Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPulpit Commentary - 2 Samuel 3:1 - 3:39
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
There was long war. As Ishbosheth reigned only two years, and as "the house of Saul" is the phrase used, it seems probable that after Ishbosheth's murder, during the five years before David's election to the throne of all Israel, the house of Saul had some puppet representative at Mahanaim, and some commander in Abner's place. But after the death of this able man matters would go from bad to worse, and, though David probably remained on the defensive, yet the contrast between the peace and good government of Judah and the misery in Israel made all the tribes wish to put an end to a harassing civil war. It is plain, too, that the Philistines, repelled at first by Abner's skill, had again gained the ascendant, and regarded themselves so completely as the rulers of the country, that they resented immediately with summary violence the bold act of the northern tribes in choosing David to be their common king.
2Sa_3:2
Unto David were sons born. This increase of his wives is mentioned as a proof of David's prosperity. For though contrary to the Law (Deu_17:17), it was yet looked upon as part of the state of a king, and as such had been practised by Gideon (Jdg_8:30), who approached more nearly to the royal dignity than any other of the judges. But it is the rule of the Books of Samuel that they generally abstain alike from praise and 'blame, and allow facts to speak for themselves. But never did a history more clearly deserve the title of 'A Vindication of the Justice of God.' Alike in Eli, in Saul, and in David, their sufferings were the result of their sins, and to the polygamy and lust of the last are due both the crimes which stained his character and the distress of the last twenty years of his life. (For Amnon, his first born, see 2Sa_13:1-39.)
2Sa_3:3-5
Chileab. The Midrash explains Chileab as meaning "Quite like the father." He is called Daniel in the parallel genealogy in 1Ch_3:1, and this was probably his real name, and Chileab a name of affection. He must have died young, for Adonijah appears as David's eldest son after the death of Amnon and Absalom; and it is thus natural that he should still be known by the name he bore as a child. Geshur. The word signifies "Bridgeland," and is the name of two districts, one of which formed the northern part of the tribe of Manasseh, and extended on both sides of the Jordan, from the little Hermon to the sea of Gennesareth (Deu_3:14; Jos_12:5; Jos_13:13). The other was in Syria (2Sa_15:8), and probably was situated upon some river, though its exact position is not yet known. Talmai, its king, now gave his daughter to be one of David's wives, and though he was probably only a petty prince, still it is a proof of David's growing power that a potentate living at so great a distance was willing to make an alliance with him. Of the other wives and their sons nothing is known except of Adonijah, who inherited, on the death of Absalom, the dangerous position of firstborn; and who, after trying to make his rights good, was put to death by Solomon (1Ki_2:25). As Eglah is especially called David's wife, the Jewish interpreters hold that she was the highest in rank in his household, and therefore identical with Michal, who was restored to David while at Hebron. But she was childless; and more probably the words are to be taken as simply closing the narrative, and as belonging, therefore, equally to each of the six.
2Sa_3:6
Abner made himself strong for the house of Saul. The Hebrew really means that until this miserable quarrel about Rizpah, Abner had been the mainstay of Ishbosheth's throne and dynasty. She is proved to have been a noble woman, with a warm and devoted heart, by the narrative in 2Sa_21:8-11. But the harem of a deceased king was looked upon as the special inheritance of his successor; and Absalom, by taking David's concubines (2Sa_16:21, 2Sa_16:22), treated his father as a dead man, and committed so overt an act of treason as made reconciliation impossible. So Solomon put his brother Adonijah to death for asking Abishag to wife (1Ki_2:23-25). Still, as Bathsheba there saw no impropriety in Adonijah's request, and as Solomon deposed Abiathar and put Joab to death for complicity, as we must conclude, in Adonijah's request, it was probably part of some scheme of conspiracy, and that, if granted, it would have been used by Adonijah as a proof that the kingdom really was his. Here there was no plot, and as Rizpah had probably always lived apart from Ishbosheth, Abner may have expected that the king would see no difficulty in the matter.
2Sa_3:8
Then was Abner very wroth. This extreme indignation on Abner's part is not easy to understand; for he could scarcely have expected Ishbosheth to endure quietly what at least was a great insult. But probably the question, Wherefore hast thou gone in unto my father's concubine? does not mean a mild expostulation on the king's part, but the purpose to degrade Abner and strip him of his office. Probably after the defeat by Joab at Gibeon, the army was less satisfied with its leader, and his detractors may gladly have encouraged the king to use this opportunity for bringing Abner down to his proper place. Weak kings often try to play the strong man; but the attempt here only drove the imperious soldier to put the matter to the proof, and show that the strength was his. We know that David groaned all his life through under Joab's iron will, and, though he tried, yet that he never succeeded in throwing off the yoke. But Joab never behaved unfaithfully to his sovereign as Abner did here, and his crimes were deeds of violence committed in David's cause. Am I a dog's head, which against Judah, etc.? The words literally are, Am I a dog's head that is for Judah? and are rightly rendered in the Revised Version, Am I a dog's head that belongeth to Judah? Am I at once worthless and a traitor, a thing of no account, and on the side of thy enemies? In the words that follow he protests, not so much his innocence as his great deserts. This day—that is, at this very time—I am showing kindness unto the house of Saul … and this day thou wouldest visit upon me—that is, punish me for—the fault about this woman. I make and maintain thee as king, and thou wouldst play the king upon me, the kingmaker!
2Sa_3:9
As the Lord hath sworn to David. This not only shows that the prophetic promise of the kingdom to David was generally known (see note on 2Sa_1:2), hut that Abner regarded it as solemnly ratified. There is no express mention of any such oath, but Abner was a man of strong words, and possibly only meant that Jehovah's purpose was becoming evident by the course of events.
2Sa_3:11
He could not answer Abner. Though the reply was one of open treason, and was spoken with violence, yet Ishbosheth did not venture to bring the matter to an issue. Perhaps he looked round upon his officers to see if any would take his side, and, when all were silent, he was too feeble to dare to order the arrest and trial of his too powerful captain.
2Sa_3:12
Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf; Hebrew, under him. The Revised Version renders this "where he was;" but the phrase really means "immediately" (see note on 2Sa_2:23). And this agrees with the haughty temper of Abner. Without waiting for advice, or allowing his anger to cool, he at once sent trusty envoys to open negotiations with David. Whose is the land? Abner's meaning in these words is plain. You, David, he seems to say, will answer that the land is mine; for Jehovah has promised it to me. But, as a matter of fact, much of the land is mine (Abner's), or at least belongs to the house of Saul, whose prime minister I am. Yours is an abstract right; mine is actual possession. Come, let us make the two agree. Give me fitting assurances of safety and reward, and I will make your claim a reality.
2Sa_3:13
Except thou first bring Michal. Besides David's affection for Michal, there were political reasons for demanding her restoration. Saul's despotic act in giving her in marriage to another man (1Sa_25:44) had been a public disavowal of David as the son-in-law of the royal house, and equivalent to a proclamation of outlawry. David's rights were all declared null by such an act. But now Ishbosheth must with equal publicity reverse his father's deed, and restore to David his lost position. It must have been a most painful humiliation to him to be driven thus to cancel his father's decree, and declare thereby to all Israel that he was unable to refuse hie assent to whatever his rival demanded. And for this reason David sent his messengers directly to Ishbosheth, because the importance of Michal's surrender to him lay in its being a public act of the state. For Michal, in 2Sa_21:8, we ought to read Merab (see note there).
2Sa_3:14
A hundred foreskins. This was the number which Saul had required (1Sa_18:25), and David acted rightly in not boasting that he had really given twice as many (1Sa_18:27). As he had paid her father the stipulated price, Michal, by Oriental law, was David's property.
2Sa_3:15
Phaltiel the son of Laish. In 1Sa_25:44 he is called Phalti. This word, in Hebrew lexicons, is usually regarded as a contraction for Phaltiyah, "Jehovah is deliverance," while Phaltiel means "El is deliverance." The substitution of El for Yah is one of those changes which arose out of the superstitious reverence for the sacred name which to this day causes the word LORD to be read in our Bibles where in the Hebrew are the four consonants Y, H, V, H, which, by attaching to them the vowels belonging to the Hebrew word edonay (or, adonay, lord) we make into "Jehovah" (Yehovah).
2Sa_3:16
Her husband went with her along weeping behind her. "Along weeping" is a very awkward rendering of the Hebrew phrase, "going and weeping." The Revised Version is far better, "weeping as he went and followed her." Phaltiel had been Michal's husband for eight or nine years, and his sorrow at losing her excites sympathy for them both. They had evidently loved one another, and she was now going to be but one of many wives; and though David may have desired her restoration because he valued her and cherished the remembrance of their youthful affection, yet there was a large admixture of political motive in his conduct. At Gallim she had been Phaltiel's one jewel, and had been loved for her own sake; at Hebron she would have many rivals. But women of royal rank have often to pay the price of sacrificed affections for the ends of statecraft. Near Bahurim, on the road from Jerusalem to Gilgal, in the valley of the Jordan, the convoy approached the borders of Judah, and Abner will not allow the weeping husband to enter David's dominions. Painful as was his fate, he had himself done wrong in marrying another man's wife; and if he was weeping now, we may well believe that David had felt equal anguish when Michal was torn from him and sold to another,—for fathers in those days received instead of giving a dowry upon the marriage of their daughters. Saul in this matter was most to blame, and if he had not committed this wrong, David might never have sought an evil solace in multiplying to himself other wives
2Sa_3:17
And Abner had communication with the elders of Israel. Most probably this had taken place before Abner escorted Michal to Hebron, and that he paid David but one visit—that recorded in 2Sa_3:20. He would probably not take so decided a step as the surrender of Michal without sounding the elders, that is, the local sheikhs, and finding out how far they were inclined to support David as king of all Israel. When everything was ready he would take Michal to Hebron, and so have the opportunity of arranging with David for future action; and though Ishbosheth would dislike the matter and suspect Abner of ulterior purposes, yet he could not refuse so specious a plea as the escorting of his sister. His previous failure, too, had taught him that Abner was master. We may further be sure that David had everywhere many adherents. All Israel knew that he was marked out by prophecy to be their king, and, moreover, "all Israel and Judah loved him" (1Sa_18:16). But when Abner says, Ye sought for David in times past to be king over you, he makes it probable that, at some time after the defeat at Gilboa, the attempt had even been made to elect David king. But Abner had then opposed it, and his success in resisting the Philistines, and David's unfortunate entanglement with those inveterate enemies of Israel, had made the attempt fail. And now Abner's attempt was to be equally unsuccessful.
2Sa_3:18
The Lord hath spoken. Here again Abner's statements go far beyond the text of anything recorded in Holy Scripture, but probably they give the popular interpretation of the prophecies respecting David. It will be noticed also that Abner endeavours to meet the general prejudice against David by asserting that he was Israel's destined deliverer from Philistine oppression. As Abner's speech is virtually an acknowledgment of failure, we may also be sure that he had found himself unable any longer to make head against the Philistines on the western side of the Jordan, and that Judah was the only tribe there that enjoyed tranquillity. Everywhere else they had once again established their supremacy. Though a brave soldier, Abner was inferior, not only to David, but also to Joab, both as statesman and general; and the weak Ishbosheth was no help to him, but the contrary.
2Sa_3:19
In the ears of Benjamin. This tribe alone, probably, was really loyal to the house of Saul, their kinsman. But since the withdrawal of the court to Mahanaim, they got but little good from it, and were left to resist the predatory bands of the Philistines as best they could. So warlike a tribe too would despise Ishbosheth, and long for a braver man to aid them in fighting their enemies.
2Sa_3:20
Twenty men with him. These, we may feel sure, were not common soldiers, but chieftains selected from those elders who were on David's side; and, though the honourable escort of Michal was the pretext, yet Ishbosheth must have felt sure that more was intended. Most of them, however, would join Abner on the road, especially those who represented Benjamin and the western tribes. On arriving at Hebron they were honourably received, and, after a feast, they settled the conditions on which David was to be made king of all Israel; and Abner then departed in peace, after giving the assurance that all the tribes would now gladly assemble, and by solemn compact and covenant make David their king. The terms of the league, and the conditions agreed upon for Ishbosheth, are not mentioned, because upon Abner's death the whole plan fell to the ground, and David had to wait for many years before his hopes were fulfilled. But we gather from this covenant and 2Sa_5:3 (where see note) that the early kings of Israel were not absolute monarchs.
2Sa_3:22
From pursuing a troop. This gives a wrong idea, as though Joab had been repelling an attack. The Revised Version is right in rendering "came from a foray," the troop being a company of men sent out on a predatory excursion. It is not unlikely that David had arranged this expedition in order that his interview with Abner might take place in Joab's absence; and as he returned with "great spoil," he had probably been away for some nine or ten days, during which he had penetrated far into the country of the Amalekites. Had David acted frankly and honourably, Joab would not have stood in the way of his master's exaltation, and the blood feud between him and Abner might have been arranged. But it is evident that David secretly disliked and chafed under the control of his strong-willed and too-able nephew.
2Sa_3:24, 2Sa_3:25
What hast thou done? David's secret dealing makes Joab see a personal wrong to himself in the negotiation with Abner. There could be no room, he feels, for both of them in David's army, and David meant, he supposes, to sacrifice himself. In hot haste, therefore, he rushes into the king's presence, and reproaches him for what he has done, but covers his personal feelings with professed zeal for his master's interests. Abner is a mere spy, who has come on a false pretext, and with the real intention of learning David's going out and coming in, that is, his present manner of life and undertakings. All that thou doest; literally, all that thou art doing; all that is now going on, and thy plans and purposes. Abner would not only judge by what he saw, but in his interview with David would lead him on to talk of his hopes and prospects. David had little time to explain the real object of Abner's coming, nor was Joab in a mood to listen to anything he said. He had detected his master in secret negotiations, and would regard his excuses as tainted with deceit. And after giving vent to his auger in reproaches, he hurried away to thwart David's plans by a deed of most base villainy. Had David acted openly, all would have been done with Joab's consent and approval.
2Sa_3:26
The well—Hebrew, cistern—of Sirah. Josephus ('Ant.,' 8. 1. 5) says that this cistern was situated about two miles and a half north of Hebron. There was probably a caravanserai there, at which Abner halted, intending to continue his march homewards as soon as the coolness of evening set in. Here Joab's messengers overtook him, and, speaking in David's name—for otherwise Abner would not have fallen into the trap—asked him to return for further conference, mentioning, perhaps, Joab's arrival as the reason. In this way Abner's suspicions would be set at rest, and it would seem quite natural for him to find Joab waiting for him at the gate.
2Sa_3:27
Joab took him aside in the gate. As we read in 2Sa_18:24 of David sitting "between the two gates," and of "the roof over the gate," and in 2Sa_18:33 of "the chamber over the gate," Ewald's idea of there being a roofed inner space, with a guard room over it, as in the mediaeval gate towers in German towns, is probably right. As the "two gates" would make the space between them gloomy, the spot would just suit Joab's purpose. He meets Abner, therefore, in a friendly manner, and drawing him aside, as if to converse with him apart from the people going in and out, there assassinates him. The place was so public that the deed must have been witnessed by multitudes, though the gloom, felt the more by them from the contrast with the bright glare of sunshine outside, had given Joab the opportunity of drawing his sword without Abner's observing it. For the blood of Asahel his brother. Joab's act was in accordance with Oriental feeling; and the duties of the avenger of blood might with some straining be made to cover his retaliation for an act done by Abner in self-defence (Num_35:26, Num_35:27). It is remarkable that Hebron was itself a city of refuge (Jos_20:7), and this may have led Joab to murder him in the gate, before he had actually entered. Still, Abner did not expect any such retribution, and supposing that Joab knew of the purpose that had brought him to Hebron, he could not suppose that he would be so indifferent to his master's interests as to put a summary stop to the negotiations for uniting the tribes under David. As it was, this deed brought upon David an evil name, and four or five years had to elapse before the tribes could be induced to take him for their king. Even then his hold over them was far less than it would otherwise have been; for though the shock was gradually got over, yet the suspicion still dung to him. And if the deed was Joab's own act, still David had contributed to it by underhand dealings. His very fear of Joab had caused him to wrong his able general, and given him just cause for resentment.
2Sa_3:28
I and my kingdom are guiltless. By this David means, not his royal house, but the people generally, who too often have to pay the penalty for the sins of their rulers (see 2Sa_21:1). Necessarily this is the case, wherever the crime is a state crime; but David protests that Abner's murder was a private crime, for which Joab and Abishai alone ought to suffer.
2Sa_3:29
Let it rest on the head of Joab. The Hebrew word is very strong, "Let it roll itself," or throw itself upon Joab's head. The force of the expression thus indicates the great excitement under which David was labouring; yet even so it was no slight matter to utter so bitter a curse upon a man so powerful, and whose military skill was so essential to the maintenance of his throne. To a man of David's strong sense of justice, it was a small matter that by Abner's murder the kingdom of the ten tribes was lost perhaps forever; what he hated was the wickedness of this mean act of personal revenge. And thus his imprecations are all such as would be humiliating to a family so distinguished for great physical as well as mental gifts, as the house of Zeruiah. Nor was David content with this; for we gather from 1Ch_11:6 that during the intervening years Joab was deprived of his office, and that he regained it only by an act of daring bravery. (For the miserable condition of one suffering with an issue, see Le 1Ch_15:2, etc.; and for that of a leper, Lev_13:1-59; Lev_14:1-57.) Instead of one that leaneth on a staff, some translate "a distaff holder," that is, a poor effeminate creature, fit only for woman's work. The true sense is probably a cripple—one who needs a crutch. That falleth on the sword; more correctly the Revised Version, that falleth by the sword. The two last imprecations mean that if any of the race of Joab and Abishai escape these personal blemishes, yet that his fate shall be, in war an inglorious death, and in peace a life of poverty. This curse of David is regarded in the Talmud ('Sanhedr.,' 48.2) as very sinful. Undeniably it was uttered in violent anger, and while Joab's act was utterly base and perfidious, yet he had the excuse for it of Asahel's death and David's double-dealing. The latter made him conclude that the man who had killed his brother was also to usurp his place. Possibly this suspicion was not without reason. As David was strong enough to deprive Joab of his command, it is plain that he had nothing to fear from telling him his plans. Joab would have assented, the blood feud have been appeased by a money payment, and all gone well. But David, it seems, wished to hold Joab in check by giving at least a share in the command to the veteran Abner.
2Sa_3:30
Joab and Abishai his brother. Nothing is said of Abishai having taken part in the murder, but the words suggest that it was a premeditated act, and that Abishai was privy to it.
2Sa_3:31
David said to Joab. The excuse of the blood feud made it impossible for David to punish Joab further than by depriving him of his command; but he made him condemn his own deed by taking part in the public mourning for the man he had murdered. This mourning consisted in going in solemn procession, clad in sackcloth, before Abner's body, carried on a bier to the grave, while David followed as chief mourner; and the emphatic way in which he is called King David suggests the thought that he went in royal state, so as to give all possible dignity to the funeral. His tears and lamentations with uplifted voice were so genuine and hearty as to move the people to a similar outburst of grief. But while all those at Hebron had proof that David was innocent, the people generally would know only that, when Abner was escorting the king's wife back to him, and arranging for his election to rule over all Israel, he was treacherously murdered at the gate of Hebron by one who was chief over David's army and also his nephew.
2Sa_3:33
The king lamented. The word is the same as that used in 2Sa_1:17. The word rendered "fool" is nabal (for which see 1Sa_25:25). The idea contained in the word is not that of mere silliness, but of worthlessness also; and thus in Psa_14:1 we find that the nabal is also an atheist.
2Sa_3:34
Thy hands were not bound. Abner had been put to death by Joab for killing Asahel. But there had been no legal process. He had not been brought in fetters before a judge to be tried for the crime alleged, but murdered for private ends. And thus, "As a man falleth before the children of iniquity, so had he fallen," that is, by crime, and not by law. These words s re probably the refrain of the dirge, like those in 2Sa_1:19, 2Sa_1:25, 2Sa_1:27, and were followed by the celebration of Abner's bravery, but they alone are recorded, because they contain the main point. Abner's death was not, like the sentence upon Baanah and Rechab, an act of justice, but one of lawless revenge; and by this poem David proclaimed, not only his innocence, but also his abhorrence of the crime.
2Sa_3:35
The people came to cause David to eat meat. The Jewish commentators, Philippson, Cahen, etc; consider that the occasion for this was given by the custom of taking food after a funeral (Jer_16:7; Eze_24:17), which in time degenerated into the giving of a costly banquet (Josephus, 'Bell. Jud.,' 2. 1). To this day, at a Jewish funeral in Germany, the bearers are regaled with eggs, broad, and wine. While, then, others were partaking of the food that had been provided, David remained apart, and when urged by the assembled multitude to join them in their meal, he protested that he would continue fasting until sunset. He thus proved that his sorrow was genuine, and the people were convinced of his innocence, and pleased at the honour which he thus did to the fallen soldier.
2Sa_3:36
Whatsoever the king did pleased all the people. This is a tribute to the king's conduct generally. The people would have been grieved and astonished if David had been guilty of this mean murder; but his indignant disavowal of it was in accordance with his usual justice and uprightness, and so it confirmed their high opinion of him. Thus while the more distant tribes condemned David, those who had the best opportunity for forming a judgment gave their verdict in his favour.
2Sa_3:37
All Israel understood. The twenty men who had accompanied Abner would be witnesses of all that David did, and would carry their report of it home, and of the high estimation in which his character was held at Hebron. And this gradually would be told throughout the tribes, and the final verdict of all well-disposed people would be in David's favour.
2Sa_3:38
A prince and a great man. David pronounces this high estimate of Abner's worth to his servants, that is, to his officers, and especially to the six hundred mighty men. His conduct is bold and open, and must have greatly humiliated Joab and Abishai. But though the six hundred approved of David's conduct, and respected him for it, yet probably, as Abner had killed Asahel, they would not have consented to any further punishment than the disgrace inflicted on Joab by his being deprived of the command of David's warriors.
2Sa_3:39
I am this clay weak … the sons of Zeruiah be too hard for me. David would gladly have had Abner as a counterpoise to Joab's too-great power. As it was, though an anointed king, he had but one tribe loyal to him; the rest were the subjects of a rival; and the Philistines were oppressing all alike. Had Abner's enterprise been carried out, all the tribes would have been united under his sway. He could thus have made head against the Philistines, and Abner, in command of the Benjamites and other tribes, would have curbed the fierce self-will of Joab. As it was, the sons of Zeruiah might be reprimanded, and could not treat David as Abner had treated Ishbosheth; but they were indispensable. David had a strange set of men around him in those outlaws (1Sa_22:2); and Joab, brave, skilful, and unscrupulous, was a man after their own heart. They had just returned with great booty from a foray under his command; and it was a brave and manly thing in David to reprove him so openly, and dismiss him from his command. Had he attempted more, and Joab had stood upon the defence, there were plenty of "men of Belial" (1Sa_30:22) to side with him, and David might have met with the fate threatened him at Ziklag (1Sa_30:6). As it was, he proved himself to be king, and Joab, in spite of everything, remained a most faithful officer, and the right hand man in his kingdom, and one even trusted with perilous and disgraceful secrets (2Sa_11:14).
1. A desultory war is carried on between the house of Saul and the house of David, in which the latter has the advantage.
2. David has six sons born to him while at Hebron.
3. A quarrel arises between Abner and Ishbosheth, consequent on an accusation resented by Abner.
4. Abner charges his master with ingratitude, and threatens to transfer his allegiance to David.
5. In seeking to give emphasis to his threat, Abner indicates his knowledge of the Divine will concerning David. The object of the historian in 2Sa_3:1-5 is obviously to give a representation, from a political point of view, of David prior to the action of Abner in his favour; and in 2Sa_3:6-11 to state the circumstance that led to a transfer of Abner's support from one side to the other. The general effect of the war between the two royal houses and the growth of David's domestic establishment are the two prominent items of the situation prior to Abner's change of policy. Judged solely by the standard of the age, they pointed in the direction of advancing influence, but looked at in the light of a higher standard they suggest a qualified prosperity. The general truths embodied in this account of rival interests may be set forth as follows.
I. DEFENSIVE ACTION IN A JUST CAUSE IS SOMETIMES THE BEST POLICY. That the cause of David was just is evident to every believer in the truth of the First Book of Samuel, and, as seen there and in the Psalms, the conviction of this governed his conduct. From a purely human point of view it might seem contrary to natural justice to set aside the son of the late king; and the effort of Ishbosheth to urge, by force of arms, his own claim may be a natural sequence of thought and feeling. But kings have no rights apart from the will of God; and, as the sequel shows (verse 10), both the young king and his general were not unacquainted with the Divine purpose. The right being with David, it might seem strange that he did not press his claim to entire dominion by aggressive war. His skill and valour, the coherence of his following, and the enthusiasm created by his personality, to say nothing of the demoralizing effect on Abner of his own infidelity to conscience, could not but have speedily made him master of all Israel. Instead of that, we find David simply authorizing such conflict as would suffice to hold his own and check the aggressive efforts of the house of Saul. It is interesting to see here the same David as of old, who had such faith in God and the gradual unfolding of his purposes that he would never raise a hand against Saul, or do anything, except in necessary self-defence, that could be construed into hostility. Had not Abner's evil counsels prevailed with Ishbosheth, David would have lived in peace at Hebron till a mightier hand than his own cleared the way to the throne of a united people. Statesmen would do well to take such an example in many of the painful contingencies that arise. To a just man it is half the victory to be calm and strong in the conviction of his rectitude and the righteousness of his position. There is a watchful Providence cherishing the good and frustrating the evil. Forces under the direction of an evil genius are sure to wear themselves out if only the objects of their hate can hold their own; and the wasting of their strength means the final triumph of the cause of truth and justice. There are seasons in Church life when this policy of pure defence is wise; for at such times God has ends to effect which work in with the scope of more aggressive endeavours.
II. A RIGHT CONTENTION WILL COME TO A NIGHT ISSUE. "David waxed stronger and stronger." Of course he did. It could not but be so, for he was a chosen servant, not seeking or doing his own will, but simply placing his life in the hands of God, to work out for his people and for future ages, purposes the precise nature of which he could not understand. No weapon formed against him could prosper. He who contended against him fought against God. The forces of nature were on his side. Never did mortal more vainly contend against late than did Ishbosheth contend against David. The principle involved in this instance is of wide range. Right is sure to prevail in the issue. The disturbing element introduced by sin into the universe causes strife of the most grave character. The whole line of Divine government, so far as we can trace it, seems to be a line of conflict between right and wrong, holiness and sin. The antagonism taken up in Eden runs on and becomes more acute on Calvary, and is apparent now in a "long war" between the children of light and the kingdom of darkness. Time is in favour of righteousness. There is an endurance in truth which cannot be affirmed of error. As perhaps the friends of David thought those years of war very tedious and dispiriting, and sometimes even inconsistent with rightness of claim and purpose, so we may be weary in the greater strife and become disturbed by cruel questionings; yet the issue is sure. "Stronger and stronger" may be affirmed of the kingdom of righteousness on earth. For even the seeming failures and delays only become, in the hands of Providence, the means of acquiring the hardier and more enduring virtues by which at last the final victory shall be won. The same is true of any conflicts in which character is at stake. Our "righteousness shall be brought forth as the light," and our "judgment as the noonday." The parallel may be seen also in the conflict of the "old" End the "new man." The one is on the way to perish; the other is "renewed day by day."
III. THE UNEXPRESSED WOES OF LIFE ARE VERY REAL. "There was long war." The sentence is brief, and understandable by a child. It is repeated with careless ease. As a rule, it connotes to the ordinary reader only a general idea of men seeking to slay one another. But to read history aright we ought to bring the faculty of imagination into full play; and it is only as we exercise the historic imagination that we get a glimpse of the sad facts embodied in this simple form of expression. Subjected to the vitalizing power of this faculty, what unexpressed woes rise up to view! What harsh and fierce dispositions! What weary marchings and watchings! What murderous blows and bleeding wounds and agonizing deaths! What widows' wailings and orphans' tears! What losses to homes and nation of strong men and productive toil! This, which applies to the brief statement of the sacred narrative, is equally true of greater woes. Men read of great battles very much as they read algebraic symbols. The real items indicated are not vivid to the mind. Men read also of the banishment of the wicked to outer darkness in the same mechanical way. The hurry of life leaves no time for the imagination to lay hold of the actual facts connoted. Hence the power over the will of mere visible, present realities. Hence the difficulty of getting the "powers of the world to come" to influence motive. Hence, also, the necessity of each man making an effort to bring his mind into actual view of the facts covered by language, and of the preacher and teacher rendering the aid of well-chosen speech to further this effort.
IV. CONVENTIONAL STRENGTH MAY BE AN OCCASION OF MORAL WEAKNESS. The historian tells us of the growth of David's domestic establishment at Hebron. Estimated by the customs prevalent in the East at that time, this acquisition by David of wives and sons was supposed to add to the splendour and stateliness of his regal position. All the paraphernalia of a court, the wide-reaching influence of family connections, and the imposing show of a large household would lead ordinary men to regard him as among the great ones of the earth. The accidental surroundings of life form a delusively important part of what is deemed to be human greatness. We are all children in so far as we are influenced in our judgments on social position and weight of character by the circumstantials of life. Even the more educated are prone to either identify or associate greatness with large establishments. This kind of conventionalism plays an important part in human affairs; but it is not God's standard. David's polygamous habits were consistent with the conventional morality of the age, and his domestic establishment projected his public position before the eye of the people in a form accordant to princely fashion; but we know that beneath all the signs of wealth and greatness there were influences at work which could not but weaken his moral three and mar the beauty and sweetness of his private life. Oriental splendour and conventional moralities were indulged in at great moral cost. David in Hebron with many wives and their accompaniments could not be as morally robust as was David in earlier days. The same danger attends all who conform to customs not based on strict principles of purity and godliness. Fashion cannot make righteousness. Goodness may live amidst habits essentially alien to the welfare of the individual and to saints, as surely as life may continue in an atmosphere charged with malarious poisons; but the enervation of the one will be as certain as of the other. The insensibility of the man to the subtle action of the evil is only an aggravation of its action and in no wise a palliation. Modern Christians should severely scrutinize the moral quality of the circumstances and habits in which conventional usage allows them to live. This can only be done by making use of tests absolutely given by God apart from the colouring which custom is apt to give even to Divine laws.
V. UNRIGHTEOUS MEN PAY HOMAGE TO RIGHTEOUSNESS. There can be no question but that Ishbosheth knew well the nature and validity of David's claims; for the theocratic rule was a reality in Israel during and subsequent to the life of Samuel. It was, therefore, wrong for him to put forth any personal claim of his own. Jonathan's example had been lost upon him; and yet this man recognized the evil done by Abner in lustful indulgence, and even ventured to protest against it. On the other hand, Abner, while being unrighteous enough to indulge in sinful lust and to abet the invalid claim of Ishbosheth, nevertheless is fired with indignation that the love of gratitude should have been violated by the young monarch. Thus men, pursuing a course which they know to be contrary to the will of God, become, when personal and family matters are involved, zealous, each in his own fashion, for what is right and proper. Truly, man is a strange compound of moral light and darkness. The psychological explanation is a study. It is the habituation to the wrong which renders men so dull to appeals, so insensible to the real demerit of their actions, and it is the latent force of conscience which saves them from being parties to a course on which they have not taken the initial step. Hence our Lord's reference to the "gnat" and the "camel." The prevalence of this state of moral confusion is very wide even in Christian society. In the same individual may be found great sensitiveness and great obtuseness. The holding of slaves and gain by the sale of them has coexisted with a profound regard for religious worship. Licentious men have had a dread of dishonesty. Multitudes who rob God of the love and obedience due to him are indignant if an ordinary business debt is not paid. The Pharisees could conspire to kill Jesus Christ, and yet feel very unhappy if they omitted any of the ceremonials of religion. It is a common thing for men and women to indulge in envy, jealousy, and ill will, while extremely careful to keep up an external conduct conformable to the requirements of the Decalogue. There is much scope for searching of heart on this subject; and in dealing with it the preacher needs to exercise great discrimination and delicacy of reference. Abner must be made to see himself as Ishbosheth sees him, and vice versa. "Man, know thyself," is a maxim of immense importance to every one.
VI. PASSING EVENTS MAY SERVE TO UNVEIL THE WORKINGS OF CONSCIENCE. Viewed from a distance by the people, Abner seemed to be a man who all along was conscientiously and faithfully subordinating his life to the maintenance of a just cause. So far as we can see from the narrative, he had been reticent concerning the mental processes of which he was daily conscious. But the incident of Ishbosheth's accusation of immorality was as the removing of a veil whereby the actual thoughts of Abner stood revealed. "So do God to Abner, and more also, except, as the Lord hath sworn to David, even so I do to him." Thus Abner had known all along that it was God's will to give the kingdom to David. The ideas and compunctions connected with this central fact had evidently been covered up and suppressed. The real inner life of struggle against right and God was now exposed by his own act. In the case of every man there is always an inner life necessarily hidden by himself from ordinary view. It is a necessity of social existence that each man should be more unknown than known to his fellows. Only where there is perfect holiness would perfect knowledge of others be helpful to love and confidence. But in the case of men pursuing a deliberate course which seems to others to be conscientious, but is known to themselves to be contrary to right, there is a rigid and designed concealment of their self-condemnation. They gain the reputation of being upright, though perhaps misguided, men, while their own conscience gives the lie to this public judgment. An incidental reference, an unguarded hasty admission of fact, an effort to justify an action, may be as a sudden rent in the covering of the real life within, exposing to the view of others a guilty violation of truth, a perpetual conflict against the well-ascertained will of God. This frequent concealment of aft inner guilty life and its possible unveiling by incidental events should be a guide in forming an estimate of conduct, and a warning to evil doers. The self-exposure, also, however incidental, is to be taken as a preintimation of the final exposure when God shall bring hidden things into judgment.
2Sa_3:12-21
The facts are:
1. Abner, disgusted with Ishbosheth's conduct, opens negotiation with David for the transfer of the kingdom to him.
2. David consents to discuss the question on condition that Abner first of all undertakes to restore unto him Michal, Saul's daughter.
3. Concurrent with Abner's efforts to bring this to pass, David makes a demand on Ishbosheth for the restoration of Michal.
4. Abner, taking charge of Michal on her return to David, effects the final separation from her weeping husband.
5. Reminding Israel and Benjamin of their former preference of David, Abner seeks to bring them over to his cause.
6. Charged with instructions from the people, he pro-coeds to Hebron as a legate to arrange the business with David.
7. As a result of the interview, it was left to Abner to complete the formal submission of all the people to the authority of David
I. THE CLAIMS OF THAT WHICH IS LEAST ARE VALID AND ARE SUBSTANTIAL PARTS OF A VAST SYSTEM OF OBLIGATIONS. Michal was David's wife, bound to his heart and life by ties sacred and memorable (1Sa_18:17-30). To political schemers it would seem absurd to set a woman, not seen for many years, and known to be living in forced matrimony with another man, ever against a whole kingdom. But wrong done to her (1Sa_25:44) had not invalidated her claim on David's affection. It was due to her, due to the memory of her father in spite of his follies, due to the force of his Own character on others, and due to the old love (1Sa_18:20-28) which changing fortunes had not changed, that she should have justice done her on the very first opportunity of enforcing it. David's vision was clear enough to see that, if his claim to be king over all Israel was valid because of the appointment of God, so equally the claim of this banished woman on his love and care was also valid, because based on principles which God had ordained for the regulation of domestic life. The same Divine wilt was in both; and, moreover, they were equally parts of the great system of obligations which covers the whole area of human activity, and which is productive of highest good to man when the different parts are equally held as sacred and are rigidly observed. In human affairs there is often an apparent collision of what are called small and great obligations. In reality there is no such thing. There may be a question of order in which actions shall be done; but obligation, in the moral sense, can never clash with obligation. To love the Lord with all the heart is the prime, the chief duty, hut it does not destroy the duty of love to our neighbour. To take part in public affairs may be an obligation, but the care of home is a valid claim which cannot be ignored. There are duties which, entering into the minutiae of life or pertaining to the home rather than to public affairs, may be regarded as relatively small, but inasmuch as they are not the creation of custom but proceed from the will of God and form parts of the great scheme of life, they are to be regarded as sacred and binding as those which figure more largely before the public eye.
II. THE BRINGING ABOUT OF GREAT EVENTS INVOLVES MORE CHANGES THAN LIE WITHIN OUR OWN ACTION, AND PROVIDENCE TAKES CARE OF THEM. The event of all Israel submitting to David would imply manifold influences brought to bear on the elders of the people, and through them on the masses, and in such a process of change there might arise many a circumstance adverse to the desired issue. It was not in David's power to effect this by any personal action. All he could do was to set agencies at work through Abner, and trust in Providence for disposing the hearts of men aright. It was right doubtless for the people to own him as king, but it was not in his power to establish this right. On the other hand, it was in his power to do justice to a banished woman, and demand, as a prior step, that she be restored to his heart and home. There is always an uncertainty attending our efforts to bring about great issues in the world's affairs, even though those issues be predicted and included in the Divine purpose; for our actions are but a few among myriads of forces for and against the end for which we strive, and for ages the goal may not be reached. It is our duty to do what we can, just as it was David's to use means for winning Israel over to the allegiance which had been predicted and was part of the theocratic purpose; but we have to act in faith that an overruling Providence is at work above us and above all forces, and that the great issue will in some unknown way and time be brought to pass. The statesman cannot make the nation great and strong; he can only set in motion social and material forces which in due course may accomplish the purpose in view. The missionary can but contribute an item of force towards rendering the whole earth submissive to Christ. The parent can contribute but some of the elements which in the end will tend to form the final character of his children. The far-reaching aims of life are binding on us, but their realization is not all in our power. It is absolutely within our power to perform single acts of justice and consideration as occasion offers. As the products of will, they may fill but a small place in the world in comparison with the realization of those other wider aims which are products of many wills; yet they afford opportunities for proving our fidelity to truth and righteousness as surely as do the great events to bring about which we can only contribute our part. David's profound regard for what was right shone forth in his care for a single individual, just as truly as his faith in Providence appeared in subordinating the attainment of his political ambition to this act of justice.
III. HUMAN DUTY IS PLEDGED TO THAT WHICH IS KNOWN AND DISTINCT. David knew that Michal was his wife, that she had been forcibly separated from him in the day of adversity, and that as a good man he was bound to amend her wrongs as soon as occasion offered. Though a king, he saw that domestic were prior to political obligations. There may have been, as a matter of fact, policy in showing his regard in this way for the house of Saul, but the evident motive was to do a right deed as soon as it was seen to be right and scope offered for its performance. In morals, prompt action is homage to righteousness. A known duty and scope for its performance should never be deferred. As air, in obedience to the law of its action, rushes in to fill a vacuum, so does a just mind at once seize opportunity for doing what is clearly known to be right. If men linger and hesitate to do specific acts discerned to be just, it is clear evidence that they are defective in righteousness of principle. Their inner life is pro tanto alien to that of God. This explains, in one way at least, how it is that some men do not at once turn from positive sins and surrender themselves to Christ. They see what is the right thing to do, but defer it till some great scheme of their life is completed.
IV. FAITHFULNESS IN THAT WHICH IS LEAST GIVES MORAL POWER FOR OTHER ACTS. Having discharged this more private domestic duty, and so satisfied his conscience in reference to an obvious obligation in which a sufferer was concerned, David was a stronger man for carrying through whatever might be useful for realizing the great purposes of Providence. A good conscience is a moral tonic. The impression produced on Abner and others by this regard for what is right in the more private sphere of life, could not but be favourable to the public interests of the king. Evil men are awed by pronounced goodness, and the halting are won to allegiance. History presents many instances of influence augmented by conscientious attention to duties in private and domestic life. The habit formed by such carefulness to do the right thing in minor matters gives momentum to the action of the will when it is called to act in reference to great questions in the face of strong opposition. Many men become morally enervated by careless inattention to obligations of a private nature, yet lying close at hand and clear as daylight. Their influence on great public questions is weakened by their consciousness of neglect, and by the disgust with which men regard public separated from private righteousness.
I. A LOVE OF PRE-EMINENCE IS OFTEN A CLUE TO MUCH IN LIFE THAT IS OTHERWISE UNACCOUNTABLE. It certainly does seem strange that a man of Abner's abilities, brought up in full knowledge of the special relation of David to Samuel and Jonathan, and therefore fully aware of the reason why, after the exile from Palestine, David should assume royal state at Hebron and claim dominion also over the entire house of Israel, should give up his services in favour of David's rival. In the light of mere custom and regal order it would seem to be patriotic and manly on his part to identify his life with the interests of a son of the reigning house, and probably he flattered himself that ordinary men would put this interpretation on his conduct. But the best solution of all the facts of his life is to be found in the hypothesis of his passionate love of preeminence. With so strong a man as Joab on David's side, and the reputed zeal of the other sons of Zeruiah, there was little chance of his rising to the position of power which alone would satisfy his ambition. Although his ordinary sense must have assured him, to say nothing of the latent truth recognized by the conscience (2Sa_3:9, 2Sa_3:10), that Ishbosheth could never successfully compete with so brave and active a rival as David, yet, on the principle that it is "better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven," he found it more congenial to throw in his lot with a man over whom he could exercise chief influence and in whose cause he would be the principal figure. This policy void of principle ran through, as we shall soon see, the actions of his entire course. There lies, also, at the spring of every man's conduct, be he a public character or only a private individual, some master passion to which all other feelings and aims are subordinate, and it is good for each one, and necessary to the true interpreter of life, to find out what it is. In public affairs there can be no question that in very many instances it is not fear of God, not pure patriotism, not regard for human interests as such, but open or disguised love of pre-eminence which furnishes the main incentive to conduct. The form of conduct may be such as would result from the action of higher and better feelings, but that is simply the result of policy. This feeling, which finds its scope in the rivalry and struggle of individuals, is but the social form of the generic feeling known as selfishness, or, as modern theologians term it, selfism, which in its essence is sin and probably the metaphysical explanation of sin itself, and which, moreover, is the solution of the fact that men do not recognize the eternal King, but prefer to belong to an inferior order of things. To please self, men will even consent to lose moral rank, and become foes rather than friends of the Righteous One.
II. MORAL HUMILIATIONS MAY MODIFY THE FORM OF POLICY, BUT THEY WILL NOT DESTROY THE MASTER PASSION. To an aspiring man, as was Abner, it was intensely mortifying to be charged with wrong doing by one nominally his superior, and the moral sting of the charge probably lay in its truth. This was, on the part of Ishbosheth, a virtual assumption of both moral and legal superiority; and, as such, was a blow at that secret, unexpressed sense of superiority which Abner had all along felt in relation to the weak young man whose cause he had patronizingly advocated. In even bad men the moral sense is strong, if not in leading to right courses, yet in making them wretched for wrong doing, inwardly and morally Abner was now weak in the presence of his royal master. The soul that is humiliated does not like to be reminded of its humiliation, and, if possible, the occasions of such reminders must be avoided and punished. The change wrought in Abner lay in the deep region of unexpressed and inexpressible feelings. The old love of pre-eminence was untouched by the collision with Ishbosheth. The masterful springs of human life are not easily dried up or supplanted. The immediate effect was simply to raise up a minor yet strong personal feeling, which came as a dam between the old love of pre-eminence and the interests of Ishbosheth, and caused it to flow with widened channel in another direction. Emotions stimulate thinkings, and personal feelings arouse ingenuity. Swift as lightning Abner saw that he could be a yet more important personage than ever, and, at the same time qualify his moral humiliation by the sweets of revenge. In spite of Joab and the other son of Zeruiah, he would figure as the means of placing the crown of a united people on David's head. It should be seen that what war could not do Abner had the power to do. The names of David, Israel, and Abner would henceforth be indissolubly associated in the annals of the time. Instead of pre-eminence at the court of Ishbosheth, there would be pre-eminence at the court of David, and in the judgment of a compact nation. There have been other instances of statesmen, under the influence of resentment, changing their course, and apparently, but not in reality) their principles.
The policy in all such cases has been to subordinate public interests to certain cherished feelings. A form of sound principles may be adopted for the very same reason as previously it was rejected. Evil men are prone to do the same in ecclesiastical affairs. In private life men have been known even to assume a form of godliness—to quote the Divine truth (2Sa_3:9, 2Sa_3:10)—as a means of better subserving their purpose. It were well if rebuke of sin (2Sa_3:7, 2Sa_3:8) always produced the godly sorrow that leads to genuine repentance, and then the adoption of the true principles of the kingdom would be, not as a policy, but as a matter of conviction. The case of Saul of Tarsus in relation to the spiritual kingdom stands out in sharp contrast to that of Abner in relation to the temporal kingdom (cf. Act_9:5-20).
III. DURING THE WORKING OUT OF THE MASTER PASSION THE TRUTH OF GOD ABIDES AS A PERMANENT WITNESS. That Abner should have so explicitly referred to the Divine purpose (2Sa_3:9) cannot be ascribed to information recently received, but must be accounted for on the ground that he had all along had the truth suppressed in his own mind. He here unwittingly unveils his own conscience and condemns his past course as a violation of solemn obligations rising far above social considerations and personal preferences. To the people he, perhaps, seemed to be a man upheld by a sense of right, but to himself he was known as a rebel against God. The Divine truth asserted inwardly its own reality. Its light revealed to himself, whenever he calmly reflected on his conduct, the dark and damaging characters of his public career. And though he was now adopting right principles, and so would in future escape the pain of knowing that his actions were not running counter to their direction, yet, being conscious of adopting them for unprincipled reasons, he could not avoid the conviction that he was doing the right thing for David, not because of a love of God, but for personal ends. The sense of right would thus reveal to him the essential crookedness of ways that were ostensibly straight. The man who does right things from bad motives never knows the blessedness of the just. Probably there is no determinate course of wrong doing in which the light of truth does not bear some witness more or less distinct. Even those who, following lower passions, change the glory of the incorruptible God into images after their own likeness (Rom_1:23), at times find within a protest against their conduct (Rom_2:15). No man who has heard the claims of Christ to universal dominion as clearly and authoritatively set forth as ever Abner had heard of the Divine right of David, can live opposed to him, or, as a mere matter of policy, fall in formally with his rights, without being sensible at times of a voice which tells him of his dangerous position and worthless character. Many a converted man has borne testimony that, for years previous to his conversion, the truth of God bore faithful witness as to what was the will of God concerning him in his relation to the Anointed One.
IV. THE WORKING OUT OF A POLICY CHANGED IN OUTWARD FORM BUT NOT IN NATURE NECESSITATES AND ENSURES MUCH ZEAL AND INGENUITY. The change of allegiance was, for Abner, a momentous step. For onlookers it meant on his part a judgment, and self-respect demanded that that judgment should be justified by every possible means. His policy being the same along an altered course, he must so act as to make it appear that he had come into