Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 2 Samuel 2:1 - 3:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Sa_2:1 to 2Sa_3:6
I. David anointed King over Judah—dwells in Hebron. 2Sa_2:1-7
And they told David, saying, That the men of Jabesh-Gilead were they that buried Saul. 5And David sent messengers unto the men of Jabesh-Gilead, and said unto them, Blessed be ye of the Lord [Jehovah] that ye have showed this 6kindness unto your lord, even [om. even] unto Saul, and have buried him. And now, the Lord [Jehovah] show [do] kindness and truth unto you; and I also will 7[om. will] requite [do] you this kindness, because ye have done this thing. Therefore [And] now, let your hands be strengthened [strong], and be ye valiant; for your master [lord] Saul is dead, and also [ins. me] the house of Judah have [have the house, etc.] anointed me [om. me] king over them.
18And there were three sons of Zeruiah there, Joab and Abishai and Asahel; and Asahel was as light of foot as a wild roe [gazelle]. 19And Asahel pursued after Abner, and in going he turned not [he turned not to go] to the right hand nor to 20the left from following Abner. Then [And] Abner looked behind him and said, Art thou Asahel? And he answered [said], I am. 21And Abner said to him, Turn thee aside to thy right hand or to thy left, and lay thee hold on one of the young men, and take thee his armor. But Asahel would not turn aside from following of [om of] him. 22And Abner said again to Asahel, Turn thee aside from following me; wherefore should I smite thee to the ground? how then should I hold up 23my face to Joab thy brother? Howbeit [And] he refused to turn aside; wherefore [and] Abner with the hinder end of the spear smote him under the fifth rib [in the abdomen], that [and] the spear came out behind him, and he fell down there and died in the same place [on the spot]; and it came to pass that as many as came to the place where Asahel fell down and died stood still.
24Joab also [And Joab] and Abishai pursued after Abner; and the sun went down when they were come [and they came] to the hill of Ammah, that lieth before Giah by the way of the wilderness of Gibeon. 25And the children of Benjamin gathered themselves together after Abner, and became one troop, and stood on the 26top of an hill. Then [And] Abner called to Joab and said, Shall the sword devour forever? knowest thou not that it will be bitterness in the latter end? how long shall it be then, ere thou bid the people return from following their brethren? 27And Joab said, As God liveth, unless thou hadst spoken, surely [om. surely] then 28in the morning the people had gone up every one from following his brother. So [And] Joab blew a trumpet, and all the people stood still, and pursued after Israel no more, neither fought they any more. 29And Abner and his men walked all that night through the plain, and passed over Jordan, and went through all 30[ins. the] Bithron, and they [om. they] came to Mahanaim. And Joab returned from following Abner; and when [om. when] he had [om. had] gathered all the people together, [ins. and] there lacked of David’s servants nineteen men and Asahel. 31But [And] the servants of David had smitten of Benjamin and of Abner’s men, so that three hundred and three-score men died. 32And they took up Asahel and buried him in the sepulchre of his father which was in Bethlehem. And Joab and his men went all night, and they [om. they] came to Hebron at break of day.
2Sa_3:1 Now [And] there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David; but [and] David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker. 2And unto David were sons born in Hebron; and his first-born was Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; 3And his second, Chileab, of Abigail, the wife of Nabal the Carmelite; and the third, Absalom the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur; 4And the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital; 5And the sixth, Ithream, by Eglah David’s wife. These were born to David in Hebron. And it came to pass, while there was war between the house of Saul and the house of David, that Abner made himself strong for the house of Saul.
2Sa_2:1. The inquiry of the Lord was made through Urim and Thummim, comp. 1Sa_23:2; 1Sa_23:10 sq.; 1Sa_30:7-8 sq. The high-priest Abiathar with the Ephod was with David, 1 Sam. 22:30; 2Sa_23:6. At this decisive turning-point of his unquiet life he wished to know the will of the Lord. The “after this” refers to all that is narrated in 2 Samuel 1. and 1 Samuel 31. The motive for inquiring of the Lord is thereby at the same time indicated. He saw that the promise of the kingdom was now to be fulfilled to him. As he could no longer remain in the land of the Philistines, but must return to his country, and as the northern part of the land was held by the Philistines, the return to the territory of his own tribe was most natural; for there, where he had a long time found refuge (1Sa_22:5), he might count on a large following (1Sa_30:26 sq.) and firm support and protection against the remains of Saul’s army under Abner. To the first question he receives from the Lord the definite answer that he is to return to Judah. To the second question: “Whither?” the answer is: “To Hebron.” This city, situated in a valley (Gen_37:14) in the most mountainous, and therefore the safest part of Judah, held to be a holy place from the recollections of the Patriarchal time, one of the principal places in the Tribe of Judah, an ancient royal city and a priestly city (Jos_12:10; Jos_21:11), must now have had for David a very special importance, which appeared all the clearer from the divine decision and in respect to his future life became indubitable; here now was to be fulfilled the old Patriarchal promise (Gen_49:8 sq.), the establishment of the theocratic kingdom in the Tribe of Judah.
2Sa_2:2 sq. In accordance with the will and direction of his God he went thither with his whole family. But also the men that were with him (comp. 1Sa_27:2). he led thither into the cities of Hebron, that is, the places that belonged to the district of Hebron; every man with his house, a complete and permanent colonization of David’s entire following took place, the foundation of David’s royal authority, which was established with its seat in Hebron. For it is forthwith declared in 2Sa_2:4 a that the “men of Judah,” that is, the elders as the representatives of the Tribe anointed him king over the house (the tribe) of Judah. See 2Sa_5:3, where the elders of all Israel come to make him king over the whole nation. The first anointment received from Samuel (1 Samuel 17.) denoted the divine consecration to the royal office; this second one, performed by the Elders of Judah, was the public solemn installation of David (based on that anointment) into this office. Comp. Saul’s first anointment by Samuel (1Sa_10:1) and his subsequent public inauguration as king by the Elders, 1Sa_10:24; 1Sa_11:15.—So two anointments of Solomon are described, 1Ch_23:1 sq.; 1Ch_29:22. The anointing of David was perhaps hastened because Abner’s purpose (2Sa_2:8 sq.) was already known. [On the motives of the Tribe of Judah in making David their king see Chandler’s “Life of David,” Bk. II., 2 Samuel 30.—Tr].
2Sa_2:4-7. David’s first act as king. The message to the Jabeshites with thanks for their burial of Saul and the announcement of his anointing as king.—And they told David, saying (Luther: And when it was told David that) the men of Jabesh are they that buried Saul. (The form) of this sentence would certainly be somewhat “hard and ill-constructed” (Then.), but for the obvious pre-supposition that David, having heard of and deeply lamented Saul’s death on the battle-field, inquired whether the body of the “Anointed of the Lord” had been rescued from the hands of the uncircumcised and buried in the sacred soil of his native land. S. Schmid well remarks of this explanation (which Tremellius has) that “it accords with David’s piety.” It is thus natural to suppose that David, now by God’s providence king in Saul’s stead, in consequence of the afflicting news that had wrung from him such a lament, purposes to give a becoming royal burial to the man whose person had always been sacred to him, and whose heroic greatness and virtues he had so passionately celebrated. There is therefore no need for the bold emendation of Thenius (after Vulg. and Sept.), who would read simply: “it was told David that the men of Jabesh buried Saul.”—On the burial by the faithful and grateful Jabeshites of the bodies of Saul and his sons brought away from Bethshean, see 1Sa_31:11 sq.
2Sa_2:5. The message to the Jabeshites was couched in the tone or royal authority. It conveys 1) a grateful invocation of blessing for the noble deed of love that they have wrought’ on Saul by burying him; the phrase “your lord” indicates that they had herein acted as became their relation to Saul as their king and lord.
2Sa_2:6. And now the Lord do to you kindness and truth.—This is the expansion of the wish of blessing in 2Sa_2:5. The first noun ( çֶñֶø ), favor, kindness is not merely pardoning grace (Keil), but in general the gracious love that God shows His people on the ground of His covenant with them. The second ( àֱîֶú ), truth is the trustworthiness and attestation of all His promises. David wishes them all exhibitions of the love and faithfulness of the Lord for the faithful love which they showed king Saul even in his death.—And I also do you this good, because ye have done this thing; the good that he does them is not merely this wish for the divine blessing (Keil), or therewith a gift of honor (Bunsen), but this honorable royal embassy with expression of thanks and invocation of blessing. The rendering: “And I also wish to show you such kindness” (S. Schmid, Clericus, De Wette) gives no appropriate sense, whether the comparison be referred to God’s goodness or to the deed of the Jabeshites. Thenius excellently: “greeting you with blessing by my ambassadors.”—[Eng. A. V., Patrick and Philippson give the incorrect future rendering.—Tr.]
2Sa_2:7 adds 2) encouragement and exhortation: let your hands be strong means not: be consoled! but: “be of strong courage.” And be sons of power [valiant], that is, show yourselves brave men and unappalled. [The phrase means in general “men of force,” the context showing whether the force intended is moral, intellectual or physical. The word ( çַéִì ) is used of Ruth (Rth_3:11) and of the “virtuous woman” in Pro_31:10, and elsewhere of warlike valor and of wealth. Bib. Com.: the opposite of “men of virtue” are “men of Belial,” that is, men of no force of character.—Tr.]—The ground ( ëִּé ) of this exhortation is at the same time the explanation of its importance for the interests of David as anointed king. In the reason assigned he shows them not directly, but indirectly that he has been made king of Judah, their king Saul being dead. But his exhortation to valor and courage is intelligible only on the supposition that he gives them to understand that for them also he has taken Saul’s place as king, and that they must valiantly espouse and defend his cause against his enemies, the party of Saul under the lead of Abner. It is not clear whether or not Ishbosheth had at this time been already set up as king by Abner. But from 2Sa_2:9 (which states that Gilead was one of the districts gained by Abner for Ishbosheth) it is evident that David, seeing Abner’s movement thither (comp. 1Sa_26:7), must have been concerned to secure to himself the capital city [Jabesh] of this province (Joseph., Ant. VI. 5, 1). Whether he succeeded in this is questionable. His demand that it should recognize him as king was justly founded on his divine call to be king over the whole people in Saul’s stead, comp. 2Sa_3:9-10. So certainly along with sincere gratitude “there was policy in this embassy” (Then.), but it was a thoroughly justifiable theocratic policy.
II. 2Sa_2:8 to 2Sa_3:6. Ishbosheth’s antigodly elevation to the throne of Israel by Abner and the thence resulting war.
2Sa_2:8. On Abner see 1Sa_14:50.—He had taken Ishbosheth the son of Saul, and brought him over to Mahanaim, that is, across the Jordan. Ishbosheth had probably taken part in the unfortunate battle of Gilboa, and as he survived, Abner his uncle saved him together with the force under his command in the flight across the Jordan (1Sa_31:7), in order to keep the kingdom in the house of Saul. This retreat across the Jordan passed from Bethshean or Mount Gilboa southeast into Gilead, where not the city Jabesh (as we might expect from the foregoing), but Mahanaim (that is, “two camps,” Gen_32:2) became the abode of Ishbosheth. In the division of the land this place was assigned to the Tribe of Gad, and lay on the border between it and the half-tribe of Manasseh (Jos_13:26; Jos_13:30) on the Jabbok [the present Wady Zerqa]. It was afterwards given to the Levites, Jos_21:38. At a later period David found refuge there in his flight from Absalom, 2Sa_17:24.—Ishbosheth according to 1Ch_8:33; 1Ch_9:39, was Saul’s fourth son, while in 1Sa_14:49 only three are named, who also fell with him in the battle, 1Sa_31:2. But in Chronicles he is called Eshbaal, that is, “Fire of Baal” [or “man of Baal.”—Tr.]. For the name of the god Baal in Hos_9:10; Jer_3:24, is put as equivalent bosheth [shame] in order to indicate the reproach and shame of idol-worship (comp. Isa_42:17; Isa_45:16). So for Gideon’s surname Jerubbaal (Jdg_6:32; Jdg_8:35) we find Jerubbesheth (2Sa_11:21). Similarly the name Eshbaal was changed into Ishbosheth= “man of shame or disgrace.” Ewald’s supposition that bosheth was originally used in a good senses= “reverence, awe,” is without foundation, and is in opposition to the fact that the word occurs only in a bad sense. It is therefore a natural conjecture that the change of Eshbaal to Ishbosheth had reference to the shame and disgrace that befell Saul’s house in the person of this his last son, Psa_35:26 being thus fulfilled.—[It seems more probable that the name Baal = lord was in early times given to the God of Israel, and proper names were formed from it, as Eshbaal or Ishbaal = man of the lord; afterwards when the worship of the false Baal was introduced into Israel, the change above-described was made. Possibly this change was made by later editors and scribes, and the original form was retained in the Book of Chronicles because this book was less read than the prophetic historical books.—Tr.]—That Ishbosheth was a weak, characterless tool in the hand of Abner for the maintenance of the interests of the fallen royal house is already intimated in the words: And Abner took Ishbosheth and carried him over.—Mahanaim was fitted by its position to be a refuge for Ishbosheth and the remains of the defeated army.
2Sa_2:9. And made him king, as being in his view the legitimate heir to Saul’s royal throne. Then follows the statement of the districts over which Abner extended Ishbosheth’s authority: he made him king for Gilead, in which was the central point of his dominion, Mahanaim, whence consequently the territory of the two and a half east-jordanic tribes in the first place, which in contrast with the west-jordanic Canaan (Jos_22:9; Jos_22:13; Jos_22:15; Jos_22:32; Jdg_5:17; Jdg_20:1) is put as equivalent to Gilead, was claimed for Ishbosheth. The change of prepositions, three times “to, for” ( àֶì ), and three times “over” ( òַì ), is neglected by all the versions, which take the first as equivalent to the second. The difference, however, is to be retained; see Ew., § 217; and c. The former, as sign of movement “to” [occurring in the Hebrew text with Gilead, the Ashurites and Jezreel], indicates those regions over which Abner gradually extended Ishbosheth’s authority, being obliged to wrest them from the Philistines by continued wars; for it cannot be doubted that the Philistines followed the flying Israelites across the Jordan, and that after the battle of Gilboa the districts of the Ashurites and Jezreel remained securely in their possession. It is obvious that the “Ashurites” here cannot be the Arabian tribe of Asshurim in Gen_25:3 (Maur.) nor the Assyrians. The Chald. has “over the tribe of Asher;” but, apart from the in that case strange insertion of the Article (Then.), this explanation does not accord with the position of the other districts here mentioned, according to which the territory of Asher must have embraced also that of Zebulon and Naphtali, which is not supposable. According to the view of Bachienne cited by Keil the reference is to the city Asher (Jos_17:7) with its territory, since this city lay south-east of Jezreel, and Abner might well from Gilead have first subjected this region to Ishbosheth. But in that case (Keil) no reason appears why the name of the inhabitants (Ashurites) is given instead of that of the city (Asher), and the mention of a city among districts is improbable. The best way out of the difficulty is to adopt the reading “Geshurites” found in Vulg., Syr. and Ar., and approved by Then., Winer (R. W. I. 414) and Ewald. This misreading might easily have gotten into the text. This Geshur cannot, however, be the district whose inhabitants, “Geshurim” = “bridgemen,” appear in the south of Palestine in connection with Philistia (Jos_13:2), and are mentioned along with Girzites and Amalekites (1Sa_27:8); nor can it be the little kingdom of Geshur which belonged to Syria (2Sa_15:8), and there formed an independent State (2Sa_3:3; 2Sa_13:37; 2Sa_14:23). From this latter is to be distinguished (against Keil) a district of the same name which (Deu_3:14 sq.; Jos_12:5 sq.) with the region of the Maachathites on the west formed the border of the kingdom of Bashan and at the same time touched Gilead. But the Maachathites dwelt on the southwestern declivity of Hermon, at the sources of the Jordan (so Jerome). We shall therefore have to look for the Geshurites (whose district is named also in Jos_13:11 along with both Gilead and Hermon) together with the Maachathites south of Hermon in the upper Jordan-region on both sides of the river. That this district is to be distinguished from the independent “kingdom” of Geshur in Syria is clear also from Jos_13:13 : “ the children of Israel drove not out the Geshurites and the Maachathites, and Geshur and Maachath have dwelt among Israel to this day,” whence it appears that it belonged to the Israelitish territory. The name Geshur (Bridgeland) it doubtless received from the numerous crossings that connected the two banks of the Jordan (Winer, Thenius).—And for Jezreel—this district called after the city of the same name, the scene of the great battle in which Israel succumbed to the Philistines, was the great fruitful plain ( ôὸ ìÝãáðåäßïí , 1Ma_12:49; Jos., Ant. XV. 1, 22 u. s.) whose recovery must have particularly occupied Abner.—To these three great regions, which are mentioned in geographical order, are added, going from north to south (with the preposition òַì “over”), the tribe-territories of Ephraim and Benjamin.—He made him king over Ephraim and Benjamin, these tribes, which had not yet been conquered by the Philistines, holding no doubt to the House of Saul.—And over all (the rest of) Israel, that is, over all that country which afterwards formed the kingdom of Israel (Then.).
2Sa_2:10-11. Duration of Ishbosheth’s reign over Israel and of David’s in Hebron.—Forty years old was Ishbosheth when he became king over Israel.—The words: over Israel connect themselves with and take up the closing words of 2Sa_2:9 : “and over all Israel.” The following: and he reigned two years, might therefore be understood of his reign over all Israel excluding Judah, the words “over Israel” being naturally supplied from the context. Abner, in fact, on account of the wars necessary to conquer from the Philistines at least the three regions mentioned in 2Sa_2:9, could only gradually establish Ishbosheth’s royal authority, and could not make him king over all Israel till after the clearing of those districts. It may well be supposed that this reconquering process took five and a half years. This explanation (Ewald, Bunsen, Keil) sets aside the seeming discrepancy that arises when we compare the statements that Ishbosheth was king two years, and that David reigned in Hebron over Judah seven years and six months; and it yet remains beyond doubt that Ishbosheth’s elevation to the throne was nearly synchronous with David’s anointment as king over Judah, and his murder (2 Samuel 4), up to which he was king, with the anointing of David as king over all Israel. Ishbosheth occupied the throne as long as David was king over Judah; but he was only two years king over Israel, which he could really become only after the gradual expulsion of the Philistines. However, instead of this explanation the reading of Thenius (which, it must be confessed, does some violence to the syntax) commends itself as better: he takes the passage from “but the house of Judah” to the end of 2Sa_2:11 as parenthesis, and renders: and when he had reigned two years (only the house of Judah followed David, and the time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months), then went out Abner, etc. The harmonistic attempt of S. Schmid, Cler. and others who hold that David reigned two years over Judah till the murder of Ishbosheth and then further five and a half years over Israel in Hebron till the conquest of Jerusalem, is in direct contradiction with the words (2Sa_2:11): David reigned over Judah seven years and six months. Equally untenable is the view that the two years of Ishbosheth’s reign were the time of quiet till the outbreak of the war with David, during which Abner played the chief part (Grotius)—for Ishbosheth was king till his murder after Abner’s death.—[Wellhausen connects 2Sa_2:10 b with 2Sa_2:9, and throws out 10 a as chronologically wrong, and 2Sa_2:11 as interrupting the narrative. It seems probable that 10 a and 11 are parenthetical chronological statements; but they are not on that account to be rejected; they may be regarded as explanatory insertions by the editor of the book. As to the chronology, there is no objection to be made to 2Sa_2:11, which is well supported (1Ki_2:11), and the two years of 2Sa_2:10 is reasonably explained by Ewald as above stated by Erdmann, or if the numeral be incorrect, this merely leaves doubtful the duration of Ishbosheth’s reign (as Saul’s in 1Sa_13:1), and does not invalidate the clause. Exception is, however, specially taken to Ishbosheth’s age as here given, forty. The context. it is said, represents him as a youth or child, and moreover, as probably Saul’s youngest son, he must have been several years younger than Jonathan, who was the oldest son, and Jonathan seems to have been nearly of the same age with David, about thirty, when he died. To this it may be answered that Ishbosheth need not have been much younger than Jonathan (especially if Saul had more than one wife), that Jonathan may have been twelve years older than David without bar to their friendship, that Jonathan may easily at the age of forty-two have left just one infant child (2Sa_4:4), and that Saul might have been a husband and a father at the age of twenty-one, and, dying a stout warrior at the age of sixty-three, have left a son of forty-two. There is no difficulty in these suppositions single or combined. But if the number forty be incorrect, this does not affect the genuineness of the clause. The editor thought it well to insert here these chronological statements at the beginning of the narrative of the war between the house of Saul and the house of David. It is quite possible, but by no means certain, that the numerals have been lost or corrupted by copyists. See “Text, and Gram.”—Tr.]
2Sa_2:12 sq. From 2Sa_2:12 on is related how Abner, after actually establishing Ishbosheth as king over Israel, begins the conflict against David in order to subject Judah also to Ishbosheth. He could not have undertaken this war, if he had not finished the war against the Philistines for the establishment of Ishbosheth’s authority over Israel, so that he knew that he was secure on that side. It is to be noted that David had at no time and in no way planned or begun hostilities against Ishbosheth. Rather he was forced into war by the latter through Abner. From Mahanaim, where Ishbosheth’s headquarters had hitherto been, Abner advanced with his army against David to Gibeon (the present Jib in the western part of Benjamin, five miles north of Jerusalem) in order thence to march southward on Hebron to attack David.—[Bib. Com.: To go out is a technical phrase for going out to war.—Tr.]
2Sa_2:13. Though David had no hostile designs against Ishbosheth, he was yet fully prepared against such a foreseen attack.—[Some hold less well that war was already going on between the two princes.—Tr.]—To Ishbosheth’s army under Abner he opposed a force under Joab. Joab, the son of David’s sister Zeruiah (1Ch_2:16), had no doubt already, as his brother Abishai (who was with David during his persecution, as David’s family also, 1 Samuel 22, came to him for protection against Saul), had a military training with his uncle, and taken a prominent position among his warriors; else he would not now appear as the chief leader of David’s forces. In the roll of heroes in 2Sa_23:8 sq. his name is not given, probably because he already then stood above them all as General, as we may conjecture from 2Sa_23:18; 2Sa_23:24 (Vaihinger in Herzog VI. 712). As General-in-chief he appears in the official lists, 2Sa_8:16; 2Sa_20:13.—The two armies met at the pool of Gibeon, David having hastened to anticipate Abner’s attack on the territory of Judah, and to carry the war into Ishbosheth’s territory. The pool of Gibeon is the “great water” mentioned in Jer_41:12; there is still in Jib (the ancient Gibeon) in a cave a copious spring [forming a large reservoir], and not far beneath [on the side of the hill] the remains of an open tank which Robinson (II. 353 sq. [Am. ed. 455 and ii. 256]) saw, one hundred and twenty feet long and one hundred feet wide, about equal to the pool of Hebron. Comp. Tobler, Topographie von Jerusalem II. 515 sq. [and Smith’s Bib. Dict., Art. Gibeon.—Tr.]. The armies encamped at this pool opposite one another, the one on this side, the other on that side.
2Sa_2:14-16. To avoid a bloody civil war and perhaps also to escape personal conflict with his near friend (2Sa_2:22) Joab, Abner proposes to Joab to decide the contest by a duel between individual warriors (“young men,” ðְòָøִåí , comp. 2Sa_2:21) put up on both sides. This word “play” ( ùִׁçֵ÷ ) is used of children in the street (Zec_8:5), of beasts in the sea (Psa_104:26), and so here of warlike play, = to wrestle, but not to denote a game of arms for entertainment (Ew.), but a serious battle-play to decide the matter for both armies (comp. 1 Samuel 17) as the result (2Sa_2:16) shows.—Joab accepts the proposal immediately, a sign that it was agreeable to him. Twelve warriors from each side, the number probably derived from the number of the Tribes, meet in single combat on one side of the pool. The “went over” is to be understood of one party only, while the preceding arose refers to both.—[The “went over” refers from the wording to both parties; probably they met at some intermediate point.—Tr.]—And they seized every man the head of his fellow, that is, they rushed on one another, in order by the stunning seizure of the head the more quickly and thoroughly to finish the struggle. It is not necessary (Then. and Ew. after Sept.) to supply “his hand” after “man” (“they thrust each his hand on the head of his opponent”) in order to get a verb for “his sword” [Eng. A. V. inserts “thrust”]; there is no need to repeat the verb “seized,” for we may without forcing render: and his (every one’s) sword in the side of his opponent! The rapidity with which, at the same time with the seizure of the head, the sword entered the adversary’s side is vividly set forth by the absence of the verb, it being logically necessary to supply merely the word “was.”—And they fell together.—This result shows the embittered feeling of the young men, but also their military skill and training.—[Bp. Patrick understands that only the twelve Benjaminites were slain; but it was clearly a mutual slaughter, the twenty-four fell dead. Bib. Com. cites the strikingly similar combat of the Horatii and the Curiatii; as the Alban Mettius there urged the desirableness of avoiding bloodshed because the two people had in the Etruscans a common powerful enemy, so might Abner have here urged the same argument in reference to the Philistines (Livy I. 25).—The hair was often worn long in those days; but it was a custom also to cut the hair (and sometimes the beard) before going into battle, that the enemy might not have a hold thereby.—These single combats still occur among the Arabians.—Tr.]—The place (of combat) was called (by the people in consequence of this result).—Field of knives (or edges) ( çֶìְ÷ַú äַöֻּøִéí ). The narrative indicates that this name was connected immediately with what was peculiar in the occurrence, namely, the mutual synchronous slaughter by the edge of the sword, so that they fell down together. To this corresponds the meaning of öåּø , “knife, edge” (comp. Eng. knife), which is found also in Psa_89:44, and is established from the ground-idea of the Arabic stem by Fleischer in Delitzsch’s Comm. on the Pss. in loco (2 vols., 1859–60). Thenius after the Sept. ( ôῶí ἐðéâïýëùí , “the plotters”) renders field of adversaries (drängerfeld, ç× äַöָּøִéí ); but this does not answer to the characteristic fact that occasioned the name, which was not the mutual attack, but the mutual slaughter with swords. Thenius’ objection to the rendering: “field of edges”—that it would apply to every place of combat—holds rather against his own translation. Ewald’s rendering: “field of the artful” ( öָãִéí ) unwarrantably introduces the notion of “artifice” into the affair, and changes the Heb. text, which is supported by all the versions. Vulg.: ager robustorum, Aq., Sym.: êëῆñïò ôῶí óôåñåῶí , “field of the strong,” a rendering derived from the signification “rock” (which also belongs to the Heb. word), as if the rock-like firmness of the combatants (which, however, is not specially mentioned in the narrative) were here indicated.—[Bishop Patrick follows the Vulg. in the translation of this name, Syr., Philippson, Bib. Com. (which, however, also suggests “field of sides,” öִãִּéí ) give it as Erdmann. Chald. has “possession of the slain.”—Tr.]
2Sa_2:17-25. In consequence of the undecisive result of the single combat, a general and fierce battle between the two armies, which issues in the defeat and flight of Abner. To the bitterness of the bloody duel answers the violence of the general conflict that arose the same day, which is described as “very sore” (2Sa_2:17). Its result, in allusion to the single combat, which had not proved decisive, is straightway given: Abner and his army were beaten.—In 2Sa_2:18-23 we have a very vivid and interesting description of a special battle-scene or rather pursuit. In this scene the three nephews of David come forward, Joab, Abishai (comp. 1Sa_26:6 with 2Sa_16:9; 2Sa_18:2; 2Sa_21:17; 2Sa_23:18) and Asahel, who are expressly described as sons of Zeruiah (as Joab in 2Sa_2:13) in order to indicate the prominent part taken in this battle by the family of David. 2Sa_2:18. Asahel, distinguished for agility and swiftness, and therefore compared to a “gazelle in the field” [Eng. A. V.: wild roe], see Pro_6:5.
2Sa_2:19. He pursues Abner in order by conquering the General to strike the decisive blow that must end the battle.—He turned not to the right hand nor to the left from following Abner, pressed hard and straight on him.
2Sa_2:20. Asahel was doubtless already known to Abner, comp. 2Sa_2:22. Abner’s speaking supposes that Asahel had almost overtaken him, and might now infer from his silence that he would surrender himself prisoner.
2Sa_2:21. Abner’s address to Asahel is based on the supposition that the latter is anxious only for the glory of making a prisoner and for booty.—Take his armor, that is, after having slain him.—[Such was the custom; see Homer for example.—Tr.]
2Sa_2:22. Abner speaks again, since Asahel will not desist from the pursuit. He gives as reason for his exhortation that he wishes to spare Asahel’s life, and not, by slaying him, make a deadly enemy of his brother Joab, with whom, therefore, he must previously have stood in friendly relations (Thenius). “From regard and former friendship to Joab, he was unwilling to kill the young hero” (Keil), [who was also “probably but a stripling and no fit antagonist for so great a warrior” (Bib.-Com.).—Tr.]—How should I lift up my face? that is, present myself with a good conscience before him. [Bp. Patrick not so well: “because Joab was a fierce man, and would study revenge.”—Tr.]
2Sa_2:23. Asahel, however, did not desist from pressing on Abner, who, not wishing to kill him, was compelled to defend himself, and so, not with the front part of the spear, which was designed for war, but with the hinder part, which was stuck into the ground (1Sa_26:7), and therefore no doubt was furnished with a sharp edge (perhaps of metal) smote him in the abdomen so that it came out behind in his back, and he fell dead on the spot. It hence appears that Asahel pressed violently on Abner, who was defending himself with the point of the spear, which must have been very sharp. In proof that there was a lower metallic point to spears, Böttcher cites Hom. I. vi. 213; x. 153; xiii. 443; Herod. vii. 41.—[On the translation “abdomen” instead of “fifth rib,” see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.] This place, too, where Asahel fell, received importance among the people from the general mourning over the young hero. This is pathetically and vividly described by the single expression: “Every one that came to the place stood still,” comp. 2Sa_20:12.
2Sa_2:24. The pursuit continues with all the more violence. The two brothers Joab and Abishai follow Abner till the evening. At the same time the locality (now unknown) where the pursuit ended, “the hill Ammah in front of Giah on the road to the wilderness of Gibeon,” is stated with precision; an evidence of the exactness of the narrative. The wilderness of Gibeon lay east of Gibeon in the tribe of Benjamin.
2Sa_2:25. The “children of Benjamin,” as the nearest tribesmen, who must have been most interested for the kingdom of Ishbosheth. They gathered themselves together from the dispersion produced by flight into one body after Abner on a hill, that is, to protect Abner, and from this more favorable position to defend themselves.—[Bib.-Com.: Abner’s skill and courage in rallying his followers to a strong position in spite of so crushing a defeat. On the text of 2Sa_2:24-25, see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.]
2Sa_2:26-28. On Abner’s appeal to Joab the conflict is straightway stopped, and the pursuit on Joab’s part ceases. A truce is concluded. Abner’s first word: Shall the sword devour forever? expresses decided aversion to this bloody combat. The second question: Knowest thou not that it will be bitterness at last? points not to outward destruction, but to the empoisoning and brutalizing (the necessary result at last of such a war) of the feeling that the members of a people, and especially God’s covenant-people, ought to cherish towards one another. Just at this moment the bitterness had reached its highest point, and the result of the continuation of the war would necessarily have been bitter and sullen despair on the part of the Benjaminites and an increase of military fury in the army of Judah. Vulg.: “Dost thou not know how dangerous is desperation?” The third question is a pressing demand to Joab to suspend hostilities immediately and agree to a truce. Joab answers Abner with an oath, in which he partly charges him with the blame of the day’s bloody struggle, partly affirms his own perfect willingness to cease hostilities without following up his victory. The first ëִּé = “surely” (imo), the mark of emphatic asseveration in an oath, Ew. § 330 b; comp. 1Sa_14:44; 1Sa_20:3; Gen_22:16 sq.; 1Ki_1:29 sq.; 2Sa_2:23 sq., where, as here, it follows real oaths and introduces their contents. [This first “surely” is not in the Eng. A. V.—Tr.] If thou hadst not said this, surely then.—The second “surely” ( ëִּé ), strengthened by “then” ( àָæ ) as elsewhere by “now” ( òַúָּä ), Num_22:29; Gen_43:10; 1Sa_14:30, takes up the first in order to bring out more expressly and strongly what would then have happened. What Abner said is his proposition for the single combat (2Sa_2:14), which resulted in this obstinate battle. Yea verily, then had the people gone up—that is, returned (Niph. of òָìָä in reflexive sense “get up,” Ew. § 123 b). There would then have been no fraternal war. Thenius (after Syr. and Ar.) explains: If thou hadst not (now) spoken (about a truce), then surely in the morning, (namely to-morrow) would the people have been led back. But 1) The “to-morrow” is not in the Hebrew, and 2) Joab’s answer would then amount to nothing, as it was then evening, and a return on the next morning was a matter of course. To our interpretation Thenius objects that Abner’s proposal of a duel was meant for good, and the two armies had originally marched out with intention to fight; but this objection is of no force against that interpretation, which follows the original word for word, for Joab means to say simply: if thou hadst not by that challenge given the signal for the battle, which, as a matter of fact, continued the whole day, then early in the morning one side would have retreated before the other, and the battle would not have occurred. Joab herein assumes that Abner, with the disposition which he has just expressed, would have avoided the battle if he had not excited it by his well-meant arrangement of the duel, and in his whole address and his bearing to Abner it may be seen that he (Joab) would not have made the attack, and that his march against Abner was simply to protect the territory of Judah. We must read between the lines: but for thine unfortunate word, which has had such results, we two should have avoided the battle. Here is to be noted what is indicated in 2Sa_2:12 as to the personal relation of Abner to Joab, and how afterwards (chap. 3) Abner passed from “the House of Saul” to David’s side. [Vulg., Lightfoot, Patrick, Philippson agree with Erdmann in the interpretation of this clause—Bib. Comm. with Thenius. A common explanation is: even if thou hadst not spoken (for a truce), the pursuit would have ceased to-morrow morning. This answer would not (as Erdmann declares) be meaningless, for it was by no means otherwise certain that the battle would not have been continued the next day. Moreover the phrase “from the morning” might be understood of the following morning. Two facts seem to favor this latter interpretation: 1) the phrase “from after their brethren,” repeated by Joab after Abner, would naturally have the same meaning in both cases, “desist from pursuit;” 2) the form in which Joab couches his answer, that is, an oath, better refers to something which lay in his power, not the non-occurrence of a battle that day, but the cessation of the battle going on. Joab would then say (agreeably to the context): I did not design to continue the battle, but, if you had said nothing, my purpose was to withdraw my troops in the morning—the context showing (as in Exo_29:34) that the following morning was meant.—Tr.] 2Sa_2:28. Joab straightway causes the trumpet to sound the signal “Halt! Arms at rest!” The army halts, the pursuit is discontinued, the battle is ended.
2Sa_2:29-32. The withdrawal of both armies from the scene of battle, and the loss on both sides.
2Sa_2:29. Abner and his men marched through the Arabah (that is, the valley or plain of the Jordan) from the south northward, having marched from the battle-field first directly eastward towards Jericho. The distance from the entrance into the Jordan-plain (to reach which point, however (2Sa_2:3-4), cost them some hours) up to the point where they crossed the Jordan to go to Mahanaim, was so great that it took them at least the whole night to pass through the Arabah. They marched “the whole night,” not from fear of pursuit (for the pursuit was discontinued and a truce concluded), but probably to avoid the heat of the day. After crossing the Jordan they traversed “all the Bithron.” The word “all” forbids us to understand here a city—it is therefore not Bethoron (Aq., Vulg.), apart from the fact that this lay in the opposite direction north-west of Gibeon—but it must mean a district beyond the Jordan, probably a mountain-gorge or a plain on the Jabbok between the Jordan and Mahanaim, which lay on the Jabbok. These specific geographical statements also about Abner’s return-march show the historical exactness and value of the narrative.
2Sa_2:30. At the same time Joab began his return-march “from after Abner (who was withdrawing),” as it is vividly described. Not till the whole force was assembled for the return was a muster held in order to learn the loss. Only nineteen men and Asahel were missing from David’s army. [Among these nineteen some reckon the twelve that fell in the single combat.—Tr.]
2Sa_2:31. The Benjaminite loss, on the other hand, was much greater, “360 men dead,” as might easily be determined by counting the slain. Joab had in his army only veteran “servants of David,” tried by many severe battles and privations, while Abner led into the battle the remains of the army that was beaten by the Philistines at Gilboa, who moreover in previous battles with that people “might have been still more weakened and discouraged” (Keil). The disproportion in the losses “may, however, have been due also in part to the character of the ground,” comp. 2Sa_2:25 (Then.). [On the apparently corrupt text of this verse see “Text. and Gramm.”—Tr.]
2Sa_2:31. Asahel is buried on the march back in the burial-place of his father at Bethlehem, which lay only a little to the left of the direct road to Hebron. “They went the whole night thence,” and came at break of day to Hebron. Gibeon is distant from Hebron about 26 miles; they might therefore have gone from Gibeon to Hebron in one night, even if they stopped on the way to bury Asahel, which need not have taken much time (against Then.). [However, the text says only that they went all night from Bethlehem to Hebron, fifteen miles. They had previously marched from near Gibeon to Bethlehem, after having attended to the duties incident to the close of a battle.—Tr.]
2Sa_3:1-6. Further general and summary account of the long duration of the conflict between the houses of David and Saul and their different fortunes.
2Sa_3:1. And the war was protracted between the house of Saul and the house of David.—The former stands first because the attack came from it. From the account of the particular incident at Gibeon, where the contest assumed the form of open war, which was suddenly ended by the two generals, the narrator turns to the summary description of the condition in which the two houses from now on found themselves in respect to the contest, notwithstanding the discontinuance of external war. While this long-continued struggle lasted, outward hostilities were not renewed [at least there were no pitched battles—Tr.], Ishbosheth lacking courage and energy therefor, Abner, as his bearing (chap. 2) towards Joab showed, having no special interest in continuing the bloody strife, and David, as before, so now holding back from attack, since, though he had power and courage to maintain his claims, he yet hoped to gain his promised royal authority over Israel, not by his own military power, but only by the interposition of the Lord. Further is related the fortune of the two houses during the long contest. David grew stronger and stronger.—David’s advance in strength means, however, not the increase of his family (Keil), but of his adherents, of the number of those that recognized him as king over all Israel, and came forward as supporters of his authority over the whole country, as is fully and clearly narrated in 1Ch_12:23 sq. On the other hand the house of Saul grew weaker and weaker in consideration and power. The reason of this was Ishbosheth’s incapacity for royal rule and Abner’s afterwards related defection from the house of Saul. During the time of struggle he was the only person that sought still to maintain this house (2Sa_3:6), and it rapidly sank and disappeared when he went over to David. 2Sa_3:1 and 2Sa_3:6 are therefore connected; 2Sa_3:1, according to this view, not only continues the preceding chapter (Then.), but at the same time begins a new section (2Sa_3:1-6) which forms a transition to the narrative from 2Sa_3:7 on, in which is related how David’s elevation to the throne of all Israel was prepared by the sinking and disappearance of the house of Saul under his last son.—The statement (2Sa_3:2-5) concerning David’s family during his residence in Hebron, and the sons there born to him certainly interrupts the progress of the narrative (Then.); for it is not to be connected with 2Sa_3:1 as being a factual proof of the strengthening of David’s house (Keil). But it is quite in place here, since it is in keeping with the habit [of the biblical writers] of inserting at the beginning or at a turning-point of the history of the reign of each king, information about his house and family. Comp. 1Sa_14:49-51; 2Sa_5:13 sq.; 1Ki_3:1; 1Ki_14:21; 1Ki_15:2; 1Ki_15:9. The same list of the sons born in Hebron, with the names of their mothers, is found in 1Ch_3:1-3. The two first are the sons of the two wives Ahinoam and Abigail (1Sa_25:42 sq.), whom he brought with him to Hebron. On Amnon see chap. 13. The Prep. “to” (so the Heb. ìְ ) in these cases, where a corresponding noun is to be supplied, expresses immediate belonging [property], as “a song of ( ìְ ) David;” so here “son to (or of, Germ. von) Ahinoam,” comp. Ewald, § 292 a.
2Sa_3:3. The second son is called Chileab, in Chron. Daniel; he had perhaps two names (Keil). [The name Chileab is suspected by Wellhausen to be a collateral form of Caleb (see the two in the Heb.), while Bib. Comm. thinks it a copyist’s erroneous transcription of the first letters of the following word. The Midrash derives it from ëìä àá = “exactly his father,” the name indicating his likeness to David against those who said that he was the son of Nabal. Similarly the name Daniel, “God has judged me,” is said to refer to God’s judgment on Nabal. These are all conjectures, and the relation of the two names is involved in obscurity.—Tr.] The third, Absalom (called in 1Ki_15:2 Abishalom), son of Maachah, daughter of king Talmai of Geshur. This was a small independent kingdom in Syria. See 2Sa_15:8, comp. 2Sa_2:9. Perhaps this marriage of David with a foreign un-Israelitish princess had a political ground. Comp. 1Ki_3:1, Solomon’s marriage with a daughter of Pharaoh. The origin of the three wives, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah, whose sons were Adonijah, Shephatiah, and Ithream, is not given. The last is strangely described in an especial way as “David’s wife.” Bertheau (on 1Ch_3:3) holds that the unknown and un-described Eglah is so called for the sake of a fuller conclusion; but Thenius justly remarks against this reason that Haggith and Abital also are otherwise wholly unknown. Thenius’ suggestion that Michal originally stood in the text is opposed by the fact that with the exception of the Cod. Vat., which has Aigal, the correctness of the text-reading is supported by all the witnesses. Probably this in itself superfluous addition is made in order to give a fuller conclusion by this epithet which suits each of the six women (Berth., Keil). [On this reading see “Text. and Gramm.—Tr.]
2Sa_3:6 resumes 2Sa_3:1 in relation to the continuance of the conflict between the two houses, and the statement: Abner showed himself strong (=a strong support) for the house of Saul, concludes the period during which the house of Saul was able through Abner to maintain itself against the house of David. In contrast therewith follows now the narrative of the events which, in consequence of Abner’s ceasing to work for it, through Ishbosheth’s unwise conduct, farther and farther depressed the house of Saul; comp. 2Sa_3:1 b. So 2Sa_3:1-6 form the bridge to the following history (from 2Sa_3:7 on).
2. David’s pathway from Ziklag to Hebron, till he gained the crown of Judah, and thence passed to that of Israel, is the way of the Lord. For 1) he asks concerning the will of the Lord, which way he shall go (2Sa_2:1), humbly subjecting his will to that of the Lord, in his heart relying firmly on the Lord’s decision, which could be only for his good, and seeking by repetition of his question to obtain a clear and secure knowledge of the way he is to go. 2) He goes the way appointed him by the Lord (2Sa_2:2-3) in unconditional obedience towards His command, in the faithful discharge of his duties towards all about him, who had hitherto shared all sufferings with him, and in joyous reliance on the further help of the Lord. 3) He finds in this way appointed by the Lord after the cross the crown, and mounts up from lowliness to glory (2Sa_2:4). 4) He pauses on this way, which has led him to royal honor, in order quietly to wait in patience till the Lord direct him to go forward to the final goal, the kingdom over all Israel, and in order to unfold the noble royal virtues in which he proves himself the Anointed of the Lord (2Sa_2:5-7). 5) He advances on the same way according to the Lord’s direction to ward off the attack of the adversary (2Sa_2:8-13), to bloody war, into which he is drawn against his will (2Sa_2:14-23), to splendid victory over his opponents (2Sa_2:25-32), and to the attainment of increasing power and glory in respect to the sinking house of Saul.
3. Grace ( çֶñֶã ) and Truth ( àֱîֶú ) are the fundamental attributes of God, which set forth His relation to the people of Israel as the covenant-people; grace is the special exhibition of His love, by which Hebrews 1) chooses the people, 2) establishes the covenant with them, and 3) in this covenant-relation imparts favor and salvation; truth is God’s love unchangeable and continuing over against the people’s sin, love that 1) does not suffer the choice of free grace to fall, 2) maintains the covenant, and 3) fulfils uncurtailed the promises that correspond to the covenant-relation. Comp. Exo_34:6; Psa_25:10.
4. Every human work well-pleasing to God, wrought out of genuine love and truth, is a reflection of God’s love and truth, of which the heart has had experience, an offering brought to the Lord, the impulsion to which has come from this inwardly experienced love and truth, an object of God’s love and truth which repays with blessing and salvation, and of men’s honoring recognition in respect to its ethical value.
5. Invocation of the Lord’s blessing (2Sa_2:5) presupposes the presence of the conditions under which alone this blessing can subsist.
2Sa_2:1-4 a. From Ziklag to Hebron—the way of humility from the depths to the heights. 1) After humble subjection to sore trials, which the Lord had imposed, (“after this,” 2Sa_2:1). 2) After humble inquiry of the Lord’s will a