Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David. 2 Samuel 3 Progress and termination of the civil war W. G. Blaikie, M. A. What grief tales of distress are folded up in these brief words, "There was long war!" Probably it was only irregular war, without much bloodshed; the war of skirmish and surprise, not of pitched battles, or protracted sieges, or desperate assaults; but many a pillaged town, and many a homestead laid in ashes, and many a heart crushed to despair or maddened to fury, and many a deep and deadly curse, and many a fiendish vow of vengeance, would everywhere follow the track of war. And it was war of the most distressing and demoralising kind — not foreign but civil. Great national wars are usually attended by one counteracting benefit — they soften the keenness of private quarrels. But when parties in the same nation arc fighting with each other, as the tribes of Israel now were, private quarrels, instead of being healed, are only exasperated to greater bitterness. 1. Before the remarkable change of policy on the part of Abner that led to the termination of the war is recorded, a glimpse is given us of the domestic life of King David ( 2 Samuel 3:2-5 ); and whether it be by design or not, there immediately follows (vers. 6-11) a specimen and illustration of the kind of evils to which that mode of life was liable to give rise. Though polygamy was not allowed to David, it certainly was winked at; it was not imputed to him as guilt; it 'was not treated as an act of rebellion against God's law. But, on the other hand, this toleration of polygamy did not and could not prevent the evils to which, from its very nature, it gives rise. There could be no unity in David's family, none of that delightful feeling of oneness, which gives such a charm to the home. In his own breast, that sense of delicacy, that feeling of chastity, which has such a purifying influence in a family, could scarcely flourish. And further, as the absence of delicacy must have been characteristic of David, so was it also of his children; the unbridled passions of some of his sons gave rise to the most dismal tragedies; and left blots on their name that even time could never wash out. 2. It is immediately after this glimpse of David's domestic life that we come upon a sample of the kind of evils to which that mode of life commonly gives rise. Saul, too, had his harem; and it seems to have been a rule of succession in the East, that the harem went with the throne; hence to take possession of the one was regarded as setting up a claim to the other. When, therefore, Ishbosheth heard that Abner had taken one of his father's concubines he seems to have regarded that circumstance as a proof that Abner was setting up a claim to the kingdom for himself. Mistaking the semblance of power for the reality — forgetting that Ishbosheth had but the one, and Abner the other, Ishbosheth denounced the conduct of Abner with great bluntness and rudeness; and gave him such mortal offence that Abner abruptly and peremptorily assured him that he would not strike another blow in his service, but would at once go over to David. The loss of Abner was to Ishbosheth the loss of all. His cause had for some time been a losing one; it was now quite destroyed. 3. The next step in the narrative brings us to Abner's proposal to David, to make a league with him for the undisputed possession of the throne. As a preliminary to any further arrangements, David insisted, first of all, that his wife Michael, the daughter of Saul, should be restored to him. Some have pronounced this a harsh condition, especially considering that Michal was now living as the wife of another person, who appears to have been much attached to her, and most unwilling to surrender her. It is undoubted, however, that Michal was not the wife of Phaltiel, but the wife of David; Phaltiel must have known that she was another man's wife when he received her; and it is misplaced compassion to be sorry for a man when called to surrender what he never had a right to take. It may be asked, however, what could have been David's motive for demanding back Michal, when he had so many wives without her? It might be enough to say in reply that Michal was his wedded wife, and that it would have been disgraceful to David, when he could prevent it, to allow his wife to live in adultery with another. Of all David's wives, Michal, as the daughter of a king like Saul, was the first in worldly rank; David, therefore, wished to recover her; probably also, he thought, that by having her again for his wife there would be a bond of union between the two royal families of the kingdom that might draw the people together, and save the further shedding of blood. Another consideration appears also to have influenced him. In demanding back Michal he makes special mention of the dowry he had given for her — a hundred foreskins of the Philistines. In mentioning this he probably desired to revive among the people the remembrance of his ancient services and exploits against these inveterate enemies of his country and religion. His recent alliance with the Philistines had brought him into suspicion; he wished to remind his people, therefore, of his ancient bearing towards these enemies, and to encourage the expectation of similar deeds of successful warfare. 4. When the preliminaries between Abner and David were settled Abner appears to have exerted himself with real sincerity and zeal in behalf of David. Most probably he was not sorry for the occasion of his breach with Ishbosheth; David's was obviously the rising star; probably tie was watching an opportunity to transfer his allegiance from the one to the other. Abner now became as zealous for David as formerly he had been for Ishbosheth; and in holding communication with the elders of Israel and of Benjamin, and urging them very strongly to submit to David, he did him a service which no other living man could then have rendered. The tender heart of the shepherd king was doubtless inexpressibly grieved at the continuance of the war; he would have welcomed with unbounded delight any honourable arrangement that would have prevented further bloodshed; and when Abner was seen using his great influence with the leaders of the tribes in the cause of peace, he must have appeared to David like a very angel of God. When, therefore, at the most critical moment in these negotiations, the impetuous and vindictive Joab thrust his sword through Abner's heart — when, to the revolting ferocity of the deed itself, and its glaring outrage on the laws of hospitality, he added the crime of placing in jeopardy a most delicate national negotiation, and exasperating those whom it was most desired to conciliate, David's mortification must have been unbounded. ( W. G. Blaikie, M. A. ) Perpetual war J. Irons. I. WARRING INTERESTS. 1. Saul's interests were natural — they were carnal — they were worldly — they were selfish. David's interests, on the contrary, were Of God — they were spiritual — they were under God's sovereign direction — they were Divine. Just such is the distinction between the Church of God and the world. What is the result? Why, just warring, jarring, contending interests; for one is in the interest of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the other in the interest of the devil. Saul's house, the carnal, selfish, worldly multitude are all under the influence of the Prince of Darkness, the prince of the power of the air, who rules in the hearts of the children of disobedience; they are all under the sway of their carnal inclinations and affections, and the men of the world ought not to be offended for being told by us what their own consciences must admit to be the fact. On the contrary, the army of David associates with the beloved soldiers of the cross; they are the ransomed of the Lord; they take this blessed book as their guide; the word of command of the Captain of their salvation is imperative, and they call on high for grace, implicity to regard and obey it. The result is that Satan's interests arc bolstered up by the former, and real Christianity is maintained by the latter. 2. Let us now take another view of the difference which subsists between the house of Saul and the house of David — I mean an experimental view. And what will you say when I declare unto you that there are both the house of Saul and the house of David in your own hearts — that there are both the house of Saul and the house of David inhabiting this body of flesh and blood — that there are all the vile corruptions and carnal inclinations of the house of Saul; but, blessed be God, there are also the especial graces, and the spiritual implantations of the house of David — an old and new nature — a propensity to every evil, as was the case with Saul, but a panting after every good, as was the case with David. 3. Observe, they are so contrary, so opposed to each other, that they are altogether irreconcilable, and it is quite in vain, therefore, to attempt a reconciliation. He that is born after the flesh will persecute him that is born after the Spirit. What fellowship can light have with darkness? What communion can Christ have with Belial? What oneness, or intimacy, can subsist between him who is a believer and him who is an infidel? II. THE ADVANCING POWER OF THE CONQUERING SIDE. "David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker." 1. The first feature of David's prosperity lay in this, that his fame and his prowess were advancing and increasing, and his power extending. So with our glorious Lord, David's antitype; His kingdom is growing and extending, prospering and thriving, His name is exalted, and shall be exalted, and all His household. 2. But what constituted David's waxing stronger and stronger in the most conspicuous point of view, was the accessions which were constantly being made to his kingdom, and all of which were so many instances, not merely of the increase of his own strength, but of the diminution of the kingdom and power of Saul. The very way in which oar glorious David advances. All the accessions that are made to His kingdom are lawful captives delivered from the terrible power of darkness and translated into His own kingdom. 3. The next point is the warring interests between the two houses that occupy our poor nature. Is it in your power honestly to say that within the circle of your experience the house of David is waxing stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxing weaker and weaker? I want the graces growing in strength. I want to have faith like Abraham's. I want to give glory to God and believe against apparent impossibilities. I want love to be growing like John's, so that no place will do for me but the bosom of Jesus; I want hope to be victorious, strong and firm, entering within the veil, sure and steadfast. I want humility to lay me at the feet of Christ, and keep axe there. I want the zeal of the house of my beloved Lord to eat me up, and I want the meekness and patience of my Lord to make me quite immoveable to all the provocations of the wicked world through which I am passing. Oh! if the graces of Jesus were thus exercised. If the new man were always thus enthroned. If the new man were always seated uppermost, always thus favoured with supplies of grace from above, how old Adam would groan! How he would be nailed up! How he would be mortified! II. THE RESULTS OF THE WARFARE. You know how it resulted with David: it resulted in the entire destruction of the house of Saul, in imperishable honours worn by himself and his household, his throne set above all the kingdoms of the earth, and a glorious lasting peace settled and secured. So shall it be with our glorious Christ and His household. All the honours which the covenant of grace provides, which the promises of the word unfold and exhibit, and which the grace of the Spirit can put on and wear, and which must after all return and redound to Jesus' precious name, are claimed and appropriated by the followers of the Lamb, the household of David. 1. Moreover, there is a peculiar circumstance in relation to this warfare and its results — that is that with all this fighting, and skirmishing, and wounding, never one soul is killed or destroyed. 2. The throne of our David must become noted for its fame, and be exalted above all others. It must be so established as to reign over all dominions, and put down every authority that opposes it, for it is written that He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. Then comes the glorious consummation, eternal peace. ( J. Irons. ) A long war C. M. Fleury, A. M. I. There was war. David ascended the throne of Judah, but not to enjoy peace, as he might have presupposed. The descendants of Saul opposed his election, though ratified by heaven; usurped the throne, and maintained personally, or by their representative and chief agent, Abner, unceasing and bitter opposition to his government. Is it not thus with the Christian, after his decided confirmation in the faith? When we are in Christ, or rather Christ is in us, by virtue of our spiritual elevation, then it is that the enmity between our fallen nature and the true will of God betrays itself in vehement activity. 2. The war was long. With David the literal conflict endured but seven years and six months, till the last opponent of his rightful sway was removed. With every spiritual child of God the war must endure from conversion to death, while one fragment of this infected mortality cleaves to another in animation — so thoroughly, so desperately has the opposition of Satan to God's rule preoccupied and possessed our natural being. 3. Further, it is mentioned that "the house of David waxed stronger and stronger." It must be so with the Christian. The condition of the believer is a growing one: he is perfectly born in Christ at once, but his powers and faculties are matured in action, and his progress is decided. ( C. M. Fleury, A. M. ) To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul. 2 Samuel 3:10 The translation of life J. Parker, D. D. The kingdom was to pass from the house of Saul to the house of David, and David was to be king "over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba." The thought is that kingdoms of an earthly kind change hands, and therefore they are to be regarded as belonging to things temporary and mutable, and not to things eternal and unchangeable. What hast thou that thou hast not received? By long use men come to entertain the idea of sole proprietorship, and thus the sense of monopoly increases. Our children are not ours, they are God's; our lives are not our own, they belong to the Creator; we have no, thing, except in the sense of stewardship and in the sense of involving responsibility for the use we make of it. It is well that men can only reign for a certain time; it, would be well if royalty could change its point of origin, so that human vanity might be checked and human ambition might be baffled in many a course. We are not to think of earthly kingdoms alone as meaning political sovereignities; we are to think of personal influence, institutional functions, and all arrangements made to meet the necessity of the present day; all these things must be changed in order to be purified; the direction may be altered in order that attention may be wakened; those who imagine themselves secure for ever must be shaken out of their security, that they may learn that there is no permanence but in God. The Lord reigneth. All men reign under Him, and are subject to His will. They only are happy who use the world as not abusing it, and who hold it with so light a hand that at any moment they can lay it down again. ( J. Parker, D. D. ) God in history Someone has pithily said: "There are three kinds of histories. There is that which makes the king the centre of the story. The tale is mainly one of wars and their causes. It speaks glowingly of the king's victories, and explains away his defeats. It has been dubbed, 'The Drum and Trumpet History.' Then there is that which traces the growth of the people — their morals, customs, politics, and religion. This is the 'Bread and Success' history. But, last of all, there is the history like that of the chosen nation, where the guide and ruler is God. This is true history, for it reckons in the mightiest fact and force of all. It is the 'Sane and Sublime History,' and no other is worth the name." Now then do it. 2 Samuel 3:18 Now then do it I. REMIND UNDECIDED PERSONS OF FORMER IMPULSES. 1. The character and frequency of those impulses have varied greatly in different individuals. 2. These impulses have been usual in you at certain times, and these find a parallel in the case of Israel. These Israelites, perhaps, in their hearts sought for David to be king when they saw the joy upon the face of David's men. His troopers often had spoil to share, and they always spake well of their captain, and whenever a David's man was seen anywhere about Judah or Israel, the people said, "Those warriors have a goodly heritage in being under such a noble leader," and they wished they had such a king themselves. I do not doubt but sometimes when you hear Christ preached in all His sweetness, your mouths begin to water after him. "Is he so good, is he so pleasant? Oh, that we knew Him!" And when you see Christians so happy, and especially when you see them in times of trouble so cheerful and joyous under all their trials, I know you have had an inward wish that you knew their secret and could share their peace. 3. These seekings after David were sometimes with the Israelites vivid and strong; and so, too, impulses with undecided people are occasionally very powerful. 4. Nothing has come of all the seekings of your youth and your after days. II. RECOMMEND DECIDED ACTION. "Ye sought for David in times past to be king over you, now then do it." 1. Note the business on hand — it is that Jesus should be king over you. 2. Next notice that if Christ is to be your king, it must be by your own act and deed. So saith the text concerning king David "Now then do it." 3. And here is the point, if Jesus is to reign the old king must go down. It is of no use trying to have Ishbosheth and David on the throne at the same time. It is impossible to serve sin and to serve Christ. Dream not of believing to-morrow or next year, nor even in half-an-hour's time; but cast your guilty soul on Christ at once. Now then do it. II. REASON WITH STRONG ARGUMENTS. ( C. H. Spurgeon . ) "To-day" H. O. Mackey. John Ruskin took for his great life-motto the simple word "To-day." He had it engraved on his watch, and before him in his library, so that he could always see it as he sat at his desk, the text, "Work, while it is yet called to-day." To-day let us repent, believe, love. pray, toil, so that to-day we may bring the kingdom to pass, by doing His will as it is done in heaven. ( H. O. Mackey. ) Now Theodore L. Cuyler, D. D. Perhaps there is now a "shy, solitary serious thought," in your heart about becoming a Christian. If you let it alone, it may fly away like a bird through a cage-door left open, and may never come back. Or else a crowd of business cares and plans, or perhaps a host of social invitations will flock in, and the good thought be smothered to death. You have smothered just such blessed thoughts before. The thought in your heart is to become a Christian now, and the great bells ring out, "Now is the accepted time: behold, now is the day of salvation." No soul was ever yet saved, and no good deed was ever done to-morrow. Be careful lest tomorrow shall find you beyond the world of probation! ( Theodore L. Cuyler, D. D. ) The duty lying nearest Soon after the death of Carlyle two friends met. "And so Carlyle is dead," said one. "Yes," said the other, "he is gone; but he did me a very good turn once." "How was that?" asked the first speaker. "Did you ever see him or hear him?" "No," came the answer, "I never saw him nor heard him. But when I was beginning life, almost through my apprenticeship, I lost all interest in everything and everyone. I felt as if I had no duty of importance to discharge; that it did not matter whether I lived or not; that the world would do as well without me as with me. This condition continued more than a year. I should have been glad to die. One gloomy night, feeling that I could stand my darkness no longer, I went into a library, and lifting a book I found lying upon a table, I opened it. It was 'Sartor Resartus,' by Thomas Carlyle. My eye fell upon one sentence, marked in italics, 'Do the duty which lies nearest to thee, which thou knowest to be a duty! The second duty will already have become clearer.' That sentence," continued the speaker, "was a flash of lightning striking into my dark soul. It gave me a new glimpse of human existence. It made a changed man of me. Carlyle, under God, saved me. He put content and purpose and power-into my life." Died Abner as a fool dieth? 2 Samuel 3:33 The fool's death A. G. Brown. There are two or three different renderings of our text. Some take it thus — "Died Abner as a wicked man?" And then the answer is, "No, he did not. He fell by the foul hand of deliberate and deceitful murder." Others render the text — "Shall Abner die like a fool?" That is, "Shall he be unpitied? Shall his fall" be unsung? Shall his murder be unrevenged?" There is a good deal to show for this rendering; because David, directly afterward, pronounces an awful imprecation on the house of Joab. But the third rendering, which we prefer, and which we shall take, is the one which we have here in our text: "Died Abner as a fool dieth?" 'That is, "Can it be true that such a man as Abner, with all his mental power and all his martial prowess — can it be true that Abner, of all men, died like a fool?" The next verse, you will see, explains the reference. His hands free, his feet, unfettered, and yet Abner the warrior falls down before the spear of Joab. "Died Abner as a fool dieth?" I think we may generally take for granted that in young manhood there is always a love of honest dealing. In fact, if any one who calls himself a man objects to plain, straightforward dealing, the sooner he changes his name the better. Surely no young man in his senses here will differ from us in the statement that no matter how successful a man may be in many aspects, yet his life is an utter failure if at the end he dies a fool's death. We recognize the fact that die we must. And I take it that, a true young man would far sooner face a fact like this, and would far sooner hear the preacher boldly deal with it, than attempt the foolish task of escaping an unpleasant subject by not referring to it. What was the mark of folly about Abner's death? I. HIS STRANGE SIMPLICITY AND WONDERFUL CREDULITY. I do marvel at Abner — certainly David did — that he, of all men, should have been so easily "gulled," for we know no other word that so exactly conveys the thought of our mind. Abner had been continually by the king's side. He must have known, therefore, that the art of political speaking is to conceal your thoughts, and that nature only gives courtiers' tongues to shroud by language the intentions of the heart. Strange that a man like Abner, who had passed through such a school as two courts, should have so readily believed the message which Joab sent him. Now, is it not marvellous how unsuspicious men are of sin's designs? They are shrewd enough in other things. I have no doubt that many of you are sharp, keen, acute men of business. Your books will testify that you do not make very many bad debts. You can see through a man as quickly as most; yet how strange it is that often those who are shrewdest in other things are most deluded as to the nature of sin's designs! As Homer describes in his Odyssey, there are the sirens on the rocks, who sing so sweetly that, if a Ulysses is to be kept from running his craft right on their rugged brows, the men must lash him to the mast and ply their oars with desperate earnestness, for the music of the sirens makes a deadly calm, and leaves no breath of air to fill the sails and take the vessel from her danger. And so sin seems to sing like an enchantress; and the shrewdest and the cleverest men are irresistibly, almost imperceptibly, drawn toward it; and they who would see through a deception of another sort in a moment seem, like Abner, utterly blinded in this respect, What Satan raves to accomplish is to be revenged on God through God's creatures. Is it likely, then, that such a Joab as this can have any good intent when he says to thee by some sin, "Come, let us talk quietly in the gate?" And yet how willingly a man will turn aside with any sin! "A man is both ruined and saved through faith." I confess that when first I heard that statement I was rather startled. I did not at first see its force, and I said, "Stay! There is a mistake. You mean that a man is saved through faith and is ruined by unbelief." The answer I received was: "That is true; so also is it that a man is either saved or lost by faith. If the faith be in God, through Christ, then that faith saves; but, on the other hand, if it is the faith which a man places in the representations made by Satan and sin, that faith damns him." It was our first parents' faith in the words of the serpent that spread ruin over God's new-made world. And so I doubt not that there are many here concerning whom it may be said, as it was of Abner: "Shall that man die as the fool dieth? So keen in everything else, shall he be credulous enough to be led by so simple a snare as that set by the enemy?" Yet so is it. II. Now NOTE THE NEXT THING IN HIS FOLLY — HIS UNUSUAL ADVANTAGES. I think David specially thought of these when he burst out into the cry, "Died Abner as a fool died?" You glean this from the 34th verse, "Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters." Abner was a prisoner to nobody but himself. No cord bound those mighty arms of his; no iron fetters were upon his feet; and yet he might us well have been born without hands or feet for all the good they were to him. Hands unused, feet unemployed, he stands still like a fool to be killed. Oh! is it not so with many? I ask you, have not your advantages been unused? Let me ask thee, if thou weft to die and be lost wouldst thou not have to acknowledge that, in this respect, thou hast certainly played the fool, for. thy, hands are not bound nor thy feet in fetters? You are not bound with ignorance. It may be that there are some of you here who know the story of the gospel as well as the preacher. It may be that there are others of you here who could stand on this platform and run through all the main doctrines of the Word. What, and will you, with all this knowledge of the truth, yet die as the fool dieth — with unfettered feet and hands at liberty? I know not your history, but it would be a strange thing if there are not hundreds here who have been armed by holy precept. Your Bible may be at the bottom of your box now, just as it was thrown in three years ago, when you left your home in the country. Not a few of you have been armed by noble examples. Have you not had a holy, noble, heavenly example in her who gave you birth, and who, perhaps, is at this moment before the throne? Then let me ask you, why die as a fool? It your hands be not bound, and you know the difference between right and wrong, if you have been armed by holy precept, and if you have been blessed with a heavenly example, why shall it ever be said of you, "Died Abner as a fool dieth?" As Caesar Borgia lay dying fast he looked up, and, with clenched hands, muttered through his teeth the words, "I have provided for everything throughout life except death." And, doubtless, there are many here who can" take up Caesar Borgia's words as describing their own mad folly. Then, I ask you, if you die without hope, may it not be said as a requiem over you, "Died Abner as a fool dieth?" III. Now note, next, that HIS VERY POSITION MADE THE FOLLY OF HIS DEATH THE GREATER. Oh, Abner, if you had refused to speak to Joab outside the city gates and insisted on entering them first, even Joab would not have dared to violate the sanctity of that citadel. Thou wouldst have been safe. I may be mistaken, but I think I am not. As far as my own feelings are concerned, the nearer a person is to safety when he dies the sadder is his death. It is sad enough for the sailor to go down in mid-Atlantic, when there are only the winds to howl his requiem, and when no eye looks down upon his struggles but that of the seagull whirling round and round upon the wings of the hurricane. It is sad enough to sink down with only the shriek of the sea-bird in your ear; but, I think, it is sadder far to go down just outside the harbour's mouth, with a thousand eyes upon you and a thousand hands ready to help if they can. Sad enough for the traveller in the desert, parched with thirst and pinched with hunger, to lay him down in the burning dust to die, with only the vulture hovering over him in air which quivers with intensity of heat. But when we read some time back of one being literally starved to death in the great metropolis, when there were wealth all round, food in abundance and a thousand persons ready to vie with each other as to who should go to his rescue first, it seemed to me the climax of horror to die in the midst of plenty. "Died Abner as a fool dieth" — credulous, with advantages unused, and on the very threshold of safety? God save us from such folly. Shall yonder Abner, who has been the child of prayer for thirty years, die a fool's death? Said a godly mother to a son who used to worship in this place, and is at the present time at the other end of the world, "Ah, my boy, if ever you get into perdition, it will be over ten thousand mother's prayers that she places in front of you as barriers." It may be that there are some here who, though most deeply sunk in sin, yet know full well that there is no night nor morning but the cry goes up to heaven, "Lord, save my boy!" And shall Abner, the child of so many prayers, die the fool's death? ( A. G. Brown. ) Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet. put into fetters. 2 Samuel 3:34 The moral of affliction B. Fawcett, M. A. I. WHAT THERE IS IN THE TEXT EXPRESSIVE OF AFFLICTIVE SCENES. 1. Let us observe, that the text contains the speech, which was made at the grave of a very respectable person. 2. The next thing observable in the text, is the manner of describing a death, that was brought about by the most execrable villany. 3. The text concludes with assuring us, that the concern for such a death, of such a person, was deep and universal. II. WHAT USEFUL LESSONS SUCH A SCENE OF AFFLICTION HATH A MORE PECULIAR TENDENCY TO INCULCATE UPON US. 1. It should more deeply convince us, that sin is the worst and greatest of all evils. 2. This scene of affliction may lead us to reflect on the vanity, which attends human life, even in its most prosperous state. Let Ira, on this occasion, thankfully acknowledge our obligations to Divine Providence, for the continuance of our lives and comforts. ( B. Fawcett, M. A. ) Whatsoever the king did pleased all the people. 2 Samuel 3:36 "The king can do no wrong" I. First, then, wherever it is the case that whatsoever the king doeth pleases all the people, THIS IS THE OUTFLOW OF LOVE; and as it is the case with our King, that whatsoever He does pleases all His people, we can truly say that this is the outflow of our love to Him. 1. True love banishes suspicion. No dark suspicions come across the soul that is once enamoured of the Lord Jesus Christ. 2. It also inspires implicit confidence. We are willing to let His will be like the apocalyptic book, sealed with seven seals if necessary, and we unhesitatingly say, "Let His will be done." 3. Love also suggests unquestioning reverence. 4. It creates sympathetic feeling. When our nature gets to be like His nature — oh, what a blessed consummation that is! — when our wishes and His wishes travel the same road, though not with equal footsteps; when that which He aims at is that which we aim at after our poor fashion; when we can say that it is more delight to us that He should be delighted than that we should be delighted ourselves, and that it is a greater honour to us to see Him honoured than it would be to be honoured ourselves; when we sink ourselves in Him, even as two divided streams at last dissolve into one — as I have seen a tiny silver brook come clown to Father Thames, and pour its whole self into him, so as to be no longer anything but part of the great river — so, when

Benson Commentary 2 Samuel 3:1 Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David: but David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker. 2 Samuel 3:1 . There was long war — For five years longer: for it is probable Ish-bosheth was made king immediately upon Saul’s death; and the other tribes did not submit to David before seven years were expired. Between the house of Saul and the house of David — Their enmity continuing throughout the whole reign of Ish-bosheth. It is probable there were many skirmishes between Israel and Judah; but we do not read of any pitched battle. 2 Samuel 3:2 And unto David were sons born in Hebron: and his firstborn was Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; 2 Samuel 3:2-3 . Unto David sons were born of Ahinoam — He had no children, it seems, by this wife during his exile; or if he had, they were daughters. The daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur — A part of Syria, northward from the land of Israel. How David came by this wife it is not easy to say. Perhaps he married her out of policy, that he might have a powerful friend and ally in her father, to assist him against Ish-bosheth’s party in the north, while himself opposed them in the south. But if so, he paid dear for making piety give place to policy, as the history of Absalom, whom he had by her, shows. 2 Samuel 3:3 And 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; 2 Samuel 3:4 And the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital; 2 Samuel 3:5 And the sixth, Ithream, by Eglah David's wife. These were born to David in Hebron. 2 Samuel 3:5 . By Eglah, David’s wife — This is added, either because she was of obscure parentage, and was known by no other title but her relation to David: or, because this was his first and most proper wife, best known by her other name of Michal, who, though she had no child by David after she scoffed at him for dancing before the ark, 2 Samuel 6:23 , yet might have one before that time. And she might be named the last, because she was given away from David, and married to another man. Six sons in seven years. Some have had as numerous an offspring, and with much more honour and comfort, by one wife. And we know not that any of the six were famous: but three were very infamous. 2 Samuel 3:6 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. 2 Samuel 3:6 . Abner made himself strong, &c. — He used his utmost endeavours to support Saul’s house, going up and down through all the tribes of Israel to strengthen Ish-bosheth’s interest, and confirm the people in their allegiance to him: which is mentioned to show the reason of Abner’s deep resentment of the following aspersion. 2 Samuel 3:7 And Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah: and Ishbosheth said to Abner, Wherefore hast thou gone in unto my father's concubine? 2 Samuel 3:7 . Wherefore hast thou gone in unto my father’s concubine? — It was then looked upon as a very great crime for any man, though never so great, to marry the relict of the king; for it was esteemed an affectation of the kingdom; as appears in the case of Adonijah. 2 Samuel 3:8 Then was Abner very wroth for the words of Ishbosheth, and said, Am I a dog's head, which against Judah do shew kindness this day unto the house of Saul thy father, to his brethren, and to his friends, and have not delivered thee into the hand of David, that thou chargest me to day with a fault concerning this woman? 2 Samuel 3:8 . Then was Abner very wroth — He accounted his merits so great, and was become so haughty, that he thought he might do any thing without reprehension; and said, Am I a dog’s head? — So contemptible a person that thou thinkest it a disgrace to thy family for me to have intercourse with thy father’s concubine. Whether Abner was guilty of the crime laid to his charge or not, does not appear; nor what ground Ish-bosheth had for the suspicion. But, however it was, it would have been prudent in him to have connived at it for the present, considering how much it was his interest not to dis-oblige Abner. And if the thing was false, and his jealousy groundless, it was very disingenuous and ungrateful to entertain unjust surmises of one who had ventured his all for him, and was certainly the best friend he had in the world. Who against Judah do show kindness unto the house of Saul — Is this my recompense for the kindness I have shown to thee and thy father’s house, and the good services I have done you? He magnifies his service with this, that it was against Judah, the tribe on which the crown was settled, and which would certainly have it at last. So that in supporting the house of Saul he acted both against his conscience and against his interest, for which he deserved a better requital than this. And yet, probably, he would not have been so zealous for the house of Saul, if he had not thereby gratified his own ambition, and hoped to find his own account in it. That thou chargest me with a fault concerning this woman? — That is, either that thou accusest me falsely concerning this matter; or that thou canst not wink at so small a fault (for so he esteemed it) as conversation with this woman, who, whatsoever she formerly was, is now so impotent and inconsiderable that she can neither serve nor disserve thy cause. 2 Samuel 3:9 So do God to Abner, and more also, except, as the LORD hath sworn to David, even so I do to him; 2 Samuel 3:9 . As the Lord hath sworn to David — These words show clearly that Abner knew very well God had resolved to bestow the kingdom of Israel upon David; and yet he had hitherto opposed it with all his might, from a principle of ambition. That is, he had all this while fought against his own knowledge and conscience, and against God himself. Now, however, (but, alas! it is out of resentment to Ish-bosheth, and from a principle of revenge,) he complies with the divine will, and vows with an oath to do that to David which the Lord had sworn to him. Undoubtedly Abner talked most foolishly in this, as if God needed his help to bring to pass what he had sworn to David, or as if his opposition could prevent it! 2 Samuel 3:10 To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba. 2 Samuel 3:10 . To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul — A wonderful change, which the study of revenge had wrought in him, that he who so lately had gone about the country confirming the Israelites in their opposition to David, now resolved to bring them all over to him! But here we see the hand of God. Providence made use of this unjust resentment of Abner to bring about its own designs with regard to David. 2 Samuel 3:11 And he could not answer Abner a word again, because he feared him. 2 Samuel 3:11 . He could not answer Abner a word — Being thunderstruck with so unexpected a declaration. If he had had the spirit of a man, especially of a prince, he might have answered him, that his merits were the aggravation of his crimes; that he would not be served by so ill a man, and that he doubted not but he should do well enough without him. But he was conscious to himself of his own weakness, and therefore said not a word, lest he should make a bad matter worse. 2 Samuel 3:12 And Abner sent messengers to David on his behalf, saying, Whose is the land? saying also , Make thy league with me, and, behold, my hand shall be with thee, to bring about all Israel unto thee. 2 Samuel 3:12 . And Abner sent messengers to David — Having thus incensed his master, he judged it not safe to delay the execution of what he had threatened. Yet he thought it neither safe nor prudent to go himself to David till he had tried his inclinations by messengers, whom he sent privately to treat with him about a reconciliation. Thus God overrules the passions of wicked men, and turns and directs their devices and counsels, to accomplish his own wise and holy purposes! And who then dare contend with that God, who makes even his enemies to do his work, and destroy themselves? Saying, Whose is this land? — To whom does it belong but to thee? is it not thine by divine right? A question this which required no answer. But Abner plainly meant to insinuate by it that he had power to give the land of Israel to him whose side he should take. 2 Samuel 3:13 And he said, Well; I will make a league with thee: but one thing I require of thee, that is, Thou shalt not see my face, except thou first bring Michal Saul's daughter, when thou comest to see my face. 2 Samuel 3:13 . And he said, Well; I will make a league with thee — David agreed to enter into a treaty with him, but upon condition that he procured the restitution of Michal his wife. Hereby David both showed the sincerity of his conjugal affection to his first and most rightful wife, from whom neither her nor his marrying another had alienated it, and also testified his respect to the house of Saul. “David did right in making this stipulation; for, whatever may be said of his other wives, he had certainly a claim to this, as she was his first wife, and a king’s daughter. And there was something of true generosity in this, both to her and to Saul, in that he received her after she had been another man’s, remembering how once she loved him, and knowing, probably, that she was, without her consent, separated from him; and to show that he did not carry his resentment of Saul’s cruel and unjust persecutions of him to any of his family; whereas many princes, for much less provocation of a wife’s father, would have turned off their consorts, in revenge of them, and even put them to death for having been married to another.” — Chandler. 2 Samuel 3:14 And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth Saul's son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines. 2 Samuel 3:14 . David sent messengers to Ish-bosheth — We are not informed what answer Abner gave to David when he required the forementioned condition of him. But it is probable he let him know, as the truth was, that it was not in his power to bring Michal to him without Ish-bosheth’s consent, whose sister, as well as subject, she was; at least that it was not safe to attempt it, and therefore advised him to send to her brother, who could not easily deny what he desired. Be this as it may, David sent to Ish- bosheth, and thereby opened to him a door of hope for reconciliation, lest, being desperate, he should use every possible means to hinder Abner from his present design. Saying, Deliver me my wife — Who, though she was taken from me by force, and constrained to marry another, yet is my rightful wife. David demands her, both for the affection he still retained for her, and upon a political consideration, that she might strengthen his title to the kingdom. 2 Samuel 3:15 And Ishbosheth sent, and took her from her husband, even from Phaltiel the son of Laish. 2 Samuel 3:15-16 . Ish-bosheth sent and took her from Phaltiel — This was an honourable action of Ish-bosheth to restore David his lawful wife. Her husband went with her along weeping — “Mr. Bayle,” says Delaney, “considers it as great cruelty in David to ravish her from a husband who loved her so well; that is, he thinks it a great cruelty to disturb Phaltiel in an adultery that was agreeable to him, and to redeem Michal from one, in all appearance, detestable to her, to restore her to her only husband, the husband of her affection and her choice, for whom she had so much tenderness as to save his life at the hazard of her own. Phaltiel was in distress, but it was such a distress as they all endure who are grieved to restore what they have no right to possess; and Mr. Bayle, from the same principles upon which he quarrels with David on this head, is obliged to be highly offended with every honest man who desires to have those goods restored to him of which he once was robbed, under all the circumstances of cruelty and iniquity. And therefore, in truth, Phaltiel is no proper object of pity; and yet his distress upon this occasion is one of the finest pictures of silent grief that any history hath left us. Conscious he had no right to complain, or molest Michal with his lamentations, he follows her at a distance, with a distress silent and self-confined: going (saith the text) and weeping behind her — However such fine paintings of nature pass unregarded in the sacred writings, I am satisfied that in Homer we should survey this with delight.” Abarbinel, and the Jewish rabbis in general, are of opinion that Phaltiel was a strictly religious man, and had had no nuptial commerce with Michal. 2 Samuel 3:16 And her husband went with her along weeping behind her to Bahurim. Then said Abner unto him, Go, return. And he returned. 2 Samuel 3:17 And Abner had communication with the elders of Israel, saying, Ye sought for David in times past to be king over you: 2 Samuel 3:17 . And Abner — Having seen David, and given him assurance of his fidelity, as David had him of his friendship; had communication with the elders of Israel — He went back to persuade all to do as he had done. And by bringing over the great men to David, he doubted not the multitude would follow. Saying, Ye sought for David in times past — For, after the slaughter of Goliath, he was much beloved by all the people. And when he was forced to flee, a great many of Israel came over to him while he dwelt at Ziklag. And it is highly probable that, as soon as Saul and Jonathan were dead, they all generally would have inclined to make David their king, if Abner, by his great authority, had not set up one of the family of Saul. 2 Samuel 3:18 Now then do it : for the LORD hath spoken of David, saying, By the hand of my servant David I will save my people Israel out of the hand of the Philistines, and out of the hand of all their enemies. 2 Samuel 3:18 . The Lord hath spoken — By the hand of my servant David, &c. — We nowhere find these words recorded; but it is probable Samuel had often spoken them; at least the sense of them is implied in the words of God to Samuel, when he commanded him to anoint David king over Israel, 1 Samuel 10:1-12 ; for the intention of giving them a king was, that he might fight their battles, 1 Samuel 8:20 . 2 Samuel 3:19 And Abner also spake in the ears of Benjamin: and Abner went also to speak in the ears of David in Hebron all that seemed good to Israel, and that seemed good to the whole house of Benjamin. 2 Samuel 3:19-20 . Abner also spake in the ears of Benjamin — To these he particularly applies himself, because they might be thought most kind to Saul and his house, and most loath to let the kingdom go out of their own tribe; and therefore it was necessary that he should use all his art and power with them, to persuade them to a compliance with his design; and besides, they were a valiant tribe, and bordering upon Judah, and situate between them and the other tribes; and therefore the winning of them would be of mighty concernment to bring in all the rest. Abner also went to speak in the ears of David — To report to him privately the sense of all the people, and particularly how all Benjamin stood affected toward him; who were brought over so effectually that they did not forsake the house of David when all the rest of the tribes did. David made Abner a feast — Not merely as a token of kindness, but to make a league with him, as he had desired, and David had promised, 2 Samuel 3:12-13 . For it was an ancient custom to enter into leagues by eating and drinking together: see Genesis 26:30 ; Genesis 31:44 . 2 Samuel 3:20 So Abner came to David to Hebron, and twenty men with him. And David made Abner and the men that were with him a feast. 2 Samuel 3:21 And Abner said unto David, I will arise and go, and will gather all Israel unto my lord the king, that they may make a league with thee, and that thou mayest reign over all that thine heart desireth. And David sent Abner away; and he went in peace. 2 Samuel 3:21-22 . Abner said, I will gather all Israel unto my lord the king — How empty and ill founded are the purposes of vain man! Abner, who here promises kingdoms, soon found that he could not ensure to himself one hour of life. David had sent him away, and he departed in peace; but, Behold, the servants of David and Joab came from pursuing a troop — In those times of distraction between Judah and Israel, we may well think their neighbours, who were enemies to both, namely, the Philistines, Edomites, Moabites, and others, made many inroads upon the country to get spoil. Joab, however, and the valiant men about David, watched to prevent this, and at this time had overtaken a company of them, in their return home, and recovered a great booty from them. 2 Samuel 3:22 And, behold, the servants of David and Joab came from pursuing a troop, and brought in a great spoil with them: but Abner was not with David in Hebron; for he had sent him away, and he was gone in peace. 2 Samuel 3:23 When Joab and all the host that was with him were come, they told Joab, saying, Abner the son of Ner came to the king, and he hath sent him away, and he is gone in peace. 2 Samuel 3:24 Then Joab came to the king, and said, What hast thou done? behold, Abner came unto thee; why is it that thou hast sent him away, and he is quite gone? 2 Samuel 3:24 . Then Joab came to the king, and said, What hast thou done? — Upon hearing what had passed, he immediately went to David, in the pride of his success, and of the great spoil he had taken, to expostulate with him upon the folly of receiving Abner in the manner he had done, and placing any confidence in a man who, he signified, had come thither only to betray him. This presumption and insolence David was constrained to endure, because of Joab’s great power with the army and military men. 2 Samuel 3:25 Thou knowest Abner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee, and to know thy going out and thy coming in, and to know all that thou doest. 2 Samuel 3:26 And when Joab was come out from David, he sent messengers after Abner, which brought him again from the well of Sirah: but David knew it not. 2 Samuel 3:26-27 . When Joab was come out from David — He seems to have gone out in anger; not staying for an answer. He sent messengers after Abner — Probably in the king’s name, as if he had something further to communicate to him. For otherwise it is not credible that Abner would have returned. Joab took him aside in the gate — Where, it appears, he had waited for him, and, as it was a public place, where men met to do business, and where the courts of judgment sat, Abner suspected no danger, especially since Joab took him by the hand in a friendly manner, as if he wished to have some discourse with him. And smote him there under the fifth rib, that he died — Thus fell Abner by an unexpected and surprising treachery! and in the very article of returning to his duty, and in the eve of a great revolution, seemingly depending on his fate! And thus his thoughts, purposes, and boasts of gathering all Israel to David, and translating the kingdom to him, perished in a moment! In this, however treacherously and wickedly Joab acted, the Lord, in permitting it, was righteous. Abner had deliberately and maliciously opposed David, and in opposing him had acted against the dictates of his own conscience, and of his known duty to God, and that for a series of years: he had sported with the lives of his brethren, and spilled the first blood shed in this civil war; and, it may be, all the blood that was shed; at least we hear of none after the battle of Gibeon. He had now basely deserted Ish-bosheth, and betrayed him, under pretence of regard to God and Israel; but, in reality, from a principle of pride and revenge, and impatience of control. God, therefore, would not use so ill a man in so good a work as the uniting of Israel to Judah, and thereby preventing the progress of war and slaughter. And he hereby showed that he did not need his help, but could, with infinite ease, accomplish his purposes without him, thus pouring contempt on the pride of man. The following reflection of Dr. Delaney here appears both just and important. “It is true Abner was now returned to his duty; but it is true that he returned to it now as he departed from it before, upon a pique; and from motives of ambition, interest, and revenge. He well knew the purposes and declarations of God in relation to David, and yet he deliberately opposed himself to them. And it is but just in the appointments of Providence (and nothing is more conspicuous in his government of the world) not to permit the wicked to effect that good from wrong motives which they once obstructed upon the same principles. The occasions of duty, once notoriously neglected, seldom return, at least, to equal advantage. Let no man decline the good that is in his power; if he once does so, he is no more worthy to be the happy instrument of effecting it in the hand of God. To conclude; a great revolution apparently depended upon Abner’s fate, but it did so only in the eye of human providence, as was plainly manifested from the event.” For the blood of Asahel his brother — This was one reason of his committing this murder; but, doubtless, envy and jealousy of Abner’s great merit with David, in gaining over the tribes to him, were the main motives that impelled him to it. In the mean time his pretence was fidelity to his sovereign, and excess of care for his safety. “What,” says Josephus, reflecting on this crime, “will not men dare to do who are covetous, ambitious, and will be inferior to none, to obtain what they desire! They will commit a thousand crimes, and rather than lose what they have got, they will not fear to commit still greater wickedness.” 2 Samuel 3:27 And when Abner was returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside in the gate to speak with him quietly, and smote him there under the fifth rib , that he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother. 2 Samuel 3:28 And afterward when David heard it , he said, I and my kingdom are guiltless before the LORD for ever from the blood of Abner the son of Ner: 2 Samuel 3:28-29 . When David heard it, he said, I and my kingdom are guiltless — Josephus says, he lifted up his hands to God, and, with a loud voice, cried out publicly that God knew he was innocent in this matter; and therefore he trusted God would not let him and his kingdom suffer for it. And on all his father’s house — David’s indignation at the fact transported him much too far in making him wish that all Joab’s family might suffer for it, which was contrary to the law of God. See Deuteronomy 24:16 . “Methinks,” says Henry, “a resolute punishment of the murderer himself would better have become David than this passionate imprecation of God’s judgments upon his posterity.” But, perhaps, the words are to be considered as a prediction rather than as an imprecation. Accordingly, Houbigant renders them, but it shall or will rest upon the head of Joab, and on all his father’s house, and there will not fail, &c. 2 Samuel 3:29 Let it rest on the head of Joab, and on all his father's house; and let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff, or that falleth on the sword, or that lacketh bread. 2 Samuel 3:30 So Joab and Abishai his brother slew Abner, because he had slain their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle. 2 Samuel 3:30 . So Joab and Abishai his brother slew Abner — For though Joab only committed the murder, yet Abishai was chargeable with the guilt of it, because it was done with his consent, counsel, and approbation. And he probably was near at hand when the bloody deed was perpetrated, ready to assist Joab if there should be need. Because he had slain their brother Asahel in battle — Which he did for his own necessary defence, and therefore it was no justification of this treacherous murder. 2 Samuel 3:31 And David said to Joab, and to all the people that were with him, Rend your clothes, and gird you with sackcloth, and mourn before Abner. And king David himself followed the bier. 2 Samuel 3:31 . David said to Joab and all the people, &c. — The command was especially given to Joab, to bring him to repentance for his sin, and to expose him to public shame. Rend your clothes and gird you with sackcloth, &c. — These were all outward expressions of very great sorrow, which Joab himself was forced, however reluctant, to make a show of. And King David himself followed the bier — Was the chief mourner, attending upon the corpse, and paying Abner that respect which was due to his quality. Though this was contrary to the usage of kings, and might seem below David’s dignity; yet it was now expedient to vindicate himself from all suspicion of concurrence in this action. The word ????? , hammittah, here rendered the bier, properly means the bed. It was that on which persons of quality were wont to be carried forth to their graves, as ordinary people were upon what we call a bier. 2 Samuel 3:32 And they buried Abner in Hebron: and the king lifted up his voice, and wept at the grave of Abner; and all the people wept. 2 Samuel 3:33 And the king lamented over Abner, and said, Died Abner as a fool dieth? 2 Samuel 3:33-34 . Died Abner as a fool dieth? — That is, as a wicked man. Was he cut off by the hand of justice for his crimes? Nothing less; but by Joab’s malice and treachery. It is a sad thing to die as a fool dieth, as they do that any way shorten their own days; and indeed all they that make no provision for another world. Were not bound — Thou didst not tamely yield up thyself to Joab, to be bound hand and foot at his pleasure. Joab did not overcome thee in an equal combat, nor durst he attempt thee in that way, as a general or soldier of any worth would have done. Wicked men — By the hands of froward, or perverse, or crooked men, by hypocrisy and perfidiousness, whereby the vilest coward may kill the most valiant person. It is justly observed by Dr. Delaney, that this short lamentation of David over Abner is truly poetical, and evidently appears so in the most literal translation. He renders it as follows: As dies the criminal, shall Abner die? — — Thy hands not bound, Nor to the fetters were thy feet applied. — — As is their fate that fall Before the faces of the sons of guilt, — — So art thou fallen. For he was killed as a traitor; but had he been really so, he should have died in chains and fetters after a fair trial. And all the people wept again over him — At the recital of these words by the king, which were so mournfully spoken, the grief became universal, and the whole people wept anew. 2 Samuel 3:34 Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters: as a man falleth before wicked men, so fellest thou. And all the people wept again over him. 2 Samuel 3:35 And when all the people came to cause David to eat meat while it was yet day, David sware, saying, So do God to me, and more also, if I taste bread, or ought else, till the sun be down. 2 Samuel 3:35 . All the people came to cause David to eat — This was agreeable to the usage of the Jews; for when any one died among them, “it was customary with the friends of the family to resort to the house immediately after the funeral, and bring the best provisions they had along with them to support and refresh their friends in affliction, to the utmost of their power. And surely a more humane and benevolent usage never obtained in any country. The presumption was, that people in affliction forgot, or, it may be, neglected, their proper refreshment at a time when they most needed it; and therefore it was the business of friendship, and one of its kindest offices, to supply that care.” David sware, saying, God do so to me, &c. — He absolutely refused to touch a morsel, and confirmed the refusal by an oath, that he would taste nothing till the sun went down. “He was resolved to clear his innocence by all the tests of real sorrow, and to satisfy the people that this was a just occasion of grief, he put them in mind of his dignity to whom he paid it.” See 2 Samuel 3:38 , Delaney. 2 Samuel 3:36 And all the people took notice of it , and it pleased them: as whatsoever the king did pleased all the people. 2 Samuel 3:36-37 . All the people took notice of it, and it pleased them — They were satisfied concerning David’s integrity, and the sincerity of his sorrow at the death of Abner, and pleased with the honour he had done that great man. Whatsoever the king did pleased the people — By this conduct he so ingratiated himself with them that they were disposed to put a kind construction upon all his actions, as wise and well becoming him. For all Israel understood that it was not of the king to slay Abner — That he neither ordered it, nor consented to it, nor in any way approved of it; but was heartily grieved for his death. 2 Samuel 3:37 For all the people and all Israel understood that day that it was not of the king to slay Abner the son of Ner. 2 Samuel 3:38 And the king said unto his servants, Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel? 2 Samuel 3:38 . The king said unto his servants — Who perhaps were not sensible enough of this loss, or thought he bewailed it too much; Know ye not that there is a prince, &c., fallen this day in Israel? — He bids them consider Abner’s birth and his power, his authority and his valour, with all his other excellent qualities, and they would not think it strange that he mourned so much for him. 2 Samuel 3:39 And I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these men the sons of Zeruiah be too hard for me: the LORD shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness. 2 Samuel 3:39 . And I am this day weak — Hebrew, ??? , rack, tender; that is, his kingdom was young, was in its infancy, as we speak, and not well settled and confirmed. The metaphor is taken from a young and tender plant. And these men — Joab and Abishai; the sons of my sister Zeruiah, be too hard for me — That is, too powerful. They have so great an interest in, and command over all the soldiers, and are in such great favour with the people, that I cannot punish them without apparent hazard to my person and kingdom; especially now, when all the tribes, except Judah, are in a state of opposition against me. But although this might give some colour to the delay of their punishment, yet it was a fault that he did not punish them in some reasonable time; both because his indulgence proceeded from a distrust of God’s power and faithfulness, as if God could not make good his promise to him against Joab and all his confederates; and because it was contrary to God’s law, which severely requires the punishment of wilful murderers, with which law David had no power to dispense. It was therefore carnal, wicked policy, yea, cruel pity, in him to spare them. He ought to have done his duty, and trusted God with the issue. If the law had had its course against Joab; it is probable the murder of Ish-bosheth, Ammon, and others, had been prevented. But in this instance, David, though anointed king, is kept in awe by his own subjects, and bears the sword in vain, contenting himself, as a private person, to leave the murderers to the judgment of God, saying, The Lord shall reward the evil- doer according to his wickedness — In the mean time, however, it must be acknowledged, he detested their actions, and was not so overawed by them but he had courage to show it. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary 2 Samuel 3:1 Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David: but David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker. CHAPTER IV. CONCLUSION OF THE CIVIL WAR . 2 Samuel 3:1-21 . THE victory at the pool of Gibeon was far from ending the opposition to David. In vain, for many a day, weary eyes looked out for the dove with the olive leaf. "There was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David." The war does not seem to have been carried on by pitched battles, but rather by a long series of those fretting and worrying little skirmishes which a state of civil war breeds, even when the volcano is comparatively quiet. But the drift of things was manifest. "David waxed stronger and stronger; but the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker." The cause of the house of Saul was weak in its invisible support because God was against it; it was weak in its champion Ishbosheth, a feeble man, with little or no power to attract people to his standard; its only element of strength was Abner, and even he could not make head against such odds. Good and evil so often seem to balance each other, existing side by side in a kind of feeble stagnation, and giving rise to such a dull feeling on the part of onlookers, that we cannot but think with something like envy of the followers of David even under the pain of a civil war, cheered as they were by constant proofs that their cause was advancing to victory. And now we get a glimpse of David's domestic mode of life, which, indeed, is far from satisfactory. His wives were now six in number; of some of them we know nothing; of the rest what we do know is not always in their favour. The earliest of all was "Ahinoam, the Jezreelitess." Her native place, or the home of her family, was Jezreel, that part of the plain of Esdraelon where the Philistines encamped before Saul was defeated ( 1 Samuel 26:12 ), and afterwards, in the days of Ahab, a royal residence of the kings of Israel ( 1 Kings 18:46 ) and the abode of Naboth, who refused to part with his vineyard in Jezreel to the king (l Kings 21.). Of Ahinoam we find absolutely no mention in the history; if her son Amnon, the oldest of David's family, reflected her character, we have no reason to regret the silence ( 2 Samuel 13:1-39 .). The next of his wives was Abigail, the widow of Nabal the Carmelite, of whose smartness and excellent management we have a full account in a former part of the history. Her son is called Chileab, but in the parallel passage in Chronicles Daniel; we can only guess the reason of the change; but whether it was another name for the same son, or the name of another son, the history is silent concerning him, and the most probable conjecture is that he died early. His third wife was Maachah, the daughter of Talmai the Geshurite. This was not, as some have rather foolishly supposed, a member of those Geshurites in the south against whom David led his troop ( 1 Samuel 27:8 ), for it is expressly stated that of that tribe "he left neither man nor woman alive." It was of Geshur in Syria that Talmai was king ( 2 Samuel 15:8 ); it formed one of several little principalities lying between Mount Hermon and Damascus: but we cannot commend the alliance; for these kingdoms were idolatrous, and unless Maachah was an exception, she must have introduced idolatrous practices into David's house. Of the other three wives we have no information. And in regard to the household which he thus established at Hebron, we can only regret that the king of Israel did not imitate the example that had been set there by Abraham, and followed in the same neighbourhood by Isaac. What a different complexion would have been given to David's character and history if he had shown the self-control in this matter that he showed in his treatment of Saul! Of how many grievous sins and sorrows did he sow the seed when he thus multiplied wives to himself! How many a man, from his own day down to the days of Mormonism, did he silently encourage in licentious conduct, and furnish with a respectable example and a plausible excuse for it! How difficult did he make it for many who cannot but acknowledge the bright aspect of his spiritual life to believe that even in that it was all good and genuine! We do not hesitate to ascribe to the life of David an influence on successive generations on the whole pure and elevating; but it is impossible not to own that by many, a justification of relaxed principle and unchaste living has been drawn from his example. We have already said that polygamy was not imputed to David as a sin in the sense that it deprived him of the favour of God. But we cannot allow that this permission was of the nature of a boon. We cannot but feel how much better it would have been if the seventh commandment had been read by David with the same absolute, unbending limitation with which it is read by us. It would have been better for him and better for his house. Puritan strictness of morals is, after all, a right wholesome and most blessed thing. Who shall say that the sum of a man's enjoyment is not far greatest in the end of life when he has kept with unflinching steadfastness his early vow of faithfulness, and, as his reward, has never lost the freshness and the flavour of his first love, nor ceased to find in his ever-faithful partner that which fills and satisfies his heart? Compared to this, the life of him who has flitted from one attachment to another, heedless of the soured feelings or, it may be, the broken hearts he has left behind, and whose children, instead of breathing the sweet spirit of brotherly and sisterly love, scowl at one another with the bitter feelings of envy, jealousy, and hatred, is like an existence of wild fever compared to the pure tranquil life of a child. In such a household as David's, occasions of estrangement must have been perpetually arising among the various branches, and it would require all his wisdom and gentleness to keep these quarrels within moderate bounds. In his own breast, that sense of delicacy, that instinct of purity, which exercises such an influence on a godly family, could not have existed; the necessity of reining in his inclinations in that respect was not acknowledged; and it is remarkable that in the confessions of the fifty-first Psalm, while he specifies the sins of blood-guiltiness and seems to have been overwhelmed by a sense of his meanness, injustice, and selfishness, there is no special allusion to the sin of adultery, and no indication of that sin pressing very heavily upon his conscience. Whether it be by design or not, it is an instructive circumstance that it is immediately after this glimpse of David's domestic life that we meet with a sample of the kind of evils which the system of royal harems is ever apt to produce. Saul too had had his harem; and it was a rule of succession in the East that the harem went with the throne. To take possession of the one was regarded as equivalent to setting up a claim to the other. When therefore Ishbosheth heard that Abner had taken one of his father's concubines, he looked on it as a proof that Abner had an eye to the throne for himself. He accordingly demanded an explanation from Abner, but instead of explanation or apology, he received a volley of rudeness and defiance. Abner knew well that without him Ishbosheth was but a figure-head, and he was enraged by treatment that seemed to overlook all the service he had rendered him and to treat him as if he were some second or third- rate officer of a firm and settled kingdom. Perhaps Abner had begun to see that the cause of Ishbosheth was hopeless, and was even glad in his secret heart of an excuse for abandoning an undertaking which could bring neither success nor honour. "Am I a dog's head, which against Judah do show kindness this day unto the house of Saul thy father, to his brethren, and to his friends, and have not delivered thee into the hand of David, that thou chargest me to-day with a fault concerning this woman? So do God to Abner, and more also, except, as the Lord hath sworn to David, even so I do to him, to translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah from Dan even to Beersheba." The proverb says, "When rogues fall out, honest men get their own." How utterly unprincipled the effort of Abner and Ishbosheth was is evident from the confession of the former that God had sworn to David to establish his throne over the whole land. Their enterprise therefore bore impiety on its very face; and we can only account for their setting their hands to it on the principle that keen thirst for worldly advantage will drive ungodly men into virtual atheism, as if God were no factor in the affairs of men, as if it mattered not that He was against them, and that it is only when their schemes show signs of coming to ruin that they awake to the consciousness that there is a God after all! And how often we see that godless men banded together have no firm bond of union; the very passions which they are united to gratify begin to rage against one another; they fall into the pit which they digged for others; they are hanged on the gallows which they erected for their foes. The next step in the narrative brings us to Abner's offer to David to make a league with him for the undisputed possession of the throne. Things had changed now very materially from that day when, in the wilderness of Judah, David reproached Abner for his careless custody of the king's person ( 1 Samuel 26:14 ). What a picture of feebleness David had seemed then, while Saul commanded the whole resources of the kingdom! Yet in that day of weakness David had done a noble deed, a deed made nobler by his very weakness, and he had thereby shown to any that had eyes to see which party it was that had God on its side. And now this truth concerning him, against which Abner had kicked and struggled in vain, was asserting itself in a way not to be resisted. Yet even now there is no trace of humility in the language of Abner. He plays the great man still. "Behold, my hand shall be with thee, to bring about all Israel to thee." He approaches King David, not as one who has done him a great wrong, but as one who offers to do him a great favour. There is no word of regret for his having opposed what he knew to be God's purpose and promise, no apology for the disturbance he had wrought in Israel, no excuse for all the distress which he had caused to David by keeping the kingdom and the people at war. He does not come as a rebel to his sovereign, but as one independent man to another. Make a league with me. Secure me from punishment; promise me a reward. For this he simply offers to place at David's disposal that powerful hand of his that had been so mighty for evil. If he expected that David would leap into his arms at the mention of such an offer, he was mistaken. This was not the way for a rebel to come to his king. David was too much dissatisfied with his past conduct, and saw too clearly that it was only stress of weather that was driving him into harbour now, to show any great enthusiasm about his offer. On the contrary, he laid down a stiff preliminary condition; and with the air of one who knew his place and his power, he let Abner know that if that condition were not complied with, he should not see his face. We cannot but admire the firmness shown in this mode of meeting Abner's advances; but we are somewhat disappointed when we find what the condition was - that Michai, Saul's daughter, whom he had espoused for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, should be restored to him as his wife. The demand was no doubt a righteous one, and it was reasonable that David should be vindicated from the great slur cast on him when his wife was given to another; moreover, it was fitted to test the genuineness of Abner's advances, to show whether he really meant to acknowledge the royal rights of David; but we wonder that, with six wives already about him, he should be so eager for another, and we shrink from the reason given for the restoration - not that the marriage tie was inviolable, but that he had paid for her a very extraordinary dowry. And most readers, too, will feel some sympathy with the second husband, who seems to have had a strong affection for Michal, and who followed her weeping, until the stern military voice of Abner compelled him to return. All we can say about him is, that his sin lay in receiving another man's wife and treating her as his own; the beginning of the connection was unlawful, although the manner of its ending on his part was creditable. Connections formed in sin must sooner or later end in suffering; and the tears of Phaltiel would not have flowed now if that unfortunate man had acted firmly and honourably when Michal was taken from David. But it is not likely that in this demand for the restoration of Michal David acted on purely personal considerations. He does not seem to have been above the prevalent feeling of the East which measured the authority and dignity of the monarch by the rank and connections of his wives. Moreover, as David laid stress on the way in which he got Michal as his wife, it is likely that he desired to recall attention to his early exploits against the Philistines. He had probably found that his recent alliance with King Achish had brought him into suspicion; he wished to remind the people therefore of his ancient services against those bitter and implacable enemies of Israel, and to encourage the expectation of similar exploits in the future. The purpose which he thus seems to have had in view was successful. For when Abner soon after made a representation to the elders of Israel in favour of King David and reminded them of the promise which God had made regarding him, it was to this effect: "By the hand of My servant David I will save My people Israel out of the hand of the Philistines and out of the hand of all their enemies." It seems to have been a great step towards David's recognition by the whole nation that they came to have confidence in him in leading them against the Philistines. Thus he received a fresh proof of the folly of his distrustful conclusion, "There is nothing better for me than that I should escape into the land of the Philistines." It became more and more apparent that nothing could have been worse. One is tempted to wonder if David ever sat down to consider what would probably have happened if, instead of going over to the Philistines, he had continued to abide in the wilderness of Judah, braving the dangers of the place and trusting in the protection of his God. Some sixteen months after, the terrible invasion of the Philistines took place, and Saul, overwhelmed with terror and despair, was at his wits' end for help. How natural it would have been for him in that hour of despair to send for David if he had been still in the country and ask his aid! How much more in his own place would David have appeared bravely fronting the Philistines in battle, than hovering in the rear of Achish and pretending to feel himself treated ill because the Philistine lords had required him to be sent away! Might he not have been the instrument of saving his country from defeat and disgrace? And if Saul and Jonathan had fallen in the battle, would not the whole nation have turned as one man to him, and would not that long and cruel civil war have been entirely averted? It is needless to go back on the past and think how much better we could have acted if unavailing regret is to be the only result of the process; but it is a salutary and blessed exercise if it tends to fix in our minds - what we doubt not it fixed in David's - how infinitely better for us it is to follow the course marked out for us by our heavenly Father, with all its difficulties and dangers, than to walk in the light of our own fire and in the sparks of our own kindling. It appears that Abner set himself with great vigour to fulfill the promise made by him in his league with David. First, he held communication with the representatives of the whole nation, "the elders of Israel," and showed to them, as we have seen - no doubt to his own confusion and self-condemnation - how God had designated David as the king through whom deliverance would be granted to Israel from the Philistines and all their other enemies. Next, remembering that Saul was a member of the tribe of Benjamin, and believing that the feeling in favour of his family would be eminently strong in that tribe, he took special pains to attach them to David, and as he was himself likewise a Benjamite, he must have been eminently useful in this service. Thirdly, he went in person to Hebron, David's seat, to speak in the ears of David all that seemed good to Israel and to the whole house of Benjamin." Finally, after being entertained by David at a great feast, he set out to bring about a meeting of the whole congregation of Israel, that they might solemnly ratify the appointment of David as king, in the same way as, in the early days of Saul, Samuel had convened the representatives of the nation at Gilgal ( 1 Samuel 11:15 ). That in all this Abner was rendering a great service both to David and the nation cannot be doubted. He was doing what no other man in Israel could have done at the time for establishing the throne of David and ending the civil war. Having once made overtures to David, he showed an honourable promptitude in fulfilling the promise under which he had come. No man can atone for past sin by doing his duty at a future time; but if anything could have blotted out from David's memory the remembrance of Abner's great injury to him and to the nation, it was the zeal with which he exerted himself now to establish David's claims over all the country, and especially where his cause was feeblest - in the tribe of Benjamin. It must have been a happy day in David's history when Abner set out from Hebron to convene the assembly of the tribes that was to call him with one voice to the throne. It was the day long looked for come at last. The dove had at length come with the olive leaf, and peace would now reign among all the tribes of Israel. And we may readily conceive him, with this prospect so near, expressing his feelings, if not in the very words of the thirty-seventh Psalm, at any rate in language of similar import: "Fret not thyself because of evil-doers, Neither be thou envious against them that work unrighteousness For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, And wither as the green herb. Trust in the Lord and do good; Dwell in the land, and follow after faithfulness. Delight thyself also in the Lord, And He shall give thee the desires of thine heart Commit thy way unto the Lord, Trust also in Him, and He shall bring it to pass. And He shall make thy righteousness to go forth as the light, And thy judgment as the noonday. Rest in the Lord and wait patiently for Him; Fret not thyself because of him that prospereth in his way. Because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. For evil-doers shall be cut of; But those that wait on the Lord, they shall inherit the land." But a crime was now on the eve of being perpetrated destined for the time to scatter all King David's pleasing expectations and plunge him anew into the depths of distress. 2 Samuel 3:22 And, behold, the servants of David and Joab came from pursuing a troop, and brought in a great spoil with them: but Abner was not with David in Hebron; for he had sent him away, and he was gone in peace. CHAPTER V. ASSASSINATION OF ABNER AND ISHBOSHETH. 2 Samuel 3:22-39 ; 2 Samuel 4:1-12 IT is quite possible that, in treating with Abner, David showed too complacent a temper, that he treated too lightly his appearance in arms against him at the pool of Gibeon, and that he neglected to demand an apology for the death of Asahel. Certainly it would have been wise had some measures been taken to soothe the ruffled temper of Joab and reconcile him to the new arrangement This, however, was not done. David was so happy in the thought that the civil war was to cease, and that all Israel were about to recognize him as their king, that he would not go back on the past, or make reprisals even for the death of Asahel. He was willing to let bygones be bygones. Perhaps, too, he thought that if Asahel met his death at the hand of Abner, it was his own rashness that was to blame for it. Anyhow he was greatly impressed with the value of Abner's service on his behalf, and much interested in the project to which he was now going forth - gathering all Israel to the king, to make a league with him and bind themselves to his allegiance. In these measures Joab had not been consulted. When Abner was at Hebron, Joab was absent on a military enterprise. In that enterprise he had been very successful, and he was able to appear at Hebron with the most popular evidence of success that a general could bring - a large amount of spoil. No doubt Joab was elated with his success, and was in that very temper when a man is most disposed to resent his being overlooked and to take more upon him than is meet. When he heard of David's agreement with Abner, he was highly displeased. First he went to the king, and scolded him for his simplicity in believing Abner. It was but a stratagem of Abner's to allow him to come to Hebron, ascertain the state of David's affairs, and take his own steps more effectively in the interest of his opponent. Suspicion reigned in Joab's heart; the generosity of David's nature was not only not shared by him, but seemed silliness itself. His rudeness to David is highly offensive. He speaks to him in the tone of a master to a servant, or in the tone of those servants who rule their master. "What hast thou done? Behold, Abner came unto thee; why is it that thou hast sent him away, and he is quite gone? Thou knowest Abner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive thee, and to know thy going out and thy coming in, and to know all that thou doest." David is spoken to like one guilty of inexcusable folly, as if he were accountable to Joab, and not Joab to him. Of the king's answer to Joab, nothing is recorded; but from David's confession ( 2 Samuel 3:39 ) that the sons of Zeruiah were too strong for him, we may infer that it was not very firm or decided, and that Joab set it utterly at nought. For the very first thing that Joab did after seeing the king was to send a message to Abner, most likely in David's name, but without David's knowledge, asking him to return. Joab was at the gate ready for his treacherous business, and taking Abner aside as if for private conversation, he plunged his dagger in his breast, ostensibly in revenge for the death of his brother Asahel. There was something eminently mean and dastardly in the deed. Abner was now on the best of terms with Joab's master, and he could not have apprehended danger from the servant. If assassination be mean among civilians, it is eminently mean among soldiers. The laws of hospitality were outraged when one who had just been David's guest was assassinated in David's city. The outrage was all the greater, as was also the injury to King David and to the whole kingdom, that the crime was committed when Abner was on the eve of an important and delicate negotiation with the other tribes of Israel, since the arrangement which he hoped to bring about was likely to be broken off by the news of his shameful death. At no moment are the feelings of men less to be trifled with than when, after long and fierce alienation, they are on the point of coming together. Abner had brought the tribes of Israel to that point, but now, like a flock of birds frightened by a shot, they were certain to fly asunder. All this danger Joab set at nought, the one thought of taking revenge for the death of his brother absorbing every other, and making him, like so many other men when excited by a guilty passion, utterly regardless of every consequence provided only his revenge was satisfied. How did David act toward Joab? Most kings would at once have put him to death, and David's subsequent action towards the murderers of Ishbosheth shows that, even in his judgment, this would have been the proper retribution on Joab for his bloody deed. But David did not feel himself strong enough to deal with Joab according to his deserts. It might have been better for him during the rest of his life if he had acted with more vigour now. But instead of making an example of Joab, he contented himself with pouring out on him a vial of indignation, publicly washing his hands of the nefarious transaction, and pronouncing on its author and his family a terrible malediction. We cannot but shrink from the way in which David brought in Joab's family to share his curse; "Let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff, or that falleth on the sword, or that lacketh bread." Yet we must remember that according to the sentiment of those times a man and his house were so identified that the punishment due to the head was regarded as due to the whole. In our day we see a law in constant operation which visits iniquities of the parents upon the children with a terrible retribution. The drunkard's children are woeful sufferers for their parent's sin; the family of the felon carries a stigma forever. We recognize this as a law of Providence; but we do not act on it ourselves in inflicting punishment. In David's time, however, and throughout the whole Old Testament period, punishments due to the fathers were formally shared by their families. When Joshua sentenced Achan to die for his crime in stealing from the spoils of Jericho a wedge of gold and a Babylonish garment, his wife and children were put to death along with him. In denouncing the curse on Joab's family as well as himself, David therefore only recognized a law which was universally acted on in his day. The law may have been a hard one, but we are not to blame David for acting on a principle of retribution universally acknowledged. We are to remember, too, that David was now acting in a public capacity, and as the chief magistrate of the nation. If he had put Joab to death, his act would have involved his family in many a woe; in denouncing his deeds and calling for retribution on them generation after generation, he only carried out the same principle a little further. That Joab deserved to die for his dastardly crime, none could have denied; if David abstained from inflicting that punishment, it was only natural that he should be very emphatic in proclaiming what such a criminal might look for, in never-failing visitations on himself and his seed, when he was left to be dealt with by the God of justice. Having thus disposed of Joab, David had next to dispose of the dead body of Abner. He determined that every circumstance connected with Abner's funeral should manifest the sincerity of his grief at his untimely end. In the first place, he caused him to be buried at Hebron. We know of the tomb at Hebron where the bodies of the patriarchs lay; if it was at all legitimate to place others in that grave, we may believe that a place in it was found for Abner. In the second place, the mourning company attended the funeral with rent clothes and girdings of sackcloth, while the king himself followed the bier, and at the grave both king and people gave way to a burst of tears. In the third place, the king pronounced an elegy over him, short, but expressive of his sense of the unworthy death which had come to such a man: "Should Abner die as a fool dieth? Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters; As a man falleth before the children of iniquity, so didst thou fall." Had he died the death of one taken in battle, his bound hands and his feet in fetters would have denoted that after honourable conflict he had been defeated in the field, and that he died the death due to a public enemy. Instead of this, he had fallen before the children of iniquity, before men mean enough to betray him and murder him, while he was under the protection of the king. In the fourth place, he sternly refused to eat bread till that day, so full of darkness and infamy, should have passed away. The public manifestations of David's grief showed very clearly how far he was from approving of the death of Abner. And they had the desired effect. The people were pleased with the evidence afforded of David's feelings, and the event that had seemed likely to destroy his prospects turned out in this way in his favour. "The people took notice of this, and it pleased them, as whatsoever the king did pleased all the people." It was another evidence of the conquering power of goodness and forbearance. By his generous treatment of his foes, David secured a position in the hearts of his people, and established his kingdom on a basis of security which he could not have obtained by any amount of severity. For ages and ages, the two methods of dealing with a reluctant people, generosity and severity, have been pitted against each other, and always with the effect that severity fails and generosity succeeds. There were many who were indignant at the clemency shown by Lord Canning after the Indian mutiny. They would have had him inspire terror by acts of awful severity. But the peaceful career of our Indian empire and the absence of any attempt to renew the insurrection since that time show that the policy of clemency was the policy of wisdom and of success. Still another step was taken by David that shows how painfully he was impressed by the death of Abner. To "his servants" - that is, his cabinet or his staff - he said in confidence; "Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel?" He recognized in Abner one of those men of consummate ability who are born to rule, or at least to render the highest service to the actual ruler of a country by their great influence over men. It seems very probable that he looked to him as his own chief officer for the future. Rebel though he had been, he seemed quite cured of his rebellion, and now that he cordially acknowledged David's right to the throne, he would probably have been his right-hand man. Abner, Saul's cousin, was probably a much older man than Joab, who was David's nephew, and who could not have been much older than David himself. The loss of Abner was a great personal loss especially as it threw him more into the hands of these sons of Zeruiah, Joab and Abishai, whose impetuous, lordly temper was too much for him. to restrain. The representation to his confidential servants, "I am weak, and these men, the sons of Zeruiah, are too strong for me," was an appeal to them for cordial help in the affairs of the kingdom, in order that Joab and his brother might not be able to carry everything their own way. David, like many another man, needed to say, Save me from my friends. We get a vivid glimpse of the perplexities of kings, and of the compensations of a humbler lot. Men in high places, worried by the difficulties of managing their affairs and servants, and by the endless annoyances to which their jealousies and their self-will give rise, may find much to envy in the simple, unembarrassed life of the humblest of the people. From the assassination of Abner, the real source of the opposition that had been raised to David, the narrative proceeds to the assassination of Ishbosheth, the titular king. "When Saul's son heard that Abner was dead in Hebron, his hands were feeble, and all the Israelites were troubled." The contrast is striking between his conduct under difficulty and that of David. In the history of the latter, faith often faltered in times of trouble, and the spirit of distrust found a footing in his soul. But these occasions occurred in the course of protracted and terrible struggles; they were exceptions to his usual bearing; faith commonly bore him up in his darkest trials. Ishbosheth, on the other hand, seems to have had no resource, no sustaining power whatever, under visible reverses. David's slips were like the temporary falling back of the gallant soldier when surprised by a sudden onslaught, or when, fagged and weary, he is driven back by superior numbers; but as soon as he has recovered himself, he dashes back undaunted to the conflict. Ishbosheth was like the soldier who throws down his arms and rushes from the field as soon as he feels the bitter storm of battle. With all his falls, there was something in David that showed him to be cast in a different mould from ordinary men. He was habitually aiming at a higher st