When Saul’s son heard that Abner was dead in Hebron, his hands became feeble, and all the Israelites were troubled. Saul’s son had two men who were captains of raiding bands. The name of one was Baanah, and the name of the other Rechab, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, of the children of Benjamin (for Beeroth also is considered a part of Benjamin: and the Beerothites fled to Gittaim, and have lived as foreigners there until today). Now Jonathan, Saul’s son, had a son who was lame in his feet. He was five years old when the news came about Saul and Jonathan out of Jezreel; and his nurse picked him up and fled. As she hurried to flee, he fell and became lame. His name was Mephibosheth. The sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, went and came at about the heat of the day to the house of Ishbosheth, as he took his rest at noon. They came there into the middle of the house, as though they would have fetched wheat; and they struck him in the body: and Rechab and Baanah his brother escaped. Now when they came into the house, as he lay on his bed in his bedroom, they struck him, killed him, beheaded him, and took his head, and went by the way of the Arabah all night. They brought the head of Ishbosheth to David to Hebron, and said to the king, “Behold, the head of Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, your enemy, who sought your life! Yahweh has avenged my lord the king today of Saul, and of his offspring.”
David answered Rechab and Baanah his brother, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, and said to them, “As Yahweh lives, who has redeemed my soul out of all adversity, when someone told me, ‘Behold, Saul is dead,’ thinking that he brought good news, I seized him and killed him in Ziklag, which was the reward I gave him for his news. How much more, when wicked men have slain a righteous person in his own house on his bed, should I not now require his blood from your hand, and rid the earth of you?” David commanded his young men, and they killed them, cut off their hands and their feet, and hanged them up beside the pool in Hebron. But they took the head of Ishbosheth, and buried it in Abner’s grave in Hebron.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11 Meaning, that he was discouraged.
Meaning, that he was discouraged.
That is, Ishbosheth.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–12 2Sa 4:1 And when Saul’s son heard that Abner…
2Sa 4:1 And when Saul’s son heard that Abner was dead in Hebron, his hands were feeble, and all the Israelites were troubled.
Ver. 1. His hands were feeble.] He was quite dispirited; nihil neque animi, neque consilii habuit.
Read full note →
And all the Israelites were troubled.] Consternati sunt et conturbati, for loss of their champion. Carnal confidence endeth in confusion: when trust in God is never at an utter loss. See Heb 3:17-19.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 His hands were feeble; his spirit, and courage, and…
His hands were feeble; his spirit, and courage, and strength failed him. This phrase is used in the same sense Ezr 4:1; Neh 6:9; Isa 13:7; 35:3. The Israelites were troubled, because now they were unable to oppose David, and doubtful of obtaining his favour, now Abner their peace-maker was dead.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 9 Here is, I. The weakness of Saul's house. Still…
Here is, I. The weakness of Saul's house. Still it grew weaker and weaker. 1. As for Ishbosheth, who was in possession of the throne, his hands were feeble, Sa2 4:1. All the strength they ever had was from Abner's support, and now that he was dead he had no spirit left in him. Though Abner had, in a passion, deserted his interest, yet he hoped, by his means, to make good terms with David; but now even this hope fails him, and he sees himself forsaken by his friends and at the mercy of his enemies. All the Israelites that adhered to him were troubled and at a loss what to do, whether to proceed in their treaty with David or no. 2. As for Mephibosheth, who in the right of his father Jonathan had a prior title, his feet were lame, and he was unfit for any service, Sa2 4:4. He was but five years old when his father and grandfather were killed. His nurse, hearing of the Philistines' victory, was apprehensive that, in pursuit of it, they would immediately send a party to Saul's house, to cut off all that pertained to it, and would especially aim at her young master, who was now next heir to the crown. Under the apprehension of this, she fled with the child in her arms, to secure it either in some secret place where he could not be found, or in some strong place where he could not be got at; and, making more haste than good speed, she fell with the child, and by the fall some bone was broken or put out, and not well set, so that he was lame of it as long as he lived, and unfit either for court or camp. See what sad accidents children are liable to in their infancy, the effect of which may be felt by them, to their great uneasiness, all their days. Even the children of princes and great men, the children of good men, for such a one Jonathan was, children that are well tended, and have nurses of their own to take care of them, yet are not always safe. What reason have we to be thankful to God for the preservation of our limbs and senses to us, through the many perils of the weak and helpless state of infancy, and to own his goodness in giving his angels a charge concerning us, to bear us up in their arms, out of which there is no danger of falling, Psa 91:12.
II. The murder of Saul's son. We are here told,
Read full note →
1. Who were the murderers: Baanah and Rechab, Sa2 4:2, Sa2 4:3. They were own brothers, as Simeon and Levi, and partners in iniquity. They were or had been Ish-bosheth's own servants, employed under him, so much the more base and treacherous was it in them to do him a mischief. They were Benjamites, of his own tribe. They were of the city of Beeroth; for some reason which we cannot now account for care is here taken to let us know (in a parenthesis) that that city belonged to the lot of Benjamin, so we find (Jos 18:25), but that the inhabitants, upon some occasion or other, perhaps upon the death of Saul, retired to Gittaim, another city which lay not far off in the same tribe, and was better fortified by nature, being situate (if we may depend upon Mr. Fuller's map) between the two rocks Bozez and Seneh. There the Beerothites were when this was written, and probably took root there, and never returned to Beeroth again, which made Beeroth, that had been one of the cities of the Gibeonites (Jos 9:17), to be forgotten, and Gittaim to be famous long after, as we find, Neh 11:33.
2. How the murder was committed, Sa2 4:5-7. See here, (1.) The slothfulness of Ish-bosheth. He lay upon his bed at noon. It does not appear that the country was at any time of the year so hot as to oblige the inhabitants to retire at noon, as we are told they do in Spain in the heat of summer; but Ishbosheth was a sluggish man, loved his ease and hated business: and when he should have been, at this critical juncture, at the head of his forces in the field, or at the head of his counsels in a treaty with David, he was lying upon his bed and sleeping, for his hands were feeble (Sa2 4:1), and so were his head and heart. When those difficulties dispirit us which should rather invigorate us and sharpen our endeavours we betray both our crowns and lives. Love not sleep, lest thou come to poverty and ruin. The idle soul is an easy prey to the destroyer. (2.) The treachery of Baanah and Rechab. They came into the house, under pretence of fetching wheat for the victualling of their regiments; and such was the plainness of those times that the king's corn-chamber and his bed-chamber lay near together, which gave them an opportunity, when they were fetching wheat, to murder him as he lay on the bed. We know not when and where death will meet us. When we lie down to sleep we are not sure but that we may sleep the sleep of death before we awake; nor do we know from what unsuspected hand a fatal stroke may come. Ish-bosheth's own men, who should have protected his life, took it away.
3. The murderers triumphed in what they had done. As if they had performed some very glorious action, and the doing of it for David's advantage was enough not only to justify it, but to sanctify it, they made a present of Ish-bosheth's head to David (Sa2 4:8): Behold the head of thy enemy, than which they thought nothing could be more acceptable to him; yea, and they made themselves instruments of God's justice, ministers to bear his sword, though they had no commission: The Lord hath avenged thee this day of Saul and of his seed. Not that they had any regard either to God or to David's honour; they aimed at nothing but to make their own fortunes (as we say) and to get preferment in David's court; but, to ingratiate themselves with him, they pretended a concern for his life, a conviction of his title, and a zealous desire to see him in full possession of the throne. Jehu pretended zeal for the Lord of hosts when an ambition to set up himself and his own family was the spring of his actions.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–11 And when Saul's son heard that Abner was dead…
And when Saul's son heard that Abner was dead in Hebron,.... By Saul's son is meant Ishbosheth, to whom tidings were soon brought of the death of Abner his general, and that he died in Hebron, where David his rival reigned, and was there murdered by Joab the general of his army:
his hands were feeble: not only in a natural sense, being quite dispirited at hearing such news; but in a civil sense, having lost his main support and strength, he being president of his council, and commander of his forces, and in whom he placed all his confidence: and if he knew nothing of his being at Hebron, it must surprise him to hear of his dying there; from whence he might conclude, that since he was there without his knowledge, it could not be in his favour, some plot was forming, and schemes laying with his rival to dethrone him; or if he knew of it, and understood it in this light, that he was endeavouring to make peace between him and David, and upon advantageous terms to him, of which now he might entertain no hopes; he was dispirited, and might conclude that Joab was against any terms at peace, and therefore had dispatched him:
Read full note →
and all the Israelites were troubled; at the loss of so great a man in their kingdom, and of whose designs to unite them to Judah, and put them under the government David, they were not ignorant; but now were in the utmost confusion, not knowing what step to take, and whom to send to carry on the treaty, in which Abner was concerned; and whether it would be safe for any to go upon it, since he who had the management of it was murdered, and no justice done on the murderer, and therefore might question David's sincerity and uprightness in this affair; these things greatly distressed and embarrassed them for the present, but Providence opened a way for their future establishment and prosperity.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 4, 6, 12 Two of his servants murder Ishbosheth, and bring his…
Two of his servants murder Ishbosheth, and bring his head to David, ver. 1-8. He puts them to death, ver. 9-52.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Some account of Rechab and Baanah, two of Ish-bosheth's
CHAPTER IV
Some account of Rechab and Baanah, two of Ish-bosheth's
Read full note →
captains, and of Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, 1-4.
Rechab and Baanah murder Ish-bosheth, and escape; and bring
his head to David, 5-8.
David is greatly irritated, and commands them to be slain,
9-12.
NOTES ON CHAP. IV
Verse 1. All the Israelites were troubled] Abner was their great support; and on him they depended; for it appears that Ish-bosheth was a feeble prince, and had few of those qualities requisite for a sovereign.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12 2Sa 4:1. His hands were feeble — He was…
2Sa 4:1. His hands were feeble — He was greatly dismayed, as well he might be; for he was in effect disarmed; he had lost both his sword and his shield in Abner. And all the Israelites were troubled — That is, all those who were united to the interest of Ish-bosheth, and probably many others also; for they had lost their great and powerful agent with David; the man in whom both he and they confided; the man who, from his authority and credit, both with the army and the people, was best able to conduct and confirm the league then agreed to on both sides. They feared that, through his death, this treaty would be broken off, or that it would not be managed with so much prudence as Abner would have used; that the fall of this great man would produce some important change, and they were apprehensive it might be of a disastrous kind.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv2, 4, 5, 6, 12 Beeroth - See the marginal reference. From Jos 9:17,…
Beeroth - See the marginal reference. From Jos 9:17, it might have been expected that the population of Beeroth would be Canaanite. But from some unknown cause the Canaanite inhabitants of Beeroth had fled to Gittaim - perhaps the same as Gath - and continued there as sojourners. If this flight of the Beerothites took place at the time of Saul’s cruel attack upon the Gibeonites 2Sa 21:1-2, Baanah and Reehab may have been native Beerothites, and have been instigated to murder the son of Saul by a desire to avenge the blood of their countrymen. The fact of their being reckoned as Benjamites is quite compatible with their being Canaanites by blood.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 Isboseth is omitted in Hebrew but understood. He is…
Isboseth is omitted in Hebrew but understood. He is expressed in the Septuagint. The Alexandrian copy generally substitutes Memphibosthai, by mistake; as he (Miphiboseth) was the son of Jonathan, ver. 4. (Haydock) --- Weakened. Hitherto Abner had been the chief support of Saul’s family. His traitorous practices had been kept secret from Isboseth, (Calmet) who hoped that his former declaration had been dictated by a sudden passion, and would not be carried into effect, chap. iii. 10. (Haydock) --- Troubled, not knowing what turn things would now take, and fearing the resentment of the sons of Sarvia, though they were convinced of David’s good dispositions. (Salien, the year before Christ 1067.)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 David becomes Sole Ruler over Israel
THIRD SECTION
David becomes Sole Ruler over Israel
Read full note →
2Sa_4:1 to 2Sa_5:5
I. Murder of Ishbosheth. 2Sa_4:1-8
1And when [om. when] Saul’s Song of Solomon 1 heard that Abner was dead in Hebron, [ins. and] his hands were [became] feeble, and all the Israelites [Israel] were troubled. 2And Saul’s son had two men that were captains of bands. The name of the one was Baanah and the name of the other Rachab, the sons of Rimmon a Beerothite, of the children of Benjamin; for2 Beeroth also was reckoned to Benjamin. 3And the Beerothites fled to Gittaim, and were [have been] sojourners there until this 4day. And3 Jonathan, Saul’s son, had a son that was lame of his feet. He was five years old when the tidings came of Saul and Jonathan out of Jezreel, and his nurse took him up and fled; and it came to pass, as she made haste to flee, that he fell and became lame. And his name was Mephibosheth. 5And the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, went, and came about the heat of the day to the house of Ishbosheth, who lay on a bed at noon [and he was taking his midday-rest].4 6And they came thither5 into the midst of the house, as though they would have fetched [fetching] wheat; and they smote him under the fifth rib 7[in the abdomen]; and Rechab and Baanah his brother escaped.6 For when they [And they] came into the house, [ins. and] he lay on his bed in his bed-chamber, and they smote him and slew him and beheaded him, and took his head, and gat them away through the plain all night. 8And they brought the head of Ishbosheth unto David to Hebron,7 and said to the king, Behold the head of Ishbosheth the son of Saul thine enemy, which [who] sought thy life; and the Lord [Jehovah] hath avenged my lord the king this day of Saul and of his seed.
II. Punishment of Ishbosheth’s Murderers by David. 2Sa_4:9-12.
9And David answered Rechab and Baanah his brother, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, and said unto them, As the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, who hath redeemed 10my soul out of all adversity, When one [Hebrews 8 who] told me, saying, Behold Saul is dead, thinking to have brought good tidings—I took hold of him and slew him in Ziklag, who thought that I would have given [in Ziklag, to give him9] a reward for his tidings; 11How much more when wicked men have slain a righteous person in his own house upon his bed? shall I not therefore now [and now, shall I not] require his blood of your hand, and take you away [destroy you] from the earth?10 12And David commanded his [the] young men, and they slew them and cut off their hands and their feet, and hanged them up over [at]11 the pool in Hebron. But [And] they took the head of Ishbosheth and buried it in the sepulchre of Abner in Hebron.
III. David anointed King over Israel. 2Sa_5:1-5.
1Then came all the tribes of Israel [And all… came] to David unto Hebron, and spake,12 saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh. 2Also in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest [led]13 out and broughtest [brought] in Israel; and the Lord [Jehovah] said to thee, Thou shalt feed my 3people Israel, and thou shalt be a [om. a] captain over Israel. So [And] all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron, and king David made a league [covenant] with them in Hebron before the Lord [Jehovah], and they anointed David king over Israel. 4David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and14 he reigned forty years. 5In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years over all Israel and Judah.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
I. 2Sa_4:1-8. Murder of Ishbosheth
2Sa_4:1. In consequence of the news of Abner’s murder, Ishbosheth’s hands became “slack,” the opposite of the “strong” (חָזַק) comp. 2Sa_2:7; 2Sa_16:21—that is, he completely lost heart. And all Israel was troubled, because people knew Ishbosheth’s incapacity, and that Abner alone had been the prop of his kingdom (2Sa_3:6). [Things were generally in an unsettled state. Patrick: By Abner’s death the treaty with David was broken off, or there was nobody to manage it like Abner; Plato observes: “when any calamity is about to befall a city, God is wont to take away (the) excellent men out of that city.”—Tr.]
2Sa_4:2. The son of Saul had15 two band leaders, Baanah and Rechab, sons of Rimmon.—Noteworthy is the designation “son of Saul” for Ishbosheth, who is never called “the Anointed of the Lord.”—The two “band-leaders” in Ishbosheth’s service were no doubt bold, adventurous men. The part that they play, as well as Abner’s conduct, suggests the supposition that the firm military organization that Saul had called into being had relaxed, and a disintegration of the army into separate bodies under adventurers and partisans was imminent, if it had not already occurred. Of the sons of Benjamin; for Beeroth also was reckoned to16 Benjamin.—Beeroth, according to Rob. II. 345 sq. [Am. Ed. i. 451–453, ii. 262] and Later Bibl. Researches 190 [Am. Ed. III. 289], the present village Bireh, seven miles north of Jerusalem in an unfruitful and stony region on a mountain, with old foundations, not far from Gibeon on the western border of Benjamin. Comp. Jos_9:17; Jos_18:25. As from its border-position, it might easily be reckoned to another tribe, it is here expressly mentioned as belonging to Benjamin, that there might be no doubt that these murderers were really Benjaminites, fellow-tribesmen of Saul’s son.
2Sa_4:3. An explanatory statement about Beeroth with reference to the time of the narrator, when that Beeroth was no longer in existence. Not: “they had fled” (for at the time of Ishbosheth’s murder Beeroth no longer existed), but: “they fled to Gittaim.” They dwelt there as strangers (נָּרִים) not protégés (against Ewald, Then.). Neither the reason for their flight, nor the position of this place is known to us. In Neh_11:33 a Gittaim is mentioned among the places inhabited by Benjaminites after the Exile. If that is the same with our Gittaim, we yet cannot certainly conclude that it belonged to Benjamin before the Exile; the contrary rather is probable. The word “strangers” points to the fact that the fugitive Beerothites dwelt there among non-Israelites. It was perhaps one of the places on the border of Benjamin belonging to the non-Israelitish Amoritic Gibeonites. [Patrick and Philippson suggest that Beeroth was abandoned by its inhabitants at the time of the Philistine invasion, 1Sa_31:7. Bib.-Com. (supposing the Beerothites to be Gibeonites) conjectures that the flight was occasioned by Saul’s attack, 2Sa_21:1-2, and that the act of Baanah and Rechab was one of vengeance.—But we know nothing certainly about it.—Gittaim has been supposed to be the Philistine Gath (Then. and others) or Gath-Rimmon, Jos_19:45; Jos_21:24 (Wellh.).—Tr.].
2Sa_4:4. A historical remark in respect to the then condition of Saul’s house. Its only representative besides Ishbosheth was Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth, five years old at the time of the catastrophe at Jezreel, lame in both feet, helpless therefore, and neither a support to Ishbosheth nor fit to succeed him on the throne. In view of this the narrator here inserts this statement in order to make clear how, on the murder of Ishbosheth related below, the kingdom of Saul’s house was necessarily extinguished. For further notices of Mephibosheth see 9, 2Sa_16:1 sq.; 2Sa_19:25 sq. Instead of this name we find (parallel with Eshbaal for Ishbosheth—see on 2Sa_2:8) in 1Ch_8:34; 1Ch_9:40, Meribbaal = “opponent, conqueror of Baal,” and Mephibosheth17 also perhaps means “exterminator of Baal.” [This statement about Mephibosheth also prepares the way for the subsequent notices of him.—Tr.].
2Sa_4:5. “In the heat of the day” the murderers came to Mahanaim where Ishbosheth dwelt, see 2Sa_2:8. He lay on the midday-bed, that is, in a quiet, remote, cool spot of the house. They chose this time of midday-rest as favorable to their purpose.
2Sa_4:6. “And hither.”18 The phrase “fetching wheat” explains how they could penetrate “into the midst of the house,” where Ishbosheth was lying; they came as persons that wished or were directed to fetch wheat. The Particp. is sometimes put for the Impf. as our Fut., as Exo_10:8, “who are they that are going?” (=that purpose going), and so in narration does the duty of the Pret., as Gen_19:14, “marrying his daughter” (=who were to or wished to marry). Ewald, § 335 b. They came not as “purchasers of wheat” (Buns.), but as band-leaders, to get wheat for the support of their men, “corn [grain] to divide out to their soldiers, which was kept in the middle of Ishbosheth’s house” (Cler.). We need not suppose that this was merely a pretext; rather their entrance into the midst of the house is the more easily explained when we suppose that this was a usual practice in accordance with their military position, and that they had done it before. Thus without attracting attention they could slay Ishbosheth, and quickly make their escape.—The Sept., departing completely from the Masoretic text, here reads: “and behold, the portress of the house was cleansing wheat and had fallen asleep and slumbered; and Rechab and Baanah, the brothers, escaped (or, slipped by).” Thenius’ restoration of the original text after the Sept. is rejected by Böttcher as “frightfully far” from the masoretic text, while Thenius disapproves Böttcher’s reading (which Ewald with some modifications adopts) as more circumstantial than his own. If the original text accorded with these conjectures, it is not easy to see how the present masoretic text (which differs from it so much) came from it, while it is easy to suppose that the Sept. (according to its custom), tried by an interpretation to explain partly how the two murderers could get into the house unopposed, partly the strange repetition of the account in 2Sa_4:7. The Vulg. (which, through the Itala on which it is based, is dependent on the Sept.) has the corresponding insertion: “and the portress of the house cleansing wheat fell asleep,” while in the rest of the verse it follows the masoretic text against the Sept. All the other ancient versions follow the Heb. According to the latter there is certainly a tautology in 2Sa_4:6-7, the entrance into the house and the murder being twice mentioned. But in the first place, it is to be observed that in the attempted restorations of the original text the phrase “came into the house” remains in 2Sa_4:5 and 2Sa_4:7. But we must further bear in mind a peculiarity of Heb. narration (referred to by Königsfeld, Annot. ad post. libr. Sam., and Keil), by which a previously-mentioned fact is repeated in order to add something new. So in 2Sa_3:22-23 the coming of Joab, and in 2Sa_5:1; 2Sa_5:3 the coming of the Tribes is twice mentioned. Here the “coming” of 2Sa_4:5 is more fully described in 2Sa_4:6, and the “slaying” of 2Sa_4:6 is defined in 2Sa_4:7 as beheading, and this makes the transition to the account in 2Sa_4:8, that the murderers brought the head of Ishbosheth to David, having during the night traversed the Arabah or plain of the Jordan. Comp. 2Sa_2:29.
2Sa_4:8. To the king.—Notice that David is always here so termed, while in respect to Ishbosheth the title is avoided. Behold the head of thy enemy, who sought thy life.—The better to justify their deed, and to gain favor and reward from David, the risen star, they stigmatize Ishbosheth as one that sought after David’s life, thinking perhaps that the recollection of Saul’s persecution and Abner’s hostility would give the color of truth to their false assertion. [Others hold less well that Saul is the enemy here meant.—Tr.]. Nothing is said in the history of attempts on David’s life by Ishbosheth, and David’s designation of him as a “righteous man,” who was guilty of no evil deed stamps that assertion as a lie. They have the effrontery indeed to represent their crime as an act or judgment of God, the better to commend themselves to David, though they had committed the murder of their own accord without any commission at all.
II. 2Sa_4:9-12. Punishment of Ishbosheth’s murderers by David
2Sa_4:9. The words: Who hath redeemed my soul out of all adversity—are therefore not a confirmation of the murderers’ assertion about Ishbosheth, but contain the thought “that David is not obliged to free himself by crime from his enemies” (Keil).
2Sa_4:10. He who told me… thinking himself a messenger of good—a recapitulation of the history of the Amalekite (2 Samuel 1), here put in the absolute construction, and the words and I seized him follow as principal assertion, instead of: “if I seized and slew him who told me” (2Sa_1:15). “In order to give him a reward for his tidings,” that is, to inflict on him the punishment he deserved.19 [See “Text. and Gram.” The last clause of this verse is of the nature of biting irony—David gave the man a reward, and it was death.—Tr.].
2Sa_4:11. “How much more!” (אַף כִּי) the apodosis to the protasis in 2Sa_4:10. The words: wicked men… on his bed are (as in 2Sa_4:10) proposed in absolute construction, instead of: “how much more shall I require his blood from your hand, ye wicked men!” The “wicked men” stands in sharp contrast with the “righteous man.” David characterizes Ishbosheth as a “righteous man,” that is, as one who had never done anything wicked (so Josephus). This judgment accords with the character given of Ishbosheth in chaps. 2, 3. (he was a “good man,” without falsehood and blameless), and is at the same time a decided refutation of the charge by which the murderers think to palliate their crime. “David declares that Ishbosheth was blameless, having done nothing to occasion this end” (Cassel). With the phrase “and now” David brings his speech to a close, pronouncing sentence of death, by the same royal authority as in 2Sa_1:14-15. The form of the thought is a progression from the less to the greater: If I executed in Ziklag him who avowed having killed at his own request on the battle-field my adversary Saul, under whose persecutions the Lord delivered me from all adversity, how much more must I demand at your hands the blood of this righteous man whom ye murderously slew in his house on his bed. On the phrase “require blood,” see Gen_9:5, according to which God Himself is the avenger of blood, comp. Psa_9:13. David recognizes himself as king in God’s service and His instrument, when he causes these criminals to be slain in expiation of intentional homicide. Comp. Num_35:31.—“Take away, destroy;” the verb (בִּעֵר) is used of extermination by death, for example, in Deu_13:6 (5); not “from the earth,” but “from the land” (אֶרֶץ), since according to the law (Num_35:33), the murderer lost his abode in the land of promise.
2Sa_4:12. The order for execution is given and carried out. It is specially severe in two points: the dismemberment of the corpses by cutting off hands and feet, the deepest indignity, and the hanging up of the mutilated corpses at the pool in Hebron, a place where many persons came and went; this was for a public testimony to David’s righteous severity against such evil-doers, as well as his innocence of the murder, and for a terrible example, comp. Deu_21:21-22. [Hands and feet were cut off because these were the offending members (Abarb. in Philippson). This sort of punishment has always been common in the East.—Tr.].—David had “Ishbosheth’s head” buried in “Abner’s sepulchre in Hebron” on account of the relation that had existed between the two men.
III. 2Sa_5:1-5. David anointed king over all Israel.
2Sa_5:1. These incidents (the murder of Abner and that of Ishbosheth), which made a deep impression on the whole people, taken in connection with the growing inclination to David in all Israel, necessarily favored and hastened the attainment of the end after which Abner had striven in his negotiations with the elders (2Sa_3:17-18). The tenor of the history leads us to hold with Ewald that the recognition of David as king over all Israel occurred immediately after Ishbosheth’s death, against Stähelin, who thinks that there was an interval of several years after his death, during which the tribes gradually came over to David. [Here the Book of Chronicles again falls in with our history (1 Chronicles 11), and runs parallel with it in general (though with many differences) to the end of David’s life. The differences will be noticed as they present themselves.—Tr.].—Thus, then, appear at Hebron “all the tribes of Israel,” that is, the elders (2Sa_5:3) of all the tribes except Judah. The elders give three reasons (arranged in order of importance) for raising David to the throne over the whole nation: 1) Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh.—This expression denotes blood-relationship in the family, Gen_29:14; Jdg_9:2; it here refers to their common descent from one ancestor: “we are thy kinsmen by blood,” in view of which the enmity between us must cease.
2Sa_5:2. 2) Before, when Saul reigned over us, it was thou that leddest Israel out and in—the same thing is said of Joshua in Num_27:17. The expression “lead out and in” does not refer to the affairs of Israel (Keil), but the people itself (“Israel”), and “the whole people” indeed. This is expressly affirmed in 1Sa_18:16 in the words: “And all Israel and Judah loved David, because he went out and in before them,” and that this “going out and in” is to be understood of military leadership is clear from 2Sa_5:5, 2Sa_5:13, and from the whole connection. The bond of fellowship and love, which had bound him to them (even under Saul) as leader in their military undertakings, is the second ground of their proposal.—3) Their last and strongest ground is the immediate call by the word of the Lord to be shepherd and prince over Israel. And the Lord said to thee; on the word “feed” (רָעָה) see Psa_78:70-72, and on “prince” [captain] see 1Sa_25:30. No such word of the Lord, spoken immediately to David, is ever mentioned. The declaration of the elders is to be explained as Abigail’s in 1Sa_25:30, and Abner’s in 2Sa_3:9; 2Sa_3:18 [that is, as belonging to the circle of prophetic thought.—Tr.]. It is perhaps based on the word of the Lord to Samuel, 1Sa_16:1-2, by which David was chosen to be king over Israel, comp. with 1Sa_15:28.—The first and third grounds answer exactly to the precept in Deu_17:15 : “Thou shalt make him king over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose; out of the midst of thy brethren shalt thou make a king over thee.” [Patrick: 2Sa_5:1. They were not overcome by the arms, but by the piety and justice of David, to acknowledge him their king.
2Sa_5:2. This is the first time we find a governor described in Scripture as pastor of the people; afterwards the name is much used by the prophets, particularly Eze_34:23 and many other places. Whence our Lord Christ is called “the good Shepherd” and “the great Shepherd.”—Evil rulers are called “roaring lions, hungry bears, and devouring wolves,” etc., Eze_19:2.—Comp. the Homeric epithet ποιμένες λαω̄ν, and the emblematic animals in Dante’s Inferno. Bk. I.—Tr.].
2Sa_5:3. And the elders… came to Hebron—resumption of the words of 2Sa_5:1 with exacter definition of the expression “tribes” by the mention of their representatives “the elders,” for the purpose of further detailing the solemn covenanting of David with the people and his anointing as king of Israel. And king David made a covenant with them before the Lord.—Comp. 2Sa_3:21, “that they may make a covenant with thee.” In this word of Abner is given one side of the covenant, namely, the obligating of the people to obey him as the king given them by the Lord; here the other side is given, namely, David promises in this covenant, in accordance with his divine choice and call to the throne, to rule the people according to the will of the Lord. Notice the expression of the Heb. “made to them a covenant” (כָּרַת לְ), which does not permit us to regard this as a mere bargain, wherein both parties have equal rights and authority” (Œhler, Herz. viii. 11). The relation of both parties to the Lord is indicated by the expression “before.” The view that an agreement was here entered into of the nature of a modern constitution [There was probably gradually established between king and people some recognition of mutual rights and duties—an unwritten, or possibly in part a written law. This would not be out of harmony with the theocratic conception of the government. Philippson points out some apparent indications (as 1 Kings 12.) of such a law.—Tr.]
(Then.), does not accord with the relation that the theocratic principle of the Davidic kingdom established between king and people in their common obligation to the Lord, the true king of His people. And they anointed David king over Israel—to which the Chronicler adds (1Ch_11:3): “according to the word of the Lord by Samuel,” an explanatory addition referring to the Lord’s command to Samuel to anoint David king over Israel, 1Sa_16:1; 1Sa_16:12. David’s anointing by Samuel (1 Samuel 16) is now confirmed by the anointing of the people, they having expressly and solemnly recognized his divine call to be king of Israel (1Sa_15:28), made by Samuel and witnessed by Samuel’s anointing. The Chronicler, deriving his information from precise accounts, declares that there was a large attendance of military men from the whole nation at this royal festival (1Ch_12:23-40).
2Sa_5:4-5. The statement in 2Sa_2:11 is here resumed, and we have stated, 1) David’s age (30 years) at his accession to the throne; 2) the whole time of his reign (40 years), and 3) the time of his reign over Israel (33 years). See on 2Sa_2:11. These statements of time are given in 1Ch_29:27 at the close of David’s reign. [Bib. Com.: The age of David (30 years) shows that the events narrated from 1 Samuel 13 to the end of the book did not occupy above 10 years—four years in Saul’s service, four years of wandering, one year and four months among the Philistines, and a few months after Saul’s death.—Tr.]
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. In the section 2Sa_4:1 to 2Sa_5:5 we have the completed fulfilment of the statement made in 2Sa_3:1 concerning the theocratically contrasted fortunes of Saul’s house and David, up to the culmination of the latter’s rise and the uttermost point of the former’s depression. The spiritual weakness, moral slackness and personal insignificance of Saul’s heir on the throne, the unfaithfulness, ambition, selfishness, rude violence and dissolution of all discipline and order about the royal court, the increasing favor of the people to David and the entire absence of prospect for the physical maintenance of the kingdom in Saul’s house, whose last scion was a cripple—all this co-operated to bring about the fall of this kingdom before the eyes of the people and the fulfilment of the divine judgment on Saul’s house, without David’s doing the slightest thing to produce the catastrophe or staining his hands with Ishbosheth’s blood, holding, as he did, to what he had sworn to Saul, 1Sa_24:22. Amid the affecting events that introduce the final fall of Saul’s house, and the severe temptations with which he is beset to make a compact with sin, or at least to come in contact with crime in order to gain his end, David holds, as from the beginning, firm and unshaken to his stand-point of humble obedience to and complete dependence on the will and leading of the Lord, knowing himself to be in person and life and in his destination for the throne of Israel solely in the hand of God. The anger with which he repels self-commending crime [2Sa_4:8-11], appealing to the guidance of his God who had brought him through all adversity, is at the same time a positive witness to his determination to take all further steps also up to the attainment of his promised dominion only at the hand of his God, and to guard against all tainting of his divine mission by sin and crime. “His way to the throne had hitherto been always the way of obedience to God’s will; it was ever the way of the fear of God and of conscientious fulfilment of duty, and with such crimes he had never had anything to do. How could he now defile himself with them! The execution of these two murderers was a testimony to all the people, what ways David went and wished further to go, and that whoever would avail anything with this king, must tread solely the path of godly fear and duty” (Schlier).
2. Ishbosheth’s violent end is not to be regarded as a natural step in the fall of Saul’s house, or as a necessary consequence thereof, but as a revelation of the divine justice against his guilt in permitting himself (by his good-nature and moral weakness) to be misused by his ambitious and high-aiming general Abner, to be made a rival king and seduced into hostile undertakings against David (2Sa_2:12). Such an end must Ishbosheth’s kingdom according to the divine justice have had, since it was founded on opposition to God’s will.
3. And so, in respect to God’s judgments on men’s sins, the God-fearing man, like David, with all his holy anger against evil, which is a reflection of God’s holy anger, and with all his obligatory energy of punitive justice, must yet exhibit recognition of the good that exists in his neighbor who is smitten by the judgment of God, and especially cherish gentleness and forbearance where personal wrong has been done him.
4. The covenant, which David made with the people on his accession to the throne, is not to be thought of as a contract between two parties, who by negotiations and mutual concessions produce a constitutional relation, in which their mutual rights and duties are to be considered and carried out.—This would be directly contradictive of the fundamental idea of Israel’s constitution, namely, that the God of the fathers, who had chosen the people, separated them to be His people, redeemed them from the bondage of Egypt, and made a law-covenant with them at Sinai, was their king, and that they owed Him obedience as their ruler according to the demands of His law. People and God-given king had to obey the Lord as their proper, true king; there is no contrasting of king and people, but both have to render unconditional obedience to the invisible God as their Lord and Ruler. See 1Sa_12:20-25. The conviction that David was called immediately by the Lord to be king of Israel had spread from Samuel and the prophets throughout the nation, and announced itself expressly in the formal and solemn recognition of David as king in accordance with the demand in Deu_17:15 : “Thou shalt set as king over thee him whom the Lord thy God shall choose.” This recognition of the divine call precedes the covenanting and the anointing. On the basis, now, of this recognized fact, the covenanting could include nothing but what followed necessarily from the principle of the theocratic kingdom, to govern the people in the name of the Lord, and according to the law that the invisible King of the people had given. David promised, in accordance with Deu_17:19-20, faithfully to perform the law given by the Lord for him as well as for the people, and not merely a constitutional law agreed on between him and the people; and the people promised to obey the Lord their God in His royal government, and to be subject to David as God-appointed instrument of the theocracy. [While this statement of the joint subordination of king and people to the divine law is perfectly just, so that there could not be in Israel a political constitution, political progress, or free institutions according to modern conceptions, we may still suppose that in carrying out the details of the government there came to be recognized certain principles (subordinate to the central principle) which controlled the customary action of sovereign and people, and were of the nature of Common Law or a Constitution.—Tr.].
5. The establishment of David on the throne of Israel as an act of God (completed by the people, in the knowledge and recognition of God’s will, by the anointment as an act of choice and homage) restored externally and internally on the old deep theocratic basis, the unity of the people introduced by Samuel, which was gradually weakened under Saul’s government, and after his death destroyed by the division of the nation into two parts and the establishment of two kingdoms, so that a recurrence of the disintegration of the Period of the Judges was imminent. The perfect unity of all the tribes shows itself at David’s anointment in Hebron, 1) in the avowal of the blood-relationship of the whole people with David through their common descent from one ancestor —in contrast with the nations that were corporally foreign to them (comp. Deu_17:15); 2) in the recognition of David’s services to the whole nation even in Saul’s time as military leader against foreign nations, and of the bond of love and confidence that consequently bound the whole people to him; 3) in the declaration that David was called by the Lord Himself to be king over all Israel (comp. Deu_17:15), and 4) in the covenant that the two, king and people, make with one another before the Lord as their King, on the basis of the law-covenant that God had made with His people (comp. Deu_17:19-20, with 1Sa_12:20 sq., and Exo_19:20.)
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
2Sa_4:1 sq. Cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, 1) Because of the frailty of all flesh and of all human supports, with which fall the hopes based on them. 2) Because of the faithlessness of men, in whom blind confidence is placed instead of putting all confidence in the faithfulness of the Lord. 3) Because of the danger of ruin of body and soul, to which one thereby exposes himself.
2Sa_4:8. How evil seeks deceitfully to clothe itself with the appearance of good, 1) by falsehood, in alleging something evil in others as a pretext to make itself appear right and good; 2) by hypocrisy, in representing itself as in harmony with God’s Word and will; 3) by the pretence of having promoted the interest of another.
2Sa_4:8-12. How the children of God should guard against the power of evil which presses upon them. 1) By repulsing every service of evil that is to their advantage, and pointing to the Lord who alone is their help. 2) By avoiding all participation in others’ guilt. 3) By energetically testifying, in word and deed, against evil.
2Sa_5:3. What kingdom is in truth a kingdom by the grace of God? That which, 1) is based on the solid ground of the word and will of God; 2) conducts its government only in the name and service of-the living God, fulfilling its office of shepherd and leader, and 3) strives after the welfare of the people only in the covenant of love and obedience towards the holy and gracious God.
2Sa_4:1. Starke: Let no one trust in men, Jer_17:5; for they are nothing, Psa_62:10 [9], and when they fall, all hope falls, too, Psa_146:3-4.—S. Schmid: At last the will of God does come to pass, and His promises go on to their fulfilment, Rom_4:21; Heb_2:3.
[2Sa_4:2. Scott: Wretched indeed are they who are engaged in undertakings in which none can serve them without opposing the known will of God ! The more exalted their station, the greater is their danger; for the very men in whom they repose their chief confidence are destitute of principle, serve them only for gain, and will betray or murder them when their mercenary schemes require it.—Tr.].
2Sa_4:2-3. Berl. B.: A true king is nothing else than the shepherd of the people, 2Sa_7:7; Psa_78:71-72. Accordingly God made David a shepherd of men, as Peter a fisher of men.
2Sa_4:3. Starke: God causes His own people, whom He wishes to exalt, first to come under the cross awhile, Pro_13:12.—S. Schmid: Kings and princes must know that they stand under God, according to whose will and direction they have to judge themselves.—Wuert. B.: Although God does not cause that which He has promised the pious, to come to them immediately, yet He does at least give it to them, and indeed the longer He delays the more glorious it becomes. So let men patiently wait for the right time.
2Sa_4:4. Osiander: What often seems most hurtful to us, must often be most helpful to us.—Wuert. B.: When God with His grace turns away from a man or a whole race, there is then no more prosperity, but all gradually goes down.
2Sa_4:8. Cramer: Ungodly men boast of their trickery and villainy, and imagine they will thereby gain praise, and glory in their sin.—Berl. B.: They wish, as it were, to spread the name of God and His Providence as a mantle over their knavery, as bad boys are wont to do.—[Wordsworth: It has been often so in the history of the world and of the Church, where zeal for God is sometimes a color for worldly ambition, and an occasion for deeds of cruelty and treachery.—Tr.].—Schlier: Where is there a human heart that knows nothing of selfishness? O do let us recognize such an enemy in ourselves, and humble ourselves therefor, do let us all our days fight against the enemy with real earnestness! Either thou slayest selfishness or it slays thee, and plunges thee into sin and shame, and thereby into ruin and damnation. It was selfishness that made these two Benjaminites become murderers of their king.—[2Sa_4:8. Scott: Many are conscious that they should be pleased with villainy, provided it conduced greatly to their profit: thus they are led confidently to conclude that others will be so too; and as numbers are rewarded for villainous actions, they expect the same.—Tr.]
2Sa_4:9-11. To hate and avoid sin is to be prudent, to keep out of sneaking ways is to build one’s fortune, and to put away from us even enticing offers that are not in accordance with duty and the fear of God is to be sensible for time and eternity.
2Sa_4:9. Cramer: True Christians should commit and commend all their affairs to God, who judges righteously; He can and will make all well, 1Pe_2:23; Psa_37:5
2Sa_4:10. Cramer: God-fearing rulers should not bring territory and people to them through treachery, assassination, unfaithfulness, apostasy from known truth, hypocrisy and such like villainous tricks; for to be pious and true will alone protect the king, and his throne is established by righteousness, Pro_20:28.
[2Sa_4:11. Henry: Charity teaches us to make the best, not only of our friends but of our enemies, and to think those may be righteous persons who yet in some instances do us wrong.—2Sa_5:1. Wordsworth: And thus God overruled evil for good, and brought good out of evil. He made the crimes of Abner, Joab, and of the two Beerothites to be subservient to the exaltation of David, and the establishment of his kingdom over all Israel. Thus God will make all the sins of evil men to be one day ministerial to the extension and final settlement of the universal dominion of Christ.—Tr.]
[2Sa_4:1. When the sudden death of one man completely disheartens a whole people, it shows that he was a great man, but also that the people were already in an evil condition. And this man who seemed the prop of everything, may have long been in fact delaying some grand Providential destiny.—Tr.]
[2Sa_4:4. Sunday-school address, The little lame prince. His lameness was produced under very sad circumstances, was itself a sad calamity, and Seemed to cut him off from a great career. Yet it afterwards preserved his life, and brought him wealth and honor (2 Samuel 9.). Let us not conclude that the afflicted or unfortunate have no future. Let us remember how often Providence turns calamity into blessing.—Tr.]
[2Sa_4:5-12. Sunday-school address, The assassins. Describe them walking rapidly all night along the plain of the Jordan, bearing the slain king’s head. 1) Their foul deed, 2Sa_4:6-7; 2Sa_11:2) Their false pretences, 2Sa_4:8. 3) Their deserved and terrible fate, 2Sa_4:12. Reflections: The sacredness of human life—trickery often fails—it is a shame to claim God’s sanction for wickedness—men becoming immortal by their crimes alone.—Tr.]
[2Sa_4:9. Memory of past deliverances by the Lord. 1) Inspiring gratitude. 2) Restraining from sin. 3) Cheering with hope. (Each may be richly illustrated by David’s circumstances when he uttered the text).—Tr.]
[2Sa_5:4. How has David reached the throne? 1) By aspiring to it only because divinely appointed. 2) By deserving it a) in what he did; b) in what he refused to do. 3) By waiting for it, a) continuing patient through a long course of trials; b) using all lawful means in his power to gain it (e. g., 2.5; 2Sa_3:20; 2Sa_3:36); c) preparing for it, consciously and unconsciously, learning how to rule men, and to overcome difficulties.—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[1][2Sa_4:1. Sept. (Jebosthe) and Syr. (Ashboshul) prefix the name “Ishbosheth,” and Sept. also in the beginning of 2Sa_4:2. Wellhausen thinks the omission due to the same feeling that led to the change of Eshbaal (or Ishbaal) to Ishbosheth, namely, repulsion to a bad (idolatrous) name. But the omission may naturally be explained as a breviloquence or ***, the context clearly fixing the reference to Ishbosheth; similarly the Sept. inserts in this verse after Abner the words “son of Ner.” Comp. 1Sa_22:7-9; 1Sa_22:12-13.—Tr.]
[2][2Sa_4:2. The brackets of Eng. A. V. may just as well be omitted, since the Heb. regards this statement as part of the narrative, and 2Sa_4:4 is as much a parenthesis as 2Sa_4:3.—Aq. improperly makes these men εὔζωνοι = שׂרי ג׳.—The notice 2Sa_4:2-3, is an archæological or historical remark of the editor, not necessarily a “marginal remark” (Wellh.) that has gotten into the text.—Tr.]
[3][2Sa_4:4. This verse is an explanatory historical remark; see the Exposition. It is “too peculiar for a gloss” (Wellh.).—“Made haste” is not strong enough for חָפַו, which contains the notion of “terror,” Sym. θορυβεῖσθαι Erdmann: sie sich in der angst beeilte, Chald., Syr., Cahen, Philippson as Eng. A. V.—The name Mephibosheth is written by Sept. Memphibosthe, by other Greek VSS. Memphibaal. For the first part of the name no satisfactory etymology has been found, and it is not improbably a corruption of Merib in Meribbaal, 1Ch_9:40.—Tr.]
[4][2Sa_4:5. Lit.: “sleeping the sleep of noon” (example of cognate Ace.).—Instead of “about” we may render “at (or, in) the heat of the day.”—Tr.]
[5][2Sa_4:6. הֵנָּה, “hither,” which Norzius (cited by De Rossi) declares to be the true reading. Some MSS. and printed Edd., together with Sept., Syr., Chald., read הִנֵּה, “behold.” (So the Chald. text of P. de Lagarde; but others have the masc. pron. הֵמָּה, “they.”)—Instead of עַר תּוֹךְ, some MSS. and EDD. have אֶל־תוֹךְ.—Tr.]
[6][2Sa_4:6. Two points are to be noted in the criticism of the difficult text of 2Sa_4:6; 2Sa_7:1) the seeming repetition of the masoretic text, double account of the murder; 2) the divergence of the Sept. in 2Sa_4:6 especially from the Heb. The Vulg. agrees with Sept. in 2Sa_4:6 a; the Chald. and Syr. substantiate (with slight variations) the masoretic text.—The view taken of the text will depend largely on the decision of the first point.—Some hold the repetition in the Heb. of 2Sa_4:6 and 2Sa_4:7 to be unmeaning, and therefore adopt the Sept., out of which they endeavor to explain the MSS. text as a corruption (Ew., Böttch., Then., Wellh., who all differ somewhat in their restorations of the original text). Others regard the repetition as a characteristic of Heb. historical narration, and take the Sept. in 2Sa_4:6 as a corruption or an explanatory paraphrase (Keil [who cites Königsfeld], Philipps., Erdmann, Bib.-Com.). A middle view seems preferable: the repetition seems unnecessary; but the corruption of the Sept. text into the masoretic is improbable. It is therefore more natural to suppose that the Heb. contains two different accounts of the same fact put together by the editor, and that the Sept. either represents a different text or is a corruption of the masoretic.—The following are some of the restorations attempted. Thenius: וְהִנֵּה פְקִידַת דֶּלֶת הַבַּית לֹקֶטֶת חִטִּים וַתָּנָם וַתִּישַן וְדֵכָב וּבַעַנָה אָחִיו נִמְלָטוּ “and behold the female overseer of the door of the house was gathering wheat, and nodded [slumbered] and slept. And Rechab and Baanah his brother (came) unperceived (into the house).” But the Greek has “cleansing,” not “gathering” wheat, and it is not easy to construct the masoretic text out of this. Böttcher: לִקְחחַֹ חִטִּים וְנָמָה הִוא ונְרְדָּמָה וְרֵכָב ונו׳ וְהִנֵּה הַשׁוֹעֶרֶת תּוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, and behold, the portress (was) within the house to cleanse wheat, and she had slumbered and slept; and Rechab and Baanah had slipped through.” He introduces a verb קחח, “to purify,” from the Arabic, and does not account for the Heb.: “smote him in the underbody.”—Ewald adopts Thenius’ reading except that he puts אֲשֶׁר עַל for the Heb.בָאוּ עַד, and instead of לקט writes םקל. Wellhausen: וְהְנֵּה שׁוֹעֶרֶת הַבַּיְת םֹקְלָה ח׳, “and behold, the portress of the house was stoning wheat,” where the סקל makes a difficulty.—If the suggestion made above be adopted, we may take the masoretic text as the original (though a blending of two contemporary accounts), and then with the help of these emendations explain the emergence of the Sept. text from it—Tr.]
[7][2Sa_4:8. Acc. of limit. Three MSS. prefix the prep. בְּ, “in.”—Tr.]
[8][2Sa_4:10. Partcp. as preposed absolute Nominative.—Tr.]
[9][2Sa_4:10. Lit.: “who (or, which) for my giving to him [the reward of] tidings.” Hence three renderings: 1) “which (namely, the slaying him) was to give him;” 2) “to whom I should have given;” 3) “who thought that I would have given him.” The first is simplest and strongest (so Bottch., Cahen, Philipps., Keil, Erdmann). The second is that of the Sept. and Vulg. The third is adopted by Chald. and Eng. A. V. The Syr. has (in the simplifying style it so often adopts): “instead of giving him.”—בְּשׂרָה, “good tidings,” here stands for “reward of good tidings.”—Tr.]
[10][2Sa_4:11. Or: “from the land” (Böttcher, Erdmann), a more distinctively Israelitish conception.—Tr.]
[11][2Sa_4:12. עַל in the sense of “on, at” (ἐπί with Dat.).—Tr.]
[12][2Sa_5:1. Lit.: “said, saying,” at which repetition offence has been taken, but improperly, since it is genuine Heb. (though rare), comp. Exo_15:1; 2Sa_20:18.—The first word is omitted in 1Ch_11:1 and in the Vulg.; the second by two MSS., Sept., Syr., Ar. After וַיֹּאמְרוּ some MSS., Sept., Syr., Ar., insert לוֹ, “to him.”—Tr.]
[13][2Sa_5:2. Eng. A. V. is here ungrammatical. The sentence would now more naturally read: “it was thou that leddest.”—Remove the final ה from הָיְתָה, and prefix it (as Art.) to the following word, as the masoretic note suggests. Comp. 1Ch_11:2—Tr.]
[14][2Sa_5:4. The “and” is found in several MSS. and VSS., a natural interpolation.—Tr.]
[15]It is necessary to supply לְ (but not לְאִישׁ־בּשֶׁת) before בֶּן־שָׁאוּר.
[16] על = “on to,” “to.”
[17] בּשֶׁת for בַּעַל and מְפִי from פָאָה “scatter” (only Hiph., Deu_32:26, Sept. διασπερῶ αὐτούς, and so Ar., Chald.)
[18]It is unnecessary (with Ges. § 121, 6, Rem. 1) to take הֵנָּה as Pron. fem. for masc.; we may render “hither” (Maur.), or point הִנֵּה “behold.”
[19]The initial כִּי introduces the discourse. The אְשֶׁר in the last clause=ὄτι (Ew. § 338 b) introducing the following words.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv5, 7, 8, 12 Rechab and Baanah went and came about the heat…
Rechab and Baanah went and came about the heat of the day to the house of Ish-bosheth, &c.--It is still a custom in the East to allow their soldiers a certain quantity of corn, together with some pay; and these two captains very naturally went to the palace the day before to fetch wheat, in order to distribute it to the soldiers, that it might be sent to the mill at the accustomed hour in the morning.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 ASSASSINATION OF ISHBOSHETH, 2Sa_4:1-12.
ASSASSINATION OF ISHBOSHETH, 2Sa_4:1-12.
1. His hands were feeble — He lost all vigorous hold upon the government, for Abner had been his strength.
Read full note →
Troubled — Confounded and alarmed. They knew not what might be the end of these things. They had no confidence in Ishbosheth, and they were not disposed at once to accept the son of Jesse.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1–12 Ch. 2Sa_4:1-7. The Murder of Ish-bosheth
Ch. 2Sa_4:1-7. The Murder of Ish-bosheth
1. his hands were feeble] His hands were weakened. His resolution was paralysed: he lost heart. Cp. Ezr_4:4, and the opposite expression in ch. 2Sa_2:7.
Read full note →
were troubled] Were dismayed. Ish-bosheth was a mere puppet, and Abner the real stay of the kingdom.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1–12 (1) All the Israelites were troubled.—The death of Abner…
IV.
(1) All the Israelites were troubled.—The death of Abner affected both Ish-bosheth and his people. For the former, “his hands were feeble,” the whole support and strength of his throne being gone; the latter were “troubled” because they had been carrying on negotiations with David through Abner, and these were now thrown into confusion, and it became uncertain how they might result.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 When Saul"s son heard that Abner was dead. The…
When Saul"s son heard that Abner was dead. The news of Abner"s death must have had a doubly depressing effect upon Ishbosheth; for he learned, not only that the.mainstay of his kingdom was slain, but that even he, in despair of a successful issue, had been engaged in treasonable negotiations with his rival. All the Israelites were troubled. Their trouble was caused rather by uncertainty than by fear. Abner"s plans had fallen through, and the fact of his murder threw grave suspicions on David. Had he now attacked Israel, the chiefs would most probably have stood loyally by Saul"s house. But he did nothing, and his innocence slowly but gradually was made clear. They were thus in a state of suspense, and waiting till some brave man arose to lead them to a decision. Unfortunately, a fresh crime threw everything back into hopeless confusion.
Vers. 1-12. The facts are:
Read full note →
1. On the death of Abner, consternation seizes Ishbosheth and his friends.
2. The only other representative of the house of Saul was a mere boy,whose age and bodily infirmity rendered his coming to the front out of the question.
3. Two of Ishbosheth"s officers, forming a secret design, visit Ishbosheth as though on business connected with their duties, and slay him.
4. Stealing away by night, they carry the head of Ishbosheth to David at Hebron, and think to satisfy thereby his love of revenge.
5. David, eagerly reminding himself that God had always delivered himwithout his having recourse to bloodshed, reminds his visitors also of the punishment he had inflicted on others in a similar case at Ziklag, and denounces their deed as even more atrocious.
6. Thereupon David causes the murderers to be executed, and their limbsto be exhibited in Hebron as a warning to the wicked, and meanwhile he bestows funereal honours on the head of Ishbosheth.
Worldly blindness the parent of sorrow and wrong.
The whole of the events of this chapter proceed from the inability of men to read the high principles that governed the conduct of David. The general truth may be developed as follows.
I THE BODINGS OF IGNORANCE FILL A LARGE SPACE IN THE LIVES OF SOME MEN. When it is said that Ishbosheth and his people were paralyzed and troubled by the news of the death of Abner, the question comes Why? Was it because now the healing policy of Abner and David (2Sa_3:17-21) would yield to the more fierce policy of Josh? Did the young king and his followers imagine that now it was simply a question of best terms, and that submission was inevitable? Or were they apprehensive that, although David made terms with Abner for the sake of securing his aid, now, when that aid was no longer available for the consolidation of his power, he would take revenge on all who had supported the Cause of Ishbosheth? In any case, their fears were not warranted by the governing facts of the situation. Their safety and welfare rested with David, and had they known him, had they read his principles aright, they might have been quite at ease in allowing events to take their course in his supremacy. Their forebodings of trouble sprang from ignorance of the man they had to deal with. They formed their estimate of his possible future conduct on the standards familiar amongst themselves. His life was too lofty in tone and aspiration for them to understand. How much of human life is spoiled, is charged with sorrows and fears, which would have no place were our vision clearer and our estimate of others more just and true! Men too often judge of the thoughts and ways of God by their own standard, and so apprehend what never need have troubled them. Our ignorance of coming events exercises a larger influence over our feelings than is proper; for though we do not know exactly what win occur, we ought to know that all things are in the wisest and kindest of hands. In human relationships men make troubles by supposing their fellow men, often, to be otherwise affected than they actually are. Even the disciples were troubled in consequence of their blameworthy ignorance of the wisdom and power of their Master, and they were challenged to get rid of the sorrows bred of ignorance by reposing in him a trust as absolute as they, pious Hebrews, were wont to repose in the Eternal. (Joh_14:1, Joh_14:2)
II THE ATTACHMENT OF MEN NOT SPIRITUALLY ENLIGHTENED IS OF DOUBTFUL PERMANENCE. The attachment of the sons of Rimmon and others to the cause of Ishbosheth was based on anything but enlightened views of the theocracy, or a clear interpretation of the events of the life of Saul and David, which must have been well known. Indeed, as in the days of "David"s greater Son" the mark of distinction among men lay in the spiritual recognition of him as Divine amidst his sorrows and trials, so in David"s time only true unworldly men, whose eyes were open to see the spiritual element in his life, formed political attachments on superior knowledge. That which is earthly partakes of the instability of earth, and, however outwardly zealous the supporters of Ishbosheth may have been and even sincere according to their light, they were open to the influences to change which are sure to arise in times of trouble, but which could never move a mind that saw the higher principles involved in David"s claim. The historian seems to imply this in his reference to the age and infirmity of Mephibosheth, as much as to say there was no one else of the house of Saul around whom men might rally in case Ishbosheth"s cause should fail. No resort was left but to abandon the young king in his troubles, and form new and more promising attachments. Imagine a Jonathan slackening his attachment to David in his time of stress! or a Paul losing interest in Christ when persecutions arose! On the other hand, there are many instances in which the weakened attachment of the sons of Rimmon, proceeding as that attachment did from low and mere conventional views, finds a counterpart in human life. Companionships based on community of sensual enjoyments are held by bonds which perish in adversity. Friendships are perishable in so far as they are pervaded by a worldly element. Whatever ties are formed on any feelings, interests, or considerations than those which make us all one in Christ, cannot but vanish as we pass from the earthly scene into the world where alone the spiritual bond endures. And in the Church militant the adherence of numbers lacks a permanence to be counted on in proportion as it is based on custom, convenience, fashion, superstition, defective knowledge of Scripture, and dimness of spiritual apprehension. Plate was not far from the truth in saying that knowledge and reality were one. Scripture everywhere gives prominence to the unifying, ennobling power of spiritual perception. The distinction of children of light and of darkness proceeds thereon. The "spiritual man judgeth all things." The rejection of Christ was connected with blindness to the higher and more spiritual qualities of his life. (1Co_2:8-16)
III MEN OF UNSPIRITUAL VIEWS ARE, BY REASON OF THEIR BLINDNESS, OPEN TO TERRIBLE TEMPTATIONS, AND MAY BE CARRIED AWAY TO EVIL BY THE LOWER PASSIONS OF THEIR NATURE. These sons of Rimmon, like others, began to consider what course would be most advantageous to themselves, now that the cause of Ishbosheth seemed to be on the wane. Looking on the position of the two kings as simply the consequence of purely worldly forces coming into competition, and caring most of all to be on the winning side, they asked themselves what conduct on their part would be sure to win the favour of David, the stronger of the two. Had they at that juncture in the process of thought conceived of David as a man of God, of high spiritual aims, destined to work out a Divine purpose on principles of righteousness, and ambitious to translate the purest principles of private life into the affairs of his kingdom, they would only have thought of doing some deed of justice and mercy, such as a man of that character would delight in. But being destitute of these spiritual perceptions, regarding all things on the low base level of a worldly expediency, and judging David to be much such a man as themselves, there arose in their process of thought fair opportunity for the cruellest and basest propensities of their nature, to put forth their strength and suggest the murder of the unfortunate king as an act of present wisdom. It takes many impulses and thoughts of advantage and disadvantage to bring about a great crime, and it is difficult, in analyzing the mental antecedents of the crime, to assign to each its exact influence; but it is obvious in this case that worldliness of view, lack of spiritual apprehension, undue estimate of a lofty character, rendered the crime possible, and even cleared away the barriers of reason against its accomplishment. They judged David to be as themselves, and they acted accordingly. The belief that he would be glad inspired the concoction of the plot, and gave tone of exultation in their approach to him with the head of the murdered man. Their darkness was dense, and in this sense theirs was a deed of darkness. It is often that men fall into the snare of the devil in consequence of their lack of spiritual perception. The false is glossed, the true is veiled. Even disciples, not clearly perceiving the purely spiritual character of their Lord"s mission, desired fire from heaven to destroy the unbelieving. During the "dark ages" men perpetrated dreadful deeds to please Christ, not rising to a true appreciation of his character and methods. Low conceptions of the nature of the kingdom of Christ as it is in the world, now induce men professing an interest in it to render service in forms that would never be entertained were his kingdom regarded as he regards it one of purity, of love, and of righteousness. And as this worldly mindedness was a sore cause of sorrow and trouble to David, and hindered the establishment of his authority, so the same evil militates much against the final triumph of our Lord. Hence the need of teaching and the power of the Holy Spirit to open the eyes of the blind, that they may appreciate and regulate their actions by the high principles embodied in the character and kingdom of Christ.
GENERAL LESSONS.
1. Destitution of the power of spiritual apprehension and appreciation is aradical evil of human nature, and can never be removed by any other means
2. than those which God has provided in his truth and the grace of the Holy Spirit.
3. If we would have men knit in imperishable bonds of affection andcommon interest, we must seek to get them to see Christ as he is, and enter into relationships on the basis of his kingdom.
1. In all our dealings with men we should be careful not to put forward ourown feelings and aims as a standard by which to judge them.
Clustered truths.
It is not easy to weave all the teaching of this chapter on one line, and yet the various incidents recorded all centre in the disaster which befell the King of Israel consequent on the secession and death of Abner. It may thus be advantageous, for the sake of securing unity of form, to look at the remaining leading truths of the chapter as clustering around this sad event.
I THE SMALLER FIGURES OF HISTORY. Mephibosheth here figures as an insignificant person in the narrative of persons and events connected with the gradual unfolding of the purposes of God. A mere boy, lamed by a careless nurse, a son of one who had renounced all claim to the throne! His name and misfortune are mentioned, and the tide of events moves on. Now and then we meet with such incidental references in the Bible history. They are but specimens of multitudes equally insignificant who played a small part in the affairs of the world, and are unknown forever. Their selection for brief allusion is doubtless part of a vast providential method by which the historians were unconsciously guided to refer to whatever might illustrate the process of elimination by which God at last accomplished his purpose in first raising up David to supreme dominion of his people, and afterwards the true David of the present dispensation. The poor lad little knew that he was an element in the working out of a great purpose, and that, small as was his figure in life, it served as a foil to God"s greater characters. Modern science teaches us that nothing is really lost, that all small items are used up in the great development of things towards a future higher condition. So the humbler forms of human life are not all lost. They play their part, and to some extent modify all that comes after them. In the Church of Christ, the little ones, feeble and uninfluential in a worldly sense, have some part to perform in the great spiritual development which God is working out. Our Mephibosheths are not lost to mankind. The smaller figures of life render the totality of life more varied, and develop qualities which uniform greatness could never originate.
II NOTORIOUS IMMORTALITY. These sons of Rimmon have won for themselves a notorious immortality. Had it not been for their base and cruel deed, their names would never have appeared on the page of history. Their crime has given them a prominent place as compared with wiser and better men. In this case, the reason of it is doubtless to be found in the circumstance that their deed served to bring out into more distinctness the character of the kingdom which God was then establishing by means of David, and so, incidentally, it forms one of the links in that singular chain of events by which at last the Christ found a way prepared for him to dwell among men. There is a base passion in some men for this kind of notoriety. Some criminals have gloried in it, and have seemed to derive some satisfaction from the thought that, at all events, they have created a sensation, and will for a time, and perhaps forever, figure in history. Miserable consolations of sin! The utter delusiveness of sinful reasoning! The charm and delight could only be for a few days; the anguish and shame would come when the eye saw the world no more and the ear ceased to listen to the hum of the people, and then abide forever. The curse of the righteous rests on the notoriety, and so it becomes a very occasion of deep and recurring disgrace. In modern times incalculable injury is done by a low literature that feeds this morbid love of notoriety of evil, and in the education of youth too much care cannot be given to secure them from the infection.
III IMPLICIT ASPERSION OF CHARACTER. When these sons of Rimmon went to David with the head of Ishbosheth, no doubt openly and even boasting before they reached his presence, they by that act implicitly cast on his character the foulest and most painful aspersions. It was in act a declaration to men that David was a man of blood, that he looked on the son of Saul as a foe to be got rid of by any means, and that if only supremacy could be obtained over all the people, he cared not particularly as to the means. To David this was the interpretation of the act, and the people about him could not but regard it in that light. Character may be aspersed by deeds in various forms, and by people who do not see that there is aspersion in their conduct. The flatteries of some men are virtually reflections on purity of life. The requests of some men for a certain line of action are founded sometimes on a supposition of character that would be repudiated and scorned.
IV RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION. David at once saw the varied bearing of the conduct of these sons of Rimmon; its base treachery, its cold cruelty, its political treason, its disregard of the claims of misfortune, its foolish policy, and, not least, its false and wicked misrepresentations of his own character. To the man called of God, who had in all his adversities trusted in God, whose mission was to establish a rule more wise and just than that of Saul, and to raise the ideas of the people to a higher level and prepare them to perform a part in opening the way for the great Messiah, this insult must have been agonizing. His quick spiritual sensibilities were at once stirred, and yet his indignation was the more strong and impressive in that he selected words wherewith to show to them the enormity of their guilt, and then delivered them to the execution they deserved.. Apart from his natural aversion to "bloody men," and his regard for the sacredness of human life even in the case of those who injured him, he could not but dwell in his own private reflections on the shameful insult offered to himself in the supposition that he could glory in such a deed. A fire burned in his soul. All good men, who regard purity and righteousness of life as above all things, will fully sympathize with David. Have we not here a clue to the Saviour"s anguish when evil men supposed that he performed miracles by means of the power of Beelzebub? And was not this, perhaps, the deadly sin against the Holy Ghost? (Mat_12:24-32)
V GENEROSITY TO UNFORTUNATE MEN. David was a man rich in noble feelings. His proud indignation at the insult paid to him was accompanied with immediate regard for the unfortunate king whose life had been brought to so untimely an end. For him he cherished true pity. He regarded him as the son of Saul the anointed of the Lord, a man forced probably into a position of danger by stronger wills, and at least mistaken in his views as to what was best for the tribes on the death of his father; and hence, with the generosity so characteristic of him, he had his few remains buried with all honour in the sepulchre of his distinguished captain. Here comes out the unworldliness of David"s character. Success in life and rise to a high position too often render men indifferent to those on whom fortune has not smiled. There are many like Ishbosheth men who have been pushed into positions for which they were unfitted, or have been swayed by feeble reasons of their own into a course of life not useful, or have striven in vain against great social obstacles, and so have come to disappointment and grief. As our Lord was compassionate and considerate of the lowly, so all who cherish his spirit will find out means of showing kindness to the unfortunate, even though they may have been in the position of opponents.
HOMILIES BY B. DALE. Vers. 1-3. (MAHANAIM.)
The unhappy lot of Ishbosheth.
Of the varied types of character which these chapters furnish, that which appears in Ishbosheth Eshbaal, (1Ch_8:33) is a most pitiable one. The last surviving son of Saul, he bore little resemblance to his heroic father; owed his life to his incapacity for military enterprise; was the legitimate successor of Saul according to the law of Oriental succession; after the brief suspense in which the elders of Israel seemed disposed to accept David as king, (2Sa_2:7 2Sa_3:17) was taken under the patronage of Abner; at the end of five years was fully recognized, being forty years old; and reigned two years. (2Sa_2:10) It is uncertain how far he was aware of David"s Divine designation to the throne, and consciously opposed its fulfilment; and, since the latter was not chosen by the elders, he was not guilty of usurpation. Although David could not speak of him as king, he called him "a righteous person" (ver. 11) man who had done no one any harm" (Josephus) in the same magnanimous spirit as he always exhibited toward the house of Saul. He was:
1. Raised to a position for which he was unfit. "The Scripture presents in him a living example of how the sacredly held right of legitimate inheritance has no root when it is not ennobled by vigorous personality. When the Divine calling is lacking, no legitimate pretensions help" (Cassel). He was destitute of mental force, courage, and energy; ambitious of royal honour and ease; not of royal service and beneficence. The highest offices should be held by the best men. In an ideal state of society it cannot be otherwise; but in its actual condition we often see "servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth". (Ecc_10:7) He who seeks or consents to occupy a position of influence and responsibility for which he is unfit, and those who seek or accept his appointment to it, inflict a serious injury upon themselves and one another. The rule of the "bramble" results in the destruction of all the trees of the forest. (Jud_1:10:15)
2. Deprived of the support on which he relied. "Abner was dead;" by whom he had been exalted and sustained, and to whom, rather than to God, he looked for counsel and help. Although he had alienated him by imprudent remonstrance, (2Sa_3:7) yet "he may have hoped to obtain an honourable satisfaction by his mediation" (Hengstenberg). This hope was now cut off. "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man," etc. (Jer_17:5; Psa_143:3, Psa_143:4)
3. Reduced to a condition of extreme weakness. "His hands became feeble." Nothing remained but unconditional submission or ineffectual and hopeless resistance. He was prepared for neither, and surrendered himself to despair; suffering the consequences of his own "foolishness". (Pro_19:3)
1. Contributory to the distress of a whole people. "And all Israel was troubled agitated, alarmed, confounded, desponding; having no confidence in his ability, participating in his fears, and, like him, experiencing the effects of former errors. "By his death the treaty with David was broken off; or there was no one to manage it with such authority and prudence as Abner had done" (Patrick).
2. Exposed to the villainy of unfaithful servants. "And Saul"s son had two men," etc. They belonged to his own tribe, and, should have been his protectors; served him in prosperity, when he could reward them; but turned against him in adversity, when he could no longer serve their interests; and, although they had suffered no wrong at his hands (ver. 11), acted toward him unjustly and with "treasonous malice," craft, and cruelty.
3. Smitten at a season of apparent security. "At noon, in his own house, upon his bed;" where he sought a brief repose, and slept to wake no more. He was left unguarded, and perished "unawares". (Luk_21:34) His head was buried "in the sepulchre of Abner in Hebron;" and the opposition to "the house of David" was at an end. None survived of "the house of Saul" save an afflicted son of Jonathan (ver. 4), who could be supposed to have any claim to the crown.
4. Removed as the last obstacle to the accession of a worthier man. And herein the overruling providence of God again appears in bringing to pass "the word of the Lord by Samuel". (2Sa_1:1, 2Sa_1:2) "It is significant that the destruction of Saul"s house and kingdom should have issued from Beeroth, the Gibeonite city" (2Sa_21:1, 2Sa_21:2) ("Speaker"s Commentary"). D.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 5, 9 His hands were feeble.
2Sa_4:1
His hands were feeble.
Read full note →
Men without co-operation weak
The man spoken of was Sauls son, and as the son of a king what reason had he to have enfeebled hands? The reason is that Abner was dead. But could not a kings son do without Abner? Have not kings sons abundant resources in themselves, without being dependent upon outsiders, however distinguished? All history replies in the negative. Men belong to one another. The kings son was nothing without Abner, but much with him. The unit one is but a singular number, but the moment a cipher is added to it becomes ten, and another cipher turns the ten into a hundred.
The integer is little by itself, the cipher is nothing at all when it stands alone, but when they are brought together they begin to make themselves felt. It is precisely so in our social relations. What is the husband without the wife? What is the son without the father? What is the scholar without the teacher? What is the flock without the shepherd? It is of no account to reason that there is a variety of value in men, some being worth much, and others being worth little; the fact is that they must all be brought into cooperation. (J. Parker, D. D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 2Sa_4:1. “His hands were feeble,” literally “his hands slackened,”…
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES—
2Sa_4:1. “His hands were feeble,” literally “his hands slackened,” i.e., “he lost the power and courage to act as a king.” (Keil.) “Troubled,” or “confounded.”
Read full note →
2Sa_4:2. “Saul’s son.” “Noteworthy is this designation for Ishbosheth.” (Erdmann.) “Captains,” etc. “The part that these two men play, as well as Abner’s conduct, suggests the supposition that the firm military organisation that Saul had called into being had relaxed, and a disintegration of the army into separate bodies under adventurers and partisans was imminent, if it had not already occurred.” (Erdmann.) “Beeroth.” Probably the present village of Bireh (Jos_9:17), about seven miles north of Jerusalem, and close to the western frontier of Benjamin.
2Sa_4:3. “Fled to Gittain.” Where this place was or why the Benjamites fled there is not known; some have suggested that the flight took place at the time of the Philistine invasion mentioned in 1Sa_31:7. In Neh_11:33, a Gittaim is mentioned as being inhabited by Benjamites after the exile, but it may not be the same place.
2Sa_4:4. “Mephibosheth,” or Meribaal (Baal’s fighter); see 1Ch_8:34. His name was changed doubtless for the same reason as Eshbaal was changed to Ishbosheth (see on 2Sa_2:8). This fact is here introduced to show that Ishbosheth was the last of Saul’s family who could make any pretensions to the throne, as, according to Oriental notions, the physical infirmity of Mephibosheth unfitted him for the duties of sovereignty.
2Sa_4:5. “On a bed,” etc., literally on the mid-day bed, in a quiet, cool, retired part of the house, both the hour and the place favouring their deed of bloodshed.
2Sa_4:6. “Fetched wheat.” The grain for the supply of their soldiers was evidently kept in the house of the king. “It is still a custom in the East to allow the soldiers a certain quantity of corn, together with some pay.” (Jamieson.)
2Sa_4:7. “As the thread of the narrative was broken by the explanatory remarks in 2Sa_4:6, it is resumed here by the repetition of some of the words. When Thenius, therefore, attempts to prove the ‘evident corruption of the Masoretic text’ by appealing to the nonsense of relating the murder of Ishbosheth, etc., twice over, he is altogether wrong, and has measured the peculiarities of Hebrew historians by the standard adopted by our own. J. P. F. Konigsfeldt has given the true explanation when he says:—‘The Hebrews often repeat in this way for the purpose of relating something fresh, as for example in this instance, their carrying off the head.’ Compare with this 2Sa_3:22-23, where the arrival of Joab is mentioned twice in two successive verses; or 2Sa_5:1-3, and many other passages.” (Kiel.) “The plain,” i.e., the Arabah, or Valley of the Jordan, as in 2Sa_2:29.
2Sa_4:8. “The king.” Notice that David is always here so termed, while in respect to Ishbosheth the title is always avoided.” (Erdmann.) “Thine enemy, which sought,” etc. These words may refer to Ishbosheth, but are generally understood in reference to Saul. Nothing is said in the history of any attempt of Ishbosheth to slay David. (See also on 2Sa_4:11.)
2Sa_4:11. “How much more,” etc. “The form of the thought is a progression from the less to the greater. If I executed in Ziklag him who avowed having killed at his own request on the battlefield mine enemy Saul, under whose persecutions the Lord delivered me from all adversity, how much more must I demand at your hands the blood of this righteous man whom ye murderously slew in his house on his bed.” (Erdmann.) “Righteous person.” “The assumption of the regal power which Abner had forced upon Ishbosheth was not a capital crime in the existing state of things.” (Kiel.) “Require his blood.” “On this phrase see Gen_9:5, according to which God is Himself the avenger of blood. (Comp. Psa_9:13.) David recognises himself as king in God’s service, and as His instrument.” (Erdmann.)
2Sa_4:12. “Cut off,” etc. Because the hands and feet were the offending members. Such unishment is still common in Eastern countries. “The pool,” etc. “Outside the town of Hebron is a pool of good water, which, being below the level of the adjoining ground, is accessible by flights of steps at each corner; and there is another reservoir at a little distance, both of which are very ancient. One or other of these must certainly be the pool referred to. The exposure of the mutilated relics at the pool was owing to its being a place of public resort.” (Jamieson.)
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE CHAPTER
THE MURDER OF ISHBOSHETH
This chapter further illustrates the teaching of the preceding one, inasmuch as it—
I. Gives two examples of the unconscious co-operation of human actions and Divine purpose. The nurse of Mephibosheth obeyed a Divine instinct when she sought to save her charge from the danger which surrounded him. And she probably did save him from death at the hand of the Philistines, being so far permitted by God to succeed in her praiseworthy endeavour. Mephibosheth was spared to receive from David the tribute of gratitude which he deserved for his father’s sake, but an apparent accident prevented the execution of the full intention. The child was saved, but saved to be a hopeless cripple for the rest of his days, and we can well imagine that his nurse felt long and deep grief in consequence. But most likely her fall was the means of preventing the son of Jonathan from coming into collision with his father’s friend, and so bringing upon himself the fate which befel his uncle. To the miscarriage of the plans of man concerning him he probably owed the blessing of living a peaceful and honoured life instead of one of turmoil and disappointment. The event which to his friends seemed so untoward was an intervention of his father’s God on his behalf, and a meeting and co-operation of the Divine and the human in a purpose of mercy towards him and towards the nation. For the lameness of Mephibosheth, as well as the death of Ishbosheth, was the removal of a hindrance to David’s peaceful accession. The thoughts suggested by this latter event are the same as those upon the murder of Abner in the preceding chapter.
II. It shows the true standard by which to judge human actions. David, like the true man he was, looked at the deed of violence done to Ishbosheth not in the light of the relation in which it stood to himself, but in its relation to the eternal principles of right and wrong. As in the case of Saul (see page 276) he could separate the man from the opponent, and, as in the murder of Abner, he allowed no plausible excuse or plea to blind him to the real nature of the crime. On this subject see also page 289.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
2Sa_4:1. Cursed is the man that trusteth in men, and maketh flesh his arm.
1. Because of the frailty of all human supports, with which fall the hopes based on them.
2. Because of the faithlessness of men, in whom blind confidence is placed instead of putting confidence in the faithfulness of the Lord.
3. Because of the danger and ruin of body and soul to which one thereby exposes himself.—Lange’s Commentary.
The contrast is striking between the conduct of Ishbosheth under difficulty and that of David. In the history of David we have repeatedly found his faith faltering, and we have seen him overcome for the time by the spirit of distrust. But these occasions occurred in the midst of protracted and terrible struggles; they were exceptions to his usual bearing; faith commonly bore him up in his darkest trials. Ishbosheth, on the other hand, had no resource—no sustaining power whatever under visible reverses. David’s slips were like the temporary retiring of the gallant soldier, when, fagged and weary, he is driven back for a few moments by superior numbers; but as soon as he has recovered his breath, dashes on undaunted to the conflict. Ishbosheth’s failure was like the conduct of the soldier who lays down his arms and rushes from the field as soon as he has begun to taste the bitter storm and cruel reverses of the war. With all his slips and failures, there was something in the demeanour of David that showed him to be cast in another mould from that of other men. He was habitually aiming at a higher standard, and upheld by the consciousness of a higher strength.—Blaikie.
2Sa_4:8. How evil seeks deceitfully to clothe itself with the appearance of good.
1. By falsehood, in alleging something evil in others as a pretext to make itself appear right and good.
2. By hypocrisy, in representing itself as in harmony with God’s word and will.
3. By the pretence of having promoted the interests of another.—Lange’s Commentary.
How important it is that our conduct should be regulated by general laws, clearly and strictly defined—not dependent on the capricious judgment of each individual in his particular case, or loosely accommodated to particular circumstances. There seems to be no crime so flagrant but that some are found not only to commit it, under the influence of temptation, but to commit it without scruple or compunction, by contriving to persuade the conscience that theirs is a particular case.—Lindsay.
2Sa_4:11. Charity teaches us to make the best, not only of our friends, but of our enemies, and to think those may be righteous persons who yet in some instances do us wrong.—Henry.
2Sa_4:12. These rapid instantaneous executions by order of David have raised a painful feeling in pious hearts. Granting that the retribution was justly deserved, and granting that a rapid execution was necessary to make a due impression on the people, it may be asked—How could David, as a pious man, hurry sinners into the presence of their Judge without leaving them a moment to ask mercy, or giving them one affectionate exhortation to repentance? The question is one of very great difficulty, and with our present light it hardly admits of a satisfactory answer. The difficulty arises from our ignorance of the precise views which prevailed in Old Testament times in regard to the future world. It is certain that David and other pious men believed in a future life, and must often have thought about it; but how far they were ordinarily under the power of the world to come—how far, for example, the future life was present to their thoughts in connection with such men as Baanah and Rechab—is a problem which we have not materials to solve. The abrupt procedure of David on this and similar occasions favours the supposition that in their ordinary frames of mind, when not specially exercised in spiritual contemplation to the utmost stretch of their powers, they had a much less vivid impression of the future than we have now.… The Old Testament did not hide life and immortality from the view of faith, but it was the New Testament that brought them clearly to light.—Blaikie.
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.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 The Murder of Ish-bosheth
The Murder of Ish-bosheth
2, 3. Beeroth was near Gibeon. The object of this note is to explain how the Beerothites came to be Benjamites. Properly they should have been Canaanites, for Beeroth was included in the treaty with Gibeon (Jos_9:17, Jos_9:27). But owing to the persecution of Saul (2Sa_21:1) the Canaanites of Beeroth fled to Gittaim, and the town passed into the possession of Benjamin. Gittaim] in Benjamin.
Read full note →
4. Mephibosheth] His name is given in 1Ch_8:34 as 'Merib-baal': see on 28.
5. Who lay on a bed at noon] rather, 'and he was taking his noon-tide rest,' or siesta.
6. The LXX has an altogether different text for this v., 'and, behold, the woman who kept the door of the house was winnowing wheat, and she slumbered and slept; and the brothers, Rechab and Baanah, escaped notice.' This explains how it was they were able to enter unperceived.
10. Who thought that I would have given him] better, 'in order to give him.'
12. Chronicles omits all mention of the reign of Ish-bosheth.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v9 (See Scofield "Isa 59:20") See Scofield "Exo 14:30".
redeemed
(See Scofield "Isa 59:20") See Scofield "Exo 14:30".
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 5. The Death of Ish-bosheth
5. The Death of Ish-bosheth
CHAPTER 4
Read full note →
1. Ish-bosheth in despair (2Sa 4:1-3)
2. Mephibosheth, the lame son (2Sa 4:4)
3. The end of Ish-bosheth (2Sa 4:5-8)
4. The punishment of the murderers (2Sa 4:9-12)
Abner’s death meant the speedy end of Ish-bosheth’s pretentious reign. Baanah and Rechab were his captains and became his murderers. While Ish-bosheth was resting in the heat of the day they sneaked in and murdered the sleeping son of Saul, then brought the head to David. They claimed to be instruments of God in the execution of the wicked deed, expecting approval and a reward from David. But the king received them in a different way. Here David’s trust in Jehovah breaks through the dark clouds and the King’s heart is revealed. “As the LORD liveth, who hath redeemed my soul out of all adversity.” He acknowledges the Lord’s gracious help in the past and his present confidence in Him. His case had rested in Jehovah’s hands and in the ghastly deed of the two captains the King did not see Jehovah’s intervention in his behalf, but he looked upon them as murderers. Swift judgment was executed upon them. David is now through these circumstances the sole and undisputed claimant of the throne of Israel and his anointing as king over all Israel must speedily follow. Through all the sad occurrences since Abner had made Ish-bosheth king, David had maintained his integrity. In all the evil deeds, the bloodshed and cold-blooded murders he had no part. He acted in justice. In this at least he is a type of Him who will reign over the earth in righteousness.
We must not overlook verse 4 in which Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth is mentioned for the first time. He was the only representative of Saul’s line, a helpless cripple. His story and David’s kindness to him we shall soon follow.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv1, 9 Ishbosheth Murdered
Ishbosheth Murdered
v. 1. And when Saul’s son, Ishbosheth, heard that Abner was dead in Hebron, his hands were feeble, slack, he completely lost heart, and all the Israelites were troubled, not only terrified, but completely at a loss what to do next. Things became altogether unsettled, chaos reigned in Israel.
Read full note →
v. 2. And Saul’s son had two men that were captains of bands, bold, adventurous men who had divisions of the former Israelitish army under their command. The name of the one was Baanah, and the name of the other Rechab, the son of Rimmon, a Beerothite, of the children of Benjamin. (For Beeroth, although on its extreme western boundary, also was reckoned to Benjamin, Jos 18:25.
v. 3. And the Beerothites fled to Gittaim, probably because the Philistines had captured Beeroth, and were sojourners there until this day. )
v. 4. And Jonathan, Saul’s son, had a son that was lame of his feet, the last representative of Saul’s house after Ishbosheth, a cripple and a minor. He was five years old when the tidings came of Saul and Jonathan out of Jezreel, at the time of the great defeat by the Philistines, 1Sa 29:1-11, and his nurse took him up and fled; and it came to pass, as she made haste to flee, that he fell and became lame. And his name was Mephibosheth (or Meribbaal, 1Ch 8:34).
v. 5. And the sons of Rimmon, the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, went and came about the heat of the day to the house of Ishbosheth, who lay on a bed at noon, on the midday-bed, during the drowsiest part of the day, the time of the daily siesta, when men were not so alert as at other times.
v. 6. And they came thither into the midst of the house, as though they would have fetched wheat, grain to distribute to their soldiers, which was probably stored off the court or open space in the center of the house. Their presence for such a purpose would attract no attention. And they smote him under the fifth rib, through the abdomen; and Rechab and Baanah, his brother, escaped.
v. 7. For when they came in to the house, which was open to them by reason of their position in the army, he lay on his bed in his bedchamber, in the inner, more remote section of the house, and they smote him, and slew him, and beheaded him, and took his head, and gat them away through the plain all night, they fled down the valley of the Jordan.
v. 8. And they brought the head of Ishbosheth unto David to Hebron, and said to the king, Behold the head of Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, thine enemy, which sought thy life; and the Lord hath avenged my lord the king this day of Saul and of his seed. To their crime of cold-blooded assassination they added that of blasphemy by ascribing the success of their deed to Jehovah. The object of the murderers evidently was to commend themselves to David and to obtain a reward of some kind. It is impossible to correct a wrong by committing a wrong, for the punishment of all crimes is in the hands of the authorities, who have received their power from God.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 4, 5, 8, 11 Ishbosheth ... Baanah ... Recab ... Rimmon
Ishbosheth ... Baanah ... Recab ... Rimmon
These are names of men. (See: How to Translate Names)
Read full note →
his hands became weak
In this phrase "his hands" represents Ishbosheth. AT: "Ishbosheth became weak" or "Ishbosheth lost all strength" (See: Synecdoche)
Now Saul's son had two men ... this very time
This introduces the men Baanah and Rechab in the story. (See: Introduction of New and Old Participants)
for Beeroth is also considered part of Benjamin, and the Beerothites fled to Gittaim and have been living there until this very time
Here the author provides background information about Beeroth for the reader. The area of Beeroth was part of the land that belonged to the tribe of Benjamin. (See: Background Information)
Beeroth ... Gittaim
These are the names of places. (See: How to Translate Names)
translationWords
Saul (OT)
Abner
die
Hebron
Israel
trouble
name
Benjamin
life
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12 4:1 all Israel became paralyzed with fear: Abner’s true…
4:1 all Israel became paralyzed with fear: Abner’s true power was evident in Ishbosheth’s reaction to his death (cp. Josh 2:9-11; 5:1). Ishbosheth’s timidity bred the same among his followers.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.