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.
Parallel Translations
-
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.
-
And, behold, the servants of David and Joab came from pursuing a troop, and brought in a great spoil with them: but Abner was not with David in Hebron; for he had sent him away, and he was gone in peace.
-
And, behold, the servants of David and Joab came from a foray, and brought in a great spoil with them; but Abner was not with David in Hebron; for he had sent him away, and he was gone in peace.
Cross-references
No cross-references for this verse.
Explain this verse (15 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain From war against the Philistines.
From war against the Philistines.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain 2Sa 3:22 And, behold, the servants of David and…
2Sa 3:22 And, behold, the servants of David and Joab came from [pursuing] a troop, and brought in a great spoil with them: but Abner [was] not with David in Hebron; for he had sent him away, and he was gone in peace.
Ver. 22. Joab came from pursuing a troop.] Of foragers and brigands; Philistines likely. Spoilers shall be spoiled. {Isa 33:1}
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 A troop of robbers, either Philistines, or Edomites, or…
A troop of robbers, either Philistines, or Edomites, or some others, who taking advantage of the discord between the houses of Saul and David, made inroads into Judah, as they had occasion.
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 We have here an account of the murder of…
We have here an account of the murder of Abner by Joab, and David's deep resentment of it.
I. Joab very insolently fell foul upon David for treating with Abner. He happened to be abroad upon service when Abner was with David, pursuing a troop, either of Philistines or of Saul's party; but, upon his return, he was informed that Abner was just gone (Sa2 3:22, Sa2 3:23), and that a great many kind things had passed between David and him. He had all the reason in the world to be satisfied of David's prudence and to acquiesce in the measures he took, knowing him to be a wise and good man himself and under a divine conduct in all his affairs; and yet, as if he had the same sway in David's cause that Abner had in Ish-bosheth's, he chides David, and reproaches him to his face as impolitic (Sa2 3:24, Sa2 3:25): What hast thou done? As if David were accountable to him for what he did: "Why hast thou sent him away, when thou mightest have made him a prisoner? He came as a spy, and will certainly betray thee." I know not whether to wonder more that Joab had impudence enough to give such an affront to his prince or that David had patience enough to take it. He does, in effect, call David a fool when he tells him he knew Abner came to deceive him and yet he trusted him. We find no answer that David gave him, not because he feared him, as Ish-bosheth did Abner (Sa2 3:11), but because he despised him, or because Joab had not so much good manners as to stay for an answer.
Read full note →
II. He very treacherously sent for Abner back, and, under colour of a private conference with him, barbarously killed him with his own hand. That he made use of David's name, under pretence of giving him some further instructions, is intimated in that, but David knew it not, Sa2 3:26. Abner, designing no harm, feared none, but very innocently returned to Hebron, and, when he found Joab waiting for him at the gate, turned aside with him to speak with him privately, forgetting what he himself had said when he slew Asahel, How shall I hold up my face to Joab thy brother? (Sa2 2:22), and there Joab murdered him (Sa2 3:27), and it is intimated (Sa2 3:30) that Abishai was privy to the design, and was aiding and abetting, and would have come in to his brother's assistance if there had been occasion; he is therefore charged as an accessary: Joab and Abishai slew Abner, though perhaps he only knew it who is privy to the thoughts and intents of men's hearts. Now in this, 1. It is certain that the Lord was righteous. Abner had maliciously, and against the convictions of his conscience, opposed David. He had now basely deserted Ish-bosheth, and betrayed him, under pretence of regard to God and Israel, but really from a principle of pride, and revenge, and impatience of control. God will not therefore use so bad a man, though David might, in so good a work as the uniting of Israel. Judgments are prepared for such scorners as Abner was. But, 2. It is as certain that Joab was unrighteous, and, in what he did, did wickedly. David was a man after God's own heart, but could not have those about him, no, not in places of the greatest trust, after his own heart. Many a good prince, and a good master, has been forced to employ bad men. (1.) Even the pretence for doing this was very unjust. Abner had indeed slain his brother Asahel, and Joab and Abishai pretended herein to be the avengers of his blood (Sa2 3:27, Sa2 3:30); but Abner slew Asahel in an open war, wherein Abner indeed had given the challenge, but Joab himself had accepted it and had slain many of Abner's friends. He did it likewise in his own defence, and not till he had given him fair warning (which he would not take), and he did it with reluctancy; but Joab here shed the blood of war in peace, Kg1 2:5. (2.) That which we have reason to think was at the bottom of Joab's enmity to Abner made it much worse. Joab was now general of David's forces; but, if Abner should come into his interest, he would possibly be preferred before him, being a senior officer, and more experienced in the art of war. This Joab was jealous of, and could better bear the guilt of blood than the thoughts of a rival. (3.) He did it treacherously, and under pretence of speaking peaceably to him, Deu 27:24. Had he challenged him, he would have done like a soldier; but to assassinate him was done villainously and like a coward. His words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords, Psa 55:21. Thus he basely slew Amasa, Sa2 20:9, Sa2 20:10. (4.) The doing of it was a great affront and injury to David, who was now in treaty with Abner, as Joab knew. Abner was now actually in his master's service, so that, through his side, he struck at David himself. (5.) It was a great aggravation of the murder that he did it in the gate, openly and avowedly, as one that was not ashamed, nor could blush. The gate was the place of judgment and the place of concourse, to that he did it in defiance of justice, both the just sentence of the magistrates and the just resentment of the crowd, as one that neither feared God nor regarded men, but thought himself above all control: and Hebron was a Levites' city and a city of refuge.
III. David laid deeply to heart and in many ways expressed his detestation of this execrable villany.
1. He washed his hands from the guilt of Abner's blood. Lest any should suspect that Joab had some secret intimation from David to do as he did (and the rather because he went so long unpunished), he here solemnly appeals to God concerning his innocency: I and my kingdom are guiltless (and my kingdom is so because I am so) before the Lord for ever, Sa2 3:28. It is a comfort to be able to say, when any bad thing is done, that we had no hand in it. We have not shed this blood, Deu 21:7. However we may be censured or suspected, our hearts shall not reproach us.
2. He entailed the curse for it upon Joab and his family (Sa2 3:29): "Let it rest on the head of Joab. Let the blood cry against him, and let divine vengeance follow him. Let the iniquity be visited upon his children and children's children, in some hereditary disease or other. The longer the punishment is delayed, the longer let it last when it shall come. Let his posterity be stigmatized, blemished with an issue or a leprosy, which will shut them out from society; let them be beggars, or cripples, or come to some untimely end, that it may be said, He is one of Joab's race." This intimates that the guilt of blood brings a curse upon families; if men do not avenge it, God will, and will lay up the iniquity for the children. But methinks a resolute punishment of the murderer himself would better have become David than this passionate imprecation of God's judgments upon his posterity.
3. He called upon all about him, even Joab himself, to lament the death of Abner (Sa2 3:31): Rend your clothes and mourn before Abner, that is, before the hearse of Abner, as Abraham is said to mourn before his dead (Gen 23:2, Gen 23:3), and he gives a reason why they should attend his funeral with sincere and solemn mourning (Sa2 3:38), because there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel. His alliance to Saul, his place as general, his interest, and the great services he had formerly done, were enough to denominate him a prince and a great man. When he could not call him a saint or a good man, he said nothing of that, but what was true he gave him the praise of, though he had been his enemy, that he was a prince and a great man. "Such a man has fallen in Israel, and fallen this day, just when he was doing the best deed he ever did in his life, this day, when he was likely to be so serviceable to the public peace and welfare and could so ill be spared." (1.) Let them all lament it. The humbling change death puts all men under is to be lamented, especially as affecting princes and great men. Alas! alas! (see Rev 18:10) how mean, how little, are those made by death who made themselves the terror of the mighty in the land of the living! But we are especially obliged to lament the fall of useful men in the midst of their usefulness and when there is most need of them. A public loss must be every man's grief, for every man shares in it. Thus David took care that honour should be done to the memory of a man of merit, to animate others. (2.) Let Joab, in a particular manner, lament it, which he has less heart but more reason to do than any of them. If he could be brought to do it sincerely, it would be an expression of repentance for his sin in slaying him. If he did it in show only, as it is likely he did, yet it was a sort of penance imposed upon him, and a present commutation of the punishment. If he do not as yet expiate the murder with his blood, let him do something towards it with tears. This, perhaps, Joab submitted to with no great reluctancy, now he had gained his point. Now that he is on the bier, no matter in what pomp he lies. Sit divus, modo non sit vivus - Let him be canonized, so that he be but killed.
4. David himself followed the corpse as chief mourner, and made a funeral oration at the grave. He attended the bier (Sa2 3:31) and wept at the grave, Sa2 3:32. Though Abner had been his enemy, and might possibly have proved no very firm friend, yet because he had been a man of bravery in the field, and might have done great service in the public counsels at this critical juncture, all former quarrels are forgotten and David is a true mourner for his fall. What he said over the grave fetched fresh floods of tears from the eyes of all that were present, when they thought they had already paid the debt in full (Sa2 3:33, Sa2 3:34): Died Abner as a fool dieth? (1.) He speaks as one vexed that Abner was fooled out of his life, that so great a man as he, so famed for conduct and courage, should be imposed upon by a colour of friendship, slain by surprise, and so die as a fool dies. The wisest and stoutest of men have no fence against treachery. To see Abner, who thought himself the main hinge on which the great affairs of Israel turned, so considerable as himself to be able to turn the scale of a trembling government, his head full of great projects and great prospects, to see him made a fool of by a base rival, and falling on a sudden a sacrifice to his ambition and jealousy - this stains the pride of all glory, and should put one out of conceit with worldly grandeur. Put not your trust in princes, Psa 146:3, Psa 146:4. And let us therefore make that sure which we cannot be fooled out of. A man may have his life, and all that is dear to him, taken from him, and not be able to prevent it with all his wisdom, care, and integrity; but there is that which no thief can break through to steal. See here how much more we are beholden to God's providence than to our own prudence for the continuance of our lives and comforts. Were it not for the hold God has of the consciences of bad men, how soon would the weak and innocent become an easy prey to the strong and merciless and the wisest die as fools! Or, (2.) He speaks as one boasting that Abner did not fool himself out of his life: "Died Abner as a fool dies? No, he did not, not as a criminal, a traitor or felon, that forfeits his life into the hands of public justice; his hands were not pinioned, nor his feet fettered, as those of malefactors are: Abner falls not before just men, by a judicial sentence; but as a man, an innocent man, falleth before wicked men, thieves and robbers, so fellest thou." Died Abner as Nabal died? so the Septuagint reads it. Nabal died as he lived, like himself, like a sot; but Abner's fate was such as might have been the fate of the wisest and best man in the world. Abner did not throw away his life as Asahel did, who wilfully ran upon the spear, after fair warning, but he was struck by surprise. Note, It is a sad thing to die like a fool, as those do that in any way shorten their own days, and much more those that make no provision for another world.
5. He fasted all that day, and would by no means be persuaded to eat any thing till night, Sa2 3:35. It was then the custom of great mourners to refrain for the time from bodily refreshments, as Sa2 1:12; Sa1 31:13. How incongruous is it then to turn the house of mourning into a house of feasting! This respect which David paid to Abner was very pleasing to the people and satisfied them that he was not, in the least, accessory to the murder (Sa2 3:36, Sa2 3:37), of which he was solicitous to avoid the suspicion, lest Joab's villany should make him odious, as that of Simeon and Levi did Jacob, Gen 34:30. On this occasion it is said, Whatever the king did pleased all the people. This intimates, (1.) His good affection to them. He studied to please them in every thing and carefully avoided what might be disobliging. (2.) Their good opinion of him. They thought every thing he did well done. Such a mutual willingness to please, and easiness to be pleased, will make every relation comfortable.
6. He bewailed it that he could not with safety do justice on the murderers, Sa2 3:30. He was weak, his kingdom was newly planted, and a little shake would overthrow it. Joab's family had a great interest, were bold and daring, and to make them his enemies now might be of bad consequence. These sons of Zeruiah were too hard for him, too big for the law to take hold of; and therefore, though by man, by the magistrate, the blood of a murderer should be shed (Gen 9:6), David bears the sword in vain, and contents himself, as a private person, to leave them to the judgment of God: The Lord shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness. Now this is a diminution, (1.) To David's greatness. He is anointed king, and yet is kept in awe by his own subjects, and some of them are too hard for him. Who would be fond of power when a man may have the name of it, and must be accountable for it, and yet be hampered in the use of it? (2.) To David's goodness. He ought to have done his duty, and trusted God with the issue. Fiat justitia, ruat coelum - Let justice be done, though the heavens should fall asunder. If the law had had its course against Joab, perhaps the murder of Ishbosheth, Amnon, and others, would have been prevented. It was carnal policy and cruel pity that spared Joab. Righteousness supports the throne and will never shake it. Yet it was only a reprieve that David gave to Joab; on his death-bed he left it to Solomon (who could the better wield the sword of justice because he had no occasion to draw the sword of war) to avenge the blood of Abner. Evil pursues sinners, and will overtake them at last. David preferred Abner's son Jaasiel, Ch1 27:21.
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 And, behold, the servants of David and Joab came…
And, behold, the servants of David and Joab came from pursuing a troop,.... A troop of robbers, that made an incursion into the land, taking the advantage of a civil war between Israel and Judah; such as the Edomites, Amalekites, and especially the Philistines; which Joab hearing of went out in pursuit of them, and overtook them:
and brought in a great spoil with them; which they took from them:
Read full note →
but Abner was not with David in Hebron: when Joab and his army entered the city with their booty:
for he had sent him away, and he was gone in peace; he had just dismissed him, and he was gone off safely.
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 A troop - Of robbers, or Philistines, who taking…
A troop - Of robbers, or Philistines, who taking advantage of the discord between the houses of Saul and David, made inroads into Judah.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Robbers. Amalecites, (Salien) or Philistines, who had made some…
Robbers. Amalecites, (Salien) or Philistines, who had made some incursions into David’s territories. (Abulensis)
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).
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain ASSASSINATION OF ABNER BY JOAB, AND DAVID’S GRIEF, 2Sa_3:22-39.
ASSASSINATION OF ABNER BY JOAB, AND DAVID’S GRIEF, 2Sa_3:22-39.
“When David had sent Abner away, Joab, the general of his army, came immediately to Hebron; and when he had understood that Abner had been with David, and had parted with him a little before under leagues and agreements that the government should be delivered up to David, he feared lest David should place Abner, who had assisted him to gain the kingdom, in the first rank of dignity, especially since he was a shrewd man in other respects, in understanding affairs, and in managing them artfully, as proper seasons should require; and that he himself should be put lower, and deprived of the command of the army; so he took a knavish and wicked course.” — Josephus.
Read full note →
22. From pursuing a troop — Literally, from the troop; that is, a troop or band of select warriors that had been out fighting with hostile tribes of the desert. From one of those marauding expeditions in which David and his men in time past had been wont to engage. 1Sa_27:8.
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 22–27. Abner treacherously murdered by Joab
22–27. Abner treacherously murdered by Joab
22. from pursuing a troop] Lit. from the troop, i.e. from the foray, or plundering expedition on which they had gone to procure supplies. In the absence of taxes and regular pay, it was the only means of supporting an army. Comp. David’s practice at Ziklag (1Sa_27:8 ff.).
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 (22) Joab came.—He had been either on some expedition…
(22) Joab came.—He had been either on some expedition against the Philistines, the Amalekites, or other enemies of Judah, or else engaged in repelling some attack from them. In either case, he returned elated with victory, and bringing great spoil; but Abner had concluded his interview and gone away before his return.
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 From pursuing a troop. This gives a wrong idea,…
From pursuing a troop. This gives a wrong idea, as though Joab had been repelling an attack. The Revised Version is right in rendering "came from a foray," the troop being a company of men sent out on a predatory excursion. It is not unlikely that David had arranged this expedition in order that his interview with Abner might take place in Joab"s absence; and as he returned with "great spoil," he had probably been away for some nine or ten days, during which he had penetrated far into the country of the Amalekites. Had David acted frankly and honourably, Joab would not have stood in the way of his master"s exaltation, and the blood feud between him and Abner might have been arranged. But it is evident that David secretly disliked and chafed under the control of his strong-willed and too-able nephew.
Vers. 22-27. The facts are:
Read full note →
1. Joab, returning from an expedition, finds David at Hebron after Abner"s departure.
2. Hearing from the people a general statement of what had transpiredbetween the king and Abner, Joab reproaches David for his peaceful conduct, and insinuates that Abner was simply playing the spy.
3. Sending a messenger, unknown to David, after Abner, he induces him to return to Hebron, and, under pretence of a quiet conference, he leads him aside and assassinates him.
4. Hearing of the affair, David at once repudiates it, and in strong termsdesires that heavy judgments may fall on the head of Joab and his house.
5. David orders a general mourning for Abner, attends his funeral, and utters a pathetic lamentation over him.
6. The king"s sorrow assumes a solemn and impressive form throughoutthe day, so as to convince the people of his utter abhorrence of the crime and his sense of the national loss.
7. David causes his servants to know that he cherished a regard for thegreat abilities and possible services to Israel of Abner, and was pained and enfeebled in his action as anointed king by the perverse conduct of the sons of Zeruiah.
Defective sympathy.
The first impression, on reading the account of the conduct of Joab, is that of the most villainous treachery, and one at once enters into the anger and vexation of David. But the treacherous act professedly in the service of David was the outcome of a permanent condition of mind. Ostensibly it is to be ascribed to the resentment cherished on account of the death of Asahel; but the action of a man occupying a responsible position in a great undertaking is not governed merely by the presence of a feeling of this kind. The resentment would have had no positive power to issue in this deed had not the mind of Joab been out of harmony with the mind. of David in the views taken of the kingdom, its principles, and methods of consolidation. A public servant will govern his private passions if his mind is in full sympathy with his master"s, so as to see that the indulgence of them would be uncongenial to him and injurious to his interests. Joab was deficient in sympathy with the higher qualities and aims of his great master, and consequently the bad qualities found an outlet which otherwise would have either had no existence or would have been suppressed for his sake.
I THE EMPLOYMENT OF MEN OF DEFECTIVE SYMPATHIES IS, IN THE PRESENT STATE OF THE WORLD, UNAVOIDABLE. That Joab was not in full sympathy with David"s pure and lofty aspirations is seen both in this account and also in the pressure previously put upon David in exile by his chief men to take away the life of Saul, as, again, in the subsequent allusions to his conduct. (2Sa_19:7) That such a man should have been at the head of military affairs in David"s service is not surprising, for David had from the first to take such men as were disposed to follow his fortunes, and when he set up regal authority in Hebron it was in the nature of things for the man of greatest will power to push his way to the front. Kings cannot make their ministers; they can only use what the age produces. It was not David"s fault; it was the natural condition of things, arising from myriads of concurrent causes, that there was not one man since the death of Samuel and Jonathan that was so spiritual and far seeing as to enter with full enthusiastic sympathy into his conceptions of the kingdom of God and the holy principles on which it should be established and governed. The evil of having to work out great and glorious issues in conjunction with men who do not enter into the inner spirit of the enterprise is remarkably illustrated in the case of our Saviour. There was not one who could enter into the full depth and breadth of his work in the world. Relatively his blundering disciples, often paining his heart by their worldly notions, were as far removed from him as was Joab, With his crude ideas and low feelings, from David. Nor could it be otherwise unless men were supernaturally transformed. The same holds good now in the instruments Christ has to use in carrying on his work in the world. How defective many labourers and followers are in sympathy with his holy aspirations and methods! Indeed, it is the same in every secular employment. Seldom, if ever, does the servant enter fully into the mind of the master. Ideas and feelings cherished by the directing and originating mind are, of necessity, inadequately appreciated by instrumentalities not perfectly charged with them. The servant, in this sense, is not equal to his lord.
II THE EXISTENCE OF THIS DEFECTIVE SYMPATHY BETWEEN SERVANT AND MASTER IS THE OCCASION OF VARIOUS EVILS. Because Joab did not really understand the pure and generous spirit of David, his very zeal for him assumed forms not only opposed to the king"s wishes, but fraught with evil tendencies for the kingdom. It is obvious from ver. 24 that Joab misapprehended the peaceful, generous policy of David, and ver. 25 reveals the fact that he was in his heart actually opposed to the course which had been taken; for he actually dares to rebuke him for not perceiving the cunning spy in the man of peace. So far was he out of sympathy with the principles and policy of the king, that he stealthily, and with the aid of his brother (ver. 30), even allowed the personal resentment of his heart to issue in an act which was not only unjust and base in itself, but also in direct opposition to the will and measures of David. Here we have, as the outcome of his worldly spirit, displeasure with his king, assumption of superior wisdom, indulgence in personal revenge, murder, and practically assertion, for the time being and in a particular instance, of supreme power. Not one of these evils would have come to the surface of life, but would have been crushed in their most incipient stage, had his nature been more in sympathy with that of his master. Inasmuch as by full sympathy we alone can really understand, appreciate, fall in with, delight in, and surrender every faculty and subdue every errant feeling to the prompt carrying out of our Lord"s designs, so, conversely, a lack of sympathy cannot but result in the evils of misapprehension of designs, non-appreciation of motives and.methods, discontent with actual deeds, withholding of services, and free scope to passions, in nature and consequences at variance with his superior will. The lives of the apostles during our Saviour"s ministry on earth abundantly illustrate this. Bred in an atmosphere of formalism and religious exclusiveness, they entered not into the perfect mind of Christ, and consequently wondered at his methods, (Luk_9:44, Luk_9:45) desired what was contrary to his Spirit (vers. 46-56), and, in the case of Peter, actually rebuked him for arranging to establish his kingdom by a method which seemed to them to be unnecessary and unbecoming. (Mat_16:21-23) The persecutions authorized by the Church in dark ages, the methods introduced by Ignatius Loyola and subsequently adopted by his followers, the bitter spirit cherished towards men differing in minor matters of faith or practice, and the sundry base deeds which grow out of a professedly Christian life because it is not well nourished in fellowship with Christ himself, these are some of the evils appearing in the course of the establishment of the kingdom of heaven as a consequence of the servants of the Lord not being in full harmony of spirit with him they profess to serve.
III THIS DEFECTIVE SYMPATHY, IF NOT GRADUALLY REMEDIED, MAY INVOLVE ACTIONS PERMANENTLY DAMAGING TO THE MOST POWERFUL OF MEN. It is probable that Joab was with David in exile, and, like many others, he may have been drawn over to his side partly because of the intimation given by Samuel and recognized by Jonathan of the Divine choice of David, and partly because of disgust at the misgovernment of Saul. However much he might have failed in the first instance to comprehend and appreciate the holy aims and principles of his leader, he could not have shared so long in David"s fortunes and misfortunes without having many opportunities of learning what manner of person he was, and how decidedly spiritual were his aims and purposes. He appears not to have profited by these privileges, and consequently, by the action of a well known psychological law, the original secularity of his nature gained in power, so that when a contest arose between a private passion and acquiescence in his master"s arrangements, there was not sufficient moral force to restrain and destroy the passion, and hence the dark deed which disgraced his name and caused him to be in the future a man distrusted and abhorred (ver. 39). The reverse is seen in the case of the apostles, excepting Judas, who all yew out of their imperfect sympathy with the innermost heart of Christ, and brought forth fruit accordingly. In private life there can be no question but that, when opportunities for getting nearer and nearer to the mind of Christ are neglected, the lower tendencies of human nature gain force, and when temptation to exercise them arises, sad deeds are done and reputations are damaged. Probably, if all things were explained, it would come out that many of the sad crimes perpetrated by persons professedly in the kingdom and service of Christ are connected with failure to maintain and deepen the sympathy of the heart with all that is in Christ and his work. "Without me ye can do nothing;" "Abide in me.
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. The incidental evils arising from imperfect sympathy with the holy andfar reaching purposes of God may be found in course of the historic revelation which God has given us, and should be ascribed to their proper human source, and allowed for in our estimate of the form, matter, and incidents of the revelation.
2. A critical estimate of the degree of the triumphs of early Christianityshould be formed on a consideration of the degree, more or less, to Which the leading and subordinate servants of Christ understood and entered into his spirit.
3. In a selection of men for any form of Christian work, great stress shouldbe laid on their quick and eager perception of the purely spiritual aspects of his kingdom. Intellectual and other qualities are very subordinate to this.
4. It becomes us to be on our guard lest mere private feelings of the lowerorder should gain ascendency over the more general considerations that pertain to the kingdom of God.
5. It will be useful if we now and then calmly reflect on the degree to whichthe cause of God may have suffered through our own defective sympathy with its more spiritual interests.
6. The great need of each one is to cultivate close fellowship with Christ,so as more fully to enter into his mind.
The incidence of guilt.
When a great crime has been committed, the first question in the public mind is Who is guilty? In national affairs, where personal actions are supposed to be connected with public interests, it is not always clear at first whether one or another party is to be charged with blame for what has been done. It was impossible, even judged by the low standard that too often governed the conduct and opinions of Eastern people, but that the death of Abner would be regarded with consternation, and men would be swift in their judgment. It was, therefore, only natural that David should take steps to let it be known that, although Joab was a public servant, the guilt in this case must rest on the individual himself, and not in any sense on the government under which he served.
I IN EVERY CASE, AS TO THE ACTUAL INCIDENCE OF GUILT, THERE IS NO UNCERTAINTY IN THE MINDS OF THE PARTIES CONCERNED. To men of low moral type in Judah, who may have suspected Abner"s zeal and who were disposed to judge of David as they would of themselves, it might be an open question as to whether he did not really connive at the treachery of Joab. To men in Israel, who were mindful of Abner"s former antagonism to David and who were themselves of implacable temper, it might be conceivable that David was an inactive partner in the crime. In the absence of any superior court of inquiry, or of any statement from David, disquieting rumours may have gained temporary currency. Meanwhile the real fact would stand clear before the conscience of both Joab and the king. Popular discussion never avails to alter the facts of conscience. Joab knew himself to be solely guilty, with consent of his brother (ver. 30); David knew himself to be entirely innocent. Each carried within himself the judgment of God. It is here that we see the dividing line between the opinions and discussions of the world and the invisible moral sphere, where actual facts are registered in clear and ineffaceable lines so as to admit of no shadow of doubt. What though outsiders cannot ascertain reality, it is there, and it is only a question of time as to its being seen by others besides those now familiar with it. The secrecy of the guilty is only a play with an advantage for a short time. Men charged with public crimes, and men who live in sin against God, know that there is no mistake in the incidence of guilt. They possess exclusive knowledge, perhaps, but there is no consolation in that. Likewise those wrongly charged With complicity in evil are possessors of a secret knowledge which enables them to see that the permanent moral order is on their side, and that it is only a question of time, more or less, when their "righteousness shall be brought forth as the light," and their "judgment as the noonday.
II A SACRED CAUSE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEEDS OF ITS PROFESSED SUPPORTERS. A hasty judgment would conclude that, as Joab was a prominent supporter of the Davidic cause, it must bear the shame and guilt of his murderous deed; but the only warrant for that being a true view of the case would be that the general spirit of David"s administration favoured treachery, and that the master and servant were in secret collusion, neither of which suppositions can be for a moment entertained. Kings and their officers, masters and their servants, are to be held jointly responsible only when the service generates the wrong. As a fact, governments and employers do suffer temporary loss of prestige when those in positions of trust act out their own individual wickedness; but in due course men will distinguish the manifestation of the individual baseness from the public interests with which it was associated. The separation of these is important in many relationships of life. The divinely appointed kingdom and just rule of David must not be confounded with Joab"s malice. The government of a country should not bear the guilt of men whose position enables them to violate moral laws with impunity. Private vice is not one with public crime. The evil deeds and imperfect character of men whose names are in the records of revelation must not be charged on the revelation of God or his method of educating the world for something better. The foul deeds done during the dark days of the Church"s life by some of the leaders of Christianity are not to be ascribed to the holy cause with which they were identified. The personal vices of professors of religion do not really compromise Christ. In all these cases it is the Joab spirit, and not the spirit of the king, which expresses itself, and it is condemned by the very cause in the interests of which it may at first seem to be manifested. Christ"s kingdom is one of unchangeable righteousness and love, in spite of all the injustice and hate of men bearing the blessed Name.
III WHEN OCCASION OFFERS, DEEDS ALIEN TO THE SPIRIT OF A GOOD CAUSE SHOULD BE DISTINCTLY REPUDIATED. As a matter of duty and policy, David felt bound to take an early opportunity of repudiating any association, either in spirit or action, with the crime of Joab. It was due to himself as an individual and as prospective king of a united Israel, and to that better system of government which on the death of Saul he was called to inaugurate. Suspicions cannot be prevented, the odium of connection with a wrong doer cannot but arise, malicious foes will be sure to turn every possible event to his detriment; but as soon as the ear of the nation can be reached self-vindication becomes imperative. It is a question of opportunity. Sometimes good men may have to pass years "under a cloud," and even go down to the grave trusting only to the vindication of the just in the day of judgment. David escaped that sorrow. His declaration, his daring to denounce so powerful a man, the severity of his curse on the evil doer, the evident sincerity of his sorrow for Abner, and the suspension of public duties for an elaborate funeral ceremonial, all made known as distinctly as possible how alien was the spirit of his life and government from the cruel treachery of Joab. The same course is open to us when individually our fair fame may be compromised by others. Modem governments often have to disown deeds of their officials. Our Lord himself has laid down principles in the New Testament by which he may in all ages have wherewith to repudiate the evil deeds and spirit of some of his professed friends; and in course of history, when danger arises of confounding his holy kingdom with vile actions, his providence brings out the true spirit inculcated in sharp contrast with the evil. As occasion offers, we in our age should be careful to let men see that he is not responsible for the abuses which have sprung out of the imperfections of some of his servants. Never did the world more need to see clearly Christ and his kingdom as they are in contrast with much that is done and maintained in his Name.
IV TIME FAVOURS THE RIGHT ASSIGNMENT OF GUILT. If any were disposed to doubt the sincerity of David"s disclaimer and there are such suspicious, unfriendly men in every age he could afford to wait. The true interpreter of our actions in the past is to be found in the tenor of our life. The years to come would reveal the true David and the true Joab. The pure feeling that prompted this quick repudiation would reappear in a life of kindliness and generosity and justice, and every good deed and generous sentiment would only make more clear his freedom from complicity in this crime; and, on the other hand, the hard, stern, vindictive feeling which continued to hold and fashion the life of Joab would only render more clear and emphatic the judgment against him. So of much past Church history; time will only tend to bring out more distinctly the separation between Christianity, as it is in Christ and his teaching, and those actions and feelings which too often were identified with his service. Individual deserts also will become manifest, however obscure the facts may be to present observers. The future is against the wicked and on the side of the just. Evil men may well dread the coming of the day when the hidden things of darkness shall be made manifest, when the exact incidence of guilt will be seen; good men, those who have made their peace with God and have received the Spirit of the kingdom, may lift up their heads in confidence in prospect of that same great day.
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. It adds to the guilt of a man when, knowing that he is solely responsiblefor certain deeds, he allows others with whom he has been associated to fall under suspicion. Joab ought to have voluntarily cleared David.
2. Good men unavoidably under suspicion may find consolation in thatsome of the best Joseph, David, and even the best, Christ (Luk_23:2; Joh_19:12) were suspected of wrong.
3. Although the "peace of God" is the heritage of the just as a personalboon, yet it is due to the cause dear to their hearts to seek self-vindication, as in the case of David and Paul, and this will be the chief motive for a disclaimer.
4. It behoves Christian people especially to exercise a very calm and sober judgment when any one known as a servant of Christ is accused of or imagined to be in complicity with evil transactions.
5. The general character of a man under suspicion ought to give greatweight to any disclaimer he may make, and be to us a set off against all prima facie evidence.
Deferred punishment.
It is natural to ask If Joab"s crime was so base, and David"s repudiation of complicity with it so emphatic, why was he not punished as an offender against morality and the principles of the new administration? The answer is nigh at hand. David was averse to signalize the establishment of his supremacy over all the tribes of Israel by the shedding of blood, and a less punishment than death in those times would have been misinterpreted to his injury. His cause at that juncture was in a critical position, and to have cleared off so competent and influential a man would have been perilous. Moreover, the execution of Joab would have tallied best with complicity in his guilt; the sparing of his life and abiding the issue of events was most favourable to the establishment of his own innocence. But most of all he was desirous of leaving the judgment in the hands of God, having in most scathing language stated his own sense of the evil desert of the man (ver. 29). Herein we may trace analogies.
I THE PRESENT STAGE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE IMMEDIATE PUNISHMENT OF ALL SIN. Many a modern Joab does not at once suffer for his sin as conscience and public opinion would demand. There are vile deeds performed, horrible.vices indulged, characters and fortunes ruined, and widespread miseries induced, by persons whose actions are not discovered, or, if discovered, are such as civil authority does not touch. The common judgment of men is that severe punishment is due to such, but it comes not in their life. The betrayer of purity, the licentious liver who hides his vices, the forger who escapes discovery, are but instances of many. They seem to escape any open and public infliction of punishment, and carry no more on their conscience than Joab did on his, which would be little, just in proportion as it was debased. The solution of this apparent anomaly is really to be found in the consideration that the government of God extends over an area wider than this present life, and that for profound reasons, not all revealed, it is not best for judgment to fall all at once and at the time of the committal or even discovery of the sin. Bishop Butler has dwelt on this aspect of the Divine government with great wisdom and sobriety of judgment. With God a thousand years are as one day. His methods of ruling men here evidently proceed on the fact that there is a future and a great day of account, when men shall receive according to the deeds done in the body.
II ALTHOUGH PUNISHMENT IS DEFERRED, THE PERPETRATORS OF EVIL ARE UNDER THE PERSONAL DISPLEASURE OF GOD. David"s mind was averse to Joab. He cherished distrust and displeasure toward him. He had scope for action, and possibly for true repentance, but in his monarch"s estimation he was a base and condemned man. No easy, jaunty spirit on the part of Joab could alter this serious fact. There existed in the mind of his king the condition of feeling which was prophetic of a doom one day to be actualized. In like manner "God is angry with the wicked every day." Those who seem to escape present punishment are already condemned in the sure, infallible judgment of God. Merciful and pitiful as he is, and not willing that any should perish, he cannot but regard their secret sins with abhorrence, and see in them, unless they repent and seek newness of life and forgiveness in Christ, a debased form of humanity gradually maturing to receive into themselves the wrath treasured up against the day of wrath. (Rom_2:4-6) The prosperous wicked seldom reflect on how the Holiest and Wisest of all looks on them. Men great and esteemed in the world are often despised by God because he knows what their true character is.
III THE MIND OF GOD IS REVEALED TO HIS SERVANTS AS TO THE DESERT OF THE WICKED, AND SOME INTIMATION IS GIVEN OF WHAT WILL COME UPON THEM. The imprecation (ver. 29) of David the king was his way of revealing to all offended by the crime of Joab his sense of desert; and, considering how a distinguished posterity was regarded in the East as the crowning good of a long life, and how evidently ambitious Joab was to figure in history, it was not easy for the king to select terms more indicative of a terrible punishment. The utterance was not that of vindictiveness or malice, but of a mind anxious to show its sense of the desert of the evil doer; and no doubt it intimated his belief that some such terrible issue would in the course of providence be the reward of the crime. This is analogous to what God has been pleased to do. To remove the fears and perplexities arising from the fact that sin is often long unpunished in this world, he has distinctly made known how he regards it, what terrible issues will come of it, and how just is the outcome of all crime on the perpetrator. The words of David concerning Joab"s desert are mild compared with those of Christ and his apostles concerning the desert of those who deliberately reject Christ, pierce him with their sins, and trample on the blood of the everlasting covenant (Mat_11:20-24; Heb_10:26-31)
IV MEANTIME, GOD DOES MANIFEST MUCH SYMPATHY WITH THOSE WHO SUFFER FROM WRONG DOING. David"s lament over Abner as one noble in position and in some aspects of character, and yet brought to a premature end as though he were a mean, weak, and inferior person; his taking upon his own heart the anguish which he knew must afflict multitudes; his abstention from food and present comforts because of the common calamity; his revulsion of feeling from the "men too hard" for him; and his use of authority for securing for Abner the highest funeral honours; all this, so natural and beautiful in Israel"s king, so soothing to the hearts of the troubled people, is strikingly suggestive of the wonderful way in which God, while denouncing sin and foretelling its punishment, manifests his sympathy with a world afflicted with the deeds of evil doers. This is largely the meaning of our Saviour"s life among men. This is one element which enters even into the great transaction on Calvary. This is the explanation of the manifold ministries of comfort and encouragement raised up by the Head of the Church for the relief of those who are bowed down, and the mitigation of many of the calamities which come in consequence of the sins of others.
V WHILE PROVIDING THUS FOR THE DUE PUNISHMENT OF SIN AND THE MITIGATION OF THE CALAMITIES IT ENTAILS, GOD ALSO EXERCISES A RESTRAINING POWER OVER EVIL TENDENCIES. The continued presence of David, asserting his rightful authority and infusing his own generous spirit into the administration of affairs, could not but have the effect of lessening the influence of Joab and setting a limit to the range of evil he otherwise might do. The king was among his people for their good and the restraint of one who, in spirit, was their calamity. Here, again, do we not get a glimpse of what is true in the spiritual sphere? God does not leave evil men entirely unrestrained to carry out their designs and to afflict the world with their base spirit. As responsible beings, they have their freedom to act for a while, but he "restrains the wrath of man;" he is present in our human affairs, checking and controlling so that other influences less powerful in appearance shall be brought to bear and find full and free scope. It is never to be forgotten that, though there are Joabs amongst us, "hard" in spirit and cruel of purpose, and bearing on their conscience the blood of others, there is amongst us the eternal King, whose love, generous sympathy, and determination to care for the faithful never fail.
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. It is characteristic of a just man that, free from personal ill-will, he willhave faith in the retribution of wrong doing, and will even forecast and acquiesce in its form.
2. A righteous indignation will induce a denunciation of men in power inspite of any resentment that may arise.
3. The guilty conscience is so cowardly that righteous denunciation mayeven increase the moral power of the just over the unjust man.
4. It is important to cherish strong faith in God"s methods of government ifwe would be calm and strong in assertion of right and awaiting a proper adjustment of rewards.
5. It will be a matter of sincere grief to a generous mind to see men ofgreat abilities come to an ignoble end, even though in the past those abilities have not been used in the desired direction allowance being made for the strong temptations to which such men are liable.
6. A manifestation of sympathy with the sorrows of a people, and an effortto draw out their more tender feelings, is a sure way to the exercise of a moral influence more potent than the assertion of authority.
7. A man proves his capacity for ruling others when, without sacrifice ofprinciple, he can by generous sentiments win their good will and awaken a prevailing kindly sentiment towards himself.
Vers. 22-30. (HEBRON.)
The vengeance of Joab.
References:
(1) Early life; (1Sa_22:1)
(2) conflict with Abner; (2Sa_2:13, 2Sa_2:24, 2Sa_2:30)
(3) capture of the stronghold of Zion; (1Ch_11:6)
(4) captain of the host; (2Sa_8:16 2Sa_20:23)
(5) conflicts with the Ammonites and Syrians; (2Sa_10:7)
(6) reduction of the Edomites; (1Ki_11:15, 1Ki_11:16)
(7) complicity in the murder of Uriah; (2Sa_11:14)
(8) capture of Rabbah; (2Sa_11:1 2Sa_12:26)
(9) relations with Absalom; (2Sa_14:1, 2Sa_14:29)
(10) defeat and murder of Absalom; (2Sa_18:2, 2Sa_18:14)
(11) upbraiding the king; (2Sa_19:5)
(12) replaced by Amasa; (2Sa_20:4)
(13) murder of Amasa; (2Sa_20:10)
(14) defeat of Sheba; (2Sa_20:22)
(15) remonstrance with David; (2Sa_24:3)
(16) defection to Adonijah; (1Ki_1:7)
(17) denounced by David; (1Ki_2:5)
(18) put to death by Benaiah at the command of Solomon. (1Ki_2:28, 1Ki_2:34)
1. Among those who played a prominent part in David"s reign the foremost man was his nephew Joab. He was possessed of great physical strength and daring, clear judgment and strong will, eminent military skill, and immense power over others; "a bold captain in bad times." With the ruder qualities of activity, courage, and implacable revenge, "he combined something of a more statesmanlike character, which brings him more nearly to a level with his youthful uncle; and unquestionably gives him the second place in the whole history of David"s reign. In consequence of his successful attempt at the siege of Jebus, he became commander-in-chief, the highest office in the state after the king. In this post he was content, and served the king with undeviating fidelity. In the wide range of wars which David undertook, Joab was the acting general, and he therefore may be considered as the founder, as far as military prowess was concerned, the Marlborough, the Belisarius, of the Jewish empire" (Stanley). His patriotism was unquestionable; nor was he without piety. (2Sa_10:12)
2. His natural gifts, good qualities, and invaluable services were more thancounterbalanced by his moral defects and numerous vices. "He ever appears wily, politic, and uuscrupulous" ("Speaker"s Commentary"). "He is the impersonation of worldly policy, secular expediency, and temporal ambition, eager for his own personal aggrandizement, and especially for the maintenance of his own political ascendency, and practising on the weaknesses of princes for his own interests; but at last the victim of his own Machiavellian shrewdness" (Wordsworth).
3. "Joab was a type of the national aspect of Judaism. He was intensely Jewish, in the tribal meaning of the word, not in its higher, world wide bearing; only Judaean in everything that outwardly marked Judaism, though not regarded in its inward and spiritual reality. Nor is it without deep symbolical meaning, as we have the higher teaching of history, that Joab, the typical Eastern Judaean may we not say, the type of Israel after the flesh? should, in carrying out his own purposes and views, have at last compassed his own destruction" (Edersheim).
I EVIL DEEDS ARE SELDOM WROUGHT WITHOUT PLAUSIBLE PRETEXTS. It is uncertain whether Joab was aware of former negotiations between David and Abner; but on returning to Hebron from a military expedition (against marauding troops, ch. 4:2), being informed of the league that had just been made, his suspicion was aroused; he hastened to the king with the view of inducing him to share it, probably believing that Abner was not to be trusted; and finding the result doubtful or contrary to his expectation, resolved to take the matter into his own hands, on the ground of:
1. Guilt incurred by a public enemy.
2. Zeal inspired for the king"s safety (ver. 25).
3. Obligation imposed by personal injury, according to the custom of blood revenge (Exo_21:13; Nu 35; Deu_19:1-13) This is twice mentioned by the historian (vers. 27, 30) as the ostensible ground, and was perhaps popularly regarded as a sufficient justification of his deed. "The act of Abner was justifiable homicide; but it was precisely to such cases that the rule applied, not to those of murder, against the penalties of which no sanctuary afforded protection. Besides, unless the right of avengement for blood did apply to such cases as this, whence the deep necessity of Abner to avoid slaying Asahel? (2Sa_2:22) It may be admitted that a case of this nature may have involved some doubt as to the application of the rule to it, and very likely it was not in such cases often enforced. But where any room for doubt existed, Joab and Abishai might interpret it in their own favour as their justification for an act the true motives of which durst not be alleged, and as a ground, on which they might claim exemption from the punishment due to murder (Kitto, "Daily Bible Illus.").
II PLAUSIBLE PRETEXTS OFTEN COVER THE BASEST MOTIVES, though they cannot entirely conceal them.
1. Vindictiveness. Joab"s act, even if it fell within the letter of the Law, which allowed punishment for homicide under certain circumstances, (Num_35:22) was shown, by the place, the time, and the manner of it, to have been done, not from regard for justice, but from deliberate, unwarrantable, malicious revenge. So David regarded it (ver. 28); denouncing it as the "shedding of the blood of war in peace", (1Ki_2:5) and joining it with the murder of Amasa.
2. Jealousy and ambition. (1Sa_18:6-16) This was his main motive. He was "afraid of losing his command of the army and his dignity with the king, and lest he should be deprived of those advantages and Abner should obtain the first rank in David"s court" (Josephus). Hence his suspicion and slander of Abner (ver. 25). "Through envy of the devil came death into the world" (Wisd. of Son 2:24).
Envy at others" good is evermore Malignant poison setting on the soul; A double woe to him infected by it Of inward pain the heavy load he bears, At sight of joy without he ever mourns. (AEschylus.)
3. Presumption. He rudely remonstrated with the king (ver. 24), presuming upon his position; and afterwards, without the king"s authority, whilst seeming to act under it, recalled the man who had been sent away under the king"s protection; and gratified his private revenge, regardless of the effect of his conduct on the king"s dignity and reputation.
4. Treachery. Under the pretence of speaking with him in a friendly and confidential manner, he drew his victim aside in the middle of the gate, and smote him there. Possibly Abishai alone was witness of the act. "Cursed be he that smiteth his neighbour secretly. And all the people shall say, Amen". (Deu_27:24)
III IMPUNITY IN CRIME IS COMMONLY PRODUCTIVE OF DISASTROUS EFFECTS. Under the circumstances, it would hardly have been possible for David to punish Joab and Abishai. "Probably public feeling would not have supported the king, nor could he, at this crisis of his affairs, have afforded the loss of such generals, or brave the people and the army" (Edersheim). Great men often owe their exemption from punishment to their position. But crime, although unpunished by man:
1. Incurs the righteous displeasure of God. (Vers. 29, 39.) Human punishment does not and cannot always accord with the Divine. Although David could not punish, he durst not forgive. His words "express his moral horror at this evil deed, and at the same time the everlasting law of God"s recruiting justice." "The extension of the curse to the descendants clearly refers to the threatenings of the Law; and in both cases the offensive character disappears if we only remember that whoever by true repentance freed himself from connection with the guilt, was also exempted from participation in the punishment" (Hengstenberg).
2. Incites other men to similar crimes. It is not improbable that Baanah and Rechab were induced to assassinate Ishbosheth (2Sa_4:6) by the unavenged death of Abner.
3. Encourages the criminal to continue his evil course, increases his obduracy, and causes him to "wax worse and worse." "Joab prospered even after his sin. God gave him time for repentance. But he hardened his heart by sin. And in the end he was cut off. Successful crime is splendid misery.
4. Escapes not forever the retribution which it deserves. "Evil pursueth sinners". (Pro_13:21 Pro_29:1) Joab sinned with a strong and violent hand, and by a strong and violent hand he at length perished (1 Kings. (Psa_58:11)
O Blind lust! O foolish wrath! who so dost goad us on In the brief life, and in the eternal then Thus miserably overwhelm us! (Dante, "Purg.," 12.)
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain 2Sa_3:22-39; 2Sa_4:1-12
CHAPTER V.
ASSASSINATION OF ABNER AND ISHBOSHETH.
Read full note →
2Sa_3:22-39; 2Sa_4:1-12
IT is quite possible that, in treating with Abner, David showed too complacent a temper, that he treated too lightly his appearance in arms against him at the pool of Gibeon, and that he neglected to demand an apology for the death of Asahel. Certainly it would have been wise had some measures been taken to soothe the ruffled temper of Joab and reconcile him to the new arrangement This, however, was not done. David was so happy in the thought that the civil war was to cease, and that all Israel were about to recognize him as their king, that he would not go back on the past, or make reprisals even for the death of Asahel. He was willing to let bygones be bygones. Perhaps, too, he thought that if Asahel met his death at the hand of Abner, it was his own rashness that was to blame for it. Anyhow he was greatly impressed with the value of Abner's service on his behalf, and much interested in the project to which he was now going forth - gathering all Israel to the king, to make a league with him and bind themselves to his allegiance.
In these measures Joab had not been consulted. When Abner was at Hebron, Joab was absent on a military enterprise. In that enterprise he had been very successful, and he was able to appear at Hebron with the most popular evidence of success that a general could bring - a large amount of spoil. No doubt Joab was elated with his success, and was in that very temper when a man is most disposed to resent his being overlooked and to take more upon him than is meet. When he heard of David's agreement with Abner, he was highly displeased. First he went to the king, and scolded him for his simplicity in believing Abner. It was but a stratagem of Abner's to allow him to come to Hebron, ascertain the state of David's affairs, and take his own steps more effectively in the interest of his opponent. Suspicion reigned in Joab's heart; the generosity of David's nature was not only not shared by him, but seemed silliness itself. His rudeness to David is highly offensive. He speaks to him in the tone of a master to a servant, or in the tone of those servants who rule their master. "What hast thou done? Behold, Abner came unto thee; why is it that thou hast sent him away, and he is quite gone? Thou knowest Abner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee, and to know thy going out and thy coming in, and to know all that thou doest." David is spoken to like one guilty of inexcusable folly, as if he were accountable to Joab, and not Joab to him. Of the king's answer to Joab, nothing is recorded; but from David's confession (2Sa_3:39) that the sons of Zeruiah were too strong for him, we may infer that it was not very firm or decided, and that Joab set it utterly at nought. For the very first thing that Joab did after seeing the king was to send a message to Abner, most likely in David's name, but without David's knowledge, asking him to return. Joab was at the gate ready for his treacherous business, and taking Abner aside as if for private conversation, he plunged his dagger in his breast, ostensibly in revenge for the death of his brother Asahel. There was something eminently mean and dastardly in the deed. Abner was now on the best of terms with Joab's master, and he could not have apprehended danger from the servant. If assassination be mean among civilians, it is eminently mean among soldiers. The laws of hospitality were outraged when one who had just been David's guest was assassinated in David's city. The outrage was all the greater, as was also the injury to King David and to the whole kingdom, that the crime was committed when Abner was on the eve of an important and delicate negotiation with the other tribes of Israel, since the arrangement which he hoped to bring about was likely to be broken off by the news of his shameful death. At no moment are the feelings of men less to be trifled with than when, after long and fierce alienation, they are on the point of coming together. Abner had brought the tribes of Israel to that point, but now, like a flock of birds frightened by a shot, they were certain to fly asunder. All this danger Joab set at nought, the one thought of taking revenge for the death of his brother absorbing every other, and making him, like so many other men when excited by a guilty passion, utterly regardless of every consequence provided only his revenge was satisfied.
How did David act toward Joab? Most kings would at once have put him to death, and David's subsequent action towards the murderers of Ishbosheth shows that, even in his judgment, this would have been the proper retribution on Joab for his bloody deed. But David did not feel himself strong enough to deal with Joab according to his deserts. It might have been better for him during the rest of his life if he had acted with more vigour now. But instead of making an example of Joab, he contented himself with pouring out on him a vial of indignation, publicly washing his hands of the nefarious transaction, and pronouncing on its author and his family a terrible malediction. We cannot but shrink from the way in which David brought in Joab's family to share his curse; "Let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff, or that falleth on the sword, or that lacketh bread." Yet we must remember that according to the sentiment of those times a man and his house were so identified that the punishment due to the head was regarded as due to the whole. In our day we see a law in constant operation which visits iniquities of the parents upon the children with a terrible retribution. The drunkard's children are woeful sufferers for their parent's sin; the family of the felon carries a stigma forever. We recognize this as a law of Providence; but we do not act on it ourselves in inflicting punishment. In David's time, however, and throughout the whole Old Testament period, punishments due to the fathers were formally shared by their families. When Joshua sentenced Achan to die for his crime in stealing from the spoils of Jericho a wedge of gold and a Babylonish garment, his wife and children were put to death along with him. In denouncing the curse on Joab's family as well as himself, David therefore only recognized a law which was universally acted on in his day. The law may have been a hard one, but we are not to blame David for acting on a principle of retribution universally acknowledged. We are to remember, too, that David was now acting in a public capacity, and as the chief magistrate of the nation. If he had put Joab to death, his act would have involved his family in many a woe; in denouncing his deeds and calling for retribution on them generation after generation, he only carried out the same principle a little further. That Joab deserved to die for his dastardly crime, none could have denied; if David abstained from inflicting that punishment, it was only natural that he should be very emphatic in proclaiming what such a criminal might look for, in never-failing visitations on himself and his seed, when he was left to be dealt with by the God of justice.
Having thus disposed of Joab, David had next to dispose of the dead body of Abner. He determined that every circumstance connected with Abner's funeral should manifest the sincerity of his grief at his untimely end. In the first place, he caused him to be buried at Hebron. We know of the tomb at Hebron where the bodies of the patriarchs lay; if it was at all legitimate to place others in that grave, we may believe that a place in it was found for Abner. In the second place, the mourning company attended the funeral with rent clothes and girdings of sackcloth, while the king himself followed the bier, and at the grave both king and people gave way to a burst of tears. In the third place, the king pronounced an elegy over him, short, but expressive of his sense of the unworthy death which had come to such a man:
"Should Abner die as a fool dieth?
Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters;
As a man falleth before the children of iniquity, so didst thou fall."
Had he died the death of one taken in battle, his bound hands and his feet in fetters would have denoted that after honourable conflict he had been defeated in the field, and that he died the death due to a public enemy. Instead of this, he had fallen before the children of iniquity, before men mean enough to betray him and murder him, while he was under the protection of the king. In the fourth place, he sternly refused to eat bread till that day, so full of darkness and infamy, should have passed away. The public manifestations of David's grief showed very clearly how far he was from approving of the death of Abner. And they had the desired effect. The people were pleased with the evidence afforded of David's feelings, and the event that had seemed likely to destroy his prospects turned out in this way in his favour. "The people took notice of this, and it pleased them, as whatsoever the king did pleased all the people." It was another evidence of the conquering power of goodness and forbearance. By his generous treatment of his foes, David secured a position in the hearts of his people, and established his kingdom on a basis of security which he could not have obtained by any amount of severity. For ages and ages, the two methods of dealing with a reluctant people, generosity and severity, have been pitted against each other, and always with the effect that severity fails and generosity succeeds. There were many who were indignant at the clemency shown by Lord Canning after the Indian mutiny. They would have had him inspire terror by acts of awful severity. But the peaceful career of our Indian empire and the absence of any attempt to renew the insurrection since that time show that the policy of clemency was the policy of wisdom and of success.
Still another step was taken by David that shows how painfully he was impressed by the death of Abner. To "his servants" - that is, his cabinet or his staff - he said in confidence; "Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel?" He recognized in Abner one of those men of consummate ability who are born to rule, or at least to render the highest service to the actual ruler of a country by their great influence over men. It seems very probable that he looked to him as his own chief officer for the future. Rebel though he had been, he seemed quite cured of his rebellion, and now that he cordially acknowledged David's right to the throne, he would probably have been his right-hand man. Abner, Saul's cousin, was probably a much older man than Joab, who was David's nephew, and who could not have been much older than David himself. The loss of Abner was a great personal loss especially as it threw him more into the hands of these sons of Zeruiah, Joab and Abishai, whose impetuous, lordly temper was too much for him. to restrain. The representation to his confidential servants, "I am weak, and these men, the sons of Zeruiah, are too strong for me," was an appeal to them for cordial help in the affairs of the kingdom, in order that Joab and his brother might not be able to carry everything their own way. David, like many another man, needed to say, Save me from my friends. We get a vivid glimpse of the perplexities of kings, and of the compensations of a humbler lot. Men in high places, worried by the difficulties of managing their affairs and servants, and by the endless annoyances to which their jealousies and their self-will give rise, may find much to envy in the simple, unembarrassed life of the humblest of the people.
From the assassination of Abner, the real source of the opposition that had been raised to David, the narrative proceeds to the assassination of Ishbosheth, the titular king. "When Saul's son heard that Abner was dead in Hebron, his hands were feeble, and all the Israelites were troubled." The contrast is striking between his conduct under difficulty and that of David. In the history of the latter, faith often faltered in times of trouble, and the spirit of distrust found a footing in his soul. But these occasions occurred in the course of protracted and terrible struggles; they were exceptions to his usual bearing; faith commonly bore him up in his darkest trials. Ishbosheth, on the other hand, seems to have had no resource, no sustaining power whatever, under visible reverses. David's slips were like the temporary falling back of the gallant soldier when surprised by a sudden onslaught, or when, fagged and weary, he is driven back by superior numbers; but as soon as he has recovered himself, he dashes back undaunted to the conflict. Ishbosheth was like the soldier who throws down his arms and rushes from the field as soon as he feels the bitter storm of battle. With all his falls, there was something in David that showed him to be cast in a different mould from ordinary men. He was habitually aiming at a higher standard, and upheld by the consciousness of a higher strength; he was ever and anon resorting to "the secret place of the Most High," taking hold of Him as his covenant God, and labouring to draw down from Him the inspiration and the strength of a nobler life than that of the mass of the children of men.
The godless course which Ishbosheth had followed in setting up a claim to the throne in opposition to the Divine call of David not only lost him the distinction he coveted, but cost him his life. He made himself a mark for treacherous and heartless men; and one day, while lying in his bed at noon, was dispatched by two of his servants. The two men that murdered him seem to have been among those whom Saul enriched with the spoil of the Gibeonites. They were brothers, men of Beeroth, which was formerly one of the cities of the Gibeonites, but was now reckoned to Benjamin.
Saul appears to have attacked the Beerothites, and given their property to his favourites (comp. 1Sa_22:7 and 2Sa_21:2). A curse went with the transaction; Ishbosheth, one of Saul's sons, was murdered by two of those who were enriched by the unhallowed deed; and many years after, his bloody house had to yield up seven of his sons to justice, when a great famine showed that for this crime wrath rested on the land.
The murderers of Ishbosheth, Baanah and Rechab, mistaking the character of David as much as it had been mistaken by the Amalekite who pretended that he had slain Saul, hastened to Hebron, bearing with them the head of their victim, a ghastly evidence of the reality of the deed. This revolting trophy they carried all the way from Mahanaim to Hebron, a distance of some fifty miles. Mean and selfish themselves, they thought other men must be the same. They were among those poor creatures who are unable to rise above their own poor level in their conceptions of others. When they presented themselves before David, he showed all his former superiority to selfish, jealous feelings. He was roused indeed to the highest pitch of indignation. We can hardly conceive the astonishment and horror with which they would receive his answer, "As the Lord liveth, who hath redeemed my soul out of all adversity, when one told me saying. Behold, Saul is dead, thinking to have brought good tidings, I took hold on him and slew him in Ziklag, who thought that I would have given him a reward for his tidings. How much more when wicked men have slain a righteous person in his own house upon his bed! Shall I not therefore require his blood at your hand, and take you away from the earth?" Simple death was not judged a severe enough punishment for such guilt; as they had cut off the head of Ishbosheth after killing him, so after they were slain their hands and their feet were cut off; and thereafter they were hanged over the pool in Hebron - a token of the execration in which the crime was held. Here was another evidence that deeds of violence done to his rivals, so far from finding acceptance, were detestable in the eyes of David. And here was another fulfillment of the resolution which he had made when he took possession of the throne - "I will early destroy all the wicked of the land, that I may cut off all wicked doers from the city of the Lord."
These rapid, instantaneous executions by order of David have raised painful feelings in many. Granting that the retribution was justly deserved, and granting that the rapidity of the punishment was in accord with military law, ancient and modern, and that it was necessary in order to make a due impression on the people, still it may be asked. How could David, as a pious man, hurry these sinners into the presence of their Judge without giving them any exhortation to repentance or leaving them a moment in which to ask for mercy? The question is undoubtedly a difficult one. But the difficulty arises in a great degree from our ascribing to David and others the same knowledge of the future state and the same vivid impressions regarding it that we have ourselves. We often forget that to those who lived in the Old Testament the future life was wrapped in far greater obscurity than it is to us. That good men had no knowledge of it, we cannot allow; but certainly they knew vastly less about it than has been revealed to us. And the general effect of this was that the consciousness of a future life was much fainter even among good men then than now. They did not think about it; it was not present to their thoughts. There is no use trying to make David either a wiser or a better man than he was. There is no use trying to place him high above the level or the light of his age. If it be asked, How did David feel with reference to the future life of these men? the answer is, that probably it was not much, if at all, in his thoughts. That which was prominent in his thoughts was that they had sacrificed their lives by their atrocious wickedness, and the sooner they were punished the better. If he thought of their future, he would feel that they were in the hands of God, and that they would be judged by Him according to the tenor of their lives. It cannot be said that compassion for them mingled with David's feelings. The one prominent feeling he had was that of their guilt; for that they must suffer. And David, like other soldiers who have shed much blood, was so accustomed to the sight of violent death, that the horror which it usually excites was no longer familiar to him.
It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ that has brought life and immortality to light. So far from the future life being a dim and shadowy revelation, it is now one of the clearest doctrines of the faith. It is one of the doctrines which every earnest preacher of the Gospel is profoundly earnest in dwelling on. That death ushers us into the presence of God, that after death Cometh the judgment, that every one of us is to give account of himself to God, that the final condition of men is to be one of misery or one of life, are among the clearest revelations of the Gospel. And this fact invests every man's death with profound significance in the Christian's view. That the condemned criminal may have time to prepare, our courts of law invariably interpose an interval between the sentence and the punishment. Would only that men were more consistent here! If we shudder at the thought of a dying sinner appearing in all the blackness of his guilt before God, let us think more how we may turn sinners from their wickedness while they live. Let us see the atrocious guilt of encouraging them in ways of sin that cannot but bring on them the retribution of a righteous God. O ye who, careless yourselves, laugh at the serious impressions and scruples of others; ye who teach those that would otherwise do better to drink and gamble and especially to scoff; ye who do your best to frustrate the prayers of tender-hearted fathers and mothers whose deepest desire is that their children may be saved; ye, in one word, who are missionaries of the devil and help to people hell - would that you pondered your awful guilt! For "whosoever shall cause any of the least of these to offend, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the depths of the sea."
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 2Sa_3:22. “Joab came from pursuing,” etc. “Whither, it is…
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES—
2Sa_3:22. “Joab came from pursuing,” etc. “Whither, it is not said, but probably outside the Israelitish territory near the tribe of Judah. In the incomplete organisation of David’s court such expeditions were necessary for the support of the large army.… Probably Abner had purposely chosen the time when Joab with the army was absent to carry out his plan.” (Erdmann.)
Read full note →
2Sa_3:24-25. Joab may have spoken what he believed to be the truth concerning Abner, or he was prompted by a fear that the older and more renowned general would take his place at the head of David’s army.
2Sa_3:26. “The Well of Sirah.” According to Josephus, only about two and a half English miles from Hebron.
2Sa_3:27. “When Abner was returned.” Joab probably used David’s name to recall him. “Abner’s conduct bespeaks his entire reliance upon David’s good faith.” (Biblical Commentary.)
2Sa_3:27. “In the gate.” Literally “to the middle of the gate.” It was no doubt roofed, and “Joab drew Abner to the middle of the inner gate space because it was not so light there, and one could better escape the notice of the passers-by.” (Erdmann.) “For the blood of Asahel.” This was no doubt the plea which Joab used; but Abner had slain Asahel in battle and in self-defence, and Josephus and most commentators ascribe the murder to jealousy.
2Sa_3:29. “Let it rest.” Literally, turn, or be hurled. “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.” (Erdmann.) “Hath an issue” “One that pines away miserably with seminal or mucous flow. Compare Lev_15:2.” (Erdmann.) “That leaneth on a staff.” This last word means a distaff, and many scholars take this phrase to designate an effeminate or weakly person. “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.” (Bottcher.) In favour of this reading, Erdmann remarks that one that holds a staff is not necessarily a cripple, since the staff was held by rulers, by old men, by travellers, and by shepherds (Jdg_5:14; Num_21:18; Zec_8:4; Luk_6:3; Mic_7:14, etc.), and that where a cripple is described with a staff the expression is different (Exo_21:19.) However, Gesenius, Ewald, Phillippson, Keil, and others render the word crutch or staff. Ancient Jewish writers regard this imprecation of David’s as sinful.
2Sa_3:31. “Before Abner.” In the presence of his corpse. They were to take part in the funeral procession.
2Sa_3:33. “A fool.” A nabal, or worthless man.
2Sa_3:34. “Thy hands were not bound.” This means, either “Thou hadst not made thyself guilty of any crime, so as to die like a malefactor, in chains and bonds” (Keil), or, “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.” (Erdmann.)
2Sa_3:35. “To eat meat.” “It is uncertain whether David was to eat with the people (cf. 2Sa_12:17), i.e., to take part in the funeral meal that was held after the burial, or whether the people simply urged him to take some food for the purpose of soothing his own sorrow.” (Keil.)
2Sa_3:38. “A prince,” etc. A prince by reason of his position—a great man because of his intellectual endowments.
2Sa_3:39. “Weak, though anointed.” Most commentators understand David to mean that he was too weak—too lately come into power—to be able to visit upon Joab and his brother the just reward of their crime, but Erdmann objects to this view—
(1). Because it would have been very unwise to acknowledge his fear before such men; and
(2). Because it would have been untrue, for he who had conquered Abner, and who had the people on his side, must have possessed the power to punish Joab. He understands the first adjective to signify soft, and hard to apply, not to the contrast between himself and the sons of Zeruiah as to political situation but as to disposition. While he, though a king, is absorbed in grief, they are unmoved and indifferent.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—2Sa_3:22-39
THE MURDER OF ABNER
I. Unprincipled men judge others by themselves. A man looking in a glass sees a reflection of himself—not perhaps of the man he ought to be or might have been, but exactly what he is. So a bad man is apt to think, when he looks upon his brother, that he is but a reflection of himself in character, that his motives, and hopes, and intentions are the same as his own. Not being accustomed himself to act from principle, but in all things to put his own supposed interest in the foremost place, he thinks every other man must do the same. This was the way in which Joab regarded Abner and his conduct. He knew that if he were in Abner’s place he should not hesitate to do what he now charged him with doing if he thought he should gain by it, and was, or pretended to be, far more suspicious of his honesty than David was. Or if he really believed that Abner was in earnest in his professions of loyalty to David, still judging him by his own standard, he looked forward to what would happen in the future. He knew that in the same circumstances he should endeavour to supplant all David’s old servants, and never rest till he attained to the highest honour the king could bestow. That would involve a decrease of his power—a prospect his ambitious spirit could not brook. Hence his anger and his revenge.
II. In God’s government of the world, one bad man is often the means of removing another. Neither God nor godlike creatures delight in destructive work—they love to build up rather than to destroy—to dispense reward rather than retribution. But as in the natural world the ground must be cleared of weeds if the corn is to have space to grow, so the power of evil men must be limited, and they sometimes removed from the earth, that the good may live and multiply. And this work of removal is often done by their own kind, and it is the only work for God that they can do. Wicked men cannot bring any positive blessing upon the world, but they can be used in this negative way to lessen the evil and make room for the work of the good. When the fire burns up the weeds and clears the ground for the sower, one destructive force in nature is used to destroy another, and when one bad man, in his self-seeking and passion, ends the career of another, he is the unconscious instrument in the hands of God of clearing the ground for the work of godly men. So was it with Joab in relation to Abner—both were godless, and consequently hindrances to the progress and happiness of the kingdom of God in Israel, and when one was permitted to fall by the sword of the other, one moral destroyer was used for the destruction of another that God’s servant might find the place and do the work allotted to him.
III. Although one man is thus the retribution of God to another, the responsibility of the deed rests upon himself. Every human action must be judged, not by its consequences, but by its character. Men have sometimes murdered one whom they rightly judged to be an enemy of their country; but even if the belief was correct, neither it nor the good consequences arising from the deed affected its morality. The belief may be right and the consequences may be according to the belief, but the end can never justify the use of means which are contrary to the command of God. Still less can the results of such an act as that of Joab’s justify the doer or lessen his guilt in the smallest degree. Joab was a murderer, although he was a sword of retribution in the hand of God. If he had slain Abner because he believed him to be a traitor to David and an enemy to God, the motives which actuated him could not have absolved him from blood-guiltiness. Still less can the fact of Abner’s guilt justify a deed done purely from motives of revenge and jealousy, although that deed brought just punishment to a bad man. The fact that God overrules men’s sin to further His purposes, does not do away with the sinfulness. (See also chapter 4)
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
2Sa_3:28-29. These words have often been regarded as an expression of exaggerated passion … but David here wishes nothing more than what the law predicts, and it can never be sinful to wish God to do what, in accordance with His will, He must do. The extension of the curse to the descendants clearly refers to the threatenings of the law; and in both cases the offensive character disappears, if we only remember that whoever by true repentance freed himself from connection with the guilt was also exempted from participation in the punishment.—Hengstenberg.
2Sa_3:38. This verse has been made the text of many sermons on the death of great men. We subjoin the outline of one. I. A man has fallen. I do not mean a mere male human individual, one whom the tailor rather than the mantua maker clothes,—a walking thing that wears a hat. I speak of that which God meant when He said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Marred sadly now by the concussion of that fearful fall, but capable of restoration through the cross, and justifying well, in the renewal of its fair proportions and its countenance erect, the sacred record, “God has made man upright”—a man that has a mind and uses it—a man that has a heart and yields to it—a man that shapes his circumstances—a man that cares not for himself … a man to make occasions—a man to meet emergencies—a man to dare not only but to bear.… II. A great man has fallen. A great man first must be a man, and then must find or make the occasion to be great. In every man that is a man there is, potentially, a great man.… III. A prince has fallen. A prince in place. The head, as the word simply means, of twenty millions of free people, so constituted and declared by their own choice and act. A prince in rank … a prince in power … a prince in quiet dignity—a prince in calm indomitable resolution—a prince in utter disregard of consequences, when the right is seen and done.… “Know ye not”—who does not know, who does not feel, who does not own that it is so?—Bishop Doane on the Death of President Taylor of the United States. 1850.
2Sa_3:39. David was weak, not so much because Joab was strong, as because he himself shrank from doing what he knew to be right in the case. 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. He is set to administer and execute the law without fear or favour; and whensoever he swerves from justice from either cause, he is a traitor at once to God and to the commonwealth. “Weak!” this is not to speak like a man, not to say a king.—Taylor.
It seems surprising that David, who was then in the flower of his age, and who had long been distinguished for his courage and skill as a military leader, should now decline into a subordinate position as a warrior, and that Joab should occupy the principal place in the wars of Israel and should exercise a dominant influence over David, so that the king was constrained to say this.… Was this unhappy condition a consequence of his polygamy? Was this multiplication of wives, contrary to God’s command, a cause of effeminacy and softness? Did it disqualify him for the hardness of the field, and afford an opportunity for such bold, ambitious, and insidious persons as Joab, who profited by his weakness and favoured it, to gain a mastery over him?… If David had done what his conscience told him was right, and what he did to the murderers of Ishbosheth; if he had fully trusted God, and done justice with courage, according to God’s law (Gen_9:6); relying on God, and not looking to the carnal advantages he derived from the military skill of Joab and Abishai, he would probably have prevented other murders, such as that of Ishbosheth and Amasa; and he would have been spared the sorrow of giving on his deathbed 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.”—Wordsworth.
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.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain Abner Murdered by Joab, Mourned by David
Abner Murdered by Joab, Mourned by David
v. 22. And, behold, the servants of David and Joab, the latter being the general of the army of Judah, came from pursuing a troop, they had been out on a raid against one of the neighboring nations, and brought in a great spoil with them, such expeditions being necessary at that time to support the army. But Abner was not with David in Hebron; for he had sent him away, and he was gone in peace, dismissed as on the best footing with David.
Read full note →
v. 23. When Joab and all the host that was with him were come, they told Joab, some people promptly informed him, saying, Abner, the son of Ner, came to the king, and he hath sent him away, and he is gone in peace.
v. 24. Then Joab, who was filled with hatred against Abner, came to the king and said, What hast thou done? Behold, Abner came unto thee; why is it that thou hast sent him away, instead of holding him captive? And he is quite gone; no one had made a move to secure him.
v. 25. Thou knowest Abner, the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee, with an evil and hostile purpose, and to know thy going out and thy coming in, and to know all that thou doest. In his reproach of David, Joab accused Abner of being a spy, a traitor, who was seeking information favorable to his schemes. The object was, of course, to make David so unfavorably disposed toward Abner that he would overlook the revenge which Joab was planning.
v. 26. And when Joab was come out from David, after this interview, he sent messengers after Abner, which brought him again from the well, or cistern, of Sirah, for he had progressed to that point when the messengers reached him; but David knew it not, he was unacquainted with Joab’s plans, much less did he approve of them.
v. 27. And when Abner was returned to Hebron, undoubtedly under the impression that David had some further instructions for him, Joab took him aside in the gate to speak with him quietly, in secret, in private, his attendants therefore retiring, and smote him there under the fifth rib, in the abdomen, that he died, for the blood of Asahel, his brother, for whom Joab considered himself an avenger. Joab’s deed was murder and cast false suspicions on David; his real ground for committing it was false ambition and envy, for he feared that lie would be superseded by the more renowned Abner.
v. 28. And afterward, when David heard it, he said, I and my kingdom are guiltless before the Lord forever from the blood of Abner, the son of Ner.
v. 29. Let it, the guilt, rest on the head of Joab and on all his father’s house, the punishment of God should turn, roll, plunge upon the entire family of Joab; and let there not fail from the house of Joab, not one escaping this fate, one that hath an issue, Lev 15:2, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff, being a cripple, or that falleth on the sword, finding his death in battle, or that lacketh bread. Terrible sicknesses, violent deaths: and poverty: those were the afflictions with which the posterity of Joab was ever to be punished.
v. 30. So Joab and Abishai, his brother, who was an accomplice, slew Abner because he had slain their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle. The deed showed traits in Joab’s character which appeared once more at a later time, in the murder of Amasa, 2Sa 20:10.
v. 31. And David said to Joab and to all the people that were with him, Rend your clothes, and gird you with sackcloth, the signs of deepest grief, and mourn before Abner, in the presence of his corpse, by an official lamentation. And King David himself followed the bier, his share in the ceremonies showing the deep personal sorrow which he felt.
v. 32. And they buried Abner in Hebron; and the king lifted up his voice and wept at the grave of Abner, his tears being further evidence of the genuineness of his grief; and all the people wept, sharing his trouble and his sympathy.
v. 33. And the king lamented over Abner, in an elegy expressing his deepest sorrow over Abner’s innocent and shameful death, and said, Died Abner as a fool dieth, like a good-for-nothing, worthless fellow?
v. 34. Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters, he was not guilty of any crime; as a man falleth before wicked men, before assassins, so fellest thou, murdered in malice. And all the people, moved by the lament of this elegy, wept again over him.
v. 35. And when all the people came to cause David to eat meat, to partake of food, while it was yet day, David sware, saying, So do God to me and more also if I taste bread or aught else till the sun be down; his grief culminated in his voluntary fasting.
v. 36. And all the people took notice of it, and it pleased them; as whatsoever the king did pleased all the people, he won the love and confidence of the people by his manner of acting and freed himself from all suspicion of complicity in the murder of Abner.
v. 37. For all the people, those present in Hebron, and all Israel, to whom the news was brought, understood that day that it was not of the king to slay Abner, the son of Ner.
v. 38. And the king said unto his servants, Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel? Abner had been a prince by reason of his distinguished military ability, and a great man on account of his lofty character and virtues of value to the nation.
v. 39. And I am this day weak, still powerless to act as the occasion really required, though anointed king; and these men, the sons of Zeruiah, be too hard for me, he did not feel able as yet to bring them to justice. The Lord shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness. Into Jehovah’s hands, for the present, David placed this matter for adjustment. If fleshly zeal, anger, jealousy, revenge, are the motives actuating a person, the Lord will punish him in due time.
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 These are items taken from the enemy.
plunder
These are items taken from the enemy.
Read full note →
Abner was not with David in Hebron
Abner had already left to return home.
they told Joab
"someone told Joab"
Ner
This is a man's name. He is the grandfather of Saul. (See: How to Translate Names)
translationWords
Joab
Abner
send
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.