause was feeblest - in the tribe of Benjamin.
It must have been a happy day in David's history when Abner set out from Hebron to convene the assembly of the tribes that was to call him with one voice to the throne. It was the day long looked for come at last. The dove had at length come with the olive leaf, and peace would now reign among all the tribes of Israel. And we may readily conceive him, with this prospect so near, expressing his feelings, if not in the very words of the thirty-seventh Psalm, at any rate in language of similar import:
"Fret not thyself because of evil-doers,
Neither be thou envious against them that work unrighteousness
For they shall soon be cut down like the grass,
And wither as the green herb.
Trust in the Lord and do good;
Dwell in the land, and follow after faithfulness.
Delight thyself also in the Lord,
And He shall give thee the desires of thine heart
Commit thy way unto the Lord,
Trust also in Him, and He shall bring it to pass.
And He shall make thy righteousness to go forth as the light,
And thy judgment as the noonday.
Rest in the Lord and wait patiently for Him;
Fret not thyself because of him that prospereth in his way.
Because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass.
For evil-doers shall be cut of;
But those that wait on the Lord, they shall inherit the land."
But a crime was now on the eve of being perpetrated destined for the time to scatter all King David's pleasing expectations and plunge him anew into the depths of distress.
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 vv1, 22 2Sa_3:1. “The war.” “Not continual fighting, but the state…
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES—
2Sa_3:1. “The war.” “Not continual fighting, but the state of hostility in which they continued to stand towards one another.” (Keil.)
Read full note →
2Sa_3:3. “Chiliab.” Called Daniel in 1Ch_3:1. “Probably had two names.” (Keil.) “Geshur.” A small independent kingdom in Syria.
2Sa_3:4. Nothing is known of the origin of these wives of David, nor of the one mentioned in the following verse.
2Sa_3:5. “David’s wife.” This appendage to Eglah has led some to conjecture that Michal is here intended; but Keil and others think it merely serves as a fitting conclusion to the list.
2Sa_3:6. “That Abner,” etc. Keil here reads and Abner, making 2Sa_3:6-7 into one sentence, expanded by the introduction of circumstantial clauses; the conjunction before said (i.e. Ishbosheth said), must then be translated that. “Wherefore hast thou.” As the harem of an Oriental king becomes the property of his successor, such an act on the part of Abner Would be an act of political treason.
2Sa_3:8. “Then was Abner very wroth,” etc. He neither admits nor denies the charge, and most expositors regard him as guilty of the act; but as Erdmann remarks, it “seems rather the outflow of passionate self-will and presumptuous contempt towards Ishbosheth” than an attempt to secure the throne. His subsequent conduct towards David seems to contradict the idea that he had such an intention.
2Sa_3:9. “As the Lord hath sworn.” We have no record of any formal Divine oath such as Abner here speaks of. “But the promise of God is equivalent to an oath, as God is the true God, who can neither lie nor deceive” (1Sa_15:29, etc.).
2Sa_3:10. “From Dan even to Beersheba,” i.e., throughout the entire land, from north to south. (Jdg_20:1, etc.)
2Sa_3:11. “And he could not answer,” etc. “This characterises Ishboseth sufficiently for the whole situation. Having with an effort plucked up courage to ask that reproachful question, he here shows the greatest feebleness, cowardice, and timidity towards Abner. This also contributes to the explanation of what is said in 2Sa_3:1 concerning the house of Saul.” (Erdmann.)
2Sa_3:12. “On his behalf.” Two general renderings of this phrase are found in the ancient versions, viz., in his place, equivalent to the English version, and “immediately” or “on the spot.” Keil adopts the first, but Erdmann the latter, remarking that it accords well with. Abner’s passionate excitement in 2Sa_3:9, and that the former translation makes a superfluous phrase. “Whose is the land?” Some expositors (Schmidt, Keil, Ewald, etc.) understand Abner to declare by this question that the land belonged to David by virtue of his anointing; but others (Erdmann, Thenius, etc.) think that the following words indicate that Abner considered the land was virtually in his hand. “This,” says Erdmann, “is quite in keeping with his proud, haughty nature, as hitherto manifested in his words and conduct, and also with the facts of the case, since, in fact, the whole land, except Judah, was still subject to Saul’s house, that is, to him (Abner) as dictator.”
2Sa_3:13. “One thing I require.” “This condition was imposed by David, not only because Michal had been unjustly taken away by Saul, … so that he could demand her back again with perfect justice, … but probably on political grounds also, namely, because the renewal of his marriage to the king’s daughter would show to all Israel that he cherished no hatred in his heart towards the fallen king.” (Keil.) “He was led to a re-union partly by love (‘she loved him,’ 1Sa_18:27; 1Sa_19:11 sq.), and … as king he could not, in the presence of the people, leave Michal in a relation into which she had been forced against her will.” (Erdmann.)
2Sa_3:15. “Phaltiel.” (See 1Sa_25:44.)
2Sa_3:16. “Bahurim.” A village near Jerusalem, north east, on the road between the Mount of Olives and Gilgal. Phaltiel followed his wife to the border of David’s kingdom.
2Sa_3:17. “Ye sought for David in times past.” “A striking testimony to the fact that outside of Judah also there had been a favourable sentiment towards David, against which Abner had energetically established and hitherto maintained Ishbosheth’s authority.” (Erdmann.) (See 1 Chronicles 12) “The Lord had spoken.” “Abner either had some expression used by one of the prophets (Samuel or Gad) in his mind … or he regarded the anointing of David by Samuel by command of the Lord, and the marvellous success of all that David had attempted, as a practical declaration on the part of God.” (Keil.)
2Sa_3:19. “The ears of Benjamin,” Because the family of Saul belonged to this tribe, and they had enjoyed many advantages in consequence. See 1Sa_22:7. “Also … also.” These denote mutualness, and point out the close connection and relation between the negotiation carried on with Benjamin as the tribe most important for David, and the earnest conversation that Abner therefore had with David (in the ears of David).
2Sa_3:20. “Twenty men.” “As representatives of all Israel.” (Keil.) “A feast.” “Not merely an entertainment, but of the nature of a league.” (Patrick.)
2Sa_3:21. “I will arise,” etc. The gradation in these words is characteristic of the rapidity, excitedness, and energy that we everywhere find in Abner.” (Erdmann.) “A league.” “This was not to consist in the establishment of a constitution after the nature of a constitutional monarchy, which is wholly foreign to the theocratic kingdom; but they are to vow to obey David as the king given them by the Lord, he promising to govern them as the theocratic king.” (Erdmann.) “Thine heart desireth.” David had indicated the desire of his heart in his message to the Jabeshites. (Erdmann.)
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—2Sa_3:1-21
ABNER’S REVOLT TO DAVID
I. When the will of God and the will of men are contending, however long the struggle, the issue is not doubtful. In the preceding chapter we have the history of a contest in which the combatants were so equally matched that neither could conquer the other, but death claimed victory over both. This is not so very uncommon a case where there is an equality of resolution and resource and patience, and where neither side has any right to call in reinforcements from the God of right. But that episode in the warfare between Judah and Israel was not a type of the final issue of the struggle. It was the will of God that that struggle should be protracted for years, both to perfect the patience and faith of David, and to show the men of Israel where their true interest lay. But even had the men of Judah been as inferior to their opponents in bravery and skill as they probably were in numbers—if every one of lshbosheth’s supporters had been an Abner and their number multiplied a thousandfold—it could have availed nothing in the long run, for they were fighting against the purpose and plan of God. This must be the issue of every contest of a like character. It may be good for the servants of God that the struggle be lengthened from years into centuries, but victory on the side of those who are on the side of God is only a question of time.
II. Men who consult God’s will in some acts of their life are sometimes strangely forgetful to do it in others. We take it as certain that David consulted only his own desires or his own idea of what would conduce to his honour and prosperity when he multiplied the number of his wives, and even took one at least from outside his own nation. Although we have no reason to suppose he broke any express Divine command in so doing, yet it was evidently a violation of God’s original intention, and an imitation of the customs of the heathen monarchs, and such an alliance with them was in direct opposition to that separation from them and their ways which is commanded by the law of Moses. If he had been as careful to inquire of the Lord concerning this matter as he was in others, how much domestic misery might he have escaped. But all good men omit sometimes to obey the command, “In all thy ways acknowledge Him,” and, following their own inclination instead of hearkening to the voice of God, sow seeds of evil which afterwards yield them very bitter fruit. (On this subject see also on 2Sa_1:2.)
III. A good deed done from a wrong motive is of no value to the doer. By their fruits ye shall know them (Mat_7:16) is the word of Divine wisdom, and yet it is quite true, as F. W. Robertson remarks, that we must not always judge a man by his deeds, but the deeds by the man. The repentance which follows when a good man does wrong must be taken into account, and the motive that goes before when a bad man does right must be considered, before passing judgment. When Abner came over to David’s side he was performing an act of tardy justice, but it was not the fruit of repentance. It was prompted by no desire to repair the wrong of the past, but by a determination to avenge an offence in the present. The same motive moved him to make friends with David as induced him to set Ishbosheth upon the throne, and, therefore, no more moral value can be attached to the one action than to the other. The declaration, “the Lord hath sworn to David” did not come from the lips of one who consulted the Divine will, but from one who made his own ambition his rule of life, and Abner only confesses his guilt when he utters it, because he makes it plain that he did not sin through ignorance.
IV. Those who receive from others what they have no right to bestow will find punishment in being compelled to relinquish it. Two men in this chapter are in this case. Ishbosheth received his crown, and Phaltiel his wife from men who were wronging others when they bestowed them, and the issue in both is what it must ever be under such circumstances. Every gift given by man which is not at the same time given by God is not bestowed upon its righful owner, and will sooner or later be taken from the unlawful possessor to become the property of him to whom it belongs. However far and with whatever force a stone is thrown into the air, we feel that its return to the earth is certain. Whatever may be the height to which it ascends, we know there will come a moment when its return journey will begin, and its fall will be more rapid than its rise. So, however great may be the power and strength which is behind unjust promotion, and however long we may hold a gift which belongs to another, there is a law above all others which can only be held at abeyance for a limited time, and when that limit has been reached the law will assert its dominion, and the work of restitution will often be as sudden as it is painful. Phaltiel must have known he was wronging David to take his wife, and Ishbosheth knew also that he had no right to the throne, but the one thought himself secure in the power of Saul, and the other trusted to the ability of Abner. The day of reckoning came for both, and they had both cause to bitterly regret they had accepted favours from men who had no right to bestow them.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
2Sa_3:1. What grievous tales of distress are folded up in these brief words. Probably it was only irregular war, without much bloodshed; the war of skirmish and surprises, not of pitched battles or protracted sieges, or desperate assaults; but many a pillaged town and many a homestead laid in ashes, and many a heart crushed in despair or maddened to fury, and many a deep and deadly curse and fearful vow of vengeance would everywhere follow the track of war. And it was war of the most distressing and demoralising kind.—not foreign, but civil. Great national wars are usually attended by one counteracting benefit—they soften the keenness of private quarrels. But when parties in the same nation are fighting with each other, private quarrels, instead of being healed, are only exasperated in greater bitterness. In the painful war, therefore, in which David was engaged, he was deprived of the comfort of reflecting that whatever ravages it was producing abroad, it was drawing men’s hearts closer to each other at home, and sweetening the breath of domestic society.—Blaikie.
2Sa_3:8. In the variance of these two, we see there is no solid and constant friendship among the wicked, for that which is in God is only like unto Him, immutable and sure, and worthy of the name of amity, the other being more properly conspiracies.—Guild.
2Sa_3:13. In David’s yielding and acceptation of Abner’s offer we see that, albeit he hath a good cause, yet he neglects no occasion of secondary means offered, which is an example of imitation, for as men are said to contemn God who rely altogether upon seconds, so are they to be thought to tempt God, who altogether reject the use of lawful seconds.—Guild.
2Sa_3:16. From this occurrence it is clear that, among the wild briars of unsettled family relationships by which Israel was then overgrown, here and there also the flowers of a true genuine love and fidelity were to be met with. They bloomed, indeed, in the house of David, but their growth was not unhindered, and he did not remain untouched by the curse which the Lord had attached to the crime of polygamy in Israel.—Krummacher.
2Sa_3:18. Abner wins the heart of Israel, by showing God’s charter for him whom he had so long opposed. Hypocrites make use of God for their own purposes, and care only to make Divine authority a colour for their own designs. No man ever heard Abner godly till now; neither had he been so at this time, if he had not intended a revengeful departure from Ishbosheth. Nothing is more odious than to make religion a stalking-horse to policy.—Bishop Hall.
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 3:33
2Sa 3:33
I. The first mark of folly about Abner’s death is his strange simplicity and wonderful credulity. He had been used to court life; he had been continually by the king’s side, and therefore he must have learned that the art of political speaking is to conceal your thoughts, and that courtiers’ tongues shroud by language the intentions of the heart. Strange that a man like Abner, who had passed through such a school as two courts, should have believed so readily the message which Joab sent him. No man was ever more off his guard, or walked more deliberately into a trap. In the same way, it is marvellous how unsuspicious men are of sin’s designs. Sin seems to sing like an enchantress, like the sirens who sang to Ulysses; and the shrewdest and the cleverest men are irresistibly, almost imperceptibly drawn toward it, and they who would see through a deception of another sort in a moment, seem, like Abner, utterly blinded in this respect.
Read full note →
II. Note the next thing in Abner’s folly—his unused advantages. Abner was a prisoner to nobody but himself. No cord bound his arms; no iron fetters were upon his feet. Yet with hands unused and feet unemployed, he stands still like a fool to be killed.
We have had many advantages. We have the Bible, the message of the Gospel, the noble examples of parents and friends. If we die without hope, it may well be said as a requiem over us, "Died Abner as a fool dieth?"
III. Abner’s very position made his folly the greater. Hebron was one of the cities of refuge. Joab spoke with him outside the gate, so Abner was within one step of safety when he was slain. Jesus Christ, the true city of Hebron—the real city of refuge—is close by us now, and if we die unsaved, like Abner. we shall die with the shadow of security lying athwart our prostrate forms.
A. G. Brown, Penny Pulpit, No. 922.
References: 2Sa 3:38.—J. Hiles Hitchens, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xix., p. 281; H. Grey, A Parting Memorial, p. 112. 2Sa 3:39.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. vi., No. 334; Parker, vol. vii., p. 231. 2Sam 3—Ibid., p. 86. 2Sa 4:1.—Ibid., p. 232. 2Sa 4:4.—J. Ker, Sunday Magazine, 1875, p. 279. 2Sa 4:9-12.—Parker, vol. vii., p. 98. 2Sam 4—Ibid., p. 106. 2Sa 5:1-7.—F. W. Krummacher, David the King of Israel, p. 253. 2Sa 5:3.—T. Coster, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxii, p. 125. 2Sa 5:10.—Parker, vol. vii., p. 232. 5:11-6:23.—W. M. Taylor, David King of Israel, p. 154.
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 Abner is Treacherously Murdered by Joab
Abner is Treacherously Murdered by Joab
3. Chileab] We read nothing more of him and he probably died as a child. In 1Ch_3:1 he is called Daniel. Geshur] a kingdom on the border of Bashan, where Absalom afterwards took refuge (2Sa_13:37) It must not be confused with the Geshur of 1Sa_27:8.
Read full note →
4. Adonijah] see 1 Kings 1.
7. Rizpah] see 2Sa_21:8-11. Gone in unto my father's concubine] According to Eastern ideas this was equivalent to laying claim to the throne: see 2Sa_12:8; 2Sa_16:22; 1Ki_2:22.
8. Am I a dog's head, which against Judah?] RV 'Am I a dog's head that belongeth to Judah?' i.e. a despised enemy. Do shew kindness this day] RV 'This day' (i.e. at the very time you bring this trivial charge) 'do I shew kindness': see on 1Ki_2:17. This woman] LXX 'a woman.' It was the question of a mere woman.
9. Except.. even so I do to him] RV 'if. I do not even so to him,' i.e. support David instead of Ish-bosheth.
12. On his behalf] RM 'where he was.' Whose is the land? saying] LXX omits.
13. Except thou first bring Michal] see 1Sa_25:44.
16. Bahurim] in Benjamin, on the road from Jerusalem to the Jordan. It was probably the last town in the dominions of Ish-bosheth.
17. Ye sought for David] It would thus seem that even in northern Israel there was a strong party, who wished to make David king on the death of Saul. It was probably the personal influence of Abner that decided the day in favour of Ish-bosheth. The whole passage clearly shows how weak was the hereditary principle, and how completely the 'king' was still regarded merely as a military leader and 'judge.' The element of popular choice is more fully emphasised here than in Judges (except for the Abimelech episode).
19. Benjamin] as being Saul's fellow-tribesmen they would be specially attached to the royal house and need additional persuasion.
21. Make a league with thee] as they did with Saul (1Sa_10:25) and as they tried to do with Rehoboam (1Ki_12:4). Before making him king, they wished to see their rights safeguarded.
22. From pursuing a troop] RV 'from a foray.' David had probably arranged a time when Joab was absent.
24. Why is it that thou hast sent him away?] As a kinsman of Asahel, Joab thought that David should have avenged his death.
27. For the blood of Asahel his brother] According to Eastern ideas Joab was bound to avenge his brother's murder. Neither Judaism, Christianity, nor Mohammedanism has been able to eradicate this feeling. But the Law provided a remedy in the Cities of Refuge (see Num_35:11). In the case before us, Joab was probably influenced by the fear that Abner would interfere with his authority: see on
29. On all his father's house] According to Jewish ideas the family was involved in the fate of the ancestor: cp. 2Sa_21:6; 2Ki_5:27. Leaneth on a staff] rather, 'that holdeth the spindle': cp. Pro_31:19. It was despicable work for a man.
31. Mourn before Abner] i.e. precede the bier. This was all the punishment David was strong enough to inflict.
33. Died Abner as a fool dieth?] i.e. as one who runs into needless danger, or meets his death when engaged in a shameful conspiracy: see on 1Sa_25:25.
35. Till the sun be down] The regular time for ending a fast, as it still is in Mohammedan countries. The Hebrew day was reckoned from sunset to sunset.
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 v36 was good in their eyes.
pleased
was good in their eyes.
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 4. Abner’s Deeds and End
4. Abner’s Deeds and End
CHAPTER 3
Read full note →
1. The long war and its results (2Sa 3:1)
2. David’s family (2Sa 3:2-5)
3. Abner’s defiant deed (2Sa 3:6-7)
4. Abner and Ish-bosheth (2Sa 3:8-11)
5. Abner’s defection to David (2Sa 3:12)
6. David’s request (2Sa 3:13-16)
7. Abner with David (2Sa 3:17-22)
8. Abner’s end (2Sa 3:23-30)
9. David’s lamentation over Abner (2Sa 3:31-39)
The first verse speaks of the long war between the house of Saul and the house of David. And David waxed stronger and stronger. The weakness of the king in giving way to the flesh is next faithfully recorded; his self-indulgence in his different marriages. Alas! he began his sowing in the flesh from which later he was to reap such a sad harvest. Six sons are mentioned, born to David by his six wives. Three of these sons became a source of sorrow and grief to him. Ammon’s vile deed is found in chapter 13. Absalom was a still greater trial to him, Adonijah became the rival of Solomon (1Ki 1:5). In this record of taking these different women as wives, in this gross indulgence of the flesh, he prepared himself for the great sin of his life. Disorder and much confusion followed. Abner’s deed in taking Rizpah insulted Saul’s house and Ish-bosheth protested and Abner’s fury came upon the weakling whom he had made king. Then suddenly Abner professed belief in David’s God-given kingdom. His arrogant pride is seen in verse 10; as if it was in his power to set up the throne of David over all Israel, from Dan to Beer-sheba. The poor counterfeit king was silenced. Then we see Abner entering negotiations with David. Had David again relapsed that he fell in with Abner? We do not hear a word that he inquired of the Lord. He makes a condition under which Abner is to see his face. Michal, Saul’s daughter, the first wife he had, who was now the wife of Phaltiell is to be brought to him. He then received her after his request to Ish-bosheth, while her husband accompanied her as far as the border of Judah. The subsequent history, Michal’s mockery, shows that it was a mistake for David to take her back. How different all would have been if David had inquired of the Lord.
Abner, the shrewd schemer, was then entertained by David in a great banquet at which occasion he offered to make David ruler over all Israel. And David listened and sent him away in peace. But was it God’s way and God’s plan to have His anointed made king through such an instrument? Abner’s death frustrating his plans gives the answer. Joab, moved by envy, jealousy and bitter hatred, slew Abner in the same way as he had slain his brother Asahel. He died for the blood of Asahel he had shed. An insinuation is made as if Joab’s deed was justified as the avenger. This however could not be sustained by the law for Abner’s death in slaying Asahel was in self-defence. But David cleared himself from so abominable a deed. “I and my kingdom are guiltless before the LORD forever from the blood of Abner.” A public mourning is instituted in which Joab is forced to partake and the king lamented over Abner. “And all the people took notice of it, and it pleased them, as whatsoever the king did pleased all the people.” The king’s wise behaviour had its effect upon the people and thus his kingdom was strengthened.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv1, 22 Abner Leaves Ishbosheth for David
Abner Leaves Ishbosheth for David
v. 1. Now, there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David, literally, "the war was protracted," a state of war continued to exist, since neither acknowledged the other as king, although outward hostilities were apparently not renewed; but David, patiently waiting and relying upon the promise of Jehovah, waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker; David gained in adherents in the same measure as Ishbosheth lost them.
Read full note →
v. 2. And unto David were sons born in Hebron; and his first-born was Amnon, of Ahinoam, the Jezreelitess;
v. 3. and his second, Chileab (or Daniel, 1Ch 3:1), of Abigail, the wife of Nabal, the Carmelite; and the third, Absalom, the son of Maacah, the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur, a small principality in Syria;
v. 4. and the fourth, Adonijah, the son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah, the son of Abital;
v. 5. and the sixth Ithream, by Eglah, David’s wife. The three women mentioned last are otherwise unknown. These were born to David in Hebron, the fruit of his strange polygamous marriages.
v. 6. And it came to pass, while there was war between the house of Saul and the house of David, while the state of hostility continued, that Abner made himself strong for the house of Saul, his strong influence enabled the house of Saul to maintain itself.
v. 7. And Saul had a concubine whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah; and Ishbosheth said to Abner, Wherefore hast thou gone in unto my father’s concubine? The reproof was given because Abner, by his action, had presumed upon royal rights, for in the ancient Orient claim to the harem was claim to the throne, the suspicion thus being that he aspired to be king.
v. 8. Then was Abner very wroth for the words of Ishbosheth, for he seems to have been self-willed and presumptuous in his conduct toward the weak man whom he had made king, and said, Am I a dog’s head, a low, contemptible person, which against Judah, who sides with Judah? (I) do show kindness this day unto the house of Saul, thy father, to his brethren, and to his friends, and have not delivered thee in to the hand of David, that thou chargest me today with a fault concerning this woman? Ishbosheth owed position, kingdom, everything to Abner, who seems to have been on his side merely out of loyalty for Saul; but there was no personal bond between them, and Abner regarded the charge flung into his face as an insult.
v. 9. So do God to Abner, and more also, a strong oath of a vigorous, autocratic man, except, as the Lord hath sworn to David, even so I do to him,
v. 10. to translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, to take it away and transfer it, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba, from the extreme north to the extreme south of Canaan. Abner had evidently recognized the fact, even before this, that Ishbosheth was wholly unfit for the kingly rule, and the latter’s charge now brought matters to a head.
v. 11. And he, Ishbosheth, could not answer Abner a word again, because he feared him, he was too feeble, too cowardly, to back up his reproof with action.
v. 12. And Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf, as an embassy representing him, saying, Whose is the land? His pride caused him to intimate that he was the real master of Israel. Saying also, Make thy league with me, and, behold, my hand shall be with thee to bring about all Israel unto thee, to get all the northern tribes to acknowledge David, with the expectation that he would be given a high position in the army of the united country.
v. 13. And he, David, said, Well; I will make a league with thee; but one thing I require of thee, this was his one condition upon whose fulfillment he insisted, that is, Thou shalt not see my face except thou first bring Michal, Saul’s daughter, when thou comest to see my face. It was not merely that Michal was his lawful wife, but David had also a political reason in his union with Israel’s princess, namely, that of gaining the favor of the northern tribes.
v. 14. And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, that being the purchase price, the morning gift which Saul had demanded, 1Sa 18:25,
v. 15. And Ishbosheth, who would not have been able to refuse the demand of David even if he had been so inclined, sent and took her from her husband, even from Phaltiel, the son of Laish, the man who seems to have taken her in good faith, 1Sa 25:44.
v. 16. And her husband went with her along weeping behind her to Bahurim, on the boundary of Judah, his behavior showing that he was truly fond of Michal. Then said Abner, who, in accordance with David’s condition, had taken charge of this mission, unto him, Go, return. And he returned.
v. 17. And Abner, even before he restored Michal to her rightful husband, had communication with the elders of Israel, saying, Ye sought for David in times past, literally, "yesterday as well as the day before," to be king over you, their dissatisfaction with Ishbosheth had probably been voiced more than once;
v. 18. now, then, do it: for the Lord hath spoken of David, saying, By the hand of My servant David I will save My people Israel out of the hand of the Philistines and out of the hand of all their enemies. This was the promise implied in the prophetic tradition and the duty laid upon the king chosen by Jehovah.
v. 19. And Abner also spake in the ears of Benjamin, here distinguished from the northern tribes, because its members had been very strongly attached to the house of Saul; and Abner went also to speak in the ears of David in Hebron all that seemed good to Israel, and that seemed good to the whole house of Benjamin. In return for their recognition of David’s royal authority they wanted the same advantages as the men of Judah; they were fully ready to acknowledge him.
v. 20. So Abner came to David to Hebron, and twenty men with him, as representatives of all Israel, as witnesses of the covenant. And David made Abner and the men that were with him a feast, a formal festival meal.
v. 21. And Abner said unto David, I will arise and go, and will gather all Israel unto my lord the king that they may make a league with thee, acknowledging him as the chosen king of Jehovah, through whom, as His instrument, the Lord Himself would rule over His people, and that thou mayest reign over all that thine heart desireth, over the entire people of God. And David sent Abner away; and he went in peace, regarded by David as a true friend to his cause. Even the adversaries of God and Christ are often instrumental in carrying out the counsel of God and in furthering the cause of Christ. And many a person who first strongly opposed the Lord has been brought to a better understanding and has embraced the good cause.
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, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 31, 33, 35, 37 This word is used here to mark a break…
Now
This word is used here to mark a break in the main story line. Here Samuel gives information about the war between David and the supporters of Saul. (See: Background Information)
Read full note →
house
Here "house" is used to mean "supporters."
grew stronger and stronger
This metaphor means the number of people supporting David increased. (See: Metaphor)
grew weaker and weaker
This metaphor means the number of people supporting Saul's family decreased. (See: Metaphor)
translationWords
house
Saul (OT)
house of David
David
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, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39 3:1-39 The house of David increased, while Saul’s house…
3:1-39 The house of David increased, while Saul’s house dwindled. The crucial occasion came when Abner, the real political power in Saul’s camp, switched allegiance to David, taking a considerable number of his northern kinsmen with him.
3:1 a long war: This civil war likely continued for most of the seven-plus years that David ruled from Hebron. The truce called by Joab and Abner (2:26-28) was short-lived.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.