CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES—
2 Samuel 2:8. “Took Ishbosheth.” Rather had taken. “Ishbosheth had probably been in the battle of Gilboa, and fled with Abner across the Jordan after the battle had been lost.” (Keil.) “Mahanaim,” On the eastern side of the Jordan, north of the brook Jabbok (Genesis 32:2-3). Ishbosheth or “Esh-baal” (see 1 Chronicles 8:33). Literally son of Baal. “It seems probable that the name Baal (lord) was in early times given to the God of Israel, and proper names were formed from it afterwards. When the worship of the false Baal was introduced into Israel the change into Bosheth, or shame, 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.” (Transr. of Lange’s Commentary.)
2 Samuel 2:9. “Over,” rather for, etc. The use of this preposition seems to indicate that the title was assumed before the places named really became subject to Ishbosheth. “Gilead,” the whole of trans-Jordanic Israelitish territory. “Ashurites.” This name cannot be identified, and commentators vary greatly in the opinions concerning the people here referred to. “Jezreel.” The plain as well as the city, so-called, which had just been occupied by the Philistines, and therefore must have needed to be re-conquered by Abner. “All Israel,” i.e., all the rest excepting Judah.
2 Samuel 2:10. “Two years.” It is not quite clear how these words are to be understood, inasmuch as it seems certain that Ishbosheth was proclaimed king immediately after Saul’s death, and we know that he reigned until the time (seven and a half years later) when David became king over all Israel. He reigned two years, may be understood to mean that five years and a half were occupied in re-conquering the territory from the Philistines, so that Ishbosheth was only a nominal king during that period. Or the last clause of 2 Samuel 2:10 and 2 Samuel 2:11 may be regarded as a parenthesis, and the two years taken as referring to the time which elapsed before the event recorded in the following paragraph. Each of these interpretations has been adopted by eminent Biblical scholars, but the latter seems most in keeping with the movement of Abner which is now recorded.
2 Samuel 2:12. To “Gibeon.” Now “El-Jib” in the western part of Benjamin, about six miles north of Jerusalem. He came here, doubtless, with the view of subduing Judah also to the rule of Ishbosheth, and it is remarked by Erdmann that he would not have taken this step if he had not already subdued the Philistines.
2 Samuel 2:13. “Joab, the son of Zeruiah.” This man here for the first time comes forward in the history of David. “He had no doubt already, as his brother Abishai, had a military training with his uncle, and had 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 2 Samuel 23:8, his name is not given, probably because his name already stood above them all as general, as we may conjecture from 2 Samuel 23:18; 2 Samuel 23:24.” (Erdmann.). Zeruiah was David’s sister, and is most likely named, instead of her husband, to show Joab’s relation to David. “The pool of Gibeon.” A spring still “issues in a cave excavated in the limestone rock, so as to form a large reservoir. In the trees farther down are the remains of a pool or tank of considerable size, probably, says Dr. Robinson, 120 feet by 100.” (Biblical Dictionary.). This is the “great water” mentioned by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 41:12).
2 Samuel 2:14. “Play.” Here used to denote the war-play of single combat. (Keil.)
2 Samuel 2:15. “Went over.” They probably met at some intermediate place. (Transr. of Lange’s Commentary.)
2 Samuel 2:16. “Helkath-hazzurim,” i.e., The field of knives, or sharp edges. Everyone must recall to mind the similar combat of the Horatii and the Curatii of Roman history (Livy i. 25). “These single combats still occur among the Arabs.” (Trans. of Lange’s Commentary.)
2 Samuel 2:17. “A sore battle.” Consequent upon the undecisive nature of the single combat.
2 Samuel 2:21. “And Abner said,” etc. Abner’s speaking supposes that Asahel had already overtaken him. “Take his armour,” i.e., after slaying him.
2 Samuel 2:22. “How, then, should I,” etc. “Abner did not want to put the young hero to death, out of regard for Joab and their former friendship.” (Keil.)
2 Samuel 2:23. “The hinder end of the spear.” He used the hinder end from his desire to spare Asahel’s life. But owing to his great strength and prowess, the wooden end which was more or less pointed to enable the owner to stick it into the ground (1 Samuel 27:7), ran into his body.” (Biblical Commentary.)
2 Samuel 2:24. “Ammah.” … “Giah.” Nothing further is known about these places.
2 Samuel 2:27. “If thou,” etc. “If thou hadst not by that challenge given the signal for the battle, then early in the morning one side would have retreated before the other, and the battle would not have occurred.… In Joab’s address and bearing it may be seen that he would not have made the attack, but that his march against Abner was simply to protect the territory of Judah.” (Erdmann.) Keil, Lightfoot, Patrick, Wordsworth, and others agree with Erdmann’s interpretation, but others understand Joab to say, “Even if thou hadst not spoken, the pursuit would have ceased to-morrow morning.”
2 Samuel 2:29. “The plain,” or the “Arabah,” the deep gorge of the Jordan. “Having marched first from the battle-field directly east towards Jericho.” (Erdmann.) “All Bithron,” rather “All the Bithron.” As the word signifies a cutting, it was probably a name given to some ravine between Jordan and Mahanaim.
2 Samuel 2:31. “Three hundred and threescore.” “This striking disproportion in the numbers may be accounted for from the fact that in Joab’s army there were none but brave and well-tried men, who had gathered round David a long time before; whereas in Abner’s army there were only the remnants of those who had been beaten upon Gilboa, and who had been still further weakened and depressed by their attempts to recover the land which was occupied by the Philistines.” (Keil.)
2 Samuel 2:32. “They burled him.” Bethlehem lay only a little to the left of the road between Gibeon and Hebron, and about fifteen miles from the latter place.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— 2 Samuel 2:8-32
ABNER’S OPPOSITION TO DAVID
I. Self-will is a sin that dies hard. We should have thought before experience that the humiliating disaster at Gilboa would have been sufficient to bring Abner and the men of Israel into grateful submission to God’s will concerning the person who was to be their ruler. Having but barely escaped with their own lives, and having to mourn the best and bravest of their kindred, it might have been expected they would gladly welcome one under whose rule they might look for God’s protection and their own consequent security and comfort. But their own way was yet so much dearer to them than God’s way that to have it they were willing to enter upon all the miseries of a civil war. Abner, as he himself afterwards confesses (2 Samuel 3:9), knew that the Lord had sworn unto David to translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, yet he is here found the most prominent person concerned in the elevation of Ishbosheth to the kingship. If his followers could plead ignorance of the Divine will in the matter, their leader could not, and his act must be regarded as a declaration that, whatever God had said, he would do as he pleased. He was not, however, we may well believe, so honest a man as to permit himself thus to interpret his own conduct, but probably sheltered himself behind some plea of necessity or policy. The sin of Abner and his followers is the sin of all men who, when the will of God is plainly revealed either by His word or providence, set up their own in opposition to it—who, when the finger-post of duty points in one direction, choose another because they are so deluded as to fancy there is something to be gained by it.
II. The sin of one often affects the destiny of many. All the bloodshed by the pool of Gibeon on this day must be laid to the account of one man. Joab spoke truly when he said (2 Samuel 2:27) that Abner’s word was the spark that lighted the fire of battle which afterwards raged so fiercely, and with such special fatality among his own men. Although each man had to some extent the power of individual choice when he followed his general into the field, yet position and ability give some so great an influence over others that the few who possess them have the many in a large measure in their hands, and are the makers of their weal or woe, so far at least as this life is concerned. If such a man as Abner had not put forth a rival to David, we may conclude with certainty that there would have been no organised opposition to him, and this murderous affray and the civil strife of the following years would have been avoided. The same may be said of most of the wars that have cursed the world. They have almost all been to gratify the ambition of one or two, and thousands have been the sufferers. This dependence of the many upon the few is one of the facts of human life, and often one of its mysteries. If not an ordination of God, it is certainly a Divine permission; and unless society were all upon a dead level it is hard to see how it could be otherwise. And although this incident shows its dark side, we know it has a bright one—a side which will efface the darkness when all leaders and rulers of men have learnt of Him who rules to save and to redeem souls from deceit and violence, and in whose sight the blood of His followers is precious. (Psalms 72:13-14.)
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
Even the Amalekite could carry the crown to him as the true owner: yet there wants not an Abner to resist him, and the title of an Ishbosheth to colour his resistance. If any of Saul’s house could have made challenge to the crown, it should have been Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, who, it seems, had too much of his father’s blood to be a competitor with David: the question is, not who may claim the most right, but who may best serve the faction: neither was Ishbosheth any other than Abner’s stale.—Bp. Hall.
2 Samuel 2:10. When David came into possession of his kingdom, even yet he remained quiet awhile, without considering how he might increase it, because he cast all this care upon Divine Providence. He thus shames the behaviour of those spiritual men, who, when they recognise that God wishes to do something through them, are constantly making attempts and all sorts of beginnings to see whether they may, perhaps, achieve the work, and are never willing in patience and self-forgetfulness to wait on God, until God Himself performs His will. The hour must come itself, and so it must simply be waited for.—Berlenberger Bible.
2 Samuel 2:13. A righteous war is a royal duty, from which no prince can venture to withdraw, even if it were fraternal war. It may have come hard to David to take up war against his brothers, and yet he could not do otherwise. God the Lord had Himself given the arms into his hand.—Schlier.
2 Samuel 2:23. See here
(1). How often death comes upon us by ways that we least suspect. Who would fear the hand of a flying enemy, or the buttend of a spear?
(2). How we are often betrayed by the accomplishments we are proud of. Asahel’s swiftness, which he presumed so much upon, did him no kindness, but forwarded his fate.—Henry.
2 Samuel 2:18-23. (A Sunday-school address.) The rash young prince.
1. He had a shining gift (2 Samuel 2:18). In ancient warfare more were often slain in the pursuit than in the battle; and so swiftness of foot was important in a warrior.
2. He was ambitious—pursuing the distinguished general of the enemy.
3. He had decision and perseverance—turning not to the right or left, and yielding to no persuasion.
4. He fancied himself superior to an old man—a common and natural, but grave fault in the young.
5. He was slain as the penalty of self-confidence and rashness—besetting sins of many gifted youths.—Translator of Lange’s Commentary.
2 Samuel 2:26. This may have been a mere stroke of policy, or it may have been the promptings of conscience bringing home the guilt of the slaughter to himself. What he probably meant was, that matters might remain as they were, Ishbosheth reigning over the ten tribes, and David over Judah.… He who had been so keen for war in the morning, was still more keen for peace in the evening, for it is not easy for a man with even a shred of conscience to think of nearly four hundred of his own brethren lying dead on the field of battle, and to remember that the responsibility of the terrific slaughter lies at his own door.—Blaikie.